---

Homelessness (A8 Nationals)

I endorse every word of my hon. Friend’s comments. I should emphasise that the issue is not merely prevalent in inner London. Although as I mentioned it is inevitable that, as we are the great melting pot of this country, it will be an issue for the local London authorities—not only for Conservative-run authorities, but for those run by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats as well—it is also a national problem. I ask the Minister to keep a close eye on developments and to take on board many of the concerns expressed by voluntary organisations and local authorities, which are able to watch as such things develop. As I have pointed out, one of our biggest concerns about Romanians is that there is no large settled community, as there is for Poles and Lithuanians, outside London, and we are now seeing families, and not just young men and women who wish to work in London, coming here and throwing themselves on the mercy of our social services. For almost three years, we seen up to 2,000 A8 nationals arriving every week into Victoria coach station. Many—the great majority—have friends and relatives in London, and many come with assured accommodation and with employment sorted out. However, a small and sizeable minority arrive without any means of support. Inevitably, many are from the most vulnerable groups and their personal, physical and mental capacity have a tendency quickly to deteriorate. They sleep on the streets, as they have no income, they tend either to beg or steal, and quickly become engaged in alcohol-fuelled assault and violence. They often seek food from the soup runs in large numbers, which also causes a rapid diminution in the quality of life of the local residential community as a result of aspects of their antisocial behaviour. Let me put that into context. Westminster city council received £297,000 additional funding from the Home Office in 2005—the last full year for which I have figures—to tackle the problems surrounding the arrival of nationals from the original eight accession countries. That money was used to cover repatriation costs for those who wish to return home—a significant minority—to try to allow those who come here to deal with the reality of what survival in the UK is like and to tackle the increase in crime and antisocial behaviour related to the influx. The funding was, of course, for only a single year. Central Government’s failure to fund local authorities properly and promptly—I suspect that Westminster city council is by no means alone in that regard—threatens such initiatives in future. As the Minister is aware, the law prevents nationals from A8 accession states from accessing benefits provided by local authorities to residents, as well as state benefits such as income support, shelter and drug treatment services. That has exacerbated the likelihood of A8 nationals descending into street life, as they have no other means of support. I know from my own experience that homelessness agencies are swamped, and the feedback that I receive from them shows that the failure of the Department for Work and Pensions to facilitate access to employment services has worsened the plight of those vulnerable people. An overview of the current situation makes for depressing reading. Towards the end of 2006, a detailed and comprehensive count of rough sleepers in Westminster revealed that nearly one in two were A8 nationals. That demonstrates an alarming trend in the number of A8 nationals living on our streets. Again, I give credit to the Government for what they have done—in this context, it is only fair. The recent trend contrasts with a reducing trend in the number of other rough sleepers, a decline that is testament to the effectiveness of public and voluntary sector interventions, including the Government’s work on rough sleepers, which paid great dividends in the streets of central London for most of the first nine years of the Labour party’s time in office. Many of the 300-odd rough sleepers counted in 2006 were Polish males, some of whom had been here for many months with little prospect of securing work and no recourse to public funds or social care assistance. The problem is inevitably reduced during winter months—a significant number go home because it is so cold—but those who stay are acutely vulnerable. They need to be looked after properly. Voluntary homelessness organisations are at breaking point because they have been inundated with requests for assistance and sustenance, leaving them less able to meet the needs of what might be described as their core client group. Many of those organisations have a range of support issues and they do not receive public funds. Sadly, in preparing for the debate I found that many local homelessness agencies have been forced to withdraw services from new arrivals from the accession states whom they deem to be not vulnerable. Given that the majority of arrivals are fit young men, very few qualify for support. Westminster city council works incredibly hard to tackle the needs of new arrivals, and over the past year, via funding secured from the Home Office under the invest to save scheme, it has managed to prevent nearly 400 A8 nationals from slipping into long-term rough sleeping. That increased funding allowed a secondee from the Department for Work and Pensions to be employed, who assisted more than 100 individuals in securing work. As a result, additional police community support officers were able to assist the existing police team in reducing the antisocial and criminal activities associated with rough sleeping. The Minister may be aware that, even when it was not my party’s policy, I have always supported the police community support officers initiative. In that regard, they have done a tremendous job. Again, I thank the Home Office for its support. With 2,000 people arriving every week at Victoria coach station, short-term funding was vital in retaining the extra policing staff and interpreters required to manage the influx. However, a long-term solution needs to be found. In the meantime, I simply ask that the burden of looking after the homeless that arrive in this country does not fall so disproportionately on central London council tax payers. I take the opportunity to express a more general concern about the availability of housing in the capital. Paradoxically, despite the influx of skilled and semi-skilled workers from across the globe, London has the highest unemployment of any region in the UK. The fact of the matter is that many of those in London without a job are simply unemployable. They often have chaotic lifestyles. The great majority of London’s unemployed lack the skills, the aptitude or the application to hold down a job of any description. However, many of them live in scarce council or social housing, where they benefit from security of tenure. As a result, the growing polarisation between rich and poor, which has been a characteristic of central London life for some years, is rapidly becoming an issue throughout the capital, and even beyond the M25. The London economy cannot cater for those without the skills and application to play a part in a globally competitive workplace. Our scarce social housing needs to be reserved for those working in the public sector or in relatively low-paid private sector jobs who make a contribution to the community at large. Indeed, many nurses, teachers and police officers who work in my constituency cannot afford to live within the boundaries of Greater London. The time is now right to enable central London’s local authorities to offer council tenants, and potentially others in social housing, financial incentives in return for surrendering security of tenure on such scarce housing stock. Only then might London enjoy the balanced communities that will enable those dedicated people who provide such vital day-to-day services to live near where they work.