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

I beg to move amendment No. 109, in page 24, line 19, at end insert—

`. In section 190(2)(b) and (3) (provision of advice and assistance), for ``advice and such assistance as they consider appropriate in the circumstances'' there is substituted ``(or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance''.

In section 192(2) (provision of advice and assistance), for the words from ``advice'' to ``circumstances'' there is substituted ``(or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance''.

In section 193 (duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally), after subsection (3) (as substituted by section 21 above) there is inserted—

``(3A) The authority shall, on becoming subject to the duty under this section, give the applicant a copy of the statement included in their allocation scheme by virtue of section 167(1A) (policy on offering choice to people allocated housing accommodation under Part VI).'''.

In section 195 (duties in case of threatened homelessness)—

(a) after subsection (3) there is inserted—

``(3A) The authority shall, on becoming subject to the duty under this section, give the applicant a copy of the statement included in their allocation scheme by virtue of section 167(1A) (policy on offering choice to people allocated housing accommodation under Part VI)'''; and

(b) in subsection (5), for the words from ``furnish'' to ``circumstances'' there is substituted ``provide him with (or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance''.'.

We had a very useful debate on Tuesday about the provisions relating to advice and assistance. I agreed that there was merit in strengthening the current duty to move away from the overly subjective requirement for the authority to provide such advice and assistance as the authority considers appropriate in the circumstances and towards a more objective test. To that end I undertook to table an amendment to schedule 2 for consideration today and this is that amendment.

I made the point that the wording

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

appears in other provisions in the 1996 Act and that it is desirable to have consistency in the wording throughout the legislation. The amendment offers a useful strengthening of the existing duty. In each of the cases where the current duty is to provide

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

there is substituted

``(or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance''.

That means that local authorities will no longer be able to turn applicants away without providing any advice or assistance on the grounds that none

``was considered appropriate in the circumstances''.

The amendment will address some of the problems identified in Shelter's study ``Singles Barred'' that we discussed at some length on Tuesday.

I know there are still concerns that authorities may be turning people away without assessing their needs. Where this is the case, then authorities are not carrying out their current statutory duties. Under section 184 of the 1996 Act, where an authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy itself as to whether the applicant is eligible for assistance and, if so, whether any duty is owed. We will, in the code of guidance, give further advice about how authorities can best respond to that clear existing duty.

We have also taken the opportunity of the amendment to make it clear that local authorities may provide advice and assistance through third parties such as advice centres. That will enable applicants to access best possible specialist advice. I have in mind help with rent deposit schemes, or landlord referral services and possibly referral to social services. It provides a real opportunity for authorities to develop effective, preventive multi-agency working. I know my that hon. Friends and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), were concerned that applicants should be given

``advice and assistance as is reasonable . . ''—

that was the wording of her amendment—and that this should be supported by a power for the Secretary of State to specify what constituted ``reasonable advice and assistance''.

I made it clear on Tuesday that I was not attracted to the order-making provision, but I did explore the value of adopting the drafting of

``advice and assistance as is reasonable . . ''.

However, the legal advice that I have received is quite clear that the courts would be likely to take such

``advice and assistance as is reasonable . . ''

to be reasonable in the eyes of the local authority. The conclusion was that the proposed drafting would add little, if anything, to the current wording. The formulation that we are offering in amendment No.109 is stronger. It places a clear duty on local authorities to provide or secure advice and assistance to applicants. It is a substantial step forward, and I hope that the change will be welcomed.

I have covered the changes to sections 190(2)(b), 190(3), 192(2) and 195(5). New subsections 193(3A) and 195(3A) deal with another issue.

Amendment No. 108, which has already been agreed to, removes clause 27(4), which required a housing authority to provide all homeless applicants with a statement of its policy on offering choice. As I have already explained, that was inappropriate because it went wider than our policy intention, which is simply to ensure that those who are entitled to a rehousing obligation receive such information. Inserting new subsections 193(3A) and 195(3A) into the 1996 Act secures the original policy objective.

I commend the amendments to the Committee.

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

I am grateful to the Minister. I welcome the amendment as a strengthening of the current duty that potentially removes the degree of subjectivity that I was concerned about when I tabled the original amendment.

In trying to push the Minister to go a little further, I do not expect to be supported by Opposition Members, despite the game-playing that took place on Tuesday in respect of amendment No. 80. We heard the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) make a coruscating attack on centralised prescription and the pressure that it will put on local authorities when we discussed the amendment that dealt with the priority for ex-offenders.

Will the Minister reassure me about the duty that the amendment will place on local authorities to ensure that no one is turned away without an interview to establish vulnerability? That is the most important element of amendments Nos. 80 and 109.

Given the woeful performance of some local authorities in fulfilling their duties on assistance, will the Minister assure me that the amendment will ensure that nobody is turned away from an advice and assessment centre with no more than a list of alternative accommodation? I am a little concerned that the amendment may allow that still to happen.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I compliment the hon. Lady on an elegant attempt at a tactical withdrawal. The fact is that the original amendment originated from our friends at Shelter, who say:

``we do not believe this amendment''—

that is, the Government amendment—

``goes far enough to address our concern that authorities should be required to deliver a basic minimum level of service.''

Perhaps this should be a lesson to lobby and pressure groups such as Shelter that the average Government Back Bencher is prepared to go only so far in rebelling on issues like this, and are likely to raise the white flag at the first whiff of grapeshot. The hon. Lady remains a little concerned. Let us hope that her little concerns can be allayed by the Minister. I have a sneaking suspicion that they can.

During a previous debate, I quoted at length from the imaginatively titled Shelter report, ``Singles Barred'', which gave examples of people who had received dismal treatment from local authorities.

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

How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile his position with that taken by his colleagues on earlier amendments, when they launched attacks on central Government for centralising the placing of duties on local authorities? When he thinks that he can make a little personal point, he is prepared to ally himself with the forces of centralised prescription.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I assure the hon. Lady that it is not a personal point, but a political point.

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

Order. The hon. Gentleman is right. If any hon. Member were making an unparliamentary personal attack on another hon. Member, I can assure members of the Committee that I would step in to stop that.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr. Stevenson.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I fully accept your ruling, but I was referring to the fact that the hon. Gentleman mentioned me by name when he was discussing my position on the earlier amendment.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Indeed, it was a parliamentary attack on the hon. Lady and I make no apology for that. Like every other member of the Committee, she will have to face her own electorate in a few weeks' time.

The report from Shelter is pretty convincing. The original amendment, argued for by the hon. Lady and others, was based on what it considered to be appropriate. Shelter is clearly disappointed by the Minister's solution, but it appears that any majority on the Committee for pursuing the issue further has melted away. Therefore, I cannot take the matter any further.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington North asked for clarification of obligations on local authorities not to turn homeless applicants away without an interview. As I explained earlier, that provision is already contained in existing legislation. It was originally established in the 1977 legislation and carried forward into the 1996 Act. Section 184 makes the position clear. It says:

``If the local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy themselves—

(a) whether he is eligible for assistance, and

(b) if so, whether any duty, and if so what duty, is owed to him under the following provisions''.

That is the existing law. I accept that the evidence that has been adduced shows that it is not effective in every area, and it is essential that it should be effective. In the code of guidance that will accompany the new legislation and amplify the existing code of guidance we shall emphasise the importance of local authorities accepting their responsibility to all homeless applicants, but we cannot add a further statutory obligation, because one already exists. The important point is to make sure that it works.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that the amendment is sensible. As I said, we believe, on the basis of considerable legal advice, that it is a much stronger and more effective formulation than the one proposed in her amendment. I hope that those who were engaged in promoting it—particularly Shelter—will recognise that. It is our policy objective that all local authorities should ensure that all homeless applicants are properly assessed and receive appropriate support or assistance.

All that I can say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne is that I will never be surprised at the Opposition's ability to move from one position to another, turning the most extraordinary somersaults without showing any shame at the inconsistency of their position.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 86, in page 24, line 29, leave out ```the' and insert `the ``authority's'.

No. 87, in page 24, line 29, leave out `homelessness' and insert `housing'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

I call new clause 7.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

Not moved.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. As you know, we are under the cudgels of a programme resolution and Opposition Ms have tried to curtail our remarks to ensure that all right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity to have their day in court. It is amazing that at this late stage Liberal Members should choose not to move the new clauses, when we could have used the time to discuss more important things.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I remind the hon. Member for Eastbourne that during the meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee I joined him in seeking to persuade it to extend our deliberations until midnight on our last sitting. We were unsuccessful. Therefore, I hope that he will not continue to accuse me of trying to curtail the debate. May I also point out that there are some important issues still to be debated? I understand that, in particular, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is anxious to have a reasonable debate on his new clause. One reason for my generosity in not moving new clauses 7 and 8 was as a courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, who has not had the opportunity to make a major contribution to the debate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eastbourne is so curmudgeonly about my generosity.

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

Neither of those was a point of order. If the hon. Member for Bath wishes to withdraw the new clauses, that is entirely a matter for him. We now move on to new clause 14. New Clause 14 Whether it is reasonable to continueto occupy accommodation