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

I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 91, in page 17, line 34, at end insert

`or another authority's district'.

No. 83, in page 17, line 34, at end insert

`save that the factors may not be taken into account in any case where to do so would be unreasonable having regard to the need of the person or household for an allocation of housing accommodation.'

No. 92, in page 17, line 34, at end insert—

`( ) any record of behaviour of a person (or of a member of his household) which has affected the terms of a previous tenancy he has held.'

No. 96, in page 17, line 47, after `accommodation', insert

`which may be available within the authority's district or within another authority's district'

Government amendments Nos. 106 to 108.

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

When we broke up for lunch I was explaining to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) why amendment No. 77 was inappropriate. When I referred to the type of undesirable person who should not have automatic access to council housing, he promptly rose to his feet. Of course, I would not have made any such association.

I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that Govt amendment No. 106 is an additional provision and not, as he implied in his comments, a substitution for subsection (2A)(b), which is amendment No.77 seeks to remove. Individuals must face the consequences of their actions. That is essential for stable communities and a safe environment and for bringing home to those who behave badly that their behaviour will not be tolerated. However, I repeat that the provision is not a basis for backdoor blanket exclusions; it relates to the determination of priorities and each individual application will be considered on its own merit. That will involve a careful balancing of factors, including the seriousness of the behaviour and the applicants' housing need.

Amendment No. 91 would seem to be redundant. It would allow an authority to take account of a local connection between a person and another authority's district. One has to ask why. If it is envisaged that reduced priority would be given to those coming from outside the area, that can already be achieved under (2A)(c) by giving increased priority to locally connected individuals. Although they make some bizarre proposals, I do not honestly think that Opposition Members are actually suggesting that we should give higher priority to people without a local connection. I do not genuinely believe that is the purpose of their amendment. Of course, if there is a good reason to do so, in specific circumstances, there is nothing to stop an authority making such provisions. Subsection (2A) already makes specific provision for authorities to specify factors that may be taken into account.

Amendment No. 96 is closely related. I am keen that authorities should work together to enable allocations to be made across local authority boundaries, which seems to be in the spirit of this amendment. People's choices about where to live do not always fit neatly within administrative boundaries and there will be frequently be excellent reasons for seeking accommodation outside the authority in which an applicant is currently situated. Of course, facilitating movement from areas of high demand to areas of low demand areas make eminent good sense. Although I am not against the spirit of the amendment, it does not seem necessary to include it in the Bill. An authority's policy on offering people a choice of housing implicitly includes its policies in relation to its own accommodation and its arrangements with other authorities.

Amendment No. 92 also seems superfluous. Its effect is surely covered by subsection (2A)(b), which deals with behaviour that affects a person's suitability to be a tenant. Although I understand the intentions behind amendment No. 83, which was moved with admirable clarity and brevity by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), it does not add anything to the current proposals. In law, local authorities must act reasonably in balancing the factors to be taken into account against the needs of a person or household. So there is no need for the amendment.

We are introducing the Government amendments where we now feel that the drafting of the Bill has not achieved our original policy intentions. I am grateful to hon. Members who have helped identify matters that needed clarification or development. I begin with amendment No. 106. Members of the Committee will recall previous debates about the importance of housing authorities not being able to impose blanket bans on particular categories of applicant. As I have already said, we are maintaining a clear policy on that and I am confident that the provisions of the Bill ensure that there will be no scope for authorities to introduce such bans. However, there is another side to the issue. There may be circumstances in which an authority has reasonable grounds for deciding that it will not allocate housing to a person because that person is unsuitable to be a tenant of that particular authority, or because he or she is unsuitable to be a tenant generally. I am advised that it is inherent in the provisions of part VI that authorities have the power to make such a decision where the circumstances justify that. That is a normal and reasonable function for any landlord.

However, I am anxious to ensure that authorities have the scope to decide not to allocate accommodation when faced with an applicant who has recently been evicted from their home by the courts because of unacceptable antisocial behaviour and there is every reason to believe that their behaviour has not changed and is not likely to change in the immediate future. Such households may well be owed a duty under section 190(2) of the Housing Act 1996 if they have dependent children in their household; that duty applies to applicants who have priority need, but have made themselves intentionally homeless. Authorities must accommodate them for a brief, temporary period to give them an opportunity to find accommodation for themselves, and must also provide advice and assistance. Quite rightly, we have included applicants who are owed the section 190(2) duty in the categories of housing applicants who must be given reasonable preference. Those categories are intended to include everyone in housing need, and there is no greater housing need than actually being homeless.

By no means are all households who have become homeless intentionally likely to be unsuitable tenants of social housing. Some may have acted foolishly, for example, by taking on more than they could cope with: one thinks of a home owner who has over-extended himself on a mortgage, and then lost his home because he could not keep up the mortgage payments. In some circumstances, applicants may be deemed to have made themselves homeless intentionally, although I stress that those who are homeless in consequence of mortgage or rent arrears should not routinely be treated as intentionally homeless. My point is that if anyone were judged in such circumstances to have made themselves intentionally homeless, it would be wholly unreasonable to deny them any preference for housing allocations. We need to remember that all those owed the section 190(2) duty will have a priority need for accommodation, and many will be families with children.

My concern is to ensure that authorities maintain the discretion to decide not to give preference to applicants who have recently been evicted for antisocial behaviour, even if they are owed the section 190(2) duty, and other applicants whom the authorities consider unsuitable because of their unsuitable behaviour. That is what the amendment will provide. The authority will need to be satisfied that the applicant was unsuitable: unsuitability would have to be as a result of unacceptable behaviour on the part of either the applicant or a member of his or her household. A decision on unsuitability would need to be based on the circumstances at the time of the decision—authorities could not simply refer back to previous unacceptable behaviour without considering whether the circumstances have now changed for the better. The hon. Member for Bath generously acknowledged that that was clearly provided for in the amendment.

As to what constitutes unacceptable behaviour, that will be defined by reference to the forms of behaviour that would give grounds for a possession order being granted in the court against a secure tenant. By way of examples, ground 1 applies where there is significant rent arrears or serious breach of tenancy obligations; ground 2 applies where the tenant or another resident has caused serious nuisance or annoyance to neighbours, or been convicted of using the accommodation, or allowing it to be used, for immoral or illegal purposes, such as drug dealing; and ground 3 applies where the property has been seriously damaged or neglected by the tenant or other residents.

I am conscious of the concerns that have been voiced by the hon. Member for Bath, who has picked up concerns expressed by Shelter about whether individuals who were evicted for rent arrears, possibly in cases where they did not get their housing benefit, might fall into that category. That is neither our intention nor, as I hope to demonstrate, will it be the effect of the amendment. In the first place, the definition makes it clear that we are talking about circumstances in which an authority is entitled to a possession order, not where it has simply applied for one. The courts have considerable discretion. If someone has only a trivial level of rent arrears, it is normal for the courts either not to award possession or to grant only a suspended order to allow him an opportunity to pay the arrears.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister makes a point that I confess had not occurred to me. How would we know that the authority was entitled to such a possession order had the matter had not gone been tested in court?

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

I am coming to precisely that point. We are setting a series of tests that will have to be satisfied. Then we come to the point about review procedures that we debated on Tuesday evening. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased with the provisions that we have made to ensure that any such decisions will be subject to review so that an aggrieved applicant would have the opportunity for his case to be considered.

Let me continue. I was talking about the definition. First, the authority cannot simply apply for a possession order; it must be entitled to it. Secondly, it is extremely unlikely that any review body, let alone a court, would regard the applicant's behaviour as unacceptable if he or she had been evicted for rent arrears that were due to housing benefit delay. It would be a clear case that those were circumstances outside the individual's control and not unacceptable behaviour.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister says that such circumstances are absolutely clear, but in reality they are not as clear as he suggests. I am sure that he has seen briefings from Shelter and others giving examples where the case has not been clear.

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

It would be absolutely clear to the review body, or the court, that if someone had been evicted because of rent arrears that were caused by the failure of the authority to pay housing benefit, that would not make him unsuitable to be granted accommodation due to unacceptable behaviour. At that point there would be absolute clarity. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the test is not the fact of having been evicted, but the applicant's unacceptable behaviour. That test applies at the point of application, not in the past.

Thirdly, even where someone is evicted for rent arrears only, rather than for other reasons, the background is sometimes more complex. While the hon. Gentleman made the point quite reasonably that the overwhelming cause of possession actions is rent arrears, he will equally be aware that in a number of cases local authorities apply for possession on grounds of rent arrears because it is easier to secure that than to prove antisocial behaviour. If someone has been intimidating witnesses, for example, it may be impossible for the local authority to provide supporting evidence to get a possession order on those grounds. If we had limited the definition to possession on the grounds of antisocial behaviour, we would undoubtedly exclude certain people who have been guilty of perpetrating appalling behaviour, but have been evicted on grounds of rent arrears. That is the reason for choosing the wider framework.

I hope that the hon. Member for Bath and all members of the Committee will recognise that the amendment strengthens the Bill to deal with circumstances in which an individual who had been recently evicted for unacceptable behaviour could apply to the authority as homeless and in priority need and, in circumstances where the authority had little or no pressure on its housing stock, could claim that even if he had low priority the authority should provide him with accommodation. I think that everyone accepts that it would be nonsense to have a revolving door situation whereby an authority was unable to pursue action against someone who was guilty of completely unacceptable behaviour and was terrorising his neighbourhood and then used this mechanism to get straight back into council housing. That would not be an acceptable policy.

Turning to amendment No. 107, when the Committee met last Tuesday there was a very detailed debate about whether there was a need for applicants to have a right to request a review of decisions made by the authority concerning their application for accommodation. The hon. Member for Bath spoke eloquently in support of amendment No. 75 and proposed new clause 5. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that I argued rather strongly against the need for a right of review solely around the issue of eligibility for an allocation under part VI of the Housing Act 1996. Some, therefore, may have been surprised that we tabled this amendment. Let me explain.

The effect of amendment No. 75 and new clause 5 would have been to give applicants a right to request a review of an authority's decision that he was ineligible for an allocation of accommodation by virtue of the new provisions in section 160A(3) or (5). I remain of the view that this area of decision-making is largely a question of good administration based on the facts of the case. However, during the debate, the hon. Member for Bath argued very persuasively for a wider right of review in respect of other decision by the authority concerning, for example, the applicant's relative priority for an allocation and any decisions as to the factors mentioned in new section 167(2A), such as financial resources, behaviour affecting suitability, and local connections. Those were not the subject of amendment No. 75 or new clause 5, which would not have extended the review in such circumstances. My remarks concerned the application of new clause 5 and amendment No. 75.

Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Bath has probably already guessed, I had already come to the view that there should be a right for applicants to seek a review of the interpretation of facts taken into account by a local authority in determining their applications. That should cover decisions about whether they must be given reasonable preference; whether they merit additional preference; and whether any other factors, including those set out in section 167(2A), should be taken into account.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

As this is an amendment to clause 27, can the Minister confirm that the right of review that he describes does not apply to the issue of eligibility, which we discussed at some length, where eligibility refers to two different categories? One is immigration control and I have forgotten the correct term for the other, but it is used in immigration legislation. I draw his attention to clause 25(2) and the proposed new clause 160(5) which introduces another set of categories of ineligibility in addition to those that we discussed earlier, which the Secretary of State can introduce by regulation, so we do not even know what they are likely to be. Would they be covered by the review?

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

The hon. Gentleman has jumped slightly ahead. I was going to give him some good news. If he will bear with me, I will come to all those points.

The amendment provides that allocation schemes must be framed so that an applicant will have the right to request a review of any decision about the facts of his case, which is likely to be, or has already been, taken into account in considering whether to allocate housing accommodation. Those are all the facts of the case whether they are relevant to matters covered by the legislation, the code of guidance, or the regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State.

I hope that I have answered the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions. No doubt he will seek to take some credit for the amendment. My team can work very fast, but not that fast. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the amendments were tabled only a few hours after our debates on Tuesday afternoon. The proposed change was already in the pipeline, and work in progress was well advanced. However, I will give the hon. Gentleman credit for persuading me to reconsider whether decisions on eligibility should be included in the right of review. The right of review provided by the amendment will extend to such a decision, which will have to be the first decision that an authority makes in the process of deciding whether to allocate accommodation to an individual applicant. I hope that the amendment gives the hon. Member for Bath what he wants, and justifies the e-mail that he intends sending. It also helps to ensure that allocation schemes must be as clear and transparent as possible and therefore help to deliver the Government's policy aims.

Amendment No. 108 changes an aspect of the Bill that currently does not achieve the intended policy. As currently drafted, subsection (4) requires that when a housing authority notifies a homeless applicant of the results of its inquiries into his application under part VI of the 1996 Act, the notice must be accompanied by a copy of the statement of the allocation scheme about the policy for offering choice to people allocated housing accommodation under part VI. The provision ensures that homeless applicants who are accepted as being owed a main duty—and who, consequently, must be secured temporary accommodation by the authority until a settled housing solution can be found—are clear about what they can expect in the way of choice.

Clause 24 as currently drafted does not completely achieve that policy aim. It requires authorities to provide such a statement to accompany the statutory notice that it must give to all homeless applicants about the outcome of their application. That includes not only those who will be secured temporary accommodation pending something more settled, but applicants who are found to be not homeless, and those who, although homeless, are owed only a duty to provide advice and assistance. Such a wide obligation is unnecessary, and would be unduly burdensome on authorities and confusing to applicants.

To put matters right, amendment No. 109 will insert provisions in schedule 2 that will place a more limited requirement on authorities to provide a statement about their policy on choice in respect only of applicants who are owed the main rehousing duty under sections 193 and 195 of the 1996 Act. We are not dealing with amendment No. 109 now, as it also covers another issue and has been placed in a subsequent group of amendments, but I thought it was right to explain the effect of amendment No. 108.

The framework set out in the clause is robust and fair. It provides a transparent and systematic set of arrangements for assessing need, preference categories and priorities. The Government amendments will bolster and strengthen that framework. On that basis, I ask Opposition Members to withdraw amendments Nos. 77, 91, 83, 92 and 96, and I commend amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 108 to the Committee.

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

I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, although I cannot say I followed it all. I noted the reassurance he gave that decisions of local authorities have to be reasonable. The concern behind amendment No. 83 is about the formulation of the clause, particularly new subsection (2A)(b), which relates to

any behaviour of a person . . . which affects his suitability to be a tenant.

That gives a very wide scope for authorities to reduce the priority given to people, possibly unfairly, for a wide variety of reasons. The hon. Member for Bath referred to people who have rent arrears.

I seek further reassurance from the Minster that applications will be given less priority only when it reasonable to do so, taking into account housing need.

That is the important part. Will authorities have to take housing need into account before they take that decision?

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I can give him exactly the assurance that he seeks. It will be inherent in the system that authorities must take account of all relevant factors, including housing need. The specific provision of amendment No. 106 relates to people who have been evicted for antisocial behaviour. We had to ensure that the provision under which authorities will take into account housing need does not override very sound reasons for denying access to accommodation to people who have behaved in a completely unacceptable way and would be likely to make their neighbours' lives a misery if re-housed. That is the very specific and exceptional circumstance provided for under amendment No. 106. It is necessary because, as part of the general provisions, housing need is one of the factors that must be taken into account.

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

I had finished, but I thank the Minister for that reassurance.

Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

The Minister has gone some way to addressing some of the concerns that we raised, especially about the review process, which we should also take some of the credit for, however much he may like to keep it all for himself. We certainly flagged up this problem some time ago.

As regards the Minister's account of dealing with unsociable behaviour, this matter has only just come up in his amendment, so we need to look into it more closely. I hope that we shall have the opportunity on Report to debate this matter in rather more detail than we were able to do today, although given the time constraints I fear that may be unlikely. We still contend that our own amendment, which gives rather more leeway for local authorities to decide what is unsuitable behaviour, is a better way to proceed, but given the detail in which the Minister has addressed that problem, we will not press our amendment.

The Minister gave only cursory attention to our other two amendments regarding out-of-district allocation, although I note his support in principle for the amendment that seeks to foster closer relationships between authorities who have a larger supply of housing and those on whom there are the pressures that we all know about. I am not convinced that our proposal should not appear in the Bill, and the case he made was slightly flimsy on those grounds, but again he has acknowledged the principle, and I hope that he will push for such a measure behind the scenes and include it in the guidance that he will issue to local authorities.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, the point about bad neighbours is that we should face up to the fact that local authorities should have the right to disqualify people from tenancies if they have an appalling record as tenants. Where I take issue with the Minister is on the framing of the Bill. Our amendment No. 92 says

``any record of behaviour of a person''

whereas the Bill only refers to

``any behaviour''.

That may be a person's current behaviour affecting his suitability to be a tenant, so the Bill does not empower local authorities to take account of a person's previous behaviour as a tenant, and he may temporarily appear to be all sweetness and light.

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

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, under our amendment, local authorities are able to take previous factors into account, but they must make their decision on the basis of the applicant's current position. They cannot use the fact that he was evicted several years before for antisocial behaviour to debar him from consideration if there is clear evidence that he has improved his behaviour in the meantime. I gave an example in Committee on Tuesday of circumstances in which it would be quite reasonable for someone who had been evicted for antisocial behaviour to be given another chance because of a change of heart and a change in behaviour, and that is what is provided for in this measure.

Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

I take the Minister's point. In terms of the wording of the Bill, however, I cannot see how the record will count pari passu with the rehabilitative process that has led to a former neighbour from hell becoming a model neighbour. In view of the detail the Minister has given, we shall not press the amendment to a vote, but we will want to revisit the issue in more detail when we have had more time to consider Government amendments, on Report and thereafter.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

We have had a fascinating debate, which began with the drab Christmas tree of amendment No. 77, on to which a large number of bright lights were subsequently hung by both sides of the Committee. It has shown the valuable work of the Committee in its best light.

As a result of a probing amendment, the Minister has been willing to listen to contributions from Government Back Benchers and from Opposition Members. That has resulted in significant changes to earlier Government proposals. The Minister also referred to a later concession that the Government will make in relation to advice. Again, that was a result of concerted efforts by both sides of the Committee. I shall welcome that change of heart at the appropriate time.

The Minister said that I may be able to take some credit from that. It is important to place on record that every Committee member should be grateful for the way in which each of us have been supported by a range of organisations outside this House. I draw special attention to Shelter—which has been referred to on a number of occasions—for providing all Committee members with extremely good briefing material, which, I would argue, was responsible for the amendments tabled by the Minister today. I am not claiming credit for myself; I was merely able to be the mouthpiece for that organisation in the work that it has done, as were other Committee members.

I am absolutely delighted by Government amendment No. 107. I am especially delighted by the Minister's interpretation of the amendment, as it showed that it will cover the issue of eligibility in relation to clause 25.

The Minister also acknowledged the merits of the amendments tabled by Conservative Members, such as that on relationships to other authorities. Although he was not prepared to accept the amendment, he placed firmly on the record his view that such an inter-authority relationship is valuable and can provide enormous assistance to homeless households.

The main issue raised by the clause relates to the various categories that local authorities can use to reduce the priority of applicants. I acknowledge that Government amendment No. 106, as presented by the Minister, is not a replacement for, but an expanded definition of proposed new subsection (2A)(b). Progress has been made, and I welcome the expansion of the definition and the further interpretation of the definition provided by his remarks, but I continue to have concerns about what he said.

I am mindful of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who summed up the debate very eloquently when he talked about the need for balance. We should balance our concern about the situation of the homeless with the needs of members of particular communities who may be affected by inappropriate behaviour of people allocated housing in their community. Both sides of the Committee have struggled to find a way of achieving that balance, and I am still not convinced that the Government's amendment No. 106 does so, because there are some quite serious technical difficulties with it.

Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister shakes his head, which is not surprising. He obviously believes that everything that he has proposed is correct. That is not the case, as he himself has admitted. He said that he had been convinced that the Bill did not achieve the Government's policy intentions. I suggest to him that amendment No. 106 is in the same category, because it will not achieve his policy intentions. The Minister admitted only a few minutes ago that this is work in progress. I remind him that that was the very phrase that he used during our debate on Second Reading. Amendment No. 106, welcome though it is as an improvement to the Bill, is nevertheless still work in progress.

I shall give just one example to illustrate why I believe that further work is necessary. Amendment No. 106 says in proposed new subsection (2AC):

``For this purpose `unacceptable behaviour` means behaviour which, if the person concerned were a secure tenant of the authority, would entitle the authority to a possession order under section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 on any ground mentioned in Part I of Schedule 2 to that Act (other than Ground 8).''

The critical word is ``entitle'': it would ``entitle'' the authority to a possession order. I asked the Minister how anybody would know whether the behaviour would entitle the authority to a possession order without the court having considered the matter. The Minister acknowledged that in 1999 there were 130,000 requests by local authorities for possession orders, and only 23,000 were granted. Surely the test of whether the authority is entitled to the order can be determined only when the court has studied the case.

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

The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there was an enormous difference between the number of possession orders sought and the number granted. The use of the word ``entitled'' is to make it quite clear to a local authority when operating these provisions that it cannot merely rest on the fact that it has sought or may seek a possession order in a particular case. To satisfy this test, it must show that it should be entitled to secure an order, which means that it must show that it has sufficient grounds to be confident that it will obtain an order. That is part of the process. We are trying to create a clear, precise definition that will avoid the problems that would otherwise arise if authorities were able to interpret this provision widely and indiscriminately. Without this amendment, someone evicted for atrocious antisocial behaviour could be put straight back into council housing. We do not want that practice to continue. I hope the hon. Member will accept that that is a necessary policy objective, and that we are pursuing the correct approach to achieve that balance.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I accept entirely that the policy objective is correct, but the debate about whether the amendment truly achieves it. There are two problems with what the Minister has just said. First, both of us acknowledge that local authorities did not expect to be granted all the 130,000 requests for possession orders, but they thought that they would try. However, surely the Minister does not believe that they did not expect to win the vast majority of them. In the vast majority of cases, the authority expected to win, but could not convince the court of its case. In cases in which authorities thought that they had sufficient evidence but did not secure the possession order, they could not demonstrate that they had a sufficient case. The Minister said that they would have to show that they had sufficient evidence for the entitlement. To whom would they have to show that?

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

I made the point previously and am reluctant to extend the debate too far, as we have many matters to cover this afternoon. I stressed that any local authority that took a decision would be open first to a review and secondly to a challenge in the courts. Therefore, any authority that applies will have to satisfy what is of necessity quite a rigorous test.

The hon. Gentleman deals with many such cases and will know that the seeking of a possession order is often a management tool used by local authorities to secure payment. It is used as a means to get people to pay their rent. If they pay their rent, there is no question of the authority being entitled to a possession order, so that could not conceivably apply.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister makes the point that other legislation needs to be changed, so that we do not have to waste the courts' time as a cumbersome means of addressing the issue—but that is a separate point.

I am conscious of the time, so I want to make a rather unusual suggestion to the Minister, which may never have been made by an Opposition Member to the Government. The Minister has tabled amendment No. 106 with very little notice. There will be an opportunity to reconsider the issue in a few days' time on Report. Given that I will certainly withdraw amendment No. 77, I ask the Minister to consider whether to give more time for consideration of the issue. He might also be willing to withdraw amendment No. 106, albeit briefly, to give more time for deliberation. Whatever the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 106, in page 17, line 43, at end insert—

`(2AA) Nothing in subsection (2) requires the scheme to provide for any preference to be given to people to whom subsection (2AB) applies.

(2AB) This subsection applies to a person if the authority are satisfied (in the light of the circumstances at the time his case is considered) that he is unsuitable to be a tenant owing to unacceptable behaviour on his part or that of a member of his household.

(2AC) For this purpose ``unacceptable behaviour'' means behaviour which, if the person concerned were a secure tenant of the authority, would entitle the authority to a possession order under section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 on any ground mentioned in Part I of Schedule 2 to that Act (other than Ground 8).'.

No. 107, in page 17, line 34, at end insert—

`(2AD) The scheme shall be framed so as to secure that a person who has applied to the authority for an allocation of housing accommodation has the right to request a review of any decision about the facts of his case (including a decision as to his suitability as a tenant) which is likely to be, or has been, taken into account in considering whether to allocate housing accommodation to him.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

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

I call amendment No. 108. No, I am getting ahead of myself. I call Mr. Waterson to move amendment No. 97.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 17, line 40, at end insert—

`(2C) The authority shall be able to suspend subsections (2) to (2B) where it can reasonably show that to operate its terms would have a detrimental effect on the provision of local housing needs.'.

My whole life flashed before me for a moment, Mr. Stevenson. It would be a major hole in my life if I were unable to move this amendment, which I now do with inordinate pleasure and suitable humility.

The amendment represents another attempt to make the Bill recognise local variations in demand and supply, particularly in the supply of housing stock. The Local Government Association report to which I have referred says:

``A shortage of the supply of suitable accommodation, notably in London and the South East, means that the extension of the right to housing for all non-priority homeless people would present real difficulties within the level of available resources.

In other parts of the country, however, non-priority homeless people can be allocated quickly to accommodation although this accommodation may not be highly desirable and they may not view it, or treat it, as a permanent home.''

We all recognise that as a cogent description of the regional variations that exist in the real world of housing allocation.

It may assist you, Mr. Stevenson, if I say that I do not intend to speak for long on this amendment, but I may roam slightly generally, which will obviate the need for a stand part debate. It would wrong not to have a canter through the Delft system before we conclude our deliberations.

The LGA concludes that

``Authorities should also be given greater flexibility to develop locally sensitive allocations policies within the broad framework set by the housing register and allocations scheme''

and that

``There may be a case for an approach here of considering different approaches at regional or individual local authority level depending on the availability of accommodation in those areas.''

We can probably all agree with that. I repeat the example of my own borough council in Eastbourne where the average wait for a home allocation is currently three to four years. The council will shortly change the rules to allow children to be placed in flats, and it is hoped that that will reduce the wait to two to three years; we shall have to see.

Having spoken to Councillor Mrs. Ann Murray, the lead cabinet member for housing in Eastbourne, I know that the council is also keen on the choice-based system. I do not know how far that has got formally, but it is lining up for one of the Government's pilot schemes. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in his reply rather than in the stand part debate. I cannot help feeling that it is difficult to see how such a choice-based system, which is often referred to in shorthand as the Delft system, will deliver with any confidence in an area such as mine where there is such an enormous imbalance between demand and supply of housing stock. In a nutshell, the Delft system involves the advertising of housing vacancies almost as if they were private houses for rent in the private sector. It is a system that works well not only in Delft but no doubt in other local authorities in Holland—which are doubtless cheesed off that it is has been called after Delft rather than anywhere else.

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

Edam.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Edam is of course known for its cheese. Delft has to be known for something; I seem to recall that it is for some sort of chinaware.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

Yes—it is blue.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am pleased to hear that, as well as the ducks, there is Delft pottery on the walls of my right hon. Friend's constituency home.

Closer to home, there is a section in the Government document about piloting choice-based systems. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's detailed thoughts on that. A form of pilot scheme is taking place in Harborough, supported by the centre for comparative housing research at De Montfort university—which obviously intends to persist in its name despite the bad press that Simon de Montfort has recently received because of his views on minorities. That scheme is based on the principles of the Delft model of social housing allocation. The emphasis of the Harborough scheme, which has been given the brand name of Harborough home search, is on providing customers with greater choice by advertising. It is hoped to develop the scheme by advertising vacancies on a website—which leads on to the enormously important but not particularly relevant issue of internet access. Customers return coupons for individual properties, and what are called simple and straightforward criteria are used in determining allocations.

One of the scheme's selling points is said to be a high level of transparency—a theme that has washed through many of the debates on other amendments. In its summary of the scheme, the LGA report states:

``Particular attention has been given to ensuring that vulnerable households are given additional preference''

and are given a priority registration card and so on. It concludes:

``Vulnerable and homeless households are thus given a much greater degree of choice than under traditional systems.''

The Government have said that they intend to establish a small fund to support a number of pilot schemes.

To summarise my arguments, I wish to press the Minister on how far the schemes have gone and raise the conceptual problem of how the Delft system will operate in Eastbourne and other places where demand for housing is high and supply is low.

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

We believe that the amendment is unnecessary and potentially open to abuse. It would allow an authority to suspend the framework for allocating preference and priority to needy groups and to individuals within those groups. In areas of low demand, for example, authorities might find it unnecessary to operate a rigorous and testing prioritising process, but in those circumstances they would be able to offer a home to any eligible applicant whose behaviour or circumstances did not preclude allocation. There is no need to suspend the framework, as it does not affect the allocation process.

Our proposals already allow for the operation of local lettings schemes. Under section 167(2B)(b) of the 1996 Act, authorities are able to allocate particular housing accommodation to persons of a particular description in accordance with schemes known as ``local lettings schemes'', which could include key worker schemes where it might help attract modestly paid but essential staff to high-cost areas. Such a scheme might be used to lower the child:adult ratio on an estate with a high child density. The scheme might also be operated to provide housing for those who do not usually receive high priority on an authority's register—young single people, for example.

It is important to keep such schemes under review and to monitor their impact on those who are not part of the local lettings schemes. Local lettings schemes should not override the reasonable preference categories across an authority's stock when taken as a whole. I cannot envisage what circumstances could justify or require the amendment.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) asked about choice-based pilot schemes and his own authority in Eastbourne. Local authorities were invited to bid for funding under an £11 million challenge fund over three years from April 2001. More than 90 bids have been received: about 25 per cent. of all housing authorities have led bids and many more are involved as partners. Bids have come from areas of high and low demand. Almost half of all London authorities have led bids; as have 70 per cent. of metropolitan authorities, 50 per cent. of unitary authorities and 12 per cent. of district authorities. Bids have been received from areas in which full transfer has taken place and from those where the authority is still the main provider of social housing. The value of all the bids currently received is about £33 million and by the end of March we expect to be able to announce which bids have been successful.

Eastbourne has applied—

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

And has no chance.

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

It will be assessed along with the other bids, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am delighted to hear the Minister's confirmation that Eastbourne is on the list and I hope that it will not immediately be discarded on account of my probing amendment. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter and I hope that the Minister is grateful for the opportunity to deal with it. On the basis of my rudimentary arithmetic, the scheme is three times oversubscribed, so about 60 local authorities will be disappointed. I sincerely hope that Eastbourne will not be one of them. As a quid pro quo as I know that the Government like a deal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 108, in page 17, line 41, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr.Raynsford.]

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 debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos.68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 28 and 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.