| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have considered this point carefully. I continue to see a distinction between the decision to exclude and how it operates in relation to allocations. There will be nothing to prevent an individual authority from notifying applicants at the allocation stage about such a decision if they wish. It will be a matter for each authority to make its decision about that. I do not wish to place an obligation on it to do this. Separately from this, the Bill makes adequate provision for applicants to be able to obtain information about how their application is being treated. As I have said, we will encourage in guidance that authorities make the allocations process as transparent as possible and that they provide as much feedback to applicants as possible. At this stage, we think that the right balance is to leave it to the local authority to decide who to tell and when, but also to give a power to require information.
Baroness Hanham: The Minister has dealt with a number of amendments in his customarily lucid and well directed remarks. However, I remain concerned about the fact that the people who are included in the order, plus all the others who are mentioned in the Bill, do not look as if they will appear on the face of the Bill. We need to consider that. It is a sine qua non that a Bill that embraces homelessness should at least define what homelessness will encompass, particularly the increased priorities. It is broadly covered in
Clause 15(3), but I am not sure that that is adequate. We should think about that again and possibly return to it.The other concern that the Minister has not entirely allayed is the business about being sure that one can maintain a balanced community. I hear exactly what he said, that the local authority is left with discretion, but my fear is that the priorities are so wide and that there will be so many people included in them that the discretion will, by definition, not be there. There will be no possibility to allow discretion within the terms of the Bill.
I will probably return to both of those matters. In the meantime I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 32 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 33:
- Page 11, line 13, after Xdeserves" insert Xby reason of that behaviour"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 not moved.]
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Short title, extent and application to Isles of Scilly]:
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 37:
- Page 12, line 29, after XHomelessness" insert Xand Housing Allocations"
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is self-explanatory. It could not be more clear. The aim is simply to make certain what the Bill is about. We have spent as long today discussing allocation as we have spent discussing the homeless. One cannot really take place without the other. Therefore, it would make more sense to make it clear in the heading that that is what the Bill is about.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I recognise the purpose of the amendment, but it is unnecessary and adds nothing to the substance of the Bill. The current provision allows the short title to be very short indeed, for which we should all be grateful.
The principal purpose of the Bill is to deliver the Government's manifesto commitment to strengthen the homelessness safety net. Other issues have come into the Bill, but the fact that we have spent a lot of time this afternoon talking about allocation does not detract from the fact that one of the Bill's major requirements is that local authorities should undertake homelessness reviews and strategies through the
provisions relating to homelessness. While we talk about particular issues, we should remember the overall effect of the Bill. One of its main aims is to improve the way in which local authorities address homelessness. I do not consider that the title is at all misleading.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not totally surprised and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out that there is an error at the beginning of Amendment No. 38; it should read, XPage14, line 4", and not line 3.
Baroness Massey of Darwen moved Amendment No. 38:
- Page 14, line 3, at end insert—
The noble Baroness said: I shall be very brief. This amendment seeks to address the important issue of children of homeless families being separated from their parents. I realise that the amendment is not perfect but I would like to highlight again the problems in legislation regarding homeless families who have children.
I am grateful to the Minister for the interest he has shown in this issue, and for distributing relevant information and documentation. I also realise that children's rights go across several pieces of legislation and that discussions have occurred in another place in relation to the children and adoption Bill, also in the Standing Committee of the Homelessness Bill, and in an adjournment debate, so it is being well discussed. I understand also that an amendment to the Children Act is outside the scope of the Bill and so we must work with what is possible.
Local authorities need to have joined-up thinking about homelessness and housing and many do. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, there are inconsistencies and variations, and these may impinge negatively on children.
I would like to emphasise what I said during the Second Reading debate; namely, that the Children Act places the needs of children as paramount—and I emphasise the word Xparamount"—in offering council services, but that there have been cases where children and their parents have been separated.
Shelter continues to collect evidence from its housing aid centres. In the cases it has presented as snapshots, there are no apparent child protection issues involved. The parents have been able to care for the children but the only problem was that the families were homeless. In one case, the Court of Appeal found that Section 17 of the Children Act conferred a power for local authorities to provide assistance, rather than a duty, and that the duty to provide accommodation under Section 20 of the Act is a duty to house the child, not the parent or parents, and the child is thus taken into care.
Shelter considers that the judgments made in that case, and another, are likely to have a significant impact on homeless families with children in need and will inevitably result in social services authorities providing assistance in far fewer cases.
In the adjournment debate in another place, the honourable Member for Regents Park and Kensington North spoke of experiences from her caseload, which indicated that strict adherence to the letter of the law may find households intentionally homeless in Xcircumstances that appear unjust", for example, if a family has unexpected financial problems and is forced to sell their home.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, in her reply, rightly pointed out that striking a balance in relation to housing and social services is important, and undertook to look at the judgments I referred to again and to examine the implications. There is a clear concern from the Government about this issue. I recognise that this is complex but, if children's welfare is being put at risk, we must act. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: I rise to support this amendment, having put my name to it. I raised this at Second Reading too. There is considerable evidence that there are some pretty awkward and difficult cases where children have been taken away from their parents. There is a good deal of evidence which Shelter can provide, as I am sure others can too.
The Minister shared our concern about this and said he would consult a little more widely. I hope that, by supporting this amendment and giving him a chance to tell us how far he has got with those endeavours, we will at least hear something which shows that we are looking at this matter.
I recognise that this is a difficult matter. What the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and I are looking for, is a firm commitment from the Minister that, whatever he does, he will try to take some kind of action to ensure that the sorts of cases we have heard about no longer happen.
XIn section 190 (duties to persons becoming homeless intentionally), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
X(4) In any case where the local housing authority are advised by a social services authority that a child who is in need within the meaning of section 17(10) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) resides with an applicant to whom they have secured that accommodation is available under subsection (2) above, they shall—
(a) continue to secure that accommodation is available for the occupation of the applicant and any such child for so long as the social services authority advise them that accommodation is required to enable the social services authority to provide services to such a child to promote or safeguard the child's welfare; or
(b) provide such assistance to the social services authority as shall enable the applicant to secure that accommodation becomes available from some other person.""
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page