Clause 13 - Abolition of duty to maintain housing register
Homelessness Bill
9:30 am
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
We should have a modest stand part debate on the clause, as it is an important provision. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out succinctly what the clause is designed to achieve. As he said, one of its primary functions is to abolish the duty to maintain a register. I understand that if local authorities wish to continue to maintain a register, they can do so.
We all know from our advice surgeries and our mailbag contents that the current points system has become fossilised. Some constituents exhibit a high degree of expertise in how the system works. They know how to obtain more points to receive priority and move up the list.
We welcome the fact that local authorities will have more flexibility. Previously, we had a lengthy debate about blanket exclusions, which I do not wish to repeat. It is right that there should not be blanket exclusions, and organisations such as Shelter expressed concerns that some authorities were excluding whole tranches of people on particular grounds. I am pleased to say that the clause, having been amended in the Committee that dealt with the previous Bill, reflects both our concerns and those of the Local Government Association over the eligibility criteria.
Tension exists between what one might term the Shelter argument and the LGA argument. The former argues that to exclude people from housing creates an underclass who cannot get into social housing. The latter argues that local authorities should retain as much discretion as possible.
New section 160A(7)(a) provides that authorities will be able to consider an applicant to be ineligible if
``he, or a member of his household, has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant''.
The definition of that is whether the authority could secure—not apply for—a possession order against a tenant who behaves in that way.
We are talking about the vexed issue of neighbours from hell. We have all had to deal with people who—through their behaviour, their unwillingness to look after the property that they have been allocated or a variety of other reasons—cannot live peacefully and amicably with their neighbours.
All hon. Members, with the possible exception of the newest ones, will have experienced situations in which a person or a family has made life an absolute misery for their neighbours. One or two problem families who create all sorts of mayhem can transform a whole estate.
People often do that on a serial basis, but that is not to say that such people do not have their own problems. They are usually receiving the attention of a variety of public agencies, not least the social services. However, either through an inability to cope or through sheer mischief, they are not good neighbours and create enormous problems all around them.
We had a lengthy debate in the Committee that dealt with the previous Bill, when amendment No. 106 was incorporated into what is now clause 13. The then Minister for Housing and Planning, who is now the Minister for Local Government set out the broad reasons why applicants would be denied accommodation. One reason for ineligibility would be if an applicant amassed significant rent arrears. The word ``significant'' is important because it had been suggested that some authorities would exclude people for trivial amounts of arrears. Another reason would be causing serious nuisance or annoyance to neighbours. We are all aware of the sort of behaviour that that encompasses. A third reason would be damaging or neglecting the property that has been allocated.
We received detailed evidence from Shelter, among others. Figures contained in a document from one—unidentified—northern authority mentioned by Shelter reveal that, in March 1999, the authority had an active re-housing list of more than 16,000 households, while more than 53,000 were suspended for various reasons. I find that extraordinary. However, the same authority is supposed to have a surplus of about 20,000 properties. That must be an extreme case—if not the extreme case—but perhaps it is a measure of the problems that many other authorities have faced. Perhaps some authorities have an extraordinarily rigid attitude to those matters.
Another Shelter survey found that 89 per cent. of authorities exclude people seeking a transfer who are in arrears—I assume that that means that they are in arrears to any extent. That could lead to a debate about the housing benefit system and the role that it might play in many arrears cases. If it is the fault of the tenants, rather than the system, people who are consistently in arrears with their rent should not feel automatically entitled to further accommodation from that or any other authority. There was also a suggestion that some authorities use crimes such as motoring offences as a reason to stop people being placed in social housing, as technically they have a criminal record.
The overall case made by Shelter—it is a powerful one—concludes that more than 200,000 people may have been excluded or suspended between 1996 and 1998. I am not sure whether there are more up-to-date figures. That is a large figure, albeit a suspiciously round one. Clearly, there is a problem and, anecdotally, it is growing. Increasingly, problems of that sort land on my desk and are brought into my advice surgeries. That is what I call the Shelter argument; I hope I have not done it an injustice. An awful lot of people are being excluded, some for trivial reasons such as small arrears or for minor criminal matters such as motoring offences. Those people have to live somewhere. They may be moved out of one estate, but eventually they will have to be found accommodation, presumably somewhere where they will have different neighbours.
The Committee, previously, and the Government on reflection, have ultimately followed the LGA argument, which is the view that authorities should retain a discretionary power and should be able to take note of people's previous records. The LGA says in one of its briefings:
``It would be perverse if an applicant who is evicted for anti-social behaviour or racial harassment then has a right to be offered other council accommodation''.
As I said, an amendment to the previous incarnation of the Bill granted authorities that right of refusal. On the whole, the right balance has been struck. There is a reasonably high test, which is the ability to get a possession order in those circumstances, and that is right. I think that there is a firm view among all Committee members that authorities should not abuse their discretion, and we have debated—we will not do so again—the right to review the decision.
I entirely endorse the LGA's view that,
``at the end of the day the local authority, as landlord, should retain the right to consider the suitability of an applicant for a tenancy, provided that such consideration is carried out in a fair, transparent and reasonable manner.''
That seems an eminently sensible approach, and one that is borne out by the clause.