Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Earl Cathcart(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has just said, under the old housing benefit scheme the tenant had the choice of the payment going to him or directly to the landlord. The Minister said that, under the new scheme, the,
“position is for universal credit to be paid as a single monthly sum direct to the claimant; that is designed to mirror what would happen if the claimant was in full-time employment, when they would be responsible for managing their own funds and paying their own rent”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2438.]
In an ideal world that is an excellent idea, but in the real world it invariably does not happen. As a landlord, I can foresee that when the tenant receives the universal credit, the temptation will be to buy the weekly shopping, petrol, clothes and so on, and by the time the rent becomes due there will not be enough money left, so the spiral of debt takes hold. But the Government are adamant that paying universal credit only to the claimant not only will work but does work. Is this experiment working as the Government say it is?
According to a survey conducted by the Residential Landlords Association, it is not. It found that of those private sector landlords who had tenants on universal credit, some 63% had tenants in arrears on their rent—a point just made by the noble Baroness. Of that group of landlords, 85% had contacted the Department for Work and Pensions to have the housing element of the universal credit paid direct to them after eight weeks of arrears, as is their entitlement. More than 57% of that group said that it had taken the department more than five weeks to respond to the request, which means that the landlord is already more than three months out of pocket. I understand that the problem is even worse for social housing, with nearly 90% of tenants in arrears. It is heartening that the Minister said in Committee that,
“we are doing a lot of work now with social landlords to get the problem under control”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2437.]
At least my noble friend admits that there is a problem and that the new system is not working quite as planned. Much of this could have been avoided if the rent had been paid direct to the landlord.
In October 2012, a survey of more than 1,000 landlords carried out by the Residential Landlords Association and the Scottish Association of Landlords found that more than 91% of landlords were less likely to rent to tenants on benefits as a direct result of the decision not to allow payment of the benefits direct to the landlord. Not making the payment direct to the landlord is not helping the landlords and it is certainly not helping the tenants. All the evidence, backed by Shelter, Crisis and the Money Advice Trust, has been that paying it direct to the landlord was popular with tenants, as they were assured that their rent was covered before they decided how else to spend their money.
If the Government really want to make tenants,
“responsible for managing their own funds and paying their own rent”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2438.],
what better way than the tenant asking for the rent to be paid direct to the landlord? To my mind, that is the height of responsibility for the tenant: to ensure that the roof over their heads is paid for before deciding how to spend any remaining money.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. This is a real problem. The previous proposals that we were given, and the previous explanations that we wanted to model on the world of work, frankly belonged to a different planet. Those tenants, particularly in social housing, who need housing benefit are not those, for the most part, who are paid monthly. They very often are on ZHCs, have insecure or short-time jobs, or have fluctuating incomes week by week. That is topped up by universal credit. They want and need the security of a home in order to continue often to be able to find the jobs that they want, which would give them greater security. If they seek direct payments to the landlord, why does the Minister think that the Government and the DWP can second-guess what is in their best interest? Why not treat them as moral adults who can make their own judgment? The result that we are already seeing and beginning to worry about is, given the refusal to give alternative payment methods until after six to eight weeks’ arrears, and the time of processing that, we can be talking about debts of more than £1,000, from which tenants never recover.
The alternative is to try to help tenants to find ways to bypass the rigidity of DWP. So we are busy setting up jam-jar accounts and other friends are busy trying to use credit unions in order to bypass the total universal credit going into the bank account where the bank then takes payments for any other outstanding debts or anything else. As a result, HB becomes the last thing to be paid to the landlord. Many are already experiencing those problems. Certainly, one local authority tenant said to me, “Well, I won’t worry about that because that will be the last thing that gets paid. The local authority won’t evict me. It costs them more to send me into temporary housing and, given that I’ve got kids, I can run that risk”. That is the mental framework. She said, “I would be perfectly willing if they took it at the beginning of the month. But if I put it in the bank, it will be gone by the end of the month before I pay the rent”.
I suggest that the Minister responds very positively to this amendment. Where the tenant seeks it, the department should agree that alternative payment arrangement and stop all the futile effort that so many of us are making trying to find ways to loop around the system, to overcome the rigidities of the department, to help tenants avoid what will probably be debts from which they will never recover. I hope that the Minister will take the words of the noble Baroness and the noble Earl very seriously. It is a real problem on the ground.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Earl Cathcart(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, the three amendments in this group all relate to private landlords, who now account for 4.2 million properties for rent and more than half of all rented properties. However, as of August, less than a third of all housing benefit claimants lived in private rented accommodation. Why so few? Why is there this bottleneck deterring private landlords from taking on benefit claimants? As a landlord, I have claimants in my properties, but it is not made easy. Given the choice of a couple in work or a couple on benefits, for the landlord it is a no-brainer. Why take the risk, the hassle and the uncertainty of renting to the couple on benefits?
As the rental market tightens due to increased demand, it is important to encourage and support private landlords to house those in receipt of universal credit so that they can access accommodation, otherwise they will find themselves at the back of the queue. These amendments explore ways to do just that.
The first amendment is about giving the power to give the relevant universal credit information to the landlord. Landlords need assurances that tenants have the funds available to pay their rent. Without these, renting to them becomes a risky business. Currently, the private landlord can get no information about the amount of universal credit and when it will be paid. For those tenants in work, landlords will always ask for references from employers to establish their income to ensure that the funds are available to cover the rent. Surely it must be common sense for landlords to be able to do likewise for those in receipt of benefits. I understand that social landlords are able to gain such information, so why not private landlords? Surely what is good for the goose must be good for the gander. I acknowledge that it is quite difficult to find out how much benefit will be available before the tenant moves in, but it is not beyond the wit of man to publish a ready reckoner to help everyone see where they stand, according to each local housing area’s allowances.
Amendment 104B would insert a new clause to ensure that there is a legal power, where the tenant provides written consent, for the Department for Work and Pensions to disclose to all landlords information on the housing element of the tenant’s universal credit, including the amount, or approximate amount, and when it will get paid.
The second amendment relates to rent arrears. As benefit claimants may often move home, including to seek work, landlords need the security of knowing that tenants in receipt of benefit cannot simply stop paying their rent and leave their property. Currently, rent arrears can be recouped where a benefit claimant is still living in the house to which the arrears apply. There is, however, little or no opportunity for the landlord to recoup when such tenants move house, unless they are prepared to go through a lengthy and costly court process.
I cannot see the logic in allowing the landlord to recoup the arrears if a tenant is still in the landlord’s property, but not if the tenant has moved. I realise that there will probably be a hierarchy of deductions that can be made from future universal credit—no doubt future rents, council tax, utility bills, et cetera, would come first—but if even only a percentage of the arrears was paid each month, it would act as a disincentive to tenants to rack up the arrears in the first place and ensure that the landlord was not left high and dry once the tenant had jumped ship. Amendment 104BA would insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that rent arrears follow a tenant in receipt of universal credit and that landlords affected have a clear route to reclaim lost rent in such circumstances.
The third amendment concerns making payment of the housing element of universal credit direct to the landlord, with the written consent of the tenant. It is vital that landlords have full confidence that they will be paid in full and on time if vulnerable tenants are to have access to the rented homes they need. This is especially important since the Government took away the option for tenants to ask that the housing element of universal credit be paid directly to the landlord, as was formerly allowed under housing benefit. At first, I thought that that omission was an oversight, but I now understand that the Secretary of State wants all the money to be paid to the tenants so that they learn to become responsible for managing their money—a great idea but, sadly, I do not think it is working.
A survey conducted this year by the Residential Landlords Association found that of those private sector landlords who had tenants on universal credit, 63% had tenants in arrears on their rent. Of this group of landlords, 85% had contacted the Department for Work and Pensions to have a tenants’ housing element of universal credit paid directly to them after eight weeks of arrears, as is their entitlement. More than 57% of this group said that it had taken the department more than five weeks to respond to the request, with all the consequent difficulties this caused the landlords in not getting paid.
I understand that the problem is even worse when one looks at social housing. A survey carried out by the National Federation of ALMOs and ARCH—the Association of Retained Council Housing—found that nearly 90% of council house tenants in receipt of universal credit are in arrears. I had to look that up again: I could not believe it, but apparently it is so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I declare an interest as a former chair of both a local housing committee and a housing association. Given that universal credit is paid at the end of the month and this might not be coterminous with housing associations or social housing, what does the noble Lord regard as an arrears? Is he talking about more than eight weeks’ failure to pay the rent, because five to six weeks might simply be the failure to co-ordinate payments, given the move, unfortunately, to monthly payments?
Earl Cathcart
I think that I caught the noble Baroness’s question. I do not think it is after eight weeks: I think it is in arrears—that is, they have not paid the monthly rent on time and they have not paid the next month’s rent on time, et cetera. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s question.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I meant that the arrears might simply be a technical cash-flow issue, and not a legitimate arrear, because if, for example, the rent is due before the payment of universal credit, there will be a period when there will be arrears. The noble Earl will understand my point, but the arrears that matter are the arrears that become irrecoverable, which usually, in my experience, means eight weeks.
Local Government Bill [HL]
Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Earl Cathcart
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I will be brief. Fairly obviously, I support these amendments. Does anyone in this Chamber doubt that unitary government, especially for cities, is the most effective form of local government and offers the best value for money? I was a Norwich city councillor when we were unitary before 1974 and know what it has meant for the city of Norwich.
Basically, unitary structures offer at least four gains for the people who local councillors seek to represent. First, they offer better integrated services. This is because services are all on one tier and you can make decisions out of the box, so to speak, and across the lines—particularly, for example, in housing and social services. When I was a very young councillor and chair of Norwich’s housing committee, my vice-chair was the chair of what was then called, in those pre-Seebohm days—the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, will recall this—the welfare committee. The result was that we could produce halfway houses for battered wives and supported accommodation for those with severe learning difficulties because we ran housing and social services as one semi-common service. That is no longer possible. Now services are fractured and, frankly, it is a full-time job being poor and vulnerable.
The second gain from unitary structures for cities is better value for money—I shall in a moment engage with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—because it avoids duplication, for example, on economic development, and the toing and froing on planning applications between two tiers. As I have told the House on previous occasions, when I was leader of Norwich City Council, development opportunities that would have brought 600 to 800 jobs to the city of Norwich were lost when the developers walked away after they learnt that they would have to work with two tiers. I do not doubt that the county would have been supportive—I have no reason to think it would have blocked it—but the point is that for those seeking to come to the city the structure of local government was seen as an impediment to what they wanted—which was quick, easy, simple, transparent and responsive comments to their proposals.
Not only is unitary better for value for money in terms of avoiding duplication, it is also cheaper—and here I shall tackle the points made by both the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. For I think the third time, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has quoted the Permanent Secretary as the auditing officer saying that this did not represent best value for the money; and for the third time I shall attempt to appropriately correct her understanding of what the Permanent Secretary was saying. He was indeed saying that unitary Norwich and unitary Exeter were not best value for money—but compared with what? It was compared with a unitary county of Norfolk and a unitary county of Devon which wiped out the rest of local government—an outcome that no one except the Permanent Secretary and the Boundary Committee supported. Indeed, the county of Norfolk, I understand, would have taken out a JR against the recommendation of the Permanent Secretary. It is simply misleading and fallacious to quote the Permanent Secretary, as the noble and learned Baroness has done on several occasions—
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, two separate Labour Secretaries of State said on three separate occasions that a unitary Norwich would not give value for money. Is the noble Baroness saying that they were wrong?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
No, my Lords. We were then in a very different economic situation. What is more, when this process was started, with a Liberal Democrat minority administration running the city of Norwich, the financial figures were incomplete. The revised financial figures, which have been accepted by the department and embedded in its impact analysis—it is available to the noble Earl and I am sure that he has studied it—show that the original figures have been overtaken by events. I shall proceed to give the revised figures in a moment.
Perhaps I may continue my response to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. In the hierarchy of value, the cheapest option is a unitary county of Devon and a unitary county of Norfolk, which nobody wants. The second-cheapest option is unitary Norwich and unitary Exeter. The most expensive option, which neither the Permanent Secretary nor the noble and learned Baroness mentioned, is the status quo, which is exactly what the Minister is proposing in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that if we revert again, for the fourth time perhaps at Third Reading, to the Permanent Secretary as the chief auditing officer, it will be with all three options in mind and not just the two.
The Minister’s own figures in her recent letter of 22 July, which have already been quoted by my noble friend Lord McKenzie, show just how substantial would be the cost savings and value for money resulting from unitary structures. This is where, I suggest, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is wrong. The Minister’s letter—I am sure that he has it to hand, so that he can confirm the statistics that I am about to quote—shows that, from year 2, the savings will exceed costs. To deny local authorities the opportunity to achieve those savings is to add to the costs and council tax of local citizens at just the same time as the Government are requiring cuts of 25 per cent or more. The Minister’s letter shows that, by year 2 of the transition period, savings will exceed the cost of transition and that, by year 4 and thereon, the savings will be nearly £4 million a year for the city of Norwich. Norwich has around 40,000 properties and the savings from unitary structure will be £4 million. In other words, there would be savings to every household in Norwich of £100 a year on the Minister’s own figures if Norwich were to be unitary. That £100 a year has been denied the people of Norwich and similarly, I presume, the people of Exeter, either through their being better off or the authority being better able to provide appropriate services. I therefore hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Tope, says that we cannot afford the cost of reorganisation, he is respectful of the Minister’s own figures, from her own letter of 22 July, which show exactly the opposite.
The third argument for unitary status, over and beyond better services for our citizens and better value for money, is greater citizenship, accountability and transparency. City hall becomes a one-stop shop. I always knew when someone was about to complain, because they stopped talking about the “city council” of Norwich and started talking about the “city corporation” before letting fly. People in the Norwich area have something like four local authorities providing their services. Of course, they do not know who does what, to what standard, at what value for money or with what outcome. We are then surprised by low voter turnouts for elections to authorities whose very structures and very responsibilities baffle most citizens. After all, under some of our existing two-tier structures, local authorities are increasingly run by the few people who can be bothered to stand, elected by the few people who can be bothered to vote. Voting turnout is, usually, significantly higher in unitary authorities and significantly lower in two-tier structures precisely because there is not the democratic deficit in unitary government that there inevitably is in two-tier structures.
Local Government Bill [HL]
Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Earl Cathcart
Earl Cathcart
The final paragraph, number 106, says:
“However, for the reasons which I have given”—
those are his words—
“the orders are quashed”.
Therefore, the judgment is available.
Earl Cathcart
So far, I have intervened twice without declaring my interests. I live in Norfolk, I have been a district councillor for more than 10 years and I am chairman of my parish. Although I was brought up overlooking the River Dart in Devon, most of what I say will concern Norfolk.
I have a letter from the leader of Norwich City Council saying:
“It had been our desire to have the Judicial Review hearing heard before the draft Orders were debated in Parliament; however Norwich, Exeter and the Treasury Solicitors argued against this on the basis that they would have insufficient time to prepare their case”.
When it was pointed out to them that this might lead to complications with the elections, they replied that it did not concern them. Their main concern was to prepare their case. I find this a curious amendment—that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the costs incurred. That is all it says. Norwich City Council holds an election for one-third of its members each year. It knows only too well how much each election costs and would have budgeted for it. So if the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Rosser, wish to find out the cost, no doubt a quick telephone call would do the trick, rather than bothering the Secretary of State.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
As this is Committee stage, not Report, perhaps the noble Earl would allow me to intervene. The point was that the election took place on general election day, therefore the costs would have been subsumed in the votes for a general election and, therefore, a negligible additional cost would have fallen on the local authority for the councillors then standing. When those elections did not take place, we had not heard either the judge’s JR nor the verdict of the electorate, resulting in the coalition Government.
Earl Cathcart
The noble Baroness makes a good point, but that is not what the amendment says. It says only that the Secretary of State has to lay before Parliament a report as to the costs. It says nothing about repaying costs or additional costs because this and that has happened. It just says that the Secretary of State has to lay before Parliament a report as to the costs. That is all it is saying and that is all I am speaking to. The noble Baroness has indeed been making many other points, but I am trying to talk to this amendment.
As I was saying, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, picks up his telephone. In any event, these elections will, I believe, be no more onerous than the elections that Labour postponed until 2011. Any additional cost could have been avoided had the then Labour Government not forced their orders through against all their own rules and advice. Therefore, I find it a bit rich to cry now about costs that could and should have been avoided.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, perhaps I may comment on what the noble Earl has said. I ask the indulgence of the House, but it is Committee stage—it is not Report stage procedure—and there is ample opportunity for discussion.
On the elections, the noble Earl is of course right. However, the point was that if the orders had not been quashed by the High Court, and had the Bill not followed as the result of a general election, this tranche of councillors would have stood for election or re-election next May, when the other year’s worth would have done, too. There would have been two years’ worth of elections in the one year, so again no additional costs would have fallen.
Either, as we had expected and hoped, there would have been elections associated with the general election, in which case there would have been no additional costs, or there would have been elections after 12 months, in which case there would have been no additional costs because elections would have taken place in any event. The additional costs that we are talking about occur because these by-elections are being called in the middle of the electoral year.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, I will try to stick to the amendments rather than be tempted into going off at tangents. Amendment 5 says that,
“this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint”.
That is unnecessary, because Clause 3(2) already says:
“This Act comes into force on the date on which it is passed”.
The Secretary of State has already decided that the Act will come into force when it is passed.
I find Amendment 6 strange, as the Secretary of State is not required to lay before Parliament a statement about arrangements for co-operation between district councils and county councils for any other two-tier system, so why now? In any event, the spending plans are a matter for local councils, not for Parliament. The leader of Norfolk County Council acknowledges in a letter to me:
“The economic climate is such that there is an even greater need for local councils to co-operate and share at this time, if we are collectively to protect vital public services in Norfolk”.
I have no doubt that the county council intends to co-operate fully with other councils.
Secondly, Norwich City Council already has two twin-hatters, by which I mean members of both the city council and the county council. Surely these twin-hatters can scrutinise the spending plans and financial statements and raise issues on behalf of their constituents. That is why they are there. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, talked about decisions made by cabinet. However, those decisions have to be passed by a full council on which these two twin-hatters sit, so they should know what the arguments are and put the case for Norwich City if they think it appropriate.
As for the police authorities, the police are a county council responsibility and, as such, and quite rightly, the authorities comprise a number of county councillors—eight in all—and independent members: in other words, non-councillors. Of the eight councillors, one is from Bowthorpe, Norwich, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred, and one is from Thorpe St Andrew in greater Norwich. Having a quarter of the appointed councillors—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The Bowthorpe councillor speaks, basically, for the south Norfolk area, which is not the Norwich City area, on the police authority.
Earl Cathcart
We may be splitting hairs, but he lives in outer Norwich. In any case, I think that there is city council representation on the police authority. The amendment is extraordinary in that no other council is required to report in this way through the Secretary of State. It is also unnecessary, because all the things for which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is calling already happen.