I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 14, line 3, at end insert—

`In section 190 (duties to persons becoming homeless intentionally), after subsection (3) there is inserted—

``(4) In any case where the local housing authority are advised by a social services authority that a child who is in need within the meaning of section 17(10) of the Children Act 1989 resides with an applicant to whom they have secured that accommodation is available under subsection (2) above, they shall—

(a) continue to secure that accommodation is available for the occupation of the applicant and any such child for so long as the social services authority advise them that accommodation is required to enable the social services authority to provide services to such a child to promote or safeguard the child's welfare; or

(b) provide such assistance to the social services authority as shall enable the applicant to secure that accommodation becomes available from some other person.''.'.

The Minister will be aware that recent judgments appear to have compromised some of the principles of the Children Act 1989, which places the interests of children first and seeks to keep families together wherever possible. The amendment deal with the effects of such judgments, thereby ensuring that at least some safety net continues to exist for families with children who have intentionality decisions taken against them.

In an application for judicial review, the Court of Appeal found that section 17 of the 1989 Act conferred a power rather than a duty on local authorities to provide assistance to families of children in need. That is often done by financial assistance for a rent deposit, with rent or other help in accessing private accommodation, rather than the direct provision of accommodation. The Court of Appeal also found that the duty to provide accommodation under section 20 of the 1989 Act was a duty to house the child, not the parent and child together. Only a few weeks ago, the High Court applied that judgment and concluded that such decisions of local authorities were not subject to judicial review.

The provisions of the 1989 Act were an important last line of defence for families, so those decisions are worrying and may have caused—we will find out if the loophole is closed—children to be taken into care unnecessarily. That will cause great trauma for the families, not to mention expense. The problem, as Shelter makes clear, is that intentionality decisions are complex and are not infrequently overturned on review. Unfortunately, giving local authorities the power rather than imposing a duty on them to make assessments will allow much greater scope for variation.

Assessments made by authorities whose decisions may be less robust could leave families in a difficult position. Only last week, a family attended my surgery; the man, who was born and bred in Paddington, and his Swedish wife, who allegedly had left private rented accommodation in Sweden, were on the streets in my Constituency with a small child. I have no idea whether the local authority's intentionality decision was correct. I am not a lawyer and I do not know whether the child would have been found to be at risk under the Children Act and that action should therefore be taken. However, regardless of whether that decision was correct, the family was sitting in my office in hysterics with nowhere to sleep that night and a six-year-old child attending a school in my constituency had, for the previous few weeks, been moved every night to sleep on a sofa in a friend's accommodation.

We must do everything possible to close the loopholes that allow that sort of thing to happen. Ideally, we would close those loopholes by amending the Children Act, but we cannot do that and amendment No. 16 would not be as effective. However, it would help by replacing the weaker power of local authorities to assist by inserting the word ``duty''. It would thereby ensure that a safety net was always in place.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that issue to my attention. I share her concerns that social legislation should provide a safety net for those in need. That is why the Bill introduces important new measures to give greater protection to the homeless. The issues raised by my hon. Friend concern the detailed working of the Children Act 1989 and the Amendment was prompted by concern over recent court decisions. The courts have considered the nature of the obligation of social services authorities under that Act to provide accommodation and financial support for children in need, particularly if parents are unable to secure accommodation and if local authorities are obliged to help under existing housing legislation.

If a housing authority has decided that an adult applicant is intentionally homeless and if he or she has dependent children, it is common for an approach to be made by such a family to the local social services authority. Social service departments are under a general duty to promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need and to promote the upbringing of such children by their families. The vehicle for the provision of a range and level of services appropriate to the children's needs is section 17 of the Children Act. That allows local authorities to fulfil their general duty by giving assistance in kind or, in exceptional cases, in cash. It does not specify that assistance should extend to accommodation for the family of the child in need, although that is one of a range of solutions that the social services will use if it is considered appropriate in the circumstances.

When a child in need is without accommodation, authorities are under a duty to provide accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act, but accommodation may not be provided if the person with parental responsibility for the child objects and is willing and able to provide accommodation or arrange for accommodation to be provided for the child. That duty to accommodate is clearly a duty to the child and not to the parents of that child. It is most generally used when the children have been abandoned or if their parents are unable or unwilling to care for them.

I admit to no expertise in these provisions; that resides with my colleagues in the Dept of Health. I want to consider with them the issues that form the background to my hon. Friend's amendment before considering whether we need to amend existing legislation, and if so whether an amendment to housing legislation is the way to do it. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I will consider the issues carefully and report to the House before the Bill is considered in Another place.

With that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

May I, on behalf of the Committee thank the Officers of the House, the Hansard reporters and the Clerks for their assistance. On this occasion I would like particularly to thank Mr. Nick Walker for his assistance. Mr. Walker, as hon. Members may or may not know, is effectively leaving the House of Commons for parliamentary duties in Europe. I am sure that all Members will wish him well in those ventures.

This has been a short, but extremely worthwhile, scrutiny of the Bill, Mr. Gale. We started, of course, with the Homes Bill, which was being drafted by counsel and polished in Committees in the last Parliament. We have benefited greatly from that earlier exhaustive examination and I am sure that the debate will continue as to which of the two Opposition parties was most responsible for some of the changes made.

Hon. Members have sought to perfect the Bill even further, to remove every possible flaw, and to cover all possible eventualities. It is traditional for the winding-up to be light hearted, but jokes are not my stock in trade, as hon. Members are probably relieved to learn. However, one of the features of the discussions of the Bill was that—perhaps uniquely—virtually every element has related to our experience as Constituency Members. That has been reflected by all the contributions to the debate and by the expertise of Members who have worked in housing and the constant references to postbags and advice surgeries. I am sure that we all look forward to seeing the results of the legislation out in the real world.

I thank you, Mr. Gale, and Mr. Griffiths for your patience in guiding our deliberations. As a novice, I greatly appreciated that. I have also appreciated the contributions from all members of the Committee and I would also like to wish the Clerk well as he moves on from the House. I hope the future passage of the Bill is as trouble free and well managed as it has been in your hands, Mr. Gale, and I hope that you do not have a ``Groundhog Day'' when we all meet again in the Chamber.

I associate myself, Mr. Gale, with the Minister's remarks. I would also like to believe that the legislation will reduce our mailbags and advice surgery lists, but I have a feeling that it will not.

It will make them worse.

As the Minister says, it may actually make them worse. I would like to thank all those involved, including the members of the Committee and of the previous Committee—they left their indelible stamp on the Bill before it even got to this Committee. I would also like to join in thanking the Clerks, particularly in wishing Mr. Walker well, and the other officials, the Hansard reporters and the police—everybody involved.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Gale, and your two colleagues, for your out of the ordinary patience in having sat through these proceedings more than once. I hope that the sense of deja vu has not been too strong. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for Aberavon for their maiden Committee contributions. I suspect that they will not serve on many Standing Committees that will be as short and pithy as this one.

We have made the Bill better and more effective over the course of two Committee stages. Finally, Mr. Gale, I hope that it has not seemed too much like ``Groundhog Day'' to you and your two colleagues. We thank you for your deliberations and your help in assisting us to a speedy conclusion.

I would like to associate myself, Mr. Gale, with the thanks that have been offered by both the Minister and the hon. Member for Eastbourne. The hon. Gentleman's list was so long that I thought for moment that he was going to add, ``and you, Mr. Returning Officer,'' at the end of it, but he did not.

I have just one hope—that anyone who reads the record of our deliberations will do so in conjunction with our earlier deliberations on part II of the Homes Bill. It will be important for people reading our deliberations to be aware that significant progress was made at various stages on the original legislation proposed by the Government. Were readers not aware of that, they might gain the impression that we had two Ministers acting like firm stone walls, resisting any Amendment. I was delighted that we ended on a happy note: although the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North was not agreed to, its principle and spirit were accepted by the Government.

Our deliberations, today and previously, have enabled significant progress to be made on an important issue. That will be of enormous benefit to many people in the country. The cause of providing support for homeless people has been extremely well served by all members of the Committee. That has only been possible because we have had serious deliberations in a relatively short time. Thank you, Mr. Gale, for the way in which you chaired the Committee, which enabled those deliberations to take place.

Thank you. I am grateful to all hon. Members for conducting the proceedings with their usual good humour and courtesy.

Bill to be reported, without Amendment.

Committee rose at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock.