Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Best and Earl of Listowel

Tuesday 24th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Best]

My Lords, sadly, I have to accept that there are cases where local authorities have acted in an insensitive and inept manner in using bailiffs to pursue the debts of vulnerable people who owe council tax. However, I fear that local authorities are the victims too. They have no desire to be sending bailiffs to hound poor people to pay their debts.

The very worst aspect of this Bill is the expectation that councils will have to start collecting council tax from the very poorest households—the 20% or so of those of working age. They will be asked to find the money from their extremely low incomes, which have been provided mostly through benefit for other essential expenditure. The Bill means that councils are bound to face more arrears and more wasted expenditure in trying to extract small sums from poverty-struck people who simply do not have the money to pay. It is no fun for local authorities to be sending in the bailiffs when they feel that they must pursue these debts.

I support this amendment to protect vulnerable households from the heavy-handed action of unscrupulous bailiffs and I am grateful to the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust for bringing these matters to our attention today. However, the solution to the problem of these cases growing in number is to allow councils to avoid having to start taxing the poorest by giving councils the flexibility to raise the funds required by the Treasury in other ways—for example, as I suggested last week, through the painless reduction of the single person discount from 25% to 20%, on average. Councils are victims in this matter too.

[The Earl of Listowel]

I support the amendment and I raise a particular concern about care leavers and care-experienced adults who might be impacted by this. Of course, many care-experienced adults will be in this group of the very poor who have had poor educational experience and may have experienced long-term unemployment. The Committee has heard about parents and families struggling to survive and not functioning very well. Statistics show that if one has been brought up in care and becomes a mother, one is far more likely to have one’s own child taken into care. I am worried that this is an additional burden on particularly vulnerable families that is unwelcome.

I understand that care leavers will be assisted to the age of 22 with regard to council benefit—I may have that wrong and would be grateful for any correction in that area—but one has to keep in mind that while most young people leave home at the age of 24 nowadays, 20% of care leavers will have left care at the age of 16. The statistics for the mental health of young people in care highlights that 40% have mental disorders, which compares with what may be 10% of young people in the general population. That is what one would expect because of the history of trauma before they enter care, the experience of being taken from their families and often, unfortunately, their having an unsatisfactory experience in the care system. This is one group within the groups we are discussing to which we should pay particular attention.

I would be grateful for clarification about the experience of care leavers. In the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Looked After Children and Care Leavers, I have certainly heard of young care leavers describing their difficulties in trying to manage their finances on leaving care, with their homes eventually breaking down and all sorts of adverse consequences arising from that. I support the amendment and I am grateful to the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust for drawing my attention to this issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Best and Earl of Listowel

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Best]

I fear that that is exactly the position. Others may wish to come in on the amendment about foster parents.

Amendments 43 and 83 would not require an underoccupying tenant to move out where there was simply nowhere for them to downsize to—the fundamental point behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. For example, the National Housing Federation has demonstrated that about 180,000 social housing tenants would be classified as underoccupying their two-bedroom homes and would need to move on, but that only about 68,000 one-bedroom social housing flats come available for letting in a year. Even if every one of the one-bedroom flats was allocated to those who are downsizing—which of course would be impossible as there are serious demands from tens of thousands of other such households—it would take years before they could be accommodated.

In the past, we built social housing between the world wars and afterwards. Mostly, we built three-bedroom housing. Now we have a lot of households that require something smaller, but we do not have enough houses to put them in. Here, again, the impossibility of people moving means that the exemption would kick in. If they were expected to downsize into less secure private rented properties, rents are likely to be much higher and therefore the benefit costs, the universal credit costs, would be much higher—about £66 per week more in south-east England. That is not a great saving. The housing benefit bill would be likely to rise dramatically although people were occupying less space.

Moving creates the familiar barrier to employment. Moving to somewhere with a higher rent itself intensifies demand on the private rented sector, which will push up rents more generally.

Of the amendments, my preferred option is to define underoccupying as exceeding the bedroom standard plus one—that is, having two “spare” bedrooms. That would cut the gains to the Government from the underoccupation penalty to 150,000 households from the 670,000 that the Government are expecting to be caught by the new penalty.

If the Government cannot accept that, I hope that, alongside the exclusion for older people—the category most likely to be underoccupying at the moment— exemptions could be put in place for disabled people in adapted property, recipients of disability allowance, families classified as underoccupying because foster children are not counted, those unable to move because no suitable alternative exists, and those in supported or sheltered housing where a spouse or partner dies or leaves them and who are below pensionable age and would be compelled to move out. Added together, those exemptions would certainly reduce the hardship and extra costs implicit in the underoccupation penalty. I look forward to hearing comments from other noble Lords and the reaction of the Minister.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, before I speak to my amendment in this group, perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, in his concerns about the impact of this move to an underoccupation penalty, particularly on families. It was encouraging to hear from the Minister the results of his survey and some positive outcomes to the changes whereby people will look for work, or think of getting a lodger. However, what concerned me about his comments were the large numbers who might go into arrears. I have observed from my experience of young people leaving care and of other families that people leading chaotic lives tend to think from day to day.

Therefore, given the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, if a family in bed and breakfast accommodation were offered a three-bedroom house that seems to suit them but may be too large, they may say, “We will take it and deal with the arrears when they come. We will not think of the future”. Then they end up in arrears and in serious difficulty because they are not able to cope with the worry of being in debt and they do not know what to do. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for highlighting the fact that this issue needs close attention from the Government, and I look forward to learning more about it. He has a good point. This is a serious worry with the underoccupation penalty.

The noble Lord also raised the question of foster carers. Under the current absurd arrangement, foster caring and providing a room to a foster child would not count as a room and in this scenario would count against one. I am not expressing that very clearly, but I think your Lordships understand what I mean. I suppose it might be argued that this will be an incentive for some people to foster if they have a spare room. If the Bill is changed to be made sane, they would not be caught by this part of the legislation.

However, I have two further thoughts. First, there is a real question as to how far one should professionalise foster caring. People should go into foster caring because they love children and want to provide a good home to a child. I know that there is a debate about the professionalisation of foster care but, in principle at least, people should be motivated by caring for children, not making a bit of extra money or saving some money. Secondly, the harms that may arise from this proposal by far outweigh any potential benefits of that kind. If such families get into arrears there is perhaps the cost to the mental health service as the family breaks down under stress. There is the cost to the education system as their children fail. One needs to look at the bigger picture rather than just think about short-term savings.

Perhaps I may sum up. I apologise for using my laptop on this occasion; however, I cannot get internet access today and I was unable to download my notes and print them out. My Amendment 85 is modelled on the previous amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and I apologise to the Committee because I drafted my amendment rather poorly. I should have referred to children looked after by local authorities rather than those cared for by them. My intention is to gain an assurance from the Minister that families who have their children looked after by a local authority may retain a room for that child to return to when he is ready. While a few children are adopted from care, most return home sooner or later, and it is right that they should have a room when that happens. It is important for the parents to retain a sense that their child remains their child and that they remain the parents. That is important because their children will normally still love their parents, however they have been treated, and will need to feel there is a place for them in their parents’ home. It is important also because the child will eventually return. Generally, we should strongly encourage these parents to retain their sense of responsibility for their own children. An experienced child and family social worker has reminded me that it will also be important for the child to know that his parents will be keeping a room for him. He will need to feel that he is still wanted and there is still a home for him with his parents.

In the year ending 31 March 2011, 3,050 children were adopted out of a population at that time of 65,520 children who were being looked after. Very few children, then, were adopted. Children who are subject to residence orders, or are being cared for informally by the Ryder family, are all the more likely to return to their families. Barnado’s has expressed concern about these children. This matter was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, at Second Reading. There is a separate amendment in this group, which I support, on those particular groups of children.

I would be most grateful if the Minister could reassure me that families whose children are looked after by a local authority would not normally be subject to the underoccupation penalty. I apologise if the problem with my drafting has made it more difficult for him to reply. I would certainly find a letter acceptable if that seemed more appropriate in the circumstances.

I will not speak to my Amendment 86 because my understanding is that the benefit arrangements for care leavers are such that the concern I had is not an issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response.