Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit) (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Debate between Lord Best and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, who is in practice my noble friend on these issues, for praying against the benefit cap regulations. The first-year review of the cap unsurprisingly found that caring responsibilities, especially for young children, represented one of the main barriers facing capped families looking for work. According to the equality analysis, 16% of existing capped households—more than 3,000—contain a child aged under one. Of these, more than 2,000 are headed by a lone parent and the great majority of those are women. Yet even under the current punitive regime this group is not expected to seek work when their youngest child is so young, so what is the justification for including them in the cap? Surely, on the logic of the High Court judgment that led to the welcome exclusion of carers in these regulations, as we have heard, those caring for infants should also be excluded. The equality analysis indicates that the number of households containing a child aged under one is now of course likely to increase. Can the Minister give an estimate of how great this increase is likely to be?

The new cap will affect a much wider group of families over a wider geographical area. In my own region of the east Midlands, the number of households affected is expected to increase from 800 to 5,000—a rise from 4% to 11% of those affected nationally. In order to avoid the risk of the arbitrary effects to which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred, the IFS suggests:

“It would be sensible for the government to set out a clear vision of which families it thinks receive excessive amounts of benefits and why”.

I look forward to the Minister enlightening us.

It still beats me how, as the Government claim, it can be in the best interests of these children for them to be driven further into poverty in the name of some theoretical future life chances, especially when the earlier IFS evaluation showed that only a tiny fraction of those affected had moved into paid work. Its more recent analysis suggests that it is not likely to be that different now. Moreover, there is evidence to indicate that cutting benefits can be counterproductive because impoverishment reduces job-seeking capacities. If all one’s energy has to go into getting by, that does not leave much over for presenting oneself as a suitable job applicant to employers.

As I cited during the passage of the Bill, according to last year’s Supreme Court judgment the department is misinterpreting the best interests requirement when it argues on the basis of the theoretical best interests of the generality of children rather than the actual best interests of children whose parents’ income is driven below what Parliament has deemed necessary to meet their needs. I very much concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said about the basic principle of this cap, which I am opposed to.

Both the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child have recently expressed deep concern about the impact of the reductions in the cap. This is also referred to in the report just published by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The fears of these UN committees are likely to be borne out given the recent warnings of, for example, the Chartered Institute of Housing. It is quite clear from the revised impact assessment that children are still disproportionately affected. In his Statement on the recent UNCRC concluding observations, the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families called on government colleagues to reflect on the committee’s recommendations,

“for example, by reflecting the voice of the child fully in the design and implementation of policy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/16; col. 23WS.]

There is no evidence of the voice of the child here.

Despite being pressed a number of times during the passage of the Bill, there is also still no mention in the revised impact assessment of the application of the famous family test. The best that we got during the Bill was a letter from the Minister, which turned up in my junk email folder, assuring us:

“The Government has fully considered the family test criteria as an integral part of the policy development process”.

This is not how the DWP advises other government departments to present the outcome of the application of the family test. It simply is not good enough. Perhaps the Minister prefers not to spell out the impact on families of a policy that the impact assessment shows will disproportionately hit children and lone mothers.

Returning specifically to the impact on children’s rights, I draw attention here to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s note on priority issues for implementing the concluding observations of the UNCRC. It would,

“highlight, for an urgent response, the recommendation of the UN CRC for the UK to ‘[c]onduct a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative impact of the full range of social security and tax credit reforms introduced between 2010 and 2016 on children’, and to revise the reforms where necessary to ensure the best interests of the child are”—

I stress are—“a primary consideration”. I would welcome the Minister’s response.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, on the face of it withdrawing help from very poor people, which is the effect of lowering the overall benefit cap, seems extremely harsh. It has two justifications, as I understand it, in addition to the obvious aim of saving money and reducing the national deficit. First, it is hoped that it will fiercely encourage those affected to seek out a job, since that would exempt them from the constraints of the cap. Secondly, the effect of the cap reducing support in housing benefit could be to persuade landlords to reduce rents. It seems that neither of these hoped-for outcomes will be very successful.

On the jobs front, the previous imposition of a benefits cap seems to have pushed less than a quarter of those affected into a job, leaving the great majority to take the hit in a straightforward reduction of their standard of living. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, have spelled out the obstacles to the new measure getting people into work.

On the housing side, could the lowering of the cap achieve savings to the Government without hardship to those whose benefit is cut by coercing private landlords to trim their rents? Landlords who concentrate on tenants who need housing benefit would, it is argued, have to settle for a lower rent if tenants cannot pay, otherwise they would be faced with an empty property.

Of course I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions, propelled by the pressure of the Treasury, wants to reduce the housing benefit bill which, frustratingly, keeps rising as rents rise, but such is the scarcity of inexpensive homes to rent in London, and increasingly throughout the country, that private landlords do not cut rents when housing benefit tenants are given less to spend on rent. Instead, landlords simply stop letting their properties to people in receipt of housing benefit. More than three-quarters of private landlords will not consider housing anyone in receipt of HB, and those who are already letting to such tenants are increasingly unlikely to renew assured shorthold tenancies when they conclude after six months or a year.

The new cap is estimated by the Chartered Institute of Housing to hit 116,000 families containing 319,000 children. It comes on top of the local housing allowance caps and freezes, which are biting already. Although the impact of the new measure is greatest in London, despite the higher level of the cap there, all areas are affected. IFS figures show that families with three children face the most severe cuts. Half of them are facing a gap between their housing benefit and their rent of more than £100 per week. No private landlord is going to reduce rents by anything approaching that level.

So, in housing terms, the most likely impact of the new measure is the gradual elimination of privately rented accommodation for households which, for a host of reasons, are not in employment. Although tenants may try to make up the shortfall between their housing benefit and their rent by drawing on loans, help from friends and using up resources provided for food, heating et cetera, this is untenable for a sustained period. Debts and arrears are highly likely, and private landlords can see this coming. It is safer and more profitable to let to tenants who need no HB support.

What follows is likely to be an increase in homelessness. Housing associations and councils cannot take in all those rejected by the private rented sector. I know the Minister has done sterling work in extracting funding from the Treasury for discretionary housing payments to offset the impact of earlier benefit cuts. His efforts have reduced the deficit-cutting savings for the Government, but they are not a stable way to fend off homelessness in the face of continuing benefit cuts.

I will soon have the honour of piloting the Homelessness Reduction Bill through your Lordships’ House if and when it completes its stages in the other place. It will be a really helpful measure to prevent homelessness and provide more relief for those who face homelessness, and I am delighted that the Government are supporting it. However, this legislation, if it completes its stages in the other place and meets with approval in your Lordships’ House, cannot swiftly turn the tide and conjure up more rented homes within the reach of those who receive housing benefit. Market forces dictate that, if housing benefit does not cover the rent, private landlords will simply not let to these households.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, that additional support to help those hit by the latest cap get a job is definitely needed before inflicting upon them a very significant cut in their income. Locating and assisting those affected in the private rented sector may not be easy, but several thousand council and housing association tenants are also affected. Councils which focus on these tenants are to be commended. Housing associations trying to help tenants with skills training need to be informed by their local councils of which tenants will be affected by the new benefit cap. They can then target support with financial advice and training on those people. The National Housing Federation points out that not all councils are sharing these data with their local housing associations. Support from the Minister in making sure this data-sharing happens would be very valuable.

Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 6) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Best and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as joint chair of the right-to-rent private landlords consultative panel at the Home Office. I jointly chair this panel with the Minister for Immigration, James Brokenshire. We have been meeting to discuss the right-to-rent measure every month or two since September 2014, with sub-groups meeting between the main panel meetings.

I was very critical of the right-to-rent proposals in your Lordships’ House before they became part of the Immigration Act 2014. I tabled nine amendments, all relating to the practicalities of requiring landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants. The House received a number of reassurances from the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for which I was grateful, including arrangements for a pilot scheme in the West Midlands.

The panel, which continues to meet, includes representatives of landlords, tenants, property agents, all the relevant local authorities, three government departments and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. From this perspective, I hope, therefore, that I can provide some answers to the questions arising on this issue.

First, has the Home Office taken the whole process seriously? I can say definitively that this exercise has been taken very seriously by the Minister and the army of civil servants working on its implementation. I cannot claim technical knowledge of research methodologies, but I have been impressed by the Home Office team responsible for the evaluation of the West Midlands pilot, led by Andrew Zurawan. As far as I can tell, the different techniques deployed by the in-house and external researchers—surveys, focus groups, mystery shopping, comparisons with a control area where the right to rent was not in force—have all been conscientiously carried out. I fully recognise the limitations of any pilot evaluation process: it may take years, not months, for effects to work through; larger-scale surveys or surveys at different times of the year could produce fuller results; and so on. However, within the obvious constraints of this exercise, I think the team did a pretty good job.

Secondly, what has been the outcome of these efforts to date? It was never to be expected that the critics of this measure would reverse their opinions and accept the right to rent as a good idea. Nevertheless, I detected that the arrangements, even in the pilot, were not proving massively onerous for landlords or property agents. With the subsequent improvements to the approach—revision to the guidance, clarification and simplification of requirements for documents—the position for the rollout from 1 February certainly seems to be generally, if somewhat grudgingly, accepted. I am simply not convinced that the right to rent is causing huge anxieties for landlords; I have talked to landlords and agents who are far more concerned about tax changes and other regulatory measures affecting them.

No respectable landlord would wish to be letting to someone who is here illegally, not least since that tenant might be apprehended and removed and leave suddenly with unpaid rent, so already, of course, there are referencing procedures for those applying for a tenancy. Now that it is possible to view the pictures of the required documents for those who do not have a passport, their legal status should actually be easier to check.

I raised the question at the panel with those representing managing and letting agents: would it be best to use a professional specialist company to handle this aspect of the vetting of your potential tenants? The response was that this would be a waste of money and quite unnecessary as the whole exercise was now straightforward enough. I wonder how many landlords do not seek proper references or carry out checks on the identity of people to whom they grant tenancies. I strongly suspect that the landlords who will be affected by this measure know very well the illegal status of the tenants and are taking advantage of them in extracting exorbitant rents for abysmal conditions. The great benefit of the Home Office’s interest in enforcing the right to rent in the West Midlands was shown to be in bolstering the efforts of local authorities to weed out some pretty unpleasant elements in the private rented sector. I make no secret of the fact that my own interest in this matter is based on the increased opportunities for prosecuting those who exploit people in overcrowded slum conditions.

Thirdly, what about the continuing anxieties that innocent landlords may unwittingly, through ignorance rather than malicious intent, still fail to identify an illegal migrant before allocating a tenancy to them, and, as a result, end up with a hefty fine? The panel has received a very clear message on the ongoing role of the Home Office in advising and supporting landlords and agents. Mostly people will go online and should now find the necessary information relatively easy to access. However, sometimes landlords or agents could encounter a lack of any documentation or have queries about the documents they do see. They will want a definitive decision from the Home Office itself. It is important to note that when Home Office officials are asked to check the identity of a potential tenant, they must respond within 48 hours. If the landlord or agent is not told that the individual has no right to rent within this period, the letting can go ahead. Based on experience from the pilot, the Home Office has geared up its staffing to meet its extended commitments. In addition to this checking service, everyday inquiries about the whole arrangement can be discussed with trained operators on an expert helpline.

Ministers have constantly reiterated the point that any prosecution requires a high standard of proof, demonstrating that a landlord actually knows, or has good reason to believe, that they are indeed letting to an illegal immigrant. Ministers have underlined the point that no one will be prosecuted for failing to identify a cleverly forged document or false passport, let alone be held liable if an illegal migrant moves in with a legitimate tenant unbeknown to the landlord. The Home Office will ensure that the CPS is fully aware of the policy intent. The object is to target the real rogues, the criminal landlords who knowingly and repeatedly flout the law. Nevertheless, if the Minister wishes to offer additional reassurances tonight to this effect, I am sure that would be appreciated.

Fourthly, is the Home Office investing enough in communications to ensure that landlords and tenants are alerted to the new requirement on them? The panel has received very regular reports on the many efforts being made to get the message across and I am confident that there can be no managing and letting agents who are still in the dark. Whether every one of the 1.8 million landlords in the UK is yet aware of the arrangement, I would not be so sure. However, I fear that some of these landlords are ignorant of a good many other responsibilities they should understand. This problem may be more to do with the way we organise rented housing in this country, with such huge numbers of “amateur landlords” who may have no expertise in property matters, rather than a problem with the Home Office. Of more concern is the issue of communicating with tenants who sub-let or owners who take in lodgers. These may well be harder to reach, despite the Home Office’s efforts, and it may take time for word to get around that checks are needed. In the early stages of the right to rent, tolerance will be needed if mistakes are made, and I note that the fine for a first offence, if it goes all the way to being prosecuted, is set at £80.

I fully accept that once the communications efforts have succeeded and most people are aware of the right- to-rent arrangements, there is the danger of discrimination against those who are in this country perfectly legitimately but might be thought to be illegal immigrants. Sadly, discrimination on grounds of race and ethnicity has not been stamped out in the private rented sector. It was discerned as much among landlords in the control area, where right to rent was not an issue, as in the pilot area. Whether the problem will get worse or whether the raising in the right-to-rent procedures of the profile of discrimination as an issue will counterbalance it, I cannot tell. Right to rent could get the blame for suspected discrimination when in reality the problem lies elsewhere.

Today I hosted the launch by Crisis of an excellent report on the obstacles to renting privately for people who are on low incomes or have been homeless. We heard how few landlords now accept anyone in receipt of housing benefit. Indeed, 82% of landlords said they were not willing to house those who are homeless or about to become homeless. Many people face enormous difficulties in getting a rented home, quite outside the considerations of right to rent. Ministers have promised to continue to monitor the position in relation to discrimination in particular.

Bearing in mind that the right to rent was introduced in 2014 and that, after evaluating a pilot that did not demonstrate any insuperable problems, negative impacts from this measure have been addressed by Home Office Ministers and officials as conscientiously as could be hoped for, I cannot conclude that the rollout of the right to rent should be the subject of that most draconian of measures possible in your Lordships’ House, a fatal Motion of annulment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I have opposed these provisions from the outset, primarily because of the potential to increase discrimination in the housing market, but what is at issue now is whether full rollout of the scheme at this stage is consistent with the commitments made in both your Lordships’ House and the other place during the passage of the Immigration Act 2014. Like many other noble Lords who have spoken, I believe it is not.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said then that the Government’s intention was that the provision would be,

“subject to a phased implementation on a geographical basis. This will allow a proper evaluation of the scheme to ensure that it delivers its objectives without unintended consequences such as discrimination”.—[Official Report, 10/3/14; col. 1648.]

Later, he promised a “carefully phased” approach to the implementation. I am sure I am not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who understood that to mean that there would be a series of pilots in different geographical areas and of different kinds to get a representative picture of its effects—not that it would forge ahead, after a single phase in a single geographical area, involving a quick and not completely representative pilot, with no proper public debate about what we have learned from it and just some changes to the code of practice, which ILPA argues,

“do not appear to constitute a substantive response to the concerns identified in the evaluation”.

I believe that sufficient concerns were raised to cause us to pause rather than steam ahead regardless, as urged also by the Residential Landlords Association on the basis of research that it has carried out. The only reason that we are having this debate is because of the Motions in front of us.

I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Best, so what I am about to say is in no way casting aspersions on his role. I am sure that he will have brought the greatest integrity and expertise to overseeing the pilot scheme, but forgive me if I am cynical. A number of noble Lords have referred to this already but when the Prime Minister declared in May, five months before publication of the conclusions of all the hard work that went into the pilot,

“now we’ve got a majority, we will roll it out nationwide”,

surely it rather gave the game away. It suggested that the pilot would turn into something of a charade. It was as if all that important and serious work did not matter because a decision had already been made that it should be rolled out. All right, there have been some improvements to the code of practice but they do not amount to an awful lot.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Best and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I declare my interests at this point. They are quite wide-ranging in relation to charities and non-charitable organisations, and they are listed in the legislative scrutiny report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I want to declare my support for the amendments tabled on behalf of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement. While I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that it is not unusual for this House to take a number of amendments together, I point out that the Electoral Commission emphasised that we have to consider the cumulative impact of a number of different parts of this legislation. This was also a point emphasised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, so it is not inappropriate for us to consider the way these amendments hang together. I think they do hang together.

I simply want to highlight very briefly a few of the points covered by them. The first is the question of access to information for disabled people, which has already been talked about very powerfully. This is a question of equity. It costs more to provide that information and it is only equitable that that is taken into account.

The second point, which we have not talked about as much, is the question of public meetings. The NCVO in its latest briefing picked this up, referring to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and our concern about the possible impact of this part of the legislation on the human right to freedom of association. That is very important. The NCVO refers to a number of organisations having flagged this up, particularly with regard to disability, welfare and social security reform issues. The concern is about the high cost associated with organising a rally of some form and the subsequent impact this would have on campaigning activity through the rest of a regulated period. I hope the Government might consider looking again at public meetings being covered by the legislation.

The final point is on the question of the definition of “supporters”. I was struck that the commission’s report pointed out that this matter was simply not considered by the House of Commons during its debates. I went to the launch of the commission’s second report, where one of its members spoke very convincingly about the importance of taking account of how membership of organisations has changed and said that the legislation has not caught up with this. The commission’s report states:

“We heard evidence about the need for a definition of supporters which reflects the contemporary way in which members of the public lend their support to organisations and campaigns including by email and social media—not just financial supporters”.

I am not sure which of the competing amendments is right, but it seems to me essential that one of these amendments should be accepted, and that we have a more up-to-date understanding of what it means to support voluntary organisations.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 163A, another in this rather large group. I declare my interest as a member of the advisory board of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, the NCVO, which is a key organisation in seeking amendments to the Bill and supplementing the brilliant work of the civil society commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I am grateful to him for his support for this amendment, and to the NCVO for its briefing on this amendment.

This amendment joins so many others in seeking to preserve the freedoms of not-for-profit organisations seeking to influence government and decision-makers. In the case of this amendment the issue is the new list of activities, the costs of which count as qualifying expenses and lead to regulation. The list now includes public rallies or other public meetings where expenses include costs in connection with the attendance of persons at the event, the hire of premises and provision of goods, services and facilities. So this is about all costs associated with freedom of association at rallies and other public meetings. A potential problem here is acknowledged by the Government’s human rights memorandum, which noted that,

“more things (such as for example, costs associated with the organisation of rallies and events) will count towards spending limits and require control. This engages Article 10 and 11”.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concern about the possible impact of the broadened list of activities on the freedom of association. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has just referred to this. A number of organisations, notably those interested in disability and welfare reform issues, have flagged the concern that the high costs associated with organising a rally of some form would have a major impact on campaigning activity throughout the rest of a regulated period.

Perhaps I could share three examples of organisations and their activities that would be covered by the new rules and lead to disproportionately onerous bureaucracy and burdens, which could effectively prevent those organisations campaigning in ways that they have done in the past.

The first is the case of the Countryside Alliance’s opposition to the hunting ban in 2001 and 2005—an example that is known to a number of your Lordships. In the run-up to the 2001 and 2005 general elections, the alliance mobilised its supporters and the general public against the hunting ban—activities which in total required a pretty high level of expenditure, including demonstrations and rallies against the hunting ban, press conferences to promote the event, transport costs for those attending the events, and producing and distributing leaflets to promote the events. The Countryside Alliance is not linked to any one political party. However, because the issue of hunting can be seen as highly partisan, with the hunting ban more associated with the Labour Party, all the costs incurred in these events would have counted towards the alliance’s expenditure. Had the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 been amended as the Bill proposes at the time the hunting Bill made its way through Parliament, the ability of organisations such as the alliance to oppose the proposed ban and organise marches and rallies would have been severely curtailed.

Secondly, in the run up to the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009 and the UK general election in 2010, the organisations in the Stop Climate Chaos coalition worked on a range of events, including outdoor rallies; the Wave, a march through London attended by 50,000 supporters; and schools’ conferences held with schools from across England to talk about climate change, with MPs invited to a panel debate. Under the new rules proposed by the Bill, even if lower spending limits are not pursued, it is likely that the various activities carried out by the coalition would have exceeded the maximum amount allowed, forcing the coalition to stop its campaigning.

Thirdly and finally, the Women’s Institute’s Great Food Debate involved a programme of work on food security and was launched at an event in York in December 2012 with a report on food security. The event was free, open to the public and included a panel at which the Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson MP, gave a keynote speech. Members of the WI and members of the public attended the launch and debate, with another in Cardiff the following month. The Great Food Debate is designed to explore the concept of pressure on the food system and provide an opportunity to engage with the public. The National Federation of Women’s Institutes encourages WIs all over the country to replicate its national work by hosting their own local and regional Great Food Debates. All this generated significant media coverage, including local and regional coverage. The Great Food Debate is certainly not supportive of any particular party but the media reporting of the events placed the debates and work programme in a political context, as exemplified by headlines such as the following in the Daily Mail:

“Put cooking back on the national curriculum to tackle obesity timebomb and stop pupils wasting food, urges WI”.

The Daily Telegraph read:

“TV cooks should give us recipes for leftovers to cut waste, says Minister”,

and:

“Teach all children to cook in schools, says Women’s Institute”.

In addition, the Environment Secretary used the platform as an opportunity to call for further consideration by the public of GM and agritechnology. If the Bill is passed and these events were held in the 12 months before one of the elections covered by it, the related costs would take the National Federation of Women’s Institutes over the registration threshold, with all the consequences that that would imply. All local WIs and federations would have to register as third-party campaigners with the Electoral Commission because the NFWI would have spent more than the registration threshold in creating the materials to help members hold their own debates. Federations and WIs in this scenario would then have to take on all the regulatory burdens associated with that.

It is good to hear that the Government will be bringing forward changes that will increase substantially the cash thresholds for registration. Amendment 163A helps that process by taking out one element that could disproportionately affect the total spending by voluntary bodies in this grey area of non-partisan campaigning. It diminishes the unintended chilling effect of the Bill, which otherwise seems likely directly to deter voluntary bodies from organising the free association of people at rallies and public events, and indirectly to reduce engagement of the sector in important campaigning activity.

Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Best and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I think that I and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, were the only Members of this House to oppose the benefit cap on principle and I remain opposed to it on principle, but I will not go through all those arguments again, although the Minister put the principled arguments for the cap, except to say that we have rather different views about fairness. I refer to that in relation to what is not yet a proposal but a suggestion mooted by the Secretary of State that a further benefit cap should be imposed on families with three or more children—exactly the same group who stand to lose most from this benefit cap—before this cap has even been applied. What possible basis is there for floating yet further caps until we know the effects of this one? I should be grateful if the Minister could say something about the interaction between the caps and what work has been done in the department on the likely impact on child poverty.

Like my noble friend Lord McKenzie, I read the Guardian and saw yesterday’s report. I followed it up by contacting the Child Poverty Action Group— I declare an interest as its honorary president. It has just, with the London Advice Services’ Alliance, published a study of London local authorities and how they are dealing with the various cuts in housing benefit.

It is clear that one of the common solutions, as evidenced in that Guardian piece, is to move families from inner to outer boroughs, or well beyond. Like the localisation of council tax benefit, it seems that the Government are taking a Pontius Pilate position here—washing their hands of all responsibility and then saying, “It is the local authorities that are responsible”. A Government spokesperson was quoted in the Guardian yesterday as saying:

“It is neither acceptable, fair nor necessary for local authorities to place families far away from their area”.

I agree, but to the extent that it becomes necessary, the blame lies with central government.

The National Audit Office spelled out, in its report last week, the pressure that the combined cuts in housing benefit would put on the supply of affordable local housing in some areas. The National Audit Office also drew attention to one of the findings of the interim report from the evaluation being carried out for the departments:

“Claimants’ reluctance to consider moving to other areas appears to reflect a considerable attachment to their local area as a place to live”.

The evaluation report refers to the importance of proximity to family, friends and schools.

I have heard Ministers—I do not think that this includes the Minister here today—say that people have no right to be able to live in nice areas that other people cannot afford to live in, as if we are talking about posh areas here and it is all about the niceness of the area. Actually, quite a few pieces of research around poverty and place show the importance of local roots and the networks that people have, and the Government seem completely impervious to this. I find it very strange because it seems to me to fly in the face of the whole philosophy of the big society, which is about the support that people give to each other. Yet this and other policies—I will probably say more about this this evening—wilfully destroy, or are happy to countenance the destruction of, these social support networks. One of my hobby-horses is that this is something that we must look at in all the evaluation that is being done. Like my noble friend I welcome the fact that there will be a review of the impact of the cap, but nothing is said in the Explanatory Memorandum about the impact on social networks.

The Minister talked about incentivising work. We have heard this on a number of occasions. I shall quote the Secretary of State, who said, in the House of Commons in an Oral Answer in September:

“When we recently started dipping into the issue and surveying those who were likely to be affected, it was interesting to find out that, already, well in advance of what is going to happen, about a third of people have admitted that they are out looking for work as a result of the oncoming benefit cap”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/9/12; col. 15.]

I am interested; I keep hearing this. I am sorry to add to the questions the Minister is being asked, but what is this survey? Is this the telephone calls that he mentioned? Does the department ring up and they say, “Oh, yes, I am looking for work because you are about to cap me”, or what?

I have heard a number of social policy academics say that, if it is in terms of people going into work, this is the normal turnover one would expect. How do we know it is because of the forthcoming cap? Even to the extent that it is having this effect, the CPAG/Lasa study confirmed that several local authorities are working actively with residents to help them move into work or increase their hours in order to avoid a cap, and this is obviously very welcome. It stated:

“However, few see this as an approach able to solve the problems of more than a small proportion of families hit by the cap. One authority estimates that there are at least 500 families who would not be able to be supported into employment due to disability, caring or parental issues”.

Many emphasise the high cost of childcare as a barrier.

My noble friend Lord McKenzie and the noble Lord, Lord German, have mentioned carers and the fact that 5,200 of those expected to be hit by the cap are in receipt of carer’s allowance—that is about one in 10 of everyone affected in 2013-14. The mean reduction will be £105 a week, the median £77 a week. That is a lot of money for people to lose.

The Minister talked about the long-term positive behavioural effect. He might recall that in Committee on the Welfare Reform Bill my noble friend Lady Sherlock and I asked the noble Lord—this is a variation on the question asked by my noble friend—what are the positive behavioural effects that the Government are seeking from carers? Presumably they are not to stop caring. I asked the noble Lord and I am glad to say that he confirmed that that was the case. What other behavioural effects are being sought of carers? I am as baffled as I was then.

I turn to the question again raised by my noble friend on supported housing. I am grateful to Crisis for its briefing on this. It estimates that 10% of those affected could be single adults and it is likely that some of them will be living in supported accommodation. Supported accommodation ranges from hostels for homeless people to domestic violence refuges; it is exempt from normal housing benefit rules so it is not subject to LHA restrictions; the rents charged by different accommodation projects vary, depending on a number of factors but particularly the level and range of support provided. Therefore, a hostel that houses, for example, long-term rough sleepers with severe mental health problems will have higher running costs. A small number of people who live in such high-cost accommodation and who receive other benefits will be affected by the cap. They are not in a position to move elsewhere and they pay a lower rent. We are talking possibly about higher-rate ESA or incapacity benefit as was, and they are likely to be some distance away from moving into work so would not be able to avoid being hit by the cap.

I do not believe that it is right, nor do I believe it is the intention of the policy that the cap should impact on people who are extremely vulnerable or who are at a crisis point in their lives and cannot live independently. Supported accommodation providers rely on housing benefit as a source of funding and they would struggle to provide the vital services that they offer if their residents’ housing benefit were to be cut. Although Ministers have stated publicly that there will be no more exemptions to the cap, I understand that there are discussions going on as to how residents in supported accommodation will be treated. Ideally, I would like to see people who live in supported accommodation exempt from the cap but, failing that, I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain to your Lordships how it is intended to protect supported housing residents from the impact of the cap.

Crisis is also concerned that in the worst instances, households that are not able to find alternative accommodation could be left facing homelessness. That is a point made by my noble friend. I would like to read from the CPAG/ Lasa report, which states:

“Applying the benefit cap to families in temporary accommodation effectively means that families who are accepted as homeless, could be made homeless once more due to their inability to pay the costs of temporary accommodation”.

The situation was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill. I quote the noble Lord:

“We need to get a solution to this so that we do not have a ludicrous go-round of people moving into expensive temporary accommodation which they can no longer pay for because of the cap. We are absolutely aware of this and have measures in train to get a solution in the round to that issue”.—[Official Report, 23/1/12; col. 893.]

The report continues:

“At present, however, local authorities see themselves pushed into precisely this ‘ludicrous go-round’, with little option for escape”.

Could the Minister please comment on that and explain what measures exactly are in train to solve what he himself described as a ludicrous situation?

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I thank the Minister again for that period of grace. I had an amendment seeking a 26-week period of grace and this is the first time that I have ever had a Minister exceed my expectations. I knew I should have gone for 52 weeks but I thank him for confirming that that is safely in place.

Although I agree with a great deal of what has already been said, I particularly wanted to pick out the problem faced by those going into temporary accommodation. There are 51,600 households currently in these properties leased from private landlords. The housing association and sometimes the local authority itself stand in the middle. The private landlord charges a rent and on top of the rent that the landlord charges, the housing association, in taking on this commitment, has to agree to return the place to the landlord in pristine condition at the end of the period so there is a need for reinstatement costs. Management costs are also involved in this, so it is unsurprising that rents for these temporary accommodation leases are higher than other rents. In the areas where the other rents are already very high, these are going to be very high rents. However, the £500 per family cap kicks in regardless of the fact that rents in particular places will be very high.

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Best and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, we have heard some powerful speeches in support of the amendment. I take us back to the debate in Grand Committee on 15 October and what the Minister had to say:

“A lot of people will decide that they will have enough money or that they will be able to take in a lodger or take extra work. Those are the kind of decisions that we expect to happen in the marketplace”.—[Official Report, 15/10/12; col. GC 485.]

How many of us think of our homes as the marketplace or the decisions that we make around our homes as market decisions? We are not just talking about bricks and mortar; we are talking about the homes that people live in and the local roots that nourish them. The Minister made it sound so simple, saying that people will decide whether they have “enough money”; we are talking by definition about people on a low income, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie said. Or, the Minister says, they can “take in a lodger”; my noble friend has explained why that is not always appropriate. Or, the Minister says, they can find “extra work”; that is not so easy, either to get a job or increase one’s hours.

According to the National Audit Office report, one-third of households surveyed by Housing Future expect to fall into arrears as a result of this policy. According to Citizens Advice, other debts are likely to increase because, initially at least, people will try to prioritise their rent. Yet the Minister made no mention of debt or arrears as a likely solution, if that is a solution, even though debt is identified by the Government as a primary cause of poverty. One thing that we discussed in Grand Committee was the disproportionate impact of this policy on disabled people. There is evidence about the particular effects on disabled people of debt, and how debt can itself create mental health problems.

I come back to a point that I made earlier, and I have made before. I know that I probably sound like a broken record, but I refer to the impact on social networks when people move as a result of this policy—to people’s lives and to their being able to find work. Often lone mothers can use those networks for childcare, and so forth. The Minister mentioned the evaluation that will take place, which I welcome. In our last gasp, when we were discussing the then Welfare Reform Bill and this provision, the Minister committed that the monitoring would include the impact on social networks. In every subsequent reference that I have seen to that monitoring, I have not seen a mention of that, so I would be very grateful if the Minister could recommit this evening that that monitoring will include the impact on social networks.

On discretionary housing payments, I will not labour the loaves and fishes point any further, but I would instead like to quote from the National Audit Office report that came out last week, which says:

“It is not clear how the current level of funding for Discretionary Housing Payments has been determined or whether it is likely to be sufficient for local authorities in tackling the impacts of reforms. The £390 million of funding over the Spending Review period represents around six per cent of the total £6.4 billion savings expected from Housing Benefit reforms during this period. This works out at around £200 per household affected … There is also no established process for reviewing the level of funding for Discretionary Housing Payments over time. For example there is no mechanism to assess whether the overall funding amount should change to reflect higher claimant numbers. Uncertainty about the basis for future funding in part reflects the fact that the Department is still reviewing how to provide support for housing as a result of broader welfare reforms … Monitoring of how payments are made by local authorities would improve the Department’s understanding of local need. At the moment monitoring is limited”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could tell your Lordships’ House what the department’s response is to those observations from the National Audit Office.

Letters have already been going out to people who are likely to be affected by this policy, and it is striking fear into their hearts. It is a mean-minded policy that shows scant concern for the lives of those affected—and, as the right reverend Prelate put it, shows no concern for the dignity of those affected. Human dignity is at the heart of human rights.

[Lord Best]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, attributes the phrase “bedroom tax” to me, so I take responsibility for this—because it is a tax. It is not about trying to ensure that people are allocated to the property that best suits their needs; it is about raising money and reducing the deficit. We all understand about deficit reduction. Where we differ on this is whether people on the lowest incomes should be contributing to that deficit reduction with what is in effect a tax. It is a payment, which the tenant makes out of their benefits—out of the other benefits they receive, such as disability living allowance, income support or child benefits. It goes to government; that is where the payment ends up, and it reduces the deficit. That is a perfectly valid objective, but I and others maintain that it should not be at the expense of people who are living on the very lowest incomes at present.

The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, attributed the underlying problem to the shortage of accommodation, which then means that rents are much higher than one would hope and expect that they should be. It is not the fault of the occupier that they pay a large rent. We say that it is a disgrace that people are paying these enormous rents, but it is not that people wish to pay large sums in rent; that is what the market has determined. It is very different in London, as the noble Baroness pointed out, as it is in so many other places.

I am collecting examples of people who have written to me with their own cases. One after another, they are cases in which any reasonable person would say, “In that particular case, it seems very unfair for people to have to pay a new tax that they didn’t pay before—in that case, I agree that there should not be this tax to be paid”. One such case I can cite comes from the diocese of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I agreed very much with his words. I apologise to the Minister for repeating the content of an e-mail that I mentioned in Grand Committee, but it is such a typical case. The lady has lived 23 years in her council house and now it contains herself and her husband. It has three bedrooms. They have actually done quite a bit of work to the House; the garden is immaculate—this is their home. But it is a tax, and they will face a bedroom tax of £25 a week unless they can move out. They have been told that there is a place in another Norfolk town. It is 16 miles from where they live, but there will be a place there in due course. It is not available at the moment, but in due course they will be able to get a one-bedroom flat. The absolute last thing that they want to do is to leave the family home where they have been for 23 years, where their children still come back at Christmas and on other occasions, and where she has a base to look after her mother in the village. It will cost the social services an arm and a leg to have to send in carers to look after mum. At the moment she goes in three times a day: once in the morning, briefly at lunchtime, and once in the evening. She will not be there to do that once she has moved away to the town. This is all ridiculous, and anyone would say, “Look, in that case don’t charge them the tax. Leave them where they are”. Anybody can see that that is the sensible thing to do. However, it will be extremely difficult to make those special cases, and to find the resource that will bridge the gap in their rent in those cases.