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 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.