Homelessness Reduction Bill (Sixth sitting)

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)]

During my time as a council leader, the Government introduced a number of measures aimed at combating rogue landlords. We have heard real horror stories of how some private landlords are behaving, so those measures were welcome and, in my view, long overdue. That minority of rogue landlords gave the whole industry cause for concern, but the changes mean that local authorities now have experience in and knowledge about dealing with them. Further changes introduced in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 will also help.

That experience will be really important in relation to the clause, because the new prevention and relief duties mean that we are helping to house more people in the private rented sector, and they may be vulnerable. Local authorities will already be checking the suitability of accommodation for those deemed to be in priority need under existing legislation. However, as more people are brought into that classification, it is right to ensure that additional protections apply to people deemed vulnerable, so that we can safeguard them against rogue landlords or unsuitable accommodation.

I am pleased that the provisions are clear about, for example, the need for the property to have fire safety precautions, a gas safety certificate, compliance with electrical safety regulations and precautions against carbon monoxide poisoning. Those are all things we would want in our own homes, and it is right that we seek the same protections for vulnerable people who are going through a difficult time in their lives. I welcome the inclusion of those protections.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, for what we hope is the final day of consideration of the Bill in Committee. I, too, rise to support this important clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South picked up an aspect that I want to touch on briefly, which is carbon monoxide poisoning.

Many of us know either personally or from constituents what a deadly killer carbon monoxide can be. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and others are officers of the all-party parliamentary group on carbon monoxide, and there are a number of similar groups. This issue highlights the importance of ensuring that there are additional protections against rogue landlords.

It is right to say that the Government have already made large steps in that direction, but inserting this provision into article 3 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 will strengthen those protections further. I welcome the other measures in the clause, but the carbon monoxide poisoning provision is particularly worth dwelling on.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South, I used to be a councillor. I recall numerous cases—I am sure we all can, as Members of Parliament—of constituents coming to me about rogue landlords in the private rented sector, where there is a local housing allowance relationship. Part of the problem is that the vast majority of landlords are very good. Rogue landlords—I do not particularly like that term—are a small few, and they give most landlords, who are very good, a bad name. Nevertheless, we have to protect people from those few.

I would rather the legislation went much further. I would like to see local authorities making checks on all the properties they let out, but that would be extremely onerous on local councils and would undermine the premise that the vast majority of people are capable of making those checks themselves and determining whether a property has the necessary gas safety certificate, carbon monoxide detection equipment, smoke alarms and the other things we have come to expect, whether we are renting or own our own properties.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a balancing act? As he says, there are many good landlords out there, but there are a few for whom I believe “rogue landlord” is the right expression. However, in this clause, as in others, it is a matter of getting the balance right, so that we have sufficient landlords—without them there would be no property to rent—but with sufficient safeguards and protections to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected.

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As much as we would like to extend the protections to all, we have a duty to safeguard the most vulnerable—people who are not necessarily able to make those checks or to make informed decisions because of their financial position, a disability, a mental health issue or all sorts of other reasons that mean the council has an additional duty to safeguard them.

I support the clause. As much as I would like to see it go further, I am realistic about what we can achieve. Protecting the most vulnerable is what we should aim to do, and that is exactly what the clause does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I hear the hon. Lady’s point, and that is what the local authorities pray in aid as the reason they are obliged to do as they are doing. Nevertheless, they have duties and legal responsibilities. That is why I am interested in how far the Bill and the measures on vulnerable households will bite and oblige local authorities to look at the matter more seriously, rather than under the banner of “We are pressurised and do not have affordable accommodation”, taking the easier option of putting households in Enfield, for example, which has associated costs.

I have been talking to the Minister and to the relevant director of finance about both the local government finance settlement and this particular issue. I have also talked to the deputy Mayor of London, who I understand has been trying to bring about a more collaborative approach with directors of housing so that they cannot simply come up with the easy excuse of, “It’s just the Government’s fault.” They have legal responsibilities and should not just shunt their problems on to outer London boroughs.

We have had a debate about appropriate location and ensuring that households—particularly vulnerable households—are not moved away from supportive networks in relation to education, as well as other family and care support. How far will clause 12 ensure that Westminster housing officers deciding about vulnerable households will not place them in areas such as Enfield so easily? Yes, with suitability there is an issue of affordability, but there is also an issue of location. When there is a competing interest, which is the one that will really kick in? Can the Minister advise us on the discussions that he is having about ensuring that decisions are appropriate?

The Select Committee recommended that placing vulnerable households away from the area and their supportive networks should be not a first option but a last resort. I do not hear that it is being thought of as a last resort.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend talks about location. Article 3 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 is relevant. He also mentioned houses in multiple occupation. Does he see, when he talks about location—and thinking about neighbours as well—that there would be a difficulty in an extension beyond HMOs, and the licensing regime within that structure? I understand his point about the suitability of the people nearby, but does he recognise that it would be difficult under article 3 to draw provisions as widely as he suggests?

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend is right, but we shall probably hear later about the extent of inspections, and it may well be that when an inspection is done to make normal physical checks, an eye can be given to wider concerns that might affect vulnerable households. The multiple occupation provisions are an issue of licensing—it is a question of checking unlicensed multiple occupation premises. It is important to check that, because it is not surprising that there are extra risks in unlicensed multiple occupation premises, not least for those in recovery or with other needs. It is those unlicensed premises that need attention. The inspection regime will ensure that the current law is extended to vulnerable households and that accommodation in unlicensed houses in multiple occupation will be deemed unsuitable. That will help to ensure that vulnerable households will not be exposed to other risks.

[Michael Tomlinson]

As I understood the point my hon. Friend was making a few moments ago, he was seeking to draw the regime wider than HMOs, whether licensed or unlicensed. Does he not see that, as drafted, article 3 does not catch accommodation that is wider than that, and that there would be difficulty in drawing it more widely? Certainly HMOs, whether licensed or unlicensed, can be looked at, but if we go wider than that it will be very difficult to assess the suitability of accommodation under article 3 by dint of looking at the suitability of the neighbours, unless it is specifically in relation to HMOs.

[Mr Burrowes]

I concede that point. I am trying to encourage us to look at the wider duties in the Bill and its wider application to prevention duties that might assist. I accept my hon. Friend’s point.

This is an important clause and we want to hear from the Minister that we are making the best of what we can do here. I appreciate that we will come to implementation and costs, which must be proportionate. We want to ensure that they are not open-ended. I want to hear from the Minister that he is open to seeing how we can extend the checks to ensure that we do the best for vulnerable households and ensure that they receive suitable accommodation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

The Government welcome the introduction of greater protection for vulnerable persons placed in the private sector under the new homelessness prevention and relief duties. Existing legislation already requires local housing authorities to be satisfied that accommodation is suitable when exercising their part 7 functions on homelessness and the prevention of homelessness in relation to factors such as size of accommodation, affordability and accessibility. I hear what my hon. Friend said and I will certainly go into more depth on his important points. I feel under a little pressure from Conservative Members and get the impression that they have reflected on the comments of the hon. Member for Westminster North, who talked much the same language at our previous sitting.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, when making an offer in the private rented sector for those in priority need under the main homelessness duty, existing legislation also requires local housing authorities to make additional checks to ensure the property is in a reasonable physical condition, and is safe and well managed. The points to be considered are set out in the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012. Local authorities are therefore already used to making those checks and reputable landlords should be readily able to provide the requisite documentation.

I heard the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester and for Chippenham. They are quite right to say that most landlords are extremely responsible and do the right thing by tenants, but we know that 3% of landlords are rogues and do not do the right thing by their tenants. Frankly, the Government want to drive them out of renting property, particularly to vulnerable people. We have taken significant steps to drive out those rogue landlords through the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I will not go into the detail of that Act.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Before the Minister moves on to what the Government are already doing, if I understood and heard him correctly, he said that they deem only 3% of landlords to be rogue landlords. Perhaps he could clarify where that evidence comes from, but if he is right, does he not agree that it is a matter of balance—of making sure that we are not punishing those landlords who are doing a perfectly good job already, and potentially deterring and putting off other people from becoming landlords and providing much-needed accommodation?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. A number of studies have been done around this issue, and that is where the figure of 3% comes from. As Members of this House—I am not, personally, a residential landlord but I know other Members who are—it is easy for us not to understand the challenges of being a residential landlord. The last thing we want to do is drive residential landlords out of the market so that we have less rental property for the people who we are trying to help to access good accommodation.

[Mr Jones]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but my understanding of what I have heard this morning is that Government Members, including myself, are extremely concerned to make sure that people who are vulnerable have the right accommodation and are supported in accessing it. The hon. Lady was on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee in late 2015, before the Bill became an Act in 2016, so she will know that local authorities now have a real incentive to tackle rogue landlords. If that legislation leads to our identifying more rogue landlords because they are genuinely rogue, so be it. That is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said, save for this: 3% is a relatively small number. To my mind, one rogue landlord is one rogue landlord too many—I am very happy to put that on record. Perhaps the Minister has other evidence of a second tier of bad landlords that do not reach rogue status and therefore are not in that top 3% but may be below it. Either way, the point from this side—certainly, I speak for myself—is that one rogue landlord is one rogue landlord too many, but 3% is relatively small and there should be a balance in relation to this clause and the whole Bill.

[Mr Jones]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The legislation in relation to rogue landlords means that civil penalties of up to £30,000 can be levied against them. Those civil penalties can be retained by the local authority to put towards the enforcement that they make in this regard. There are strong powers there, which is a good thing if there is a second division of rogue landlords that we need to uncover. However, my hon. Friend is right: we need to get a balance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I will take your guidance, Mr Chope. As the Bill’s promoter, I am very happy to discuss finance under clause 1.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I, too, see the force of discussing finance under clause 1. On clause 13, my hon. Friend mentioned timings, on which he is being understandably sensitive. As the promoter of the Bill, when does he envisage the measures we have been debating so extensively coming into force?

[Bob Blackman]

In an ideal world, I would like this to be implemented immediately, but I recognise that councils will need time to prepare, and to recruit and train staff. They will also need to capture a lot of data. Local authorities that do a good job on homelessness prevention will have data on potential landlords, properties that may be available, help and advice from the third sector and other organisations that have the capability to provide the help and assistance required under the legislation. The concern is that a large number of local authorities are not in that position and will need time to gear up. They will need to begin the process of staff recruitment and the time to train people. They will need to change the culture in which they work—we must remember that the original culture is denial of service to homeless people unless they are in priority need. The Bill will change the cultural aspects. I hope local authorities around the country are planning how they will implement the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

As the Committee knows, we reordered the business because we anticipated amendments being tabled to this key clause. It is clear, however, that we do not have any amendments to discuss today. I know that many of us will be disappointed by that, and I want to update the Committee on the situation and the reasons why we have reached this position.

In our last sitting before Christmas, I reported that we had discovered a technical problem with clause 7 —specifically, that the clause was drafted too widely. At that time, we believed that a simple amendment would resolve the issue, tightening up the circumstances in which the provisions of the clause could be triggered. However, when drafting the amendments and the consequential amendments to other parts of the Bill, the local government sector and the charities that work day-to-day with homeless people—namely Shelter and Crisis—identified further issues with how the prevention and relief duties would be ended should an applicant refuse an offer of suitable accommodation. That is obviously a key part of how the Bill will work in incentivising applicants to work co-operatively with local housing authorities. If it did not work correctly, there would be a very real risk that the Bill would create an unacceptable new burden on local housing authorities and would fail to achieve the policy objectives.

I have been working with my hon. Friend the Minister and with Shelter, Crisis and the Local Government Association to address the issues that have been identified. The priority has been to ensure that we maintain protections for all applicants who co-operate with the new duties. That has involved working through the complex relationship between the Bill and the existing legal framework to ensure that the protections for those in priority need are not affected unacceptably. We want no reductions in how priority need households are assisted. We want to make it clear to new applicants that we are providing help and assistance, but it is not a one-way street.

We are now exploring potential solutions and hope to be in a position to resolve the situation on Report, with amendments tabled by Friday. I hope that if colleagues have concerns they will place them on the record so that I, as the Bill’s promoter, and the Minister can look at them in the round and make sure we deal with the issues that have rightly been raised by the charities and the LGA and in other representations we have received on this clause.

When we debated clause 3 in December, we discussed the new duty on local housing authorities to assess the applicant’s case and agree a personalised plan. Clause 7 outlines the important steps that must be followed in those hopefully rare cases where an applicant deliberately and unreasonably refuses to co-operate with the key required steps set out in the plan that they agreed with their local housing authority. This process is designed to include safeguards that will protect vulnerable applicants from abuse of the process.

When people who are threatened with homelessness or are actually homeless present themselves to the local authority, they might be in a state of difficulty not only from a mental health point of view, but in facing this problem for the first time in their lives. If that is the case and they are directed to do things by a housing authority, they may not appreciate and understand the plan. Throughout the development of the Bill, I have listened carefully to the views of the homelessness charities to ensure that vulnerable individuals are not unfairly penalised for non-co-operation on some of the very issues that caused them to seek assistance in the first place.

The clause includes numerous safeguards that I will outline briefly. I can assure the Committee that, in the recent discussion of amendments, my key driver has been to protect those safeguards and to enhance them if possible, so that no one is placed in a position whereby they feel they have been fooled and tricked into accepting something that they do not want.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Before Christmas, my hon. Friend characterised the clause as “tough love”. Given his recent comments, does he anticipate that that will remain his attitude in relation to the clause, or has it changed?

[Bob Blackman]

I do characterise the clause as tough love. I do not believe it is acceptable for someone to arrive at a local authority and say, “Under the law, you have to provide me with housing; I do not have to do anything,” and then fold their arms, sit back and wait for the local authority to do things. Part and parcel of the clause is to say that there are responsibilities on the local authority and on individual applicants.

Clause 3 is about personalised plans. Under clause 7, if applicants do not co-operate with the local authority, it can terminate the duty. That is the tough love that I previously described. That is where the bar is placed in terms of a deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. I am very clear that we want to ensure the bar is sufficiently high so the local authorities do not disadvantage applicants, but at the same time make it clear to them that they have to co-operate with the local authority that is assisting them in alleviating their homelessness or threat of homelessness.

The personalised plans will clearly set out the required steps that have been agreed between the applicant and the local housing authority. The steps must be those that are most relevant to securing and retaining accommodation. In some cases, the applicant and the local housing authority may not be able to reach an agreement about the actions despite trying very hard to do so. If that is the case, the required steps will be those recorded in writing and considered reasonable by the local housing authority.

The local housing authority will be required to keep under review both its assessment of the applicant’s case and the appropriateness of the required steps. If the local housing authority considers that the applicant is deliberately and unreasonably refusing to co-operate, it must give them a warning—it is not acceptable that it ends its duty at that point—explaining the consequences for the duties owed to the applicant if they do not begin to co-operate. At that point, if the individual sits back and says, “I’m not doing anything. I’m not taking the steps that I have agreed to take,” the authority can use a sanction.

The local housing authority must also allow a reasonable period for the applicant to comply and take external advice if necessary. If the applicant continues to refuse to co-operate following the warning, the local housing authority can choose to issue a notice that brings to an end the duties under proposed new section 195(2), the duty to take reasonable steps to help the applicant prevent homelessness, and proposed new section 189(b)(2), the duty to take reasonable steps to help secure suitable accommodation for those homeless and eligible for assistance.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend mentioned a reasonable period, which appears in proposed new subsections (4)(b) and (8), but, unless I have missed it, there is no precise definition in clause 7 itself of what a reasonable period is. As he knows, a reasonable period for one man may be a very unreasonable period for another. Can he, as the promoter of the Bill, indicate to the Committee what he envisages would and would not be a reasonable period?

[Bob Blackman]

If I could just continue the point. The notice must explain the reasons for giving the notice and its effect, and inform the applicant of their right to request a review of the decision to issue a notice and the time period for doing so. My hon. Friend is a learned lawyer, and reasonableness is an issue that has been tested by the courts on many occasions. What is reasonable to an applicant facing a crisis and what is reasonable to a local authority may be two different things. It is difficult to lay out every detail in the Bill; regulations may be required to specify the period, and in the code of guidance that will be issued when the Bill becomes an Act, I expect to see a clear statement to local authorities of what is considered to be a reasonable period. If local authorities are acting in what the Minister and the Department consider to be an unreasonable manner, we may have to insist on a code of practice to set out that detail. I trust that local authorities will see that they are seeking to end the duties that they have to the applicant, so they must act in a reasonable manner.

As a final safeguard, where the prevention or relief duty has been ended under these measures, rendering the main housing duty inapplicable, the local housing authority has a further duty to the applicant if they are homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and became homeless through no fault of their own. In such cases, the local housing authority must as a minimum make a final accommodation offer of an assured shorthold tenancy of at least six months. To ensure that that measure and the safeguards work effectively, the clause also allows the Secretary of State to issue regulations setting out the procedures to be followed by local housing authorities in connection with notices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I hear what the promoter is saying, but I am sure that it is not true, because the Committee had the services of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. It is always dangerous to ask someone to stand in for you when they are more experienced, competent and knowledgeable on the subject, but there we are.

I will not be long on this clause. With all due respect to the promoter and the Minister, if we are to debate it all over again on Report, and we have yet to have the benefit of the amendments, I would rather wait and see what happens then. It is unfortunate that the Bill has had to be sliced in this way, and that we are jumping around from clause to clause. I understand that we all want to get it right, but it is not an ideal way to proceed, as will be clear when we come to clause 1. We Opposition Members will try to be as disciplined and organised as we can be, in order not to repeat ourselves or lengthen the debate more than is necessary, which is the guidance we have heard from Mr Chope as well.

Therefore, all I will say on clause 7 is that we do not oppose it; it is a necessary clause, because there has to be some sanction or limitation on the relationship between the applicant and the local authority. The key issue is getting the balance right. What is the balance? I pose the question, which may be better answered on Report, when we know the full extent of the clause. We are all familiar with the term “unreasonable”, but are perhaps less familiar with the term “deliberate”. There have been perfectly reasonable representations from both sides, if I can put it that way—from Shelter and from the Association of Housing Advice Services. One side of the argument is that it is essential that the bar is set very high, so that local authorities cannot evade their duty; on the other hand, the process must not be overly bureaucratic, or effectively provide no sanction because the applicant would be entitled to the same assistance as they would if they had not deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate. That question hangs in the air. As for the definition of “deliberate” and what might constitute that behaviour or how authorities would define it, that is a question that the Minister or the promoter may wish to deal with, although it may not be a matter for today.

I reserve any further comments. It is regrettable that we are doing this on Report. I remember having a conversation early on with the promoter, in which I said, “We might wish to table some clauses on Report,” and he said, “Can you please ensure that you do that in Committee, so that we have a clean run at Report and Third Reading?” I think I may have to table something on Report myself now; we will see.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned unreasonable behaviour. I completely take his point and agree with what he says, but in clause 7, there is a definition to help local authorities define what the characteristics of unreasonable behaviour would be. Would he anticipate, as I do, that that sort of subsection will be essential in any sort of rewriting, to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected?

[Andy Slaughter]

Yes, but “unreasonable” is a term with which we and, more importantly, the courts are familiar, if a matter has to reach that point. “Deliberate” is a rarer and higher standard, and that term gives me pause, but I think the consensus is that it needs to be there, because “unreasonable” is not sufficient. I only ask for a slightly clearer exemplification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

I am conscious that there are likely to be further amendments on Report. I want to touch briefly on the new duty to assess cases and agree a plan. I very much support the idea of a personalised plan, whereby we empower those who seek help with a number of key steps that they are expected to take, which are reasonable, proportionate and, most importantly, achievable. That will encourage positive action and working together to find a solution, rather than people simply turning up at the council saying, “You have a duty to house me because I’m homeless.” Instead, we will say, “Let’s look at the steps we can take together to address the issues”—and, in many cases, the complex needs—“behind your homelessness or risk of homelessness before the situation gets worse.”

No doubt we have all seen situations involving councils. It is difficult, because the vast majority of local authorities are excellent and take their duties and responsibilities very seriously. Some, however, discharge their homelessness duties far too easily, which has knock-on effects on other areas and local authorities. For example, if a borough or district council discharges its duty on homelessness for whatever reason, it puts added pressure—especially if children are involved—on either the unitary authority or the county council in respect of social services, and that is often hugely expensive compared with the action that could have been taken by the local authority.

There have been a number of comments on deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate and the definition of “unreasonable”. Clear guidance on what is unreasonable would certainly be helpful, but the addition of that word adds a safeguard. I used to be a lawyer as well.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Hear, hear.

[Will Quince]

I used to be; I am not any more, I am glad to say. The addition of that word protects those with mental health issues or complex needs. We know that the vast majority of people who are at risk of homelessness or are homeless have very complex needs.

I very much welcome the safeguards in the Bill, including the concept of a warning letter that clearly and succinctly sets out what will happen if someone fails to co-operate and the clear steps that will be taken after that. On the whole discharging of the duty, I welcome the fact that those who are found to have deliberately or unreasonably failed to co-operate, even after the warning letter, will still receive, as a minimum, an offer of suitable accommodation, with an assured shorthold tenancy of six months. That adds the necessary protection and safeguard. and stops additional pressure being put on county councils.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I will follow on from those points in a similar vein. We are, in a somewhat rarefied Committee, looking at deliberate and unreasonable refusals to co-operate, while being far removed from the challenging circumstances faced by people, particularly those with complex needs. Even with revisions to the Bill on Report, we must be clear that the bar is set at a level that will ensure that there is understanding, particularly of those with mental health and complex needs, and that those needs are taken into account when considering what is deliberate and unreasonable. That does not mean that those people will not be liable to being deemed to have refused to co-operate. We need to look sensitively at how we ensure that the most vulnerable are taken account of properly.

On discharging duties, I recall a case in which the NHS was able to discharge its duty of care to a vulnerable constituent who had complex needs and was paranoid. When people knocked on the door to see whether he was going to co-operate, unsurprisingly he did not answer, because he was paranoid; it was a part of his condition. He repeatedly refused to answer the door, so the NHS discharged its duty of care to him. As for the safeguards in this provision, there is a warning letter. We need to look in detail—this matters—at how that warning letter will be communicated and take proper account of people’s needs, which include communication difficulties.

[Michael Tomlinson]

That is exactly the point I made a few moments ago. Subsection (6) refers to taking into account the “particular circumstances and needs” of the applicant. My hon. Friend’s story highlights the reason why we need that safeguard in any future redrafting of the clause—to protect exactly the sort of people he is talking about.

[Mr Burrowes]

We need to ensure that when the rubber hits the road, there is a reality to this, so that there is not the lowest common denominator of just discharging a duty, but there is a real, positive intent to meet people’s particular needs.

It is important to ensure there is reassurance and the backstop provided by new section 193B(4). The full rehousing duty for those in priority need must be maintained. We have often praised the Welsh for getting there first with the prevention duty, but this clause will do a lot better. It will ensure that, in this case, we do not follow the Welsh example, where legislation allows an authority to discharge all duties for those who refuse to co-operate and where there is evidence of one in eight households now being refused further help; emerging evidence suggests that they are often vulnerable people with support needs. That is despite codes of guidance, which we talked about in previous deliberations.

It is so important that we get this right. This is where it could go wrong, despite all the codes of guidance that might be produced. I welcome the care that has been given to ensuring that we get this right. The litmus test is those with complex, particular needs. We need to ensure in this deliberation on what is deliberate and unreasonable that we have a true understanding of vulnerable people.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I, too, rise to say that I am disappointed by the difficulty that this Committee has been put under in not being able to look at clause 7. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and with the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that this is one of the most crucial parts of the legislation, and that a delicate balancing act needs to be got right.

That said, I support the principle. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, the Bill’s promoter, when he characterises this as tough love. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South mentioned personal responsibility, and the phrase “help to empower” was also used. I entirely agree with the principle behind the clause but am disappointed that we cannot thrash out more of the detail. I will certainly take up the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East to set out what I believe needs to be within the clause, although I support the thrust of it.

I had a meeting with a representative of East Dorset District Council—a local authority that you know well, Mr Chope, because East Dorset covers three constituencies: mine, yours and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). The council is concerned not only about the potential burden on local authorities, but about the risk of this going wrong. The interplay between local authorities and housing associations was also raised.

Perhaps when the Minister gets to his feet in a few minutes, he will give me and those at East Dorset some reassurance on the clause as drafted, or as we hope it will be drafted in future, and on the interplay with housing association duties. Many of our local authorities own very little stock and rely on housing associations to perform many of their functions and duties. What is the interplay between that and the clause? Is there a risk that housing associations will fall short or have a lower standard than is the aim and intention behind the clause?

I have said before that we are looking at the most vulnerable. I agree that there should be a strict definition in clause 7. As drafted, the tough love aspect is whether an applicant has deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate. I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith that this is familiar territory for lawyers and courts. In my view, it is helpful to have as much detail in the Bill as possible. That is why I welcome proposed new section 193A(6), which states that the characteristics—correction, circumstances—and needs of the applicant should be taken into account. Perhaps the Minister and promoter of the Bill should consider characteristics.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate gave a striking example of why it is necessary to take into account the circumstances and needs of the applicant. Knocking on the door might be sufficient for one applicant but not for another. Therefore, clause 7 needs that additional safeguard in its redrafted form.

The term “reasonable period” is also fertile territory for lawyers. My concern is that, if it is left in the Bill, lawyers will argue the toss that the local authority says, “Yes, it was a reasonable period,” while the applicant says, “No, it was not because more time was required.” I understand entirely the difficulty of putting that sort of detail in the Bill. An indication of the timeframe from the Minister when he is looking at redrafting may be helpful, although I do understand the risk of causing problems.

Finally, like my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I welcome the additional safeguard of a notice to inform and explain to the applicant. The Minister might pick up on one caveat. As drafted, subsection (8) provides for what would happen if a notice were not received. In an ideal world, we would need to ensure that notices are received. As we know, sometimes the serving of notices is not as straightforward in practice as it is to set out in a document. The Minister might consider and emphasise the need to ensure that notices are received.

[David Mackintosh]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that there should be a written warning or notice rather than just a verbal statement? People could be confused and lose bits of paper, so it is important to have this written down.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I agree in part with my hon. Friend, but in fact it would be helpful to have both. Depending on the needs and circumstances of the individual, it could be helpful to have the notice read out. Of course, it should also have the fall-back authority of a piece of paper or document.

I would like the Minister to pick up the point in subsection (8) about the notice being

“made available at the authority’s office”.

Given we are considering the most vulnerable people, is that sufficient to draw attention to the fact that their rights are to be taken away under the homelessness provisions?

[Mrs Drummond]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. If that information is not put very clearly in writing to the vulnerable person, surely the appeals will be more difficult. Will we see an increase in appeals if we do not get the clause absolutely right in the detail?

[Michael Tomlinson]

That is absolutely right. It is not only the difficulty with appeals, but the rise in the number of appeals, exactly as my hon. Friend says. As a former lawyer, I want fewer of these cases appearing in front of court. Far too often, we have seen lawyers arguing over clauses exactly like this one by picking up points of technicality and trying to say whether a notice was served. Every effort should be made to ensure that notices are brought to the attention of individuals, and I would like reassurance from the Minister specifically on that point because the clause takes away rights that we are seeking to give to individuals.

While I entirely support the thrust, aim and intention of the clause and its characterisation as tough love, I regret the fact that we are not able to debate its final form. We are almost shadow boxing in anticipation of what may or may not be incorporated into clause 7. I encourage the Minister to take on board all the points that have been made.