Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I am provoked into joining this discussion, which I was going to leave until the next group of amendments.

First, underoccupation is one of the most serious concerns in this Bill, and I think that those concerns are shared across the Committee. I do not think that it helps to start picking away at the positions of individual members of the Committee at this time. What I think we are trying to do is to make it clear to the Government that the current proposals are unacceptable. They are unacceptable to me for two reasons. One is process—and we touched on the discussion about transition. On 1 April 2013, between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the case load, which is arguably 67,000 working-age families, will be tipped into debt. It is a brick wall that they cannot avoid. It is very unusual for a social policy change of this magnitude not to have built in a transitional provision.

With a little bit of application and consideration, we might be able to address the issue of overoccupation, which it would be sensible to do in the long term. Speaking for myself, I think that Amendment 44 is close to doing that, although Amendment 40 is not far away. I got a very interesting note from Moat housing the other day, which suggested that:

“Two bedroom properties or below should never be regarded as ‘under-occupied’”.

It is as simple as that. That is another way of expressing it. I do not know what it would cost, but the Committee is right to explore some of these circumstances, which have ramifications for social landlords as well as everyone else. What worries me more than anything else is that on 1 April—that may be an appropriate date—in 2013, that change will be made, and people have very little protection or room for manoeuvre.

The other very interesting suggestion that Moat housing made to me, which I had never heard before, was that a “soft start” could be adopted when people were demonstrating that they were taking steps to address the underoccupation that they were allegedly facing at the time. They could continue to get the full support until they had made the appropriate arrangements. It would probably take 18 months or two years to work out in the wash; that may be too tight a period—it might take longer than that to do safely. As a Committee, we are looking for a safe transition process and a way of limiting the brick wall of debt that 670,000 of our social tenants in the United Kingdom will face on 1 April 2013. That is a matter of concern across the Committee, which I think we should represent to the Government in a way that will occasion constructive change on Report.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, there is very little left to say, particularly after the astonishingly impressive opening speech of my noble friend Lady Hollis. If I were a Minister facing that speech across the Table I would have run the white flag up and gone to the pub, but the Minister is clearly made of sterner stuff than me, which is probably just as well.

I have two questions, the first specific and the second general. First, what discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in other departments about the position of children in relation to the implementation of these provisions? Like many other noble Lords, I have had a number of cases raised with me on the position of disabled children, to which we may return, and children with health problems, as discussed by my noble friend Lady Lister. Also, Barnardo’s, for example, raised with me the position of families in which a child or children are in temporary care. For example, they may live temporarily under a residence order with their grandparent, and while the family is trying to get the children back it may look as though they are underoccupying when they are not. There is a whole series of exceptions. I am interested in the specifics, but more generally has the Minister talked to colleagues in other departments about the impact on child welfare, safeguarding and well-being or child poverty when this policy is implemented?

The second question is one the answer to which I would be very interested to hear. We have talked a lot about modelling and transition, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, talked about what seemed to me to be an astonishingly simple amendment. She said that somebody should not be required to do something that they are incapable of doing. What is the Minister’s philosophical reply to that?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I start by saying that it was good to hear a defence of the noble Lord, Lord German, who arrived in the House at the same time as I did. However, I thought that being asked questions and dealing with them was a wonderful preparation for being Minister, and I hope that the government Whip has taken note of that.

It is difficult to add to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who, as the Guardian said last week—and only the Guardian could use these words—gave a “frankly beautiful speech”, and an astonishing one today, as it was described by my noble friend Lady Sherlock. I hope only to add a few remarks in support of what she said. First, I remind us, as did my noble friend Lady Turner, of the special nature of a home. We know the importance of feeling secure in one’s home and that one of the biggest causes of stress is a house move. It affects all of us, whether we are owner-occupiers or renters, old or young, rich or poor. As the noble Lord, Lord German, said, it is one of the worst things that we have to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock]

May I press the Minister on one more point? I understood that his argument in response to the amendments up to Amendment 83 was that he could not accept such a broad exclusion because it would encompass people who would otherwise have paid the shortfall. That is probably the dead weight argument. I was in the Treasury. Dead weight is much loved as an argument by the Treasury and despised by pretty much everyone outside it. You can see that it makes perfect sense, if you are in the Treasury, to think, “You are already paying this, why on earth would I want to do it?”. If you are on the other end of the telescope, it looks rather different.

Does the Minister accept that the fact that a claimant may stay put and pay the difference does not necessarily mean that they can afford to pay it? That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Someone who can see no alternative suitable accommodation may stay put, pay the difference—or at least accept that they must pay the difference and get into debt, with all the consequences that has for the family. Does the Minister accept that point and, if so, how will he address it?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it was interesting that there was a range of responses to our survey. Different people will do different things depending on the circumstances. That is the point. That is the problem with all the broadly defined exemptions that we have discussed today, which we have explored in great detail in the department: none of them works to define eloquently and adequately the people whom we want to protect. We need other ways to do that. I know that people like to attack the Treasury on every conceivable opportunity—

[Baroness Sherlock]

The Treasury employed me for many years; I would do no such thing.

[Lord Freud]

It did not sound like that.

Some people will choose to pay £11 and £12 extra for an extra bedroom perfectly rationally and other people will make other responses; a wide range of response is likely. A lot of people would regard it as a bargain to spend that amount on an extra bedroom. As noble Lords will be aware, spending to get that extra accommodation in the outside world—whether through a mortgage or through renting—would cost a lot more.

[Baroness Sherlock]

Forgive me, in the interests of levity, I was not being clear enough. The people I am concerned about are not those who could afford it but declined to stay, or those who are staying put and are happy to pay the money. The Minister mentioned statistics earlier about the number of people who would move, downsize or stay put and pay the difference. I am concerned about the rump who remain, which I think is sizeable—perhaps he will remind us of the percentage. I tease him about dead weight only because that argument works only if the Government are willing to accept that the price is borne by those who are not capable of making the difference. I am trying to tease out exactly how big is that price, who is paying it and what price the Minister would regard as acceptable for people who are forced into debt in order to make it work for everyone else.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I said earlier that we are working on the detailed implementation of this. It would be premature to make judgments on that. We need to develop strategies to ensure that those problems do not arise.