| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I do not wish to carp, but it would have been helpful if the amendment had been tabled a day earlier.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for that. It was entirely my fault. There were still things to sort out. If there are any difficulties, I hope that I can resolve them and answer any questions raised.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I shall put my questions into my remarks. I made that point because for those of us who do not have large departments or lots of people helping us with legislation, it is quite difficult. We have been asked by the usual channels to make sure that we table amendments on time. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord recognises the difficulties.
The noble and learned Lord did not make it clear whether the Government were going to make changes to the Adoption and Children Bill. It is obvious from comments that I have made at earlier stages, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who is very sorry that she cannot be here, that the amendment meets the points that we have raised and the concerns that Shelter has expressed.
It is important to emphasise how sensitively housing departments will need to deal with the issue. Applicants in those circumstances are likely to be very vulnerable and distressed. Given the preconceptions that some people have about social services and the publicity that has surrounded the issue, a suggestion that they will be referred to social services may cause some people further distress and may discourage them from giving their consent. The important aspect of the amendment is that the consent of people presenting themselves to the local authority is required. It will therefore be important for housing departments to make it clear sensitively that social services may be able to assist them. That should be reflected in guidance. I hope that the Minister will tell us that that will happen.
It would also be helpful if the Minister could expand a little on what is meant by,
- "such advice and assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances".
With those provisos, we welcome the amendment. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on the two points that I have raised.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I share the concerns and the enthusiasm expressed by the previous two speakers. It is good that the Government have listened to those concerns. Where children are
involved it is important that safeguards are built in. I am glad that the Government have tabled the amendment, which has my support.
Baroness David: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Massey is unable to be here today, but she asked me to say on her behalf how pleased she is and how grateful she is to the Minister for the amendment that he has tabled. She is entirely satisfied that it will deal with the problem of parents and children being separated, which had caused anxiety to many of us. I add my thanks to hers. We are very pleased that at long last an amendment has been tabled that seems to fulfil all our ambitions on this difficult problem. I thank the Minister on behalf of us all.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, will the Minister be so kind as to explain the meaning of "intentionally" in subsection (1)(b) and (c)? I think that I understand the circumstances in paragraph (b) in which a person becomes intentionally homeless, but paragraph (c) is less clear to me. Who would be threatening the child? What are the circumstances foreseen? If that could be read into the record, it would be a substantial help in subsequent litigation.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I too warmly welcome the amendment. I should appreciate the Minister's clarification on a few points. It would be helpful if he could expand on what is meant by providing,
- "such advice and assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances".
In certain circumstances in which the needs of children are unlikely to be met outside the social sector—for example, if they are disabled and need a specially adapted property—I hope that such assistance would not preclude the provision of accommodation. That might be reflected in guidance. Perhaps the Minister might write to me on those points if that would allow him to expand further on them.
Finally, on the point of intentionality, it would be helpful if the Minister could encourage local authorities to take more account of the circumstances in which a family's homelessness arises in the first place and the potential implications for them when applying the law relating to intentional homelessness. Families are sometimes declared intentionally homeless in extremely harsh circumstances. Taking a longer-term approach could save a good deal of distress, particularly if, as in the example that I gave earlier, the child has special needs. Shelter's legal teams are
frequently successful in overturning harsh decisions about intentionality. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I apologise for making this point so late in the proceedings. I hope that I am not too late. Clause 15(3), which deals with allocation schemes, says:
- "The scheme may also be framed so as to give additional preference to particular descriptions of people within this subsection (being descriptions of people with urgent housing needs)".
Lord Avebury: My Lords, on Report I moved an amendment on the particular problems faced by local authorities when dealing with homelessness among gypsies. Since then I have written to the noble and learned Lord, although I do not expect him to have had time to consider the points that I raised in that letter. I should like him to interpret the new clause as it applies to gypsies who become homeless.
As the noble and learned Lord knows, many gypsies have large families. If they are living on an unauthorised encampment, they are already homeless. As I pointed out in my letter, the police have the power to issue directions for them to move under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The local authority also has the power to direct them to move if they are camping on land without the permission of the occupier or on the roadside and in certain other circumstances.
Consequently, if police were contemplating using Section 61 or local authorities contemplated using Section 77, the gypsy family living on that land would be threatened with homelessness and the provisions of this clause would, I think, come into play. However, as the Minister is also aware, it is not normal for gypsies to accept temporary accommodation as they have a strong cultural aversion to going into bed and breakfast. Recently, moreover, the courts have ruled that that is a perfectly reasonable attitude for them to take. Yet, in most local authorities there is not sufficient accommodation for the gypsies already residing in or resorting to their area. That is one of the difficulties that we face because we do not have the guidance. We do not know what local authorities will be asked to do when they are faced with such circumstances.
When a gypsy family are in unauthorised occupation of a piece of land, there is a threat that they will be removed. Under this legislation, the local authority would have a duty to make provision for them that does not sunder the children from the parents even though there was no accommodation on authorised sites within the local authority area to which they could be asked to move when directed to leave their current accommodation. I just wonder how the Minister will reconcile that problem in the eventual guidance.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have welcomed the amendment. I shall deal with the specific points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about the amendment that is needed in relation to the Children Act 1989. As I said on Report and again today, the critical issue is to ensure that the social services directorate has power, when appropriate, to house the family and not only the children. As my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of Health said in the Commons on 17th January, to which I referred on Report, we have undertaken to bring forward amendments to the Adoption and Children Bill to address that issue.
As for guidance on the difficulties to which the particular duty gives rise—as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, there will be sensitivities between housing and social services because of the fact that they are dealing with children—those particular sensitivities need to be reflected in the guidance that will be issued.
The noble Baroness also asked what type of advice and assistance would be provided. That issue was raised also by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl on what we wish to see in the advice and assistance. The types of issue raised by the noble Earl—such as practical help in finding accommodation and obtaining housing benefit—are precisely those we would expect to see addressed in the advice and assistance.
As for the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I do not want to get sucked into a debate on what might happen in relation to litigation. However, the difference between subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) is that, in subsection (1)(b), the subject has become homeless and, in subsection (1)(c), the subject is threatened with homelessness. The word intentionally has the same meaning in both paragraphs and that meaning has been enshrined in homelessness legislation for a very considerable time. I think that the distinction between the two is simply that one subject is homeless whereas the other is threatened with homelessness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, raised an issue that, with the greatest respect, I think has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment we are debating. Nevertheless it is an important issue. If I may, I shall write to her on the particular issue.
I think that that deals with all the points that were raised.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page