I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 11, at end insert

`; and

(d) the availability of housing advice within the district.'.

I shall attempt to be brief. We debated this amendment during the passage of the Homes Bill. The amendment would add a fourth requirement to Clause 2(1). As subsection (1) stands, local authorities would carry out a homelessness review to look at levels of homelessness, the activities that are carried out and the resources available. They should also look at the availability of housing advice in the district.

I do not intend to go over all that again. However, we benefited previously from detailed research carried out by Shelter into the question of housing advice and the massive variations in the quality of that advice throughout the country. People from Shelter told different housing departments that they were single mothers, children or whatever in an attempt to get advice on housing. In one case, a single mother received absolutely dreadful advice that was of no help at all. The only thing that the housing department did right was to give her a customer satisfaction form to fill in on her way out. On the basis of that and other research, there is no doubt that the quality of housing advice often leaves a lot to be desired.

In a previous discussion, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), tried to defuse the argument by talking about a draft of the guidance notes, with which the Committee had been provided. There was much discussion, including comments from the hon. Member for Bath, about whether the draft guidance notes addressed the problem. The then Minister seemed to think that references to sources of data on homelessness dealt with the issue, but seemed to refer to the authority collecting information for its own decision-making purposes.

The Minister stated:

``The availability of housing advice, its quality and extent, should and will have to be considered as part of homelessness reviews.''—[Official Report, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 315.]

As a bold statement of what we want to achieve—and wanted to achieve before—I can do no better than to quote that. That approach must be right, but I remain unclear about how far we have progressed with the draft code.

The Minister concluded his contribution to that debate by asking the hon. Member for Bath:

``Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the notes will be incorporated within the existing code?''—[Official Report, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 316.]

He also promised to check the point.

We never returned to that question in that Committee. We now have a golden opportunity to return to it and to press the Minister to tell us whether the code of conduct has been improved and tightened up on the basis of evidence from Shelter and others.

Many people throughout the country are not receiving the level of housing advice to which they should be entitled. I tabled this probing amendment to give the Minister an opportunity to update the Committee on that point.

The Committee will not be surprised to know that I have tremendous sympathy for the Amendment, not least because it is, word for word, the same as amendment No. 67, which I tabled during the passage of the Homes Bill. I was interested when the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, ``We debated this during the passage of the Homes Bill.'' Indeed we did, but not a single member of the Conservative party took part in it. I am nevertheless delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue so eloquently.

The hon. Gentleman is right that we did not participate in that narrow debate on 30 January, but I spoke at some length—unusually for me—on the Shelter report in another debate, for which I cannot find the reference at the moment. I would not like to mislead the Committee unwittingly by suggesting that this was something that we did not care about.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the issue of the advice given to homeless people was debated on a number of occasions. I clearly remember the lengthy discourse that he gave us on one occasion. If he checks the record, he will find that he was responding to an Amendment moved by a Government Back Bencher. I certainly would not wish to suggest that the matter is insignificant.

As the hon. Member for Eastbourne says, the Government's response last time was that the subject was an argument A case. For Committee members who do not know what it is, argument A is similar to the suggestion that a Christmas tree should be decorated with as many baubles as possible. The problem is that once some baubles have been added, those missed off may seem to some people to be of no importance whatever. That argument has some merit in certain cases.

A more important result of that debate was an absolute assurance from the then Minister that the guidance to be issued to local authorities would include examples of best practice, and firm advice to ensure that that best-practice approach was adopted by local authorities. That Committee was told that copies of the revised guidance would be circulated later. My question to the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), whom we welcome to his place, is this: have the Government adhered to the undertaking given by his predecessor, and will it be possible for Committee members to see the most up-to-date version of the guidance so that we can be sure that those assurances have been followed through?

May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) to express my pleasure at serving on the Bill? I am pleased to be working with my hon. Friend in supporting the Bill in Committee.

As has been pointed out, the Amendment is similar to—in fact, identical to—that which was moved during the passage of the Homes Bill. In that respect, I am entirely with the hon. Member for Eastbourne in singing the praises of the film ``Groundhog Day''. It is a fine film, second only in its genre to the John Landis classic ``Three Amigos!''. The amendment reminds me of one of those sequences in ``Groundhog Day'' in which the events were slightly different but the outcome was the same.

Like the last General Election.

Out of human kindness and sympathy, I did not draw that analogy, but as it is on the record, I am happy to endorse it.

Effectively, the Clause is a transfer from Bath to Eastbourne. If that were a football transfer, it would not raise much money. Nevertheless, the arguments raised during debates on the Homes Bill are pertinent to today's discussion. It might be helpful if I briefly set out the aims of the clause.

Hon. Members may note that the clause already contains a number of broad points on guidance. It sets out the matters that local housing authorities must address when conducting a homelessness review. It specifies the purpose of such a review and it provides for the results of the review to be made public. The clause sets out the key steps that authorities should take to acquire reliable information and a sound understanding of the essential bases for formulating an effective strategy to resolve homelessness.

Subsection (1) specifies that a homelessness review

``means a review by the local housing authority of—

(a) the levels, and the likely future levels, of homelessness in their district''.

The authority must also review the activities carried out for the various purposes set out in clause 2(2). The review must include a review of the resources available to the authority, the social services authority for their district, other public authorities, voluntary organisations and other persons for the various purposes set out in clause 2(2).

The purposes of homelessness reviews are set out in subsection (2). They are:

``preventing homelessness in the district . . . ;

(b) securing that accommodation is or will be available for people in the district who are or may become homeless;

(c) providing support for people in the district—

(i) who are or may become homeless; or

(ii) who have been homeless and need support to prevent them becoming homeless again.''

According to clause 2(3), once a review has been completed, the authority must provide for

``the results of the review to be available at its principal office for inspection at all reasonable hours, without charge, by members of the public''.

The authority must also provide

``(on payment if required by the authority of a reasonable charge) a copy of those results to any member of the public who asks for one.''

Taken together, those requirements provide a firm basis for drawing up homelessness strategies. They are the basic steps required. Individual authorities, having taken account of their local circumstances, may want to broaden the reviews to cover other matters, and I would encourage them to do so.

The Amendment covers an important issue and it is good that we have another opportunity to discuss it. We intend that the provisions should do more than address the consequences of homelessness; they should help to avert it. Prevention, through advice and assistance, and through multi-agency working, will be an important aspect of all homelessness strategies and reviews. The availability, quality and extent of housing advice should all be considered as part of a homelessness review.

However, it is not necessary to list in the Bill every issue that should be addressed in a review. I take the view that housing advice falls clearly under clause 2(1)(b) if it is read alongside clause 2(2)(c)—the requirement that reviews must consider the activities carried out for the purpose of providing support for people in the district who are, or may become, homeless. We will, however, ensure that that is fully addressed in the revised code of guidance.

We will, however, ensure that that is fully addressed in the revised code of guidance. To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Bath, I have taken note of the passage at column 316 of Hansard, in which my predecessor as Minister said that concerns would be incorporated in revised guidance. I understand that that revised guidance has not yet been finalised, but once it is available I shall ensure that hon. Members are given it as soon as possible.

Would it not have made enormous sense to make the redraft guidance available to the Committee? As the Minister acknowledged, the issue was flagged up before the election. Civil servants have a break from politicians during a General Election. Surely the guidance could have been prepared. Will it be available before the end of the Committee stage, or at least before the Bill completes its passage through the House?

The hon. Gentleman says that the guidance could have been completed during the election, but, as he reminded the House before the election, his party was about to become the Government, and I am not sure that it would have been appropriate for civil servants to work hard on guidance that related to a Bill that had at that stage fallen, when, according to his best estimates, his party was about to become the party of Government. Unfortunately for him, that event did not come to pass—

The Minister cannot get away with that. Civil servants were clearly working on some parts of the Bill, because, despite its non-appearance in the Queen's Speech, it popped—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bath must contain his excitement. As the Bill popped up as the first of the Session, that explanation will not wash.

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that a proper protocol applies during elections. If at that point no signs suggested that the Bill would proceed, it would have been improper for the civil service to assume that the Labour party would win the General Election and would immediately reintroduce the Bill to Parliament and complete the revised guidance relevant to that Bill. In saying that my explanation will not wash, the hon. Gentleman widens the boundaries of proper civil service behaviour and of what I am sure he and I would agree is the right action to take.

I do not want to incur your wrath, Mr. Gale, but someone somewhere amended the Bill. The Bill is not word for word the same as part II of the Homes Bill. Is the Minister saying that no such work was done during the General Election campaign or since the previous Bill fell and that all the work has been done since Labour won the election? If so, I accept his assurance immediately.

That is my understanding. I am not privy to the detailed day-to-day workings of the civil service, and I cannot categorically say that no civil servant gave—

You are a Minister.

To respond to that sedentary Intervention, I was not privy to the daily workings of the civil service during the last election but was out on the road trying to get elected, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman was.

Will the Minister give way?

Order. The argument is becoming circular and far removed from the Amendment. It is time to move on.

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I am delighted to accept your guidance.

The issue is whether the proposal set forth in the Amendment should be contained in the Bill or in guidance. During consideration of the Homes Bill it was suggested that some elements were already contained in the draft guidance and would be more fully placed in the revised guidance. The Bill itself strongly infers that local authorities should look for the availability of housing advice within their districts. Therefore, provided that we give an assurance—as we have already done—that the issue will be fully addressed in the revised guidance, it is reasonable that we should ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne was rightly chided for pursuing a particular avenue of debate. That must have been right because it was your ruling, Mr. Gale. However, the hon. Gentleman asked a perfectly reasonable question about whether the revised guidance would be available at some stage during the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament. Will the Minister at least assure us that an opportunity will be given to see that draft guidance before it becomes impossible to raise the concerns that we have been discussing?

Order. Before the Minister responds to that Intervention, I should make the Chair's position plain. The Minister cannot be responsible for what a Government Department was doing during an election when he was not a Minister in that Department. That is why I felt that the argument was becoming circular. However, the Chair takes the view that, when guidance notes are issued in relation to a Bill, those notes should be made available to Committee members as soon as practicably possible.

Thank you, Mr. Gale. As far as I know, the revised guidance will be available before the Bill's passage through the House is completed. I would like to ensure that I can make the revised guidance available on that understanding, so I shall write to the hon. Members concerned. That is my understanding of the situation.

Well, it took a while to get there, but it would be churlish not to thank the Minister for his remarks. We may have a much shorter debate on that basis. I do not want to reopen the argument, but it would have been nice if the point had been thought of, as it was clearly flagged up in the previous debate. Otherwise, what point do these debates serve—even debates on previous versions of Bills?

I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that draft notes will be available before completion of the Bill's passage through the House. It is probably optimistic to expect them during the course of this week, although that would be nice. It seems that we shall not return to consideration of the Bill until after the summer recess, so that should give abundant time to produce draft notes. If we could have them at some time during the summer recess—though perhaps not in August—that would be helpful.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 11, at end insert

`; and

(d) the number of empty properties in their district.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 15, in Clause 3, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

`(5A) In formulating a homelessness strategy the authority shall make specific reference to—

(a) the extent and nature of empty housing and vacant property within their district across all sectors and tenures;

(b) targets for the re-use of such properties for residential purposes; and

(c) a strategy for action to achieve the targets set out in paragraph (b) above, including action by any public authority, voluntary organisation or other body or person whose activities are capable of contributing to the achieving of these objectives.'.

All members of the Committee are well aware that helping homeless people is not only a matter of finding a roof to put over their heads; those people need a wide range of additional services and support. Nevertheless, finding a place for them to live is important. In an earlier deliberation, we discussed the number of affordable houses being built, so we should now consider other resources that might be available to provide such accommodation.

One obvious resource is the large number of properties that currently stand empty. All Committee members will recognise that the figures are stark. There are well over 100,000 homeless families in the country, yet we have a staggering 750,000 empty properties. Clearly, when tackling homelessness, it makes a great deal of sense that the homelessness review and strategy should incorporate methods to bring empty homes back into use. A range of possibilities could achieve that, and it would be beyond the scope of even your patience, Mr. Gale, if I went through a list of those. However, hon. Members will be aware of many possible strategies that could be adopted by central Government and local government.

The Empty Homes Agency estimates that only half of local housing authorities currently have a strategy for effectively bringing empty homes and properties into use, which is why I moved Amendment No. 14. Nevertheless, I am conscious that amendment No. 15, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), is also being considered and I believe that it is far preferable and more satisfactory than amendment No. 14. While I have had the opportunity to introduce the issue, I would hate to steal the hon. Gentleman's thunder. I hope that I can withdraw my amendment and that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to press his to a Division.

I thank the hon. Member for Bath for his generous tribute. I would not support his Amendment, so he is kind to say that he would support mine instead.

Amendment No. 15 suggests that a specific reference to the problem of tackling empty homes in this country should be in the Bill. It contains a reference to local authorities adopting targets for reducing the number of empty homes, which is present to give the amendment teeth—it is meaningless without that.

I shall give a dozen reasons why the amendment should be in the Bill once it has completed its passage through both Houses. As the hon. Member for Bath said, nearly 750,000 properties stand empty yet, every year, local authorities accept over 100,000 families as homeless. We owe it to those people to try everything possible and to use all the available resources to help them find homes to live in. It makes sense to make the best use of existing resources. There are homes standing empty that could be used for people to live in. There would be no problems of finding money to build houses or of shortage of land—the houses are waiting to be used.

If we took a poll of public opinion anywhere in the country and under any conditions, we would find that they overwhelmingly want empty houses to be used, especially ahead of building new houses near them. The public would support the provision. When we debated the Bill on Second Reading, 10 hon. Members referred specifically to the need to do something about homes that stand empty. That represents a sizeable proportion of the hon. Members who took part in the debate.

Despite the considerable successes of the Empty Homes Agency, to which the hon. Member for Bath also referred, there has not been a noticeable reduction in the number of properties that stand empty. The Empty Homes Agency has encouraged local authorities around the country to adopt strategies to deal with empty homes in their areas, and has had the backing of Ministers. However, only about half of all authorities have adopted a strategy that the Empty Homes Agency reckons is worth the paper on which it is written. Conversely, half of all authorities left to do this voluntarily have not bothered to do it. That is why a specific reference in an Act of Parliament is needed to make the others comply.

The next reason is that an empty homes strategy is enormously complementary to the Bill's purpose of dealing with the problems of homelessness. Another reason is that it would help us to focus attention on the solutions to ending the scandal of empty homes, and would therefore give people the impetus to think about how the total number of empty properties could be reduced. A further reason is that solutions are needed to make a difference, because, despite the successes of the Empty Homes Agency and the fact that Ministers have backed its work, the number of properties standing empty stays stubbornly at about 750,000 every year—it may increase a little one year and decrease a little the next, but Members do not have to worry about looking up the latest figure each time they debate the issue because 750,000 remains pretty close to the mark.

The Empty Homes Bill, which I introduced during the 1999 Session, suggested solutions such as giving local authorities the power to vary the council tax payable on empty properties and extending slightly the power of compulsory purchase to allow local authorities to take up empty properties, even against the wishes of the owner who would prefer that it stood empty. The beauty of that Bill, I always felt, was that, even then, it required local authorities to have an empty homes strategy. The exercise of the powers to reach those solutions was tied to the strategy. Therefore, the purpose of the strategy is therefore to focus the powers which I submit a local authority should have in order to tackle the problem.

The ninth reason of my dozen reasons is that residents who live in streets and estates where properties stand empty would will us to do something about such properties. I know of areas with lots of empty properties that blight the estates or streets where people live. For the astonishment of Committee members, however, I shall refer to an article that appeared last week in my local newspaper, the Staffordshire Newsletter, under the headline, ``Pensioner to put `eyesore' home on the market.'' It tells the story of a well-built 1930s house that has stood empty for more than 20 years in an attractive part of Stafford, apparently as a kind of monument to a deceased husband. The local authority is powerless to do anything about it, and the residents are tearing their hair out.

The next reason is that all those homeless people who walk past empty homes in their homeless wanders would want us to do everything that we can to make those homes available for use. Craig Whitlock, a homeless person, came to my surgery on Saturday and told me that, during the time that he has been homeless, he has witnessed the deaths of 12 of his homeless friends while waiting for the local council to help by providing a property to live in.

My penultimate reason is that the Bill would be better if the amendment were included. To complete my dozen reasons, and to try to attract the Minister's attention and support for my amendment, this would be a popular measure that would enhance the Minister's reputation—and make her popular, too—were she to agree to the amendment. Given such a compelling final reason, I hope that she will say something helpful in response.

I want to speak briefly to Amendment No. 15 tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford, but not without wholeheartedly agreeing with the hon. Member for Bath that Liberals do not necessarily make the best amendments. We are minded to support the wise words of the hon. Member for Stafford. I commend him for his work during the previous Parliament on his Empty Homes Bill.

We are all aware of the Empty Homes Agency, a worthwhile organisation that was set up under the Conservative Government in 1992. It undertakes exceedingly helpful and useful work. It introduced the London empty homes hotline and it places emphasis on converting commercial buildings to residential homes. Given all the pressures on green-field space for new house building, it seems absurd that only about 13 per cent. of new residential homes are the result of the conversion of mainly commercial buildings, which we certainly support.

We have only to read the Empty Homes Agency report to see the cycle of decline that leaving homes empty brings about. It is not just the fact that they are eyesores or the cost that is estimated at about £7,018 a year to keep a house empty, but the general degradation of an area that ensues as a result of a run-down house becoming a dumping ground and a target for graffiti, young kids, drugs and so on. Such conversions must be a priority. Given our previous discussions on the Homes Bill, I am amazed that the Government have not included in the Bill as part of their homelessness strategy a measure to tackle empty homes.

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the work of the Empty Homes Agency, I should like him to mention its great talent for shining a light on those who allow properties to stand empty. The agency's most recent report refers to a special dishonours award, and I shall not embarrass those at the NHS trust to which it alludes who left property standing empty opposite the building in which it held a meeting to discuss the problems of accommodation for its staff. My Amendment would help local authorities to replicate the practice of shining a light on bad practice throughout the country.

That is absolutely right. There are two sides to the Empty Homes Agency. Last year, I was asked to speak at its annual conference in London when it gave awards for best practice and disawards for worst practice. It cited practical examples of how often small groups—not great authorities—came up with imaginative ideas and advice on how to convert eyesores into liveable residential dwellings.

The Government have had a second chance to deal with the homelessness problem, and I am amazed that they have not included a proposal about empty properties in the Bill, because the situation has become worse. The number of people who are homeless has increased. At the end of last year, 71, 890 people had been placed in temporary accommodation at a cost of £375 million at a time when the number of empty properties had increased, too—the general ballpark figure being 750,000. I am talking about a time when economic activity was high and money was likely to be around to convert empty housing into liveable housing, but that has not been happening. The urgent need for empty properties to be dealt with has heightened, yet there is no mention of that in the Bill.

When we discussed the subject in connection with the previous Bill, I talked about my experience in Sheffield. I was a parliamentary candidate in Sheffield, Brightside in 1991 but, alas, I failed to unseat the incumbent, who is now the Home Secretary. My photo call was in a street in Sheffield, Brightside that was virtually full of empty boarded-up houses with weeds growing in the roads. About a year ago, in my new position on the Opposition front bench, I visited the same street in Sheffield and had a photograph taken. The only difference was that a few more houses were boarded up, more tiles were missing from the roofs and the tarmac road was indistinguishable from a grass road. That is a testimony to 50 years of Labour government in Sheffield that has not been helped by the past four years of a central Labour Government. Those empty houses added to the degradation of the area at the same time as green fields on the outskirts of Sheffield were concreted over for new, largely executive housing, so the problem is getting worse.

I fear that the Minister will not seize her hon. Friend's Amendment with enormous alacrity, as she should. What are the Government doing about the empty housing problem? We were promised legislation following the pre-Budget report last year, but what resulted was a ``tinkering on the edges'' pledge about reducing taxes on properties that had been continuously empty for more than 10 years. That involves only a small number, because of the difficulty of proving that a property has been empty for such a long time.

We were also promised stamp duty exemptions on properties in areas of deprivation, which would help with the problem of homelessness and could be targeted at empty homes. We were promised that by April, but still we do not have the definitions of where those areas of deprivation are or where the tax reliefs are supposed to apply. Has the Minister any hot news as to when we can expect those definitions?

Conservative Members want to see a more concerted effort at homesteading, so that a larger proportion of the three-quarters of a million empty homes can more urgently be taken over by young homeless people, or couples, who have little prospect of getting on the first rung of the housing ladder. In return for zero or reduced rents or shared ownership, those people would spend their resources, with grants and help, on doing up those empty properties to make them habitable. The Government have made no mention of homesteading. They have been silent on the issue, even though it would be a practical solution to the homelessness problem.

In his Intervention, the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned the worst offenders list. The Government must take a lead and, literally, put their own house in order. The NHS and the Ministry of Defence are two of the worst offenders—approximately 11 per cent. of their properties are empty. That is more than twice the level that one might expect from the private sector, despite all the stuff that we hear from the Government about the problem of affordable housing for key public service workers, especially in my part of the world, in the south-east and in London. What initiatives have the Minister or her predecessor taken to make some of that empty housing available as affordable housing to key public service workers? When will the Government lead by their own example?

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford is long overdue and should have been included in the Bill. We have heard a lot of waffle and seen little action from the Government in tackling the homelessness problem and it has been left to agencies to do something about it. Given the revelation that, at best, a half of housing authorities have regard to an empty homes strategy as part of their homelessness strategy, this debate will send a strong signal and give a clear lead that dealing with empty properties is a fundamental part of dealing with homelessness. The strategy already exists—there is no need to wait for the funds to build new houses.

The Minister cannot even tell us how many new houses will be built. It is rather an admission that the new Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for housing has no idea—she is probably being given some in-flight refuelling—how many houses we can expect from the Government, given their appalling record of the reduced number of houses built in the past four years. Conservative Members thoroughly commend the hon. Gentleman's amendment, and we hope that he is not intimidated by his Whips on the Front Bench into wimping-out by withdrawing it.

The two amendments touch upon an extremely important issue. There is an obvious contradiction in having large numbers of homeless people and large numbers of empty properties. It is the intention of the Government—and, I believe, most local authorities—to ensure that the lowest number of properties are empty at any given time. The amendments seek to focus authorities' thoughts on such matters.

As I discuss the amendments, I shall deal with some of the general points that were made by hon. Members, all of which are pertinent to the effort to grapple with the difficulties of housing homeless people and dealing with empty properties. Everybody involved in housing at the present time has to address those problems.

There are two reasons why I do not support Amendment No. 14, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bath. First, in many authorities' areas, the number of empty properties can swiftly and sharply fluctuate and, therefore, the figures can rapidly become outdated. Secondly, we should not be overly prescriptive with regard to instructing local authorities about the content of their strategies. That should be determined by them in the light of their circumstances, such as the number of homeless people in their areas and the type and nature of their housing stock. They should be allowed to exercise their best judgment about how to deal with the difficulties that they face. The most important elements of the strategy are covered by the legislation; further elements might be considered as guidance—and an instruction that relates to the number of empty properties will certainly be considered.

Similar concerns are raised, and similar ground is more explicitly covered, in amendment No. 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's lengthy and strong track record of action with regard to the issue, and I agree with him that local authorities should make every effort to bring empty homes back into fruitful use. We encourage them to do that through the housing investment programme, and we expect authorities to demonstrate their commitment to tackling the problem of empty properties by having a clear strategy that matches resources to the scale of the problems in their districts. Authorities are also required to report the number of homes in their area that have been empty for more than six months and that have been brought back into use as a consequence of their actions.

I expect the homelessness strategy to address the extent and nature of empty housing and vacant properties in an authority's district. However, the ways in which that is employed to address homelessness will vary across the country—as will the cost-effectiveness of the different possible solutions. Issues such as empty properties require different strategies and approaches in high-demand and low-demand areas. I am sure that all Committee members can recount anecdotes about the empty properties problem. One of my first actions as Minister responsible for housing was to travel extensively, particularly around the north of England, to gain a clear understanding of the key factors with regard to the problem of empty properties. Local authorities should focus on the issues that are important in their areas so that they can take the appropriate local action.

I agree with the Minister's point, but it is the same as the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford in phrasing his Amendment. Local authorities should not be confronted with prescribed ways to deal with empty homes; they should be allowed to deal with the extent and nature of empty housing and vacant property within their particular districts across sectors and tenures.

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, as it gives me another chance to address the matter. The central issue concerns whether such instructions should be included in the Bill or in guidance. The Bill should include only matters of a strategic nature: it should not be overly prescriptive about problems that might vary from one part of the country to another. For example, bed-and-breakfast accommodation is a major issue, but in the north of England there are major—and sometimes more complex—issues concerning empty properties.

I will borrow the example that was offered by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) to illustrate to him the complexity of the problems. He mentioned that, when he visited Sheffield, he noticed that there were many empty properties in the city, but executive homes were being built in the green belt. There is no possibility of getting people who are thinking of buying an executive home in a nice country area to move into a tower block in the middle of a town; that is not remotely on the cards. Real thought must be given to quality and choice, which apply as much to areas of high demand as low demand, however much pressure there is on housing stock.

I accept that what the Minister said may be the case in certain circumstances. However, even with her limited experience in the post but from a wider experience of life, the Minister will be aware of a large number of converted tower blocks and warehouse conversions that are now occupied by people who have paid large sums to live there. I do not believe that the general thrust of her argument holds up strongly.

From my wide experience of life, the most spectacular example of tower blocks being converted and brought into use is in Wandsworth. Those were not used to rehouse homeless people, but were sold off at high prices. If we are to tackle the deep-seated problems of homeless people, we must carefully examine solutions that include the nature of the property and the people who are homeless. Decisions about that are best made by the local authority, and all suggestions for the way forward can be made in clear guidance more properly than in the Bill. That includes the matter of homesteading, which some authorities are examining. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is correct that I have been given in-flight fuelling, and I can tell him that the target is to provide at least 100,000 new or improved homes for low-cost renting or home ownership. The Housing Corporation's target is 63,700 homes. Perhaps more importantly in response to his point, the NHS starter homes initiative is for around 10,000 key workers.

Authorities should take a view about what is important to their area, and it does not do to make primary legislation too prescriptive. I am not persuaded that every issue that should be addressed in a review or strategy should be listed in the Bill. However, we will ensure that that is fully addressed in the revised points of guidance, which I am sure deals with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.

My hon. Friend says that guidance will deal with the matter and she has pointed out how in the past, the Government have given guidance to local authorities about strategically tackling the problem of empty homes. There has even been the stimulus of linking that to local authorities' housing investment programme allocations. What does the Minister think of the Empty Homes Agency's assessment that half of all authorities do not have an empty homes strategy? That is the best argument for why a measure is needed in the Bill.

I understand that while housing authorities produce housing strategies, not all necessarily produce homelessness strategies. Placing the duty on them to produce such strategies, with guidance for how that should be carried out, is the best way to ensure that local authorities seriously examine the matter of empty properties. That is a particular pressure point in some parts of the country, although not in others.

On that basis, I ask that the Amendment be withdrawn.

We have had a useful debate. I especially commend the contribution of the hon. Member for Stafford and also that of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. The both raised the importance of the issue and the increasingly urgent need to tackle it. The Minister's response is unsurprising. It is similar to those we heard in previous debates from others who occupied his post. Our good friend argument A is, on this occasion eloquently expressed by the Minister, that only significant strategic issues should be specified in the Bill, and that everything else should be covered in guidance. Tackling the huge problem of empty homes and linking that with dealing with the significant problem of homelessness is a strategic issue that deserves to be specified in the Bill.

I intend to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Stafford does not believe that if he presses his amendment and, as I hope, receives the support of many members of the Committee, a hole will open up beneath him and the sky will fall down. I assure him that it will not and that, if he is prepared to press his amendment, he will be surprised by the large number of people who will support him in achieving something for which he has long fought. Today he has the opportunity to deliver it, and we wish him well. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

If the hon. Member for Stafford wants to press Amendment No. 15 to a Division, he should tell the Chair at the appropriate time, which will be when we discuss Clause 3, not now. He may then move his amendment formally, which I would be prepared to accept, but that is, of course, a decision entirely for him.

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—

`(d) providing for the welfare of animals under the control of homeless persons.'.

You, Mr. Gale, may have done so before I arrived—as I said, I was attending an Adjournment Debate—but the last time we discussed a similar amendment, you disclosed an interest as it related to animals, and you may wish to do so again. If you do not, I shall continue. I, however, disclose an interest.

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. I had not spotted the Amendment, but it is well known that as the chairman of an animal welfare organisation I have an interest in homeless people and pets. I do not recall that causing a problem for the Committee when we discussed the matter previously, and I trust that it will not do so this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I thought it a good opportunity to re-emphasise your commitment to animal welfare. As you know, I have a great deal in common with you, and I disclose an interest too, although it is much more humble than yours. I support a charity in my Constituency—an organisation called Canine Partners for Independence—that has been adopted by the mayor of Worthing. It is a highly worthwhile organisation that trains dogs to perform duties in the home for people with disabilities. It does truly remarkable work and is desperately short of money. Anyone who would like to donate can ask me for the details afterwards.

As we discussed during consideration of the previous incarnation, the Homes Bill, we believe that homelessness reviews should mention animal welfare considerations. Such considerations can take two forms—homeless people who are rough sleepers, whom many of us see every day, who often have dogs with them, and people on homeless lists, such as elderly single people or families, who have a pet as part of their family from whom they are loth to be separated. In both cases, because of the framing of homelessness priorities and a shortage of accommodation, those people find themselves in a less beneficial place in the queue to secure accommodation.

In 1991, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), was the Minister with responsibility for housing. His triumphs in reducing the number of rough sleepers in London from 1,000 to 286—as it was estimated when the programme was completed in 1996—are well documented. During his tenure, a hostel was set up in east London that dealt specifically with rough sleepers who had accompanying pets and it proved a great success. The previous Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East gave us examples of where that initiative has been replicated in other cities.

Rough sleepers may be loth to go into the hostels provided because they do not want to be separated from their pets. The providers of such accommodation must make a value judgment as to whether the dog—as it usually is—is an essential attachment to the rough sleeper or whether it is there for business reasons, because a hungry-looking dog pulls at the hearts of potential donors.

A more widespread problem involves people on the homeless register who are offered an 11th floor flat in a tower block, for example, who may have a dog that they regard as a companion and part of the family. Such cases may involve families or, more likely, a widow or widower who has replaced a human partner with a canine partner. It can cause enormous distress if the accommodation offered specifically excludes pets. Similarly, there is little prospect of people being able to take a pet into bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

Homelessness reviews should include recognition of the problems of rough sleepers or people who find themselves homeless through no fault of their own and who are attached to pets and become trapped in a cycle of homelessness. When I last raised the matter, the Minister's predecessor said in his closing response to me:

``local authorities should cover this issue, along with others, in the guidance that they draw up as part of their strategy.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 319.]

He did not think that it should be built into primary legislation.

In keeping with the theme of our discussion about guidance, if the Minister is not minded to accept our Amendment—as I have a hunch is the case—perhaps he or she could give some indication as to the possible success of ensuring that local authorities include in their guidance some recognition of the problems that can be posed by homeless people who have pets, and who are therefore excluded from the various homes that are offered.

I cannot declare an interest in the Amendment because my cat ran away during the General Election. [Hon. Members: ``Why?''] It could not stand Conservative canvassers knocking on the door. It is a matter of considerable personal grief. I am sure that the Committee does not wish to dwell too deeply on the matter, so I hope that it will be passed by.

I am indebted to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for his brevity. He has a fetching pair of watches on his cufflinks, so each time that he scratches his ear he must be aware of the passing of time. I am also aware that the issue is important, although some people may not believe that it is the most essential strategic subject in connection with homelessness. The amendment would place on local authorities, as part of their statutory duties to undertake homelessness reviews, a specific requirement to review provision for the welfare of animals under the control of homeless persons. It is true that a number of homeless people have pets and are very attached to them. It is important that local authorities endeavour to ensure that those placed in temporary accommodation can keep their pets, as far as that is possible and reasonable, but whether there should be a statutory requirement to do so is another matter.

I know that such matters are of particular concern to many elderly people and it is important that local authorities make proper provision and treat the issue with sensitivity. Attachment to pets is often a substantial barrier to help people get off the streets and several local authorities have made specific provision to deal with it, such as providing kennels with night shelters or removing the ``no animals'' Clause from registered social landlord tenancy agreements. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, in the previous debate mention was made of hostels and move-on accommodation in Leicester, Manchester, London and elsewhere. Such provision has, on occasions, proved important in ensuring that people move from the streets.

However, that is different from whether it is appropriate to place such a requirement in primary legislation or to give it more prominence than many other important matters that local housing authorities will have to deal with when drawing up their homelessness reviews. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. I fully recognise his concerns, but I believe that it is a matter that can be dealt with through guidance, as is our intention. The draft guidance on homelessness reviews and strategy will be issued towards the end of October, soon after Parliament returns from the summer recess, and will thus be available before the Bill has completed its passage through the House. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister. I could be impertinent and repeat the comments that I made to his predecessor last time we discussed the matter, but I am pleased that he has acknowledged its importance, that it has been taken seriously and that the message will go out to local authorities. However, as with so much else that we have discussed this morning, we wait with bated breath for guidance procedures if they are to be issued before the end of October—hopefully, before the Bill has been discussed on Report and Third Reading. In giving us the date, I hope that the Minister is guaranteeing that we shall have sight of the draft guidance before the Bill leaves this place, so that we can have the opportunity, if some of his promises are not down in black and white in the guidance, to take them up with him on the Floor of the House.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to One o'clock till this day at half-past Four o'clock.