Clause 7 - Events which cause the duty to cease
Homelessness Bill
5:00 pm

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 40, at end insert—

`and states that the offer shall remain open for acceptance for not less than four working days from the date of the offer, or such longer period as the authority considers reasonable in all the circumstances.'.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 40, at end insert—

`and states that the offer shall remain available for such period as the authority may determine is reasonable in all the circumstances.'.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

We return to this issue, having dealt with it to some extent in the Committee stage of the previous Bill. In case he springs to his feet to try to claim it for himself, let me say immediately that the provenance for the amendment was an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath. [Interruption.] If his relationship with the Minister gets any broader or deeper, we could be talking about the Privy Council—who knows?

We thought that amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath, although it had its good points, was overly modest. The issue is how long applicants may take to make a decision on a firm offer of accommodation. We had some evidence, probably anecdotal, that some local authorities—no doubt those with enormous pressure of demand—require a decision within 24 hours. That struck all members of the Committee as being wrong. Clearly, if someone is minded to make a decision that quickly, that is another matter. However, 24 or 48 hours struck us as too short a period. If the hon. Member for Bath does not mind me stealing his thunder, he referred to the London borough of Southwark, which generously set the decision time on a definite offer up to 48 hours.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I rise merely to avoid misleading the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman reads the record, he will see what I said. My understanding is that Southwark's standard practice is to work to 24 hours, but that it will allow a further 48 hours if an applicant requires it. In such cases, the time is brought up to the three-day limit that was in my original amendment. He is right to say that there are other examples of authorities in London and elsewhere where 24 hours is the normal practice.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am grateful for that clarification. This is a matter in which practice varies widely. At the time, I think that all Committee members felt that applicants should have time to deliberate and talk to their families and advisers—legal advisers even—before making a decision that will affect their lives for a long time. People should not feel pressured into making such decisions in a short space of time. Indeed, the then Minister said:

``In the overwhelming majority of cases, three days is too short a period in which to expect a person to decide on a final offer.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 356.]

Three days was the period proposed in the Liberal Democrat amendment then before the Committee.

That leads us to the question of allocations, but I shall only touch on the subject because we shall have a much broader debate on it toward the end of the Committee stage. Things have moved on since our previous discussions, because at that time 90-odd authorities had applied for the pilot scheme of choice-based allocation. I am pleased to say that my borough of Eastbourne—as well as Bath, I think—was among those successful in bidding to pilot the Delft or choice-based scheme. We shall see how that works out with the pressures that I have described on available housing stock in places such as Eastbourne. The new development may have a significant effect on the problem.

My amendment is narrow. We have debated it before, and it seemed to be common ground, even with the previous Minister. I hope that this Minister will take the same view that, in the great majority of cases, three days is too short a time in which to expect people to make such a decision. I have plumped for four days. This is a probing amendment and the Minister will be pleased to hear that I shall not press it to a Division. However, the Government should re-examine whether some minimum period should be included so that, allowing for flexibility and those who want to make quick decisions, the people involved, who are often in a vulnerable position, do not feel unduly pressured into making a hurried choice.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for the generosity of the hon. Member for Eastbourne in acknowledging that the provenance of the amendment came from one that I moved in earlier discussions of part II of the Homes Bill. He eloquently and, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, succinctly outlined the arguments as to why it is important that we ensure that homeless people are given reasonable time in which to make a decision about whether to accept a final offer of accommodation.

As the hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly said, the Government's intention is to ensure that homeless people are given greater choice about their future housing. Nevertheless, it is well known that homeless people are not given much choice at the moment. For example, local authorities will often give families or individuals who want to transfer several options from which to choose and yet, sadly, a homeless person or family will be given only one choice, not a range of options. The Government are keen to change that and I support their intention. Similarly, a household seeking to transfer will often have its preferences of area taken into account, whereas a homeless household or individual will not. A third issue is the type of housing. Households wishing to transfer often have a much greater say in the type of accommodation to which they move than homeless individuals or households, which are rarely given such a choice.

I hope that Committee members agree that the range of choice offered to homeless households or individuals is far narrower than for other categories of people. We seek to change that. All hon. Members would surely accept that the practice still adopted by several local authorities of giving a homeless household or individual a limited period in which to decide whether to accept a final offer is unacceptable and unreasonable. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, in an earlier amendment I proposed a minimum period of three days. The hon. Gentleman now proposes a minimum period of four days. That is a welcome amendment and, were there any likelihood of it succeeding, I would be happy to support it.

I am conscious of the way in which our deliberations and the decision-making process works. During our previous deliberations, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Ainsworth) made it clear that he was sympathetic to the concerns that I expressed then and which the hon. Member for Eastbourne has expressed today. The Minister said:

``I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, which is to ensure that, under Part IV, applicants have a reasonable period in which to consider a final offer from a local housing authority. Applicants need time for deliberation, and possibly to consult relatives, friends or advisers on the options available.''

He went on:

``The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has made some good points in relation to the time it can take to explore educational opportunities in an area and to secure undertakings on repairs.'' —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c.355.]

I had several concerns about giving people only a short period in which to decide. I argued at that time and reiterate now that, in considering a final offer, a homeless person will want an opportunity to consult friends and relatives.

Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is worse than the one that he moved in our previous debate on the Homes Bill, because it would allow many local authorities to stick to 24 hours.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for that intervention, but if the hon. Gentleman will bide his time for a moment, I shall come to that point.

In coming to a final decision, people must consider a number of issues: the opinion of friends and relatives; the suitability of schooling for any children involved; the impact of the decision on work that the individual might take up; and whether the local authority would give an assurance that any necessary repairs would be carried out. Many local authorities will not carry out repairs until an allocation has been made.

The hon. Gentleman obviously agrees that a 24-hour period would be unreasonable. I was delighted that the then Minister entirely agreed with that view and he went on to say that, in some cases, three days might be an unreasonable period, which is one reason why he was unhappy with my particular amendment.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I hesitate to interrupt and I have now given the wording to Hansard, but the Minister accepted that in the overwhelming majority of cases, three days was too short a period. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to undersell the case.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman is correct, as the Minister stated:

``I have already said that in the overwhelming majority of cases, three days is unreasonable.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 357.]

I entirely agree with that.

In common with other Committee members, I accept that 24 hours is unreasonable and that three days is unreasonable in many cases. We have to decide whether we are likely to persuade the Minister to accept an amendment to four days. My amendment may not be the best way forward, but it offers another way out for the Government. It would allow the period to be ``reasonable''. I chose that word for several reasons: first, because the Minister himself said that there must be a reasonable period of time; secondly, because the word could be challenged in law--[Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) suggests from a sedentary position that that is not a sensible way forward. If he believes that, he has many further opportunities to table amendments to the Bill, which changes elements of the Housing Act 1996. I did a quick trawl through one part of the Act and noted that it made use of the word ``reasonable'' in legally challengeable ways in sections 175(3), 176(b), 177(2), 192(1)(a) and 195(2). I have no doubt that it is also used in many other parts of the Act.

My preference is for the amendment of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, because it would insert a firm minimum period into the Bill, but I am offering the Government another way out—by inserting a provision that would enable legal challenges—if they will not accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I hope that it is clear that it would be preferable to insert a specific minimum time period into the Bill, but that I am providing a backstop in the event that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members cannot persuade the Government to accept his amendment.

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

To place the clause in context, members of the Committee will recall that clause 6 will ensure that the main homelessness duty in section 193 of the 1996 Act continues to apply until brought to an end by one of several possible scenarios. Clause 7 amends those scenarios and provides some important safeguards for homeless applicants to ensure that the duties cannot be brought to an end unreasonably.

Section 193 already provides for the duty to end where the applicant rejects an offer of suitable accommodation—that is, an offer of short-term accommodation rather than a settled home—intended as a discharge of the homelessness duty; where he accepts or rejects an offer of suitable accommodation, which is intended as a settled home, allocated under part VI of the 1996 Act; where he voluntarily leaves short-term accommodation provided as a discharge of the homelessness duty or makes himself intentionally homeless from that accommodation; or where the applicant ceases to be eligible for homelessness assistance—for example, an asylum seeker who receives a negative decision on his or her asylum claim.

I appreciate the intention of the amendments, which is to ensure that applicants under part VI have a reasonable period in which to consider a final offer from a local housing authority. That is clearly important. Applicants need time for deliberation and possibly to consult relatives, friends or advisers on the available options. Applicants need a reasonable time in which to make informed and sensible choices.

Amendment No. 8 mentions a minimum period of four days. That appears to be a compromise between the three days previously proposed by the hon. Member for Bath and the five days subsequently suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) when these provisions were examined in their previous guise as part II of the Homes Bill.

A case could be made for any or, indeed, all of those periods, but I do not believe that they are necessary. Different circumstances will require different periods for consideration, which is why putting fixed numbers into the Bill would be unhelpful. On Second Reading, for example, I referred to a constituent who was in hospital having a baby when her mother came in waving the offer of accommodation. In such instances, a fixed period of three, four or even more days would be unreasonable. The personal circumstances facing an individual and the practical circumstances facing the authority must be taken into account.

We discussed previously the problem of empty properties. For several local authorities, consideration of the number of empty properties will weigh heavily on their minds as they decide what to do about making offers of accommodation and the length of time that applicants have to consider those offers. It makes no sense to specify a fixed period of time. I would argue, too, that there is an inherent danger that a statutory minimum would quickly come to be used as the maximum period to be allowed.

Amendment No. 12 would ensure that the authority provides applicants with a reasonable period in all circumstances to consider a final offer. I am not against the proposal in principle, but the amendment adds nothing to the requirements of general law. Local authorities must in all circumstances act reasonably in the undertaking of all their duties, and that extends to final offers. We must be careful not to burden the Bill with excessive detail obscuring the principal purposes of the legislation.

Hon. Members who raised that point have drawn attention to an important issue. I shall ensure that the relevant considerations of reasonableness are covered in the code of guidance. That will take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Bath.

We are all concerned about the experience of homeless people who are made offers of accommodation and expected to make a quick response, when they might have to live in accommodation that they would not choose for themselves. The shift towards choice-based lettings, which is part of the Government's wider agenda on housing, will be extremely important, along with this legislation, in dealing with many of the worries expressed by hon. Members this afternoon. I ask, therefore, that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I hear what the Minister is saying, but I would like to make a few points.

Everyone seems to agree that a fixed period of one, two or even three days is unreasonable. The Minister objects to the amendment on the basis that a minimum can become a maximum, but a minimum is exactly what it says—a minimum. It is also a bit much to balance the period of time in which people must make their decisions against the fact that there are a lot of empty council properties. I do not think that that situation can be blamed on people who fail to make quick decisions and, on reflection, I do not think that the point was germane to the issue.

The Minister said that the matter would be dealt with in the guidance, so I suppose that we must be content with that, but we could happily have dealt with it more briskly—today or in the previous debate—and put a lot of people's minds at rest.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows whether guidance has the same force in law as legislation and whether it would be possible to challenge a local authority that continues to operate a 24-hour policy on the basis of guidance.

This is a longer intervention than it might have been because I am conscious that some hon. Members are receiving interesting pager messages. I hope that in his response to this intervention, the hon. Member for Eastbourne will tell us the result of the ballot that has taken place.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Just to add to the tension, I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's question about guidance first.—[Interruption.] Ah, it looks as if the result is being circulated anyway. It may be worth recording that the result has made me smile.

There is a difference between guidance and legislation. We are not, after all, referring to the sort of people who would take the council to a judicial review about whether it is reasonable to give them X number of days in which to make a decision.

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

In the exercise of their functions, local authorities must take note of the guidance, so guidance has force in the courts.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am sure that that is right, but people have to get into the courts first and have the means and desire to do so when they may have more immediate worries on their minds. That is the key distinction here. It is unfortunate that the Government are not prepared to put even a minimum period into the Bill. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.