Localism Bill

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 171 to 173, which are scattered among other amendments in the group. Amendment 171 is concerned with the allocation of housing. Mencap, of which I am president, hears stories on a daily basis from parents of learning-disabled offspring about how difficult it is to find a suitable home for their son or daughter. That is why many people with a learning disability continue to live with their parents, often into late adult life. Mencap's report some years ago, The Housing Timebomb, highlighted that about 29,000 adults with a learning disability still live with parents who are over 70. Although the ““reasonable preference”” groups—which guide local authorities and their decisions as to who should be housed as a priority—highlight the people who need to move on medical and welfare grounds, including disability, people with a learning disability still struggle to be regarded as in urgent need of housing. At that point, living with parents puts them in the position of being in ““settled accommodation”” and therefore less of a priority in terms of both homelessness and medical reasons. To resolve that problem, my amendment is aimed to change the ““reasonable preference”” categories so that anyone who has an assessed housing need in the context of a community care assessment should be included in the ““reasonable preference”” groups. That would make it clearer to local housing departments that housing need, in the context of someone with a learning disability, has to be seen in a broader sense than is currently the case, and help to improve this unhappy situation. Amendments 172 and 173 concern the ways in which local authorities discharge the homelessness duty. The Bill proposes that people can be placed in the private rented sector without due regard to the wishes of the homeless applicants themselves. Currently, a homeless applicant can reject an offer by the local authority to move into private rented sector accommodation. My amendment would introduce appropriate safeguards so that if an individual was placed in private rented accommodation, there needs would be properly addressed. There are many reasons why people may not consider accommodation offers in the private rented sector to be suitable, including insecurity of tenure and, of course, cost. If the provision is enacted, strict safeguards should be in place to ensure that the accommodation which disabled and older people are offered, and have to accept, is appropriate, affordable and provides some security of tenure. That is why Amendment 173 proposes to increase the minimum period of such a tenancy from just 12 months to 60. This will provide the security of tenure that is so important to many people with a learning disability and their parents. I am also encouraged by the Government’s comments during Report in the House of Commons, in which it was outlined that they would, "““consider further the need for additional protections for homeless households placed in the private rented sector””." Ministers also said that they would be, "““prepared to consider using those powers for the provision of additional protections on standards of accommodation or other matters””. —[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/11; col. 408.]" I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether the Government have had any further thoughts on this, including the possibility of introducing a national accreditation scheme.