Prisons and Courts Bill

Debate between David Burrowes and Michael Tomlinson

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am pleased to see the Minister nodding. I warmly welcome that programme.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend, whose professional background is similar to mine, comment on the need for offenders leaving prison to go not into the arms of drug dealers, which leads to further reoffending, but into the arms of a loved one or family members, so that that relationship can give them ongoing support and help them not to reoffend?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I was going to touch on that point later in my speech, but I will deal with it now. Members on both sides of the House have talked about the importance of that. The hon. Member for Bridgend talked about a 51% reduction in reoffending—I would be interested to hear where that figure comes from. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) mentioned a 39% reduction, and I believe that that figure was drawn from research instigated and conducted by the Ministry of Justice in 2008. I am interested in both those figures.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) is right. I challenge the Minister to consider whether maintaining close family relationships outside prison should be mentioned in the Bill, perhaps in clause 1, which sets out the purposes of prisons. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that Lord Farmer has been looking into this, and I know he will bring his great expertise to bear. We eagerly anticipate the publication of his report.

I had the opportunity to visit, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), Her Majesty’s Prison Coldingley, which is a reform prison, to see the work that goes on there. When reform prisons were launched, I questioned how they would make a difference and what empowering governors would mean on the ground. The governor of Coldingley gave two examples that made clear to me the impact that reform prisons and giving governors greater autonomy can have. They are small examples, but I believe they paint a bigger picture. They have had a big impact, certainly in Coldingley.

First, every prisoner in Coldingley works. We had the opportunity see the vast factories there—there is a printing press and the like all set up. As a result of the flexibility given to the governor, she has been able to increase the food allowance from less than £2 to in excess of £2. That seems like a small uplift, but it was done in recognition of the fact that every prisoner works, and if nothing else it has made a dramatic difference to prisoners’ morale. The second example was the appointment of a key position that the governor simply would not have been able to afford without having flexibility in the budgets and the autonomy to prioritise funds as she saw fit. Those two small examples brought home to me the importance of giving governors autonomy and greater authority.

Another measure foreshadowed in the White Paper was release on temporary licence. Schemes whereby prisoners are released early are sometimes criticised, even by Conservative Members. Some say, “Well, what about the risk to the public?” While I agree with those concerns and although it is right to highlight them, it is also right, when proper, to challenge them, because release on temporary licence has a success rate in excess of 99%. In 2015, there were 162 failures, the definition of which is a prisoner who has breached his or her terms of release, committed a further offence or failed to turn up on time. The figure equates to 49 out of 100,000—less than 0.5%. If we translated that into reoffending statistics, I think we would all be pleased, so I warmly support measures giving governors greater autonomy in rolling out and prioritising release on temporary licence.

I am conscious that other experts are waiting to speak, so suffice it to say that I warmly welcome the measures set out in the Bill. I fully support it and am pleased that it has cross-party support.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between David Burrowes and Michael Tomlinson

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Michael Tomlinson]

I begin by picking up on one or two points from the hon. Member for Hammersmith. On a positive, optimistic note, let me start by saying what I agree with in his analysis of clause 1. He mentioned several other forms of tenancies, such as less secure tenancies; perhaps he could also have mentioned licences or those that are subject to a notice to quit rather than the more strict section 21 notice or court procedure. I agree with his analysis on that point. There are a wide range of tenancies that could have been encompassed within the clause but are not. I suspect that his analysis is right: that that is because of the sheer difficulty of juggling all the different potential tenancies. Look at the different Acts that we have to deal with, and that he had to deal with when in practice: the 1980, 1985, 1988 and 1996 Acts, all with varying levels and layers of interplay. I suspect that is why we find clause 1 drafted as it is.

I agree, to that extent, that as drafted and certainly as amended, the clause does not encompass a wide range of different forms of tenancy, especially those less secure. I will come back to section 8 and its interplay with section 21. However, I take issue with the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members on criticising and being too antagonistic towards no-fault notices and that regime. I agree that it is desirable to have as long-form tenancies as possible and I was heartened by the Minister’s submission that confirmed that the average tenancy is four years. The Minister is nodding, so I heard that correctly.

Of course, that is not the whole picture but four years is a significant period. My concern, if no-fault tenancies are simply swept aside or undermined, is that landlords and potential landlords will be put off purchasing and letting out properties, so we would be in a worse position. That is a concern that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and his colleagues should look out for if they seek to undermine no-fault tenancies and those who are, on the whole, perfectly good, decent landlords, as we heard this morning. I will pick up later the points the hon. Gentleman raised on finances and his self-professed pessimistic view on life. I will encourage him to have a slightly rosier view by the time my speech finishes. Whether I succeed is another story. I see he is busy looking at his papers.

I start with sounding alarm bells on what the Minister mentioned in relation to finance of further potential burdens on local authorities. I mentioned earlier that I had had meetings with East Dorset District Council. My constituency covers three local authorities—East Dorset, Purbeck and Poole—and each will be concerned about additional burdens if additional resources do not match them.

I want to come back to finances but I was heartened by the reassurance that, if there are to be further amendments—as we understand there will be on Report—there will be an opportunity for additional funding. I simply ask that the Minister, as he has done at this stage, gives an early indication when the new clause is considered on Report of the level of funding he assesses as necessary.

I support the principle of clause 1 but my concern relates to notices given under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. Although amendment 17 looks like it offers a neat proposal, in fact it sweeps away any reference to a valid notice being given under section 8. The Minister began to give an explanation of why notices given under section 8 are to be swept away, but I fear he did not give us as complete an answer as he may or should have done.

Section 8 notices are important. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith noted, section 21 notices are no-fault notices, whereas section 8 notices are given where there has been fault, where there has been a breach of a tenancy agreement. Section 8 notices are divided into two parts: mandatory and discretionary. If an allegation that a tenant has breached a mandatory obligation is proved, a judge as of right will give a possession order. That is the mandatory part of the notices given under section 8. If it is an allegation under the discretionary part, there is discretion as to whether a judge would make an order for possession. I therefore fear that throwing all section 8 notices out might not have been as wise a move as it looked, because what section 8 and section 21 notices have in common—at least partly—is that they may inevitably lead to a possession order.

Although I note the reasons that the Minister gave for keeping section 21 notices in—they are mandatory, and it is all but likely that they will lead to a possession order in any event—those reasons also apply to the mandatory part of notices given under section 8. Take arrears of rent: if there are two months’ worth of arrears, both when the notice is issued and when the matter arrives at court, a possession order is mandatory, as it is in a no-fault procedure in relation to section 21.

However, I take on board what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said: there might still be a dispute about whether the correct notice has been given under section 21. I have stopped practising—I understand he has, too—but since October 2015, there has been a new regime for section 21 notices. They now have to be done on a mandatory form, whereas under the old system, when I was practising, there was no prescribed form for what a section 21 notice looked like.

I fear that throwing out all section 8 notices narrows things down too much, which is potentially unhelpful for those who inevitably will end up homeless. That is the thrust of clause 1 and why it has been devised: to help those who inevitably will end up homeless by inserting into section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 a change to the definition of homelessness. If it is inevitable that an individual—a tenant—will end up homeless, it is worth looking again at whether the mandatory parts of notices under section 8 should still fall into clause 1 as well.

We all want as many people helped as possible. I said I will come back to finance, but it is relevant in this instance as well. The more people who are helped earlier, the more it will help with the costs to them, local authorities, and housing associations or anyone who needs to take proceedings in court. It will also help in respect of the human cost. My understanding is that the clause’s intention is to help people who are inevitably going to end up homeless, so I ask the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, the Bill’s promoter, to address this point: why have all section 8 notices been taken out, instead of retaining just the mandatory ones, where it is all but inevitable that a possession order will be granted?

I want to make a related point that shows the complexity of the Housing Acts. Perhaps at some stage a Government will be bold enough to look at a consolidation Bill—or perhaps not. Section 89 of the Housing Act 1980 is still in force. It relates to pleas of exceptional hardship, but that would only delay possession and not stop it. It is not a defence; it is only a mechanism to delay the inevitable. Even with that in place, it is still inevitable that people will be made homeless, and therefore help should be provided at the earliest opportunity.

[Mr Burrowes]

We are grateful for my hon. Friend’s expertise on this issue. He has spoken about section 8, but section 7 is also not part of the amended clause, so should further consideration be given to including section 7?

[Michael Tomlinson]

May I clarify that my hon. Friend means section 7 of the Housing Act 1988?

[Mr Burrowes]

I do.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Section 7 is important, because it states whether possession is mandatory or discretionary. It refers to schedule 2 to the Act, which has 17 parts, the first eight of which list mandatory grounds for possession. The ninth to 17th grounds for possession are discretionary. Section 7 of the 1988 Act, which, if I understand correctly, is what my hon. Friend referred to, is what distinguishes between mandatory grounds and discretionary grounds. I can see he looks slightly puzzled, so perhaps he means something else. If he did mean section 7 of the 1988 Act, it gives effect to schedule 2 and a body of law. Part I of the schedule sets out the mandatory grounds and part II sets out the discretionary grounds. It effectively feeds into notices given and possession proceedings under section 8 of the 1988 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support on this. If there is a substantive reason why section 8 should not form part of clause 1, so be it, but he raises an important example. He mentioned antisocial behaviour, which in fact will fall within the discretionary grounds that are often relied on alongside a lesser outstanding rent. Where two months’ rent or more is outstanding both at the time of the service of the notice and the time of arriving in court, that falls under the mandatory grounds. It is worth looking at it in the round.

[Mr Burrowes]

Yes, and I look forward to hearing the Minister do that for us. Plainly, the essence of clause 1 is to prevent various local authorities, advice centres and indeed Members of Parliament from being complicit in a failed system by saying simply, “Sorry, nothing can happen until the bailiffs knock on the door.” We are dealing then with crisis management rather than with any kind of prevention. The trigger is the important element. Amendments 16 and 17 seek to change the trigger from an expiry notice under section 21 to the serving of the notice. I know that that has been particularly asked for and welcomed by the Association of Housing Advice Services, which has wanted to ensure early opportunities for prevention.

It is also worth recognising that there are some noises off. Not everyone agrees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East will know. Indeed, such noises off have come his way—and the Select Committee’s way—from his local council. Harrow Council says:

“If applicants are to be considered as homeless as soon as they receive a notice, then local authorities are not going to be able to prevent homelessness…There are at least 14 reasons why a s.21 notice can be invalid and homelessness can be prevented even after a court order using the legal processes and negotiations with a landlord.”

That draws on some of the concerns about the question of a valid notice. The word “valid” was also in clause 1 as originally drafted. No doubt the advice of lawyers and others says that one has to have that word and notices have to be valid. I would nevertheless be interested to hear from my hon. Friend, because his council has expressed concern that notices can be used in a lot of ways.

I understand that notices now cannot simply be used for administrative expediency. There was a time when section 21s were served pretty much when the landlord arrived at the door, as a way of covering all bases. I understand that that has not been allowed since October 2015, but a landlord may try it on, so it is worth ensuring that that bad practice is not allowed, that landlords do not abuse the essence of this trigger and that the notice has proper validity, if I can use that word, and applies genuinely. Section 21 notices have a wide application. Obviously, such a notice being served does not necessarily mean that there is a danger of homelessness, but they will allow the prevention duties to be put in place.

I also want to highlight some of the caution expressed by Crisis, which has been involved in the Bill from an early stage. I understand that Crisis had reservations about amending clause 1. In its briefing note—this draws out the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester about his campaign against a crisis-management approach on receipt of a bailiff notice—it says that the removal of clause 1(2) will preserve

“the status quo—meaning that local authorities should follow the existing Code of Guidance which clearly states that households should be considered homeless if they approach the local authority with an expired section 21 notice.”

The amendments will therefore perhaps leave the door open for local authorities not to follow good practice and for people who are considered homeless being put back in that situation. We need to nail that down and ensure that all authorities are signed up to and delivering on the codes of guidance, empowered by their statutory form, as well as revised clause 1.

On funding, it is worth giving the Minister and the Government a little more encouragement and support. Frankly, without the Bill—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East—we would not have got the extra £48 million, which we should really welcome; it is a significant amount of money. As we have all said from the very beginning, the Bill will not solve homelessness on its own, but it is an important tool in the box and encourages the good practice that is out there to be spread among councils. As I said earlier, good councils will welcome the incentive to do more of what they have been doing with existing funding, and the councils that are not doing anything will be encouraged with a carrot and stick approach. The Minister will no doubt use his codes of practice tool as well as some carrots, including funding, to say, “Get on and do what we all say should happen.”

There should be broad agreement for the additional money, which is welcome, but I recognise the context in which the funding is provided—the LHA freeze and the benefits cap implications. I represent a London constituency that has a deprivation profile that is going in the wrong direction and does not fit in with what we await as a new fairer funding formula. We are going in the wrong direction in being able to catch up with the demands on our borough, not least given the lack of affordable housing. I recognise that context, but the funding should be broadly welcomed none the less.

A lot of figures expressing doom and gloom and fear around the funding implications of the duties in the Bill were thrown around on Second Reading, which I think was based on a reading of an old draft Bill rather than the new position. My local authority joined in with that. It is important for local authorities to be up to speed and to recognise that the Bill’s methodology is far removed from that in the Select Committee report, which was based on Bedford Borough Council’s methodology. That council said itself that:

“Using a simple extrapolation model based on the Council’s existing footfall and the range of tools currently available to the Council to prevent and relieve homelessness, the Council would see a tripling of its costs incurred in discharging the duties under the draft bill. This would see an additional £1 million of cost to the Council.”

Unless councils were looking at this carefully, they were making assumptions on funding, such as Bedford saying staffing levels would need to increase by 50%, or the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea estimating that it would cost £1.22 million to comply with the new duty to assess and £2.37 million for the duty to help secure accommodation. I know time has been short since the ministerial statement, but it is important that local authorities look at the current funding in the context of the Government’s methodology, rather than relying on their simple extrapolation model.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Was my hon. Friend as reassured as I that the Government looked at funding compared with Wales, which already has similar legislation, and made assumptions on that basis? These are significant figures that are based on fact, rather than, dare I say it, just plucking out figures that sound rather inflated.

[Mr Burrowes]

Yes, and those costs were the exact homelessness spends by local authorities taken from the data submitted by local authorities on P1E forms that are used for the Government’s homelessness statistics. Research by Shelter and Acclaim also helped to inform the costs of prevention actions and of an acceptance. That, together with recognising that there are no doubt differential costs from area to area, is an important part of the reflection in the formula.

On the assumptions, I take issue with the shadow Minister, who took a very gloomy view. He cannot have it both ways. I still expect that there is cross-party support for the principle of the Bill and the fact that it will improve prevention, advice and support for those threatened with homelessness across the country. We cannot sign up to that, but say that is not going to have any effect. It is bound to have an effect over the number of years.

The Government’s assumption is that they will not simply go along in a simplistic way, as they perhaps could have done. Wales saw a 69% decrease in homelessness acceptances in the first year of having its legislation, although I recognise that there are differences in housing supply. We are going to get somewhere near that. The assumption is that there will be a 30% decrease in homelessness acceptances over three years. If the Bill has not led to a 30% decrease in homelessness acceptances in a three-year period, we will be really disappointed. We will not have done a proper job in passing a Bill that is fit for purpose and achieves that. Aside from the funding issue, if it has not practically done that there will be some serious questions to answer.

If there is not a review by the Government, no doubt the Select Committee will be asking some serious questions. If it does not achieve that, why not? It certainly should not come from a lack of funding, so we need to ensure that that is in place. The Government’s other assumption is that Wales saw a 28% increase in costs, so the sensible assumption for England is a 26% increase. That is a fairly reasonable assumption to make.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between David Burrowes and Michael Tomlinson

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Burrowes]

I hear the hon. Lady’s point, and that is what the local authorities pray in aid as the reason they are obliged to do as they are doing. Nevertheless, they have duties and legal responsibilities. That is why I am interested in how far the Bill and the measures on vulnerable households will bite and oblige local authorities to look at the matter more seriously, rather than under the banner of “We are pressurised and do not have affordable accommodation”, taking the easier option of putting households in Enfield, for example, which has associated costs.

I have been talking to the Minister and to the relevant director of finance about both the local government finance settlement and this particular issue. I have also talked to the deputy Mayor of London, who I understand has been trying to bring about a more collaborative approach with directors of housing so that they cannot simply come up with the easy excuse of, “It’s just the Government’s fault.” They have legal responsibilities and should not just shunt their problems on to outer London boroughs.

We have had a debate about appropriate location and ensuring that households—particularly vulnerable households—are not moved away from supportive networks in relation to education, as well as other family and care support. How far will clause 12 ensure that Westminster housing officers deciding about vulnerable households will not place them in areas such as Enfield so easily? Yes, with suitability there is an issue of affordability, but there is also an issue of location. When there is a competing interest, which is the one that will really kick in? Can the Minister advise us on the discussions that he is having about ensuring that decisions are appropriate?

The Select Committee recommended that placing vulnerable households away from the area and their supportive networks should be not a first option but a last resort. I do not hear that it is being thought of as a last resort.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend talks about location. Article 3 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 is relevant. He also mentioned houses in multiple occupation. Does he see, when he talks about location—and thinking about neighbours as well—that there would be a difficulty in an extension beyond HMOs, and the licensing regime within that structure? I understand his point about the suitability of the people nearby, but does he recognise that it would be difficult under article 3 to draw provisions as widely as he suggests?

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend is right, but we shall probably hear later about the extent of inspections, and it may well be that when an inspection is done to make normal physical checks, an eye can be given to wider concerns that might affect vulnerable households. The multiple occupation provisions are an issue of licensing—it is a question of checking unlicensed multiple occupation premises. It is important to check that, because it is not surprising that there are extra risks in unlicensed multiple occupation premises, not least for those in recovery or with other needs. It is those unlicensed premises that need attention. The inspection regime will ensure that the current law is extended to vulnerable households and that accommodation in unlicensed houses in multiple occupation will be deemed unsuitable. That will help to ensure that vulnerable households will not be exposed to other risks.

[Michael Tomlinson]

As I understood the point my hon. Friend was making a few moments ago, he was seeking to draw the regime wider than HMOs, whether licensed or unlicensed. Does he not see that, as drafted, article 3 does not catch accommodation that is wider than that, and that there would be difficulty in drawing it more widely? Certainly HMOs, whether licensed or unlicensed, can be looked at, but if we go wider than that it will be very difficult to assess the suitability of accommodation under article 3 by dint of looking at the suitability of the neighbours, unless it is specifically in relation to HMOs.

[Mr Burrowes]

I concede that point. I am trying to encourage us to look at the wider duties in the Bill and its wider application to prevention duties that might assist. I accept my hon. Friend’s point.

This is an important clause and we want to hear from the Minister that we are making the best of what we can do here. I appreciate that we will come to implementation and costs, which must be proportionate. We want to ensure that they are not open-ended. I want to hear from the Minister that he is open to seeing how we can extend the checks to ensure that we do the best for vulnerable households and ensure that they receive suitable accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I will follow on from those points in a similar vein. We are, in a somewhat rarefied Committee, looking at deliberate and unreasonable refusals to co-operate, while being far removed from the challenging circumstances faced by people, particularly those with complex needs. Even with revisions to the Bill on Report, we must be clear that the bar is set at a level that will ensure that there is understanding, particularly of those with mental health and complex needs, and that those needs are taken into account when considering what is deliberate and unreasonable. That does not mean that those people will not be liable to being deemed to have refused to co-operate. We need to look sensitively at how we ensure that the most vulnerable are taken account of properly.

On discharging duties, I recall a case in which the NHS was able to discharge its duty of care to a vulnerable constituent who had complex needs and was paranoid. When people knocked on the door to see whether he was going to co-operate, unsurprisingly he did not answer, because he was paranoid; it was a part of his condition. He repeatedly refused to answer the door, so the NHS discharged its duty of care to him. As for the safeguards in this provision, there is a warning letter. We need to look in detail—this matters—at how that warning letter will be communicated and take proper account of people’s needs, which include communication difficulties.

[Michael Tomlinson]

That is exactly the point I made a few moments ago. Subsection (6) refers to taking into account the “particular circumstances and needs” of the applicant. My hon. Friend’s story highlights the reason why we need that safeguard in any future redrafting of the clause—to protect exactly the sort of people he is talking about.

[Mr Burrowes]

We need to ensure that when the rubber hits the road, there is a reality to this, so that there is not the lowest common denominator of just discharging a duty, but there is a real, positive intent to meet people’s particular needs.

It is important to ensure there is reassurance and the backstop provided by new section 193B(4). The full rehousing duty for those in priority need must be maintained. We have often praised the Welsh for getting there first with the prevention duty, but this clause will do a lot better. It will ensure that, in this case, we do not follow the Welsh example, where legislation allows an authority to discharge all duties for those who refuse to co-operate and where there is evidence of one in eight households now being refused further help; emerging evidence suggests that they are often vulnerable people with support needs. That is despite codes of guidance, which we talked about in previous deliberations.

It is so important that we get this right. This is where it could go wrong, despite all the codes of guidance that might be produced. I welcome the care that has been given to ensuring that we get this right. The litmus test is those with complex, particular needs. We need to ensure in this deliberation on what is deliberate and unreasonable that we have a true understanding of vulnerable people.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I, too, rise to say that I am disappointed by the difficulty that this Committee has been put under in not being able to look at clause 7. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and with the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that this is one of the most crucial parts of the legislation, and that a delicate balancing act needs to be got right.

That said, I support the principle. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, the Bill’s promoter, when he characterises this as tough love. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South mentioned personal responsibility, and the phrase “help to empower” was also used. I entirely agree with the principle behind the clause but am disappointed that we cannot thrash out more of the detail. I will certainly take up the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East to set out what I believe needs to be within the clause, although I support the thrust of it.

I had a meeting with a representative of East Dorset District Council—a local authority that you know well, Mr Chope, because East Dorset covers three constituencies: mine, yours and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). The council is concerned not only about the potential burden on local authorities, but about the risk of this going wrong. The interplay between local authorities and housing associations was also raised.

Perhaps when the Minister gets to his feet in a few minutes, he will give me and those at East Dorset some reassurance on the clause as drafted, or as we hope it will be drafted in future, and on the interplay with housing association duties. Many of our local authorities own very little stock and rely on housing associations to perform many of their functions and duties. What is the interplay between that and the clause? Is there a risk that housing associations will fall short or have a lower standard than is the aim and intention behind the clause?

I have said before that we are looking at the most vulnerable. I agree that there should be a strict definition in clause 7. As drafted, the tough love aspect is whether an applicant has deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate. I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith that this is familiar territory for lawyers and courts. In my view, it is helpful to have as much detail in the Bill as possible. That is why I welcome proposed new section 193A(6), which states that the characteristics—correction, circumstances—and needs of the applicant should be taken into account. Perhaps the Minister and promoter of the Bill should consider characteristics.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate gave a striking example of why it is necessary to take into account the circumstances and needs of the applicant. Knocking on the door might be sufficient for one applicant but not for another. Therefore, clause 7 needs that additional safeguard in its redrafted form.

The term “reasonable period” is also fertile territory for lawyers. My concern is that, if it is left in the Bill, lawyers will argue the toss that the local authority says, “Yes, it was a reasonable period,” while the applicant says, “No, it was not because more time was required.” I understand entirely the difficulty of putting that sort of detail in the Bill. An indication of the timeframe from the Minister when he is looking at redrafting may be helpful, although I do understand the risk of causing problems.

Finally, like my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I welcome the additional safeguard of a notice to inform and explain to the applicant. The Minister might pick up on one caveat. As drafted, subsection (8) provides for what would happen if a notice were not received. In an ideal world, we would need to ensure that notices are received. As we know, sometimes the serving of notices is not as straightforward in practice as it is to set out in a document. The Minister might consider and emphasise the need to ensure that notices are received.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between David Burrowes and Michael Tomlinson

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the most vulnerable must be protected, welfare must be a safety net rather than a lifestyle choice?

[Mr Burrowes]

I agree that it is a generous safety net, and that will continue under this Government. Despite the challenging decisions that have to be made, it is clear that we will have a generous safety net.

However, we need to act with great care. Clause 13 deals with payments for those in the work-related activity group—the WRAG. The proposed reduction of £30 will be significant for those who are assessed as not yet fit for work, and we need to deal with that issue with care. Disabled people and those who are sick have additional costs. Macmillan Cancer Support says that 83% of people living with cancer are £570 a month worse off. One in five in the WRAG have a mental health condition, and 50% of those with one of a number of characteristics will have a mental health characteristic. We have to deal with those people with care.

The Bill must be a reforming measure. Much has been made of the need to cut costs, with cuts of £450 million rising to £620 million by 2020, but it needs to be a reforming measure. The problem is that far too few disabled people are getting into work—only 1% per month. That is a scandal. We must ask ourselves whether the WRAG is really fit for purpose. Rather than just looking at the spend, let us look at the outcomes. We want more people to get into work. We have a system with nine-month delays in assessing people, and we agree that the system has to be improved. It is also not good enough that 58% of people are still in the WRAG after two years. Those people are getting an average of only 130 minutes’ coaching a year to help them to get work, compared with 710 minutes for those on jobseeker’s allowance. That disparity will not be bridged by this reforming measure.

We must ensure that the fit-for-work services and the access-to-work mental health services come on stream now. I welcome the fact that there will continue to be support for that group of people, but when we consider the £60 million of investment in 2017-18, going up to £100 million, we must ask whether there will be a gap now.