Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Grand Committee

This is very difficult legislation which is hitting people who are particularly vulnerable and least able to speak up for themselves. That is why I am speaking in this debate.

[Baroness Browning]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkwood for initiating this debate, because it gives me an opportunity—my noble friend the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say this—to raise the case of people on the autistic spectrum, particularly in respect of the exemptions as outlined in the order.

Reference has already been made to the fact that there are exemptions. The exemption that would particularly affect people with autism is the one applicable to people who had been able to live independently and are entitled to severe disability premium. However, severe disability premium requires people to be in receipt of the middle or higher rate of the care component of disability living allowance, a benefit which is itself under review. The regulations are due to come into force in January next year. How will this timescale fit in with those people who are currently in receipt of the middle or higher of DLA care component but who may when decisions are being made about their eligibility for exemption under these regulations suddenly find that they are no longer in receipt of DLA at all or have been downgraded to a lower rate?

I know that my noble friend has great knowledge about autism. He has taken particular care to make sure that he understands the way in which autism manifests itself. He will therefore understand, I know only too well, that somebody who has been able to achieve independent living will have been through a journey to reach that point. For somebody on the autistic spectrum to be expected to share accommodation with another person would almost certainly be traumatic. It would affect their whole demeanour and well-being. The consequences of disturbing what for people with autism is very often a rigid way of life may be serious. Getting them to the point where they can maintain independent living is achievable and we are seeing more and more of it. It is sometimes but not always done with some external support—very often, voluntary support comes from family members and others; it is not necessarily an official package of care from social services. However, we aspire as a Government and a society to get more people on the spectrum to live independently.

I am extremely concerned about the impact of these changes, and I have made available to my noble friend’s officials a letter which I received only this week from the mother of a 32 year-old man who has been living independently for three years and who is in receipt of £93.45 a week. That is income support and the lower DLA rate, so he certainly would not qualify for the exemption. At the moment he is being paid £103.56 in housing benefit and it is calculated that he will lose £43 of that when this change comes in. Forty-three pounds out of an income of £93.45 a week is a significant amount. His mother is clearly aware of these changes and what the impact will be for her son. She writes a very moving three-page letter about what she thinks might happen to him as a result, concluding,

“local authorities will have available a pot of money that they can, at their discretion, use to help people make up the shortfalls in their benefit. Knowing this, though, will condemn those with autism to months of anxiety over whether they would be successful in benefiting from this. These months of anxiety will overwhelm many. The waiting is certainly causing James untold worry”.

I note that the Merits Committee report talks about the discretionary sum and expresses some concern. In paragraph 5 on page 5 it states:

“That increase must be used to cover all calls on the discretionary budget; no additional provision has been made to address any demands arising from these changes to the SAR regulations”.

My noble friend will understand immediately my concern about the way in which this might affect those living independently with a diagnosis of autism or Asperger’s syndrome. Many will not qualify for the exemption. The disruption to their lives will not only be severe in terms of their well-being and health but will, like a pack of cards, ripple out to other services that may have been involved in providing for them. Once you destabilise them in one area of their life, everything else starts to fall down like a pack of cards. So I hope my noble friend will take a look at this mother’s letter and perhaps take another look at how we might mitigate the distress that will almost certainly be caused to this very vulnerable group of people.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I join the ranks of those thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, for bringing this forward for discussion, to make sure that it is aired, and for taking the opportunity to try to mitigate some of the effect of the regulation. The deficit has been mentioned. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, that these are not the broadest backs that the pressure is falling on. The pressure is falling on these vulnerable people for an annual saving of £200 million. I believe in fiscal rectitude and I do not have any bother saving money, but with a group of people like this, whose vulnerability has been described by several colleagues, I think the deficit is the excuse for bringing out this measure. A colleague mentioned that perhaps it has been a long-term ambition of the department—not the particular individuals who happen to be here. But the consequences here are so drastic more serious consideration should have been given to pilots. I know that when a new Government come in, there is a determination not to be caught up in delays. The Government are in a hurry and they want to get things through. I have seen it happen and been part of it and I have the experience to regret some of it. I think that is what is happening here. They have been saying, “Get a decision. Get it made. Get it through”. I think it is pretty poor that people like these are in that position.

Although I have no intention of repeating the valuable comments made by colleagues, I will rely heavily on the reports produced by the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Merits Committee. The SSAC report makes a plea for delay by stating:

“We recommend that the proposals do not go ahead in their current form”.

In paragraph 23 of the Government’s response to the advisory committee’s report, after mentioning that the Government,

“does not accept the Committee’s view that the proposals are driven solely by the need to reduce the Housing Benefit budget”,

the Government claim that the changes will remove a “potential work disincentive”. Now, I have seen some daft and totally irrelevant things put into official documents—I might even have put in one or two myself—but what is a “potential work disincentive”? I do not know what that means. Perhaps the Minister could give us examples of where he imagines that might happen; it will be difficult for him to provide proof as there is very little evidence for anything in this measure. I would like to hear some examples of where this disincentive would take place.

Indeed, the Social Security Advisory Committee report states:

“On work incentives the Committee contends”—

and I think that normal life would confirm this—

“that the impact of the changes for Housing Benefit claimants already in work could result in a move to a location some distance from their place of work”.

Colleagues should be clear that, in many people’s lives, this could result in a big disruption, which should not be underestimated. A pilot would have been useful.

We are in danger of creating an itinerant population—a phrase that I have used elsewhere—who will be easily identifiable because they will be vulnerable for many reasons. As I have seen for myself, for people suffering from alcohol problems and from various degrees of mental ill health, security and permanence are very important. Moving people about in this way is not something that any British Government should be doing to part of its population.

I may be a touch cynical, but I wonder whether the reason that this particular group has been selected to bear £200 million-worth of cuts is that these people are not a very effectively organised part of the community: they are invariably not members of trade unions or interested in getting involved with trade union activity; they are not involved with community councils or politics; instead, they are on their own trying to cope with the situation in which they find themselves. Like the Government, I have no evidence for saying this, but it would be realistic to say that the percentage of these people who vote will not be too high, because not many of them will have any faith in politics—I would find it hard to argue with them when they say that. The Government would have picked an easy target for cutting £200 million, were it not for the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood.

Another interesting, and depressing, point is that, according to my reading of the Government’s response to the Social Security Advisory Committee’s report—if I am wrong, the Minister will contradict me—not one of the advisory committee’s recommendations was agreed to. Where is the listening to, or taking account of, the terrific experience of the people who serve on that committee? Not one of the committee’s recommendations was agreed to even partially. There is just a total blank.

Others will no doubt speak about their own areas, but I believe that the danger point here is likely to be the cities, where the drifters seem to congregate. For example, page 70 of the advisory committee’s report lists the number of claimants by area and the average amount lost per week. In the City of Edinburgh, 590 people, or 17 per cent of the caseload, will on average lose £37 a week. In Glasgow City—I am not a Glaswegian, but I live next to that city and know that it has many problems—800 people, or 25 per cent of the caseload, will on average lose £22 a week. In my own council area of South Lanarkshire, which does not have a big city but nevertheless includes some big towns, some 270 people, or 23 per cent of that sector of the population, will on average lose £11 a week. I know that some might say, “That’s up to them. It’s just £11 and they will manage with that”. However, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, given the current situation in which utility costs and all the rest of it are rocketing up, losing £11 a week against that background of rising prices will be really difficult.

It will not make any difference to the Government, but a lot of us are worried about the availability of accommodation. Will they get accommodation? Will it be suitable? There is no evidence that the landlord sector will be able to guarantee availability of alternative accommodation. Folk will have to deal with that. They will face an upheaval in their lives plus cash losses. Collectively, we should not be proud of doing that to this sector of society. Having mentioned society, I shall finish with this statement. We are told by the Prime Minister—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular—that they want to establish the big society. They say that we are all in it together. I do not see many people in society who will feel in it together with these vulnerable people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, for providing this opportunity to discuss planned changes to housing benefit that will affect certain young people currently living in the private sector in self-contained accommodation. These changes are contained in the regulations we are debating.

The change to the shared accommodation rate was announced last October as part of the spending review in the context of reining back welfare expenditure in general and housing benefit in particular. Difficult decisions have had to be made about spending priorities. At the heart of those decisions is fairness and affordability. We need to be fair to taxpayers and mindful of the choices those not in receipt of benefits make when considering what they can afford to pay in rent and the type of accommodation they choose to live in.

The shared accommodation rate reflects local private sector rent levels of accommodation where at least one facility is shared, for example a bathroom, kitchen or living room. The current rules for under-25s avoids the situation in which those in receipt of housing benefit could afford a level of accommodation that they would not be able to maintain were they employed. It also reflects the fact that sharing accommodation is common among younger people. We want work to be people’s first choice and do not think it unreasonable to extend the application of this rate from those aged up to 25 to those aged up to 35 for those who have recourse to public funds. This will realise savings of around £200 million per annum from 2013. That does not necessarily mean that people will have to move, although it is likely that some will need to do so—they will have to make the same sorts of choices about affordability as those who are not on benefits.

Many in this age group already share. Over one-third of the 25 to 34 year-old local housing allowance claimants who are potentially affected by this measure are already choosing shared accommodation and claiming the shared rate. In this age group, 40 per cent of private renters who are not on benefits also share. The Social Security Advisory Committee put forward the view that the majority of older sharers are either professionals or mature students, but the 40 per cent figure that I just cited specifically excludes students, and our survey data indicate that there are people sharing across all types of occupations.

The recent report by the Merits Committee posed the question: if savings are to be made, why choose the age of 35? Why not go higher? Such a move would not be supported by the evidence, which shows that sharing accommodation tails off significantly after age 35. Our equality impact assessment looked at the accommodation arrangements of all single and childless adults. Less than half of 25 to 34 year-olds have their own place, and a third live with their parents. When we look at those over 35, we find that 84 per cent have their own place and that only 6 per cent live with their parents.

We realise that, for some, it is neither desirable nor appropriate to live in shared accommodation. There are already a number of exemptions from the shared accommodation rate for those in vulnerable situations, such as care leavers below the age of 22, those entitled to the severe disability premium and those who have an extra bedroom for a non-resident carer with a home elsewhere who provides overnight care. Those living in social housing and in certain types of supported accommodation are also not subject to that rate. Those exemptions will continue to apply, where appropriate, to claimants in the increased age group of 25 to 34.

Since the announcement of the measure, we have been listening to people's concerns. I and my officials have met with interested parties, and the Social Security Advisory Committee has consulted and reported on the draft regulations. We decided to introduce two further exemptions for the extended age group. Those have been welcomed by several commentators and organisations, as well as by noble Lords who have spoken today.

The first additional exemption is for those who have lived for at least three months in a specialist hostel for the homeless and, while living there, received support to resettle in the community. That exemption addresses the concerns raised by several commentators about the impact of the changes on rough sleepers—in particular, the silting up of hostel accommodation. We accept that, without that exemption, it would be difficult to secure suitable move-on accommodation for that group to help them into a more settled way of life, which could undermine our ambition to end rough sleeping.

That exemption has been targeted at people aged over 25, who are at greater risk of rough sleeping. We believe that the current exemption is well targeted at people who are ready to move on to an independent life, but those people leaving hostels will have to have undergone some support and rehabilitation. That strikes the right balance between cost and fairness. We think that many former rough sleepers will be helped by that.

My noble friend Lord Kirkwood asked about the ministerial homelessness committee, of which I am a member. It was with that ministerial hat on that we framed this support, working closely with my colleague Grant Shapps.

The second new exemption is for those ex-offenders who present a serious risk to the public and who are subject to active multi-agency management under the multi-agency public protection arrangements—MAPPA—in England and Wales or are considered to present similar risks in Scotland. That exemption covers a very small group of ex-offenders who are to be excluded on the grounds of public safety. It is not extended to all ex-offenders because many of them pose no risk to the public. Perversely, the risk is that one might provide an incentive to commit modest crime, which we would not want to encourage.

Other specific groups have been put forward as needing exemption. They include people with disabilities, those with mental health problems, those with a history of substance misuse and those seeking to maintain contact arrangements with their children. The case for those who have shared care of children is complex. We estimate that, of those who will be affected by this measure, around 10,000 have some contact with a child who lives elsewhere. Of these, it is not known how many would normally stay overnight, so the numbers are relatively low. But living in shared accommodation should not preclude both parents from playing a full part in a child’s life. Parents living in hostels or other non-mainstream accommodation will, I am sure, be striving to maintain quality relationships with their children. Ultimately, it is for individual maintenance and custody arrangements to reflect living arrangements, and it is not appropriate for the state to fund two homes for a child. To pick up the question that my noble friend Lord Kirkwood asked, I can assure him that this arrangement does not contravene Article 9 of the UN convention.

We thought long and hard about other exemptions, but the blunt answer is that our analysis suggested that it is better to rely on discretionary housing payments than on specific exemptions because of the difficulty in defining and administering them. Our belief is that the local authority is best placed to consider individual circumstances.

The point raised by my noble friend Lady Browning about the autistic is very moving. I have had a chance to read the letter sent to her from Mrs—

[Baroness Browning]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I quite deliberately did not mention the person’s name.