| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Tenancy Deposit Scheme
2.47 p.m.
Lord Best asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will now extend the tenancy deposit scheme for a further period.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, for two years the Government have supported, as a pilot, a voluntary tenancy deposit scheme. Although more time is needed to prove that it could operate as a self-financing scheme, its slow take-up makes a strong case for legislation on tenancy deposits. We propose supporting the pilot for two more years to establish, first, the basis for a self-financing national voluntary scheme and, secondly, the extent to which membership of this or similar schemes would need to be backed up by legislation.
The Government will consult on what legislation might encompass. For example, it might prevent the use of tenancy deposits where they are not safeguarded by schemes like the pilot or by regulating them in some
other way. Landlords are very strongly advised to lend their support to the pilot now, so that in advance of legislation there is a proven alternative to regulating the use of tenancy deposits.
Lord Best: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that very positive response which will be greatly appreciated by organisations representing not only tenants, but landlords as well. Does he agree that, in order to protect those tenants where the landlord does not wish to join a voluntary scheme and receive the benefit of having disputes resolved by the Independent Housing Ombudsman service, it is likely that a mandatory scheme will become necessary in due course?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we should see what are the effects of the coming two years. It is extremely important to encourage as many landlords as possible to join the scheme.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I concur with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Many people working in the world of housing will welcome what the noble and learned Lord has said today. Is the noble and learned Lord familiar with a scheme operating in East Anglia? All noble Lords will know how difficult it is for students to find adequate accommodation. At the University of East Anglia, which falls into one of the pilot areas, students have been encouraged to go to landlords who are part of the scheme. What has happened is that, of course, other landlords have then joined the scheme. Will the Minister look closely at this result? It appears that not only would such an approach help the scheme to expand quickly, it would also be a great help to our students.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of the East Anglian scheme, which has worked well. It is precisely the kind of scheme that makes life a lot easier between landlords and tenants.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's reply will certainly encourage many landlords to continue to participate in the scheme and encourage new ones to join. But, just as there are bad and rogue tenants, there are often bad and rogue landlords, and until we have legislation making the scheme compulsory there will always be someone on the margins who is not benefiting. Will the noble and learned Lord seek to introduce legislation at an earlier rather than later date?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I note what the noble Earl said. It is a view shared by many people in the housing world. Extending the pilot for two years will give us a chance to see what is the appropriate course. As I said in the second part of my Answer, we will consult now on what the legislation might encompass.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, do the Government believe that a national statutory scheme could be run
without a requirement for the registration of landlords and agents? Does the Minister agree that agents who handle their tenants' money should be registered with the local authority?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to whether or not we would need to register landlords in order to have an effective compulsory deposit scheme, I do not know the answer. That is one of the issues that the consultation will encompass.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the income generated by the custodial option scheme is likely to be more than is necessary to fund the scheme? Is he further aware that in New South Wales, for example, the surplus income is used to subsidise schemes such as the rent guarantee scheme, which enables homeless people or people on lower incomes to gain access to housing?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of the Australian example given by the noble Earl. As to whether there will be enough money from the custodial scheme, one of the findings that has emerged from the pilot is that it has not yet been proved that the schemes overall are self-financing. We need to look more at that issue before decisions are made.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister appreciates the general welcome given to the idea that people who pay deposits should, in one way or another, receive protection. Will he continue with this and be very careful about abandoning further positive action because of slow take-up? The slow take-up could well be improved over time, particularly if there is some kind of campaign to draw the scheme to the attention of landlords and tenants.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I referred to the slow take-up, but we are continuing with the scheme for another two years. There are signs that the slow start is now leading to a process where more people are taking up the scheme. I agree that giving more publicity to this kind of scheme—including to landlords, who get a real benefit from it—will increase the take-up still further.
Asylum Seekers: Detention
2.53 p.m.
Lord Chan asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What their policy is towards holding asylum seekers in United Kingdom prisons.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Government have pursued a strategy of detaining those held solely under immigration powers in dedicated long-term Immigration Service facilities. Part of that strategy has been the opening of three new removal centres towards the end of last year. To this
end, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 3rd October last year that he was committed to cease using Prison Service accommodation for holding immigration detainees beyond January 2002. I am pleased to say that that commitment has been met.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, no mention has been made of Walton prison in Liverpool, which I have visited. Can the Minister confirm that immigration detainees are today being held in dedicated prison establishments? Will he explain the difference between a prison and an Immigration Service removal centre where asylum seekers are detained, particularly in terms of the cost per prisoner or immigration detainee?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is important to get the facts right first. There are no immigration detainees being held solely under immigration rules in any prison at the present time. Whatever the date the noble Lord visited Walton, there are no immigration detainees being held there today. There have not been any detainees in any prison since the middle of January. There are five dedicated immigration removal centres—previously called detention centres. There are two former prisons—Haslar and Lindholme—which are now removal centres and have been legally such since 8th February. It will take time to get all the facilities organised on the scale of our new purpose-built removal centres, but for solely immigration purposes there are no asylum seekers or immigration detainees in prisons. There could be occasionally in Northern Ireland, where there are no dedicated immigration removal facilities, but anyone held there has the option of coming to the mainland and going to one of the Immigration Service establishments. That is not to say that there are no asylum seekers in prison, but if they are in prison they are there because of non-immigration related offences.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome the discontinuation of holding asylum seekers in prisons, but who is responsible for making sure that the rules in detention and holding centres are adequately observed? Perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to rule 4, which is a compact that allows the detainees to know their rights in detention, and to rule 9, which places a duty on the Home Secretary to ensure that the reasons for detention are adequately explained to the detainees every month. In many of the detention centres of which I know, these rules are not properly observed. Will the Minister ensure, particularly in relation to the Gatwick detention centre, that these rules are adequately observed and that such information is passed to the detainees at the earliest possible opportunity?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall check into what the noble Lord has said. I am not aware—I stand to be corrected later—of any complaint about people in removal centres not being made aware of the rules. As to who is responsible, the Immigration Department is
responsible. Even though HMPs Haslar and Lindholme are managed by the Prison Service, they are under the direct operational control of the Immigration Department. To that end, it is my department and the Immigration Department that are responsible. I am not aware of any difficulties at Tinsley House. I have visited all the dedicated removal centres and that matter has not been drawn to my attention. But I shall check on it.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |