| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: We need to consider, first, the practical implications of extending checks to vulnerable adults, particularly for the police who will need to undertake the most complicated and time-consuming part of the check. How vulnerable adults are defined will be important. Depending on the definition, they could overwhelm the police with applications for enhanced checks when the new arrangements come into operation just at a time when they are in any event likely to be coping with an increase in enhanced checks on those working with children.
Nevertheless, I have sympathy with the amendment and with the arguments that have been put so persuasively by my noble friend, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and, I believe, probably by others in the Committee. Therefore, we are considering how best to
amend the Bill in order to extend the provision for enhanced criminal record checks to vulnerable adults. There are a number of options, but we intend to bring forward an amendment for this purpose at Report stage. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: That is very good news indeed. I am delighted that my noble friend proposes to bring forward an amendment of her own. However, I am rather a nasty character and I shall probably put down an amendment of my own if I do not see one fairly soon in the Printed Paper Office. I have given this warning often in the past and I have carried it out. I also hope that the remarks I made as regards the last amendment about the supervisors of people working in close contact with vulnerable people will also be borne in mind. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Allocation of Housing Regulations 1996
7.4 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 31st October, be annulled (S.I. 1996/2753).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am praying against these regulations against a background of a disastrous Budget for housing. Given the changes in procedure, we no longer have a social security uprating statement. It is perhaps worth mentioning that as a result of the Budget the Housing Corporation budget has been slashed from £1.8 billion three years ago to £1 billion this year and to only £650 million next year; so the number of new socially rented houses will fall. Also in the Budget we see the other side of the pincer movement: in the private sector after next autumn the capacity of single people to find alternative accommodation will be severely damaged by the fact that they will be eligible for housing benefit only for a bed-sit.
I want to spend just a moment on that because it has implications for the workings of the Housing Act and therefore for the regulation that we shall be discussing in a moment. The Budget has stated that widows who after next autumn need housing benefit for the first time, carers who have lost their parents and need housing benefit after next October, for the first time, divorced men who have lost their jobs and need housing benefit after next October, for the first time, if they are in privately rented self-contained one or two-bedroomed flats, will now find that housing benefit does not cover them and they will lose their homes as well.
I hope that the Minister can identify with this problem: that vulnerable, middle-aged women recently bereaved, may have to leave a home of 30 years in the private rented sector and move into something which is sometimes squalid, often dangerous and always insecure--that is to say, bed-sit accommodation--sharing a kitchen and bathroom down a corridor with men who may be alcoholic or have a record. I was approached on just such a question on Sunday morning in Norwich. Fortunately, the man was living in a council flat and therefore the situation will not arise.
Therefore, in housing terms, in the Budget the Government have created the very worst sort of welfare dependency in which a man, who, if he loses his job, will have to lose his home as well. If he or she loses the partner, he will lose the home as well. It is the worst aspect of an entire Budget producing real misery for a quarter of a million people a year.
To the dire effects of the Budget--such as losing your partner, losing your home, losing your parents, losing your job if you are single and under 60--are now added the ugly detail implied in the regulations of the Housing Act 1996. These regulations fill in, by secondary legislation, key provisions in that Act.
Your Lordships will recall that the Housing Act laid down that only people who are on the waiting list may be allocated local authority housing and, as sudden homelessness often occurs before the family has reached the top of the list, how the local authority shall discharge its duty towards them. Broadly, Statutory Instrument No. 2753 relates to Part VI of the Act and determines the structure of the waiting list required for access to local authority housing. Statutory Instrument No. 2754 covers those who are ineligible for assistance under homelessness provisions.
Within the context of the Budget, I repeat: why am I bringing these regulations to the attention of your Lordships' House by praying against them? It is because, as convention will have it, we shall not be moving to a vote. Therefore, why am I seeking to air these issues?
The first is the problem of timescale. With a Bill that was only completed late last summer and with a code of guidance, on which this Act is heavily dependent, not being published until barely four weeks ago, local authorities were supposed to reorganise their entire waiting list structures by January. The protest of local government and the threat of judicial review sensibly made the DoE think again and implementation is now under the still tight timetable of April 1997.
I ask the Minister to think again and to see whether it is possible to extend that timetable to July 1997. For local authorities the work involved is huge and the Government's delay in issuing consultation papers, the draft and the final guidance, has meant a heavy bureaucratic workload in terms of the paper involved, which will have to be condensed into a very narrow timetable indeed. It is important that local government gets it right and avoids unnecessary appeals against improper decisions. Even an April timetable does not permit full and proper scrutiny.
The second area of concern is that considerable issues remain unresolved, especially the problem of referrals from social services and other agencies, the procedures on rights of review, the issues of affordability of accommodation, and the fact that so far there has been no guidance at all on the groups which are to be excluded from assistance under Parts VI and VII of the Act. Can we at least have an assurance from the Minister that the problem that we identified in Committee, involving that ugly phrase "the silting up" of half-way houses and hostels, which means that people cannot move on, which means in turn that others cannot move into those places, will be speedily addressed by the Government in the near future? On 19th June 1996, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, accepted the principle of what we were trying to do but said that he would use not primary legislation, but regulatory powers, to that effect. Where are those regulatory powers? When can we expect them?
Thirdly, I turn to the detail of the regulations. I refer first to the first regulation and to Part VI which deals with the waiting list. As noble Lords will recall, the Housing Act 1996 stated that the only route to the allocation of a local authority house was through the single waiting list. Our first concern is for those who have immigration status--in other words, who are subject to immigration control or who fail the habitual residence test and who, under the regulations, are ineligible for the waiting list. This entire area is now a minefield of misery--and these regulations will make it far worse.
Just as the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 excluded most asylum seekers from social security benefits, so the Housing Act, in parallel, excluded them from the housing list and therefore from local authority housing irrespective of their housing need. As I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge in all candour, there has been chaos since Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Act came into force in mid-August. Some local authorities turned people out on the streets without notice. Others were unclear about what to do. Still others went to the courts--and the charities and the Churches were left to pick up the strain. Now we find that the judges have deemed that Act illegal and have said that local authorities have a continuing duty not only to families under the Children Act, but to single people and couples under the National Assistance Act, which was passed in 1948 by the Labour Government who were elected in 1945 determined never again to tolerate the indecency of people starving on our streets. But then, coming out of the Second World War, with two-thirds of all our overseas investments sold to fund the war effort, we must have been a rich country and could afford to be generous; now, after 17 years of this Tory Government, we are so poor that apparently we cannot afford that.
Even more ambiguous is the exclusion from housing of those who fail the habitual residence test. That test already applies to those seeking income support or housing benefit. Under the regulations, it is now being applied to eligibility for local authority housing waiting lists. However, there is no statutory definition of the habitual residence test. I speak from personal knowledge
when I say that it is a subjective test--a member of my family was subjected to the test--which is determined by such criteria as where you keep a suitcase of clothes and what societies and organisations you belong to. It was a test meant to stop benefit tourists--I think that the Secretary of State had "layabouts from Spain" in mind--instead all our experience of the test shows that it has been applied to Commonwealth families living in Britain with family ties abroad, who find that after visits to their overseas relatives they incur considerable difficulty in re-establishing their right to social security.Applying the same test of habitual residence to the right of access to the council housing waiting list, and therefore to rented social housing, may severely damage the eligibility of a young Pakistani family or a West Indian nurse to join the waiting list although they normally work, and are resident, in the United Kingdom. Local authorities, which have spent many months over the past decade patiently training their staff in anti-racist procedures and non-racist bureaucracy, will now have to ask the same staff to interrogate people on the habitual residence test which disproportionately weighs heavily on ethnic minority communities.
Our second bundle of concerns about the regulations relates to the issue of non-statutory succession. At the moment local authorities can respond flexibly and compassionately where, for example, the only statutory succession (that from a husband to a wife on death) has already taken place. If the couple are joint tenants, their daughter may be protected. If the mother dies first and the husband is left in the house, the tenancy may pass to the daughter. However, if the husband dies first and he is the sole tenant, the middle-aged daughter, who may have lived with her parents for many years as their carer and without whom they may have been in expensive local authority care, has no right of statutory succession although she may have known no other home. In practice, at the moment local authorities would grant her the tenancy.
The same applies to same-sex partners. A same-sex couple may live together for many years. One partner may nurse the other who is dying of AIDS, but on his death, after 20 years together, the surviving partner may find that he has no right of statutory succession. Again, the local authorities that I know would respond compassionately. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, responded compassionately in reply to a Written Question from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on 14th April 1993, when he said that the Government were proposing to issue guidance to local authorities that they should grant joint secure tenancies to same-sex couples and that discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation or disability was not acceptable and was not a decent and civilised response.
The test of a stable relationship was to be 12 months, as with heterosexual couples. I understand that that guidance was never issued. Many existing tenancies may still be held by one partner only, but under the Act and these regulations local authorities will now be required to do the opposite of what was suggested in the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and
evict the same-sex partner, sending him on to the waiting list where, as a single person, he may have to wait 10 years ever to have a home of his own again.Under the Act and these regulations, local authorities lose their flexibility to make such one-off allocations in circumstances where, for example, carers and same-sex partners are not entitled to statutory succession. We on the Opposition Benches tried to build the same flexibility of judgment into the Act but that was rejected by the Government. Only if local authorities are satisfied that such people have priority need can they now be granted the tenancy; otherwise, under the regulations, they become homeless.
Similarly, a third category of people is involved. A relationship may break down because of domestic violence. If the spouse who is violent--presumably the male--holds the tenancy and is then served an injunction to leave the home because of his violence, he may then serve a notice to quit on the partner remaining at home and the tenancy must then end. At the moment, a local authority will normally exercise its judgment and transfer the tenancy to the spouse if it deems that the right thing to do because, say, the couple have been living there together for 15 years or more. That cannot happen in the future. In the future, the spouse would have to be evicted; she would have to go on the waiting list and she would be eligible for rehousing only if the local authority gave her priority over others on the waiting list. So, lose your parents, lose your home--just as with housing benefit; lose your partner, lose your home--just as with housing benefit under the Budget. Did the Minister really have that in mind? Why on earth cannot such difficult and delicate decisions be left to those who know the details of the case--the local authorities? Why cannot local authorities be allowed to make their judgment accordingly, without reference to the waiting list?
Local authorities are not likely to waste such accommodation when there are so many pressures on their waiting lists unless they believe that such tenants have a moral right to remain there. Why do we have to churn such people bureaucratically and callously through the system? Why must we assume that the man in Whitehall, the government Minister, knows better than the local councillors and officers?
The Housing Act 1996 was unnecessary. It was introduced because central government had stopped local authorities from building council housing. As a result, waiting lists have grown. As a result, people are waiting longer, and, as a result, the Government decided to finger the homeless for collaring an unfair proportion of the artificially reduced supply of council housing.
In these regulations, in the context of the Budget and its effect on housing benefit, we are witnessing some of the unpleasant aspects and indecencies of the Government's attitude to homelessness and housing need. We are already seeing the effect that this has in fracturing our society. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations, laid before the House on 31st October, be annulled (S.I. 1996/2753).--(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, many of your Lordships who bluntly opposed much of the Housing Act will be grateful to the noble Baroness for continuing the argument. She is quite right not to let it drop. She introduced her Motion in part in the context of the Budget. I hope that if her eloquence fails to persuade the Minister--as I fear it may--she will use it to persuade her honourable friends in another place to vote against the Budget.
I wondered what we were doing dealing with regulations which, on their face, said that they would come into force on 20th January of next year while the substantive provisions would come into effect on 1st April. As the noble Baroness has said, underlying them is the rumpus caused by the Government's announcement of the timetable. There has been a threat of an application for judicial review from two London boroughs of very different political hue. I hope that the Minister will not simply answer the point about extending the timetable, which I support--it is essential that the Government give local authorities an opportunity to deal with the new regulations and procedures in a calm and coherent fashion--but will deal also with how the regulations will relate to the law that is in effect from 20th January until 1st April. I fail to see how the new regulations will interrelate to the law that will apply during that period.
I also wonder what is and what is not in the regulations. Many of your Lordships had high hopes about the regulations. The noble Baroness has referred to comments made by the Government during the course of the Bill about the use of regulation-making powers. We were told that regulations would deal with matters that could not be put on the face of the Bill because of the detailed technical work that would be required. However, many of the regulations read as though they deal with oversights not contained in the Bill when originally drafted; for example, I refer to the points about Scotland and Northern Ireland.
There have been many calls for consultation on the code of guidance on the regulations and many commitments were made during the course of the Bill on matters that would appear in guidance. There appears to have been very limited consultation. The code was not published until the end of October. The noble Baroness has referred to the pressures on housing authorities. I do not know whether the Government understand the procedures that housing authorities will have to follow. Each authority will have to consult resident social landlords and secure tenants and then deal with its computer software. I doubt that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House to have encountered problems in installing new computer software. The authority will have to prepare new procedures, train its staff and collect information from those who are currently on the waiting list and reassess their priority. As a matter of good manners, if nothing more, it will have to tell those people what its assessment is.
These matters cannot be done overnight. Information still remains to be issued: regulations on referral from social services and other agencies, procedures on new
rights of review, and so on. There is no guidance on groups to be excluded from assistance under Parts VI and VII and on those areas for which regulations are awaited. Is it not important to deal with various regulations in one batch? Are we not running headlong into even greater difficulties if we deal with matters in little parcels, failing by perhaps a genuine oversight to see how they interrelate? I cannot support this as a sensible way of trying to deal with important matters that are fundamental to people's welfare and their very lives.I see these regulations as another example of the centralising hand of government, restricting the ability of housing authorities to allocate on a one-off basis. The noble Baroness has referred to a number of examples. I need not take up the time of the House by repeating them. I very much support what she has said. I have been given assurances in the course of the Bill about the areas to be covered by guidance. I then find a recent circular which outlaws one-off allocations, and the situation is further exacerbated by the fact that housing benefit for all single people under 60 is to be paid on the basis of shared accommodation only, irrespective of their needs and circumstances. Therefore, this is not something with which I wish to be associated.
Your Lordships will be aware of the damning comments of Mr. Justice Collins in October. He ruled that authorities had a duty to provide shelter, warmth and food to asylum seekers who had no other support. That received well deserved and widespread publicity. The noble Baroness has referred to the massive confusion and hardship since February when the Government removed benefits from almost all asylum seekers. We thought then that the voluntary organisations and Churches would be the ones to pick up the pieces. Now we see that the very limited resources of social services departments are being diverted.
The Association of London Government reports that the cost of dealing with this exercise in London will soon reach £40 million. The estimate of the cost in the next financial year is of the order of £190 million if the Government lose their appeal in January. If the Government succeed on the other side of the balance sheet, over 1,000 people, including victims of torture, will be left homeless. Leaving aside the moral issues--I feel very strongly about them--these problems and costs are caused by a government who are always telling local authorities to organise themselves more efficiently. Frankly, they do not set a good example. I believe that the demands for transparency alone show that this is the wrong approach.
In preparing for this evening I have been concerned to read evidence provided by some local authorities that as a result of all this--although I accept that it is not solely as a result of this; the new provisions must provide a catalyst--refugee communities are being targeted for abuse. I witnessed a minuscule example of this quite recently. At a meeting in my local borough to discuss the budget for next year the implications of the new procedures and their possible costs to the borough were explained. That provoked the reaction in one or two people--which I am happy to say was sat upon
pretty hard by others who attended the meeting--"Why should we have to pay for this?". That was a very nasty reaction, but it provides a tiny example.The noble Baroness has dealt comprehensively and movingly with the effect of these regulations. I support the Motion.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should like to deal briefly with the effects of these regulations on one group--namely, asylum seekers. It is fairly clear that in recent months since the passage of the asylum Bill and the Housing Bill into law the Government's policies in regard to asylum seekers have been thrown increasingly off course. I do not want to repeat the debates held in the summer when the main legislation was passing through the House. However, it is fair to say that no other country in Western Europe treats asylum seekers in the way that we do and in which they will be treated as a result of the regulations. No country in Europe allows asylum seekers, or a significant proportion of asylum seekers, to become destitute on the streets of its cities. It is clear to everyone that, were it not for the Herculean efforts of many local voluntary groups, the Churches and the Refugee Council, which have provided night shelters and other support, then many asylum seekers would be sleeping, and would have to sleep, on our streets.
I notice that the regulations are to come into effect on 20th January. I am trying to understand how that relates to the recent High Court judgment, and, in particular, to the fact that the Government, as I understand it, will be appealing against that decision on 13th or 14th January, just one week before the regulations come into effect.
I wonder whether the Minister can indicate what will happen if the Government lose their appeal in the High Court. If the Government lose, will it mean that all responsibility will stay with local authorities--I know that the Government offered them a little bit more money a couple of weeks ago--under National Assistance Act powers? Or is there to be some other method of approach? Or perhaps the Government believe that the regulations are not covered by the recent High Court decision and therefore that they are different from social security provision, income support, and the like. It would be useful to know that.
I understand that local authorities are finding it difficult to cope. I recently had a meeting with some local authority staff at a London town hall. They worked in housing and social services. They explained to me the difficulties they were having in dealing with a confused situation as a result of the recent changes, High Court decisions and so on. Although I understand that some guidance has gone out from the Government, it is not clear to local authority staff exactly what is expected of them. The details are complicated, and they are having to improvise as they go along because they lack full guidance.
A further point is that, if the Government have to rely upon the National Assistance Act and local authorities to deal with people who will be left adrift of any other support, it is inevitably more costly for local authorities
to have to provide support for asylum seekers under that legislation than it would be if they were covered by a proper system as was the case before the regulations and the main legislation. Local authorities have to deal with everyone on a one-off basis. They have to make particular decisions for an individual asylum seeker or family, particularly those with children. From the information I have, it is clear that that is a more costly process than the method which existed before the Government embarked upon these measures.
I do not believe that it will save money: it will save the central government money, because if they go on like this they are just passing the responsibility from the Exchequer to local councils. That will impose an extra burden on the council tax. That is not a satisfactory position. I wish that the Government would withdraw the regulations and wait to see what the High Court decision is before they go further down that path.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page