§ Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services following his announcement 5 February, Official Report, columns 548–9, about resettlement units, what evidence he has collected to show that voluntary organisations are more successful than resettlement units in the process of resettlement; what steps he will take to ensure that standards of provision are maintained and improved; and if he intends to set and enforce standards.
§ Mr. WhitneyIt is now generally accepted that the resettlement process is more likely to succeed in smaller informally run hostels than in large institutions such as resettlement units. Smaller hostels managed by voluntary organisations have the flexibility to meet the needs of individuals as they arise. Such hostels are usually well-embedded within the community and are seen as part of the local professional network with access to the necessary services and agencies.
Resettlement units are often in remote locations and this, allied with their size, can exacerbate the difficulties experienced by the homeless, re-inforcing their isolation from the rest of the community. We have over a number of years monitored those voluntary projects in receipt of funding under Schedule 5 of the Supplementary Benefits Act and have concluded that they offer a more effective resettlement service than is possible in resettlement units.
The voluntary organisations, to whom grants are made, are registered charities experienced in dealing with the homeless. They have a common goal of resettlement with in the community and offer a wide variety of regimes to achieve this end. We will continue to monitor their standards in relation to their stated aims and objectives and any new grant made will be subject to annual review in the same way.
§ Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what saving will be made in London or the provinces by closing his Department's resettlement units.
§ Mr. WhitneyNone. Until the Camberwell replacement scheme is further advanced, no action will be taken on the other seven London resettlement units and their future will be reviewed later. The resources released by the closure of units in the provinces will be used to finance alternative resettlement provision.
§ Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated capital expenditure required for each provincial resettlement unit if its present role were to continue and if equivalent sums will be allocated to those making alternative provision.
§ Mr. WhitneyI regret that precise estimates are not available. Because of the age and condition of several of the units their continued existence on an indefinite basis is not feasible. The cost of rebuilding the units would obviously be considerable but has not been calculated precisely as it is not an option under consideration. The68W money at present available for capital expenditure — £1.407 million for 1986–87 — will be available to fund alternative provision.
§ Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he intends to guarantee revenue support for alternative provision to resettlement units beyond the initial three year period;
(2) if revenue made available to the voluntary sector for provision of resettlement services will be maintained on a permanent basis and increased in line with the cost of living;
(3) if he will guarantee there will be no increased cost to local authorities by the change of responsibility from his Department's resettlement units to alternative provision;
(4) if financial provision for resettlement will increase in line with the increase in the number of single homeless people without means.
§ Mr. WhitneyThe resources which will be made available for alternative resettlement provision in the voluntary sector include those freed by the closure of reestablishment centres as well as resettlement units. As a result, when the closure programme has been completed some £2 million a year more than was previously planned will become available for resettlement provision. Our intention is that the funding of voluntary agencies will normally be given on a continuing basis subject to regular review and there is provision for funding to be increased in line with the public sector pay factor.
It would not be appropriate to link funding arrangements to changes in the numbers of single homeless people without means since such people will generally be entitled to supplementary benefit and only a small proportion would require help to resettle. As we are increasing the resources available for resettlement provision and are looking also to achieve better value for money we would not expect this initiative to result in increased costs to local authorities.
§ Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the alternative provision arising from the closure of his Department's resettlement units will provide emergency, direct access accommodation to single homeless people, regardless of means or circumstance.
§ Mr. WhitneyMy right hon. Friend has a specific duty to provide for persons without a settled way of life under schedule 5 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, as amended by the Social Security Act 1980. The process of consultation just beginning will be aimed at making alternative provision within the terms of that responsibility.
§ Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the sale proceeds, or in the case of transfer to another Department or conversion of use within his Department, an amount equal to a commercial valuation, of resettlement and re-establishment premises will be used to finance alternative provision in the voluntary sector.
§ Mr. WhitneyNo. There are 26 sites occupied by resettlement units and re-establishment centres, all of them leased. Five of these are leased privately, and the remainder are freehold properties of the Property Services Agency, which will decide on the disposal of the sites when the units and centres are closed. The amount paid in rents will become available to finance alternative provision.