---

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): It may help the Committee if I remind it that the noble Baroness has begged for leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2. When we have taken Amendments Nos. 3 to 11 in order, I shall call Amendment No. 1.

Amendment No. 2, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 4, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 5 to 11, due to pre-emption.

[Amendment No. 4, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 5 to 11, as amendments to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 1 agreed to.
 
15 Jun 2004 : Column 657
 

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 12:

After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—

"ACCOMMODATION FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS: LOCAL CONNECTION (1) At the end of section 199 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (local connection) add— "(6) A person has a local connection with the district of a local housing authority if he was (at any time) provided with accommodation in that district under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (support for asylum seekers). (7) But subsection (6) does not apply to the provision of accommodation in an accommodation centre by virtue of section 22 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (use of accommodation centres for section 95 support)." (2) Subsection (3) applies where— (a) a local housing authority would (but for subsection (3)) be obliged to secure that accommodation is available for occupation by a person under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (homeless persons), (b) the person was (at any time) provided with accommodation in a place in Scotland under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (support for asylum seekers), (c) the accommodation was not provided in an accommodation centre by virtue of section 22 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (use of accommodation centres for section 95 support), and (d) the person has neither— (i) a local connection with the district of a local housing authority (in England or Wales) within the meaning of section 199 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) as amended by subsection (1) above, nor (ii) a local connection with a district (in Scotland) within the meaning of section 27 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26). (3) Where this subsection applies— (a) the duty of the local housing authority under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) in relation to the person shall not apply, but (b) the local housing authority— (i) may secure that accommodation is available for occupation by the person for a period giving him a reasonable opportunity of securing accommodation for his occupation, and (ii) may provide the person (or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance in any attempts he may make to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation."

The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will be familiar with the Government's policy of dispersing asylum seekers to appropriate areas around Great Britain in those cases where the asylum seeker is in need of accommodation. These dispersal areas are carefully selected and asylum seekers who, in due course, are granted leave to remain are encouraged and helped to settle in their dispersal area. This is an important policy and, among other things, helps to reduce
 
15 Jun 2004 : Column 658
 
pressures on social housing and local government services in areas where these are already very stretched, particularly in London and other areas of the south-east. As noble Lords will appreciate, the dispersal policy started with the introduction of the National Asylum Support Service, where in some London boroughs and councils in Kent services were on the verge of total collapse, simply due to people remaining in the areas where they had first arrived. So the pressure has been taken off them and we do not wish for that to return.

Under the homelessness legislation—that is, Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, which extends to England and Wales—local housing authorities have a duty to secure accommodation for applicants who are eligible for assistance, have become homeless through no fault of their own and who fall within a priority need group. Broadly speaking, the priority need groups include applicants who have dependent children, or who are pregnant, or who are vulnerable in some other way.

Former asylum seekers who have been given leave to remain in the UK will be eligible for homelessness assistance. If they find themselves in a position where they require homelessness assistance, the question of priority need will depend on the individual circumstances of each case. In those cases where the local housing authority is satisfied that a former asylum seeker has a priority need, a duty to secure accommodation will be owed by the authority to the former asylum seeker. An underlying principle of the homelessness legislation is that the duty to secure accommodation for an applicant should rest only with a local authority in whose area that person has a local connection. I am referring to general homelessness, not homelessness relating to immigration, asylum seekers or others—that is the normal homelessness legislation that applies to every citizen in this country. Although authorities are not required to consider the issue of local connection when considering homelessness applications, they have a power to do so. In cases where the applicant has no local connection with the area of the authority to which he or she is applying for assistance, but does have one somewhere else, the local housing authority can refer the case to the local housing authority in that other area—that is, where a local connection is established. A local connection can be established with an area because of normal residence of choice, employment, family associations or special circumstances. It may even be the area of one's birth, so there is no choice in the matter.

When an applicant has no local connection anywhere in England, Wales or Scotland, the authority receiving the application must accept the duty. This means that such a person can effectively choose which authority will owe them the duty to secure accommodation. Earlier this year, the Law Lords, sitting as the Appellate Committee in the cases of Al Ameri v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and Osmani v The London Borough of Harrow, held that under the homelessness legislation, as currently drafted, residence in an area which is pursuant to the provision of accommodation by the Home Office under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is not capable of establishing a
 
15 Jun 2004 : Column 659
 
local connection with that area because it is not the residence of choice. That is the matter relating to the dispersal by the National Asylum Support Service.

That clarification was helpful because there had been some uncertainty over the matter. However, your Lordships will appreciate that the current position does not help to achieve the Government's policy, which is that, for the purposes of the homelessness legislation in England and Wales, asylum seekers should automatically establish a local connection with an area when they are dispersed there by the Home Office and provided with accommodation under Section 95 of the 1999 Act. This is to ensure that the local housing authority in the dispersal area has the responsibility to secure accommodation for them, where a main homelessness duty is owed. Otherwise, we risk returning to the pre-NASS situation of enormous pressure on London and other nearby authorities.

There is one important caveat—it is not the Government's policy that asylum seekers will establish a local connection with an area if they are accommodated there in an accommodation centre. This is because it has expressly been our intention that successful applicants processed through these centres should not be expected to settle in the locality. Accommodation centres will provide a move-on advice service to assist successful applicants with relocation and we are working on procedures to ensure that people receive offers of suitable accommodation, which will normally be in another part of the country.

Amending the local connection provisions in Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 will have effect in cases where asylum seekers are dispersed to a district in England or Wales but not in cases where they are dispersed to a district in Scotland and, having been granted leave to remain, seek homelessness assistance in England or Wales. That is because, under Scottish homelessness legislation—that is, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987—asylum seekers do not establish a residence of choice, and therefore a local connection, with a district if they are resident in accommodation provided under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

Such a difference between the local connection provisions north and south of the Border means that it would not be possible for an English or Welsh housing authority to refer a homelessness case back to a Scottish local housing authority as, under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, the applicant would not have established a residence of choice, and therefore a local connection, by virtue of his residence in NASS-supported accommodation. The conditions for referral would be met for the purposes of Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 but they would not be met for the purposes of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. That means that the Scottish authority would not be required to accept such a referral.

The proposed new clause seeks to address that by providing that the main homelessness duty in England and Wales—that is, Section 193 of the Housing Act
 
15 Jun 2004 : Column 660
 
1996—would not apply in a case where a former asylum seeker had been dispersed to Scotland and subsequently made an application in England or Wales unless he had established a local connection somewhere in England, Wales or Scotland.

Although the Section 193 duty would not apply in England and Wales, the local authority dealing with the case would have a new power to secure accommodation for such a period as to give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to secure accommodation. It would also have a power to provide the applicant with advice and assistance.

Perhaps I may take the opportunity to observe that the duty to secure accommodation under the homelessness legislation can be onerous for local housing authorities, particularly in areas where the housing market is overheated, where there is a shortage of affordable accommodation and where homelessness levels are high. I remind Members of the Committee that the homelessness legislation is not the main route into social housing; the route is via an allocation made under an application for social housing under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996.

In the cases addressed by subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause, homelessness assistance would be available to applicants in Scotland. In fact, it would be open to applicants to seek assistance from any Scottish district and not just from the district where they had been provided with the NASS accommodation under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. And it is open to all former asylum seekers who are granted leave to remain to apply for an allocation of housing under Part 6 of the Housing Act in any district of their choice in England and Wales. Therefore, like any other citizen, they can go on to a council's waiting list.

However, the homelessness route is different in that a local connection needs to be established. The amendment seeks to provide that, where people seek the homelessness route, the local connection will be the one created by the NASS dispersal scheme around the country. People may argue that that is not compatible with other schemes, but it is designed to ensure that we do not return to the policies that existed beforehand under which unacceptable pressures were placed on London, the Home Counties, the Kent authorities and East Sussex. Therefore, to that extent, the amendment seeks to comply with the judgment which clarified the law in the courts. I beg to move.

---