Homelessness: Grants (Hansard, 15 May 1990)

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, £2 million has been allocated to voluntary bodies concerned with homelessness this year—three times last year's total. Half will go to a new national advice service based on citizens advice bureaux and involving Shelter and SHAC, and half to a total of 26 bodies providing direct assistance and practical help to homeless people. The new arrangements for this year's grants were announced by my right honourable friend, the then Minister for Housing, in November last year. The bodies which received grant last year were warned in writing and in person that there was no guarantee of future funding.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that his Answer will be disappointing, to say the least, to the 12 organisations which provide special assistance to homeless groups, refugees, home owners, the single homeless, one-parent families and ex-offenders? What criteria were used to cut the Section 73 grants to those people? There has been a cut of £310,000 at a time when homelessness is higher than ever and when experienced counselling 154 will be in shorter supply. The two things do not marry up. We have not been told why the cuts were made and what criteria were used to introduce them.

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, as I said in my original reply, the total amount of money made available has nearly trebled from £680,000 in 1988–90 to £2. million this year. More than 30 bodies will receive grant this year compared with 21 last year. Some bodies have done very much better this year than last year and over £750,000 has gone to 23 new bodies not previously funded.
Funding decisions were difficult. All proposals were carefully and fairly considered against the criteria laid down. The programme was very much over-subscribed and some applicants were bound to be unsuccessful. The criteria were announced on publication of the Government's review of the homelessness legislation. There were to be imaginative and innovative practical projects of positive and direct assistance on the ground to help homeless people find suitable accommodation and to boost the supply of lodgings and also set up registers.

§ Baroness Faithfull
My Lords, as a trustee of one of the voluntary organisations whose grant has been cut, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether, despite the figures that he gave, he thinks that it is penny-wise pound-foolish at this time, when homelessness is a growing problem, to have cut the grants to voluntary organisations which work hard and give a good service?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, we have not cut the grants to voluntary bodies. We have increased them by more than three times. As I said, some bodies have done considerably better this year. For example, Shelter will receive £454,000 this year; last year it received £120,000. SHAC will receive £400,000 this year; last year it received £200,000.

§ Lord Murray of Epping Forest
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the emphasis rightly placed by noble Lords in all parts of the House on bringing into the public arena empty property for the use of homeless people? Is he also aware of the notable contribution made to that approach by the Empty Property Unit which on a shoestring budget has helped to make almost 40,000 such properties available on a short-term basis? Is he not concerned that a cut of £27,000—one third of its funding—will severely affect the work of the Empty Property Unit, which is in the front line of that activity? Will he urge his honourable friend the Minister for Housing to receive as a matter of urgency representatives of the Section 73 liasion committee to discuss the content of that decision at a time deep into the financial year when other funds are not available?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a number of questions. With regard to bringing in empty property, over the past 10 years we have spent £300 million in creating 21,000 hostel places. This year and next we shall spend an extra £250 million in London and the South-East to reduce homelessness. That answers the point raised by the noble Lord.
155 As I said, there were difficult decisions to take. The Government gave priority to practical, not advisory, projects to help the young and rough sleepers and the single homeless people get back on their feet. The Government take the problem seriously. Unfortunately, we were not able to give grants to all applicants.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, we have seen an ever-increasing amount of homelessness and the growth in our cities of those appalling cardboard sectors in which people live. When do the Government intend to do something to deal with the problem and set about creating a housing programme so that such people can be housed? In the meantime, will they encourage all voluntary organisations which are prepared to give of their best to counter the hopelessness of the homeless in this country?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, it is precisely in order to encourage the voluntary bodies concerned with that problem that we have increased so substantially the amounts of money allocated to them this year. The Government are concerned about the problem of those sleeping rough and about homelessness generally. The problems are complex. They relate not only to housing, but to the responsibility of a number of departments. The Government are now considering how those policies work together to ensure that appropriate assistance is available.

§ Baroness Macleod of Borve
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many voluntary organsiations do not ask for or receive any government grant. Does that not help those which receive large grants? Is he further aware that those who work for the organisations act out of love and care for people in those unfortunate circumstances?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, I am quite sure that my noble friend is entirely right.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and my noble friend Lord Stallard are correct, resources are drawn away from some small organisations which provide a useful service? It may well be that Shelter and SHAC will be pleased that they have had their grants trebled. Set against the appalling situation of the homeless in this country, in some respects the Minister wants commendation for the fact that the Government have increased the grant to £2 million. Does he not understand that in the overall picture that is a financial pippin? Does the Minister not agree that the Government should be pumping in resources to a much greater degree? What the Government are doing at the moment is quite insufficient to deal with the problem.

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, the original Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, related to funds for voluntary bodies. As I said, those funds have been increased by more than three times over the past year. And it is not only the larger organisations which have benefited. Over £750,000 goes to 23 new bodies. Perhaps I may give three examples. This year 156 Centrepoint received £110,000; last year it did not receive anything. Two smaller bodies, Bristol Cyrenians who last year received £10,000 and New to London who received £11,000 will this year receive £40,000 and £70,000 respectively. Therefore, it is not only the larger organisations which will benefit.

§ Lord Blease
My Lords, can the Minister indicate what the criteria are for financing measures to combat homelessness in rural areas? Attention has rightly been given to the human misery which exists in the inner cities and particularly in London. However, does the Minister not agree that there is a tremendous amount of deprivation, suffering and human misery in the rural areas? Can he indicate what criteria a voluntary body has to meet in order to qualify for a grant to deal with the situation in those areas?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, I am unable to say whether there are separate criteria for rural areas. I shall look into the matter and inform the noble Lord.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, in his replies the noble Lord mentioned on a number of occasions that grants were being given to organisations helping young people who are sleeping rough. No organisation has been doing that job better and more consistently than CHAR. We all know of the work that that organisation has carried out. Can the Minister say why the grant to CHAR has been cut by £36,000? Can he further say why all the organisations received application forms for the renewal or increase of their grants in late February which had to be submitted by the beginning of March? The organisations did not know until 26th April that their grants had been cut. I am still puzzled how the organisations were categorised and what were the criteria used.

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, we recognise the value of the work that CHAR does. Indeed, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing will visit that organisation on Thursday. We had very difficult decisions to take and some difficult choices had to be made. As I said in my original Answer, we gave warning that we could not guarantee funding. The Government must be able to use their discretion in deciding who should receive funds according to the best criteria.