Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Ninth sitting)
Neil Coyle Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Vara
I do not have that evidence to hand, but I am quite sure, given that the Department is responsible for paying the benefit, that it is there, and therefore that the measure is based on evidence. We all know people who have been on benefits for many years, in many cases for very good reasons, but it is a fact that many people out there have been on benefits for many years, so we must accept the reality of the situation.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Minister has suggested that the evidence exists but he does not have it to hand. Will he make some of it available to the Committee?
Mr Vara
First, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has a distinguished record in the charitable sector. I take this opportunity to commend him and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, who also has a charitable background. Many people do such work but it gets very little recognition, so I am happy to give that recognition both to colleagues and to the hundreds of thousands of people working in that sector.
As for the evidence, it is abundantly clear that many millions of people are claiming benefit. It is also a fact that, in the election last May, this Government were given a mandate by the people of this country to put forward these reductions and cuts.
Mr Vara
I have not misled the Committee. It is a fact that the Government said that we would make £12 billion of reductions from the welfare budget, and it was on that basis that the people of this country, in their millions, voted for this Government as a majority Government and gave us the mandate to make those £12 billion of reductions in the welfare budget, as we are doing.
Neil Coyle
The Prime Minister also gave a commitment not to reduce tax credits, so I look forward to that commitment being implemented by the Government. To return to my previous point, where is the evidence for this Committee about decades-long benefit entitlement? [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. The Minister has been asked a specific question. I do not want the debate to broaden out to the topic of the general election.
Emily Thornberry
I do not know whether you were in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, Mr Owen, but many of us were. We heard the Prime Minister say the Government were “very proud” to have kept all their promises to pensioners, but their actions in this Bill show that that is simply not right. The Opposition will make it perfectly clear to pensioners that the Government are going back on their promises to them.
Through the amendment, we want to exempt pensioners from the provisions in the clause. If there is a rationale for the policy, I have yet to work out what it is. On Tuesday, the Minister said—he has said this again today—that
“we believe it is wrong that taxpayers who are unable to afford to buy a home of their own are subsidising claimants who own their own homes.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform and Work Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 356.]
That is a very odd statement in the light of what the Government are doing generally. It is quite startling, because obviously the Minister has forgotten about the Government’s plan to extend the right to buy to housing association tenants. That policy, which the Government say is about supporting home ownership, comes with a price tag of £11.6 billion. That is almost equivalent to the savings that the Government say that they need to make in the welfare budget. Compared with that, SMI is absolute peanuts.
The last time the Government looked at the issue, which was in 2011, as we heard, the then Welfare Reform Minister said in a press release that the existing system was “not sustainable”. That is the justification for the measure and why we are going through it—the Government say that SMI is not affordable. At the time, the Government said, spending on SMI was about £400 million. Now it is £265 million a year. In three years’ time the cost will be £250 million. So far from being unsustainable, the cost is going down. If the Government’s definition of “unsustainable” is spending going down, as projected, we need to have a new dictionary.
In fact, the cost-effectiveness of SMI is one of its most distinguishing features. To quote my new favourite organisation, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, of which the Minister is also a fan, as we have heard, it is important that the Government should
“recognise the relative cost-effectiveness of SMI in preventing repossessions.”
The Government’s impact assessment for the Bill, which was the subject of some back and forth during Tuesday’s sitting, helpfully notes that the average weekly payment to working-age SMI claimants is £38 a week. For pensioners who receive the benefit, it is only £20 a week—so it is £20 a week to keep the roof over the head of a pensioner.
To put that into context, the DWP’s most recent figures show that the average weekly housing benefit payment is £95 a week. If there is even the slightest increase in the number of repossessions as a result of the changes that the Government are proposing, and homeless families have to go into privately rented housing and therefore need to claim housing benefit, we are clearly talking about false economies, because they will be moving into somewhere more expensive. Housing benefit is an average of £95 a week, but SMI for pensioners is £20 a week. That speaks for itself and shows the benefit of making social policy on the basis of evidence rather than rhetoric.
Part of my problem in understanding the Government’s intention is that the proposal seems to fit poorly with the values that they claim to hold. We have recently been through an election campaign—as the Minister was telling us—in which the Government repeatedly claimed that welfare reform would protect the most vulnerable. It was not always clear exactly what they meant by that, but what seemed never to be in doubt was that pensioners would be included, and it was certainly hoped that disabled people would be as well.
As the Government are well aware, the overwhelming majority of those who receive SMI are the very same people whom the Government had promised to protect. Almost half of those who receive SMI are pensioners, and about 40% are disabled. Only 15% are claiming JSA, which is a clear reflection of the fact that, in the majority of cases, the people who rely on SMI support will have fallen on hard times because of increasing age or disability and are therefore unlikely to return to work. A disproportionate number of them are single women.
Again, it is important to look at the evidence, and the evidence is that a disproportionate number of the people who are getting the very small sums of money that keep the roof over their head are single women. I do not know this, but I will make a leap and say that I presume we are talking about poor widows—women who have fallen on hard times and whose partners have died. The Government are taking £20 a week away from poor widows, and that might well result in those women losing their homes. Perhaps those women took their mortgage into retirement after their husband died, or perhaps they had to leave a well-paid job after developing long-term health problems. As we have heard, 40% of them are people with disabilities.
Whoever those people are, however, they are taxpayers. They have spent their entire life working and paying income tax and national insurance. They paid stamp duty when they bought their home, and they might be subject to inheritance tax when they die, although recent announcements suggest that that is less likely to be the case in future. People who receive SMI will have paid into the system and are entitled to expect that there will be a safety net for them when they need it. The Government’s proposal sets a disturbing precedent by turning a benefit to which those people will have contributed into a loan that could be clawed back at some future point. Adding insult to injury, they will be charged for the privilege.
The Prime Minister said yesterday:
“We are very proud to have kept all our promises to pensioners”.—[Official Report, 14 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 314.]
That is not right. I cannot imagine what he means by that. The other point that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth made is important. The Government have also failed to keep their promises in relation to social care and to what Dilnot called catastrophic costs, and have refused to give assistance to people who will need long-term care. People need to have a home to be able to sell it to pay for their social care.
The Government’s rhetoric again flies in all sorts of different directions. We hear high-flown talk from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about how important it is for people to be able to pass their savings and their money on to the next generation, and to be able, when they die, to hand over to the next generation without being clobbered by inheritance tax. There really does seem to be one rule for the rich and another for the poor. Widows who need £20 a week will have that taken away from them. They will be expected to take out a loan in order to pay off the interest, and will be charged to do so. It is cruel.
Amendment 138, which is consequential to amendment 137, provides that SMI will continue to be paid to low-income pensioners as a non-refundable benefit.
Neil Coyle
My hon. Friend is making a really solid point about the Government’s rhetoric. It is typical of the Government to create a false divide between taxpayers and those in receipt of benefits, as we have discussed in Committee previously. The Government seem to assume that the two do not overlap at all. As my hon. Friend has already pointed out, those who have put into the system for many years will find that the system is not there to support them, and we will now be charging them to draw down what they have contributed over the years. It is typical of a Government who are out of touch with ordinary working people.
Emily Thornberry
I could not agree more, and I thank my hon. Friend. I would go even further: I think that the welfare state and the principles on which we built it are one of the things we should be proud of about being British, and that is being fundamentally undermined by nasty little clauses such as this one. The Government should be ashamed. The Opposition will certainly fight it.
As I have said, amendment 138 is consequential to amendment 137, which will provide for SMI to continue to be paid to low-income pensioners as a non-refundable benefit. If the Government wish to go ahead and convert the benefit into a loan for working-age people, that is an idea that we can debate separately, because that is a different matter, but for pensioners who are unable to work there should be different considerations. If someone is coming to the end of their life and is not expected to work any more—that is what being a pensioner is—or if they are disabled, circumstances ought to be different. If someone is of working age and on jobseeker’s allowance, there might be a different argument—I have yet to be persuaded, but I appreciate that they might be a different group. However, as we have heard, most of the people affected by this nasty little clause will be pensioners.
If pensioners are to consider the Government’s promises worth the paper they are written on, Ministers should go back to the drawing board and rethink this cruel and unnecessary proposal. It is unnecessary because, in the great scheme of £12 billion, how much money are the Government really saving? It is an amount of money that is going down and down, and it is a fraction of a percentage point of the money that is to be saved.
The measure is a mistake. I hope that the Minister is listening—we are trying to help and the Government are making a profound mistake. I will press amendment 137 to a vote. If Conservative Members really believe that they cannot bring themselves to find, from a £120 billion welfare budget, £20 a week to help poor widows not lose their homes, the public have a right to know where the Government stand.
Mr Vara
If £250 million is chickenfeed, to quote what the hon. Lady said, I am afraid that people reading our proceedings in Hansard will take a deep breath and say, “This is what those people think of £0.25 billion.” The consequence of several such chickenfeed decisions is the mess that the country is in now.
Neil Coyle
Given what the Minister has said about the economic competence of the Government before last, will he remind us of the savings projected for employment and support allowance and housing benefit in the previous Parliament and whether they were met?
Mr Vara
I do not have those figures to hand, but I am happy to obtain them and write to the hon. Gentleman. He is seeking to make a name for himself. On Tuesday he sought to do so by calling other Members names. Today he seeks to be clever by asking questions, which are important, but which he knows will get a written answer.
The amendment will not make a difference. This is all about fairness.
Emily Thornberry
The answers we have heard are profoundly disappointing, and they will be disappointing to the most vulnerable pensioners throughout the country who have paid into a system and who deserve better from the Government.
Neil Coyle
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister is making a mockery of the Government’s supposed commitment to protect the disabled and pensioners, which is what they claimed? The Government seem to be relying on a low number of people being affected by the measure to hide their false pretence.
Emily Thornberry
That is absolutely right. Of course, for people who are affected, it will not matter whether the number is a low one—their life will be profoundly affected by the changes made in the Bill. A relatively small amount of money is involved. I appreciate that huge numbers of people will not be affected, but that does not change the principle, the justice or the unfairness to the individual concerned. We will not withdraw the amendment and will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Vara
The social rent clauses relate to the Government’s commitment to achieve a reduction in rents for social housing of 1% a year over four years. That will be good for the tenants and for the taxpayer, saving £1.445 billion by 2020-21. The amendments are the consequence of the Government listening to points made since the Bill was published by social landlords, local government and housing bodies, among others. We hope our amendments address some of the issues raised. The amendments in the group are either concerned with issues of clarification or make small drafting changes.
Amendments 141 and 143 clarify that the 1% rent reduction applies in each relevant year, which is to say, each of the four years from 2016. Amendments 142 and 146, taken together, clarify that the reduction relates to the amount of rent that is payable by a tenant in respect of a year—not the amount that is actually paid by the tenant, which is to recognise the reality that those figures might differ. Amendment 145 is a minor drafting point to clarify that the “amount” relates to the “amount of rent”. Amendment 170 is to simplify the drafting of clause 19 and amendment 173 is a drafting change to the clause to provide that a relevant year for a private registered provider whose practice is not an April start to a rent year will be determined in relation to the rent practice for the number of tenancies, not tenants.
Amendment 163 deals with the potential failures of providers to comply with the clause. It seeks to give the regulator of social housing the appropriate grounds on which to exercise monitoring and enforcement powers. With this amendment we have had regard to how the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 established such powers and the need to avoid any confusion in how the regulator should exercise its power.
Neil Coyle
The Minister mentioned that he had had meetings with or representations from social housing associations. Will he clarify how many housing associations supported the measures proposed by the Government? How many housing associations have outlined to the Minister and the Department the risk that they might have to close some of the housing they provide as a result of the measure?
Mr Vara
Let me put things into context. We have spoken with a lot of organisations—I have a list at the back of my file and am happy to read out some of the names if necessary. The context of the measure is that it is part of the Government’s £12 billion welfare reduction. We made that absolutely clear to the country at the time of the general election. The people of the country voted democratically, in their millions, and we have a mandate to make those cuts. That is the reality of the position, which might be something that the Opposition do not like—
Mr Vara
I will not give way for the moment; I will finish my answer. The reality is that that is the position.
We have, however, spoken with a lot of people. I simply refer to the comments made by David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, when he give oral evidence before the Committee. Most of us were at that sitting on Tuesday 15 September 2015. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, Mr Orr said:
“I think that, in truth, there is no sector anywhere that is not still capable of making further efficiency savings. That is as true in our sector as it is anywhere else.”
Neil Coyle
Riverside Housing Association has said that
“a year on year rent reduction would make this element of our business loss making.”
St Mungo’s has said that
“the requirement to reduce rents in social housing in England by one per cent per year for four years will result in the loss of supported housing schemes for homeless and vulnerable people.”
The Homes and Communities Agency has estimated that those services save the taxpayer £640 million per year. Where is the saving in the longer term if those services do not exist?
Mr Vara
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was so keen to ask his question and so busy thinking about it that he paid no attention to what I was saying. He referred to one organisation. I referred to the comments of the chief executive of the National Housing Federation. We have done our homework, and estimate that we will save nearly £1.5 billion, as I have said.
Amendment 163 provides that a failure or risk of failure to comply with clause 19 is not to be, of itself, a ground for exercising certain monitoring and enforcement powers under part 2 of the 2008 Act, by removing clause 22(1) and (2) from the Bill as introduced. The practical effect of the amendment is that, before exercising those powers, the regulator must satisfy the specific grounds relevant to each power in chapters 6 and 7 of the 2008 Act, as amended by clause 22(3) to (8) of the Bill. Amendments 164 to 168 insert the correct title of the Bill into certain provisions.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Tenth sitting)
Neil Coyle Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams
I hope everyone has had a good lunch. The amendments are in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
Clause 19 requires registered social housing providers to reduce the amount of rent payable by a tenant in social housing in England by 1% a year for four years from 1 April 2016. The Government argue that the measure will save money paid on housing benefits. They estimate in the impact assessment that the saving will be approximately £1.995 billion, which, on the surface, seems like a good deal for social tenants. However, there are significant implications for current and future renters.
The Local Government Association has estimated that councils in England will lose more than £2.6 billion, and that 19,000 fewer affordable homes will be built by 2019-20 as a result of the measure. I will come to what that will mean in terms of fewer homes in my area of Oldham, but for housing associations in general, the situation is even worse. The National Housing Federation calculation is that housing association income, collectively, will reduce by £3.85 billion over the next four years, resulting in 27,000 fewer homes being built. That contrasts markedly with the Office for Budget Responsibility assessment in the Budget, which predicts 14,000 fewer affordable homes being built.
Will the Minister confirm how that discrepancy has arisen? Is there a calculation that we are not aware of? Exactly how has that difference come up between the OBR’s 14,000 and the figures of the LGA and the NHF? May I also ask why that was not included in the impact assessment process? At the same time, will he confirm the actual figure for loss of income to be suffered by housing associations by 2020? My colleagues will want to comment about their own areas, but in my area the estimate for loss of income is £15 million. In places such as Oldham, that has significant implications for affordable homes.
In May 2014, following the 2013 spending review, the Government committed to a 10-year rent settlement, which was meant to introduce the necessary long-term certainty needed to attract private investment into building new affordable homes. What has changed? As a result of the longer-term planning with assumptions about what rental incomes they would be receiving, housing associations have been able to borrow for house building at reasonable rates, attracting £6 from the private sector for every £1 of public money, as the Minister said this morning. Moody’s, the rating agency for the social landlords, commented that the change to the 10-year rent settlement and long-term planning came out of the blue, without any consultation, and is making things incredibly difficult, threatening the viability of many housing associations. We will debate that under a subsequent clause. The OBR acknowledged the difficulty caused by such a sudden change—it is due to be implemented next year. It also said—this is absolutely key—that:
“We do not expect private sector house-builders to offset this effect to any material degree.”
That is in paragraph 3.84 of the OBR publication accompanying the July Budget.
The ability of housing associations to borrow and the effect of the measure on their ability to build more affordable homes are key concerns not only of housing commentators, but of the 1.38 million or so people who are on local authority housing lists—that is a 2014 figure, the latest produced by the Government—71% of whom are in receipt of housing benefit. I will be grateful if the Minister confirms what assessment has been undertaken. How will the provision affect social housing waiting lists? We know from last year’s Work and Pensions Committee report on affordable housing that there are considerable issues for people in receipt of housing benefit in being taken on by private sector landlords. What will be the impact of the measure on social housing waiting lists and people’s ability to move into the private rented sector?
It is important that we look at what the Government are proposing in the context of the housing market as a whole. Most people recognise—possibly the Government do not—that there is a housing crisis in this country, and this measure will make it worse. The Government’s own figures show that from 2012 onwards there has been a huge decline in affordable homes being built, from 37,680 in 2012 to 10,840 in 2014. That brings it to a 20-year low.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
My hon. Friend may be aware that my local authority, Southwark, is the largest landlord in London. In the previous Parliament, it was able to build more affordable homes than any other local authority, and it has a commitment to 11,000 new council homes in a welcome house building programme. However, the measures in the Bill would leave Southwark Council’s housing revenue account with a loss of £62.5 million by 2019-20, and in that year it would lose £28.2 million, with a knock-on effect on its ability to provide sufficient accommodation. I hope the Minister will commit to meeting my council to address those concerns, and I would welcome my hon. Friend encouraging him to do so.
Debbie Abrahams
As my hon. Friend rightly says, Southwark is the largest housing provider in London, and London faces particular issues.
Policy measures that have already been implemented have exacerbated the problems that we face on affordable homes. For example, the Government waived the mandatory quota for building affordable homes in new developments, which has further contributed to the poor quantity of affordable homes. The coalition Government allow developers to build more properties for rent in the private rented market, and by deregulating what was already the least regulated private rental sector in Europe, they open the door to rogue landlords.
The Government used £12 billion of taxpayers’ money to guarantee £130 billion of new mortgage lending in the form of the Help to Buy scheme. That has done little to help renters become buyers and homeowners. Instead, it has fuelled increases in new house prices and private sector rents, as many owners either sell or rent their properties as soon as the subsidies run out, and the increase in private sector rents has fuelled the increase in the housing benefit bill over the past five years. It has gone up from £4.4 billion in 2009-10 to £24 billion in 2014-15.
Neil Coyle
To further demonstrate the Government’s inability to understand the housing crisis in London in particular, is my hon. Friend aware that the Help to Buy scheme helped a very round number of people in the run-up to May 2015—an incredibly round number of zero—and that I have written to the Government to ask for improvements to the scheme? Unfortunately, no sufficient response was forthcoming.
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend makes an important point. To be honest, I am not surprised. The Minister this morning was unclear about the rise in the housing benefit bill. As I was saying, it is up from £4.4 billion in 2009-10 to £24 billion in 2014-15—those are the actual figures. I know my hon. Friends will want to raise this point, but I will bring it up first: the number of people in work and claiming housing benefit has doubled to 1.1 million since May 2010.
Neil Coyle
Those people in work are also paying taxes. There seems to be some misunderstanding on the Government Benches about who pays taxes in this country.
Debbie Abrahams
Absolutely. The language used is sometimes unfortunate; it leads to a misconception that is commonly put out to the public arena. We all have an obligation to not mislead the public.
Extending the right to buy, which was mooted in the Tory party manifesto and set out this week in the Housing and Planning Bill, may increase homeownership —we all want to encourage homeownership—but without building more social housing, the extension will just reduce the supply of affordable homes for people on low income to rent. What will happen then? The average house price in the UK is more than £180,000. In London, it is more than £460,000. It has been estimated that it would take 22 years for people on low and middle incomes to save for a deposit.
I remind the Government of all the warm words from last week’s Tory party conference about helping people in poverty and with low incomes. There is a practical measure that the Government can take to do something about that, and I challenge them to do so. Housing is one of the biggest costs families face, and the Government’s plan will make the situation worse. Many young people, but not exclusively young people, are living with their parents or renting—the so-called “generation rent”. Inequalities are unfortunately increasing, not only in income but in wealth and assets, such as housing and land. Those inequalities, including the cost and availability of land, are key to addressing the housing crisis.
In addition to the effects of the plans on the building of affordable homes, there will undoubtedly be an impact on housing repair and regeneration programmes. The Local Government Association estimates that the loss in income from rent is equivalent to 60% of all local authorities’ total housing maintenance budget. That is significant. Ultimately, there will be an impact on both the integrity and the condition of the stock, and on maintaining decent home standards.
Debbie Abrahams
Again, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. Yes, there will be a small reduction in rent, which will be reflected in a reduction in housing benefit, but the cumulative impacts on individual families and in other spending areas will be considerable.
My point is that the measures will particularly affect the very young, the very old and people with existing health conditions and disabilities. As we anticipate, that is a logical consequence of reducing the maintenance budget, because the quality of housing will be affected. What assessment has been made? It is clear that the provision will push more households into the private rented sector, where there are currently 1.5 million families with insecure tenancies who could be evicted with as little as two months’ notice. Homelessness and rough sleeping have risen over the past five years, with 54,000 accepted as homeless, up 36% since 2010, and 920 families with children being illegally housed in bed and breakfasts for longer than six weeks because there is no affordable housing. That figure has risen by 820%. Again, how is it anticipated the measures will affect the homelessness figures?
Neil Coyle
On the point about homelessness, is my hon. Friend aware that in London since 2010, the number of former armed forces members sleeping rough has risen elevenfold, and does she agree that that heaps shame on the Government’s attitude towards those who have served in our country’s armed forces?
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. People whom we should be supporting after their service to our country are unfortunately finding themselves without a roof over their head. I say “unfortunately”; there are means to prevent it. The measure will stop the roll-out of the affordable homes programme and have an impact on armed forces personnel and people leaving care, who are more likely to need affordable homes. A whole host of people will be impacted.
What assessment has been undertaken of the viability of registered social landlords? I know that we will debate that when we come to a later clause, but given the risks that people already face, for example from the introduction of universal credit and the lowering of the benefit cap, housing associations have a genuine concern about how they will measure it in practice. I refer to one of my own local housing associations. I mentioned the £15 million reduction in income from rent; it will have to deal with that, including through redundancies and by rowing back on some of the programmes by which it hoped to upgrade accommodation. What assessment has been made of the risks being shifted to housing associations?
Amendment 21 would compel the Secretary of State to produce a plan within 12 months of the provision coming into force to offset the impact of the reduction in rent, so that the building of affordable homes is not affected. We are asking the Government to say within 12 months how they will stop the building of affordable homes being pared back, as the LGA and the NHF anticipate.
Mr Vara
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the measured way she has approached the debate and presented the case for her amendments. I am grateful to her for moving amendments 21 and 85, because they give me the opportunity to set out clearly why we have put these measures in the Bill.
The housing benefit bill for England in the social sector now stands at £13 billion, having risen by nearly a fifth over the past ten years. Rising rents in the social housing sector are fuelling that increase, with average rent increases in the social sector more than double those in the private sector over the past five years. The Government are determined to put welfare spending on a sustainable footing and reduce the deficit while protecting the most vulnerable. We made commitments to deliver £12 billion of welfare savings, and the scale of the housing benefit bill means that we must address it, including through social rents, if we are to reduce the deficit.
Neil Coyle
The Minister’s concern for the rising rents in housing associations might be more welcome if it were married with concern for the rise in the private rented sector. Why is the Minister reluctant to address the concern of 70,000 private renters in Southwark and the steep rent rises they face?
Mr Vara
Let us talk about the private rented sector. In the years 2004 to 2014, the rent increase in the private rented sector was 23%, according to the Office for National Statistics. In the same period, the social housing rent increased by 63%. If that does not show that there is a difference, I do not know what does.
Neil Coyle
The Minister used careful language—“most” and “many”—when talking about the financial robustness of housing associations. What distinction is made for those housing associations that are not in as strong a financial position? How will they be supported through a change that could see them lose significant sums?
Mr Vara
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is still reading the Bill, but when he gets further on he will find a subsequent clause that deals with exemptions, including local authorities or housing associations that might be in financial difficulty, and there are measures to deal with them.
To help further, the regulator will be on hand to assist housing associations in considering how they can deliver more efficiency and better value for money. My colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government continue to engage with all those concerned as they develop plans to meet the reductions. We acknowledge, however, that there might be some circumstances in which the reduction policy should not apply. Clause 20 therefore provides some statutory exceptions and for further provision to be set out in regulation. In clause 21 we have also allowed for circumstances in which the financial viability of a private registered provider might be jeopardised. In such circumstances a provider may apply to be exempt from the rent reductions; similar provision is made for local authorities.
As for the number of new homes being built, the Government remain absolutely committed to ensuring housing for those who cannot access the market, and we support the ongoing role that the housing association sector has to play in the supply of affordable housing, as well as driving more home ownership. There continues to be a role for housing associations in delivering the mix of housing supply that the country needs, as we have already seen with the delivery of 260,000 new affordable homes over the past five years. We are committed to delivering 275,000 homes by 2020.
We do not believe that there is a need for a plan or a report, as suggested in the amendments. Our approach is measured and will be good for tenants and taxpayers while building in safeguards for supported accommodation and the financial viability of private registered providers. On amendment 184, the Government have made a commitment to reduce rents for a period of four years from April 2016, which is made clear in clause 19 and the new schedule. I hope amendment 21 will be withdrawn.
Debbie Abrahams
Amendment 21 reflects the concern about the affordable homes building programme, which is why we have asked for a plan. We are not convinced that the Government will follow through, which is why I have moved the amendment.
On the other, more general points, I gently refer the Minister to the Government’s own data on house building performance, which were published this summer. Unfortunately, since 2010 the Government have presided over the lowest level of house building in peacetime since the ’20s—those are the Government’s own figures. I will not press the amendment but, again, I refer the Minister to the figures on affordable homes. We are really concerned about what is happening. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Neil Coyle
On a point of order, Mr Owen. I raised a point of order on Tuesday about a letter promised by the Minister for Employment. I now have a copy of the letter, for which I am grateful. There was clearly a mix-up, because it was sent some time ago. However, the letter does not answer the specific point about how the Government will assess the impact on disabled people in different areas.
On 17 September we discussed the impact on disabled people and carers and how to assess that impact more effectively. The Minister committed to providing an explanation of how that will be done. The letter I received talks about how Dr Simon Duffy has not responded to something for which the Department has asked—that is the block. I expected that the Department would outline what it is doing, not what it is not doing. I am keen to get more information on how the Government will address that.
The Chair
I have the gist of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I was not in the Chair for the first point of order, and this is not a point of order for me. He has asked a question of the Minister, who is in her place. If she wishes to enhance what she said, she has the opportunity to do so, but he hon. Gentleman has his point on the record. We now need to move on.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a valid point, and I hope the Minister can do so. On that note, I will stop there.
Neil Coyle
In rising to speak to the amendment, I just want to say that I welcome the Minister’s commitment this morning to write to me so I can find out a bit more information. He suggested that I was trying to make a name for myself—I believe that was the term he used. I certainly do not intend to upset him in any way, not least because I understand he has a black belt in martial arts.
Neil Coyle
The commitment to providing information was linked to the amendment because we were talking about housing associations, representations and the discussions that the Department is having. It would be useful if the Minister, when answering in writing, could provide information on the number of housing associations that have been met; the numbers that indicated that they support the policy, especially those providing specified and supported accommodation; those that specifically outlined the risk to their business case of the policy going ahead; and any representations to the Department from organisations suggesting that they would be unable to provide specified accommodation. I would be grateful to receive that information. I do not expect an answer today.
We heard about specified accommodation in great detail from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, and from all the organisations that made representations—I am particularly grateful to Homeless Link, St Mungo’s Broadway, Shelter and Crisis. The amendment is designed to cover shared houses, hostels, refuges and self-contained accommodation owned by registered providers, and instances where housing-related support, including financial management, is provided.
St Mungo’s Broadway operates in my constituency. Of its residents—the people that it provides support to—52% have previously been rough sleepers, 72% have mental health needs, 44% have significant physical health problems and more than one in five have experienced violence or abuse from a family member or partner. That is the client group, to use the Department’s language, that we are talking about. The total number of units provided at the moment is around 105,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle mentioned Riverside, which estimates that it provides about 4,600 units of that kind of accommodation. We are not talking about a huge number, but the measure would make the provision of the services and housing more difficult for those organisations.
The Homes and Communities Agency was mentioned earlier. It has estimated that investment in supported housing results in a net cost-benefit to the public purse of £640 million per year. Does the Minister have any information about how that cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken or about the risk to that cost-benefit if housing is put at risk? The cost to local authorities of rough sleeping is roughly £8,600 per person. That does not include any cost to the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice or the Home Office—it is just the cost to local authorities. Getting this wrong and putting accommodation for vulnerable people at risk could have knock-on costs for all taxpayers.
The Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Communities and Local Government have commissioned a review into supported accommodation to establish a better evidence base for future funding decisions. Would the Minister give an indication of where that review is at and why the Government are not prepared to wait for the outcome of that review before pressing on with the policy?
Riverside estimates that the cumulative cost of the policy to it would be about £100 million. It has said that
“a year on year reduction in rental income would make this element”—
the specified accommodation—
“of our business loss making”.
It would either have to subsidise from elsewhere or stop providing that accommodation.
St Mungo’s Broadway has said that
“the requirement to reduce rents in social housing in England by one per cent per year for four years will result in the loss of supported housing schemes for homeless and vulnerable people.”
It is saying categorically that it will be unable to provide some of the accommodation that it currently provides, and that there is a knock-on cost that the Government have not taken into account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth has mentioned, St Mungo’s Broadway has said that it will lose £1.25 million by the end of this Parliament as a result of the annual rent reduction. The four housing associations that I have spoken to, which provide some of their accommodation in Bermondsey and Old Southwark, have said that collectively, the cost to them of the proposed policy would be more than £180 million during the lifetime of this Parliament alone.
Mr Vara
I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, some of which I will address later when I talk about other forms of help, assistance and funding.
We have tabled amendments that provide the Secretary of State with powers to allow, by regulation, rent setting for new tenancies in supported housing at up to 10% above the formula. That is similar to the existing rent policy and standard practice. We believe that should help providers of supported accommodation for vulnerable people to continue to provide that important housing. We also acknowledge that there might be some circumstances in which the financial viability of a private registered provider or a local authority could be jeopardised—something the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned. In those cases, the providers could apply to be exempt from rent reductions.
Neil Coyle
It sounds like some of what the Minister is saying is likely to be welcome. Let me reiterate that the borough of Southwark is the biggest landlord in London. In bringing forward other exemptions, would the Minister be willing to meet my local authority to ensure that the most appropriate accommodation is exempted to best effect?
Mr Vara
I would of course be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and anyone he wishes to bring to the meeting. What I would say is that we have been mindful of the fact that we cannot judge the situation as it is now. Where local authorities or housing associations find themselves in financial difficulty and their viability may be an issue, there are processes in place to ensure that the regulator works with them to make sure that things can be worked out. If it is felt necessary, then with the consent of the Secretary of State there can be alterations through a rent reduction, and organisations can make their case. However, we hope to set out in regulations the criteria that would be applied.
We intend to work with organisations—housing associations and local authorities—because we want to make this work. The change is not simply being imposed; we are consulting widely. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth was right to say that there have been a number of amendments, and I repeat that that is a direct consequence of lots of organisations coming to us and saying, “Well, how about this?” We have taken what I think is a commendable decision, in that we have genuinely listened and tried to clarify what we thought we were aiming for. It was not clear enough for the people concerned, so we sought to clarify it.
It is important to get the balance right between reducing the burden on taxpayers and supporting the provision of housing for vulnerable people, as well as the balance between supporting the provision of that housing and treating fairly those older or disabled tenants who pay their own rent and who should benefit from the rent reductions, but will not do so if there is a blanket exemption.
When it comes to dealing with vulnerable older and disabled people, it is important to look at the wider context. As a Government, we are determined to protect the most vulnerable in society and help them to live independent lives, and assistance goes beyond what we are discussing today. Funding for supported housing is included in the wider settlement to councils. The Government continue to support local areas to meet their local needs by maximising funding flexibility. For example, in 2015-16, we are investing £5.3 billion in the better care fund to deliver faster and deeper integration of health and social care. This will enable councils to invest in early action to help people to live in their own homes for longer and help to prevent crisis, as well as supporting councils to work together more effectively, deliver better outcomes for less money and drive integration across all services.
The Government are also investing in specialised housing for older and disabled people through the £315 million care and support specialised housing fund. Phase 1 is expected to deliver over 4,000 homes by 2018; phase 2 was announced in February and will set aside up to £155 million in capital funding for the development of specialist housing to meet the needs of older people and adults with disabilities or known mental health issues.
Neil Coyle
My understanding is that the better care fund is entirely restricted to new projects, so it cannot help towards councils’ existing accommodation costs. Given that we know the waiting lists that councils across the country have, I am not convinced that the better care fund is the solution to the specific problem before us. At the same time, the Government are ending the independent living fund, leaving councils potentially significant new costs for providing residential care accommodation for disabled people who had previously been able to be supported in their own homes.
Mr Vara
I repeat that we should not look at this solely in the context of what we are discussing today; there is a wider picture here, and I have given details of the other moneys available alongside the 1% reduction we are discussing.
I repeat that the Government are committed to ensuring that the most vulnerable people are protected. Statutory homelessness is lower now than in 26 of the past 30 years, at less than half the peak it reached in 2004. This Government have increased spending further to prevent homelessness, making over £500 million available to help the most vulnerable in society. That has resulted in local authorities preventing 935,000 households from becoming homeless since 2010.
Neil Coyle
There is a brilliant charity in Bermondsey called UK Homes 4 Heroes, which supports former members of the armed forces. We have seen a dramatic rise in the number of former members of our armed forces sleeping rough in London. How will this specific policy help councils and others to better support those coming out of the armed forces, to prevent them from ending up sleeping rough, given what the Minister has just said?
Mr Vara
That issue commands huge respect across Government and on both sides of the political argument. There is discussion and debate across Government to make sure that brave men and women who are prepared to put their lives on the line for our safety and security get the best possible treatment. There are clearly still issues that need to be resolved. It is an ongoing debate. I am very aware of the situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers; there are RAF bases in my constituency, and I am only too aware of how we need to look after those people a lot better. We have made progress in the past five years, but we need to do more and should remain vigilant.
I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the continued financial viability of housing providers while balancing the need to support tenants who should benefit from a reduction in their rent. I urge the Opposition to withdraw the amendment.
Priti Patel
I have a number of points, and I will come back to the hon. Lady specifically on quantity information and data. The measure has the support of Motability, and working with Motability is the right thing to do because Motability Operations Ltd provides great support for claimants. She makes it abundantly clear that a great deal of vital and valuable support is provided. This is a valuable lifeline to claimants.
The hon. Lady mentioned costs. I have some figures. The measure costs less than £1 million a year, and Motability has confirmed that it is affordable and will not have an impact on its users. She has specifically asked for further information, and I will ask officials in the Department to get back to her.
Neil Coyle
I welcome the Minister to her place. It is interesting to hear that Motability supports the amendment. Does the amendment arise from the expectation advertised by Motability that it will be forced to withdraw vehicles from disabled people as a result of the transition from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment?
Priti Patel
My understanding is that there will be no impact on claimants who participate in the scheme. The measures are about ensuring the service and reclaiming costs in a fair way for taxpayers, as I explained in my initial comments. This is not about service provision changes. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Question put and agreed to.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
New clause 18—Review of Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment—
‘(1) Part 4 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (Personal Independence Payment) is amended as follows.
(2) Insert new section after section 79—
“79A Review of Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment
(1) The Secretary of State shall in each tax year review the standard rate and enhanced rate of the daily living (section 78) and mobility component (section 79) of the personal independence payment.
(2) In carrying out a review under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consider the effect on the rates if they were increased by—
(a) the percentage increase in the general level of earnings at the end of the period;
(b) the percentage increase in the general level of prices for goods and services, as measured by the Consumer Price Index or by any measurement formally replacing the Consumer Price Index; and
(c) 2.5 per cent.
(3) The Secretary of State shall within three months of this review concluding lay before Parliament a draft order which increases the value of the amount referred to in subsection (1) by the greatest of the three amounts calculated under paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsections (2).”’
For DLA and PIP to be triple locked to further protect their value.
Neil Coyle
Thank you, Mr Owen. That was a bit of a surprise; I thought that there were more Government new clauses to get through.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) who supported the drafting of the new clauses. I also pay tribute to the citizens advice bureau that serves Sheffield Central and Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough for providing case studies. As the explanatory statement makes clear, the new clause is designed to improve support for disabled people who become terminally ill when they are already in receipt of DLA and are in the process of being transferred to the PIP. Welfare rights advisors have identified delays in support to that group. Are the Government were willing to address the concerns?
Today, we heard the Government again suggest that they are protecting disabled people and the most vulnerable. My new clause is solely concerned with terminally ill disabled people—people with an existing impairment or health condition and a terminal prognosis of six months or less left to live. It is very small group. On September 9, I asked the DWP for the specific number of people on DLA who would be affected by the measure. The answer I got back was disappointing—it was not from the Minister, but one of her colleagues. The answer was that the information on the number of disabled people affected by the issues “is not collated” by the Department
“and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.”
That was an incredibly disappointing response, not least because the DWP publishes PIP statistical ad hoc reports.
The most recent figures from May 2015 on registrations, clearances and awards indicate how many people within the figures might qualify for support. As of 31 March 2015, 774,800 new PIP claims and 123,700 DLA reassessment claims had been registered. For the entire period of PIP, the number of reassessments under the
“special rules for the terminally ill”
—to use departmental language—was 16,000. To put a figure on it to enable the Government to cost the measure, we are talking about just 800 people a year, roughly, who are disadvantaged by current process and would benefit slightly from a more sympathetic position from the Government. Those are purely disabled people who are on DLA and moving to PIP due to terminal illness. The new clause is designed to ensure that they receive their first PIP immediately instead of waiting four weeks from the final DLA payment and another four weeks before receiving their first PIP. When people are terminally ill, time is more pressing and precious, and that is a ridiculous amount of time to wait to receive support. That length of time was not required by the former DLA rules, under which the payment would have been received far more quickly.
In the welfare rights advice sector, the perception of the coalition Government’s welfare reform legislation is that it was an accident, rather than a deliberate policy designed to delay support for terminally ill disabled people. Will the Minister indicate whether making terminally ill disabled people wait longer to access vital support was an intended outcome of the change under PIP?
Citizen’s advice bureaux throughout the country have been working as part of the big society—we do not hear so much about that any more. In Southwark, those services have seen a 40% jump in demand. Their support for society has got far bigger as a direct result of welfare reform. I am grateful to the citizen’s advice bureau in Sheffield for providing information about Carol. Carol is 59 and was in receipt of the DLA care component at the lowest rate of £21.80. On 27 May this year, following a diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer, she notified the DWP that she wanted her claim reconsidered under special rules. The Department awarded her the highest rates of the daily living and mobility components of PIP, which equates to £139.75 a week. However, due to the application of transitional rules, payment was from 8 July—four weeks after her next DLA payment date. Had she been a new claimant for PIP who was not already in receipt of DLA the benefit would have been awarded from 27 May. In Carol’s case, that meant losing £117.95 a week for the period of 27 May to 8 July. Some claimants in similar situations would simply not live long enough to receive their awards under existing rules.
I must ensure that I anonymise the next example, as I do not believe that I have permission to name the individual. C1 was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. He has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and has had his right leg amputated below the knee. He received the DLA higher-rate mobility and lower-rate care payments. C1 was told that he could claim PIP instead of DLA but would then be entitled to enhanced care as well as higher-rate mobility. His PIP would not increase until four weeks after his next DLA payment date, so it might take four to eight weeks for the increase to take place, despite his significant disadvantages and terminal prognosis. On the date the advice was given, the client would not have been entitled to receive the enhanced rate until 30 September. He was given the advice in August. The individual has agreed to allow his story to be put forward, and he is happy for us to discuss his circumstances, but not to be named. However, it is a genuine example from Sheffield.
Neil Coyle
I also attended the debate on the Assisted Dying Bill, and there was a strong consensus that there was insufficient support for those who are dying or contemplating suicide. It is unfortunate that, even where there is an indication that some cuts in support have contributed towards tragic consequences for individuals, the Government are reluctant to analyse that properly and to prevent that from happening—not for any other purpose, but to ensure support to prevent people from taking their own lives and to support people at the end of their lives.
Peter Dowd
That is a well-made point. The more we get into this debate, the more we have to move from the philosophical and the abstract to the practical. This is a practical example of where we can say to people, “You’ve got so many pressures on your life at the moment, the least we can do is try to take away just a little of the pressure on you and your family.” If we can just do that, it would be a small step, but a great achievement.
Priti Patel
As I have just said, that would undermine its value. The best way to put this is that, importantly, it is about the individual and ensuring that we have the right rules so that we can support the individual in the right way.
Neil Coyle
It is a bit disturbing to hear the Minister worrying about an inappropriate payment, because she is suggesting that the Department cannot handle this issue. It already handles the issue through disability living allowance so that people get the support when they need it. A very small number of people are moving from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment—we are talking about a maximum of 800 people a year, according to the Department’s figures. We are talking about a very small number of people and a change that aligns the support with DLA for those people in the DLA to PIP transition areas.
Priti Patel
I completely understand those points. The focus is on ensuring that PIP is delivered in the right way and providing the right support. Having listened to the debate today, I will happily consider the views expressed. We are working with stakeholders under the independent reviews, as well. That is important for the efficacy of the delivery and roll-out of PIP. I will take the views and representations made by the Committee into consideration, and we will work with hon. Members, as well. I will be happy to discuss this matter further outside the Committee.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of how frequently claimants who are terminally ill receive their DLA or PIP. Those claimants receive their benefit payment weekly in advance, as opposed to four weeks in arrears, the normal payment cycle for PIP. As I said, I am happy to discuss the matter further and take on board hon. Members’ considerations and representations. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Neil Coyle
I thank the Minister for her response. It is good to know that there is a window of opportunity to explore this issue in a bit more detail. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks on the new clause, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central and the organisations in his constituency can be included in the discussions.
The fast-track system the Minister mentioned is there not out of the goodness of the Department’s heart; it reflects the fact that these people have only six months to live from diagnosis. Looking to have equivalent support for those on disability living allowance who are transitioning to the personal independence payment gives us a small window of opportunity to make sure that there is no time lapse and that people do not end up out of pocket purely because of a postcode lottery.
I welcome the Minister’s commitment and hope the discussions she mentioned are fruitful. If things are not as clear as we would like before Report, there will be the opportunity to discuss the provisions in the new clause at that stage.
To come back to the earlier point about taxpayers, there are many disabled people who use DLA and PIP to support themselves in work. In-work costs are higher for many disabled people—public transport costs, different work uniforms or whatever it might be. We should not lose sight of that. It would be useful if the Government could give a stronger indication that they would be willing to consider having higher payments, which the triple lock would achieve.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
This is my last sitting of the Committee. I thank all members, including the Ministers and those sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. In particular, I thank both Clerks, who have been tireless in their work, and Hansard.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Guy Opperman.)
Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Third sitting)
Neil Coyle Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Shall we hear from the others—Mr Graham and Mr Donaldson?
Alastair Graham: The exemption needs to be couched in the widest terms possible to ensure that people with learning disabilities and other vulnerable groups are properly protected from the impact of the legislation. It is fairly widely recognised that legitimate extra costs are involved in housing people with learning disabilities and other vulnerable groups. However the exemption is phrased, we need to make absolutely sure that we protect those vulnerable groups in the years going forward.
Mike Donaldson: We support the exemption of supported housing or specialised housing, because it operates completely differently from general needs housing. If it is not exempt, it will put very vulnerable people at risk. Given that the objective here is to reduce the housing benefit bill, we also think that housing which has been provided to people who are not in receipt of benefits should be exempt too, particularly intermediate market rent. We credit-check these people to make sure that they can afford the rent from their own means and do not need to be supported by the state. We think that that should be exempt as well. There is a technicality around affordable rent. Affordable rent, which was introduced by the coalition Government, is a gross rent and it includes a large slice of service charge. The Bill talks about rent, not about rent and service charges. That is a confusion, and it needs to be looked at. It is a technicality, but it does need to be sorted out.
David Orr: I think the Bill identifies, broadly speaking, the right areas for considering exemption. The supported housing exemption as presently defined in the Bill is too narrow, and we would argue that it should be what is called specified housing. This is housing which is not covered by the universal credit arrangement. DWP has already accepted that this kind of housing should be exempt from those normal arrangements because of the amount of care and support that is provided.
A separate area that is not mentioned at all in the Bill is relatively recent new large-scale voluntary transfer organisations. Their business plans are very much under pressure, because they entered into 30-year contracts based on a series of assumptions about rent that were formally approved by the Government. They are not going to be able to meet their promises—or, in some cases, meet their contractual obligations—and they are under very, very severe pressure. We think that there should be exemptions there.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Q 148 Thank you all for coming, and for the GSCE economics refresher for the Minister, which was really useful. My question comes straight back to that issue of supported housing. The point was made that in the previous changes of universal credit and the benefit cap, there were specific exemptions for supported housing. Why do you think that the Government have failed to make the same exemptions applicable to this change? Were discussions held with any of you before the Government announced their plans? What impact do you think it would have on the services in the longer term if the full specified accommodation exemptions were not made?
Alastair Graham: No discussions were held with ourselves, and I think that that is the case across the sector more broadly as well. The impact, as I said earlier, will be felt by people who are some of the most vulnerable in our society. Most of them do not work. Only 7% of people with a learning disability currently work, and most of them would still fall within housing benefit. In relation to the answer to a previous question, they will not actually feel any benefit from the reduction of only 1% that would apply to them. Because there is no explicit exemption in the Bill, this is causing a lot of anxiety among individuals with learning disabilities and their families, because they simply do not know what is going to happen.
I understand that the Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to make further exemptions down the road, but until we know what those exemptions are going to be and how they will be couched, there is an awful lot of uncertainty. This is causing anxiety which I think is largely unnecessary, because I do not really believe that the intention behind the Bill is to embrace supported housing. I urge clarification on this as soon as possible, so that people are not placed in that position. We are here in September, and we are only talking about April. It is not very far away. We will need to send out rent letters in the near future. We need to be able to give some reassurance, both to our existing tenants and their families and to potential investors if we want to carry on trying to get private investment at scale. As I said earlier, that is going to end up saving money for the public purse, not costing money.
David Orr: It feels to us as though there is little clear explanation as to why this more limited category is in the Bill. If the Government have already accepted that specified accommodation is different, then they ought to accept that across all of the arrangements that affect it. I think you would have to ask the Chancellor why this decision has been made, but there is a very strong case for ensuring that all specified accommodation is exempt from this measure.
Neil Coyle
Q 149 We are primarily talking about accommodation for people fleeing domestic violence, people with learning disabilities and mental health problems, and homeless accommodation. They are exempt elsewhere. You are suggesting that this would cause complexity rather than simplification, which is something that the Government are striving for. Do you think that this has come about by design or by accident? Do you think it was a drafting problem? I notice that the Minister was shaking her head, but I hope that there will be clarity that this was an accident rather than a deliberate omission.
Neil Coyle
Well, I am asking it. Do you think it was design or accident?
David Orr: I am not prepared to opine on the thinking of others, but it will not aid simplicity in a very complex rental environment. It is just another level of complexity. The long-term implication is that there will be less housing of this kind if this measure goes through. I think that will be problematic.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Q 150 I am terrible at parliamentary protocol, but I feel that I have to declare now. If you look in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, you will see that I worked for Women’s Aid within the past six months; there it is, on the record.
I want to get some further answers on supported accommodation. It is my experience that, with the reduction of funding for Supporting People and other local authority supported housing schemes, housing benefit-plus, as we would call it in supported accommodation terms, has picked up the slack for keeping those places open. There are lots of refuges and lots of places like those you are describing for people with learning difficulties where funding for Supporting People was reduced. Organisations acted well to keep opening new beds for vulnerable people through housing benefit regulation. Will this have an effect on the supply of accommodation for, for example, victims of domestic violence, where there has already been a reduction due to the cuts in Supporting People? I ask you, Mr Graham.
Alastair Graham: I do think that the implication is that it will be more difficult to provide full supported housing and new supported housing for many types of vulnerable groups because—firstly, from a private investment point of view—it is difficult to lever in private investment on its own or in combination with capital grant, if you have to show a business model in which your rental income is reducing year on year for the next four years but there is profound uncertainty beyond year four.
As David mentioned earlier, we thought, in the sector, that we had some certainty on this for 10 years and it was much easier to have those conversations with private lenders on that basis. Any kind of new housing or new proposition that we want to make will be a lot more difficult if we have to have a business model that shows that reducing rental income.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Q 172 I thank the panel for joining us. I would like to pick up on the removal of the targets. It seems to me that the targets are being removed because the Government had no chance of meeting them. That in itself is a very dangerous move. I also want to pick up on some of the observations that have been made about the rise in the national wage, which as we all know is not a living wage, because the living wage has been set independently at £7.85 outside London and £9.20 within London. Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the welfare cuts, coupled with the moderate increase, will lead to only a 13% benefit, and the vast majority will have their income reduced significantly. The Scottish National party believes that we should not remove the targets. Do you agree with that? At the very least, should we delay any removal so we can properly consider and review what impact it will have?
Alison Garnham: Yes, I would support that. I have said that I am in favour of keeping the targets. It is worth pointing out the kind of change that was driven while child poverty was falling. We know that as people’s income was improving and child poverty was falling there was more spending on fruit, vegetables and children’s books, and less spending on tobacco and alcohol. We saw improvements in child wellbeing in 36 out of 48 OECD indicators. It was not just about people simply getting more money; there were big impacts on what was happening to families, too. That is one of the reasons why we need to continue to track it. One of the important things about the indicators we have is that we have an income series that goes back to 1961, so we can compare historically. We can also compare internationally, because these are the measures used in the EU, the OECD and the International Monetary Fund, so we are able to see how we are doing in relation to other countries.
Dr Callan: May I point out some other drawbacks? It has already been mentioned that in the recession it looks like child poverty is falling, which does not make sense. There are other reasons why the targets were unhelpful. There is no sense of how families’ circumstances change when they move in and out of poverty across a certain line, and there is no distinguishing between those a long way from the line and those just below it. Obviously it is nuanced—you do very careful analysis, I appreciate that—but we get into this poverty-plus-a-pound issue, where somebody is just over the line but their life circumstances may not have changed one bit. It is misleading, really—
Neil Coyle
Q 189 Alison, you mentioned your disappointment at the abandonment of the consensus on tackling child poverty. What does the panel think is behind the Government’s poverty of ambition on measuring in-work poverty? Is it about the costs of measuring, or is it about a lack of faith in the living wage to tackle in-work poverty? Is it perhaps that the impact of changes to tax credits or other benefits will undermine the national living wage? In the context of the discussion about tackling the symptoms and the cause, what are the costs of getting this measurement wrong?
Matt Padley: We have already heard that the estimated cost to the country of child poverty is between £25 billion and £29 billion a year. If you are not tackling and addressing child poverty, there is a significant cost to the country. There are also costs to those children who grow up in households without access to lots of the things that the rest of society see as providing a minimum standard of living, so there are individual costs as well as national costs. Is there a poverty of ambition? Given the broader economic context and, as I said earlier, the perverse results you get from a relative income measure, it has become easier over the past few years to dismiss that measure as not telling you anything particularly useful. However, I think that in combination with all the other measures that are currently in the Child Poverty Act 2010, it does tell us something useful and it does enable us to track low income. We know that money matters.
Professor Gordon: On the subject of costs, I emphasise that we know from good evidence that growing up in poverty has long-term health consequences in terms of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease, which are then expensive to treat. Poor children tend to have worse educational outcomes and get worse jobs, and therefore pay less tax. So the economic costs of child poverty are quite high, particularly in the long term. Getting it wrong means that you have a worse society and less money to spend.
Alison Garnham: I agree with that. It leads to a health divide. Children who are far behind are more likely to have lifelong limiting illnesses, to die younger or even to die on the road, to be nine months behind in education and to have low self-esteem. In terms of poverty of ambition, one of the problems is that many of the current policies fall most heavily on low-income working families. For example, 60% of the cuts to benefits and tax credits have affected low-income working families. So that is definitely something that needs to be tracked to see what its impact is.
Rather than get rid of the targets, another approach would have been to say, “Well, let’s lengthen the target. We have gone through a recession and it has been particularly difficult to reach the target, so let’s lengthen the period of time that we have to actually achieve it”. As David said earlier, child poverty is very expensive. Donald Hirsch modelled this for us. The impact of high child poverty in terms of the cost of services and the cost of benefits is now about £29 billion. If child poverty rises by nearly another million, as predicted, that cost rises to about £35 billion a year.
Dr Callan: I am not convinced that there was a great political consensus about this issue before 2010. In the debates on the Child Poverty Bill, serious people— Lord Freud in the House of Lords and Andrew Selous in the Commons—raised issues such as the £170 billion that we poured into tax credits over a six-year period.
Neil Coyle
Q 190 So what was the parliamentary vote? There might have been individual voices, but what was the parliamentary vote?
Dr Callan: It was very difficult. There was no developed alternative strategy, and I think that there is now a life-chance strategy.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Second sitting)
Neil Coyle Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
That is not what the evidence says at all.
The Chair
Order. This is not a discussion; this is evidence taking. We will now call Paul Scully, followed by Hannah Bardell—you have let me down slightly there, Hannah, if I may say so. Then we will move to Peter Heaton-Jones and Corri Wilson. Neil, you can come in after that.
The Chair
Any takers?
Tony Wilson: There is a good argument to exempt them. The groups we most focus on exempting from the cap would be those that are least likely to be able to respond by moving into work or moving home. In particular, those are parents with very young children. We would not expect parents with a child aged one or nought to be moving into work or moving home in response to the cap. Therefore, their only option is to see their income reduced. Focusing exemptions on those groups where a labour market or housing response is not possible or feasible is critically important. Some of those may be widows and carers, yes.
Neil Coyle
Q 58 Apologies for my lateness. I was unfortunately unable to change another meeting, because we only got these days late. In response to a previous question from Hannah Bardell, Charlotte, you mentioned that there was evidence that any job was better than no job, with specific reference to someone who was given only one or two hours per week. What evidence is there specifically about those on zero-hours contracts and those who are unable to work more than a few hours a week or who are given few hours a week—specific evidence?
Charlotte Pickles: As you said, you came in a bit late, so you may have missed the start of that conversation. The discussion was about the type of—
Neil Coyle
I am referring to the specific question, in answer to which you said there was evidence.
Charlotte Pickles: May I finish? [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. Let Charlotte finish, please.
Charlotte Pickles: The discussion—this is why I wanted to contribute to that particular question—was about Octavia saying that we need to make sure that lone parents are moving into quality jobs. I was saying that, yes, we want to make sure they progress, and there is definitely a training and skills issue. It is about making sure that we are supportive and making sure that there is enough funding to do that. My point was that there is evidence that moving into a job is good for your wellbeing, above not moving into a job. I also said, which again you may have missed, that it is important to help those people to progress upwards once they have moved into a job. That could be about working with employers and skills. It could be all sorts of things.
Neil Coyle
Q 59 With specific reference to the question, is there no evidence to suggest that someone working just a few hours would benefit?
Charlotte Pickles: I have no comments on zero-hours contracts, if that is what you are asking me.
Octavia Holland: I think that what Charlotte is saying is perhaps not as applicable to single parents as it might be to some other groups, because single parents are much more likely to get stuck in low-paid work with no prospects. I am not aware of any evidence that shows that it is beneficial for a single parent family for that single parent to be in a low-paid, unskilled job with no prospects, leaving their child in informal childcare and still struggling to make ends meet. I am not aware of any evidence that demonstrates that that is beneficial.
Kirsty McHugh: I am not going to comment on zero-hours contracts specifically. However, there is evidence that you are more likely to get a better job—a better-paid job—if you are in work or have been in work. That does not necessarily even mean paid work. The work placements are really important. Work experience gives you far more in relation to that, and entry-level jobs are important because then you are more likely to progress up the ladder.
Octavia Holland: But much less likely if you are a single parent.
Charlotte Pickles: I entirely agree with the point about being stuck in low-paid work, to quote Octavia. Clearly that is not what we want for anyone, and we need to look at it. At the moment there is lots of discussion on whether the new version of the Work programme might incentivise progression. There is all sorts of work being done by various charitable organisations on how you incentivise progression. I absolutely agree that we need to do that.
There is very strong evidence—if you look, for example, at the Burton and Waddell work or at lots of work internationally—that work is good for people’s health and wellbeing. There is also a lot of evidence that it is good for children. Children in workless households do worse than children in households where somebody is in work, so it is actually not just about the adult’s outcomes but about the child’s outcomes. I disagree that it is better for a lone parent not to be in work and to be waiting for a high-quality job than moving into work and hopefully progressing towards a high-quality job.
Neil Coyle
Q 60 Has Reform done any specific research on the knock-on costs or on this specific issue of those on very limited hours of low-paid work?
Charlotte Pickles: We have not done anything on zero-hours contracts.
The Chair
Colleagues, we are approaching the end of our time for this session, and you have all been fairly well behaved. Are there any final questions?
Helen Whately
Q 72 We have been talking about the trade off in that these are successful programmes but they cost money. I am interested in your view. When you have a choice, do you keep paying somebody a slightly higher benefit or use some of that money instead to enable them to get closer to work, which is the situation we have here? Is it not better to support someone with that money, so that they can get into work? That is what most people with mental health problems who I know want. Is that not important?
Sophie Corlett: It is really important that it is both. What we know about mental health problems is that—perhaps obviously—stress and depression are very common, and increasing somebody’s anxiety, particularly around their financial sustainability, is not a great place to start. To go back to the point that I made before, if people are in the WRA group, they have been assigned to a group of those not yet fit to work, so work-related activity is to get them towards work and to support them towards work. However, that is not necessarily going to make them well. There is a health aspect to this, to which a financial incentive or a timetable is not conducive; it will take the time that it will take. Work-related activity might help, but it might be nothing to do with it, and to require people to live on less, because they might get a job at some future point, is inequitable.
Neil Coyle
Q 73 My questions follow Helen’s quite neatly and are primarily for Sophie, Gareth and Elliot. The Government have a commendable target to reduce the employment gap for disabled people. There are opportunities in the Work programme, where it is supposed to be changing to focus in on that. Some of that has been touched on. A bit more information and specific recommendations from you on disability employment advisers, apprenticeships and Access to Work would be useful. It should be noted that although Access to Work costs money up front, it saves money in the longer term, not just in reducing benefits, but in income tax and national insurance contributions.
Secondly, Laura, you mentioned the impact of changes on disabled people and how they had not been taken into full consideration previously. Can you say a bit more about what measurements and reporting you would like to see in the Bill, including knock-on costs if the Government are potentially getting things wrong, if you have recommendations now?
Thirdly, a wider question: disabled people are known to have higher costs of living and fewer opportunities and the Government have repeated the statement that disabled people have been protected from previous cuts. Would you like to see an exemption for disabled people from benefit and tax credit freezes in the Bill to ensure that that statement is accurate?
Neil Coyle
The first question is to Sophie, Gareth and Elliot, the second one is to Laura and, for the third, take your pick.
Sophie Corlett: I do not remember the first question because you went through them so quickly. I would be grateful if you would repeat the first question.
Elliot Dunster: I think I remember, so I can start. I think the point you are making, Neil, is the importance of specialist employment support. I think it would be really helpful in the course of the Committee’s deliberations for the Minister to commit to a future specialist employment support service for disabled people.
The Work programme, while it has been effective for some groups, has not been effective for disabled people in the way that we would have liked to see. Work Choice has done some very good things in supporting disabled people into work and it has a much better success rate than the Work programme.
We would like to build on some of the good things that Work Choice does: for example, the ability for small, specialist organisations who know local employers and the barriers that disabled people face, to work with them individually to make some of those adjustments with employers that I think Sophie was talking about earlier. That has a much higher success rate, so let us build on some of the success of Work Choice. I think that we will need to change some of the nature of the contract so that small organisations can take them on. We would like a bit longer to work with disabled people, to get some of those outcomes that we all want to see. So we think there are some good things with Work Choice that we would like to see built on with a new specialist employment support programme going forward.
You asked a bit about apprenticeships. Absolutely, they have got to be part of the picture for getting disabled people back into work. We have to start as young as possible and make sure that disabled people have all those opportunities. That is something that the Government should look at.
The Chair
I have Corri Wilson, Peter Heaton-Jones and Hannah Bardell. Ask your brief question now, Neil, then Corri can ask hers.
Neil Coyle
Q 74 I am intrigued by the point made by Laura and Matt: you are saying it is nonsensical to exclude disabled people from this, and “Make sure that the Prime Minister, when he next says disabled people are protected, is telling the truth.” Have you suggested, Laura—when you have heard Ministers say disabled people are protected—and have other charities you are aware of communicated that disabled people have been affected by previous changes, and that this Bill will also directly affect disabled people? Have you made that communication to DWP, so that Ministers and MPs know that disabled people are not protected under previous changes and will not be protected by this?
The Chair
Brief answers, please.
Laura Cockram: I believe so.
Sophie Corlett: Yes, I am sure,
Oral Answers to Questions
Neil Coyle Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I know that he understands from his work at the Bar, which ranges from social housing to criminal law, the importance of getting the detail right. We look forward to hearing his contribution as the consultation and proposed legislation goes forward.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
T9. Lambeth county court serves my constituency. Will the Minister clarify whether the court met the Department’s definition of underused or surplus, if 50% of its available hearing time went unused? What assessment has the Department made of the impact of its potential closure on my constituents?
Mr Vara
No firm decisions have been made at the moment. The consultation document has individual papers as far as each individual court is concerned. They are quite comprehensive. If the hon. Gentleman has issues and concerns, I am happy for him to write to me and I am happy to correspond with him while the consultation is taking place.