Ms Oona King (Bethnal Green & Bow, Labour)

I am pleased to speak to new clauses 14 and 15 as they seek to help victims of racial abuse. Anyone who doubts that tighter legislation in this area is required, need only speak to my constituents, both black and white, who have suffered racially motivated harassment and violence—families whose young children have suffered the most gratuitous and foulest language imaginable. They have had missiles thrown at them, excrement, burning rubbish and petrol bombs pushed through their letterboxes and suffered violent physical attacks. Such abuse takes place daily up and down the country. I sincerely hope that the Committee will take action to offer victims greater protection.

I know of a family with two teenage children living in owner-occupied accommodation who have experienced two years of racial harassment. This culminated in an attack on their home in December. On the night of the attack, their front door bell was rung constantly. When the father opened the door, a group of masked men rushed in, viciously assaulted him, breaking his jaw and his shoulder. When his wife tried to intervene, she was punched in the face. The daughter rushed upstairs to phone the police. The men entered the son's bedroom and assaulted him. They broke his nose, slashed his face and stabbed him twice in the thigh. Throughout the assault, the attackers continued to use racist insults. As a result of the attack, the father and son both needed extensive hospital treatment. The family were severely traumatised and, quite naturally, no longer felt safe in their home.

Six months previously, the local authority was informed by a monitoring group that the family were suffering racial harassment and were at risk of racist violence following an 18-month hate campaign. The local authority took no immediate action, but suggested instead that they maintain a diary. That suggestion has been made to many of my constituents; indeed, I have had to make it myself. The family duly kept a diary, and in the six months leading up to the attack they noted and reported 18 separate incidents of racial harassment. The local authority prepared a case to seek possession of the perpetrator's home, but the action was not followed through. The local authority did not offer to re-house the family, as they were owner-occupiers. After the attack the family were offered emergency temporary accommodation, but they had to turn it down because they were unable to pay the rent for that accommodation and the mortgage on their home.

What would new clause 14 do in such cases? It would amend the Housing Act 1996 so that it would be unreasonable for a person who was experiencing racial harassment to continue to occupy the accommodation in question. In such circumstances, applicants would be regarded as homeless and would be entitled to an assessment to determine whether they were in priority need as defined in the forthcoming regulations.

Fewer than half all local authorities have policies in place to address racial harassment. As many of my colleagues are aware, the authorities that have such policies are limited to initiating protracted eviction proceedings against the perpetrators, or to re-housing existing tenants. That leaves people in the private sector virtually unprotected. New clause 14 would substantially improve their ability to access the homelessness safety net.

It is clear that the existing legislation, which amounts to weakly drafted guidance, does not go far enough to protect those suffering racial violence, let alone those who suffer racial harassment or the threat of racial violence. A household may apply under section 175(3) of the 1996 Act on the ground that it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy their accommodation. However, in practice many of those who flee racial violence are unable to use that route to establish that they are homeless. Their future depends on whether their local authority is prepared to exercise its discretion.

I am pleased to say that my own local authority has an excellent track record in that regard. In the past four years, I have come across only two cases in which the authority refused to accept a duty of care. In both cases, the homeless persons unit quickly changed the decision once more substantive evidence of harassment and the threat of violence was produced.

However, it is clear that the example of best practice offered by Tower Hamlets and a small number of other metropolitan authorities is not matched elsewhere. Ministers may well conclude that the way to iron out such anomalies is through clearer secondary regulation or more strongly worded guidance. If an authority cannot take its responsibilities seriously, it needs a little more encouragement.

This issue is too serious to leave to chance. I would argue that a clear parallel can be drawn between the experience of those suffering racial violence and those fleeing domestic violence. Section 177 of the 1996 Act states that it is not reasonable for those who experience domestic violence or the threat of domestic violence to continue to occupy accommodation. Sadly, Shelter's research indicates that authorities are much more likely to help people at risk of domestic violence than those at risk of racial violence. The current guidance merely offers a suggestion that authorities can take or leave. That is why I want new clause 14 or something similar in the Bill.

I recognise that there are problems. Local authorities will have concerns about the potential for applicants to approach homeless services with unfounded allegations of racial harassment. I also recognise that not all or even most antisocial behaviour directed at ethnic minority families amounts to racial harassment. However, in the many clear cases in which families are subject to race-hate campaigns, councils must have a duty to act. If Ministers hold a similar view—I am sure that they do—they and their advisers are no doubt more than capable of making the definition of racial harassment less ambiguous.

It would be preferable if the family that I talked about at the start of my speech were rehoused after its members were victims of racial harassment, but before they were victims of racial violence. Prevention is obviously better than cure. In the real world of the east end, many of my constituents, black and white, believe that they are victims of racial harassment, but it would be impossible to rehouse each family that claimed racial harassment. I ask the Minister to consider what protection can be given to those who, having suffered racial harassment, are deemed to be at risk of racial violence.

New clause 15 will ensure that applicants fleeing racial harassment or violence cannot be referred back to an area where they would be at risk of abuse. It mirrors a provision contained in the 1996 Act on domestic violence. When the Minister responds to both new clauses, I sincerely hope that he will share my and my Labour colleagues' determination that much stronger duties to help those fleeing racial violence should be included in the Bill.

Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

We very much support the thrust of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). She knows about the subject only too well from her experience in her constituency. The briefings available lead us to be worried about the scale of the problem, which is especially bad in the east end, although places such as Bradford and other metropolitan boroughs are also affected. There have been cases of racial abuse in my constituency, so it is not necessarily a problem exclusively of inner cities and other urban areas.

There are various problems. We must see cases against the perpetrators through to court, as they often do not make it that far because those acting as witnesses fear severe reprisals. The 1996 Act provided some help, as it allowed managers from registered social landlords to appear in court as expert witnesses on behalf of tenants. That does not apply solely to racial cases, but generally to those of violence and antisocial behaviour. I have had experience of bringing the manager of a registered social landlord and tenants who were being terrorised together with the police, and we made successful progress in that way.

As the hon. Lady said, various ameliorative measures were added to the 1996 Act under section 177, but people can be homeless within their own homes because they are terrified of living there. I know of families who have split up because they are so scared that they have to sleep with other relatives. Mothers, fathers and children are split up because of the pressures. I know of people—the hon. Lady mentioned them, as did Shelter in its briefing notes—who have to sleep downstairs because of the fear that people might break in or set fire to the house in the middle of the night. The problem is, as the hon. Lady said, that people use those measures in a vexatious way.

I do not know whether the new clause is practical, although I agree with its sentiments. I hope that the Minister will take it on board and fashion something workable, but we must remember that people will use it as an excuse. If people claim that they are suffering undue racial abuse and that it is impossible to continue living in their house, a proper investigation should be undertaken. Genuine cases should have recourse to remedial action. The analogy that the hon. Lady draws with domestic violence, which was dealt with in the 1996 Act, is right. The Bill's provisions should be put on a par with that.

The law is flawed. Although we support the thrust of the new clause, we are prepared to take soundings from the Minister on the most practical way of carrying those principles forward.

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow for the graphic way in which she brought the problems that face her constituents and people in other parts of the country to the Committee's attention. I also thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for his support of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.

I hope that what I have to say will satisfy my hon. Friend and Opposition Members alike. Racial harassment is intolerable in a civilised society. Like my hon. Friends, I condemn it outright. No one of any colour, race, creed or nationality should be put in fear at home, at work or in public places. We all know that racial discrimination is widespread and, more seriously, that racial harassment is a fact of life for far too many people. It is clearly not right that people should be driven out of their homes by such behaviour. Tenants should be able to expect their landlords—especially social landlords—to deal quickly and firmly with the perpetrators.

Ultimately, we are dealing with any sort of violence or threatened violence. The Government take it seriously and are promoting the use of specific ``non-harassment'' clauses in tenancy agreements in the social housing sector. Any breach of a tenancy agreement will render a tenant liable to eviction. That builds on measures already in place to enable landlords to deal with racial harassment on their estates. The Government want those powers to be used more widely. For example, the 1996 Act allows local authorities and other landlords to ask the courts to attach a power of arrest to injunctions taken out to prevent breaches of a tenancy agreement, when violence has occurred or has been threatened. The Act also makes it possible for landlords to evict if a tenant, a lodger or a visitor to the tenant's property has been convicted of an arrestable offence in the vicinity of the property.

In earlier exchanges, I said that we will be extending the priority need categories of homeless people by order under section 189 of the 1996 Act. That will create a new category of applicants who will have priority need if they are vulnerable as a result of having to leave their home, because to remain there would carry a risk of violence towards them or any member of their household. The provision would cover, for example, a risk of domestic violence, or a risk of racially motivated violence.

Under the provisions of part VII of the 1996 Act, local authorities must consider whether it would be reasonable for applicants to continue to live in their current accommodation, before deciding whether they are homeless. If it would not be reasonable, and the applicant has nowhere else to live, then he or she is statutorily homeless. When deciding whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to continue to live in his or her present home, authorities should consider if that would give rise to any risk of violence.

However, there is a case for reviewing the provisions and making it explicit that violence or acts of violence are grounds on which it would be unreasonable to continue to occupy accommodation. That would include racially motivated violence, and it is our intention to table an amendment to achieve that. Given that undertaking, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw her new clause. I hope that I have satisfied her on the points that she raised.

Ms Oona King (Bethnal Green & Bow, Labour)

I thank the Minister for the constructive proposals that he has made. I understand that they will give protection to people at risk of violence, including racial violence. Before concluding these brief remarks, I should like to thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for his thoughtful contribution on an area that I wish was less subject to party-political point scoring. This is an opportunity for us to send out a clear message that people who are at risk of racially motivated violence will now get the protection that they deserve. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.