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'')'.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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

Your patience is legendary, Mr. Gale.

I begin our proceedings by pointing out a most unfortunate typographical error at column 274 of the report of the proceedings of the previous Committee. A sentence that should have read:

``We can argue how many angels dance on a pinhead for as long as Mr. Gale's patience lasts'', has, sadly, become:

``for as long as Mr. Gale's pension lasts.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 January 2001; c. 274.]

I am sorry to relate that that mistake, which I only spotted in the past couple of days, has been repeated in the Library's otherwise excellent brief on the Bill. Hansard may want to take note, as we would not like the impression to gain ground that you draw a pension, Mr. Gale.

The amendments are part of a groundhog-day strategy: we debated the issue previously. Although we had a reasonably good debate, the previous Minister did not feel that we had a good point. I am sure that his successor will be much more willing to be flexible. The hon. Member for Bath will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that we forced the issue to a Division. If we did not, it was probably because we did not expect to win.

The amendments relate to strategic partners. The key Amendment is No. 1, under which, in addition to the local authority, registered social landlords, co-operatives, landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, voluntary organisations and other relevant bodies would be involved in devising a homelessness strategy. I do not claim that the list is exhaustive; if other hon. Members have suggestions, no doubt they will make them during what I hope will be a short debate. It still seems valid to say that, for the strategy to be meaningful in a particular local authority area, it should be specified in the Bill that it includes those other bodies.

We and local government in general, irrespective of party loyalties, welcome the new duty placed on local authorities to formulate an overarching homelessness strategy. Organisations such as the Local Government Association have flagged up concerns about whether resources will follow the proposals in the Bill, although it broadly welcomes the proposals, as do we.

Recently, the LGA said:

``The LGA supports the proposed new duty on local housing authorities to formulate a homelessness strategy. The LGA would like to see this go further to provide a legal basis for an overarching strategic housing role.''

In the context of the relatively broad debate on the amendments, it would be interesting to tease out from the Minister the Government's current thinking on the matter. I make no bones about the LGA's support for the proposals because many of them emanated from good work that the LGA did a couple of years ago. However, it thinks that the legislation could go further. Has that idea been dismissed out of hand, or might it be developed when the provisions in the legislation have bedded down?

The LGA continues to say that there is,

``at present, no legislative duty on authorities to produce a housing strategy other than the requirement in S8 Housing Act 1985 to consider the housing needs and conditions of the district.''

However, it also says—this is a key point that I wish to develop—that as more and more transfers of stock take place from local authorities to RSLs, or there is a movement toward arm's-length housing management, it is vital to ensure that housing strategies do not become marginalised. That is why the LGA says:

``A broader duty would place housing strategies on a level playing field with other statutory plans, such as Community Care plans.''

I recognise that there is tension between that clear point and the broader point that I often hear the LGA make that it is currently subjected to too many plans, and that many plans place an enormous burden on local authorities. Therefore, we must be careful about imposing further duties. However, the LGA supports the provisions and can claim a role in their origin, and it would be helpful if the Minister were to comment on what the LGA says.

A further difficulty is the existing problems of housing and homelessness. On Second Reading, we debated the current state of play in the housing world. Shelter commented:

``During the election, a lot of attention was given to improving education and health services. We hear much less about the thousands of families stuck in grotty B&Bs . . . The current crisis-driven approach to homelessness is not working.''

I am sure that all members of the Committee are disappointed that housing did not feature as a major issue in the election campaign, despite the efforts of heavyweight housing organisations in the run up to the campaign. That goes for all the major parties. Shelter is right to complain because there is a crisis of the number of people who are ``stuck in grotty B&Bs''. The Prime Minister, no less, in The Big Issue on 3 June said:

``We have to do better . . . I accept we need to do more.''

The Committee will be familiar with Government figures, but they bear repetition. They show that homelessness numbers in England have soared by 8,000 over the past three years. There were tetchy arguments in the previous Standing Committee about how those figures should be interpreted, but the only way to interpret them is to say that they are rising—in other words, getting worse. The most recent figures from 15 June show that the number of priority acceptances has risen from 102,410 in 1997 to 110,790 by the end of 2000. The number of homeless households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has also risen from 4,100 in the first quarter of 1997 to 10,830 in the first quarter of 2001.

The growing gap between rich and poor should be overlaid on that picture. The number of empty council properties in England rose by 7 per cent. under the previous Labour Government: there were 81,200 empty dwellings in April 1997, but by April 2000 there were 87,186. However, the construction of new social housing has plummeted by 37 per cent., despite the estimates of organisations such as Shelter that, over the next 10 to 15 years, 100,000 new units of such housing will be needed each year.

The Committee will study the proposals and weigh their merits, and I hope that it will improve them, if only marginally. However, they must be seen against a background of serious problems, and of a generally worsening housing situation.

Large-scale transfers of stock—another relevant issue—was debated at length by the previous Committee, so I will not discuss it in detail. It was also touched on by the LGA. The rate of those transfers accelerated sharply under the previous Labour Government. The Minister announced that 27 local authorities will be able to proceed with

``32 transfers of all or part of their housing stock to registered social landlords''—[Official Report, 22 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 10W.] and that the programme will involve more than 328,000 dwellings over a two-year period. That is a phenomenal figure, and I should be grateful if the Minister would update us on what the total number of units would be if that was taken into account. I think that it would be in excess of 500,000.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I note what you have said, Mr. Gale, and intend to stick closely to the debate on Clause 1 and on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Eastbourne.

I begin by warmly agreeing with his view, expressed both now and in the Committee on the Homes Bill, that it is a pity that clause 1 refers specifically to the local authorities drawing up a homelessness strategy in isolation from their other housing obligations. I share the hon. Gentleman's view, and that of the Local Government Association, that it would have been preferable to require local authorities to produce a single housing strategy that includes all the details required under this legislation. The key issue before us, however, is whether, given the changing social housing situation, clause 1 goes far enough in respect of the strategic partners other than the local authorities which have significant responsibilities for dealing with housing need.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne detailed his views on the issue of large-scale voluntary transfer. He argued that that was a Conservative party policy which, egged on by the Conservatives, the Labour Government have taken on board lock, stock and barrel and are implementing even more rapidly than the Conservatives would have done. I was interested in the Intervention from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who made the most valid point of all. The rapid movement towards large-scale voluntary transfer is happening because tenants' choices are not made on a level playing field. Local authorities do not have the same rights to borrow money to improve their housing stock that are available to registered social landlords and others. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne that the matter should still be left ultimately to tenants, but if those rights were equalised, local authorities would be able to make a stronger case to those tenants. We would not then see so many authorities adopting large-scale voluntary transfer.

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that a large number of the large metropolitan authorities that have not so far taken part in the LSVT exercise plan to do so in the next wave. All the evidence suggests that by 2004—as I said in my intervention—most social housing will be managed and run by registered social landlords.

When we discussed this issue during our debate on part II of the Homes Bill, Mr. Gale, you will remember that I moved an amendment similar to the ones being moved by the hon. Gentleman. However, my amendments were specifically restricted to including registered social landlords in the development of the homelessness strategy in conjunction with the local authorities and did not, unlike his amendments, include a range of other strategic partners. The most important relationship that must be got right when developing homelessness strategies is the relationship between the RSLs and the local authority. When we debated that matter last time, the then Under-Secretary of State for

Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), said in response to my amendments:

``Registered social landlords are already under a duty to co-operate with local authorities to such an extent as is reasonable. That allows some discretion, but the provision is given teeth by the sector's regulator—the Housing Corporation.''—[Official Report, 7 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 969.]

Would it be sensible to accept amendments such as those proposed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, or can we rely on the Housing Corporation—the sector's regulator—to ensure that registered social landlords are delivering on that matter and, especially, on their prime function of ensuring that housing need is met?

As a result of deliberations and subsequent parliamentary questions that I asked, it is clear that the Government are keen for the housing regulator to have more teeth to ensure that registered social landlords meet their obligations. Prior to deliberations in this Committee, I wrote to the new Minister about the matter to ask whether she could reassure me that the Housing Corporation would have sharp enough teeth to ensure that my concerns would be met by changes to the way that it operates, rather than by amendments.

There are two routes to achieve that. The Housing Corporation's regulatory code is to be amended, and a new draft has been circulated for consultation. My worry is that although the consultation has led to a number of comments, we do not know whether proposals that would sharpen the teeth of the Housing Corporation will be accepted. In the absence of that knowledge, it is difficult to know whether we should support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, or if we can rely on the alternative route.

My concern about the current code that is out for consultation is that while specific reference is made to the importance of meeting housing need, it does not give that the prominence that I, and other organisations including Shelter, would like. A further worry is that there is no performance indicator in the mechanism for such a key task. Do the Minister and the Government wish to see that issue given a higher prominence in the code? What is the Minister's opinion of a performance indicator?

I am grateful for the helpful response to my letter that I received from the Minister on 9 July. In my letter, I raised the second route for beefing up the work of the Housing Corporation with respect to the intended statutory housing management guidance that is to be issued. I asked the Minister when the new draft would be published and consultation would take place. From her helpful response, I understand that the corporation intends to issue the draft statutory housing guidance at the end of this month and that there will be a 12-week consultation period. I am delighted to hear that, and perhaps we should await the responses. Unfortunately, given that we have all agreed that we want a swift passage of the Bill through the House, we will not know the results of the consultation. I would welcome some assurances from the Minister about that matter.

As you will have guessed, Mr. Gale, I am in two minds. On one hand, it is sensible to place the work, the role of and the relationship between registered social landlords firmly in the Bill. On the other hand, I have received strong assurances from the Government that the Housing Corporation will have the necessary teeth to ensure that my concerns are met. The Minister's response will be important in helping me to decide how to vote on the issue, should that be necessary.

I hope that the Minister is willing to ensure that my letter to her, and her response, are placed in the hands of the Housing Corporation, so that they are aware of my concerns. More importantly, in her reply on 9 July, she stated:

``The Corporation is determined to challenge associations which cannot demonstrate that they are fulfilling their primary function of accommodating people in housing need.''

I am delighted that she believes that that is what the corporation will do, but how will the corporation challenge the associations and make sure that they put matters right if they are failing?

The decision on which way to vote is difficult, and I look forward to the Minister's reply. Judging by the helpful responses that I have already received, I suspect that she will be able to persuade me.

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.

Will the Minister give way?

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

I might forget my point.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Will the Minister give way?

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.

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.