HL Deb 16 March 1983 vol 440 cc725-7

2.59 p.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 is the present standard rate of social security benefit to single people without an address; and whether any changes are proposed in the present arrangements.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, the present rate of supplementary benefit payable to single people without accommodation is equivalent to the rate payable to non-householders, that is £20.55 per week. This matter is under review but early change is unlikely.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister say why a person without an address receives £20.55, whereas a single person with an address receives £25.70, plus housing costs? Is he aware that it is more expensive to be homeless than to have a home? This is because of having to eat out and make do in all kinds of ways. Secondly, is it the department's policy that if a homeless person finds some lodgings, that the department will advance the rent which most landlords demand—quite properly—in advance, or are these people pushed around in the complications of the new housing benefit regulations so that they end up losing the chance of the lodgings that they have found?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's second supplementary question is "Yes". We are, as a matter of principle anyway, prepared to make single payments for the purpose the noble Baroness describes. As to her first point, the reason for the difference in these rates is that it was thought anomalous that a single homeless person who had no contribution to make to household expenses should receive a higher rate of benefit than people who are living in and contributing to a friend or relative's household.

Baroness Jeger

But, my Lords, I was asking that they should receive the same, not higher.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am aware that that is what the noble Baroness was asking, but I was explaining why it was we thought that in general they should get less than persons in other circumstances.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, will the noble Lord look into the arrangements made at present for homeless people without fixed abode? Is he aware that in fact they are taken off to a separate office in, I believe, Scarborough Street? Will he satisfy himself that they are not treated worse than those who have an abode? Would he make sure about that?—because all my information is that they are treated worse if they have not got a fixed abode.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I will certainly look into the problem which the noble Earl raises, particularly if he would like to draw a particular case to my attention.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in this recession period many of these young men and women drift away from their homes, have a sense of shame and, in our large cities, can sink into crime and everything else unless they have a chance of re-creating their lives? Consequently it is beyond our belief-is it not?—that when they are homeless they should have less than those who have a home, when they are genuinely trying to seek work.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, those who are likely or are about to incur the sort of costs the noble Lord refers to are, as I said to the noble Baroness just now, entitled to a single payment to enable them to do that. The diffculty, particularly in some urban areas, very often is to find the accommodation they require. The responsibility for the provision of accommodation for homeless people rests in general with local authorities, but my department does have responsiblity for what are called "resettlement units".