Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 3, after `authority''', insert

`and its strategic partners, to include registered social landlords and housing co-operatives, landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, and voluntary organisations and other relevant bodies (``strategic partners'')'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—

`(4A)The authority shall maintain a list of those organisations which are its strategic partners, which it may modify from time to time.'.

No. 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, after `authority', insert `and its strategic partners'.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

It may help if I say that I hope to pursue the same approach to debating amendments as I did in proceedings on the Homes Bill—to flag up the fact that we are keen to have a more discursive debate on amendments and either obviate the need for a stand part debate or considerably foreshorten such a debate. I hope that that will help.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

For the benefit of the Committee, those who have worked with me before will know that generally I am perfectly happy to allow a stand part debate—that is, a broad-ranging debate—at either the beginning or the end of our consideration of a clause, on the clear understanding that we do not try to do both.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am grateful for that clarification. It may help if I say that I want to deal in some detail with the amendments, but with your indulgence, Mr. Gale, we should also like to make several points in a short stand part debate.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. I made it absolutely plain that the hon. Gentleman may have it one way or another, but not both.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

To save the hon. Gentleman from having to wait for the Minister's reply, I can inform him that the total number of units would be 580,000.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

That is extremely helpful, as that figure puts the issues into context. If that rate of increase of transfers were to continue during the lifetime of the second Labour Government, which is likely to be four or five years, what do they project would be the total number of transfers by the end of the Parliament, if it runs its full course, and what would be the national proportion of properties in the hands of registered social landlords, versus those in the hands of local authorities? I would be interested to hear the Minister's response to that, and the hon. Member for Bath might also wish to express his views about it.

The ground is fundamentally shifting under us as we debate such issues, as it did when we debated them previously. The whole picture is changing and, before long, registered social landlords will be the dominant feature on the social housing landscape and local authorities will be much less dominant. Indeed, it has been predicted for some time that we will see the death of the council house during the lifetime of the current Government.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

It would strengthen the hon. Gentleman's argument if he knew that the current projection, based on the present rate of transfers, is that by 2004—probably before the end of the Government's term in office—the majority of social housing will be in the hands of registered social landlords. Therefore, it is vital to ensure that mechanisms are in place to ensure that registered social landlords, and the other bodies to which the amendments refer, work closely with the local authorities, which will continue to be responsible for the homelessness strategy.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sorry that I have to agree with him, but I am sure that we will find something to disagree about later.

The landscape is changing. Councils are going out of the housing business, and, although they may not be shouting it from the rooftops, that is the Government's policy. One has only to look at a graph on a wall—rather as the hon. Gentleman has just described—to see where things are going to end. In addition, increasing numbers of rundown council estates in some parts of the country are likely to remain empty, either because of their condition or because of the level of demand in that area, or because people are looking for better accommodation in the private or voluntary sectors.

I made a comment in the Committee stage of the Homes Bill, reflecting on a point made by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which is not exactly a Conservative-leaning think tank. The institute used the analogy of the difference between black and white and colour television; it said that a lot of social housing was equivalent to black and white TV, and that demand for it would lessen as time went on.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I remember doing so on a similar point in the Committee stage of the Homes Bill.

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

Is not the important point the Government's commitment to improve social housing within a 10-year time scale, with the safeguard that it must have tenant approval? Are not those two commitments that were not given by the previous Government?

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

At the risk of doing the ``Groundhog Day'' routine, in response to a similar intervention by the hon. Gentleman on the previous Committee, I made the point that that is not my party's policy that people should be forced into transfers. We certainly did not fight the last election on that policy and, even if we had, no one would have noticed.

We endorse the Government's stand. It is becoming a bit of an embarrassment that on a whole range of issues my hon. Friends and I must welcome and endorse what the Government are doing, and I will discuss the fallout from that in a moment. We are happy that this Conservative policy has been grabbed so enthusiastically by the Government and that they are running with it, heading for the touchline. We are cheering them on, on this occasion. If anything, they have been more rapid in this matter than even we would have been, although our policy would have been to speed things up and push ahead as rapidly as possible.

The only glum faces among the spectators—to continue the sporting metaphor—are members of the Labour party who belong to the old Labour syndrome. They are unhappy about the transfers because Labour in local government has traditionally seen council housing as a way in which to exercise power and patronage, in a semi-feudal fashion, over people living in a particular area. It is no coincidence, for example, that the late Alderman Andy Cunningham, when he was leader of his council—I forget whether it was Durham or Newcastle—used to present the keys personally to new tenants of council houses. He did that not because he was into public relations, but to emphasise the landlord-tenant—or vassal-lord—relationship that pertained between the Labour-run council and the tenants. That culture is disappearing, and quite rightly so.

We will deal with the question of demand for social housing in more detail in our discussion of allocations, but I want to make one quick point and move on. We know that massive differences in demand exist in different areas for social housing. A lady came to my advice surgery a week or so ago. She was a single lady who appreciated that she was low priority on the housing list, but she had been on the list in Eastbourne since 1997. That is an amazing fact, and I am trying to get to the bottom of it. She was not in any sense screaming the place down, but she thought that the time had come to visit her Member of Parliament and find out what was happening. That is a slightly unusual case, even for Eastbourne, but it shows the enormous gulf between our part of the country, in which there is great demand and limited supply and other parts of the country, where council estates, to an increasing extent, will be semi-occupied or wholly-unoccupied. All of that contributes to this problem.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The one area on which my hon. Friend has not touched is the provision of new social housing. The purpose of large-scale voluntary transfers is to enable the local authority to become a facilitator. However, it is housing associations that, by and large, build new social housing. Does that not further strengthen his argument that it is housing associations, which provide the new houses, that should be involved in the strategy?

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes the point succinctly. Not only are housing associations unable to build as many new units as they would want—the Minister will be able to grapple with that point in her answer—but, increasingly, the burden is being passed on to them. We would say that that is right—it is Conservative policy—and at least the Government have got it right in one area. It may produce some difficulties within the Labour party, but that is a matter for others to sort out, and the quicker that they do so, the better.

As my hon. Friend reminds us, there has been a sharp drop, as I have already said, in the number of new units of social housing being built, at a time when private sector housing has been growing fast. It may save time—and save the Minister's officials from dusting off the previous briefing—were I to touch on the three arguments that the Minister's predecessor made against similar amendments. The first argument was that the blanket nature of duties would not fit with what the Minister called the diversity of the RSL sector. That has some merit, because although some housing associations have enormous numbers of units up and down and right across the country, some are large but based in a particular area in which they have their roots, and others are small and do not even appear on the radar screen. At the end of the day, that does not really matter. However big or diverse RSLs are, the future—and to some extent the present—belongs to them. They, and not local councils, will be running social housing. We must get that point across. There is no point in Labour Members or others in the Labour party feeling sad about it; that is the situation, and it is not going to change.

The second argument—which had more force—was that the bodies concerned are predominantly voluntary, and, although they are subject to regulation, imposing statutory duties on them is not the same as imposing statutory duties on local authorities. That is one of the parts A and B arguments that we had in the previous Committee—I hope that we find a new terminology during the short life of this Committee—as to whether it is worth including this sort of thing in the Bill or whether it is understood that such bodies will of course be intimately involved in evolving a particular strategy. As a result of the way in which the legislation is currently drafted, that will in large measure depend on the attitude of the local authority. If it is a grumpy, old-fashioned old Labour authority, which resents what is happening and is trying to hold back the tide, it may not involve such bodies or it may do so in a perfunctory way. The fact that such bodies are largely voluntary should not make a difference. They may be voluntary, but they are already treated seriously by the public sector, because, as was conceded in previous debates, they are regulated. They are serious organisations, some of which are extremely large and well run. Some are less so, but, if they have not already grown up, RSLs will have to grow up rapidly. They should be treated as equal partners with local authorities, whose role they are usurping.

Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman seems to be rather derogatory about local authorities. Does he not accept that the transfer to registered social landlords from local authorities is down to one word—money? I refer to Treasury rules. If local authorities were able to borrow more money, many of them could perform a service equally as valuable as that performed by the RSLs. I take exception to the fact that the hon. Gentleman used terms such as ``old Labour'' when referring to local authorities. I know many good local authorities. Indeed, my own authority has been a band 1 authority during most of the time that the banding system has been in force. Such authorities are extremely well managed.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It echoes some of the previous discussions about a similar Bill. I am not saying that all local authorities are bad managers of their housing stock, but many have been in the past, which is why successive Governments have favoured such a practice. If the hon. Gentleman considers that the Treasury rules are wrong, he must take up that matter with his Ministers. It is not for me to remind him that they have won a second term in office, but let him and his friends of like mind agitate from the Back Benches on such issues. Let him be in no doubt that such policy is not that of his own Government.

The third argument advanced by the Minister in January against similar proposals was that they would undermine the strategic responsibilities that were being placed on local authorities. He said that reviews could be carried out in partnership, as part of a multi-agency approach and so on. The then Minister said:

``It is important that local authorities . . . are clear about where the buck stops. Sharing responsibility would simply dilute it''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 January 2001; c. 280.]

That represents a distinction without a difference, if I may respectfully say so. Like it or not, they are now the serious players in social housing. The Minister put forward just another specious argument to exclude them directly from being obliged to be involved in producing such strategies.

Ms Margaret Moran (Luton South, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the only organisation in a local area that can have an overview of RSLs and housing associations is the local authority? Many Labour Members wish to strengthen the strategic role of local authorities even beyond that under the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was dismissive about diversity and RSLs. I was a chief executive of a small specialist association that dealt with the housing needs of women. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, by placing a statutory duty on RSLs, particularly those small associations that deal with specialist groups, he risks not having the opportunity to ensure that those who would not be accommodated by homelessness groups could also find access to housing? My association helped low-paid women who are essential to London's economy, and such associations may be pushed out of business altogether by such proposals.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am not saying that there is no force to that argument, but I do not believe that it wins the day. The proposal is not a wacky idea that I dreamt up on two separate occasions, and there is a view among some key players in social housing that it would be a good idea. The hon. Lady and others will remember the Green Pepper campaign that was co-ordinated by the Catholic Housing Aid Society and the Churches National Housing Coalition. It said:

``Green Pepper welcomes the requirement for a greater strategic role for local authorities through assessments of local need. However, it is important to emphasise that the applicants themselves, the voluntary sector and faith groups will have a great deal of knowledge to assist in audits of local need.''

I am sure that we all agree so far with such a statement. It went on:

``Where local authorities act on their own, they may not always be able to see the full picture.''

That is the point that I am trying to make. Others share the concern that local authorities that are not necessarily modern and forward-looking in their thinking may want to act on their own and not take any great notice of what RSLs think, despite the reality that they are, to an increasing extent, the ones who run social housing.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Before we continue the debate, I remind hon. Members that we should focus on clause 1. I understand that at the start of discussions on a Bill, especially on the first clause, Front Bench Members must set matters in context. However, I would not want those who have never before taken part in such proceedings to get the impression that a Second Reading debate is permissible on every clause.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

Ms Sally Keeble (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Northampton North, Labour)

As hon. Members have said, in a sense we are here to complete unfinished business. For some of us, it is our first exposure to the intricacies of the Bill, while others have already made important contributions. The work on the Homes Bill has been invaluable in developing this legislation, and I acknowledge the debt that we owe to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), and to hon. Members who helped to scrutinise and improve the Bill. I also acknowledge the role played by the hon. Member for Bath in that process.

The principal aims of the Bill are to set a coherent framework for local authorities to adopt in tackling homelessness, to strengthen the homelessness safety net and to extend choice.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Ms Sally Keeble (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Northampton North, Labour)

Let me get on a little further, and then I will.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I might forget my point.

Ms Sally Keeble (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Northampton North, Labour)

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, his point cannot be very important.

The aims of the Bill have been widely welcomed, although I recognise that, over the next few sessions, we must explore with care its detailed workings. Bearing in mind your guidance, Mr. Gale, not to expound too widely on the background, I will say a little about that before turning to the amendments.

The causes of homelessness are not simple and vary from case to case. Rapid economic growth in London and the south-east must surely have contributed to the increased pressure on social housing in London and the surrounding area. We have made a start in dealing with the problem through initiatives outside the Bill. Some causes of homelessness are localised, as recent floods have demonstrated, and others are personal to the individual concerned, as in cases of relationship or family breakdown.

Although the Government have set the framework for tackling homelessness, local authorities are best placed to co-ordinate and lead the effort in their local areas, and to initiate preventative measures. That is why the Government's proposals for homelessness reform, set out in last year's housing Green Paper, included a policy of requiring local authorities to take a more strategic approach to tackling and preventing homelessness. Such a strategic approach will be effective only if it harnesses the efforts and activities of all the organisations providing services and assistance to homeless people that operate in an authority's area. A partnership approach is central to our proposals: we require local housing authorities to take a multi-agency and strategic approach to preventing and responding to homelessness.

Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill set out the basis for such a strategy, and require that it be kept under review. Many agencies are involved with people who are homeless, or at risk of becoming so, and they should work together to avoid duplicating services, which might result in the creation of gaps in provision. Local housing authorities should conduct reviews and draw up strategies in partnership with other authorities and agencies, such as social services authorities or departments, health service organisations, and those that administer housing benefit.

Registered social landlords will also be central to the development and implementation of homelessness strategies. In some areas, they provide the majority of social housing and, as has been pointed out, the transfer programme is increasing their importance in delivering services to tenants and supporting local authorities in the performance of their statutory duties.

Several hon. Members have argued that the Bill should include statutory provisions to require registered social landlords to co-operate with authorities in the discharge of their duties and in the undertaking of homelessness strategies and reviews. I share the concern that has been expressed that registered social landlords should play their part, but I believe that that will be best achieved through revised guidance and enhanced regulation by the Housing Corporation as the statutory regulator of the registered social landlords sector. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath for the prominence that he has brought to that issue, and for his acceptance that further statutory obligations are not essential at present and that our mutual objectives can be achieved through regulations.

A wide range of other bodies should also be engaged in reviews and strategies, and in the prevention and management of homelessness, including probation services and voluntary organisations that work with young people or with those suffering from mental health problems. Organisations that deal with rough sleepers also have a vital role to play. It is important to highlight that, in the Bill, homelessness includes rough sleeping. As there is not a simple, single cause of homelessness, co-operative approaches must be adopted that require several agencies to work together. Multi-agency co-operation recognises that agencies might have clients in common, and that many of the services that each of them provide can contribute to the prevention and management of homelessness. Multi-agency working is driven by the needs of clients, rather than by those of organisational structures.

Before I discuss the amendments, I will deal with some of the issues that have been mentioned, and, in particular, those that were raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. He mentioned the increasing size of the problem of homelessness, and, in particular, the increased numbers of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I agree that those figures are too high, but 70 per cent. of the people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation live in London, and the economy and the housing market in that city are special issues that have created unique pressures. As many hon. Members who represent London constituencies have repeatedly said, those problems require London-based solutions.

That point underlines the need to ensure that local authorities can draw up strategies that are best suited to their local requirements. The Government have also set up the bed-and-breakfast unit to look at the particular problems of the number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

The hon. Gentleman also raised issues concerning investment. We have substantially increased investment in housing—there has, for instance, been a £3.3 billion increase in the current year. We have introduced a new major repairs allowance of £1.6 billion from 2001-02 to encourage efficient management and proper investment in council housing. I want to stress that that money is not for new-build housing: it is for work on existing council stock.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of empty council properties.

Problems caused by pressures in different parts of the country call for local solutions. That would provide the best possible result, not just for the use of the properties, but for local communities and local people looking for housing. We have discussed stock transfers. I suspect that reports of the death of the council property have been greatly exaggerated. We are committed to increasing the number of stock transfers to registered social landlords, but only with the agreement of the tenants. Housing authorities can look at other options, but if they are to retain their stock, it should be through best-value assessment.

Amendment No. 1 specifies which bodies should co-operate with local authorities. The amendment would unintentionally catch out small landlords and oblige them to participate in homelessness reviews and strategies. Housing co-operatives and landlords of houses in multiple occupation are important housing providers, and some will want to engage with the authority. I expect local housing authorities to welcome willingness to co-operate, and to build on it to achieve real partnerships. Such arrangements cannot be forced, and may be undermined by statutory obligation.

My principal objection to the amendment—this re-iterates my predecessor's objections—is that it would undermine the strategic responsibility that we place on local housing authorities. Local housing authorities must undertake homelessness reviews in partnership as part of their housing and wider community responsibilities. It is important that authorities accept those responsibilities and recognise that they are lead responsibilities, shared with dilute accountability and performance.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequent on amendment No. 1. I would be surprised if local authorities did not keep lists of their regular contacts' telephone numbers, fax numbers, e-mail and personal addresses; but this is not a matter for inclusion in the Bill. We must take a sensible and strategic view on how to establish a robust and coherent framework for reviews and strategies; a framework that allows intelligent offices to run their affairs competently. We shall have to take a sensible view of how much detail is required in the Bill.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

If a local authority were to surprise the Under-Secretary by not acting as she expects—although we all agree on how local authorities should act—what mechanism will set them back on the path of righteousness?

Ms Sally Keeble (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Northampton North, Labour)

The Government have mechanisms to ensure that local authorities undertake their statutory duties. It is wrong to assume that many local authorities will not comply with the statutory duties given to them. If management and administrative functions were governed by prescriptive rules set out in the Bill, we would tie the hands of good local authorities without addressing the problems that the hon. Gentleman identifies.

Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

I apologise for arriving late, Mr. Gale.

On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions recently remarked that private companies could be sent in when a local authority's homelessness strategy is deemed a failure. Does the Under-Secretary envisage that a local authority might find itself subject to the decisions of a private company that has taken over responsibility for the administration of the strategies that they are being asked to devise, and which we are debating?

Ms Sally Keeble (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Northampton North, Labour)

I do not want to look at new ways of providing housing that involve threats to send in inspectors from private companies. The hon. Member for Bath talked about a way of working and the relationship between the different partners involved in dealing with the problem of homelessness—housing authorities, registered social landlords, housing associations and other agencies. Those are important relationships, and I support them. They must be based on mutual agreement and common respect, and must, at the end of the day, deliver the overall housing strategy, provide individual housing units that ensure that we can get rid of the scourge of homelessness and give people a choice of decent accommodation that meets their needs, whether temporary or permanent.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister has told us how much investment the Government propose. To put the Government's homelessness strategy into perspective, can she predict how many registered social housing units will be built during the course of this Parliament?

Ms Sally Keeble (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Northampton North, Labour)

I cannot give a number off the cuff. The hon. Gentleman knows about the amount of investment and the money that has gone into repair and maintenance, which will be crucial as regards the number of units that are kept in the current housing stock. We need to reduce the homelessness figures. We must also use all the housing resources at our disposal so that people are properly housed.

Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Ms Sally Keeble (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Northampton North, Labour)

I am close to concluding and want to deal with the point that the hon. Member for Bath made about the Housing Corporation. My letter to the Housing Corporation is now entirely a matter of public record. I do not want to commit to the Housing Corporation's view of the situation, but undertake to consult with it on the hon. Gentleman's detailed points.

On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Eastbourne to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

A sense of deja vu overwhelmed me for a moment. It is a bit rich of the Minister to shower all those compliments on the hon. Member for Bath when she talks about minor tinkerings with the Bill. Conservative Members can take responsibility for improving the Bill massively by causing the demise of part I of the Homes Bill. I do not want to go too far into all that, but the Minister and her friends, the Liberal Democrats, have obviously formed a mutual appreciation society.

A sense of deja vu overwhelmed me for a moment, because we went round and round the houses—if I may use that expression—the last time that we debated these issues, arguing over whether something should or should not be in the Bill: arguments A or B. Having re-read the previous debates and ministerial answers, and having heard the latest ministerial answer, we do not seem to have made much progress. The Minister talks about revised guidance and regulations and the role of the Housing Corporation. Although we shall debate it in more detail later, I am grateful for her confirmation that rough sleeping is included in homelessness, although the Bill does not say so.

The point remains: what will happen if a housing authority does not do what the Minister expects it to do and hopes that it will do? When I intervened, she explained the mechanism that would apply if a housing authority were in breach of a statutory duty. The whole point is that we are not putting a statutory duty on housing authorities to carry out consultations, so we are still left with the dilemma posed by the hon. Member for Bath over whether to press the amendment to a vote.

I was also interested to hear what the Minister said about bed-and-breakfast numbers, to which we shall no doubt return. The Government must learn that to set up a unit or crown a tsar will not always solve a problem. She indicates that reports of the death of the council house have been exaggerated, but one needs only examine the figures.

There comes a point where arguing on the same issue over and over again makes little difference. The Government would be sensible to include the amendments in the Bill, but as local housing authorities will increasingly be controlled by the Conservative party, the problem may go away. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.