Clause 5 - Provision of accommodation for persons not in priority need who are not homeless intentionally
Homelessness Bill
5:00 pm

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am slightly in your hands, Mr. Griffiths. Although we have no amendments to debate, a modest stand part debate will be helpful. I am happy to open that debate, but it might make more sense if the Minister speaks first, so that I can respond to what she has to tell us about the wonders of clause 5. Would she be willing to consider doing that?

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

I am happy to do that.

The main provisions of the Bill are designed to strengthen the safety net for people who become homeless through no fault of their own and who have a priority need for accommodation. That is right, as many of those people are among the most vulnerable individuals in our society.

However, less vulnerable households also find themselves homeless, or are threatened with homelessness, through no fault of their own, such as single people and couples who do not have dependent children and, therefore, do not fall within the priority need categories. The duty owed to such people by a local housing authority is limited to the provision of advice and assistance to help them to secure accommodation. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill will strengthen that duty, but I shall not deal with them now. Clause 5 will give authorities more flexibility to provide assistance for homeless applicants who do not fall within the priority need categories: they will be able to use their discretion, so far as their resources allow.

Clause 5(1) will give local housing authorities a new power to secure accommodation for applicants who have become homeless unintentionally, but who do not fall within a priority need group. It will enable authorities to provide their own accommodation, to secure accommodation from another landlord, or to provide advice and assistance to ensure that accommodation becomes available. In fact, they can pursue any of the options that they can use to discharge a duty to secure accommodation for priority need applicants. We intend that it should be an especially effective provision in areas of low or mixed demand for housing.

Clause 5(2) provides a further power for local housing authorities to take reasonable steps to prevent households that do not fall within priority need categories from becoming homeless when they are faced with the prospect of homelessness within 28 days through no fault of their own. It will enable authorities to take steps to prevent homelessness for applicants who do not fall within priority need categories similar to those that they can take to discharge a duty towards applicants who are in priority need, and who face the threat of homelessness through no fault of their own.

The provisions in clause 5 will allow local authorities to be more flexible in their approach to helping applicants who do not fall within priority need categories and who are homeless, or are threatened with homelessness through no fault of their own. The extent to which individual authorities use those powers will be at their discretion—there will be no additional burden. However, through guidance, we shall encourage authorities—particularly those with the scope and resources to do so—to put those new powers to maximum use to assist homeless people who do not fall within priority need categories.

In the regulations that are intended to follow the Bill, the definition of people in priority need will be broadened.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for that contribution, and I hope that she does not feel that I took her by surprise. It is an important provision and, although we are discussing the legislation for the second time, it would be wrong not to debate it.

Organisations such as the Local Government Association are broadly supportive of the measure, because it gives local authorities more discretion and allows them to take a more strategic approach, by looking at the matter from the point of view of prevention rather than cure. Clause 5 would amend section 192 of the Housing Act 1996. At present, the duty towards people who do not fall within a priority need category is only to provide appropriate advice and assistance to them in their attempts to secure accommodation. The new measure will give local authorities a wider power to prevent such people from becoming homeless in the first place.

I do not wish to re-run an earlier debate, but I remind the Committee that this is a minor victory for the Opposition. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) tabled an amendment about the advice that is available to people in that category and the requirement that should be laid on local authorities in that context. She did not demonstrate the courage of her convictions—unlike the hon. Member for Stafford a moment ago—because she did not support her amendment when we pressed it to a vote. However, a signal victory was achieved, because the then Minister for Local Government, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) was prepared to make concessions on the issue—partly, I am sure, because of the support that we were prepared to give to the hon. Lady's amendment.

In the Committee, the Minister referred to

``the variable, inconsistent and sometimes inadequate quality of local authority advice and assistance.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 343.]

He went on to say that he saw merit in strengthening the duty on local authorities. The amendment was lost, but the Government introduced their own amendments to schedule 2 of what was then the Homes Bill, and they have now reappeared as paragraphs 8 to 11 of schedule 1 of this Bill. Although there are no amendments to clause 5—perhaps that is an indication of the breadth of support for what it is trying to achieve—it is important to mark it to remind anyone who has forgotten that that improvement was a victory for the Opposition. That is worth noting.

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

I welcome the Opposition's support. It seems to me that the victory belongs not so much to the Opposition as to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, who raised the issue. She is one of several Government Members who have a huge amount of experience and expertise in the area of housing and who have contributed in many ways to the Bill—along with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), of course.

The Bill will provide help to people who, although not in priority need, none the less face the prospect of eviction and homelessness. As such, it is an important measure, and I am extremely pleased that the hon. Member for Eastbourne supports it, as does the rest of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.