HL Deb 11 March 1983 vol 440 cc426-8

11.14 a.m.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what amount was paid in the last financial year to local authorities in respect of expenditure on provision for single homeless people; on what basis the sums were calculated; and what future provision is proposed.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, as I told the House last week, it is for authorities themselves to decide within the total resources available to them, how much to spend on accommodation for the single homeless. Housing Investment Programme resources are distributed in a single block and housing subsidy is not related to specific projects. Broadly, 75 per cent. of the annual loan charges on the cost of projects will be reckonable expenditure and count towards authorities' subsidy entitlement. In addition, as part of its hostels initiatives, the Government have, since 1981–82, given an allocation to the Housing Corporation specifically for hostel provision.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, does the noble Lord not recall that he also told the House, at column 1140 of the Official Report for 2nd March, that the grant goes in large proportion to those areas which are seen to need it? At that time my question was: how is that "being seen to need it" assessed? does the noble Lord also recall saying in the same column that in the event of disaster affecting hostels, there would be no question but that residents would be rehoused? My question is: by whom, and, in particular, how is a borough like Camden, and the ratepayers of Camden, supposed to deal with 1,000 homeless men who are to be turned out of Rowton House in Arlington Road, which this private firm has put up for sale?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, to take the noble Baroness's last point first, as I told the House last week, negotiations on the future of the Rowton hostels are still in progress. Another meeting is to take place within the purlieus of my department today. I understand, of course, the continuing concern of noble Lords on this subject, but I am afraid that I am not in a position to say anything further at the moment in view of current discussions. On the question of rehousing, if the worst comes to the worst it would be a matter for each local authority to decide into which particular category the inhabitants fall—whether they are vulnerable or not vulnerable. If they are vulnerable, there would be a duty on the local authority to find them accommodation. If not, they would receive advice and assistance to help find that accommodation.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I am sorry to follow this up again, but that is a totally unrealistic reply. Does the noble Lord not agree that every inhabitant of Rowton House is vulnerable—otherwise he would not be there? How can a borough like Camden, with all the stresses on its housing list, suddenly deal with 1,000 people?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I do not agree that current inhabitants of hostels are necessarily in the vulnerable category. They were almost certainly in the vulnerable category when they were originally housed there, which is rather a different matter. As regards whether Camden can afford this exercise, as I said last week—and I am quite happy to repeat it now—obviously, the grant goes more to those areas which require it than those areas, such as the shire counties, which very often do not.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer the question I put to him last week at column 1140; that is to say, whether the local authorities concerned have the power to make a control order enabling them to assume responsibility for the management of these hostels if it should come to the point of the owners selling them off to private enterprise and thus rendering all the inhabitants homeless. Could they do that pending the making of a compulsory purchase order by the Department of the Environment, and is that a matter which has been discussed between the boroughs and the right honourable gentleman, Sir George Young, from the Department of the Environment? Could the noble Lord also say a little more about his statement that his right honourable friend would shortly be producing a statement on the future of the units that currently exist—23 in Great Britain and 35 grant-aided ones throughout the country—and on what will happen overall to those?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, no, I cannot add anything further to what I said last week. I do not think that I referred to a statement. I said that my right honourable friend was considering the position and would report, which is slightly different from a statement in your Lordships' House or in another place. As regards control orders, yes, the councils have the statutory power to use them if they so require. I should not like to be drawn any further on discussions of this particular matter.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the need arises in large urban areas which attract homeless people from other areas, and do any powers exist to return homeless people to whence they came?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I cannot give a definitive answer on that, but I should think that it is extremely unlikely. I am the last person to want to pressurise people into doing what they do not want to do.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, as the chairman of a large centre for the homeless in Camden, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that, except for the answer he gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, the answers he has given have caused enormous disquiet? The other answers will have caused widespread disquiet in Camden and also where the homeless are a matter of great concern.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, the Government, as again I said last week, share the deep concern felt in all parts of your Lordships' House and indeed up and down the country. As to whether the answers I have given will have caused great distress and great concern in Camden particularly, no, my Lords, I was not aware of that.