UK Parliament / Open data

Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 71B: 71B: After Clause 65, insert the following new Clause— ““Mandatory travel concessions In subsection (4) of section 145A of the TA 2000, after ““area”” insert ““or to be a person who has been homeless for at least three months””.”” The noble Earl said: This amendment would give a person who had been homeless for more than three months the same right to free bus travel as a disabled person. The purpose of the amendment is to gain from the Minister recognition of the fact that many homeless families suffer from isolation and that this Bill should seek to assist them, or that help should be offered elsewhere. I apologise for not tabling this amendment earlier. Its possibilities became apparent to me only late last week in discussion with the researcher of my noble friend Lord Low of Dalston. The amendment’s purpose is to probe. I should make clear that my goal is a debate about homeless families rather than the general homeless population. The problem is that there are more than 100,000 homeless families, who live in temporary accommodation, much of it private. Some time ago, I visited homeless families in Newham, east London, with a health visitor. I have also spoken to mothers of families in the Barnardo’s families in temporary accommodation project in London. The housing that I saw was on occasion damp, unhygienic and overcrowded. As important as the poor quality of housing and the overcrowding is the isolation that these families can experience. The research in this area points to the isolation experienced by the many women who are bringing up children in temporary accommodation, often far from their community, family or friends and on their own without a partner. Such isolation tends to lead to despair. In addition, these families are moved far away from the child’s school, so they need assistance to transport their child to their school. Her Majesty’s Government have taken many steps to reduce homelessness. No family now spends more than a few weeks in bed-and-breakfast accommodation unless it is an asylum-seeking family. Much of the available social housing is being refurbished with money from this Government. The Government promise another 3 million homes under the Housing and Regeneration Bill. However, the effect of the right to buy and the limits on councils reinvesting their money in new social housing has led to a dramatic rise in the number of homeless families to an historic high of more than 100,000, as I have said. Surely it is incumbent on both central and local government to do as much as possible to limit the harm caused by homelessness. Will the Minister say whether this Bill might be used to increase access to transport for homeless families to help to reduce their isolation? If not, what other steps does he propose to improve their access to transport? Does he recognise the difficulties that these families face and the scale and seriousness of their problems? I apologise once again for not giving the Minister more time to consider these questions. I would be very grateful for a letter as much as an oral response at this time, and perhaps an undertaking to come back with something similar on Report. I beg to move.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c218-9GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top