§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any investigations by the Department of Health and Social Services are proceeding to discover whether all the £14 per week vouchers issued to Novo Housing Association were properly spent on persons who previously had been sleeping rough; whether any unused vouchers were returned to the Minister; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that funds for the needy are channelled into registered housing organisations and not into those like Novo and Second Genesis.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLNo, my Lords. Payment by voucher is simply an alternative to the normal method of weekly cash payments to supplementary benefit claimants. The Supplementary Benefits Commission must be satisfied that the board and lodging charge is reasonable, but it is for the claimant to decide whether the services provided are acceptable to him. If not, he is free to move elsewhere. All vouchers, including those unused or partially used, are returned to the issuing office by the hostel at the end of the period specified. Only registered housing associations can qualify for housing associations and hostel deficit grants. Novo and Second Genesis were not registered and did not receive a grant from the Department of the Environment. But there were no grounds for refusing to pay benefit to individuals by voucher to enable claimants to stay at their hostels if they so desired.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the serious position that arose in respect of the two associations that I have mentioned in my Question? In view of the very serious manner in which these vouchers were handed out and in which assistance was given through people who themselves had a bad criminal record—it was described very well in "Longfellow Road" produced by Yorkshire Television—does he not think that we should have a thorough investigation into what is happening? This is particularly important because provision of suitable facilities should be available to those homeless who need them, and any interference in affording proper facilities, by people who are not failing to do so, is extremely serious.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, we must not fall into the error of confusing two entirely different situations. There is a situation, in which another Government Department is concerned and interested, relating to grants through the Greater London Council. That is a matter which is outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Social Security which, through the Supplementary Benefits Commission, is responsible for the vouchers. A service of board and lodging was provided by these two organisations which was considered reasonable from the point of view of the service they gave and what they charged for it. Vouchers were issued accordingly. If any claimant in receipt of a voucher was not satisfied with the service or food provided, he had only to return to the local office and say so, and that voucher would have been cancelled and another voucher would be issued in respect of another organisation.
§ Lord HALEMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that the account of the activities of these organisations shown at considerable length on television, while not being accepted as necessarily conclusive or accurate, surely provides a very grave case indeed? Someone should be investigating the operations of these two associations and questioning how and why they came to be appointed to perform these difficult and delicate duties. Irrespective of whether or not he is responsible, is my noble friend in a position to say that whoever has responsibility is making a full inquiry?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I can deal only with the part of the Question relating to vouchers, which is the major part of the Question. I have endeavoured to do this. I know that there is a serious concern felt by another Department of Government which is dealing with this matter. I will gladly undertake to draw this matter to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, with a view to seeing whether it can be pursued in another way.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, while appreciating the last statement made by my noble friend, as this is such a very serious matter and led to such terrible action—which I believe now has been remedied to some extent by the Greater London Council—may I ask my noble friend whether he thinks it is extremely important from the point of view of the general public as a whole. Does the Minister agree that at a time when money should certainly not be spent on anything which is of a disastrous nature such as the case exposed by Yorkshire Television a full investigation should be undertaken to see what remedy can be applied? Is it not for the Ministry to ensure that action is taken as quickly as possible in case any further abuse—and this was a terrible abuse—takes place?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I have already said that I will call the attention of the Secretary of State to what your Lordships have said. I want to point out to my noble friend that practically the whole of his Question deals with vouchers issued to one particular organisation. I have dealt with that matter, and I have dealt with the second part of the Question relating to funds being made available to people who need them.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we should all like to wish the noble Lord, Lord Janner, many happy returns of the day?
Several noble Lords: Hear, Hear!