Housing (Northern Ireland)

HC Deb 27 October 1988 vol 139 cc550-68

9.8 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham)

I beg to move,

That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 13th July 1988, be approved. The main purpose of the order is to introduce provisions for homeless people in Northern Ireland which correspond to those that apply in England and Wales. Great Britain has had legislation dealing with homelessness which was first introduced during the life of the previous Government in 1977 with all-party support. The order also contains some important amendments to the present right-to-buy legislation and extends the Housing Executive's powers to control houses in multiple occupation. It also introduces a series of technical measures.

During the consultation period, I received a wide range of submissions. Most of the representations dealt with homelessness. I also met a number of voluntary groups to discuss the homeless. These groups generally welcomed the order, but felt that we should have broadened the proposed legislation. I considered their views carefully, but in the end I decided that what was appropriate for the rest of the United Kingdom was also right for Northern Ireland.

Homelessness is, of course, a serious problem, but despite reports that have recently been published, the problem is not as widespread or as intractable in Northern Ireland as in many other parts of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members will no doubt be aware of a recent report on homelessness published by Shelter and the Simon Community, which claims that between 6,000 and as many as 8,320 households are homeless each year in Northern Ireland. Those figures have little or no basis in fact.

Some indication of the real extent of the problem can be gained from the number of people awarded emergency status under the Housing Executive's selection scheme. During 1987, some 2,200 were awarded emergency status, and about 75 per cent. of those received an offer of rehousing within three months. In addition—this is the important point—the area health and social services boards provided temporary accommodation for 316 families and 271 single people during 1986. At 31 December 1987, 26 homeless families and 75 homeless single people were living in temporary accommodation arranged by the boards. Those are the figures which I intend to keep a close eye on.

I am sure that the House will be interested to know that, in the whole of Northern Ireland there are no more families living in temporary accommodation than there are in the New Forest, and that there are fewer such families than in Bristol, Ipswich, Reading or Lewisham. It is important not to exaggerate the problem in Northern Ireland, although that is not to belittle the impact of homelessness on those affected.

The area boards have used their discretionary powers under the Health and Personal Social Services Order 1972 to provide temporary accommodation for vulnerable homeless people. However, the division of responsibilities between the boards, which look after the temporarily homeless, and the executive, which has control over permanent housing, is no longer ideal, as some people fall between two stools. The order will enable assistance to be provided in a more planned and co-ordinated way.

The order also sets out the vulnerable groups that will have a right to immediate accommodation. Six categories are listed in article 5. The first four are the same as those listed in the Housing Act 1985, but I have added two more: first, people subjected to violence; and secondly, young people at risk of sexual or financial exploitation. I believe that those two additional classes will be welcomed by all.

The main debate that has taken place in the Province prior to the introduction of this order is whether the Government should have done more to help single homeless people. It would be impossible to cater for all those who, having had a row with their parents or a row with one another, suddenly decided on a whim to leave home and fall back on the Housing Executive for accommodation. Not only would it be impossible to deal with them all; it would be quite wrong, as such people would automatically jump the list above those who may well have waited many months in housing that was not particularly appropriate. A young married couple living with their parents would hardly be happy to find themselves pipped at the post by someone who had committed what they could well see as an act of irresponsibility or fecklessness. To write into law such a duty for single people would in my judgment be as irresponsible as it would be impossible to fulfil and would create considerable community antagonism.

The Housing Executive will continue to do all that it can to provide for the single homeless. At present, about one third of all lettings by the executive go to single people. The lettings are not made in an ill-planned and inappropriate way. I am well aware of the need to avoid ghettos of either single people from troubled backgrounds or single-parent families and it is very important to get as much of a social mix as possible. I am convinced that the Housing Executive will consider the points thoroughly in defining its future policy on single homeless people.

It is worth adding that single homeless people can also continue to be housed in the private sector and by housing associations, which have been a great support to them and have provided accommodation for more than 750 single people in the past five years. I see that as a continuing partnership.

The second concern was intentionality. Worry was expressed to me that the Housing Executive might try to avoid its responsibilities to homeless people by insisting on very tight intentionality provisions. I believe that those fears are unfounded.

The purpose of article 6 is to ensure that people do not deliberately make themselves homeless in order to jump the queue ahead of others who have been waiting patiently on the housing list, and the same principle must apply to them as it does to single people who may demand rehousing without reasonable cause. I think everyone will agree that the executive has a good record under its existing housing selection scheme in making similar decisions to the intentionality rules under the present guidelines, which deny housing to people who have deliberately worsened their circumstances. I have no reason to believe that it will not adopt a similar and sensible approach on intentionality, but I accept that this is something that we shall need to keep under review.

There were also some suggestions that it would be right to have an independent appeal system included in the order. When the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill was debated in the House in 1977, both sides accepted that it would be illogical to include such a right of appeal when no such right existed against many other types of housing management decisions taken by local housing authorities every day. The Housing Executive operates an internal complaints procedure which deals with cases where people are not satisfied with its decisions or actions, and I am pleased that the executive has agreed to review its procedures to make sure that they are appropriate once its new homelessness responsibilities take effect.

Clearly the change in responsibility from area boards to the executive will require funds to be transferred to the housing authority. We have not yet finalised the amount, but it will be those sums which the boards are currently spending. The Housing Executive has made it clear to me that in addition it will require further funds to enable it to carry out these new duties fully. I will look closely at this bid by the executive in the context of the current public expenditure review.

The most important point to stress about the homelessness part of the order is that its effectiveness will depend on the way that the Housing Executive operates it. I am reassured—I hope that hon. Members will be—by the quality of those who serve on the Housing Executive as officers and board members. I am sure that the incoming chairman, Mr. McEvoy, ably assisted by all his board, who have wide experience of the problems of social deprivation, homelessness and morbidity, will ensure that the executive deals fairly and sensitively with applicants.

Success will depend on the executive maintaining close relationships with the area boards and the voluntary agencies. For example, I will wish to see the boards keep closely in touch with the problems that are associated with the health and social care of homeless families. I have asked the Housing Executive, in conjunction with these other agencies, to draw up a detailed code of practice and guidance which can set out the role of each in the operation of the new order. This code will be freely available so that everyone will know what the precise responsibilities of each statutory body are, and I will ensure that the code is made available to hon. Members.

To make certain that we have the code of practice and guidance right, I am arranging for a seminar to be held at the end of November, where all those involved in homelessness will be asked to participate. Using the draft code of practice and guidance, the seminar will discuss how each group or agency, both public and voluntary, can play its part under the umbrella of the legislation to provide the best possible service to those who are homeless. I hope that these initiatives will do much to dispel the doubts in the minds of some of the voluntary bodies and, more important, help to develop good working relationships and practices between everyone involved.

I turn briefly to the other provisions which, first, deal with right-to-buy amendments and increase the scale of discounts on the purchase of executive flats to a maximum of 70 per cent. The order reduces the period during which there is a liability to repay the discount from five to three years. In addition, we are extending from two to three years the period during which a right-to-buy purchase can be deferred.

There is a continuing interest by the people of Northern Ireland in buying their homes, I am glad to say. Last year, over 2,800 executive tenants took this step, and this makes a total of over 36,000 houses sold to date. I am confident that these amendments, which have already been incorporated in the executive's voluntary sales scheme, will keep that interest going.

I am also introducing an amendment to the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 which gives the executive powers to enforce notices that it has served requiring execution of repair works in houses of multiple occupation. This will close a gap in its existing powers and should help the executive to develop its programme to improve conditions for those people currently in houses of multiple occupation where conditions are often far from perfect.

I shall do all that I can to answer hon. Members in my summing up. I should like to reiterate the point that we are building on a piece of legislation brought forward in the House by both sides and with the support of the last Labour Government which I believe treads carefully between what is impracticable and what is necessary. I commend the order to the House.

9.20 pm

Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South)

Those of us who participate in these debates on Northern Ireland usually are a small proportion of the House. We soon realise if one familiar face is no longer here. It is with sadness that I notice that Sir John Biggs-Davison is not in his place. He always participated in our debates and always had some thoughtful and often pungent comments to make. I rarely agreed with anything he said, but it was always a pleasure to see him participate in Northern Ireland business. I am sure that he will be sorely missed, not only by the people of Northern Ireland but by the House.

Ministers, especially Irish Ministers, always begin a good excuse by saying that they are copying a piece of legislation that has been operative in Great Britain for a number of years and therefore see no good reason why it should not automatically apply in the North of Ireland. The Under-Secretary of State adopted that technique. Despite the praise that he has heaped on the homeless legislation which has operated in Great Britain over the past few years, there is increasing evidence that that legislation is insufficient to deal with the problems.

I hoped that the Northern Ireland Office would take the opportunity to introduce legislation building upon existing legislation and taking into account many of the deficiencies which have been found over the past few years. Alas, that option has not been taken. Again, a Minister has said that what is good for Great Britain is good for the North of Ireland. I regret that the Minister did not take the opportunity to bring forward better legislation to deal with the homeless in Northern Ireland.

The Minister knows that we welcome the draft order because, for the first time, it imposes a statutory duty on the Housing Executive to deal with at least part of the homelessness problem. As the Minister will probably guess, we regret that the new law will offer protection to only a small number of those who find themselves homeless. The order defines those in priority need and specifically excludes single people and childless couples, despite the fact that statistics show that as many 80 per cent. of homeless people are in one of those two categories. The provisions of the draft order, especially article 5, fail to provide recognition for the largest group of homeless people in Northern Ireland.

I deprecate the cavalier way in which the Minister disregards the needs of young single homeless people. To pretend that the majority leave home and seek their own accommodation purely because they have had a tiff with a parent calls into question the Minister's understanding and casts aspersions on those young people which I find it difficult to accept. I hope that in his reply the Minister will offer more serious and thoughtful reasons for excluding single people from the scope of the draft order. To categorise all the young people now homeless as being in that position due to some whim or fancy reflects great discredit on the Minister and casts an aspersion on those young people which is both unnecessary and unwarranted.

The Labour party's view is that all homeless people are in priority need and should be recognised as such, and we regret that the Government have failed to extend article 5 to include single homeless people.

I recognise that the Housing Executive discharges responsibilities towards single people and I accept the Minister's figure that one third of Housing Executive lettings in 1987–88 were to single young people. If the information in his letter to me is correct, the total number of dwellings is 3,700. That is commendable, but if we are to solve the problem of single homeless people it is not sufficient to rest on the laurels of the past. We must ensure that more suitable accommodation is provided in the future. I urge the Minister to convey to the Housing Executive the need to make more small unit accommodation available for single homeless people.

The problems of homelessness cannot be treated in isolation. They are inextricably intertwined with housing policy. It is fairly obvious that if insufficient homes are coming forward the problem of homelessness will increase. In this context, I am concerned about the financial situation which the Housing Executive claims may face it in the coming years. I understand that in its latest annual report—I have not read the report, so I depend on press statements—the Housing Executive estimates that in the next two years there will be a shortfall of £38.5 million between the funding that the Government are prepared to provide and the amount needed by the Housing Executive to fund its work.

I understand that the Housing Executive also claims that, if the present situation continues, the shortfall may be £100 million by the end of the century. According to the chairman of the Housing Executive, the result could be a drastic reduction in public sector housebuilding, full improvement schemes and renovation grants". In my view, that would be disastrous for the Province and a disaster for the homeless. The. Government must ensure that the Housing Executive programme is fully funded.

In the context of finance, I express today in the House a concern which I expressed in a letter to the Minister making representations on the draft order. I am concerned about the adequacy of the funds to be made available to the Housing Executive to administer the homelessness legislation. I accept that the Government have given a commitment that the resources that are now available through the Department of Health and Social Services and the area health and social services boards will transfer to the Department of the Environment and the Housing Executive when the legislation comes into force. I also accept the assurance that that transfer of resources will be enough to cover current levels of activity.

However, I and, I am sure, most Opposition Members are concerned that there is no commitment about future expenditure. As the Government conceded in a reply that the Minister sent me, the legislation may result in an increase in the amount of resources needed to deal with homelessness. The Government also said: It will be up to the Housing Executive to seek such additional funds as it estimates will be required when submitting annual reviews of its housing strategy. So the Government accept that there may well be an increase in the financial burden on the Housing Executive as a result of this legislation and that, to cope with it, the Housing Executive should include an estimate in its annual review estimates for the money to meet that increased expenditure. But it is not enough to include an estimate based on previous years' expenditure, only to find that the budget as a whole is reduced in public expenditure cuts which will, if this policy is operated, reduce the amount available to the Housing Executive to deal with the problems of homelessness.

I hope that the Minister will give a commitment on the Government's behalf that the Northern Ireland Office will fund in full any additional expenditure, not only next year but in the years to come. Unless such a commitment is given, the Housing Executive may have to cut other parts of its budget to meet its statutory obligations to the homeless. I hope that the Minister will not allow that to happen and will give an absolute guarantee that the Government will fully fund the exenditure involved in carrying out the Housing Executive's statutory duties.

We welcome the inclusion of articles 15 and 28. The former enables the Housing Executive to help voluntary organisations that are concerned with homelessness. We all agree that these organisations do a good job and should continue to receive support.

As the Minister said, article 28 provides the Housing Executive with powers to enforce notices requiring the carrying out of remedial repairs to properties in multiple occupation. In some cases, these repairs are more than necessary and it is only right and just that the Housing Executive should have these powers.

If a Division is called—I doubt very much whether one will be—the Minister may count on our support in the Lobbies.

9·33 pm

Mr. A. Cecil Walker (Belfast, North)

I add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) in expressing my sadness at the passing of a great dear friend of Northern Ireland, Sir John Biggs-Davison, who was always here to help us and to contribute to debates on the Province. He will be sorely missed.

The House owes you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a sincere apology for asking you to preside over the play-acting farce that is taking place here this evening called the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order. We are being requested to comment on yet another order where we do not have the power to dot an "i" or cross a "t".

Many hon. Members, together with other concerned organisations, totalling 58 bodies in all, including 11 district council and other professional and representative groups, have submitted comments and submissions on the draft. But as for a positive reaction from the Government, they could be whistling in the wind. Therefore, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I again register in the strongest possible manner my abhorrence of this dictatorial imposition of Government intention with no opportunity to amend or debate in a meaningful way the contents of the order.

You must also be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in an attempt to justify this thoroughly reprehensible form of government it has been suggested from time to time that such orders could be debated in the Northern Ireland Committee. The House knows that such a system would achieve nothing in real terms and cannot compare with real government as applied to all matters relating to other parts of the United Kingdom.

Nevertheless, although at this stage nothing can be done about the shortcomings of the order, I wish to acquaint the Minister with my reservations about some of the matters that are of concern to those in Northern Ireland who have the interests of this section of the population very much at heart.

It is an irrefutable fact that single people make up the largest percentage of the homeless population. It is stated that the Housing Executive will now be the main agency for housing homeless people, but it has intimated that the section making up the single homeless will have no right to housing unless they fall into a priority group.

The existence of priority groups means that some groups are being seen as having special cause to be given accommodation, leaving others, mainly single people and childless couples, with no accommodation. Only if single people are accepted as vulnerable can they be housed. Experience has shown that vulnerability is a difficult concept to prove. Therefore, clearer guidelines are required to assist in the assessment of physical, mental and other types of vulnerability.

In my constituency there is a high rate of intimidation from outside the home. Many young persons who have not acquiesced to the pressures of paramilitary organisations have had to move out of the family home for their own and their families' safety, and therefore are homeless. Moreover, no allowance appears to be made for people with family problems, for marital breakdowns or where a person is discharged from institutional care.

There is nothing in the legislation that enforces standards to prevent people from being placed in unsuitable substandard accommodation. Some adults and young children in my constituency are living in intolerable conditions in houses with inadequate roofs or ceilings or with rotten floors. Thought must be given to defining those standards, together with providing adequate resources, so that temporary accommodation in particular can be properly planned.

The concept of intentionality, as we call it, is thorny. The decision whether a person has made himself intentionally homeless is wide open to debate. Judgments about intentionality are bound to be subjective and lead to arguments about the deserving and undeserving homeless.

I am also worried that no reference has been made to any independent housing appeals procedure in the legislation. I know that the Minister mentioned that in his speech. Such a procedure would have avoided lengthy, complex and expensive court procedures as experienced in this part of the mainland.

Another dangerous aspect of the order concerns those people who already have priority under the existing selection scheme where there is no limitation in law on single people or childless couples. It is therefore important that the legislation does not undermine these positive aspects of the Housing Executive's existing selection scheme.

The Minister has stated that the funds required by the Housing Executive to meet additional responsibilities in respect of homeless people will come from a transfer of resources allocated to homelessness elsewhere and that the executive's estimate of its requirements for dealing with homelessness will form part of the annual process of needs assessment and costing in the review of housing strategy.

The Minister should be aware of the magnitude of the task that he has set the executive in dealing with homelessness, and, in view of the swingeing cuts that have been imposed on the executive's budget in recent years, and the pessimistic forecasts for the future, I hope that specific funds will be available to ensure that the executive will not be hamstrung in its administrative responsibilities to this section of the population.

To achieve the standards of service required, concentrated attention will have to be given to providing staff with proper training in respect of homelessness, improving the provision of temporary accommodation for the homeless and increasing general housing provision to meet the needs of the homeless. Legislation is needed, and the measure at least represents an advance on the present situation.

The Minister has said that the legislation will give the executive considerable discretion to deal sympathetically with homeless applicants, but unless he backs his statement with the finance necessary to carry out that commitment, the situation will not improve. I wish to compliment the hon. Member for Leicester, South on making that point so strongly in his speech.

We do not want the scandal of sleazy bed-and-breakfast establishments littered around the Province of Northern Ireland. Carrick House is an example of an establishment where adequate funds have not been provided, although it is a credit to the hard-working and caring staff who are doing their best in completely unacceptable circumstances. The Minister should take time off from his more pleasant pursuits to look at Carrick House, which the executive will inherit under the provisions of the order.

We need new hostels, specially designed and equipped for the welfare of the homeless, but not at the expense of the existing housing programme, which is already extremely underfunded.

In that connection, I have been requested by my colleague, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), who cannot, unfortunately, be with us this evening, to acquaint the Minister with the complete lack of facilities for the homeless in Newton Abbey. He hopes that, when conisderation is given to the provision of such facilities in the future, that fact will be kept uppermost in the Minister's mind.

9.43 pm

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

Like hon. Members who have spoken before me, I welcome this piece of legislation, not because it covers all the problems that arise from homelessness and other matters such as multiple occupation, but because it is at least a step in the right direction. Like the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken the opportunity, in view of the experiences of the past 10 years since the legislation for England, Scotland and Wales came into force, to amend that legislation and to improve it.

In welcoming the order, I am sure that I am only echoing the sentiments of the Simon community in Northern Ireland, Shelter and the Council for the Homeless, all of which have been agitating for many years for such a provision. It might surprise the House to know that, until now, there has been no statutory obligation on any authority in Northern Ireland to house a homeless person.

The Housing Executive has no statutory duty and the health boards have a discretionary involvement. The statistics show that the boards' discretion is rather meagrely exercised. It is the voluntary sector that has carried the burden of providing accommodation and other necessities for the homeless. Its budget is restricted, as are its physical assets, and I pay tribute to it for what it has been able to achieve. The House might be interested to know that of the 39 hostels and other units of accommodation for the homeless in Northern Ireland, only three were provided by the four health boards. The House will appreciate immediately that the remaining 36 were provided by the meagrely funded voluntary sector. Great tribute must be paid to it. I am sure that the Minister will wish it to be closely involved in any further and continuing provisions.

The order is timely because of two further factors. Perhaps I should point out at the outset that the Minister will not agree with what I am about to say. I fear that there will be increased demand for provision for the homeless because of the new provisions for health care in the community. According to those who are in the know, this care is grossly underfunded. It is almost inevitable that some of those who have been put out of institutions into the community will drift into homelessness as a result of lack of care. We see in the United States the horrific consequences of unwarranted de-institutionalisation of those who are not able to look after themselves.

The order is timely also, given the stringent social security cuts which will bite more deeply on the family. I am convinced that there will be an acceleration of the breakdown of the containment of the family within the household. I believe that young people especially will be forced into leaving home and seeking help elsewhere. The disintegration of the family will contribute furher to the demand for provision for the homeless.

It is important that young people should have access to immediate help. In many parts of Northern Ireland, boys and girls without homes are recruitment targets for the paramilitarists. The paramilitarists have mafia-type operations and it is easy for them to provide immediate funding, ostensibly to help young people to get over a diffcult time. They are approached when they need material help, when it is clear that they are under mental stress. As I have said, the agencies that provide housing provision should be immediately sympathetic and responsive to the individual's problem. If that help is not available, young people will be enticed into paramilitary operations, to the detriment of the community.

The order should have three broad attributes. It should definitely, positively and unequivocally identify responsibility for the succour of the homeless. This has been successfully achieved by transferring the function to the Housing Executive.

Secondly, the accommodation provided by the executive, be it interim or long term, must be of an acceptable standard. There must be an initial insistence on the part of the Ministry, the health boards and the executive that the accommodation must meet minimum reasonable standards.

The third requisite that I wish to mention—it is one on which other hon. Members have touched, and on which the legislation will, to a large extent, either succeed or fail—is funding. Like faith and hope, if one does not enjoy charity then the other two cannot survive. If there is no funding, there will not be the exercise of responsibility and the provision of meaningful and suitable accommodation.

The order has seen few changes since its original draft, despite the fact that, as the hon. Member for Belfast, North, said there have been 58 representations. In a short debate such as this, it is not possible to deal with every aspect, so I shall restrict myself to just a few of them. First, I thank the Minister for his detailed and lengthy reply to the submission that I made to him on behalf of the Social, Democratic and Labour party when the draft order was published.

The first point that I should like to have clarified—it is not written into the order but it is in the Minister's letter—concerns whether or not people who are in temporary accommodation are deemed homeless. In his letter to me, in respect of article 3, the Minister wrote: It is clear, depending on individual circumstances, that a person living in unsatisfactory temporary accommodation could be regarded either as homeless or threatened with homelessness for the purpose of this Order. That is a significant comment. It could have been included in the order, but unfortunately it is not. However, it may still be taken as a strong indication of ministerial attitude, which the Minister can convey to the Housing Executive in interpreting the order.

My second concern relates to interim accommodation, its duration and type. I sincerely hope that we shall not see introduced into Northern Ireland something that we do not yet have—the bed-and-breakfast syndrome. It is so debilitating and restrictive in every way—both psychologically and otherwise—for a man, his wife and family to be placed in such circumstances. If it is necessary for some reason to make such provision, I hope that it will be done for as short a time as possible, and that it will be replaced by properly standardised and permanent accommodation.

Article 5 of the order deals with priority need. I accept the six categories of priority listed in article 5, but it excludes, as has been mentioned by other hon. Members, the young, single, divorced or widowed person. While I accept the categories already included in article 5, there is a danger that, because others are excluded, in administering the legislation the Housing Executive, whose responsibility that will be, might treat those existing six categories as the only definitions of priority need.

I am greatly concerned that those people, whom the Minister in his opening remarks said constituted one third of the demand in the homeless market, if I might use that crude expression, would be disadvantaged. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that his instruction and the code of practice, if he is referring to a code of practice, will deal with that particular problem.

It is coincidental that other hon. Members have touched on the same kernel subjects, which obviously give us all cause for concern. Another is the question of "intentionality" and of "worsening one's circumstances". Again, I agree with the principle that anyone who deliberately worsens their own circumstances should not earn great sympathy or deserve immediate consideration.

The great problem is that the interpretation of intentionality will be left to an individual or group of individuals in the Housing Executive. Like the Minister, I have the greatest admiration for the Housing Executive and the way that it carries out its duties, but its staff are human and errors will be made. I have already suggested to the Minister—he rejected the suggestion—that there be some appeal procedure. He said that an appeal could be made by way of internal review in the Housing Executive and, failing that, a complaint could be made to the complaints commissioner.

However, if a homeless person in immediate need of accommodation is told by the Housing Executive that he has intentionally worsened his circumstances to put himself outside the scope of the order, but denies the circumstances, what redress has he for immediate review? The answer is none, because the internal review within the Housing Executive will take at least a couple of weeks; and as to a complaint being made to the complaints commissioner, a family may be dead and buried before getting an answer, never mind getting a house. I ask the Minister to take on board the suggestion that some tribunal, independent of the deciding officers in the Housing Executive, should be established, even on a local basis, to give redress to those who feel that they have been neglected.

The scheme for the purchase of evacuated dwellings is known in Northern Ireland as SPED. I urge the Minister to ask the Housing Executive to reappraise its attitudes towards SPED. It seems to think that only evacuated urban dwellings can be bought, whereas in many parts of rural Northern Ireland, because of intimidation or community factors, people have been forced to leave their homes and those homes connot be sold on the market because of the very circumstances which forced the people to leave—intimidation or sectarian attitudes. The Housing Executive must be made aware that that applies equally to the rural communities as to the urban conurbations.

The emergency repairs article in the order is almost a contradiction. If emergency repairs go through the administrative procedure, and there has to be a wait before the procedure is adopted, they will not be emergency repairs.

Funding exercised the minds of those who preceded me. It was with great concern that I noted what the Minister said in his opening comments and in the replies that he has made to others and to me. The funds available appear to be those that will be transferred from the four health boards, which will in effect be the proportion of their budget that they have utilised in helping the homeless. We already know that, of 39 hostels, only three are operated by the health boards, so amount of money transferred will do precious little. I was interested to note that the Minister would be robbing his left hand pocket to pay his right hand pocket, because he has responsibility for both.

The Housing Executive will also be required to make a bid for additional funding. One has only to look at the experience of the Housing Executive budget in the past couple of years to see the problem: stop, start, stop, go—£5 million knocked off, £5 million added on, a £35 million reduction here and an increase coming back again there. The Housing Executive does not know whether there is a real new build programme or an approved grant system that is not restrictive as it is at the moment. The Housing Executive does not have adequate funding at present. The general house condition survey shows that it is falling back in its repairs. It does not have adequate funding for its existing function. If we add the homeless function and put that into competition with its existing function, I fear that the homeless will fare poorly.

Unless the Minister is prepared to give a special new allocation of funding to the Housing Executive for the purpose of this order, it will be nothing more than a cosmetic exercise that will not deserve any time for debate or be worth the paper that it is written on. I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will make a special budgetary provision for the transition period and for the couple of years that will be necessary to set up the hostels. Unless that is done, this whole exercise will be a charade.

10 pm

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I begin by echoing on behalf of my party the tributes paid by hon. Members to the contribution to Northern Ireland discussions by the former Member for Epping Forest, Sir John Biggs-Davison. I am not a familiar and regular participant in these debates, but even I know that he made a signal and significant contribution to past discussions in the House on the thorny problems of the Province. As has been said, he will be very sadly missed.

I should like, too, to echo what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), because again, as someone who is relatively new to these debates, I know that it must be frustrating for hon. Members who represent constituencies in the Province to have to subject themselves to this kind of legislative procedure. As a Member from a Scottish constituency, I say to the hon. Gentleman that, if I went back to Scotland and tried to justify this sort of machinery to my constituents, I would not last very long. That is something which we should never miss an opportunity to remind the Government.

I feel that the Minister has missed an opportunity to make some real and progressive improvements in the provisions for homelessness, especially in the Province. Of course, I recognise that this order is an improvement, and I certainly subscribe to the comment of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall)—the official Opposition—that he would support it if a Division was called.

It is a bit complacent for the Ministers to say that we have pushed the arguments along a little in some of these areas and the problems are really not as bad as the Simon Community, Shelter and Housing Aid in the Province make out. Therefore, we should be grateful for small mercies. Of course, Governments have a difficult job. I am realistic about these matters, and I agree with the Minister that it does not do anyone any good to exaggerate the problems of homelessness in the Province and in other parts of the country. However, 1 do not think it is good enough—this point also was made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South—to say that it is what we have here and, therefore, by definition it must be good enough for Northern Ireland.

As I am sure the Minister will know, this legislation was introduced in 1977 by the former Liberal Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight, now Lord Ross. I am sure that if he were taking part in the debate he would say that the thinking on the way that provisions are made for homeless people has moved quite considerably since the original legislation was passed. That is a process of evolution that should rightly continue.

We are making important orders for an important part of the United Kingdom. Lessons have been learnt since 1977. Why should we not take advantage of our recent experience and make improvements in Northern Ireland? What would be wrong with that? I believe that it is incumbent upon the Minister not to say that it is good enough for us, so it must be good enough for them. The onus is upon him to state why the many sensible improvements suggested this evening are not acceptable to the Government.

I listened carefully to the Minister. He said that there is some dispute about the extent of the problem. He said that some 2,200 people have been awarded emergency status and been accommodated within three months. How many applications were there? The number of people who have been awarded emergency status does not tell us much if five or 10 times that number applied but were rejected. It is important to know what proportion of applicants succeeded.

The Government have taken the opportunity to improve article 5, which deals with priority need for accommodation. They have included the categories of violence and financial and sexual exploitation, but they have set their face against other improvements, which seems a bit of a contradiction. The problem of single homelessness will have to be tackled in United Kingdom terms as well, as existing provisions are not working acceptably, at least not in my experience.

The Minister forgot to say that single people would be excluded by the intentionally homeless provisions if they tried to jump the queue and abuse the system. I sympathise with housing authorities, which have to make extremely difficult decisions. I should not like to have to make them, but it is incumbent on us to try to lay down the best possible guidelines.

The Minister can help housing authorities and the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland by drawing attention to the fact that they are able to reject applications by single people if they are able to show that such applicants have taken steps which make them intentionally homeless.

Agencies have drawn up a list of other groups who deserve to be treated as a priority. That list should be discussed. I should like to put forward the example of people who are homeless because of repossession. Such people would merit prima facie consideration as being in need of priority accommodation. A person who is homeless because of a marital dispute merits some priority. People who are homeless because of intimidation are in a category which, par excellence in terms of what is happening in the Province, might have been mentioned on the face of the order as in priority need. A young person who is homeless because of the poor family relationships might be in another category which deserves priority treatment. Such a category might deal with the single homeless problem which the Minister thinks he has. I think that he is exaggerating.

I have heard of 17-year-old girls in the Province whose parents refuse to take them back. The social security changes, about which I try to take an interest on a United Kingdom basis, are relevant in that respect. Another priority group might be people who have been discharged from institutional care. Community care and the Griffiths report are of United Kingdom wide relevance, but the issue could have been embraced here. People with alcohol and drug addiction problems could be argued to be a priority on a United Kingdom basis also. All those groups deserve careful attention, even if they are not given immediate attention by the order.

My penultimate point concerns intentionality, which, of course, has created difficulties and has been abused by some housing authorities on the mainland. There is evidence that the provisions as they operate in the United Kingdom are largely unsatisfactory, and an opportunity could have been taken to include in the order a more stringent and more easily interpreted definition. For example, the Housing Executive could have been given a time limit, possibly a year, in which it would be required to prove—the onus of proof would be on the Housing Executive—that somebody was becoming homeless intentionally.

There is a world of difference between doing something that leads to being classed as intentionally homeless and doing something with the intention of becoming homeless. I came across that point in my previous incarnation as a practising solicitor. A number of people have no idea that, technically, the consequences of their actions will catch them under the intentionally homeless provisions. Local authorities have not been paying enough attention to that very small but important legal distinction. The opportunity could have been taken in the order to put that right.

My final point concerns the appeal procedure. I am not an expert on the appeal procedure that applies in the Province, but I am sure that the Minister will put me right if I am wrong. Certainly my experience of the social security system is that an independent appeal procedure is a valuable longstop which gives confidence to everybody that, although there may be very difficult decisions and discretion being exercised by officers acting in good faith—as I said earlier, many of them have difficult jobs—there is many a slip between cup and lip.

The existence of an independent, free-standing appeal procedure gives everybody confidence that, at the end of the day, if a perverse decision has been taken or action taken contrary to natural justice, the appeals system will iron it out. It has to be independent, and it has to be seen to be independent. I am advised that an independent appeal system for housing benefit cases exists in the Province. If that is the case, it would be entirely appropriate to have the same system for decisions about homelessness. I cannot see the argument against that.

If the Minister sets his face against that provision, I warn him now that the process of judicial review, which I understand operates through the Northern Ireland courts in the same way as it does in Scotland and in England, will be used time and again. An expensive, extensive and complicated legal procedure using the full panoply of the civil law will operate to review such decisions. An independent appeal procedure would amass a body of precedents on decisions taken on questions which would be operated by people in the Housing Executive making day-to-day decisions on who is homeless and who is not.

That would be by far the preferable route, and if the Minister sets his face against taking that route he will be lumbered with the whole panoply of the judicial review procedure, which would not be sensible from anybody's point of view.

I have some worries about the lack of funding that seems to lie behind the order. I am advised that there have been recent Government cuts in the Housing Executive's budget of £24 million—£46 million and £48 million for the period 1988–90—but the hon. Gentlemen behind me will know more about that than I do. If that is the level of the recent cuts, we are right to advert to the lack of resources as a potential problem. It is not just a question of money for the bricks and mortar for new houses that we consider should be built; we need counselling and proper facilities to make the provisions work.

The order deserves qualified support. It is largely a wasted opportunity. I hope that the debate will give the Minister pause for thought and that some of the points raised will be reconsidered in the Department at a future date as a matter of urgency.

10.15 pm

Mr. Needham

The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and others have paid tribute to the late Sir John Biggs-Davison. I add my words in support of that. He was the first or second Member of Parliament whom I met. He managed to persuade me to join the Monday Club, which in retrospect was not the wisest decision in my political career, and he sent me to the junior Königswinter conference. He was a man with enormous strengths and interests in Ulster, and he will be sorely missed.

The hon. Member for Leicester, South said that he felt that deficiencies that had been found in homelessness legislation for Britain should have been remedied in Northern Ireland legislation. Very few, if any, of the criticisms have much relevance in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I adopted a flippant attitude towards the problems of single homelessness. Nothing could be further from the truth. He said that in his judgment single homelessness accounted for about 80 per cent. of those who sought help. I pointed out to him that one third of the placements from the Housing Executive deal with the single homeless.

Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that we should give a priority right to single homeless people? It was not a position that his party took when it was in government in 1977, and it does not appear to have been the position that his party took in its 1987 manifesto, which said: We will launch a major housebuilding and public and private sector housing renovation drive as part of our jobs programme and to combat the problems of bad housing, overcrowding and homelessness. It does not do the hon. Gentleman credit to make a submission which did not appear in his Government's actions, which did not appear in the 1987 manifesto, and which I doubt would appear in any forthcoming manifesto. Giving priority to the single homeless does not make sense in any sensible measure of public sector housing policy.

Mr. Jim Marshall

The Minister referred to logic. Can he not see that, logically, if the Government bring forward a proposal to define homelessness, they have to include all categories of homelessness? They may not like one particular category or another, but legislation on homelessness has to include all categories. Within those categories are single homeless people. Surely, if they are homeless for what the Minister would consider to be genuine reasons, they have a right, like other homeless people, to be considered for housing.

Mr. Needham

The question is not about whether they are not homeless or whether they should not be classed as homeless, but whether they should be given a priority right. The answer is that they cannot be. They were not given a priority under the Labour Government's proposals in 1977 nor in the 1987 manifesto. The order accepts that some single people are homeless and that there are duties on the Housing Executive to provide consultation and advice for them. What it does not do, and cannot do—the hon. Gentleman's party would not do this if it were in government—is to give them a priority right to housing. That is the most important point.

I shall now deal with the point made by the hon. Member about the Housing Executive's funding. The Housing Executive's funding is still running at more than £500 million a year. That is over two and a half times the per capita funding in the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be nice if it were possible to increase that funding, but the problem that the Government face—as any government would—is one of priorities in funding programmes.

I should like the hon. Gentleman to consider what would happen if, were he in government, he honoured the commitments that he has given to increase funding to meet the housing priorities that he put forward. What would those of his hon. Friends who are not sitting behind him think—especially those who represent constituencies with major housing problems—if funding were increased beyond what the Government give in Northern Ireland—already two and a half times more per capita than elsewhere in the country?

The Government will continue to give housing in Northern Ireland as high a priority as possible.

Mr. Marshall

The Minister and I agree that housing policy in Northern Ireland is a success in terms of levels of expenditure over a number of years. I gave credit to the Government for that policy on a previous occasion. However, does the Minister accept that, in terms of relative deprivation, housing in Northern Ireland is still substantially worse than it is in the remainder of the United Kingdom? It is likely to become even worse unless the Housing Executive has sufficient funds. The Government have a duty to make priorities. Will the Minister accept that Northern Ireland has to be at the top of that list of priorities? It is vital that increased funds are made available.

Mr. Needham

That is why the Government spend two and a half times more per capita on housing in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the country. That is why the levels of unfitness in Northern Ireland are continuing to come down and the quality of public housing in Northern Ireland continues to improve. Nothing that the Government are bringing forward in the housing expenditure profile will mean that levels of housing in Northern Ireland will not continue to improve. The position will not get worse. If we have to spend slightly less than the amount that the Housing Executive asks us to spend, the position will not improve as rapidly as we wish. Of course, we have continually have to switch our expenditure from priorities such as housing to law and order because of the problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

I must correct the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) by saying that we have not cut the housing budget. It is £508 million this year, whereas last year it was £500 million. We should, of course, like to spend more, and I am sorry that no one told the hon. Gentleman that. I realise that he is to give us his views on Northern Ireland only on a temporary basis.

The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) talked about the problems of dealing with orders such as this in the present unamendable way. He knows that I have much sympathy with his view on that. It is not the ideal method for any Minister.

I enjoyed the ribaldry of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, although I am not certain that his party has ever made concrete proposals for what should be done instead. If it has, let us hear them on another occasion. The hon. Gentleman is new to the debate and is perhaps not entirely aware of his own party's policy.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley)

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) may be too modest to defend themselves, but if the Minister does his research he will discover that members of what is now the Social and Liberal Democratic party have repeatedly made a plea that Northern Ireland legislation should be by Bill, not by diktat or Order in Council.

Mr. Needham

I shall not bandy words with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who, outside the Chamber, refuses to address a word to me. Many Conservative Members would give greater credence to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments if he would enter into discussions with Ministers about the problems of Northern Ireland instead of fitfully and occasionally raising them here.

Although the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has the support of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, I do not believe for one moment that the Social and Liberal Democratic party believes that the best way to deal with Northern Ireland business is by Bill. I suppose it would mean that Social and Liberal Democratic Members would be here even less often then they already.

Hon. Members fairly mentioned the need to make it clear whether accommodation is suitable for homeless people. I am not sure that they have all read the order carefully, and if the hon. Member for Belfast, North looks at article 12(1) he will see that it says:

The Executive may perform any duty under Article 8 or 10 … (b) securing that he obtains suitable accommodation from some other person". The hon. Members for Belfast, North and for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and other hon. Members, raised the issue of intentionality. Intentionality has not been a problem in Northern Ireland. Under the housing selection scheme which the Housing Executive operates, deliberately worsening one's circumstances has been the criterion. So far as I am aware, that has been handled sensitively and professionally by the Housing Executive, and there is no record of large numbers of complaints.

We are proposing a draft code of practice and guidance within which we shall be able to discuss how the order will work on the ground. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned appeals. He was not right to draw an analogy with housing benefit, because if an appeal is made regarding homelessness, it must be against the Housing Executive's decision. That creates precedents for appeals on any decision made by the Housing Executive about the way in which it handles its tenants.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is a solicitor. I am glad to say that I am not a lawyer, but if the Pandora's box of appeals is opened, much time of Housing Executive officers will be spent on appeals, to the detriment of the good organisation and running of the Housing Executive. I do not foresee how the system could be confined as narrowly as the hon. Gentleman wishes. However, I accept that the Housing Executive must have an alternative appeals procedure that meets the fears and worries of hon. Members.

I am sure that, with the code of practice and guidance, and following the seminar that we intend to hold, we shall be able to reach agreement. I think that there is high regard in Northern Ireland for the way in which the Housing Executive works, and I am sure that hon. Members—including the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Member for Belfast, North—will attend the seminar with me in a month's time so that we can discuss these issues in detail.

The hon. Members for South Down and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to intimidation. That is covered by the SPED scheme. I note the point made by the hon. Member for South Down about that scheme. [Interruption.] The SPED scheme is not in the order, but works outside it. I make that point before the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire searches in vain in the order for it. The hon. Member for South Down said that it was not working in rural areas as well as it was in the city. If that is so, we must work with the Housing Executive to find out whether there are any particular problems. It is important that people in those circumstances are sensitively and properly treated.

I am not complacent about the problem of homelessness in Northern Ireland, but nor am I prepared to accept the views of Shelter and the Simon Community, which, according to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, have some weight in their arguments, but which could not be bothered to send us their figures, most of which were based on Housing Executive submissions, which the executive itself said were not properly thought through.

Under the proposals in the order, and with the code of practice and guidance, we shall be able to give the homeless people of Northern Ireland a sensible way forward which will handle the vast majority of the single homeless and those in the other priority categories.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 13th July 1988, be approved.