HL Deb 16 July 2002 vol 637 cc1166-75

7.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th June be approved [33rd Report .from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, tackling homelessness is a vital strand of the Government's wider housing strategy to ensure that everyone has the opportunity and choice of a decent home. Homelessness legislation provides an important safety net for people who are homeless through no fault of their own and who have a priority need for accommodation. Where applicants meet those criteria, the housing authority must ensure that they have suitable temporary accommodation available until a settled housing solution becomes available for them.

This priority need order extends the categories of those for whom the housing authority must secure accommodation if they are unintentionally homeless. Currently, such persons include families with dependent children, households that include someone who is pregnant or vulnerable as a result of age, mental illness, physical disability or some other special reason, and people who are homeless as a result of a disaster, such as flood or fire. Both existing and new categories focus on those likely to have the greatest need for housing.

The order will ensure that, where necessary, housing authorities must secure suitable accommodation for all 16 and 17 year-olds who are genuinely homeless, unless they are owed a duty under social services legislation. Of course, wherever possible, housing authorities should explore the possibility of reconciling 16 and 17 year-olds with their families as a first priority, to allow them to return home. Where 16 and 17 year-olds are estranged and cannot return home, there can be no question but that they will be at risk if they have nowhere to live. The order will also give priority need to people who are vulnerable as a result of fleeing their home because of violence or threats of violence that are likely to be carried out.

Plenty of evidence demonstrates that a high proportion of people who end up homeless come from institutionalised backgrounds. The order will also extend priority need to young people aged 18 to 20 who have previously been in care—a group who may be at risk because of a less-than-propitious start in life.

Other categories of people who will have priority need for accommodation under the order include people aged 21 or over who are vulnerable as a result of having spent time in local authority care and those who are vulnerable as a result of having spent time in the Armed Forces or in prison. The key test in relation to those categories is whether applicants are vulnerable: that will be for local housing authorities to decide in individual cases.

I am sure that noble Lords will agree that a proper statutory safety net for those most vulnerable and at risk is essential to protect them from the damage that homelessness and rough sleeping can inflict on them and to help them rebuild their lives.

The other place has considered the order. By building on previous legislation, it will strengthen the protection available to homeless people. It is proof of the commitment of the Government and of all sides of the House to improve housing for all and to tackle social exclusion. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his courtesy in sending the code of guidance in advance of our consideration of the order. I appreciate that. Although it was nothing to do with him, it would have been nice to have received it during consideration of the Bill, but better late than never. No doubt at some stage we shall have the chance to return to some questions raised by the code of guidance.

Extension of priorities was discussed at length during the passage earlier this year of the Homelessness Act 2002. As I said then, we broadly support the extension of the categories under that Act—certainly those to whom the Minister referred: young children or young people who have been in or are leaving care. It is perfectly proper that the local authority should stay in loco parentis until they are standing on their own two feet, part of which must mean that they have somewhere secure to live. It is interesting that those priority categories now catch those young people who become separated from their families, and that responsibility for them is placed on the local authority.

Our concern remains that, however worthy that extension may be, local authorities are already struggling to deal with those who are entitled to be given help under existing homelessness legislation. Those additions will mean even more prioritisation than already occurs. That prioritisation will have to be applied by assessing the degree of vulnerability of one applicant against another.

As the Minister is well aware, there is a chronic shortage of housing available for those who require it, especially in London, and local authorities are daily having to decide where they can house the homeless as well as trying to deal with those who are in need of housing help, but are not in the homeless category.

Of course, the Chancellor has now voted zillions of pounds to housing. But with the best will in the world, the Housing Corporation will struggle to spend it in the short term, and, as has been made clear by the Deputy Prime Minister, much of it will be absorbed in dealing with key workers. Local authorities are also now under a duty to find alternatives to bed and breakfast accommodation, which is another pressure point.

In the other place, a question was raised by the shadow Secretary of State about the application of the test to which the Minister referred, which is set out in the Explanatory Note, by which a local authority determines a person's vulnerability. My honourable friend asked whether the test would now apply to all those stipulated not only in the order but in previous legislation. In reply, the Minister in the other place said that he thought that that referred only to the additional categories in the order and no one else. Can the Minister enlighten us as to whether that is the case? The Minister in the other place said that he would let my honourable friend know, but I am unclear whether that matter has been decided.

During the debates on the Homelessness Act 2002, questions were asked about which local authority would be responsible for those considered to be vulnerable as a result of leaving the Armed Forces and prison. Concern was expressed that it might be the authority in which the prison lay, in the case of prisons, and any local authority in the case of those from the Armed Forces. Although I am concerned that that is not dealt with by Armed Forces personnel or the prisons, that could put great pressure on a small number of authorities, if a large number of former members of the Armed Forces decided to go to their areas—in particular, those that provide the best services. It could also put great pressure on the areas in which prisons are located.

Perhaps the Minister could give us further information on that. Finally, I simply reiterate that although the implementation of the order is likely to be fraught with practical complications, we do not oppose the principle behind it.

Baroness Maddock

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new role as a housing Minister. I know that he has said that few Members of this House are interested in housing. I fear that as a housing Minister, he will get to know the familiar faces. Tonight perhaps represents a start.

We on these Benches welcome the order. It is an important adjunct to the Homelessness Act 2002. We supported the Act; indeed, we worked hard with Ministers in both Houses to try to improve it. The order is supported by many people who work in the field of homelessness. I am particularly grateful for briefings from Shelter on the order.

The extension of priority need for accommodation to new categories of homeless people will strengthen the homelessness safety net. It will help those who, statistics show, are most at risk of ending up on the streets. The categories that we heard about this evening correspond to the groups who find themselves in acute housing need. However, I want clarification from the Minister on two areas of concern. Some of the issues were raised in another place. First, the code of guidance is only in draft form. Can the Minister tell us when the code will come out and how long the consultation will be? I shall return to that matter. Secondly, there is the issue of financial support for local authorities to carry out their duties. I shall say more about that in a minute.

The inclusion of 16 to 17 year-olds is, obviously, welcome. Paragraph 8.39 of the draft guidance recognises the possibility of reconciliation between young people leaving home and their parents, which means that they may need only temporary accommodation. However, if reconciliation is not possible, young people will require permanent accommodation. In particular, they will require continuing support. The guidance talks about collusion between parents and young people. I do not know whether the Government have evidence of collusion between young people and their parents to get accommodation or evidence that the practice is widespread. If it is widespread, we have a problem; if it is not, I am concerned at its inclusion in the guidance.

Many people working in the field particularly welcome the inclusion of 18 to 21 year-olds leaving care. That group of people lack support from family and others. It is particularly welcome that the order includes those who left care before the introduction of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. Paragraph 8.14 of the draft guidance refers to joint working between social services and housing authorities. It could be strengthened to be more specific and spell out that it means accommodation and support services.

Some of us feel that greater clarity is needed with regard to the vulnerability of people leaving institutional care. Some local authorities may look for a direct causal link between leaving the Armed Forces and being vulnerable to homelessness. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the final version of the code will make it clear that the presence of an institutional background should be seen as a strong indicator of vulnerability. Importantly, such vulnerability may not be apparent immediately after people leave an institution; the effects of living in an institution can come out many years later.

Like others, I welcome the inclusion of people who have left the armed services. Anyone who has visited a night shelter will know that a large number of people there will have a background in the services. In another place, my honourable friend the Member for Bath raised a point about what was happening in Wales. I am sure that the Minister has read what was said in another place. I refer particularly to service personnel who have been discharged following detention in the Military Corrective Training Centre. Provisions similar to those in the order have been in place since last year, and there is some evidence that local authorities, having accepted applicants who have been dishonourably discharged as being in priority need, find such people intentionally homeless, on the basis that they should have known that their offence would lead to their being discharged and losing their accommodation. The Minister in another place said that he did not think that that should happen. I would be grateful if the Minister here could give a commitment that the final version of the code of guidance will explicitly advise against that practice.

The treatment of ex-offenders has been a controversial issue in some areas. Recent research has shown that people coming out of prison without a home are far more likely to re-offend quickly. That is why I and others support what is in the order. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the guidance will make it clear that local authorities cannot use the fact that ex-offenders have run up rent arrears while in prison to claim that such people are intentionally homeless.

I would like to see the definition of domestic violence in the guidance strengthened. I welcome moves by the Government to deal with confidentiality. There are other categories of people who often suffer violence, on account of their gender, race, colour, ethnic or national origin, religion or sexual orientation. Such groups will also be vulnerable. I hope that the final version of the code will make it clear that it is not always necessary for applications to be supported by statements from the police. Not all applicants will have the support of the police; often, they will go to the GP as their first port of call. I hope that the guidance will make that clear.

We know that the Government have given local authorities 10 million to carry out their extra duties under the Homelessness Act 2002. Can the Minister say how that money will be distributed? That question was also raised in another place. It is clear that some authorities deal with a greater number of people presenting themselves as vulnerable and in need of housing. Can the Minister tell us the Government's thinking on that?

We support the order. It is an important part of ensuring that the Homelessness Act 2002 is effective. I have said many times that I am disappointed that it has taken so long. The problem has been exacerbated by the fact that we have such low figures for house building. That has not happened overnight. The figures for the past few years show that the problem has crept up on us. I am pleased that the Government have realised that there is a problem, but it has taken them a long time. We now have more households than we have homes, something that has not happened for many years. We welcome the order, and I hope that the Minister will answer the points that I raised about the code of guidance.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I assure the Minister that the whole of the Labour Party on these Benches is behind him. I came here at 2.30 p.m., and I have rarely moved from the Bench since. My interest today was the Enterprise Bill. However, when I saw the two noble Baronesses and the Minister coming, in, I knew that there was something on, so I looked at the Order Paper. I must confess that the importance of the subject had escaped me because of my interest in the Enterprise Bill.

I am exceedingly glad to hear of the legislation. The Minister entered the other place with me in 1974. Having represented the seat that he did, he will be familiar with the problems. At that time, housing was the priority, above education, crime and transport. Housing problems now are just as pressing, but the nature of housing needs has changed.

Last night, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and I discussed with the Minister the problems faced by people living in mobile homes. That was an almost unheard-of problem once, but it is a problem now. I can remember more than one occasion on which I left my surgery, got into my car, behind my constituency office, and cried because I could not do anything to help the people who were in need.

The greatest aggravation we face in the year 2002 is that, while I genuinely believe that we have a government and a Minister who want to do something about it and know what needs to be done, they are beaten back by the appalling building rate referred to by the noble Baroness. My noble friend on the Front Bench referred to it in another context. I say "all power to his elbow". That is because, ultimately, a good house, a decent home, a good family and the future of the children is secured. As a constituency MP, the greatest misery I came across was when I found myself powerless to help good people who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in a terrible situation where either they had appalling housing or no housing at all.

I listened to the two noble Baronesses explaining the matter, and I see the order as a tiny step in the right direction. I wish it well.

The Earl of Listowel

My Lords, I rise briefly to welcome the provision. I welcome too the cross-party agreement and unanimity of the House that this is the right direction in which to proceed.

This morning HM Chief Inspector of Prisons visited the House to discuss her work. She told us that prison overcrowding is now so great that many prisoners have to share two to a single cell. In practice this means that there may be a single lavatory in a cell shared by two men, with no screen or shield. The inspector cited an instance where a man with a catheter shared a cell with a young man who was self-harming. That example drives home the importance of reducing the rate of reoffending by ensuring that prisoners and others leaving institutions are prioritised in terms of housing.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I shall do my best to answer all the points raised by the noble Baronesses, my noble friend and the noble Earl. I shall jump the gun and respond to a point put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. By the Recess, I shall have been in post for eight weeks. During that time I have taken one Parliamentary Question which concerned something that was nothing to do with my department; that is, the mortgage rate. Since I moved to the department, I have not had to come to the Dispatch Box and answer a single Question on housing. That says something about the overall interest. That is not meant to be a criticism—although it is—but this issue is central to our fellow citizens. While I do not want to go wider than the order before us, I welcome the contribution of all Members of the House tonight and the opportunity to respond.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, remarked, local authorities have to struggle with this problem. We have increased resources, although I suspect that they will never be enough. But we have made a conscious effort to increase resources as a direct result of the legislation. A genuine complaint often made by local authorities is that resources are not tied. We shall monitor that.

Consultation has taken place with the Local Government Association about the £10 million allocation. That is not all; a huge amount of money is being put into housing. It would be totally unfair to divide the extra £10 million equally among housing authorities because they bear different levels of burden. Shortly we shall announce how the money is to be allocated.

Particular pressure affects London and other urban areas. On the subject of the Housing Corporation, I do not think that it will struggle with its new resources. My experience of the corporation is that it is a real go-go body. Given the announcements made yesterday and the further detailed announcements to be made by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister on Thursday, the Housing Corporation will be let off the leash, so to speak. We expect to see quick action.

I turn now to the test for homelessness. I read swiftly through the debate held in the other place. While I am not familiar with every detail of that debate, I have to say that, on balance, the test has got to be the same. We cannot have two categories of vulnerable homeless people because of the way that the legislation has been drafted. My honourable friend in the other place, Tony McNulty, responded to the points raised by the honourable Member for Bath. I shall not repeat all the details, but he confirmed that the definition of vulnerability in the proposed guidance is set out at paragraph 8.13: The critical test of vulnerability for applicants of all these categories is whether, when homeless, the applicant would be less able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person so that he would be likely to suffer injury or detriment, in circumstances where a less vulnerable person would be able to cope without harmful effects'. That definition is already well established by the courts".—[Official Report, Commons Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 1/7/02; col. 15.] So the test of vulnerability is one for local authorities to assess; it is not one for government. People at the sharp end are much better qualified to deal with this.

I should make a point about prisoners. Being in prison does not qualify someone as a resident in a locality. I should make that absolutely clear and put it on the record. Just because the prison is in a certain locality a prisoner does not acquire rights of residence with regard to that local authority if the prisoner is making a claim of homelessness as a result of being vulnerable.

So far as former servicemen are concerned, while I cannot be specific, my view is this—although I stand to be corrected: the person would have had a home base before they joined the services. Therefore the claim may have to be made in that area rather than wherever the discharge from the armed services took place. However, it says something about the way that the Armed Forces have run this country over generations. We have a massive proportion of vulnerable homeless people who were in the Armed Forces. I know this and my noble friend on the Benches behind me will confirm that that was my experience in my own constituency. It is quite appalling. Qualified, skilled, trained and assertive individuals, prepared to lay down their lives for their country, become so totally institutionalised that they cannot cope when they leave the services. But they are not spotted before they leave and that is the tragedy of the situation.

With proper planning and exit strategies, the problem could be dealt with before servicemen leave. Then we would not need to prioritise such people as vulnerable. Nevertheless, we have reached a point where we have to do so and we have to take steps to look after them. They must be helped to stand up on their feet because homelessness brings with it many consequential problems of which we are all well aware. I do not need to detail them, but they relate to former prisoners as well.

On the subject of domestic violence, I accept the point made by the noble Baroness. Exceptions occur if someone has to flee a violent domestic situation and then out of necessity move away from the relevant local authority. They may have to present themselves to another authority. The test would be: is this a vulnerable person who is homeless? This concerns women in the main, usually accompanied by their children.

I should tell the noble Baroness that the guidelines were published on 8th July and they will have statutory force when the homelessness provisions come into force on 31st July. However, the guidance is open to consultation until 31st October. I can assure both noble Baronesses that the points they have raised tonight will be taken on board by my officials when we consider the consultation process. There is no obligation to write in separately. What has been said in our debate tonight is good enough and is on the record. I shall make sure that all the comments are fed into the process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about the issue of young people colluding with their parents. I know that the noble Baroness was briefly a Member of the other place. I cannot remember for how long she was a Member of Parliament and I cannot remember the constituency, but I recall that it was not a roughed-up urban area.

Baroness Maddock

My Lords, I rise simply to confirm that my constituency was Christchurch, but for nine years I served as a councillor on a housing committee in Southampton. That was quite a different kind of place.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, it is my experience that young people feel a sense of desperation with regard to housing. There are not too many cases, but the temptation to enter into collusion with parents in order to get housing is very great. I have to say to the noble Baroness that the notion that such collusion has never happened simply does not reflect the real world. For that reason, checks have to be made with parents and other family members; the statements cannot be taken at face value.

The main priority for 16 and 17 year-olds is to try to reconcile them with their families. In checking to see whether that would be possible, an experienced housing officer would be able to assess whether the state of homelessness is genuine. The person has to be unintentionally homeless—that is part of the test—and vulnerable, and officers should take that on board.

I should say to the noble Baroness that I am not fully briefed in regard to Wales. When I noticed that the order refers only to England—and I deal only with England—I regret that I did not pick up on the issue of Wales. I shall get one of my other colleagues in government to address that issue and perhaps write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Maddock

My Lords, in his reply the Minister said that he had read the proceedings in the other place. Obviously we cannot decide precisely what happens in Wales here, but local authorities have used the excuse that people had made themselves intentionally homeless when they were dismissed from the Armed Forces. We should try to make clear in the guidance that they are not allowed to do that. If the Minister reads what was said in the other place it will become quite clear.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I shall take that point on board when looking at the guidance. If someone otherwise meets the test of being homeless unintentionally, it would be wholly unreasonable and irrational for public institutions to make the connection that he has made himself intentionally homeless as a result of losing a job.

I accept the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Everyone accepts the propensity of ex-offenders to re-offend when they are homeless. That was made clear in the recent report of the Social Exclusion Unit.

I believe that I have covered all the points that have been raised. I am grateful for the support of the House. I came late as Minister to this legislation. It passed through the House during the last Session, when I was at the Home Office. The legislation itself goes back to a Private Member's Bill introduced by the former Liberal Democrat Member for the Isle of Wight, Stephen Ross. I pay tribute to that legislation. It was the gateway through which Parliament dealt with homelessness in a different way than in the past. I am pleased that we have taken the legislation to the point it has now reached. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.