Housing Benefit (Abolition of the Family Premium and Date of Claim Amendment) Regulations 2015

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. I will speak particularly on the backdating aspect of the regulations.

Limiting backdating of housing benefit payments to one month is likely to put vulnerable people at risk of rent arrears and subsequent eviction, and possibly homelessness. Crisis, the charity for single homeless people, wrote to tell me that it is concerned that the most vulnerable will be affected by this change, including those who have experienced homelessness. It says that many of the people it supports to find and sustain tenancies make successful backdating claims for housing benefit often for upward of 12 weeks. These are often the result of clients having additional support needs that make it difficult for them to navigate the benefits system. Consequently, they fail to claim the benefits to which they are entitled in time.

The Government dispute the suggestion that limiting the backdating period will lead to tenants falling into rent arrears but Crisis says that many of its clients accrue considerable arrears before they seek the support they need to backdate a claim. Backdating claims are often made following a change in circumstances that affect a person’s entitlement or because of failures in the system that lead to housing benefit not being paid. I will mention three examples of when people may need to make a backdated claim. There is where there are fluctuations in income. When someone finds a job their entitlement to housing benefit must be adjusted. If they enter casual work, such as on a zero-hours contract, their entitlement must be calculated on a weekly basis. This can lead to payments being stopped until the claimant can provide all necessary payslips. That causes delay and the need for a backdated claim. The ability to backdate by only one month may not be enough to cover that delay.

Housing benefit claim forms may be lost. Despite the best intentions of council staff, housing benefit claim forms can go missing or online submissions may not be received. I can empathise with this and can vouch for the fact that this kind of thing can happen through nobody’s fault. Today, I rang up to buy some more premium bonds, only to be told that I needed to provide a password. Apparently, one had been sent to me in the course of the last year but it never arrived. Getting back to housing benefit, resubmitting claim forms can cause serious delays at the beginning of a tenancy. We need a backdating period sufficient to cover such delays.

Again, housing benefit is sometimes stopped in error when someone is sanctioned. This can lead to arrears, particularly if the landlord is receiving direct payments and does not notify the tenant that the rent has not been paid.

The Social Security Advisory Committee advised that the case for this policy has not been made out and recommended that it should be possible to backdate housing benefit for at least three months. It says that inconsistencies between the rules attaching to different benefits are hard to defend and add to the complexity that claimants are required to navigate. For people whose rent is paid monthly or four-weekly in arrears, the proposal will mean that there is no slack in the current complex legacy benefit context for them to realise that there is a problem with their housing benefit entitlement and make a late claim. This presents a clear risk that the impact on landlord and tenant behaviour could result in upward pressure on homelessness among the more vulnerable, with attendant costs that could offset the projected savings. It is disappointing, the committee says, that there has been no cost-benefit analysis of these aspects. For people whose rent is paid monthly or four-weekly in arrears, the proposal will mean that the new rules will not provide sufficient time for a backdated claim to cover the delays that have taken place.

The fact that there has been no effective impact assessment makes it difficult to assess the effect of reducing backdating by different amounts from the current six months. Centrepoint undertook a survey of more than 800 young people using its services and found that 78% of those who made a late claim for housing benefit were not seeking backdating for longer than three months; the majority of backdating claims could therefore be accommodated within a three-month period, and reducing it further could have a financial impact on a sizeable group of vulnerable young people, potentially causing hardship to those least able to withstand it. The Committee highlighted the fact that the legacy benefits system is more complex than universal credit; that being the case, there is a strong case for maintaining a longer backdating period to account for these complexities. Removing the ability to back-date housing benefit claims for a sufficient period may deter landlords from letting to tenants in receipt of housing benefit. Landlords may be particularly reluctant to let to people who have experienced homelessness in the past, given that they may be vulnerable to falling into rent arrears, often through no fault of their own.

The committee concluded that the position faced by housing benefit legacy claimants, particularly the more vulnerable, is substantially different and more challenging than the position following migration on to universal credit. It added that in the absence of a robust impact assessment, the case for a simple alignment with a one-month backdating rule has not been made and that there is a significant risk of offsetting additional costs to the estimated one-year saving of £10 million if the proposal is pursued in this form. It therefore recommends that, if the Government still wish to make an early reduction in the backdating period, a three-month period would strike a better balance between the aim of securing an expenditure saving and recognition of the substantial differences between the housing benefit legacy and universal credit positions. With the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I would want to maintain that the three-month compromise is the one that we should go for, and the Government should rethink.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for giving us the opportunity to range over this issue this evening and to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his very extensive analysis of some of the risks around homelessness that these changes will create. Given the hour and the business to follow, I shall raise one or two brief questions.

On the family premium, the Explanatory Note with the regulations says:

“Removing the Family Premium helps to simplify the overly-complex HB system … and should therefore reduce administration costs”.

Can the Minister seriously tell me how much of a reduction in administration costs is anticipated just from removing this one component of what is and can be quite a complex calculation? It seems to me that it should be built into the system, so whether it is there or removed would make very little difference to the cost.

As for backdating, we have heard the arguments against the Government’s position that effectively we want to get equality with universal credit and if universal credit only needs one month’s backdating why does the housing benefit system need longer? I should have thought that it was recognised—and the noble Lord, Lord Low, has made it clear—that the housing benefit system is more complex. Indeed, is that not one of the boasts of the Government about universal credit, which we have supported—that it is an easier system whether you are in or out of work? You simply move up the scale; you do not have to come off one system of benefits and go on to another, or seek to return to them in due course.

We are in danger of overlooking a fundamental point here—that this is about backdating if there can be shown to be good cause. It is not something that is awarded willy-nilly. There are particular concerns around people with mental health conditions and the extent to which they are supported to make the right sort of decisions and judgments about their claim for benefits. That seems to sweep aside that issue.

There is one technical issue that the Minister may be able to help with. If somebody is awarded JSA after making a claim, they would be entitled to a three-month backdating of that benefit. The award of that benefit could automatically transport somebody on to maximum housing benefit—somebody who was not previously eligible for housing benefit. So we get somebody on JSA with a three-month backdating, which opens up the opportunity for housing benefit for somebody not previously entitled. There is something in the text that suggests that that backdating would apply to housing benefit as well, but I cannot quite see technically how that comes about. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that on the record tonight, because clearly there would be an anomaly with accessing one benefit opening up the opportunity for another benefit and giving rise to different backdating results, as a result particularly of these regulations.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords—

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. Noble Lords can see very clearly what the issue is—it is technical and rather complicated. It is now late. If the Minister will give the assurance that he is happy to meet me and the Child Poverty Action Group so that we can discuss the amendment in greater detail, that will be really helpful and will save me having to go through a very complex explanation. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, in the spirit of comradeship and friendship with the Liberal Democrats, we are very happy to support that request.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

I think there were two parts involved in that question, so let me go through them. In answer to the first part, I will meet the noble Baroness and the CPAG. In answer to the second, I am happy to meet her and the CPAG.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the National Housing Federation. I speak in favour of Amendment 51, which seeks to protect schemes that house some of the most vulnerable people in the country from a damaging cut to their rents.

In answer to a question from me on Monday on the associated issue of the local housing allowance cap, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, referred to a review of the supported housing sector. That review was referred to again today in another place. Indeed, much has been said today in another place on both rent cuts and the LHA cap. It is only right that we fairly consider what has been said in another place and factor that into our discussions here. Referring to the review, the Government said that it would report urgently by the end of March. In addition, we have heard of a one-year delay in the implementation of the 1% rent cut for supported housing. This extra year’s delay is welcome, since it means that incomes will not be reduced as much as feared. Unfortunately, that is only at the margins when measured against the impact of the LHA cap on supported housing as announced in the spending review. This will have a much more significant and lasting impact, and is a threat to the very existence of much supported housing.

The National Housing Federation has been pressing the Government to urgently clarify that the LHA will apply only to working-age tenants in general needs accommodation. The Government have not done so. A survey of NHF members showed that this lack of certainty will result in 156,000 homes becoming unviable and being forced to close—41% of the sector—while 2,400 homes planned for development will now not be built. I find it hard to believe that it can be even remotely possible that it is the Government’s intention to put all this supported housing at risk. The impact on vulnerable people will be acute: on the elderly, people with disabilities, those fleeing domestic violence and those who served our country in the Armed Forces. The knock-on impact on public services in trying to pick up the pieces will be immense. These services desperately need a long-term commitment to safeguard their future.

The Government had the opportunity today in another place to set this right and clarify their intentions. They did not do it. The Government will carry out a review of how supported housing is funded—excellent. But surely the purpose of a review is to think first and only then act. Why create this level of uncertainty leaving housing association boards, which have to take decisions about future provision now, completely blind-sided about whether or when the cap may now be introduced? A one-year delay on the rent cut, welcome though it is, may not make much difference at all on this issue. The uncertainty is having a damaging and dangerous effect now. Tough decisions are being taken already: to close supported housing schemes; not to renew contracts; and to halt development of new schemes because there is not the certainty that they will be affordable in the near future, whether that be in two years or three. Protective redundancy notices are being prepared now. No provider can risk the cost of new building unless they are confident that the rent will cover that cost.

The announcement made by the Government today will do nothing to allay the fears on this issue of housing associations or the people living in these homes. I urge the Minister to think again and announce now that the LHA cap does not apply to supported and sheltered housing. I also urge the Government, through him, to work with the sector to develop a long-term sustainable funding model for supported housing.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we support each of the amendments set down in this group and have added our names to some of them. On Amendments 50, 51 and 52, we join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Best, on his negotiating skills—doubtless assisted in that endeavour by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake—and the Minister for listening and helping with at least a partial solution.

The deferral of the rent reduction programme is clearly welcome. The clarification on the comfort in respect of LHA caps is clearly important as well. The more that the Minister can say on that, the better. My noble friend Lady Warwick has outlined some of the problems because of the known existence of that aspiration. The Minister could, I hope, therefore go further. It is always the way that Ministers come forward with concessions, and then everybody piles in and wants just that little bit more, but this is a very important issue.

That raises the question of where that leaves the amendments, as the Minister’s proposition in his correspondence effectively covers co-operatives, almshouses and community land trusts, as well as housing associations. Are the Government going to accept the amendments, substitute something for them or simply rely on what is on the record of this debate?

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, spoke to Amendments 53, 61 and 63, each of which we can support. He stressed the importance of an independent evaluation of what has gone on, in good time for rent policy for the subsequent period to be settled. In respect of Amendments 61 and 63, the noble Lord explained the importance of flexibility in respect of new-build, particularly for schemes of marginal feasibility. We had a very helpful meeting with members of the Bill team and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on this. Hopefully, embedded in this long list of government amendments is one that addresses that issue specifically. It may not necessarily have the breadth or flexibility the noble Lord is seeking, but I think it at least seeks to address the principle.

Amendment 59A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, proposes a report on local housing allowance rates. We debated this in Committee, but the Minister probably still owes us a reply. The purpose of that discussion was to recognise that, with the moratorium following the 1% limitation, LHA rates are increasingly going to move away from the reality of what renting in the private sector actually entails.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was clearly pleased with the outcome for almshouses. All in all, we should be grateful to the Minister for responding as he has—or hopefully will—at the Dispatch Box in confirming this. This is a real issue of substance which was worrying many people.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, is probably happy with the definition of supported housing that we have here, which is the broadest possible. I know there have been issues with specified support—what is in and what is out—but I take it from the correspondence and what has gone before that the moratorium is in respect of the widest definition of supported accommodation.

[Lord Freud]

I will start by picking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on unintended consequences. The House of Lords has done its job in alerting us to some unintended consequences in time for us to sort them out. I know that I rely on this House for that again and again, and in this case I express my gratitude to a number of noble Lords—with the noble Lord, Lord Best, leading the field—for enabling us to deal with these issues.

Let me now do the business on these amendments. Amendments 50 and 51 would exempt housing co- operatives, community land trusts and supported accommodation, while Amendment 52 would extend that exemption to almshouses. I will just make a few comments before I turn to the rent reductions in social housing. We face a challenge on the overall housing benefit bill and believe that social housing providers need to play their part in helping to bring that bill down. However, we also recognise the vital role that many housing providers play in supporting people who need the most help.

The Government have always made it clear that our policy will protect the most vulnerable members of society. To achieve that, the Bill has built into it the flexibility to except some social housing and provide exemptions for providers facing financial difficulty as a result of the reduction. We have also made several amendments to the Bill, including some today, which we believe will be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that quick but extensive exposition of what is in the amendments. Clearly there is a lot that we need to study in the record. I thank her for the notes we received in advance but we have had a limited time in which to absorb them. If we need to, perhaps we could take up the offer of a meeting between now and Third Reading, whenever that is. However, as a matter of prudence, we reserve the right to come back at Third Reading if anything proves to be contentious. We accept the proposition that these are enabling, protective or technical amendments and that that situation should not arise but, frankly, until we have had the chance to study them in detail—which we should have—I hope the Minister will accept that.

Amendment 54 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Indeed, it replicates part of an amendment moved in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. We know from the Government’s point of view that there is an article of faith here. Their starting point is that they overwhelmingly want and expect universal credit to be paid as a single monthly payment in arrears to the claimant. We know that there are opportunities for alternative payment arrangements and my noble friend Lady Sherlock set down our understanding in responding to the amendment in Committee.

The issue of eight weeks has been raised, but it is not eight weeks before you get to a solution. As I understand it, the guidance states that, when arrears reach one month’s rent, the DWP will review the situation—I am not sure how long it takes it to do that—following notification by the claimant or landlord. When they hit two months or eight weeks, either the landlord or the claimant can request an APA. Again, I think the point was raised about how long it takes the DWP to respond to those questions. Even then, there is no automatic right to one because the Government are still clinging to the concept that managing benefits should mirror choices in managing money which they say that those in work have to make.

The issue is one not only of having a nominal system in place under which alternative payments can be made, but of how those are put into practice and what realistic timescales are involved. Even if it were on the dot of eight weeks, that is a time for a landlord to wait. Some landlords might be left in a marginal economic situation.

A question was posed about what information we have about claimants of universal credit and other benefits being effectively denied access to properties available for rent. It might be quite hard to get hard statistics on that, but it would be interesting to know what the department has. The landlords fear, even if they may ultimately get paid, that they will have to wait eight weeks or even longer before they get their money.

My noble friend asked about what is happening with universal credit and how many people are in the system at the moment. At December 2015, there were 287,000 universal credit claims—I think that this is internal management information and therefore not fully verified—and some 37% of those payments included a housing element. Again only preliminary analysis showed that 19% of those had a managed payment to the landlord. I suppose that that gives a glimpse of something that is working to an extent, but clearly is not working in a sufficiently robust way to address the very real concerns that have been raised.

We debated this endlessly during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill. My noble friend will remember it, and jam-jar accounts have featured already this evening. The arguments were strongly made against not only monthly payments but the opportunity for direct payments, particularly in relation to housing. My noble friend Lady Hollis made an extremely important point that the fundamental is a roof over your head—pretty much everything else flows from that. How can you get a job if you do not have secure accommodation? How do the kids get to school if you do not have secure accommodation? It is a fundamental issue. Just a relatively small change to the system, giving people the choice of having direct payments, means the prospect of removing what is clearly a growing problem, as explained, and fixing it in an effective way, so we support the amendment.

[Lord Freud]

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow universal credit claimants to opt to have the housing cost element of their award paid direct to the landlord, irrespective of the reason. One key principle of UC is that the single, monthly payment mirrors the payment of monthly wages that most claimants would receive if they were in full-time employment. Whether they are receiving UC or are working, tenants need to make similar decisions on managing their money, including paying their own rent.

The Government understand that a move to a single, monthly household payment is a significant change for many claimants and that some will require help and support. Regulations came into force in February last year to allow DWP to inform social landlords whenever one of their tenants makes a claim for or is awarded universal credit with housing costs or when an existing universal credit claimant moves to one of their properties. This enables the social landlord to decide whether the claimant requires advice, support or assistance in budgeting so that they can manage their rental payments.

There will, of course, be instances where the claimant needs additional support and, to this end, the Secretary of State already has powers to pay all or some of a claimant’s UC entitlement to a third party through alternative payment arrangements—or APAs, in the trade. There are three APAs: paying rent directly to the landlord; making more frequent than monthly payments; or splitting the payment within the household. APAs can be considered by the Secretary of State at any point during the universal credit claim, whether at the outset or later on, if a claimant cannot manage the monthly payment arrangement.

Recent improvements allow the landlord to email their APA requests, which are dealt with in a matter of days as a priority—so some of the early teething problems as we started rolling out the system have been addressed to speed up that process. Wherever possible, these arrangements are time-limited and delivered with appropriate budgeting support to help claimants make the transition to monthly budgeting.

The arrangement also covers claimants who are in rent arrears, and managed payments to the landlord will be considered where claimants have arrears of at least one month due to repeated underpayment or where the claimant owes arrears of at least two months and is at risk of eviction. These protections, combined with the measures enabling landlords to recover arrears from a tenant’s UC award, already mitigate any impact on landlords’ income or on homelessness.

We are in fact making a series of initiatives in this area and one of the most interesting is the trusted partner trials, where we are working with local authorities so that they decide the people who should be put on an APA, at least initially, and then look to see the budgeting support that a person needs to run their own funding.

Picking up the point made by my noble friend Lord Cathcart on experience, in terms of arrears we did an elaborate direct payment project and we found that, in the early stages, the numbers who paid in full were running at 95.5%, compared with 99% of those where the state paid. However, by the 18th payment—these were weekly payments in the comparator in this project—the direct payments figure had risen to 99%. Interestingly, this happened when the removal of the spare room subsidy came in, and those tenants who had become used to managing their own rent handled the removal of the spare room subsidy better than the ones who had been on the state-managed payments system. That is not surprising because the managed payments system is not necessarily an easy option where there are reductions for non-dependants, the spare room subsidy and so on, because the claimant will still need to pay the shortfall to the landlord.

The other factor, which I am surprised that noble Lords have not clocked, is that a large number of the families on universal credit are in work. It is not like the old legacy system where you have one lot out of work and one lot in work; this is a blended group and people are moving from the out-of-work group into the in-work group. Therefore, the idea that you can be halfway down the taper—in the jargon—and have a managed payment would be incredibly hard for any organisation, including the DWP and the tenant, to manage. Two million households is equivalent to a quarter of the case load.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, since Committee I have spoken to a number of people with learning disabilities about their aspirations for work. I want to remind noble Lords that the proportion of people with learning disabilities in paid employment has remained stubbornly low, at around 7% of people known to social services. Most people that I have spoken to—and I think most people with learning disabilities—want to work. They do not want to be assessed to be in the support group. They really want help to find work. But the truth is that the vast majority of people with learning disabilities have never worked: back-to-work support is not what they need. Nor do they need a massive cut to their income, which will further marginalise and isolate them. Will the Minister specify exactly what evidence-based support is being planned for this group and how and where it will be delivered? It seems that personalised support in looking for suitable jobs and making written applications—recognising the low literacy levels among people with learning disabilities—and ongoing support to ensure they succeed in work in the longer term, might help a number of people to increase their chances. But will the Minister also acknowledge that people with learning disabilities will be particularly badly affected by a drop in income, given the difficulties they often have with financial management and making the most of a limited income? This group of people is going to be so adversely affected by this change that I feel the need to emphasise again and again that this policy has not been thought through for this group particularly and will affect it really badly.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we have added our names to Amendments 41 and 44. Yet again, we have heard compelling arguments why Clauses 13 and 14 should be removed from the Bill.

I should say, compelling arguments bar one—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that if we pass these amendments today it is not tantamount to leaving things as they are. The task from now on in is to do something the Government have genuinely started to do: to look at and tackle the barriers that disabled people face when they are trying to get into work. Surely that should continue and accelerate if the closing of the disability employment gap is to be achieved. I think the noble Lord said it was axiomatic that the bigger the gap between income in work and income out of work, the bigger the incentive. If the noble Lord thinks about it, if you took that argument to its logical conclusion, you would not have any benefits at all, and that cannot be right.

The noble Lord, Lord Low, took us through some of the detail of the report: the hardship that these changes would cause; that somehow recouping the benefit by a few hours’ work simply is not practical for people who have been assessed as not fit for work; and the need to tackle the barriers to work, which was a strong strand of that report. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, made a very strong point when she said that we are doing this the wrong way round: we are cutting the benefit without addressing the issues that need to be addressed to help people into work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, reminded us that 50% of people with a mental health condition are in the WRAG. She raised the issue of people with progressive conditions—how on earth can we expect such individuals to access work? My noble friend Lady Lister, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Thomas, focused on the impact of Clause 14 and some of the extremely disagreeable consequences that could flow for people in work under universal credit. As has been said, that simply cannot be what the Government intended.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans reminded us that the disability employment gap is a stubborn one and we need to address it not in a generic way but in an individual, focused way. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, gave us just a glimpse of what the cuts to ESA will mean for people, pointing out that the extra expenses for disabled people are rising and are not effectively covered by DLA and PIP. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, focused on those people whom it has been particularly difficult to help into work—those with learning disabilities. These are fundamental parts of the analysis that underpins why these amendments are so important and why we should not allow these provisions to stay in the Bill.

Of course, the arguments have come not only from noble Lords today and in Committee but from a range of organisations that work day in, day out, with the very disabled people whom these clauses will hurt. Since Committee we have had more time to absorb the report, Halving the Gap, produced by the noble Lord, Lord Low, together with the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Grey-Thompson, which reviewed the Government’s proposals. The report could not have been clearer in concluding that,

“there is no relevant evidence setting out a convincing case that the ESA WRAG payment acts as a financial disincentive to claimants moving towards work, or that reducing the payment would incentivise people to seek work”.

Indeed, as we have heard, there are concerns that reducing the WRAG component would have the opposite effect and push people further away from the labour market. This is why we support Amendments 41 and 44. Frankly, we do not take lightly the prospect of removing whole sections of proposed legislation, but it would be no more significant than the effect these clauses will have on hundreds and thousands of disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I will contribute briefly to this debate in support of the amendment. The issue here is that we are in a very different benefits culture from the one we had maybe until 2010—I am not sure when exactly. The point is that the claimant commitment is the basis for sanctioning. If a parent fails to comply with a claimant commitment, that is when they will be sanctioned. If the claimant commitment is completely unrealistic and the parent cannot comply with it—for example, if it requires the parent to travel 90 minutes each way and they manage to have childcare for only five or six hours a day, or whatever it is—it will be physically impossible for them to satisfy that claimant commitment.

We know, certainly from the Fawcett Society inquiry I was involved with, that there is quite a need for training for these staff. That of course goes back for as long as I have ever been involved with welfare matters, which is probably some 40 years. Staff are very poorly paid, they tend to be rather inadequately trained and there is always a rapid turnover of staff, so you always have new staff who are trying to learn the rules, and so on. So this claimant commitment takes on a far greater significance in this day and age than it would have done 30 or 40 years ago.

That is why I ask the Government to take this very seriously. They need to accept that they have low-paid staff, a rapid turnover, poor training, and therefore that sanctions happen utterly inappropriately. The claimant commitments are wildly unrealistic in the experience of the inquiry I was involved with, which is very dangerous for the children. The parent goes along on a Friday to pick up their benefit and is told, “Oh, sorry”—or probably not even “sorry”—“your benefit has been stopped”. Is there any supper for the children? No, sorry, no food in the house—and so on. It is very serious for children affected by sanctions following the claimant commitment. That is why, although this sounds like a fairly innocuous amendment, believe me, it is very important.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with this amendment. It would be difficult to do otherwise because, as my noble friend reminded us, I moved a parallel amendment to what became the Welfare Reform Act 2009 when we were in government. When one looks back at legislation one has been responsible for there is always a moment of trepidation, but we are on safe ground in this case. Those were the days when the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Northbourne, were heavily involved in our debates. Having said that—and I underline the importance that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has placed on this amendment—it is slightly disconcerting to understand that one’s labours at the Dispatch Box all those years ago have lain dormant and fallow, so I press the Minister to say why it has not been introduced.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Manzoor, seeks to set into primary legislation a requirement for the Secretary of State, when preparing a claimant commitment, to have regard to the impact on any child affected by it. I fully support the principle that requirements should be adjusted according to individuals’ personal circumstances, including the well-being of any children for whom the claimant is responsible. However, this amendment proposes to unnecessarily prescribe the contents of the claimant commitment in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. During discussions with individuals, work coaches already take into account all the personal circumstances relevant to both claimant and child when agreeing work-related activities. We continually review the operation of the claimant commitment and will act on anything we find that can be improved. Claimants can request a review of their claimant commitment if they have concerns.

On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about Section 31 of the 2009 Act, it applies to JSA and ESA, not universal credit. As part of the claimant commitment, parents can input into the contents of the commitment within universal credit.

We are very clear about the importance of our responsibilities with regard to the well-being of children. Regulations 98 and 99 cover the circumstances in which all or some requirements should be suspended for a temporary period, which includes circumstances in which a parent has to spend time caring for a child in distress or if they are in the kind of situation which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about. The number of hours a claimant is expected to spend carrying out work-related activity is also tailored so as to be compatible with the claimant’s individual childcare responsibilities.

These reasonable requirements, including any limiting or lifting and the reasons for this, are recorded within the claimant commitment. The amendment does not specify that it applies to the responsible care of a child; it refers to “any child”, which would make it extremely difficult to determine which children are being referred to other than those within the claimant’s responsibility. This would make it difficult for jobcentres to effectively administer.

The key principle of the claimant commitment is that we treat people as individuals and tailor their requirements accordingly. We have chosen not to prescribe in legislation what a claimant commitment should take account of in order that we can reflect all the possible circumstances people can present with. It would be too prescriptive to single out one element—the well-being of a child—and legislate that claimant commitments must contain this information. It would not be practical to prescribe everything a claimant commitment should contain—we want to take account of a broad range of circumstances.

We know that developing a skilled workforce is key to realising the flexibilities that we have built into the legislative framework of universal credit. We want to empower our work coaches to use this broad discretion to make sound decisions that are right for the individual in front of them. As the noble Baroness said, I talked at length about the work under way to invest in learning and development of our front-line staff, including the work coach delivery model and accreditation. I did that because I wanted to stress the importance we place on making sure that work coaches are trained and that they use their discretion to the benefit of the families they work with. I emphasised that element because I wanted to stress to noble Lords that we take that very seriously.

Existing legislation already enables us to take account of the well-being of children when setting a claimant commitment; it is something that work coaches routinely do. Therefore we do not believe that it is necessary to set out this level of detail in primary legislation. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. I thank the Minister for meeting some of us last week to talk about why we felt that this amendment was so important. I shall outline the four key themes from my perspective. I agree that we need consistency of approach, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Low. We need to monitor and evaluate progress on the target. This is the Government’s target and it is laudable and very welcome. However, do they really not want to measure it and evaluate improvement? One could perhaps think that the Government do not want to measure progress towards the target, and consider that it is easier to pick off low-hanging fruit than to assess the great variations in disability and tackle those, so that more people enter employment. As has already been said, this measure is not costly and will certainly help to identify the support that employers need to help people with disabilities.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we support Amendment 1 for the reasons advanced with conviction by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and pretty much every other Peer who has spoken in this debate so far. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about the importance of proper reporting to the ability to deliver proper parliamentary scrutiny. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised the very important issue of the need to have data on different groups, otherwise there is a risk that targets will be achieved by dealing just with those closest to the labour market. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, reminded us about the impact of specific, detailed reports which come before Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that we can get full employment only if we make progress on the disability employment gap. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and other noble Lords, talked about the failure of the Work Programme at the moment—a running theme on these issues. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, touched on Amendments 42 and 43. That enables me, in the absence of my colleagues, to address those and I will do so in a minute. The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, made an important point about tackling the stigma around mental health which, sadly, still pertains in some communities.

We, too, welcome the Government’s commitment to halving the disability employment gap by 2020. We are grateful to the Minister for organising a meeting last week, together with his colleague, Justin Tomlinson MP, although the message delivered was that the amendment would be resisted by the Government. I hope there has been a change of heart in the interim. This is notwithstanding the generally encouraging noises and the promise of a White Paper. We know that the disability employment gap has stayed stubbornly persistent—the noble Lord, Lord Low, referred to it as intractable—for too long and cross-government effort will be needed to deliver on the commitment.

The reasons why we need regular reporting have also been summarised, too, by Leonard Cheshire in its briefing paper and these include, in particular, the incentive for action in that it will provide a departmental and cross-government focus on the gap. As the Minister himself has frequently opined, it is that which gets measured and reported on which gets government attention. That briefing highlighted the somewhat conflicting messages we have received from the Government. The Employment Minister in another place stated that the Government did not see the need to report on disability employment, as the measure was essential to achieving the wider commitment to full employment. However, the more enlightened Minister for Disabled People did promise that the annual report on progress to full employment would include an update on the Government’s progress towards halving the disability employment gap.

We need some clarification on this, particularly considering the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, in Committee, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, referred. The thrust of those comments was that the management information which this amendment seeks has not been built into the current plans and would not represent value for money, given the timeline to just 2020. Do the Government have no ambition after that? It would also disrupt the universal credit timeline, wherever that currently stands. If the Minister rejects the amendment, but promises regular reporting, will he make it clear what that will entail and what the sources of the data will be? The amendment is seeking not just aggregated data reporting but a proper analysis of progress over a range of conditions. If we do not have clarity on this and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, is minded to test the opinion of the House, we will support her.

Amendment 42, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, seeks, as we have heard, to add people with mental health problems to the list of groups which are exempt from the conditionality element of back-to-work support schemes. We have received a very helpful briefing from Mind which covers this and other issues. It is suggested that conditionality, with its threat of sanctions, has a negative impact on people with mental health problems, that it undermines the relationship between claimant and adviser, removes choice and control, and has no evidence to support it working for people with mental health problems. It seems to us that this is fundamentally about having the right sort of support for people with mental health problems. Mind and others point out that the mainstream back-to-work support is currently often generic, as we have heard today, untailored and does not address the barriers to work which disabled people face. The lack of specialist support is undermining the opportunities for individuals to access work. This is a constant complaint from those who engage with these issues, so perhaps the Minister will tell us how he is to address this in the context of halving the disability employment gap.

Amendment 43, in the name of my noble friend Lord Layard, refers us back to psychological therapies, as we have heard. I am grateful for the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, so that we can at least debate this a little today. On the matter of drafting, we need to reflect on the reference to “primary medical condition” given that entitlement to the WRAG is determined by a range of descriptors which can be for physical or mental health factors. Drafting aside, my noble friend's objective is to encourage and assist those with a mental health or behavioural disorder to access assessment and, if appropriate, treatment. This is an objective which we wholeheartedly support.

My noble friend Lord Layard has previously made a powerful case in identifying that nearly a million people are on ESA due to depression or anxiety disorders but that only about half are getting treatment. We have heard that improving access to psychological therapies can make a real difference, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, confirmed. The pilots that took place were 10 years ago. My noble friend has previously explained that around half of those treated under the programme last year recovered during treatment. Such results could obviously assist the path for people back to work and we know of the evidence that work—good work—is good for people’s health. His amendment does not mandate anyone for treatment—we have been down that path before—neither is it instructing the NHS to treat in a specific way a group of individuals. But it requires that those with a mental health problem be encouraged and assisted to be referred for assessment and treatment. There is no conditionality attached and no suggestion that such individuals should somehow jump the queue.

If assessment and treatment is key to making individuals well and helping them move closer to the labour market, is that not exactly what the system should be about? This of course begs the question of what the process should be. I hope that the Minister will accept the thrust of this amendment and follow up with my noble friend and others who have been engaged in the past. We used to have mental health champions in Jobcentre Plus; perhaps the Minister could tell us what has happened to this role.

I finish where I started: fundamentally, we are very happy to support Amendment 1, which is very important, and to help the noble Baroness test the opinion of the House if that is her decision.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 would build on Clause 1, which sets out the Government’s commitment to report to Parliament annually on the progress made towards full employment. Producing an annual report which illustrates progress towards full employment across the UK demonstrates this Government’s clear intention and continuing commitment to building a strong economy, growing business and ensuring labour market opportunities for all.

The purpose of this amendment is to require a further annual report to Parliament on the progress that has been made towards narrowing the disability employment gap. The amendment would also require the report to include how the Government have defined the disability employment gap, how they will assess whether progress has been sufficient and what remedial action will be taken if progress is insufficient. The amendment also requires that the report should include data on progress in increasing the employment rates of specific groups of disabled people, including people with autism, a learning disability, mental health problems and visual impairments.

I hereby formally commit the Government to report on our progress towards halving the disability employment gap in the annual report on full employment—no ifs, no buts. Halving the disability employment gap is a crucial part of achieving our full employment aspirations and a key priority for this Government in its own right. I hope also that, following my meeting with Peers on this very subject last week, they are assured of my commitment and that of my honourable friend, the Minister for Disabled People, who was also at that meeting.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

27: Clause 7, page 9, line 39, at end insert—
“( ) After subsection (11) insert—
“( ) Persons who have been placed in temporary accommodation by a local authority which has found them to be in priority need as defined in section 189(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (priority need for accommodation) are exempted from the benefit cap.””

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 27 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock. This is also a rerun of an amendment that we moved in Committee, then part of a trio of similar amendments, so I will be brief.

The amendment would cause those families to be outwith the benefit cap if placed in temporary accommodation under the 1996 Housing Act. Regardless of whether the benefit cap has played a role, local authorities are legally obliged to rehouse families who are homeless through no fault of their own, are vulnerable in some way or are in priority need for rehousing. Families will be placed in temporary accommodation while a council decides whether it owes them a rehousing duty and then until a settled home can be found. The wait can be considerable, as can the costs. Invariably the temporary accommodation is leased by councils from the private sector, which charges the tenant a rent to cover these costs and expenses. These costs are commonly paid for by housing benefit with some top-up from DHPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Amendment 27 seeks to exempt people in temporary accommodation from the benefit cap. I do not agree that it is appropriate to have a blanket exemption from the cap for people living in temporary accommodation. Rather, the best approach is to provide targeted support early so that people may better address their barriers to work. As I said in Committee, an exemption might, in fact, prolong a stay in temporary accommodation if it is likely that the cap will apply when a household moves to more permanent accommodation. That is an incentive both on the local authority and on the family.

I have already explained how £870 million in discretionary housing payments will be available for those households that need additional support in adjusting to the cap. Provision already exists to support the most vulnerable people who might be affected by the cap. Housing benefit paid to households in specified accommodation is disregarded from the benefit cap, and we included refuges within the definition of “specified accommodation”. While this does not mean that such households are exempt, by not including housing benefit in the calculation we expect that the vast majority of these cases will not be affected in practice by the benefit cap.

From April 2017, the weekly management fee in respect of temporary accommodation, currently £40 in London and £60 elsewhere, will be abolished and replaced with a grant that devolves this funding to local authorities. Unlike the existing management fee, this new grant will not count towards the benefit cap and that will help local authorities tackle homelessness more effectively. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I thank the Minister for his reply. None of it was a surprise, and I will, of course, withdraw the amendment in due course. I would just like to ask the Minister a few questions. He said that if there were a blanket exemption, this would prolong the stay of people in temporary accommodation. What evidence is there for that? Is it not generally the case that temporary accommodation is not of the best quality, and some of it pretty grotty? Why would families not want to move out of temporary accommodation as soon as they could to put down their roots in a more permanent arrangement? In relation to the grant, that seems helpful in principle, but on what basis is that grant going to be made available? Is it going to be ring-fenced for these situations, or just generally devolved to local authorities and caught up in the morass of funding and cuts that they are having to face?

[Lord Freud]

One of the most worrying aspects about temporary accommodation is that many cases have not been temporary. There have been cases where people have been kept in temporary accommodation for months, stretching to years. One of the reasons for that was that the only way it could be extinguished was by going into social housing. People were quite keen on that route through. That was changed in the 2012 Act so that it can be extinguished by going into private housing. Nevertheless, we want to incentivise councils to move people into settled housing as quickly as they can. Indeed, I think that the limit is 13 weeks. There are just too many examples; I do not have the exact number, but there are too many cases where it has gone on too long.

On the fee, funding previously paid to local authorities will become an upfront payment no longer tied to households remaining in temporary accommodation. The fund will be administered by the DCLG and the devolved Administrations. We will be able to give further details of that process in due course. That is all I have at the moment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the Minister for that. I will read the record, but I am not sure that I would agree with the proposition about local authorities not wanting to move people into more permanent accommodation as quickly as they can, and away from temporary accommodation, which is expensive for them. Having said that, and given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

31: Clause 9, page 11, line 32, leave out from “to” to end of line 33 and insert “be reviewed annually by the Secretary of State having regard to—
(a) the rate of inflation, and(b) the national economic situation.”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 31 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock, I shall speak to our other amendments in this group. Noble Lords will be aware that this is also a rerun of the amendments discussed in Committee. We found the Government’s arguments on that occasion less than convincing. As they stand, Clauses 9 and 10 provide for the freezing of certain working-age benefits for four years until 2019-20. This would follow the 1% uprating imposed in 2013. Our amendments would require that these benefits instead be reviewed annually, taking account of inflation and the national economic situation.

We understand that the benefit freeze is designed to contribute to the Government’s cuts programme, and it is alarming that this measure will garner the Government some £3.5 billion in 2019-20, compared with a CPI uprating. This comes on top of benefit cuts and tax increases borne under the coalition, where the IFS reminds us—I raised this figure earlier—that, as a percentage of income, the poorest two deciles suffered the largest reductions. The End Child Poverty alliance reminds us that some 4.1 million families and 7.7 million children have already been affected by below-inflation rises over the last three years. As my noble friend Lady Lister pointed out in our previous debate, the inflation index does not properly capture the budgets of low-income families because they spend more on essentials, the costs of which have tended to rise faster than the average price index in recent years.

My noble friend Lady Sherlock articulated our major concern with the freeze, which is that it both cuts the link between prices and earnings and widens the gap between the income of the poorest and the living standards of the mainstream of society. It is part of a growing trend under this Government to uncouple eligibility for support from need. Our amendment would not preclude the Government freezing working-age benefits for four years, although it has manifesto cover for just two. It would at least cause the Government to confront the extent to which they are causing the poorest to miss out, and to account for their actions.

The Government’s rationale was that those on certain benefits—JSA was one—have done too well in the past few years in comparison with earnings and the minimum wage, and that the trend needed to be reversed. On 21 December, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, told noble Lords that the Government had struck,

“a balance between the needs of claimants and affordability”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2388.]

Perhaps we can hear how the needs of claimants have been assessed for these purposes. On what basis has it been determined that claimants can accommodate a real-terms reduction in their income for each of the next four years? What rate of inflation have the Government assumed in making this judgment? The noble Baroness told the House that 7% of global expenditure on social protection is spent in the UK, which has only 1% of the world’s population. Is it now the Government’s serious intent to benchmark UK social security spending against some of the poorest countries in the world?

So far as Amendment 32 is concerned, I look forward to hearing from my noble friend—and, indeed, namesake—but, so far as the support group is concerned, his amendment seeks to ensure that the full amount of the allowance is to be the subject of uprating, not just the support group addition. I wait to hear what he says, but it seems to me entirely reasonable, particularly since those in the support group are not able to work, so issues of work incentives have no application—but, equally, such individuals are generally unable to supplement their income. I support my noble friend’s amendment and I beg to move.

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 31, 33 and 34 in the names of my noble friends Lady Sherlock and Lord McKenzie of Luton. However, I shall concentrate on Amendment 32, which is almost but not quite the same as an amendment tabled in my name in Committee. I regret and apologise that I was unable to be in the House on that day. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for moving that amendment on my behalf—more importantly, perhaps, on behalf of people with life-limiting illnesses such as motor neurone disease.

In speaking to that amendment, the right reverend Prelate reminded the Committee of the promises made by the Conservative Party in the run-up to the general election. I want to refer to that promise again, writ large in its manifesto, which was to always protect the benefits for the most disabled. Despite that promise, the Bill before us does not fully protect people with life-limiting illnesses such as motor neurone disease and other similar rapidly progressing ghastly conditions. Either the words in the manifesto say what they mean and mean what they say or they do not. As of this moment, these promises are not being kept. Going some of the way is what has happened in the Bill—and some of the way is not fully protecting, and is not always protecting, benefits for the most disabled. Unless this amendment is agreed, or the Government come forward at Third Reading with something to produce the same outcome, they will have failed to keep that manifesto promise. I do not believe that is good enough in a modern, civilised society, where people with life-limiting illnesses should not be expected to suffer any more financial hardship than is the inevitable consequence of their illness.

People with motor neurone disease frequently end up having to build bedrooms and wet rooms downstairs, adapt furniture and face all sorts of costs. Couples who may have been reasonably comfortably off rapidly find themselves in considerable debt. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham put it:

“Those whom we cannot reasonably expect to support themselves should not be expected to shoulder the burden of austerity”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2405.]

The most disabled will lose perhaps more than £250 per annum by 2020 because the basic rate of the employment and support allowance is not exempted. I appreciate that the amendment in my name is rather complicated, but it is a serious attempt to right a potential wrong. If it is too complicated, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of government to find another formula to produce a result that will give the full protection that is needed.

In Committee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham expressed the hope that Ministers would give the matter further and serious consideration. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, said in response that benefits,

“are designed to provide a basic standard of living to those who are not in work but at a level that does not disincentivise moving into work”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2406.]

People with life-limiting illnesses such as motor neurone disease are not disincentivised from going to work. They cannot go to work—would that they could. There is no behavioural change that people with these dreadful illnesses can make to get back into work. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, concluded by agreeing that,

“we absolutely must provide suitable protections for disabled people”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2407.]

However, she then did not support the amendment. The meaning of “suitable” is very different from the meaning of “full protection”, as was promised in the manifesto. A great many people with life-limiting illnesses, and their organisations such as the Motor Neurone Disease Association, take a great interest in what the Government will now do. I hope the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, will be able to say that he will bring something back at Third Reading along the lines of this amendment, which will honour the promise that the Government made in their manifesto in the run-up to the election.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I do not wish to spend too much time restating the same points that were made in Committee so I will keep my remarks brief. First, I address the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which replace the provisions in the freeze with a duty on the Secretary of State to review the benefits in question, having regard to inflation and the national economic situation.

I remind noble Lords that the provisions in Clauses 9 and 10 contribute £3.5 billion of the £12 billion of welfare savings by 2019-20 that the Government are committed to. The Government have a £35 billion consolidation plan, as the Chancellor set out in the summer Budget and the joint Autumn Statement and spending review, and we are on target to achieve a surplus of around £10 billion by 2019-20. The savings that the freeze provide therefore represent a significant proportion—10%—of the work that remains to be done through this Parliament to restore the nation’s finances.

Noble Lords have argued that these amendments would merely place a review on the freeze rather than remove it altogether, but they would remove the certainty provided by a legislated-for four-year freeze. This would lead to increased uncertainty about where the Government intend to find the necessary savings to restore the nation’s finances and could decrease market confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver their target surplus by 2019-20. Noble Lords have also raised concerns about the impact of this freeze. I reiterate that there are no cash losers to this policy and that inflation is still forecast, by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, to be relatively low over the next two years, providing time for benefit recipients to adjust their finances to compensate. Furthermore, OBR forecasts at the Autumn Statement projected average earnings growth of around 3.9% by 2020, higher than projected inflation at around 2%, meaning many working families can expect to see the impact of the freeze offset by their rise in earnings. The annual average income of the poorest fifth of households has risen by £300 in real terms, compared to 2007-8.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, regarding employment and support allowance. This amendment seeks to place into legislation a requirement for the support group component of ESA to be uprated by an additional amount above the amount it would otherwise be uprated by. This additional amount would be equal to the difference between the current main rate of ESA and that rate if it were uprated by inflation. I should remind noble Lords that, as said in Committee, those in the ESA support group receive an additional amount on top of the personal allowance—the support group component—which we have specifically exempted from the benefits freeze. Furthermore, the enhanced disability and severe disability premiums within ESA are also exempt from the freeze, as are benefits which contribute towards some of the additional costs of disability such as disability living allowance and personal independence payment.

Noble Lords will be aware that spending on main disability benefits went up by over £2 billion over the course of the last Parliament, and that the proportion of those in relative poverty who live in a family where someone is disabled has fallen since 2010. We believe that we are continuing to provide important protections for the most disabled through the exemptions we have from the freeze, and that this amendment is therefore not required.

In conclusion, the Government believe that the freeze strikes a necessary balance between making important welfare savings while having in place the protections for the most vulnerable and disabled. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. If the Government are to be in surplus in 2019-20, why is it necessary for any benefits freeze to extend into that year, whatever the rationale for earlier years? The noble Baroness said that there are no cash losers, but we know what that means: in real terms, people are going to miss out. Specifically, I refer the noble Baroness to my question about what she said in the previous debate about the balance being struck between—in her words—the needs of claimants and affordability. I ask again: how were the needs of claimants assessed in that determination?

The response to my noble friend, who made a compelling case, was deeply disappointing. In any reasonable understanding of language, the commitment made in the manifesto has not been met by how this issue has been dealt with this evening. I ask the noble Baroness to reflect again to see whether the Government could at least come back on the issue raised by my noble friend. As he outlined, those with life-limiting injuries are the most disadvantaged and are missing out. This is simply not fair.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said in relation to the disability element, we have exempted quite a number of elements from the freeze, so we believe that we are ensuring that disabled people continue to get support and that the most vulnerable are protected. In more broad terms, we need to ensure that benefit spending is sustainable in the long term.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Is that it? Given the hour, I think there is no point in pursuing this, except to ask whether, on that point, there is nothing further the Government wish to say to my noble friend Lord MacKenzie in relation to those people who find themselves in the support group and are undoubtedly short-changed by the way that the Government have dealt with this uprating.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said, we are protecting certain elements of disability benefits. We understand the needs of disabled people which is why, as I set out in my response, a number of elements are being kept outside the freeze. Overall, we have increased spending on the disabled and will obviously continue to try to ensure that they have the support that they need.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we are clearly not going to make much further progress this evening. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment but it is deeply disappointing that this issue of the support group has been dealt with in this way.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 5 and 6. I remind noble Lords that the terms of reference of the health and well-being boards, established through the Health and Social Care Act 2012, require them to report on local efforts in reducing health inequalities and improving the well-being of their population, so it should not be too difficult to find a way to report on health and well-being, as suggested by my noble friend. On Amendment 3, the evidence is enormous that the nutritional status of women both before and during pregnancy can have an important influence on foetal, infant and maternal health outcomes. I remind noble Lords of the enormous parliamentary and public interest in the manifesto The 1001 Critical Days and the work that goes on in thinking about the first two years from conception to age two, and how nutrition is such a key part of improving the life chances of children and young people.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. If I heard correctly from each of the speakers, the thrust of it is that government should be entitled to a whole range of information that will best inform it across the piece as to how to tackle a range of issues. Specifically, the group of amendments seeks to add to the reporting requirements to Parliament: the progress of children at five in areas of cognitive, personal, social, emotional and physical development—likewise for children living in disadvantaged households; the health and well-being of children living in workless and long-term workless households; and maternal nutrition in workless and long-term workless households.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to a range of matters. In particular he spoke about the collection of disadvantage that you get: homelessness, mental health, fuel poverty and low income—it is that collection of issues which makes more difficult the life chances of individuals. A number of speakers emphasised the importance of education—the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, picked up again the point she made in Committee about key stage 1 for education, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, spoke about the importance of health and well-being boards. I understand that the Office for National Statistics produces data on national well-being and on the well-being of children; I think it reported in 2014 and again just last year. It is interesting that a whole range of data goes into those measures. It is said with regard to children that there are something like seven domains and 30-odd measures of children’s well-being, which is a whole collection of stuff to have to handle and deal with.

At the end of the day, government ought to welcome the information that this collection of amendments seeks to be reported on, which is a range of information across the piece. The key issue that flows from it is what you do with it, or what strategies or interventions will flow from that collection of data which will make a difference to the life chances of young people—which is the thrust of this.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made the point that we do not have a collective figure for the consequences of all the changes in the tax and benefit system in recent times. I know that the IFS did a calculation of what had happened under the coalition Government with regard to tax and benefit changes and concluded that if you look at those changes—the percentage of the income of various groups of people—the lowest two percentiles bore the greatest burden. If you look at it in terms of absolute amounts, the top 10% bore the most, but if you look at it as a percentage of income, the poorest have had the worst outcome from all these changes the Government have introduced—and that is before we get into ones that are reflected in the Bill we have debated to date.

When we talk about health and well-being, we need to be clearer about our distinctions. We have the national statistics data and the background to that, which is a very broad measure. The issue around health and well-being boards’ and local authorities’ responsibility is a slightly different focus, but important nevertheless. So far as we are concerned, we can see the benefits of this range of amendments, which try to encourage the bringing-forward of data to underline just what the consequences of these policies are. I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked a moment ago about how it is all too easy for us in this Chamber to see this in perhaps rather abstract terms and not the reality. People out there have to face the reality of what these policies mean, and the collection of data of which noble Lords speak will help bring that home to government as well as to campaigners generally, so that those who bear the largest burden feel that that is understood, reflected and challenged—which is our job here.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments on Clause 4 have been grouped together quite widely. I will start by making a general point about adding to the reporting duties that the Government have already set out. The best way of securing progress by government is to have a focused set of measures. I echo the implication of what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said. The more you have, the more likely you are to have a diluted effort and distraction from the key issues, which in this case the evidence tells us are worklessness and educational attainment. Of course many factors contribute to these headline measures. For example, we know that children’s health is an important factor in their educational attainment. Tackling health at work will help ensure that more adults are able to work. Therefore delivering on worklessness and educational attainment calls for a wide set of actions. However, it is important that we focus government on its core objectives that will tackle the root causes of child poverty.

First, with regard to additional statutory reporting duties, I turn to Amendment 3. With this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, seeks to introduce an additional reporting duty on the Secretary of State. The report must contain data on maternal nutrition in workless and long-term workless households in England. I have already set out that our evidence review published in 2014 makes it clear that worklessness and educational attainment are the factors that have the biggest impact on child poverty and children’s life chances. We are committed to supporting families at the earliest stage and to helping parents move into work and earn more through universal credit or investment in childcare, the national living wage and increases to the personal allowance in the tax system. This is the best way to secure children’s life chances and ensure that parents are able to care for themselves, too.

I cannot overstate the importance of ensuring that we focus on measures that tackle the root causes of child poverty and not be distracted by others that do not do so. Of course, the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is important. The Government take action. They provide advice for parents on maternal and infant nutrition via NHS Choices and Start4Life. Government also operates the Healthy Start vouchers scheme, which provides low-income people with vouchers that can be spent on milk, plain fresh and frozen fruit and vegetables, and infant formula. It already publishes the results from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, which includes results by age and gender. There are a variety of reasons why adults have poor diets, and it is important that we look at the whole picture, which gives us valuable information and helps shape interventions. I therefore cannot support this amendment.

Through Amendment 4, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, seeks to expand the duty placed on the Secretary of State to include a duty to report on the progress of children and disadvantaged children living in England at age five in their cognitive, personal, social, emotional and physical development. It is vital that all pupils thrive and develop in their early years. Monitoring children’s personal development is already a core function of every education setting. This monitoring then enables teachers to tailor their support based on how each individual is progressing. I assure your Lordships that we do not take this issue lightly. As the Prime Minister said during his speech about children’s life chances—quoted by noble Lords—we want,

“stable families and good parenting, because we know the importance of those early years in setting children up for a good life”.

There are two key issues at the heart of the life chances reforms—action on work and action on education. Lives can be transformed by focusing on these two most significant drivers of poverty. The Bill will start to realise the vision set out by the Prime Minister when he said that,

“we can rescue a generation from poverty and extend life chances right across our country”.

We all know that the end of key stage 4 is a vital juncture in a young person’s education. It represents the culmination of primary and secondary schooling and provides a consistent point at which to measure attainment across all young people. Pupils who fail to achieve at the end of key stage 4 are at high risk of not being in employment, education or training, so the Secretary of State is committed, through the life chances measures in the Bill—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel]

In listening to this debate, I find myself sympathetic to the notion of social mobility but I also think of the play “Macbeth” and of Macbeth and his wife. There is a risk, I suppose, if one puts too much weight on social mobility, of a society which is red in tooth and claw. The addition of the words “Life Chances” balances that. Your Lordships may also remember the series “Seven Up!”, which I think started in the 1970s and followed 10 children through their lives into adulthood. To my mind, the happiest life in the group was that of a young black boy who grew up in foster care and then went on to become a butcher, marry and have a family. He seemed the most contented of the lot. To be able to achieve a stable and loving family is also important to society, so it would also be helpful to measure that.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this amendment has been moved very comprehensively by my noble friend Lady Lister and spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, to whom I should say that the closest I got to Oxford on Sunday night was watching “Endeavour” on television. This is a re-run of an amendment moved in Committee as part of a wider group covering life-chances strategies. The Minister’s response then, as reported in col. 1598 of Hansard on 9 December 2015, was clear on a commitment to publish a life-chances strategy, as well as the annual report as set out in the Clause 4 obligations, but there was no commitment to make this a statutory obligation. As my noble friend Lady Lister has argued, the concern which has been expressed about the commission is that, for the future, it has no obligation explicitly to promote the tackling of child poverty. Although there is a commitment to report on life-chances data, and a statement on the record that there will be a life-chances strategy, the role of the Social Mobility Commission seems somewhat removed from this.

As my noble friend Lady Lister pointed out in Committee, promoting social mobility is a narrower ambition than tackling poverty and promoting life chances: it is not a substitute. It is, of course, a not unreasonable ambition, but a commission focused on life chances would naturally encompass the prospects of social mobility. The reverse is not the case. We therefore support my noble friend’s amendment. It seems odd that the Government are keen to have a commission reporting on progress on improving social mobility but not on life chances.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

I apologise to the House for the length of these opening remarks, but, as I said, these are technical amendments and I wanted to ensure that the House had our rationale for them. On that basis, I beg to move the amendment standing in my noble friend’s name on the Order Paper.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for her introduction and we are grateful for the separate briefing that we received before Christmas with her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. This is a very substantial list of government amendments, but we will not oppose them, as overall they are intended to make the policy work more effectively and securely. We understand that they are, in essence, technical.

However, we might just reflect on the fact that in Committee in another place we saw the introduction of four new clauses and one substantial new schedule, with more government amendments on Report. The amendments in this group include those—for example, 108B—which replace provisions inserted by government amendments in Committee in the House of Commons. This creates the impression that the policy has not been fully worked through. I wonder what else is being worked on which will require amendment before we are finished with this Bill.

We know from the Government’s briefing note of Clauses 21 to 28 and Schedule 2 that work is under way on regulations to come into force on 1 April 2016. These are to cover further exceptions but also alternative provision for accepted categories and alternative conditions for granting directions. Regulations are also to cover the enforcement of Schedule 2 by the regulator. Can the Minister say whether we will see at least a draft of these regulations before we get to Report? Clearly, the clock is ticking, and drafting must have reached an advanced stage if the regulations are to come into force on 1 April this year.

So far as Clause 23 is concerned, there is the opportunity for the Secretary of State to direct that the provisions of Clause 21 do not apply to a local authority if it would be unable to avoid serious financial difficulties. Similar considerations arise for private registered providers, where the regulator has to take a view on financial viability. Can the Minister say whether any general guidance will be published covering these matters? We note that the Secretary of State is taking powers to publish measures which individual local authorities can take, so we are back with central government micromanaging the affairs of local authorities—so much for devolving power. But as I say, we do not and will not oppose these amendments.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just said. He is right to say that the process of this particular measure and its sections through its various parliamentary stages has been less than best practice. Of course, it is not the Minister’s fault; I think that the Committee is grateful to her for her concise explanation of what these amendments seek to do, and it is agreed that they are, by and large, improvements. However, having substantial bits of policy of the kind covered by the sections and amendments that we are dealing with this evening in a summer Budget Statement, with no prospect of any consultation beforehand—an ex cathedra Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then a long Summer Recess where everybody tries to work out what on earth it all meant—is not a good way of producing legislation.

It does not surprise me that there was a degree of confusion at the Commons Committee stages and that we are now faced at this quite late stage with admittedly helpful amendments. However, they are technical and they need consideration, because they increase the corpus of housing law and make things more complicated. Not only does the primary legislation make it more complicated; it will spawn secondary legislation. This House will no doubt look forward to studying it in great detail, larding and littering the statute book with consequential changes, including protecting mortgagees, implied terms in leases—which is always dangerous; from a legal point of view, implication by statutory legislation is never a good thing—and transitional protection, which may well be necessary. But at this stage I think it is appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the Committee to say to the Minister that housing Bills and measures of this kind should be done properly. Consultation and Green Papers are always an advantage. If we had had a Green Paper in relation to these clauses, some of the difficulties that the Minister faced in introducing these amendments could have been avoided and could be avoided in future.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and take note of the points that they raised. In specific relation to the draft regulations, we will be putting out information on our detailed intentions in due course, and I will look at what more information can be provided at Report.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can I just press the Minister a bit to say what “in due course” means? Can we narrow that timeline a bit? For example, is it likely to occur before we get to Report?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said, we will look at what information we can provide for Report; I am afraid that I cannot go further than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, to respond to the noble Lord, the latest estimate is that 60% or more of property sold under RTB is now in the private rented sector, it is no longer occupied by the people who bought it.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this debate focusing on six specific amendments has become quite broad and—dare I say it?—welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, kicked us off by reminding us of the background to the policy—in particular, pointing out that it is a complete reversal of CPI plus 1%, with its 10-year guarantee, which was introduced only a year ago. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, made the point that Governments may be foolish to offer 10-year guarantees, but one would hope that, whatever the term of the guarantee the Government gave, it would be met, and certainly not broken after just one year.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, reminded us of what the policy as now constituted will actually deliver. Rents will be 12% lower and £2.3 billion per year will be lost to housing associations and local councils by 2020. Given the current structure of housing benefit, we are effectively talking about almost a straight transfer of resources from social landlords to the Exchequer. There is also the prospect of having 43,000 fewer social rented homes by the end of the period. The noble Lord emphasised the importance of certainty for the financing of housing provision.

I will come to the specific amendments on co-operatives in a moment, but the noble Lord, Lord Best, said that there are only three options for housing associations: cut programmes, cut the revenue costs which add value to housing association tenants or reduce surpluses. The Government have got themselves in a bit of a jam by believing that just because authorities and housing associations have reserves, that is free money. That reserve is there to support other activities and the current borrowing of housing associations and authorities. My noble friend Lord Beecham told us about the practical impact of the policies on his authority, and also supported the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on almshouses, which I will come to.

The noble Lord, Lord Horam, reminded us that we have to deal with the deficit. Of course we do, but why do we always choose to do so off the back of the most disadvantaged in our society? Why that route?

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made the challenging point: is this dogma or is it practicalities that we are getting from the Government? My noble friend Lady Blackstone asked whether the Government would be honest and tell us what they think the effect of the policy will be. We ought to hear the Government’s view on what this will mean for housing provision over the upcoming period.

We had a fascinating lesson from my noble friend Lord Triesman on long-term annuity financing, which is very long-term with small margins, so changes in revenue streams could easily tip it into not being available.

My noble friend Lady Hollis challenged the PM’s view on bulldozing sink estates and made the point that to make social housing work requires decent homes, decent jobs, stable communities and decent management, and I agree with all that.

Amendments 104C and 104D, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, have the effect of reducing to three years the period of the rent reduction. That would coincide with when the Government tell us that the deficit will be dealt with, but that remains to be seen. From 1 April 2019, or the equivalent date where the relevant years are determined by Clause 21(6)(a), the rent reduction provisions will not operate. Amendment 104E requires that registered providers increase rents by CPI plus 1% from April 2020 and also requires there to be a review of the formula rent arrangements to see whether there are prospects of higher increases or greater flexibility.

We support the need to have as much certainty as possible for the future so that registered providers can develop long-term plans, although we understand that the Government may be coy about supporting anything beyond April 2020. It is presumed that the noble Lord’s amendments would apply to those tenancies to which the rent standard currently applies and not more generally. We also support the requirement for a review of the impact of Clause 21 to see what flexibility might be required to address its consequences.

I think that the way the Bill would operate at the moment is that if there is silence on the year 2020 before we come to the new arrangements, the regulator’s ability to set the rent under the rent standard would come back into play because it is negated by Clause 27 only for when the rent reduction proposals are under way. That would deal with the year between CPI plus 1% for 2020 onwards.

Overall, the effect of the noble Lord’s Amendments 104C, 104D and 104E would appear to be that the base for future rent increases would be higher than the Bill currently provides. The loss of income to councils and housing associations would be ameliorated and the shortfall in the provision of new accommodation would be reduced, to the benefit of those in housing need and to the benefit of the public purse, which would otherwise be bearing the strain. Other things being equal, the housing benefit bill would be higher in the short term than would otherwise be the case, as would the cost to those tenants who meet all or part of their rental costs. Overwhelmingly, the focus should be on getting back on track as soon as possible the investment programme under way as part of the 10-year settlement, which is what the noble Lord’s amendments seem to achieve: therefore, we are happy to support them.

Amendment 108, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, focuses on fully mutual housing co-operatives. Amendment 108A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, focuses on accommodation which is excepted from the right to buy because of specific adaptations for disabled or elderly people. Amendment 109A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which covers almshouse charities, was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Beecham. These amendments should be supported.

The case on mutual housing co-operatives has been fully articulated, as one would expect, by the noble Lord, Lord Best. We heard in particular from the Edward Henry House Co-operative in Waterloo. It argues that the financial model for housing co-operatives is different from that of housing associations. They do not keep large reserves. The reserves are kept low because of the member-tenant role in running the co-op. The prospects for driving efficiencies is therefore limited. These co-operatives should clearly be an exception to the policy, as should community land trusts, which are a very small section of the sector.

It is understood that the exemption from the right to buy for adapted properties is not widely drawn. Is it the case that it would not apply to one-off adaptations and requires properties to form part of a development of similar homes and to have some sort of social service or extra care provided on site or nearby for them to be subject to the right-to-buy exclusion? If this is the case, such properties would appear to fall within the definition of supported specialised accommodation, which is the subject of a separate exemption which we are going to debate shortly. The Minister may care to comment on that. This begs the question of whether the right-to-buy exemption should be widened at all—but perhaps this is an issue for another piece of legislation.

The financial structure of almshouses is different again. Residents pay a weekly maintenance contribution, rather than rent, which is less than a commercial rate. The exception the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, seeks is entirely justified, and it is presumed that any impact on savings would be negligible.

We are confronted with six amendments, each of which should be supported. We have had a very robust debate around the thrust of this policy, the problems it creates and the challenges it will create in providing decent housing for people who have no option but to rent.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. I have listened with care to the comments made and thought it might benefit the Committee if I quickly set out some general comments with regard to the purpose of the 1% rent reduction.

As my noble friend set out at Second Reading, this Bill, including these measures, is part of a broader package of reforms, one of the aims of which is to put spending on welfare on a more sustainable footing, but in a way that protects the most vulnerable. I hope that answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and other noble Lords who asked the same question. The housing benefit bill for the social housing sector in England has risen by nearly a quarter over the past 10 years to £13 billion, and rising rents are a key part of the equation. Average rent increases in the social sector have been more than double those in the private sector over the past five years. That is why the Government have taken the decision to reduce social rents by 1% a year for four years from 2016. That will mean that by 2020 tenants will be paying around £12 per week less than they would pay under the current policy of CPI plus 1% increases.

I listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, regarding Amendments 104C and 104D. The noble Lord brings a great deal of knowledge of these issues to this House—I had not realised he had been chief executive of Sheffield—but we cannot accept these amendments, which would reduce the number of years of the rent reduction from four years to three. The noble Lord asked why we have gone back on the 10-year rent settlement of CPI plus 1%. This measure is crucial to the Government’s drive to secure housing benefit savings in order to control the welfare bill. Moreover, it will reset levels of social rents, which have got out of kilter with the private rented sector over the past few years. Around 60% of social tenants receive housing benefit, and the housing benefit bill for England in the social sector stands at £13 billion, and has risen by a quarter over the past 10 years. Social rents have risen by around 60% over that period. The average weekly rent for housing associations has gone up from £58 a week to £92 a week over the past 10 years. In contrast, in the private rented sector, it is 23%. We recognise that social housing providers will have to manage these reductions, but the Government are committed to reducing welfare spending, and everyone has a part to play. Moreover, we are confident that social housing providers will be able to adapt.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asks why, if we are doing this in the social sector, we cannot do it in the private sector. We believe it is important to allow market rents in the private rented sector so that we have a diverse supply of private rental accommodation available for a variety of different needs. A fundamental move away from market rents would hold investment back when we most need to encourage it, and the resulting shortage of rented accommodation would help neither tenants nor landlords.

We also cannot accept Amendment 104E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. It would require registered providers to increase rents by CPI plus 1% each year. The amendment also seeks to require the Secretary of State to review whether, given the impact of the rent reduction measure, there should be additional flexibility for registered providers to increase rents above the noble Lord’s proposal for an increase of CPI plus 1%. This is an important point that also goes to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven: the Government will determine rent policy after 2020 at a future fiscal event. When taking future rent policy decisions, the Secretary of State will have to consider a range of issues, and it would not be right to prejudge now what those issues might be.

The noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Best, talked about the OBR predictions of 43% fewer properties being built by providers. The Government believe that providers will make efficiencies to continue to release resources for new development. I remind noble Lords at this point that housing associations hold £2.4 billion in surpluses, which is a very similar amount to local authorities. In the spending review we secured over £20 billion for housebuilding over this Parliament, including £8 billion for 400,000 new affordable homes over the next five years, so the Government are playing our part in the provision of housing.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

How much of that £20 billion is going to be applied for social housing for rent?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That will be £1.6 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Manzoor]

Forgive me for having to get up again; after all, we are coming to this subject on Amendments 107 and 109 so we will debate it then. However, I think there needs to be greater clarification regarding exemptions. There are currently organisations that are very vulnerable and provide housing services for some of the most vulnerable in our society to prevent people from becoming homeless, as well as those that provide refuge for domestic violence victims and so forth. I will not pre-empt the discussion that we will inevitably have, but I am looking for some reassurance from the Minister regarding whether these exemptions will continue to apply to those organisations that currently seem to be exempted. These rent reductions will have an impact because the providers will not be able to continue to provide those services, particularly to help and manage those kinds of conditions.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Might the noble Baroness take the opportunity to clarify the distinction between exceptions and exemptions? I think she has been talking about exemptions today—exceptions are something else.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

105: Clause 21, page 20, line 46, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this section coming into force, produce a plan to offset the impact of lower social rents on housing associations and local government.”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, Amendment 105 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock. We are pleased to note that it has the support of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. The amendment calls for the Secretary of State to come forward with a plan to address the impact of lower social rents on housing associations and local authorities within 12 months of the rent reduction provisions coming into effect. It mirrors a debate which took place in Committee in the other place and follows on from much of what we have just debated.

The rent reductions amount to some £3.5 billion by 2020 for housing associations and are estimated by the Local Government Association to amount to some £2.6 billion for local authorities by that date. However, their impact will of course extend beyond 2020 because even if CPI plus 1% is restored after four years, it will be applied to a lower base than would otherwise be the case. LGA figures show that the rental loss for local authorities is equivalent to 60% of the total housing maintenance budget each year or 19,000 new homes over four years. London Councils points to a loss of rental income for London of £800 million up to 2020, but also, the cumulative impact looking across the 30-year business plan, assuming rents at CPI plus 1% after 4 years, is £13.3 billion.

The Government recognise that these reductions will have an impact on the finances of housing associations and local authorities but effectively say—we have heard it again tonight—that these can be managed. This amendment seeks clarification of how the Government think this can be accomplished. Effectively, it restates the question posed by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. Various estimates have been made of the loss of rental accommodation which might ensue, and it is recognised that this will obviously be influenced by what exceptions and exemptions are to be made available. We will come on to these in following groups. The National Housing Federation estimates that 27,000 fewer homes will be built over the next four years, although the OBR has different figures.

The Government have cited a number of factors in support of their view that everything is going to be all right. These include the accumulated surpluses of housing associations and HRA reserves, the latter totalling some £2.2 billion. They also point to the prospect of higher rents arising from social tenants with a household income of £30,000 to £40,000, which the impact assessment suggests could produce,

“hundreds of millions [of] pounds per year”.

Can the Minister give us a breakdown of this estimate, saying how much relates to London and how much to outside London, how many households are likely to be affected and what level of rent is expected to be levied and garnered from this process? Is it correct that the rent standard does not currently apply to rental accommodation where household income is £60,000 or more? Presumably this will have to be adjusted.

As for the reserves of local authorities and housing associations, the Government should be wary of making judgments by looking at the aggregate position. London Councils, for example, cites a loss of rental income of £800 million but reserves of stock-holding boroughs of only £700 million. There is an assumption that reserves can be used effectively without cost. What guidance, if any, is given to housing associations and local authorities generally about maintaining prudent reserves?

If the Secretary of State were to publish a document under Clause 23(12) about measures a local authority might take to avoid financial difficulties, what would his approach be in considering the running down of reserves? The impact assessment explains that the regulator is currently collecting information from large providers and requiring a revised financial forecast return reflecting updated policy announcements. Is this exercise complete and what is the outcome? The impact assessment also makes it clear that the Government are continuing to engage with the housing association sector and,

“remains confident that they will be able to find the necessary efficiencies to manage this change”.

Will the Minister please share with us what specific factors underpin this confidence? What is the Government’s current assessment of the shortfall in social housing for rent which they consider will flow from the operation of Clause 21? In addition, what is the estimated impact on housing waiting lists?

We can exchange statistics about the housing performance of this Government and will doubtless hear, among other things, proposals to develop 275,000 affordable homes over the course of this Parliament. If we do, can we be clear on the definition of affordable housing being used, and how many homes will be available for rent? I beg to move.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I am very concerned about the rise in child homelessness and the number of homeless families living in insecure accommodation. I am concerned at the possibility that these changes will reduce the supply of housing and contribute to further child homelessness. Will the Minister look at the possible impact on child homelessness of the reduction in rent over the next four years?

I welcome the extra investment, announced yesterday, that the Prime Minister has made in perinatal mental health care so that during and immediately after pregnancy mothers get support if they have mental health issues. I understand that he is doing that because it is increasingly recognised how crucial it is for children to have a good start in life. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, spoke earlier about productivity. I suggest to your Lordships that if we do not do everything possible to give children the best start in life, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot as regards productivity. We know that if they get a good start, they will do well in school and will probably also do well in employment. That is why I particularly support the amendment.

Living in insecure accommodation is also obviously very troubling for children as they may have to move from school to school and may be separated from their friends. I know that, like me, all your Lordships are very concerned about the increasing number of children who are homeless, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Horam]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, may be amazed to know that I rather agree with her that all government policy should be carefully monitored to see its economic and social effect. However, while I well understand the purpose of the amendment—I appreciate that it is well meant—12 months is frankly far too short a period in which to see what the effect of this quite dramatic change in policy will be. It would be much more sensible to wait for a period of two to three years before you could sensibly look at the exact effect, either social or economic, of these policies. I see that the noble Baroness is nodding. I do not think that this proposal will work because 12 months is simply too soon. It is no time at all in which to look at the way in which the measures unfold.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Does the noble Lord accept that there is a distinction between trying to understand what the Government currently think the impact of their policy will be and evaluating within a certain period in the future how it is working out?

[Lord Horam]

I appreciate that. Clearly, we ought to know as much as we can now about the effect of the Government’s policies as they are articulated in this Bill. None the less, a sensible monitoring process should allow a reasonable period of time for the whole thing to work through. I suggest that halfway through a Parliament is a much more sensible time than 12 months, frankly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I was not the Minister a year ago. However, I get the noble Baroness’s drift. The point is that we now have a majority Conservative Government and this policy has come out of that. I am not saying in any way, shape or form that it is the social rented sector’s fault. I am saying that that is the position in which we find ourselves, due to many different factors. Over the past few years, inflation has been one of the factors driving it up. However, I will correct that if I am wrong, given that I am saying it from the Dispatch Box.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the guidance to social providers on maintaining surpluses. We feel that it is a matter for the housing association boards to run their businesses as they see fit. It is a well-regulated sector that, to date, has managed its finances magnificently. Boards have been advised to raise any anticipated exceptional challenges with the regulator to discuss any difficulties that they might anticipate.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Is any guidance given to local authorities on prudent reserves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness; I understand her point. However, I also understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Horam: it is difficult to assess an impact within 12 months. It will probably take longer.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the high-income social tenants’ policy and its impact on housing. It is worth noting that we will have an opportunity to scrutinise this fully during the passage of the Housing and Planning Bill, when I will probably be the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box. However, at this point I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, expressed his concerns about the impact of the policy on children; the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, believed that we had a straightforward, simple proposition to put to the Government; and my noble friend Lady Blackstone still awaits an answer to the fundamental question she has now raised on the last two groups of amendments. We must hope that the correspondence from the Minister will elicit a response.

I accept the point that if particular issues arise, the route of exemptions and exceptions may be brought to bear to address them, but that does not substitute for the fundamental question my noble friend is asking: what is the Government’s assessment, in introducing these policies, of the impact they will have on the provision of housing and their targets for building houses? How will it be affected by this?

The noble Lord, Lord Horam, made a reasonable point about monitoring and said that one should do that after a period of longer than 12 months. I hang on to my point that we are looking for two things here: the Government’s current assessment of the impact on housebuilding of the introduction of the policy; and then monitoring what will happen in practice.

We have given this issue a good airing. For the time being, I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.

Amendment 105 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

107: Clause 22, page 21, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) the accommodation is specified accommodation, as defined in The Housing Benefit and Universal Credit (Supported Accommodation) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/771).”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, Amendment 107 calls for certain types of property to be excepted from the provisions of the rent reduction scheme. It was assumed when it was drafted that it would have the same effect as Amendment 109 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others. I acknowledge that Amendment 109 seems to have garnered a broader range of support and doubtless this has much to do with the credibility of the person whose name is at the top of it as well as the substance of the drafting.

The scope of this exception is built on the coverage of the regulations which widen the protection from the benefit cap. It is intended to include supported housing where the landlord is of a specified type and provides, or causes to be provided, care support or supervision to claimants; supported accommodation where the landlord is a specified third or social sector provider and care, support or supervision is provided to residents; third and social sector refuges, including local authority refuges where a claimant is accommodated because they are fleeing domestic violence; and local authority hostels providing care, support or supervision.

The Government’s briefing note on these clauses indicates that they are minded to align exceptions to the policy with exemptions that apply to the rent policy set out in the rent standard guidance. We would support this as far as it goes as its coverage would include PFI schemes, temporary social housing and short-life leasing schemes for the homeless, residential and nursing homes, student homes and key worker accommodation. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that this is still the intent and say why, therefore, more could not be put in the Bill.

Despite this, it is considered that the specialised supported housing definition included in the rent standard is too limited. The guidance itself has indicated that interpretation has not been without difficulty. For example, it says that the exemption from social rent requirements of specialised support in housing is usually limited to those properties developed in partnership with local authorities or the health service and which satisfy all of the following criteria. The scheme should offer a high level of support for clients; no or negligible public subsidy should have been received; and the scheme should have been commissioned in line with local health and social services or supporting people strategies and priorities. I paraphrase.

Adopting the definitions in the housing benefit and universal credit regulations—which is what this amendment and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, do—will provide a wide enough basis for an exemption from Clause 21. The reason we need a comprehensive exception from the policy in this respect has been abundantly clear from the range of submissions we have received. As the submission from Homeless Link sets out, the type of accommodation we are referring to—let us call it supported housing—caters for a wide range of tenants with specific needs requiring various degrees of support. It points out that this provision is generally more expensive to build, manage and maintain. The fear is that the rent reduction measure will lead to a loss of existing supported housing schemes, with fewer schemes being developed in the future. Those who bear the brunt will be the homeless, those with mental health problems, people fleeing domestic violence, those with learning disabilities and those with drug and alcohol problems. Denying them the chance of decent accommodation and care and support will only push the costs elsewhere in the public sector as well as impairing the life chances of those whose quality of life is under challenge.

We have been presented with examples of projects that will fall by the wayside, including from Riverside, with a third of its supported housing schemes being at risk; St Mungo’s, with a cumulative four-year loss of projected income of £4 million; and the YMCA, with the potential end to a housing project for 170 16 to 17 year-olds. Indeed, Riverside has set out a range of stark facts. It states that early Riverside projections indicate the impact of the rent decrease policy will be a reduction in income in excess of 16% over four years, a cumulative total of almost £100 million, which it says will reduce its operating margins by 9.5%. Riverside owns and manages around 4,600 units of supported housing. Housing associations as a whole manage 105,000 units of supported housing, which is 3.7% of all stock managed. The level of savings forgone, it is suggested, as a result of an exception for supported housing, would be modest.

Having moved this amendment, I hope it puts us on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Best. I look forward to hearing from him to see whether we can forge a common position. I beg to move.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 109, which covers the same issue as Amendment 107, moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. Of course I entirely support that amendment, which was so well presented by the noble Lord. In both cases the amendments look for an exclusion from the proposed 12% rent cuts for supported housing as defined in housing benefit and universal credit regulations. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Shipley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for supporting this amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, who spoke earlier in favour of exceptions and exclusions for cases of this kind. I also offer sincere thanks to Members from all sides of the House who signed a letter to the Times, co-ordinated by the National Housing Federation just before Christmas, expressing the hope that the Government would give favourable consideration to the case we are making today.

The specialist housing organisations that fall within this definition—such as St Mungo’s Broadway, the YMCA and many small charities—would suffer a major blow from the 12% reduction in income from their rents. These are the organisations on the very front line, providing supported housing for those with mental health, drug and alcohol problems, homeless people, care leavers, those fleeing domestic violence, as well as veterans and older people needing care and support.

The vulnerable people these charities support inevitably require higher spending than for general-needs renting. The charities working for them operate on the margins of viability and can easily be pushed over the edge. As well as supported housing being provided by specialist bodies, many of the larger housing associations have been keen to include schemes of this kind within their wider stock, but these social businesses cannot absorb loss-making projects. It is very hard for them to sustain this specialist provision if supported housing becomes a financial liability.

Management costs are not the only ingredient that means supported housing must have higher rents than the norm. There are higher maintenance costs due to the higher turnover of tenants, greater wear and tear, more voids between lettings, more arrears, and even significantly higher insurance premiums. Yet without these housing schemes it is certain that a lot of people will suffer the most acute deprivation, including living out on the streets. Moreover, the wider impact on society from neglecting their needs will be immense. The Homes and Communities Agency found that supported housing work produced a net positive financial benefit of some £640 million—more than six times the savings that the Government would obtain from cutting rents by the fourth year of this rent-cutting policy.

The accommodation covered by the amendment has already been given special status in respect of the new benefit cap and exemption from the so-called bedroom tax. Therefore it seems entirely consistent to exclude these hostels and specified accommodation schemes from the requirement for rent cuts. The Government have stated that it might be possible for an organisation which could face extinction as a result of the rent reductions to apply for a waiver from this requirement. However, there are two flaws in this approach to solving the problem now facing housing.

First, the specialist charities requesting a waiver face ongoing uncertainty and an unknown, potentially bureaucratic and time-consuming process to decide the somewhat extreme question of whether they will become insolvent rather than just be completely undermined by losing so much income. Secondly, the waiver route does not address the issue of supported housing provided within their wider role by larger housing associations that do not face financial ruin but which are likely to pull back from pursuing this kind of accommodation if rent cuts render supported housing loss-making.

If an association with wider objectives has to improve its financial viability by closing its supported housing schemes, the effect will be just as bad as forcing a small charity out of business. This is where we get into the issues raised by the Minister on the difference between exempting organisations by providing a waiver if they look like they are going bust because of the rent reductions, and excluding categories of housing—the category in this case being supported housing.

I know that the last thing the Government want is to undermine housing provision for those in the most acute need, with all the extra expenditure for the NHS, social care, the justice system and the rest which would follow. I believe that the Government already have a concession of this kind in mind, but confirmation of the position by the Minister is needed urgently because the process for a rent reduction on 1 April, with the sending out of thousands of notices to tenants and local authority housing departments, which will be very hard to rescind, must begin at the end of this month.

I must conclude with a footnote, albeit a rather important one. The Government are also planning to introduce another constraint: a cap on housing benefit for council and housing association tenants at the same level as for tenants of private landlords; that is, at the local housing allowance level. This ceiling is not a problem for the great majority of housing association properties since their rents are lower than in the private rented sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that they are something like 40% to 50% lower. But, of course, rents for supported housing—the kind of housing that private landlords do not provide—are obviously much higher.

For example, a homeless project for people with mental health and/or drug and alcohol issues is currently charging £119 per week, but the relevant local housing allowance maximum for an ordinary one-bedroom flat is £84 per week, so the new cap at LHA levels would mean a loss of £35 per week per flat for the project. A purpose-built autism scheme for enabling people to move out of institutional care would face a shortfall of £90 per week per flat, even though the scheme saves huge sums compared with the costs of leaving people in the institutional setting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has been in government and she knows the processes of government. She is right to say that I am a consensual politician, where I can be, but I will not stand at the Dispatch Box and give assurances that I cannot absolutely fulfil. I therefore have to say that I cannot do that but I will be doing all I can to make progress in this area. That is all I can say at this stage.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister as I thought that what she was beginning to say was encouraging, but can I clarify one point about the reference to specialised supported housing? This is really the nub of the issue. Is the definition which the Government are working towards the same as that exempting people from the benefit cap, or is it a different one?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is different. We are looking at this whole area of provision but it is a different definition. The noble Lord asked whether we could include the exceptions on the face of the Bill. They would probably be too complex to include in the Bill, while regulations would provide more flexibility to effect better the appropriate definitions and make adjustments in due course.

Funding for supported housing is also part of the Government’s wider financial settlement to councils. This includes investing £5.3 billion in the better care fund in 2015-16 to deliver faster and deeper integration of health and social care. This will enable councils to invest in early action to help people live in their own homes for longer. It will also help prevent crises, as well as supporting councils to work more effectively together, deliver better outcomes for less money and drive integration across all local services. We are also investing in specialised housing for older people. In the spending review, we have committed £400 million of funding to deliver 8,000 specialised homes for the vulnerable, elderly and those with disabilities through the affordable homes programme, with a commitment to further funding from the DoH for specialist accommodation. We will continue to support local areas to meet their local needs by maximising funding flexibility.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who asked about the combined impact of the social rent reduction and capping the highest housing benefit awards for social renters, in line with caps applicable in the private rented sector, meaning that supported housing will be decimated. Now that I am looking at the noble Lord, I do not think it was him who asked this. But there was a noble Lord who asked that question, because I have written it down. Applying a cap on the highest social rents will mean that housing benefit will no longer subsidise families who take new tenancies in social houses that many working families cannot afford. The new cap will have effect only from 2018 for new or re-let social tenancies signed after 1 April 2016.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked whether the savings of £75 million were for supported housing. I do not know but I will write to him about it and I can come back to that question on Report, if he wishes. My noble friend Lord Young asked whether we can meet providers, as I think I have said. We have met providers and will meet them again.

Finally, I reiterate that while we expect providers to make all possible efforts to manage the rent reductions and plan on that basis, Clause 23 allows for individual providers to apply for an exemption from the rent reduction if they think that they will face severe financial difficulties.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, providers have a very good track record both in managing their finances and in terms of the housing that they provide, and I do not expect that a housing provider will go to the Government only when it is on its knees. In well-run housing associations, I expect that forward planning would show what sort of difficulties might be coming up and that they might therefore apply for an exemption on that basis. I hope it would not be at the 11th hour, because that is not good financial planning. I hope I have provided some reassurances and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive reply. There was a moment there where I thought some comfort was coming, but it disappeared relatively quickly. I thank all noble Lords who participated in this short debate—forgive me if I do not pick up on all the comments, because I believe that pretty much everyone who spoke on this issue shared the same view. I also believe that the Government did not intend this to happen. We will cling to that belief and hope that it sees us to a sensible solution at the end of the day.

There is an overwhelming recognition that supported housing of the type we have discussed is significantly needed in our country, and that if it is not provided, the cost to the rest of society will spill over and be much worse. We need to act quickly on this. The noble Lord, Lord Best, in his comprehensive argument in favour of the amendments, made the point that we need to pursue exceptions rather than exemptions. Exemptions will not be any use to those associations which embed provision within their business plans, and the uncertainty that having to seek an exemption will lead to is one that many will not be prepared to live with or cannot live with. Urgency on this is important.

I do not think we had an answer on whether the other components which are exempted from the rent standards at the moment, such as PFI schemes, temporary social housing and short-life leasing schemes for the homeless, are going to be replicated in some way. The important point is that if the definition of specialised supported housing is not going to be the broader one, then the job will not be done, and we will return to this if it is not. We look forward to continued engagement on this between now and Report, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 107 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

110: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“Housing costs in the private rented sector
(1) The Secretary of State must, at a time no later than the end of the financial year ending March 2017 and at least once during the course of each of the subsequent four financial years, review the relationship between housing costs in the private rented sector and levels of local housing allowance.
(2) Where a review under subsection (1) shows that less than 30 per cent of private rented properties in each locality are affordable to persons in receipt of local housing allowance, the Secretary of State must by regulations under section 130A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (appropriate maximum housing benefit) amend the rates of local housing allowance.”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, Amendment 110 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock. We welcome the support of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who has added his name to it. The amendment moves us into somewhat different territory. It is about the adequacy of the local housing allowance system and the quarterly review of the extent to which at least 30% of private rented properties in each locality are made affordable by the LHA. It is an opportunity, in particular, to review the effect of the four-year freeze on the LHA.

Whereas the Government have sought in the Bill to ameliorate the costs of housing benefit for social housing by reducing rent levels, their efforts and those of the coalition Government have taken a different approach in the case of the private rented sector. For the PRS, the Government have progressively reduced the level of support provided by the LHA. This started by moving the LHA rate down from the median rent in any given area to the 30th percentile and was followed by national caps on categories of property, limited uprating, initially to 1% a year, and now a four-year freeze. As well as changes to the LHA which effectively substitute for the rent level in any calculation, there have been changes which affect the calculation of housing support itself: the abolition of the family element, the two-child policy and cuts to work allowances, not to mention, where appropriate, the benefit cap. That is happening at the same time as more people are looking to the PRS for housing and rents are increasing.

The private rented sector is growing out of all proportion to the UK’s housing stock, and is expected to comprise more than one-third of the total stock by 2032. This growth has been stimulated in particular by the deregulation efforts in the Housing Act 1988 and the continuing shortfall under successive Governments of new housing provision. Research by Shelter highlighted that a third of renters are now families with children—those most affected by the volatility and uncertainty of the rental market. Nearly three-quarters of families who rent are in work and would overwhelmingly like to own their own home but believe that they will never be able to afford it.

In a release just last week, Shelter set out recent findings of an online survey which showed that 32% of private renters have had to cut back on either heating or winter clothing to meet housing payments and 56% are struggling or falling behind with their rent. An earlier study by Shelter highlighted that more than half of local authorities in England have a median private rent for a two-bedroom home which costs more than 45% of median take-home pay in the area. Eight per cent of authorities have median rents that are 50% or more of median full-time take-home pay. This is before the 1% freeze begins to operate.

The test the amendment sets down is whether 30% of private rented properties in each locality are affordable to people whose housing support is based on the LHA. It implies that the 30% would be the lowest cost, the 30th percentile, because that was the central test considered appropriate before uprating was decoupled from actual rental levels, a change which has been deepened by the LHA freeze which, as we touched on, is to be visited on social rented housing in 2018.

As I said, the extent to which private sector rents are affordable depends on how the broad rental market area operates in practice, as well as the details of the current social security system, but the starting point is the actual level of the allowance, the rent equivalent. There is no doubt that at times of growing demand, inadequate supply and rising rents, a freezing of the LHA is likely to widen the gap between actual costs and the level of housing support.

Indeed, this is already happening, particularly in London, where London Councils recently published an analysis of the likely effect of the freeze which demonstrates that already less than 30% of private rented properties are affordable at the LHA rate. It suggested that only 5% to 10% of properties in some high-value parts of inner London might be affordable and that this could spread more widely around the capital. For 2015-16, a gap is already opening up between LHA rates and the 30th percentile. Based on government figures, in two-thirds of the broad rental market areas the 30th percentile rents for two-bedroom properties, for example, are already above the April 2015 LHA levels.

Does the Minister accept those figures? Unless rents are to come down, this shortfall will only grow. A clear consequence of this is that more and more people will uproot and move to cheaper areas, with all the consequences of that upheaval for families and their communities, both old and new. For some, the benefit cap will further make properties unaffordable, leading inexorably to homelessness and poverty. We cannot allow this to go on. This is a deepening crisis, which the Government need to address. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, has two amendments in this group. I may respond to them when I wind up. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I am concerned that the Government’s proposal may reduce the supply of housing or cause what housing is available to be of poorer quality. I go back to my earlier concerns about the poorest families. In her response, will the Minister give an assurance that this will not have the effect that I am concerned about, will not make more families homeless and will not lead to poor families living in poorer conditions and less well-maintained homes? I look forward to her response.

--- Later in debate ---

This group of amendments covers two quite separate and important areas of policy. I apologise again for flailing around slightly in the middle of my response, but I hope that, on the basis of the explanations I have provided, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I should not worry too much about getting Box notes confused. I once read out a Box note that said “Don’t go there”. It is tucked away somewhere in Hansard, but I will not tell noble Lords where.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for dealing with his amendments. The proposition he advanced is entirely reasonable—that new supply, which he said was less than 2% of the total, could be freed up from these provisions. It is a pity that the Government could not respond positively to that.

So far as the rest of the response was concerned, I am not sure that the Minister fundamentally dealt with the issue around the private rented sector and the effect of affordability, and that there is a widening gap between what the LHA reduces in terms of support and rent levels. In some respects that is forcing quite significant movements out of the capital, out of initially lower-cost areas into even lower-cost areas, and the consequences of that for people’s lives, lifestyles, their community, schooling for their kids and so many other issues is quite profound. I regret that the Government are not addressing that issue. However, perhaps in fairness to the Minister I ought to read the record, supplemented as appropriate by any correspondence she feels in retrospect it might be helpful to have. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 110 withdrawn.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Monday 21st December 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 72, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would retain the benefit cap at its current levels and have those levels apply across Great Britain. We introduced the benefit cap to increase incentives to work, to promote fairness between those in work and those on benefits and to help address the deficit, and it is clear from the evidence that the cap is working. Since it was introduced in 2013, more than 18,000 previously capped households have moved into work.

The evaluation evidence shows that capped households are 41% more likely to go into work than similar uncapped households. This is even more marked in London alone, where households were 70% more likely to go into work than similar uncapped households.

I am heartened to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that she now supports the existing benefit cap. I happen to remember that that was not necessarily the position on the Opposition Benches in 2012. Indeed, I seem to remember that the counter proposition from them was that we should have a regional cap, so I hope that the Opposition are now delighted that we are beginning to move in the direction suggested. Perhaps in another three years, in 2018, the Opposition—

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

When we debated the regional cap at that time, did the noble Lord support it?

[Lord Freud]

Of course I did not support it; I am on the record as not supporting it. This is not an absolute regional cap—this is a two-tier cap, London and the regions—but, the Opposition may feel that it is better late than never. I look forward, by 2018, in another three years, to the full-hearted support of the Opposition for the current proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Peabody and president of the Local Government Association.

My amendment is very similar to the other two amendments in this group, and I will not repeat what I think was a very compelling argument made by my noble friend Lord Best. What I would like to do this evening is focus on three key reasons why I think that the Government should reconsider their approach to this issue. The first reason is the rising level of homelessness, the second is the quadrupling of the number of people who will be caught by the cap and the third is the inadequacy, as my noble friend Lord Best has said, of the discretionary housing payments fund.

Let me deal with the issue of rising homelessness first. My noble friend Lord Best referred to the recent report by Shelter. This report found that the number of children in temporary accommodation is at a seven-year high. The total number of people in temporary accommodation from the period of July to September 2015 was 68,500. That was a 12.5% increase on the year before. So we are clearly experiencing a significant rise in the levels of homelessness. The effect of this will be that, this Christmas, Shelter estimates that some 103,000 families will be in either bed and breakfasts, hostels or temporary rented accommodation. That will be a very grim Christmas for those families. Of those families, something like one in four are living in a different area from the area that they previously lived in. That means that they are away from their children’s schools and family support. In London, that figure is one in three. This is a very significant issue that is growing in its scale and impact.

The second issue I referred to is the number of people who will be caught by the cap. As has already been said, that number is likely to quadruple, adding an extra 90,000 people. Therefore, there will be two effects on the issue that we are speaking about, and that in turn will impact on the financial consequences for local government. It is important to say that the people involved here do not have any real choices. The circumstances they face—losing their shorthold tenancies or family break-up—will undoubtedly lead them to a position where they need to move and move quickly. Similarly, local authorities will have little choice, given the limited accommodation that they have available to them to put people into temporary accommodation, even though the management costs of that accommodation are higher. So we face the situation where there is likely to be rising homelessness, a quadrupling of the numbers caught by the cap and people, through having no great choices of their own, needing to go into temporary accommodation with higher costs.

In the past, the response has been that the discretionary housing payments fund will cover this. The evidence produced, again by Shelter, suggests that that is unlikely to be the case. We know that, in London, the scale of the costs through the DHP funding is already around £4 million. It has been calculated by Shelter that for one local authority alone, Tower Hamlets, this could add a further £2 million per annum in terms of costs. I do not believe that the discretionary housing payments fund will be the answer to this issue. It will squeeze out the other reasons why local authorities need to use this fund. They will therefore be faced with a choice of either compelling families to move further away so that the cost is lower or, alternatively, dipping into resources that they have for other purposes. We will face an increasing squeeze on those local authorities that they will not be able to cope with.

The Minister may say that DHP funding is rising. Indeed, it is. It will rise from £165 million this year to £185 million in 2017-18. However, it falls to £140 million in 2021. Therefore, this fund goes up, but it goes down again, whereas the pressures that I have spoken about are inexorably rising. A simple way out of this issue is to exempt families in temporary accommodation, as has been proposed. This recognises the reality that there is little choice and that, if we ignore this issue, we will increase the pressure on local authorities to a point where it will damage the finances of those authorities and the prospects of those families.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 86, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock. I also speak in support of Amendment 73 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and Amendment 90A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. As we have heard, regardless of whether the benefit cap has played a role, local authorities remain legally obliged to rehouse families who are demonstrably homeless through no fault of their own, are vulnerable in some way or are in priority need for rehousing.

Families will be placed in temporary accommodation while a council decides whether it owes them a rehousing duty and then until a settled home can be found. For some families, the wait for rehousing can be considerable. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has a 39-week grace period. I understand that that is likely to be sufficient in the overwhelming majority of cases but not in all cases, particularly in London. While in temporary accommodation, councils charge families rent to cover their own costs and expenses, and this is commonly paid for by housing benefit. In some cases, councils have to top up additional costs out of their own funds or, as we have heard, the limited pot of discretionary housing payments.

Temporary accommodation is generally leased by local authorities from the private sector at a premium, placing a considerable burden on them. Councils are already struggling to secure enough temporary accommodation as a result of the combined effect of limited funding and a shortage of self-contained accommodation. This is already leading to an increase in bed-and-breakfast use or people being rehoused away from their local area. The lower benefit cap will increase demand for homelessness services and exacerbate the pressure on the local authority supply of temporary accommodation. With more homeless families affected by the cap, local authorities are likely to be forced into further subsidising the cost of temporary accommodation. This will be difficult for cash-strapped councils, increasing the incentive to place families in the cheapest areas far away from their support networks.

It will also make it harder to permanently rehouse homeless families, as the benefit cap will make alternative housing options unaffordable. For larger families, even social housing will be subject to the cap. The policy therefore risks the perverse scenario in which families are made homeless because of the benefit cap and trapped in the limbo of temporary accommodation by the benefit cap at the expense of the public purse. The amount that can be reimbursed through the local housing allowance is limited to £500 a week, which means that other costs over and above that amount must be met by local authorities. In some cases, this will come from funding for discretionary housing payments, but often the necessary funds will have to come from elsewhere, given that DHP funds are in such short supply in the context of seemingly insatiable demand.

We know that the Government have declined to collect statistics which might help them measure the extent to which any purported savings from capping household benefits are simply being shifted on to local authorities in the form of additional homelessness costs. Our honourable friend Emily Thornberry MP sent freedom of information requests to every local authority in London over the summer and the findings throw doubt on the idea of the cap as a savings measure.

In the first year following the introduction of the cap, London councils spent a combined total of £19.2 million supporting households which had been hit by it. In the second year, this rose to £23.3 million altogether. Some boroughs spend more than 80% of their total DHP allocations on supporting capped households, and in most boroughs the proportion is increasing each year. To date, local authorities in the capital have spent almost £47 million in DHP funding as a direct result of the benefit cap and it is likely that this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the overall costs involved. Reliance on temporary accommodation is a significant driver of these additional costs.

As we have heard, across London more than a quarter of households currently affected by the benefit cap are living in temporary accommodation and in some boroughs it is much higher. In Waltham Forest, apparently a staggering 58% of capped households live in temporary accommodation. This compares with less than 1.5% of the overall population of people claiming housing benefit. The disproportionate presence of families in temporary accommodation among households affected by the cap is a huge issue for local authority spending. It is also a real source of human misery as, increasingly, councils are having to house homeless families in temporary accommodation outside their area, and sometimes many miles away from their support networks and their children’s schools.

Our amendment would exempt newly homeless households from the benefit cap. This would allow councils to continue to procure nearby temporary accommodation and make it easier for them to move households into affordable accommodation. It will also help councils focus their DHPs and their own budgets on homelessness prevention. If the Government are serious about cutting back on public expenditure associated with the benefit system, and in targeting the benefit cap at families in a position to make choices about where they can afford to live, it is hard to see why they should argue against exempting homeless families being housed in temporary accommodation.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, these amendments seek to exempt people in temporary accommodation from the benefit cap. I cannot agree that it is appropriate to have a blanket exemption from the cap for all those living in temporary accommodation, even if it is time limited in the case of Amendment 73. Rather, I believe that the best approach is to provide support so that people may better address their barriers to work. My challenge to the noble Lord, Lord Best, is: if there were to be a 39-week exemption, how would that not have a perverse incentive on people staying in temporary accommodation longer term if it is likely that the cap will apply to them when they move? That is the reason for our approach.

Discretionary housing payments are available from local authorities for those households who need additional support in adjusting to the cap. We have made £800 million available over the next five years for all the welfare reforms. However, in particular areas, one of which is London, this will be a substantial element. In the Autumn Statement, it was announced that further DHP funding will be made available for the most vulnerable people, including those who may be in supported accommodation. In 2016-17 it will go up from the current level to £150 million, and the allocation of those funds reflects the new measures we are bringing in, as does the timing of their introduction.

We have already made provision to support the most vulnerable people who might be affected by the cap. Housing benefit paid to households in specified accommodation is disregarded from the benefit cap and we have included refuges within the definition of “specified accommodation”. The disregard applies to benefit cap cases under both housing benefit and universal credit. While this does not mean that these households are exempt, by not including housing benefit in the calculation we expect that the vast majority of these vulnerable cases will not be affected by the benefit cap.

Finally, from April 2017 the weekly management fee, currently £40 in London and £60 elsewhere, will be abolished and replaced with a grant that devolves this funding to local authorities. Unlike the existing management fee, the new grant will not count towards the benefit cap and will help local authorities tackle homelessness more effectively. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Monday 21st December 2015 Lords Chamber

I do not expect a full response tonight, but I do not expect this matter to go away, either. Millions of pounds are involved, stuck away in charities, apparently doing nothing, and people are being paid fortunes as chief executives of charities that are directly funded by the department, so there cannot be any excuse for the charities concerned. I know it will be said that this is up to the trustees, but the trustees have been there since day one. The confusion between governance and management is such that we will never have any change. Therefore, it was quite right of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, to bring this issue to the attention of the Committee.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment requires certain financial and governance arrangements to be put in place in respect of the providers of motor vehicles under Motability arrangements. As we have heard, it is attached to Clause 20, which contains a provision enabling the Secretary of State to recover the costs of administering the scheme under which mobility components of DLA and PIP are made available, on the claimants’ request, to Motability. I understand that the annual charges will be under £1 million per annum and that Motability will absorb this so that it will not be passed on to lessees, but perhaps the Minister will confirm that.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and my noble friend Lord Rooker have raised concerns before over the governance issues and in particular the level of remuneration of the chief executive of the operating company. We should acknowledge that Motability has been a major force in helping disabled people to have access to suitable vehicles. Since its creation in 1977, it has supplied more than 3.5 million vehicles and currently has some 637,000 customers—a 1.8% increase on the year.

Noble Lords will be aware—my noble friend spelled this out—that there are basically two separate entities: Motability, which is a registered charity incorporated under royal charter; and Motability Operations Ltd, an entity regulated by the FCA and owned by four major banks. The latter is contracted to carry out the acquisition and leasing operations on behalf of the charity. Each of them publishes extensive annual accounts, the former in accordance with the Charities Act 2011. The latter is financed by a combination of bonds in the capital markets and bank borrowing. Obviously, the main source of income for the scheme comes from individuals who choose to spend either their higher rate mobility component of DLA or the enhanced mobility component rate of PIP.

It will be recalled that the introduction of PIP as a replacement for DLA was discussed extensively during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, with the prospect of the revised mobility thresholds meaning that some disabled people would drop out of entitlement. Can the Minster please update us on the progress of this, which is due to be completed in 2018? How many DLA recipients have been reassessed and how many have fallen out of eligibility for Motability? One-off transitional support has been introduced for those who would lose the use of their vehicle, and perhaps we can know how many have availed themselves of this. This level of support was said to be subject to review during 2015. Has this happened and what changes are proposed? Was there any consultation with the DWP involved?

It would seem that the operating group is funding the cost of this transitional support via the charity. Does this mean that the costs are ultimately being borne by the vehicle lessees—that is, the very disabled people the scheme was meant to support?

The DWP also provides funding to the charity for the Specialised Vehicles Fund, which enables disabled people to lease a drive-from-wheelchair vehicle. Is it the case that, faced with funding being frozen on an annual basis, Motability has restricted access to the fund and apparently did this without consultation? Can the Minister say whether this restriction was discussed with the department at all and whether it agrees with the approach adopted?

As my noble friend made clear, public funding is involved in these arrangements in various ways: the application of Motability components of DLA and PIP; funding for the Specialised Vehicles Fund; and taxation benefits by way of zero VAT on the lease of vehicles and their sale at the end of the lease period. On this basis, notwithstanding the published report and financial statements, noble Lords are justified in testing matters of value for money, transparency and probity, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, that was a thoroughly enjoyable debate for this time of the evening. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is directed at Motability, which provides vehicles at discounted rates to people whose disability or long-term health condition has a significant effect on their mobility. It is run on a day-to-day basis by Motability Operations, a limited company, and is overseen by the Motability charity.

On the specific questions about Clause 20 that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I can say that the Government divert benefit payments directly to Motability but the administrative costs of the diversion have been borne by the Government, who do not have the power to recoup them. Clause 20 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to do so. Such a power would currently apply only to Motability but it is drafted broadly to enable the provision to apply to any organisation running a future scheme.

I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that the cost is small—less than £1 million, I think—and Motability has confirmed that it will not change its pricing or the level of service it provides. Therefore, it will have no impact on its members.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asked about information on directors’ remuneration and relevant interests. That is available in the annual and interim accounts of Motability Operations, in compliance with international financial reporting standards. These can be found on its website, which is where I found them on the occasion referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Indeed, it publishes information on its board meetings in the same place.

The department meets regularly with Motability to discuss the scheme’s performance. I know that this does not overly impress the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but as a charity, Motability is accountable to the Charity Commission. It is therefore unnecessary to require Motability to submit the annual report that is the formal subject of the amendment, because the information is there.

I will run through some of the rather surprising number of other issues. On overhead costs, Ernst & Young found that Motability was driving down its overhead costs, while satisfaction was rising. On the monopoly question, we have regular meetings and consider the value for money that Motability provides. The banks own Motability shares but they have waived all dividends and received no profit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

There is a key issue about charities having to attract the best people when they are very substantial operations, which Motability is. I know, because I was involved for a period in a foundation in the charitable area, that to attract the kind of people who are commercially competent puts you into that bracket. I have said enough.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

One can understand the argument that the Minister has advanced in respect of the operations entity, but it seems much more difficult to justify the position he has taken in respect of the charity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I should have made clear before that that is not departmental money; it is users’ money that we transfer. That is the reason that the salaries are set by Motability and not by government. Government does get itself into quite a lot of problems because there are areas of commercial endeavour where salaries, bluntly, are much higher than the Prime Minister’s salary. There is a different set of rates in the outside world. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is not going to let this one go and I will watch him—from a distance—to see how far he gets on this.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked where we are. It is too early to tell the full picture. This started on a control basis only in July 2015, so I do not have a reliable figure for him. I remind noble Lords that customers who return their vehicle in good condition will get the benefit of up to £2,000-worth of support from Motability, which will in practice allow many to continue to be mobile through purchasing a used car.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Would the Minister just mind dealing with two residual points? One is about the transitional protection—how that is funded and whether it is dealt with by the charity from contributions to the operating company or otherwise. The second is that the specialised vehicle fund has been frozen for a couple of years, which has obviously had an impact in terms of the opportunity to take advantage of that in an inflationary situation. Were the Government consulted on the changed criteria that were put in place for that?

[Lord Freud]

I will have to write on that latter point. The funding for the £2,000 comes from Motability itself—the charity—as I understand it, based out of the reserves it has built up. It needs very substantial reserves because the risk in a leasing business is in the residuals, which can be very volatile, even though you are the biggest. You need very substantial reserves, but it took a view that it had some excess which it was prepared to spend in this way. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment of my noble friends. On a visit to a Centrepoint hostel in Soho several years ago, I spoke with a very young girl—16 or 17 perhaps—and asked her why she was there. She said that her mother had a new boyfriend who did not want her around. The OECD said in its report on family formation that this country will overtake the United States in the 2030s in terms of the numbers of young people growing up without a father in the home. We have to think about the changes in families and about the Children’s Commissioner’s report on the sexual exploitation of children. Most sexual exploitation takes place within the family, from people within the family who the children know. Some 90% of lone parents are going to be women, and if different men are regularly coming into the household, this issue of girls in such households having worries about sexual exploitation or being sexually exploited also has to be considered. I commend the amendment to the Minister.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, as your Lordships have heard, we have added out name to Amendment 60 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and I cannot think why we did not do likewise for Amendment 62C, which we support and which also has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.

The proposition to remove access to the housing element of universal credit for 18 to 21 year-olds from April 2017 has been some time in the making. Its progression—or, more likely, regression—can be tracked from a series of references by the Prime Minister at his party conference. Its original focus was to remove housing benefit for people aged 16 to 24, but this has now been narrowed, as we have heard, to 18 to 21 year-olds for universal credit. There are of course already lower levels of housing benefit allowances for single people under 25 and couples under 18, as well as restrictions under the shared accommodation rate. Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister’s desire to have an extended denial of housing benefit or universal credit for 16 to 25 year-olds is now off the agenda? The rationale for the policy has a familiar refrain:

“This will ensure young people in the benefits system face the same choices as young people who work and who may not be able to afford to leave home”.

That is a simplistic view of the choices facing many young people and in any event ignores the fact that housing benefit can be claimed by those in work.

This policy is being introduced at the same time as the new youth obligation for 18 to 21 year-olds on universal credit—the so-called boot camp. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, points out, we are promised that there will be exemptions, and the amendment is probing what might be available. The policy starts from April 2017 for 18 to 21 year-olds who are out of work. Can the Minister confirm specifically that there will be protection for vulnerable claimants, as spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and that they will definitely include those with recent experience of work, young people living in homeless hostels or domestic violence refugees, care leavers, those with dependent children, those receiving ESA, or its equivalent, or income support and those who cannot live at home?

Like the noble Lord, Lord Low, we are grateful for the briefing provided by Crisis and its insights into the consequences of these proposals should they not be ameliorated—in particular, the consequences for those who are homeless or who have experienced or are at risk of homelessness. Its briefing reminds us that if the protections and exemptions are not sufficient, any savings from this measure will be wiped out by costs elsewhere, mostly from increased homelessness.

The policy has generated a range of criticism, as we have heard. The Chartered Institute of Housing says that it could mean young people being less willing to take risks in moving for work because of the removal of a safety net. Centrepoint says that claiming housing benefit is for many a short-term solution to a situation they find themselves in, providing them with a safety net from which they can get their lives back on track. Shelter opposes the measure because it asserts that,

“every young adult deserves somewhere safe and decent to live”—

and who could disagree with that?

House of Commons briefing paper number No. 06473 of 26 August 2015 refers to the Uncertain Futures paper published by YMCA England. This points out that, of the estimated 3.2 million 18 to 21 year-olds, just over 19,000 young people are currently claiming jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit, and that 71% of the 18 to 21 year olds who access JSA do so for less than six months. It also points out that 7,200 young care leavers between 19 and 21 years-old in England are currently out of work and would potentially be able to claim JSA and housing benefit and that nearly 1,400 18 to 21 year-olds are currently living in YMCA supported accommodation and claim JSA and housing benefit. It points out, on lifestyle choice and the assertion that people just want to live on the dole, that most young people are entitled to £57.90 a week in JSA—frankly, what we would blow on a meal at the weekend.

YMCA England concludes:

“By removing automatic entitlement to Housing Benefit for 18 to 21 year olds the Government could be in danger of inadvertently taking away support from the young people who need it most and in doing so, exposing many more vulnerable young people to the risk of becoming homeless and therefore damaging their prospects of finding work in the future. Action is needed to address youth unemployment, but without protections thousands of vulnerable young people will face uncertain futures, not knowing if they will have anywhere they can call home and leaving them less able to find work”.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the Government’s policy proposal is to remove automatic entitlement to the housing cost elements of universal credit for certain young people aged 18 to 21. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that that is the Government’s policy. It will apply only to relevant 18 to 21 year-old claimants who make new claims in the areas where UC digital has rolled out. This will ensure young people in the benefits system face the same choices as young people who work and who may not be able to afford to leave the family home.

I start with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. It is not fair that taxpayers should have to pay for young people who are not working to be able to live independently when young people in work or education may not be able to afford to do so. Having said that, the Government recognise that vulnerable people need to be protected. Work is currently being undertaken with a wide range of stakeholder groups to understand who these vulnerable young people may be. I can reassure the noble Baroness that the policy will not stop people looking for work in other areas of the country in the same way that young people not reliant on benefits can look for opportunities away from where they live.

We need to complete the consultation work in order to ensure that a robust policy is put in place. I acknowledge the remarks of a wide range of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord McKenzie, but we are doing this work. It is too soon to make decisions on the specific exemptions that will be applied, but we will bring forward detailed proposals once the work is completed—although, to anticipate the question, that will not be in time for Report. Indeed, to jog back to the previous amendment, I do not anticipate that the work on the work allowances that we discussed in UC would be done in time for Report. As I mentioned previously, the change will apply only to new universal credit claims from April 2017.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Suri (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to support Amendment 67, which is crucial. At present, the disability employment gap means that disabled people are over 20% less likely than their counterparts to be in full-time employment. Employment has many benefits other than the obvious one of economic advantage. The recognition of your employment acts as an important societal signal, improving your reputation among your peers. Furthermore, in what the Prime Minister has termed the “global race”, the cost to the country of having unutilised human capital is immense. Quite simply, high levels of unemployment for the disabled are not something we can afford.

The new clause which Amendment 67 would introduce would nudge the Secretary of State into dealing properly with this issue, and laying out a clear strategy to close the disability employment gap. The current Secretary of State has made significant strides towards helping the disabled into work. It would also allow Members of Parliament and Peers to scrutinise the work done in this field separate from any other scrutiny of employment statistics which goes on. Some might argue that this is not required or that it is impracticable to have a separate report for disabled people but, as the amendment says, these people are,

“marginalised from the labour force and require a specific focus”.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, before I get to Amendment 62, I will comment on the range of amendments which other noble Lords have spoken to. Each of these has the aspiration of getting appropriate reporting requirements from the Government, particularly to address the challenge of closing the disability employment gap. We heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans about the importance of reporting, particularly in the context of something such as the ESA WRAG. If that is going to challenge closing the employment gap then reporting is needed to make sure it is better addressed. He said that we have ignored for too long the aspiration of disabled people to work.