Facts: M, a citizen of Zimbabwe, claimed that removal to Zimbabwe would breach his rights under Article 3 ECHR. Meanwhile, since he was destitute, he applied to his local authority, Slough, for residential accommodation. Slough declined to make provision on the ground that, although M was destitute, he did not require ‘care and attention’ within the meaning of section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, in that his only need was for accommodation, basic living needs, health care and refrigeration for his medication.

Judgment: the House of Lords (Lords Bingham, Scott, Lady Hale, Lords Brown and Neuberger) held that M did not require ‘care and attention’:

1) The ‘care and attention’ that is needed under section 21(1)(a) is a wider concept than ‘nursing or personal care’. Section 21 accommodation may be provided for the purpose of preventing illnesses as well as caring for those who are ill. But ‘care and attention’ must mean something more than ‘accommodation’. The natural and ordinary meaning of ‘care and attention’ in this context is ‘looking after’, which means doing something for the person being cared for that he cannot or should not be expected to do for himself. It includes household tasks, protection from risks or personal care. This list is not exhaustive. The provision of medical care is expressly excluded.

2) Section 21(1)(a) requires a present need for care and attention but, if there is a present need, then the authority is empowered to intervene before it becomes worse.

3) M’s needs did not amount to a ‘need for care and attention’. His medical needs were being met by the National Health Service so, even if they did amount to a ‘need for care and attention’, he would not qualify.

4) As he did not fall within section 21(1)(a) it was not necessary to ask whether he would be excluded by section 21(1A).

5) (Per Lord Neuberger) The words ‘which is not otherwise available to them’ refer back to ‘care and attention’, not ‘accommodation’.