| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I assure the Minister that the whole of the Labour Party on these Benches is behind him. I came here at 2.30 p.m., and I have rarely moved from the Bench since. My interest today was the Enterprise Bill. However, when I saw the two noble Baronesses and the Minister coming in, I knew that there was something on, so I looked at the
Order Paper. I must confess that the importance of the subject had escaped me because of my interest in the Enterprise Bill.I am exceedingly glad to hear of the legislation. The Minister entered the other place with me in 1974. Having represented the seat that he did, he will be familiar with the problems. At that time, housing was the priority, above education, crime and transport. Housing problems now are just as pressing, but the nature of housing needs has changed.
Last night, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and I discussed with the Minister the problems faced by people living in mobile homes. That was an almost unheard-of problem once, but it is a problem now. I can remember more than one occasion on which I left my surgery, got into my car, behind my constituency office, and cried because I could not do anything to help the people who were in need.
The greatest aggravation we face in the year 2002 is that, while I genuinely believe that we have a government and a Minister who want to do something about it and know what needs to be done, they are beaten back by the appalling building rate referred to by the noble Baroness. My noble friend on the Front Bench referred to it in another context. I say "all power to his elbow". That is because, ultimately, a good house, a decent home, a good family and the future of the children is secured. As a constituency MP, the greatest misery I came across was when I found myself powerless to help good people who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in a terrible situation where either they had appalling housing or no housing at all.
I listened to the two noble Baronesses explaining the matter, and I see the order as a tiny step in the right direction. I wish it well.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I rise briefly to welcome the provision. I welcome too the cross-party agreement and unanimity of the House that this is the right direction in which to proceed.
This morning HM Chief Inspector of Prisons visited the House to discuss her work. She told us that prison overcrowding is now so great that many prisoners have to share two to a single cell. In practice this means that there may be a single lavatory in a cell shared by two men, with no screen or shield. The inspector cited an instance where a man with a catheter shared a cell with a young man who was self-harming. That example drives home the importance of reducing the rate of reoffending by ensuring that prisoners and others leaving institutions are prioritised in terms of housing.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer all the points raised by the noble Baronesses, my noble friend and the noble Earl. I shall jump the gun and respond to a point put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. By the Recess, I shall have been in post for eight weeks. During that time I have taken one Parliamentary Question which concerned something that was nothing to do with my department;
that is, the mortgage rate. Since I moved to the department, I have not had to come to the Dispatch Box and answer a single Question on housing. That says something about the overall interest. That is not meant to be a criticism—although it is—but this issue is central to our fellow citizens. While I do not want to go wider than the order before us, I welcome the contribution of all Members of the House tonight and the opportunity to respond.As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, remarked, local authorities have to struggle with this problem. We have increased resources, although I suspect that they will never be enough. But we have made a conscious effort to increase resources as a direct result of the legislation. A genuine complaint often made by local authorities is that resources are not tied. We shall monitor that.
Consultation has taken place with the Local Government Association about the £10 million allocation. That is not all; a huge amount of money is being put into housing. It would be totally unfair to divide the extra £10 million equally among housing authorities because they bear different levels of burden. Shortly we shall announce how the money is to be allocated.
Particular pressure affects London and other urban areas. On the subject of the Housing Corporation, I do not think that it will struggle with its new resources. My experience of the corporation is that it is a real go-go body. Given the announcements made yesterday and the further detailed announcements to be made by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister on Thursday, the Housing Corporation will be let off the leash, so to speak. We expect to see quick action.
I turn now to the test for homelessness. I read swiftly through the debate held in the other place. While I am not familiar with every detail of that debate, I have to say that, on balance, the test has got to be the same. We cannot have two categories of vulnerable homeless people because of the way that the legislation has been drafted. My honourable friend in the other place, Tony McNulty, responded to the points raised by the honourable Member for Bath. I shall not repeat all the details, but he confirmed that the definition of vulnerability in the proposed guidance is set out at paragraph 8.13:
- "'The critical test of vulnerability for applicants of all these categories is whether, when homeless, the applicant would be less able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person so that he would be likely to suffer injury or detriment, in circumstances where a less vulnerable person would be able to cope without harmful effects'. That definition is already well established by the courts".—[Official Report, Commons Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 1/7/02; col. 15.]
I should make a point about prisoners. Being in prison does not qualify someone as a resident in a locality. I should make that absolutely clear and put it on the record. Just because the prison is in a certain locality a prisoner does not acquire rights of residence
with regard to that local authority if the prisoner is making a claim of homelessness as a result of being vulnerable.So far as former servicemen are concerned, while I cannot be specific, my view is this—although I stand to be corrected: the person would have had a home base before they joined the services. Therefore the claim may have to be made in that area rather than wherever the discharge from the armed services took place. However, it says something about the way that the Armed Forces have run this country over generations. We have a massive proportion of vulnerable homeless people who were in the Armed Forces. I know this and my noble friend on the Benches behind me will confirm that that was my experience in my own constituency. It is quite appalling. Qualified, skilled, trained and assertive individuals, prepared to lay down their lives for their country, become so totally institutionalised that they cannot cope when they leave the services. But they are not spotted before they leave and that is the tragedy of the situation.
With proper planning and exit strategies, the problem could be dealt with before servicemen leave. Then we would not need to prioritise such people as vulnerable. Nevertheless, we have reached a point where we have to do so and we have to take steps to look after them. They must be helped to stand up on their feet because homelessness brings with it many consequential problems of which we are all well aware. I do not need to detail them, but they relate to former prisoners as well.
On the subject of domestic violence, I accept the point made by the noble Baroness. Exceptions occur if someone has to flee a violent domestic situation and then out of necessity move away from the relevant local authority. They may have to present themselves to another authority. The test would be: is this a vulnerable person who is homeless? This concerns women in the main, usually accompanied by their children.
I should tell the noble Baroness that the guidelines were published on 8th July and they will have statutory force when the homelessness provisions come into force on 31st July. However, the guidance is open to consultation until 31st October. I can assure both noble Baronesses that the points they have raised tonight will be taken on board by my officials when we consider the consultation process. There is no obligation to write in separately. What has been said in our debate tonight is good enough and is on the record. I shall make sure that all the comments are fed into the process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about the issue of young people colluding with their parents. I know that the noble Baroness was briefly a Member of the other place. I cannot remember for how long she was a Member of Parliament and I cannot remember the constituency, but I recall that it was not a roughed-up urban area.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I rise simply to confirm that my constituency was Christchurch, but
for nine years I served as a councillor on a housing committee in Southampton. That was quite a different kind of place.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is my experience that young people feel a sense of desperation with regard to housing. There are not too many cases, but the temptation to enter into collusion with parents in order to get housing is very great. I have to say to the noble Baroness that the notion that such collusion has never happened simply does not reflect the real world. For that reason, checks have to be made with parents and other family members; the statements cannot be taken at face value.
The main priority for 16 and 17 year-olds is to try to reconcile them with their families. In checking to see whether that would be possible, an experienced housing officer would be able to assess whether the state of homelessness is genuine. The person has to be unintentionally homeless—that is part of the test—and vulnerable, and officers should take that on board.
I should say to the noble Baroness that I am not fully briefed in regard to Wales. When I noticed that the order refers only to England—and I deal only with England—I regret that I did not pick up on the issue of Wales. I shall get one of my other colleagues in government to address that issue and perhaps write to the noble Baroness.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page