Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2023

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I move this Motion on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who cannot be here today because she tested positive for Covid last night. She sends her apologies to the House, and I am sure we all wish her a speedy recovery. I draw the House’s attention to the wording of the Motion. Special attention is drawn to the instrument in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 27th report.

No one in our society should be without a home but, due to successive freezes in local housing allowance, more and more people are being pushed into homelessness. This evening I will challenge the Government to reconsider urgently the decision to impose further real-terms cuts on local housing allowance this year. Last week the chief executive of Crisis described this decision as

“nothing short of crushing for people who rely on this vital lifeline”.

More than 1.87 million private renters on low incomes rely on local housing allowance to help pay their rent —this is more than one in three private renters.

It was right for the Prime Minister to act to protect these households during the pandemic, when as Chancellor he invested in the local housing allowance so that it would cover the cheapest 30% of rents in a local area. That meant that people were able to sustain tenancies during a period of hardship, and it also helped people who had been trapped in homelessness into tenancies. It is worrying that this progress has not been sustained. Despite inflation and rising rents, local housing allowance remains at the same cash level as three years ago, based on rent levels from four years ago. As the report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlights, the Explanatory Memorandum did not “explain the policy objective” of the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2023 or explain what its effects would be on the recipients of local housing allowance.

However, the Government’s own figures show how severe the consequences are. Landlord repossessions increased by 98% at the end of last year. For every household facing eviction or rent rises it cannot afford, moving house is incredibly difficult to afford; for some, it is impossible. Advertised rents have risen at record rates since 2020, with Zoopla estimating an increase of 12.1% in the last year alone. Some areas have seen particularly high increases: rents are up 15.6% in Manchester, 14.1% in Glasgow and 17% in London.

In recent weeks, DWP Ministers have said that local housing allowance is not intended to cover all rents in all areas—nobody is calling for that, but surely the Government agree that it should cover some rents in all areas. Dataset after dataset shows that, in significant parts of this country, a household would simply not be able to find any properties to rent at local housing allowance levels. In July last year, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that only seven properties were advertised at local housing allowance levels across Wales. More recently, in February, the Bevan Foundation found that 16 local authorities in Wales did not have a single property advertised that was affordable on local housing allowance. Last autumn, Crisis and Zoopla found that only 8% of properties advertised across England over the previous 12 months were affordable on local housing allowance. In Watford, only 4% were affordable on local housing allowance. Overall, nearly a quarter of local authorities had fewer than 20 properties available at local housing allowance rates, and more than 100 local authorities had 3% of properties or fewer affordable on local housing allowance. For context, 38% of private renting households rely on local housing allowance to help pay their rent.

With an acute shortage of social housing, we need far more housing for social rent. As Members in this Chamber today have constantly pointed out over recent years, our building rate of social housing for rent has simply been far too slow. With that acute shortage of social housing, many people on low incomes have no alternative to renting in the private sector. As that becomes unaffordable, homelessness is rising. Having made progress in ending rough sleeping during the pandemic, the Government have now overseen a 26% rise in rough sleeping in England in the last year.

Investing in local housing allowance prevents people experiencing homelessness and makes it easier for people to move out of homelessness. As well as being one of the most effective ways to prevent homelessness, uprating local housing allowance would lead to savings across public services. Almost 100,000 households are stuck in temporary accommodation in England, including more than 125,000 children. Temporary accommodation costs local authorities nearly £1.6 billion a year. Staying in temporary accommodation, including unsuitable hotels and B&Bs, also has a damaging impact on people’s lives, making it harder for people to work, get their kids to school and stay healthy.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has been clear that the choice to freeze local housing allowance is resulting in wide geographic disparities, whereby low-income renters in some areas can get the cheapest rents almost covered, whereas those in other areas must find an extra £150 a month to top up their rent, or face homelessness. Last month, Sam Ray-Chaudhuri of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said of investing to uprate local housing allowance:

“This isn’t an expensive policy”.


In a debate that can be overly focused on averages and aggregate costs, I will conclude with the experience of what it feels like for people on the brink of homelessness. One person—who it is not possible to name, but it is on the public record—has described how the rising cost of living was affecting him. He said,

“I wasn’t even earning enough money to be able to pay for the rent that I had currently for two years been paying, which was £870 a month, plus all of the other bills. And then of course when [the landlord] came back to me he said, ‘I put it up to £1200 because that is the going rate,’ and I just thought I have no hope … of being able to find that extra money, because it was hand to mouth pretty much all the time … to be able to find another £400 a month was just absolutely impossible. So, I had to tell the estate agent that I wasn’t going to be taking the lease on again and I was going to have to find other accommodation.”

There are plenty of people like that, and the other accommodation that they would like is just not there. Hostels, sofas and rough sleeping are what remains for far too many people, and the instrument we are debating does not offer them a route out. Unless the Government change their approach, thousands more people will be forced into homelessness over the coming months. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for tabling the regret Motion and to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for moving it. I hope that the noble Baroness will be better soon.

The regret Motion follows a highly critical report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The importance of the issues it raises was reflected in the unusually large number of very helpful briefings I received when I tabled an Oral Question on the issue recently and the “huge amount of evidence” on the impact of the freeze received by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee recent inquiry into the private rented sector. As the Commons Library briefing on the LHA notes:

“Numerous bodies, including homeless charities, the representative bodies of local authorities and private landlords, are making the case for LHA rates to be uprated to cover at least the 30th percentile of local rents, alongside relinking rates to the real cost of renting for future years.”


According to the IFS, the freeze means that just 8% of low-income private renters now have all their rent covered by housing benefits, compared with almost half in the mid-1990s. For nearly a third of them, the amount of rent not covered eats up at least a third of non-housing benefits income, a situation faced by just 14% of the group in the mid-1990s.

This is one reason why analysis from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation indicates that the cost of housing for private tenants is a key driver of poverty today, most starkly for families with children. The more that private tenants are having to use their non-housing universal credit to meet their rents, the less that next month’s 10.1% increase in universal credit and other benefits—which no doubt the Minister will pray in aid —will help them to meet other basic costs, such as food.

A recent report by the JRF and the Trussell Trust shows how universal credit is too low in any case to meet the most basic of needs. A piece in my local paper, the Nottingham Post, just last week cited the growing gap between the LHA and increasing rents as an important factor in the worrying increase in arrears and everyday living debts seen by the local Citizens Advice.

In his helpful letter following the uprating debate, the Minister said that DWP is working closely with DLUHC to monitor rental shortfalls. Could he tell us what their assessment is of the average shortfall and of the numbers affected? Following my Oral Question, he promised to write to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with a reply to his question as to what proportion of those receiving the LHA are unemployed and therefore more reliant on this money to pay their rent. Could he share that information—in a letter, if necessary—with the rest of us and include other private tenants without earnings?

The other reason that this is so important is that the inability to meet the full rent can tip people into homelessness, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, and as the homelessness charities have warned. So far, the Minister has carefully avoided answering questions as to the likely impact on homelessness of freezing the LHA yet again. I cannot believe that the Government have not done some kind of assessment of the likely impact, so I would be grateful if he could share it with us.

Hitherto, whenever this issue has been raised in either House, the ministerial response has been woefully inadequate. There seems to be three stock justifications, none of which is convincing. The first is simply the cost, which, it is suggested, cannot be borne in addition to the general benefit uprating. I have already indicated why this is short-sighted from the perspective of individuals suffering the consequences, but as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has highlighted, it is also short-sighted from a public-spending perspective, because of the knock-on effects on public services through homelessness, short-term accommodation and both physical and mental health. Have the Government made an estimate of those knock-on costs? From last week’s Westminster Hall debate, it would appear not, which betrays a very narrow approach to assessing the cost of policies to the public purse.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Committee stage
Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling this amendment because it gives us the opportunity to pinpoint the tension at the heart of the levelling-up agenda. As the impact assessment reminds us, the problem it claims to address concerns unequal shares and opportunities, and levelling up

“is a mission to challenge, and change, that unfairness.”

It means

“giving everyone the opportunity to flourish”

and to have

“longer and more fulfilling lives”,

together with

“sustained rises in living standards and well-being”

for people everywhere. In fact, this is a statement about people, not places, as reflected in some of the missions. Yet the impact assessment states that achieving the aims of levelling up

“requires us to end the geographical inequality which is such a striking feature of the UK.”

The Minister’s levelling-up letter explains that the missions are necessarily spatial—but why are they purely spatial and geographical when inequalities of income and wealth between individuals are also striking features of the UK? A report published by the Social Market Foundation, called Beyond Levelling Up and written by a former senior adviser to recent Conservative Chancellors, argues that this approach to levelling up

“avoids the question of whether we think the gap between rich and poor is acceptable, and whether we are comfortable with the current levels of income and wealth accruing to the richest in society.”

I will leave those in poverty until a later amendment. To make matters worse, ONS data shows that inequality has worsened since he wrote the report, and it is worse still if we use alternative measures on inequality.

I ask the Minister if she thinks the gap between rich and poor is acceptable. How does she think that the levelling-up agenda’s ambitions can be achieved without addressing that gap between rich and poor?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I declare, for Committee stage as a whole, that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a vice-president of the National Energy Action advisory board.

I thank my noble friend Lady Pinnock for raising this issue; it is very important that we have a shared understanding of what we mean by levelling up. For me, I think it is the second option she gave, which is narrowing the gap. If we were to compare ourselves with Germany, we would find that there is a constitutional requirement in Germany for the 16 Länder to support each other, and the outcomes are assessed in terms of how well off the Länder are and using the many criteria we will be debating later today—there are so many criteria you can use. However, it is important that we understand the Government’s precise objectives with the Bill.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2022

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for tabling this regret Motion, and it is very well-timed given that today was the Spring Statement.

The Chancellor promised that he would stand by people in the face of the cost-of-living crisis, but it seems that this promise does not extend to parents struggling on social security benefits. Instead, I fear it is an attitude of “Let them stand on their own two feet”, and wait a year for “smoothing”, as benefits catch up with inflation—a year when some parents could go under with the strain. For all the talk of “security” in the Chancellor’s speech, there is nothing to address the insecurity experienced by social security recipients. Additional assistance to local authorities for discretionary help is no compensation for the security provided by weekly benefits that meet people’s needs. As the Women’s Budget Group points out in its very quickly produced Spring Statement analysis,

“The Chancellor has left women in the lurch”,


and raising social security would have done much more for those on low incomes than raising the national insurance threshold.

Since we debated the uprating order in Grand Committee two weeks ago—it feels like a lifetime, but it was two weeks ago—three research reports have been published that reinforce the arguments I put then for an additional uprating to match the inflation rate. I am not going to go over everything I said then, but the Trussell Trust pointed to a

“crisis of our social security system, which is failing to support people to keep their heads above water.”

A recent Carers UK survey found that, among carers in receipt of carers allowance or the UC carer element, nine out of 10 are already stressed and anxious about their finances, and generally carers’ financial situation has worsened considerably over the six months since it last did the survey. The findings of a new Covid Realities report published this week was summed up in the conclusion that

“‘There is nothing left to cut back’ - people have reached the limits of their budgeting practices and resourcefulness.”

with implications for their physical and mental health. The report commented on the

“disbelief at the perceived lack of understanding among policy-makers of the scale and severity of the difficulties people were facing.”

I am afraid we have seen all too many examples of this in the last few weeks. When, in an OQ last week, I asked the Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, what are parents on benefit, who have already cut back to the bone, supposed to do if benefits are uprated at a fraction of the inflation rate, in response she intoned what the Government are spending in total on benefits but did not answer the question. Following the very disappointing Spring Statement, I ask again: when there is nothing left to cut back, what are parents struggling on an inadequate benefit supposed to do over the coming year? How are they supposed to get by?

I believe that this Minister does understand, to some degree, the difficulties faced, and she cares. Unfortunately, she can do no more, it appears, than take messages back to the department and the Treasury. But she can at least today answer the question. Indeed, I ask her to tell us: what would she do if she had to get by on inadequate benefits that are being eaten away by inflation?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his regret Motion, which I agree with.

It is estimated that one in five pensioners in the UK is living in poverty, that 1.3 million retirees are undernourished and that 25,000 pensioners die each year due to cold weather. As we know, the cost of energy has doubled, and older people are more susceptible to the cold, particularly if they are housebound or suffering from a disabling illness.

The Government failed to accept that inflation was going to rise at an alarming rate when benefits and the state pension were uprated for this April. They insisted on basing the uprating on September’s inflation figure of 3.1%, as usual. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, quotes the Bank of England’s prediction of 7.25%, but that is now being fast overtaken by events, and a figure of nearer 10% is now forecast during the year. It is unthinkable that poor pensioners, at the end of their lives, should have to experience such a sudden change in circumstances. Up to now, they have been protected by the triple lock but, because of what was seen as a one-off adjustment in incomes as a result of a recovery from the pandemic, the Government abandoned the triple lock. Had it still been in place, a rise of 8% would have equalled the predicted rate of inflation in April, when the uprating comes into effect.

Age UK has estimated that soaring energy prices will plunge 150,000 older households into fuel poverty this winter. It has said that the number of fuel poor older households could reach more than 1.1 million by the spring, unless the Government take urgent action.

We have one of the least generous state pensions of any country in Europe, and it is still below its 1979 value. The triple lock was introduced in 2010 in the light of a hugely devalued state pension. Some recovery has taken place since then, but the state pension still does not provide enough support to keep 2.1 million pensioners out of poverty.

For women pensioners, the situation continues to get worse, with one in five now in poverty. Analysis of government figures shows that, in 2012-13, 14% of female pensioners across the UK were living in relative poverty—that is, they were living in households with less than 60% of median average household income, after housing costs. By 2019-20, this had increased to about 20%. That increase comes despite increases in women’s state pension age, meaning that the number of female pensioners in the UK has fallen by about 800,000 since 2012-13.

On these Benches, we think it is essential to protect the poorest pensioners who depend on the state pension and that it is crucial to bring the value of the state pension to a realistic level in relation to earnings and living costs. It is vital to make sure that those already in poverty and dependent on benefits do not become poorer than they already are. As has been said, it is not enough to claim that an upward adjustment will be made next year, because the problem exists now.

Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 5, I will speak also to Amendments 7 and 8, in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Their support underlines the fact that this is a genuinely cross-party amendment made possible by the willingness of the Minister to take on board the one substantive concern that we and the Liberal Democrat Benches have about the Bill: namely, that it did not afford protection to survivors of domestic violence who remain in their home and who are granted a new tenancy in place of an existing joint tenancy. It was extremely helpful that the Bill team was willing to engage with the lawyers advising me—Andrew Arden QC and Justin Bates; I am very grateful for their assistance—in reaching a form of wording for the amendment that was mutually satisfactory.

For the record, I want to note that the amendment I tabled in Committee was not technically deficient in the way that the Minister described. However, it did, as he pointed out, maintain an unintended link to removing the risk of further abuse. Happily, in doing so, it led me to question why that link was there at all because, as noted in relation to Amendment 4, there are problems with it. Women’s Aid then advised me that the inclusion of a reference to such a risk relies on housing officers being trained to recognise the potential ongoing risk a perpetrator may pose, which, as I said, can cause problems. I will return to the question of training in a moment, and I am grateful to the Minister for updating us on his thinking on it.

At this point, I too pay tribute to Women’s Aid, not just for the support it has provided on this Bill but for the vital work it does helping survivors of domestic abuse. It was good to hear the tribute from the Minister, and I am sure that Women’s Aid will very much appreciate it.

I will repeat briefly the case for the amendment. We tend to talk about women fleeing domestic violence, because that is the most common scenario: the woman escapes a harmful and dangerous situation and tries to find a place of safety, often in a refuge and often in another local authority area. But there are cases where the perpetrator is removed by the local authority or the police. Indeed, it would appear to be government policy to encourage this where it is safe for the woman to remain in the home and she does not want to leave it. This is partly to avoid the upheaval involved in moving home, for the women themselves and for their children, and, even under the old legislation, partly a desire not to lose the security of an existing secure tenancy. But the policy to encourage the removal of the perpetrator where safe to do so is also motivated by a desire to prevent him—we have noted at an early stage that it is usually “him”—from benefiting from the abuse by driving his partner from the home, as spelled out in the recent consultation document, Improving Access to Social Housing for Victims of Domestic Abuse.

I suspect it is a situation that might become more common, although we are talking very much about a small minority now. But even if it is a small minority, minorities matter. Where it is the perpetrator who leaves the home and there is a joint tenancy, I am advised that it is usual practice for a new sole tenancy to be granted in the name of the survivor. This amendment is crucial to protecting the rights of a survivor granted a sole tenancy in such circumstances, in line with the rights it affords to those who flee the home.

A theme running through our debate hitherto has been that in order to ensure that this very welcome legislation is effective, there needs to be adequate guidance to housing authorities and training for the officers who will be implementing it, as the Minister acknowledged earlier. At the outset he seemed to indicate that this was unnecessary because guidance and training already exist but, as is his wont, he listened and has taken on board the fact that there is considerable room for improvement in both, given the gap that exists between the theory of what is supposed to happen in local authorities and the practice of what actually happens when it comes to meeting the housing needs of domestic abuse survivors in a consistent and effective way. As a consequence, housing authorities’ responses can present barriers to survivors’ access to safety.

I was heartened when the Minister at an earlier stage said he would be taking a close personal interest in the development of the code and would consider the various submissions made by Women’s Aid and others. Officials have now had a constructive meeting with Women’s Aid to discuss this and its helpful note on training needs. Women’s Aid has emphasised to me the importance of consistency, and that requires good guidance and high-quality, comprehensive specialist training. A few examples of good practice, such as those highlighted by the Minister in Committee—welcome as they are—are not enough. Specialist training, it argues, needs to cover, among other things, the nature and impact of domestic abuse and coercive control; the links between domestic abuse and homelessness; identification of those subjected to it; recognition of the insidious effects of victim-blaming beliefs and attitudes; effective and safe practice, including risk assessment, multi-agency working and the importance of treating survivors with dignity and respect, which are crucial to a human rights culture.

On attitudes and appropriate treatment, I have learned from colleagues working in the area of poverty that the involvement of service users in training can be beneficial. A project involving people with experience of poverty in the training of social workers helped social workers understand much better what poverty means and how it can affect the people with whom they work and their behaviour. I was heartened by what the Home Secretary said in her recent Times article on the proposed domestic abuse strategy consultation. She said that,

“survivors and their children are at the heart of this consultation”,

and that,

“we will keep listening to experts and survivors”.

It is good to know that not all Ministers believe we have heard enough from experts.

However, my point is that survivors bring their own expertise to the table—expertise by experience. That expertise is invaluable both to the Government in developing their strategy—I hope that when they are developing their strategy, survivors of domestic abuse will be involved in the consultation—and to those being trained to assess the housing needs of survivors.

In Committee I raised the question of how the Government may monitor the effectiveness of this and other legislation in relation to the housing needs of domestic abuse survivors as part of the wider domestic abuse strategy. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that now.

Finally, I remind noble Lords that at Second Reading colleagues from around the House expressed concern about plans to change the funding base of refuges. In response to the opposition expressed by NGOs to the proposal for devolution of funding to local authorities—ring-fenced but, along with all short-term supported housing services, we do not know how long for—the Government have committed to considering all options. This is welcome, although it is disappointing that there was no mention of this in the Home Secretary’s Times article, which referred to the proposal in terms all too reminiscent of those used to justify the devolution of funds from the national social fund to the new local welfare assistance schemes, many of which are now being closed or drastically cut back. I do not expect the Minister to say anything about this at this stage but I hope he will take the message back to his colleagues both in his Ministry and the Home Office.

I have said more than enough, given the broad agreement on this amendment and the need to back it up with adequate guidance and training. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. They have done a great deal to secure what seems to be an agreed and agreeable outcome. The process in this Bill so far has been a good example of the House working at its best. I also want to pay tribute to Women’s Aid, in part because of the quality of its briefings and in particular for reminding us of the funding issues which still remain. I hope very much that the Minister will bear in mind the points that have been made by Women’s Aid.

I want to add only one or two points. In Committee I said that training is very important for this to work, and I was glad to hear the Minister refer to it in his opening remarks. To be effective, staff really will have to understand in great detail the processes that they should be following. I cite in particular the example of where a victim moves between local authorities with possibly a significant distance between the two. We need effective systems and networks in place for that to function properly. I have two suggestions to make as to how it might be done.

The first is one that I think I mentioned in our last debate. The training should be sub-regional; in other words, it is very important that the people in different local authorities who deal with these matters should know each other so that they know who to contact if there is an issue, and they should be trained together. Secondly, because the training is sub-regional, it would help if there were named contacts in every local authority who would be seen as the point of expertise not only within the authority concerned but also more generally. They are the people who should be contacted and they would maintain the files, particularly on difficult cases such as those requiring confirmatory evidence and so on.

With those two suggestions, I should like to thank the Minister very much indeed for getting us to this point. It is a positive outcome to our discussions over recent weeks.

Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 1 and speak to Amendment 3, in my name and those of a number of other noble Lords.

The purpose of the two amendments combined is to ensure that the welcome protection this Bill provides to survivors of domestic abuse who give up a secure tenancy covers those who remain in their home and who are granted a new sole tenancy in place of an existing joint tenancy. I am not a lawyer or a housing expert, but I am fortunate in that my good friend Andrew Arden QC is both, and I am grateful to him and his colleague Justin Bates for their help with this amendment.

The amendment addresses a lacuna in the Bill identified by a number of noble Lords at Second Reading. The Minister responded positively with the undertaking to meet to see whether we could find a way forward. True to his word, we met the next day. However, unlike the Minister, the wheels of government move rather slowly and so, while I am confident that we will find a way forward, in the meantime it falls to me to suggest what that way forward might look like.

Before I restate the case, I will say a word again about terminology. First, as some of us noted at Second Reading, while it is true that men as well as women can suffer domestic abuse, women are the main victims, especially of the most serious and sustained forms of abuse; it is thus women who are most likely to have to give up a tenancy because of it. Women’s Aid reminds us of the importance of retaining a gendered understanding of domestic abuse in its various forms. I would like to thank Women’s Aid for all its support on the Bill and pay tribute to its work on behalf of victims of domestic abuse.

Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly observed at Second Reading, the language of victims gives a false impression of,

“passivity in the face of ill treatment”.—[Official Report, 9/1/18; col.139.]

Yes, we are talking about victims of domestic abuse, but these victims are also survivors with agency.

We tend to talk about women fleeing domestic abuse because that is the most common scenario, as a woman escapes a harmful and dangerous situation and tries to find a place of safety, often in a refuge and often in another local authority area—the subject of the next amendments. But there are cases where the perpetrator is removed by the local authority or the police. Indeed, I heard of just such a case last week where the police had removed the perpetrator. Interestingly, it would appear to be government policy to encourage this where it is safe for the woman to remain in the home and she does not want to leave it. This is partly to avoid the upheaval involved in moving home, and—even under the old legislation—a desire not to lose the security of an existing secure tenancy.

Women’s Aid quotes a key worker from Solace Women’s Aid who told researchers that many of the women with whom she worked were reluctant to leave a secure tenancy and that some would take massive risks rather than give it up. Where children are involved, we should not underestimate the impact of frequent moves on them, their schooling, their friendships and their general sense of security and belonging. The policy to encourage removal of the perpetrator, where safe to do so, is also motivated by a desire to prevent him from benefiting from the abuse by driving his partner from the home, as spelled out in the recent consultation document, Improving Access to Social Housing for Victims of Domestic Abuse. This concern was raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours at Second Reading, when he talked about possible “unintended consequences” where a perpetrator might remain in the home. I suspect it is a situation that might become more common, even if we are talking at present about a very small minority—and even if it is a small minority, minorities matter.

Where it is the perpetrator who leaves the home and there is a joint tenancy, I am advised that it is usual practice for a new sole tenancy to be granted in the name of the survivor. As I pointed out at Second Reading, this make sense, because otherwise the perpetrator could give notice to quit and terminate the joint tenancy at some future date, thereby depriving his victim of both her rights and any real sense of security. And what if she dies? This would enable the perpetrator to move back in and continue as an old-style secure tenant, which would make a mockery of this law.

It was clear at Second Reading that this would be a totally uncontroversial amendment, which would have the support of all parts of your Lordships’ House. I hope, therefore, that the Minister—who has throughout been most supportive on the issue—will be able to give the House an assurance that he will be able to bring forward his own amendment on Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I reiterate our strong support for the Bill from these Benches, in the expectation that the Government will be willing either to accept these amendments or to bring forward their own on Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, referred to these amendments representing a solution to a lacuna in the Bill. I think that she is entirely right and I support all the points that she has made. Put simply, this has raised the very important issue of what a secure tenancy is. Now we will be in a position—assuming the Government do come back on Report with their own amendment—to ensure the right of victims to stay in their existing home, in the case of a joint tenancy, in addition to being able to move home, which is provided for in the Bill. So I declare our support for both Amendments 1 and 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that, after consultation, the Government issue guidance to local authorities about, first, the identification of survivors of domestic abuse entitled to a new old-style secure tenancy under the Bill, including appropriate evidence requirements, and, secondly, the training of local authority officials who will be responsible for the exercise of the duties contained in the Bill.

The amendment is tabled jointly with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who I do not think is in her place today but to whom I am grateful for her help with its drafting and for her general support on the Bill. It is tabled also with the support of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

Our aim in tabling it was to enable a proper, focused discussion on two issues raised at Second Reading by a number of noble Lords: evidence requirements and training. These are concerns raised by Women’s Aid, which, although giving the Bill a warm welcome, nevertheless has warned that, for its goal to be achieved, it is crucial that new guidance is issued to local authorities on these two matters.

Our focus is mainly on the question of evidence but I repeat the point that I made at Second Reading: that the poor treatment of some domestic abuse survivors by housing officers—sometimes, according to research, portraying victim-blaming attitudes—indicates that, despite what the Minister said in his helpful letter to Peers, there is still some way to go to ensure that all officials exercising such responsibilities are adequately trained. That is particularly the case given the welcome wide definition of “abuse” in the Bill, as concepts such as controlling behaviour and emotional, financial or psychological abuse are, I believe, still not widely understood. Such training for relevant professionals is, after all, required by Article 15 of the Istanbul convention.

Turning to the question of evidence, at Second Reading the Minister responded to concerns raised by pointing out that identifying survivors of domestic abuse is something that local authorities are doing already and that this legislation does not alter that. In his letter to Peers, he repeated the point and referred to the updated homelessness code of practice, which, he said, will provide extensive advice to help local authorities to handle cases that involve domestic abuse, including on what sort of corroborative evidence might be appropriate. However, unless I have missed something, as far as I can see, the draft homelessness code, on which the Government have recently consulted, simply says that housing authorities may,

“wish to seek information from friends and relatives of the applicant, social services and the police, as appropriate. In some cases, corroborative evidence of actual or threatened violence may not be available, for example, because there were no adult witnesses and/or the applicant was too frightened or ashamed to report incidents to family, friends or the police”.

I do not consider that extensive guidance, and it comes nowhere near what Women’s Aid is recommending.

Women’s Aid’s experience and research suggests considerable inconsistency in how local authorities exercise their current responsibilities towards survivors of domestic abuse. In a small number of cases in a study which tracked 404 women unable to access a refuge space in 2016-17, the housing authority did not consider domestic abuse to be a significant risk factor meriting a homelessness application. Women’s Aid cites examples of women being told to return to the perpetrator or to come back when the situation got worse. It argues persuasively that it is crucial that there is clear national guidance as to how to apply this legislation.

A key area is what constitutes appropriate evidence. In particular, Women’s Aid argues that such evidence should not be confined to that arising from interaction with the criminal justice system because most women experiencing domestic abuse do not report to the police and may have little or no contact with the criminal justice system. As I suggested at Second Reading, the revised evidence requirements for the legal aid domestic violence gateway offer one possible model, as it has been significantly widened to include evidence from health professionals, domestic abuse services and refuges. However this is not exhaustive, and in a note on evidence requirements which I have passed to officials, Women’s Aid provides a list of other possible sources of evidence which could be included in guidance, but again emphasises that these should not be presented as prescriptive or exhaustive.

The amendment also provides for there to be consultation prior to the issue of such guidance. This should go beyond the usual written consultation document seeking responses to a set of written questions. It would be useful, too, for officials to sit down with those who work with survivors of domestic abuse, such as Women’s Aid. Ideally, it might also be helpful to hear from survivors who have had experience of trying to prove they have suffered domestic abuse. Increasingly there is recognition of the value of listening to what is sometimes called “experts by experience”.

As I have said, although the Minister initially responded that he did not believe additional guidance was necessary, I welcome the fact that he has an open mind on this. In his letter he said:

“We will certainly consider whether it would be helpful to provide further guidance in the context of this Bill”.


I hope that today’s debate will persuade him of the case for doing so and that he and officials will find it helpful when considering such further guidance. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My noble friend Lady Hamwee has put her name to this amendment but at present she has to be elsewhere in the House.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, that this is an important amendment. It is important that the Government consult on how local authorities should collect evidence and on how their officials should be trained. The two issues are closely related.

Perhaps I may give an example of a problem that could arise if procedures are not properly understood by staff in a local authority. Consider the case of a housing association tenant in one local authority area moving to another local authority area—possibly some long distance away—and having to request rehousing by that other local authority, not by a housing association. This raises issues of the collection of evidence and an understanding of the statutory responsibility of that new local authority to give assistance. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has explained the issue clearly and I hope the Government are prepared to consult widely to ensure that the guidance is better than it might otherwise be. It will be crucial in assisting local authority officers to fulfil their statutory duties.

In terms of the training needed on what evidence is required, housing officers will need to understand that victims of abuse may have difficulty presenting essential evidence. The ability to listen and to obtain relevant information will be very important. For that reason, I have been thinking about how the training might be organised. I would suggest that local authorities should not try to do it all by themselves. Given that there are many local housing authorities in England, would it not be better if they were brought together to organise training in this area across boundaries? There are two benefits in that. It would lead to better and more professional training, and it would enable staff from different councils to meet each other, as well as enabling the staff of local authorities and housing associations to do so. That informal communication will help in a case that is particularly difficult or complex.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I support the amendment and would have put my name to it had I known about it. The noble Baroness has made a very strong case. I will not go into a riff about the bedroom tax and keep noble Lords here for the rest of the night—my noble friend Lady Sherlock and I could do a duet on it. The point is that we could undermine the very good intentions of legislation such as this if women are afraid that they are going to be hit by the bedroom tax if either the perpetrator leaves or they leave. This points to the importance of looking at this across departments and doing something about it. Even if something cannot be done now, can it be taken back and put into the pot of thinking about domestic violence strategy?

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Burt’s amendment. She has made a very strong case and it is an extremely important issue on which guidance, at the very least, will be needed. I think there is a preferable option, which is to put it on the face of the Bill. Whichever approach the Government adopt, I understand there have been suggestions that the Government accept the aim of this policy. I very much hope that they will, but can the Minister confirm that the Government understand the importance, for a limited number of individuals—that is what it will turn out to be—of the Government taking action on this point? It is very important for them.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

I welcome what the Minister has said. It is an improvement on the Bill when first published. I repeat that I think it is a matter for the local housing authority to have the discretion to make decisions—I suppose that the Localism Act, as it stands, is probably adequate. However, given that the Government are keen to see changes, I acknowledge that the amendments here are a marked improvement on the original Bill, because of the extension from five to 10 years and, of course, longer where there are children and young people under the age of 19. I thank the Minister for the flexibility that the Government are showing. Section 86A of Schedule 7 makes it clear that this change does not impact current secure tenancies and that a new secure tenancy of a dwelling house can be offered to a tenant at the end of the current tenancy, so in that respect the power to grant a further secure tenancy lies with the local authority. Although I would have preferred no change at all, what we have now is better than what we had a few weeks ago and I thank the Minister for that.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment and what the noble Baroness has said. I have two brief but related points. First, on reading Hansard, I realised that I never formally said thank you on the record for the concession that was made on Report with regard to those who give up a secure tenancy because of domestic violence—I am pleased to do so now. I also suggest that, when the work is done to put this into regulations, the department works with organisations, such as Women’s Aid and, particularly, Solace Women’s Aid, whose research I drew on heavily in drafting my amendment. I think that they can give insight into how this works on the ground.

Secondly—I am sorry to sound like a broken record—I have still not received the frequently promised equality statement on this clause, despite the noble Baroness’s promise in col. 512 of Hansard to come back to me on it as soon as possible. I raise this now only because it raises questions about the status of equality statements. It suggests that they are being treated as an add-on rather than integral to the policy process, as they are supposed to be. I suggest that the department may want to reflect on how it treats equality statements.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 79A in this group, along with that of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. However, I also support Amendment 70A and other probing amendments.

Amendment 79A is our attempt to consider the threshold, which the Government had defined as £30,000 outside London and £40,000 inside London, and which the amendment increases to £40,000 outside London and £60,000 in London. It is a probing amendment. However, our view is that the taper starts too low at the figures that the Government originally decided on. Therefore, I hope there is an opportunity for them to look carefully at whether there is a good case, as we think there is, for the minimum threshold to be much higher. That would save a great deal of administration and associated costs. Be that as it may, I hope the Minister will explain why those figures are deemed too high, because I suspect they are more reasonable than the ones on which the Government have decided.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I raised a number of questions at Second Reading which never got a reply and, as they are relevant to this group of amendments, I thought I would have another go.

The first follows directly from what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, just said: why was it decided to reduce the earnings threshold from that in the existing voluntary scheme? Am I correct in thinking that there is no intention to increase the threshold in line with average earnings, thereby pulling more and more tenants into the net of pay to stay? If so, why? What protection might there be for vulnerable tenants unable to provide the necessary documentation? Crisis has raised concerns that they could be liable for the full market rent, regardless of their actual income. We can think of a lot of situations where there may be good reason why someone has not provided that information, but it would be totally unfair for them to have to pay the full market rent.

Finally—I did not raise this at Second Reading, but I raised it two groups of amendments ago and the Minister did not come back to me—there is the whole question of the lack of equivalisation. There will be such a crude means test that takes no account whatever of family needs. We are not treating like with like; we are treating the same income to meet rent, regardless of how many mouths have to be fed from that income.

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Monday 15th October 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I do not think that either the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, or I want to follow the very powerful case made by my noble friend Lady Hollis. We have rightly focused on the bedroom tax but first I want to refer to the CPI uprating, following a point that was raised with us by Crisis. During the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said that,

“if local housing allowance rates are clearly out of step with rents, they can be reconsidered”.—[Official Report, 14/12/2011; col. 1323.]

That was a welcome statement. I understand that there have been discussions between the department and Crisis, and perhaps other groups, in which it has been suggested that in 2014-15 the Government intend to review the method of uprating used. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how this review will take place. Will it be a formal review? Will it be part of the more general review of what is happening to housing benefit? What sort of discrepancy between local housing allowance rates and local rent would be deemed out of step? It would be helpful if the Minister could give us that information.

I turn to the bedroom tax, about which much has already been said by noble Lords. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I had not quite taken on board the extent to which disabled people are disproportionately hit by this measure. In our general discussion, we perhaps lost sight of that at the time. My noble friend Lord McKenzie asked the question, which I hope the Minister can answer: are disabled people expected to use their disability benefits to meet any rent that will not be covered? The briefing we were sent talked about a judgment, Burnip, which I admit I had not heard of before. One of the judges made clear that we should not expect tenants to use disability benefits to meet part of their rent.

The Minister started by saying that the regulations are compatible with convention rights but, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I am now but was not then—I refer back to its report on the Welfare Reform Bill in which the committee raised concerns about whether there was a problem here for disabled people. The report said that if such tenants were forced to move into properties unsuited to their needs, this might risk breaching their Article 8 rights—respect for privacy or family life—and potentially be discriminatory. Since then, we have had the announcement, welcome as far as it went, of the discretionary housing payment. However, the noble Lord, Lord Best, has already raised major questions about that payment. During consideration of the Bill, I dubbed it the “loaves and fishes of income maintenance”. It feels as though these loaves and fishes are being stretched ever further, even if there is an extra £30 million there.

As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee points out, the money is not ring-fenced, and once again we cannot be absolutely sure that it is to be used for the purposes intended. The noble Lord, Lord Best, talked about how the money will be stretched and will help only those whose houses have been adapted, but there may be other disabled people for whom there may be good reasons for why they should not have to move, use other income, take a lodger or go into paid work. The situation is not terribly satisfactory.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that this money would last indefinitely. I had not realised that that was the case. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that this is an indefinite payment. Can he give a government commitment that that money will definitely be there for the current spending review period and that it will be at the very least inflation-proof, or go up in line with rents? Can he give that kind of assurance? I will be delighted if he can but there is a big question mark over the long-term viability of a policy based on a discretionary payment. Will the individual be able to receive it forever, or will they have to keep re-proving their deservingness in order to continue to receive it? All these questions remain unclear.

I do not think that the Minister will be able to put our minds at rest because of our strong case. We are all very unhappy about the regulations themselves but perhaps he can at least give some assurances that the discretionary housing payment will genuinely go some way to meeting the real problems raised by other noble Lords.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I refer to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s comments at paragraph 13, in which it is pointed out, rightly, that the reduction will apply to,

“the total eligible rent for the dwelling, including any eligible service charges”.

Can the Minister confirm which service charge items will be eligible for universal credit? In consultation, these were different from those covered by the current housing benefit regulations, which provide a list of items that are not eligible. Will the revised regulations prescribe the range of eligible service charges and, in practice, reduce the numbers that may previously have existed? In particular, will the Minister clarify which service charges will be included in the definition of,

“services necessary to maintain the fabric of the accommodation”?

Specifically, will the maintenance of fire safety equipment, lifts, door entry schemes and other communal services be deemed necessary to maintain the fabric of the building and therefore be eligible?

Further, will the service charge currently associated with a furnished tenancy be eligible for housing benefit, as it is now? Finally, on concierge services, which include portering, security, caretaking, CCTV coverage and the cleaning of communal areas, will the service charges for these continue to be eligible? I hope they will because, if they become optional, many tenants will not be able to afford to pay and there will be reduced standards, impacting negatively on communal facilities and health and safety.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Thursday 19th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 80, I will speak also to Amendment 81 as they are linked in terms of their objectives.

The Government’s recent report on the 2010 child poverty targets noted that one reason why the child poverty target was not met was that,

“not enough families got the support that they were entitled to”.

It cited the 2009 Child Poverty Unit report that estimated that,

“there were 400,000 children living in relative income poverty as a result of their families not receiving all the benefits and tax credits to which they were entitled. Improving take-up and support for families with children was identified as an important element of the agenda to tackle child poverty”.

However, the report continues:

“DWP take-up statistics show a downward trend in the take-up of most major benefits among families with children since 1998”.

Amendment 80 is drafted to address this concern, although it is not confined to families with children. Whereas in the past increasing take-up has always been a win-win situation for local authorities, improving living standards for their residents and helping the local economy, under the new cash-limited council tax reduction schemes, it is a zero-sum game, in which improved take-up for one group, particularly pensioners, means less money available for others. We have already had a preliminary skirmish around this issue involving in particular my noble friend Lady Hollis, who cannot be in her place today, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.

For the first time ever, we have an incentive to depress take-up written into the template of a statutory income maintenance scheme. That cannot be right. Take-up of means-tested benefits is a perennial problem and take-up of council tax benefit is among the lowest. The latest government statistics show that between 31% and 38% of those entitled did not claim council tax benefit, although that may be a slight overestimate of non-take-up. In other words, it is possible that as many as nearly two-fifths of those eligible are not claiming. Take-up is particularly low among pensioners, of whom between 39% and 46% are not claiming, and among couples with children, of whom between 41% and 48%, nearly half, are not claiming. Overall, the trend in take-up of council tax benefit has been downward. Since 1993-94, take-up has fallen by at least 6 percentage points for pensioners, by around 7 percentage points for non-pensioners, and by a massive 15 percentage points for couples with children. However, all those figures are approximate.

In its 2009 report, Take Up the Challenge, the Child Poverty Unit set out what it called,

“a strong argument for local authorities and partners to focus on increasing take up of benefits and tax credits by poor families with large unclaimed amounts”.

It explained that take-up can contribute to tackling child poverty and related issues such as social exclusion and health inequalities. There are also benefits for the local economy with money claimed in benefits and tax credits being spent in local communities. It continued:

“Furthermore, improving take up will help local authorities and partners to ensure that hard to reach and vulnerable families are receiving support, and are in contact with services”.

It pointed out that:

“A significant amount of benefits go unclaimed by people who are working”,

so that the:

“Lack of awareness of in-work financial support available through benefits and tax credits can be a barrier to parents entering and sustaining employment”.

To the extent to which the new localised schemes will still cover working people, improving take-up will reinforce the Government’s aim of tackling poverty through paid work.

The report concludes that,

“spending on increasing take up can provide good value for money”.

Given that, it was disappointing and surprising that in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Beecham, to which he referred in an earlier session, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, stated that the Department for Work and Pensions,

“does not promote benefits … The department has not spent money in the 2011-12 financial year on promoting the take-up of welfare benefits, and we have no planned expenditure to promote take-up of welfare benefits for the next financial year”.—[Official Report, 23/4/12; col. WA 302.]

It was even more disappointing and surprising to learn the other day that the DWP proposes to cease publishing estimates of take-up of means-tested benefits. I found that out by accident. I did not find it out as a Member of this House; I found it out as a social policy academic. I also found that my colleagues here were unaware of that really rather serious step.

Can the Minister tell the Committee what the Government’s position is on improving benefit take-up? Do they still believe that take-up is an issue? It would appear that they are content for people on low incomes not to receive the money to which they are entitled, despite the arguments put by the Child Poverty Unit, and now it would appear that they want to bury the evidence of such non-receipt.

As the Government are, in effect, washing their hands of the issue of take-up, it is therefore left to local authorities and voluntary organisations to do what they can to improve take-up. Local authorities have an honourable history in this area. They played a key role in countering the impact of benefit cuts in the 1980s by instigating often very successful take-up campaigns. The Child Poverty Unit report and an earlier DWP best practice guide give examples of the kind of take-up work that local authorities still do, including improving take-up of council tax benefit. Indeed, under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, local authorities now have a statutory responsibility for council tax benefit take-up. Each billing and levying authority,

“shall take such steps as appear to it appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that any person who may be entitled to council tax benefit in respect of council tax payable to the authority becomes aware that he may be entitled to it”.

Amendment 80 builds on this and would write a similar, if differently worded, responsibility into this legislation.

It has been suggested that the change of name from a benefit to a reduction or discount could in itself improve take-up, especially among pensioners. The noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Shipley, suggested that in an earlier discussion. I have no objection to the change of name, which could be helpful, but at the same time I return to the fundamental point that the cash-limited nature of the scheme will, as many organisations have pointed out, create a disincentive to local authorities to encourage take-up. This is particularly with regard to take-up among pensioners, whose entitlement, as we have already discussed, is protected by law. As many noble Lords have warned, the more money is paid to pensioners the less there is for other so-called vulnerable groups and for low-income working people.

In the face of this dilemma, it will be very tempting for local authorities to keep quiet about council tax reduction schemes and it is therefore crucial that there continues to be some form of statutory responsibility placed upon them to encourage take-up, hence Amendment 80. Another element in the dilemma is that even lower take-up could exacerbate another problem identified by organisations such as Citizens Advice and the IFS, which is of more people not meeting their council tax demands and there being extra work for local authorities trying to collect the arrears. Already, according to a recent report in the Guardian, the Consumer Credit Counselling Service has seen a 27% increase in the number of people contacting it for help with council tax arrears between 2010 and 2011.

As long as local authority council tax reduction schemes are funded by central government on a cash-limited basis, the traditional presumption that it is in the interests of both authorities and those eligible for assistance that take-up is maximised will, as I have said, no longer hold. Personally, I believe it is unethical to establish an income maintenance scheme for people on low incomes on this basis and I hope that the Government will think again. If they are not willing to do so, however, there is one step that they can take to mitigate the double-edged sword that improving take-up would now become. The money transferred to local authorities, whether or not they are subjected to a 10% cut—it goes without saying that I am opposed to such a cut—should be based on estimates of the numbers currently entitled to council tax benefit, rather than on the numbers actually claiming. The difference is considerable. In 2009-10, between £1.7 billion and £2.42 billion was unclaimed in council tax benefit. This should be included in the money devolved to local authorities, whether or not they are subjected to a 10% cut.

Amendment 81 is designed to address this issue in a different way by requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that there is sufficient funding available to meet the council tax reduction for all eligible claimants, so that if take-up improves it does not pose the dilemma that I have outlined for local authorities. In the absence of such a provision, can the Minister tell the Committee what the Government’s advice to local authorities will be as to how they should deal with the take-up dilemma created by the cash-limiting of the grant they will receive to run council tax reduction schemes? I hope that in the interests of maximising take-up the Government will be minded to accept Amendment 80, or to introduce their own amendment to retain a local authority responsibility to promote take-up, but that in doing so they will also address the perverse incentive they have created to depress take-up through an amendment on the lines of Amendment 81. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support Amendment 80, so ably moved by the noble Baroness. I will also speak on Amendment 81, which is slightly more problematic. It perhaps does not cover all of the issues quite as it might. First, there is an issue with the non-claiming of council tax benefit. There is a whole set of numbers; the noble Baroness mentioned £2.4 billion. These things are notoriously difficult to be certain about, but we can all agree that it is a very big number. A large number of people who are eligible to do so are not claiming council tax benefit. That gives rise to a conflict of interest for local authorities. That is a serious and important issue. That must be addressed. It may be in the financial interest of a local council not to promote or advertise the council tax support scheme. That cannot be right.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Monday 16th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. What I have to say follows on very well from what she said. My noble friend Lady Sherlock asked some searching questions of the Minister. I want to pick up on the one about cumulative impact. Ringing in my ears are the words of the late Lord Newton, who reminded us in proceedings on several Bills that we have to look at these pieces of legislation together, not separately—yet we always look at them separately.

I have just been reading two relevant reports, which I would like to bring to noble Lords’ attention and which emphasise the question of cumulative impact. One is from Demos and Scope, and says:

“Disabled households are not benefits recipients—they are parents, employees, students, home owners, older people and citizens. They rely on the same diverse range of services as everyone else, but the Government’s failure to grasp the whole picture beyond the welfare reform agenda can lead to an underestimation of the cumulative impact these hundreds of individual cuts can have on each multi-service-using household”.

We are now potentially adding to those cuts, which is why it is so important that there is a proper impact assessment that takes the cumulative impact into account.

The other report, by Citizens Advice and the Children’s Society, says:

“We are very concerned that the scale of the cuts in support for some groups of disabled people has not yet been properly understood, because the changes have been viewed in isolation”.

Again, the danger is that we view the changes here in isolation.

The other point that I want to make refers to carers, who tend to get overlooked constantly. I was slightly bemused because the impact assessment referred to carers as one of the vulnerable groups that local authorities need to take into account, yet the DCLG document, Localising Support for Council Tax Vulnerable people—Key Local Authority Duties, does not seem to mention carers as a group whose needs need to be taken into account. Could the Minister explain which of the two documents local authorities are supposed to take account of, and why there is this inconsistency in the reference to carers as a vulnerable group?

[Lord Shipley]

I will make three very brief points on these two amendments. The first is simply to acknowledge that, given that council tax support is to be localised, it should therefore follow that local councils have the responsibility for deciding what their schemes entail. That seems a very important principle. We will debate later the role of the Secretary of State in defining any exclusions at all.

Secondly, a scheme agreed by a local authority would be inappropriate if it did not have regard to disabled people and carers, not least for the reason that it would not meet the need of an equality impact assessment if due regard had not been given. However, the list is not exclusive, and we shall shortly go further into the definition of vulnerability. One weakness of the Bill at the moment is that it does not actually define vulnerability adequately.

I agree absolutely with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the cumulative impact and the Government’s understanding—and this is not a particular criticism of this Government, because it has always been the case. Governments are not very good at seeing the cumulative impact of their legislation and the whole picture. A number of us have become very reliant upon the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for pointing out some of these things to us, sometimes one would hope before the event but occasionally after the event as well. Governments should be smarter at understanding the cumulative impact of what they are doing.

However, in all this there is another option for local councils, which is to maintain their current schemes effectively and to make the cost of that a general charge on council tax. I might come back to that when we talk about vulnerability, because, where council tax will be localised, vulnerable people will have to be protected. How nice it would be if we had more than one additional band in the council tax banding—not just band I but maybe some further ones—because there is a real risk of redistribution occurring from those who are less well off to those who are better off, as the IFS and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation keep pointing out to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I certainly do not want to be rude about local authorities. Some things should be locally determined, but this is not one of them. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hollis will return to that much better than I could.

I want to raise one point that I know will cut absolutely no mustard with the noble Lord: the position of people who move between local authorities, which some government policies encourage them to do. If there is no national guidance on vulnerability, they will not know how they will be treated when they move from one authority to another. The researchers in the report that I quoted earlier by Demos and Scope, said that they were struck by an “oppressive sense of uncertainty” that many disabled people were living with which,

“clearly jeopardised their emotional wellbeing”.

Without clear guidance, that uncertainty will be aggravated.

It is not only disabled people who feel uncertainty; it is part of living in poverty. There is a sense of insecurity and uncertainty. At least national guidance would allow people to know how they would be treated when they moved from one authority to another.

[Lord Shipley]

Perhaps I may raise one issue that we have not pinned down yet: whether the failure to define “vulnerability” may prove to be a legal issue that could be challenged through judicial review? I would appreciate the Minister's guidance in reply as to whether the Government are really happy that the failure to define “vulnerability” may actually prove to be a difficulty.

I think that vulnerability includes the working poor. They may not immediately be regarded as a vulnerable group, but in terms of all the benefit changes in welfare reform that are being implemented, they may prove to be seriously vulnerable. The Secretary of State should issue guidance on what “vulnerable” means. I think back to several long debates in the Localism Bill about what “sustainable development” meant. It actually mattered that we reached a common understanding. Without a common understanding between different local authorities acting in the spirit of localism, which I applaud, I fear that you may end up with judicial review from organisations that believe that their council has not properly considered the definition of “vulnerability”. It would therefore be much better if the Secretary of State issued guidance. That guidance could be advisory as opposed to statutory, but there needs to be a government view about this. Otherwise, we will head for some difficulty in the months ahead.