Housing Benefit (Wales)

Steve Webb Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. It is a considerable problem.

The Government state in their response that they will not consider a blanket ban on forcing people in adapted premises to move. When there has been investment to make properties suitable many housing authorities in Wales try to keep them available for disabled people. Not having a blanket ban on hitting disabled people with the bedroom tax is a short-sighted policy. Apart from the tremendous upset for the individual, it is not good use of public funds.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Will the hon. Lady say how she would define what “significantly adapted” is in practice?

[Nia Griffith]

I am sure we can all imagine major adaptations such as changes to bathrooms and additional rooms. The only one that might be considered less significant is a stair lift that could be put in or taken out, but any other form of adaptation should be taken into consideration. Further to that, it should be noted that legislation passed by the Welsh Government has enabled local authorities in Wales to desist from selling off some types of properties. They have largely chosen to keep in their stock properties such as those suitable for old people who downsize precisely because adaptations have been made that suit older people as they become less physically active.

Another point in the Government’s response is that the bedroom tax

“may encourage more claimants to move into work”.

That sounds like forcing people to look for work. People are already looking for work. People who have the capabilities are already looking for work. We must take into account the fact that some of them have significant disabilities and there are not many suitable jobs available.

Transport and child care are problems in rural areas, which are multiplied because of trying to fit in transport to work with picking up children and getting home from work. It is not easy to find jobs with hours that fit in.

I have taken issue with the Minister about the fact that the issue is not just a matter of obtaining a few extra hours. We all know that because of the complex way in which housing benefit is worked out people effectively lose around 60% of the benefit for additional earnings. The equation does not involve simply a few extra hours. The matter is much more complex. On tapering or claw back, I am extremely concerned about the proposals for universal credit because 76p in the pound of each tax credit will be clawed back when people take on more hours of work. The Centre for Social Justice suggested that it should be only 55%. That is another enormous hurdle for people taking on more work or going out to find work.

What progress has there been on collecting information and monitoring rental costs? That was promised in the Government’s response.

I turn to discretionary housing payments. The whole point about them is that they are discretionary, but they are imposing an enormous work load on local authorities because everyone on housing benefit is deemed to have insufficient funds to cover their rent. That was our definition of housing benefit. It was provided for people whose residual money after deducting various items was not sufficient to cover their rent, so it is inevitably massively oversubscribed.

The Government have said that they have provided extra money, but let us look at what that really means. I will use the example of Torfaen, which was given £193,000 of additional money for its discretionary housing payments but the shortfall in housing benefit is approximately £1 million, or five times the discretionary amount allocated. Torfaen was then told that it could spend up to £430,000, but that extra money must come from its own funds. In other words, it must make sweeping cuts elsewhere when it is already facing significant cuts.

The Welsh Government have provided £1.3 million of extra money throughout Wales to help with the additional administrative burden, but what a waste of money. If housing benefit was paid, none of that would be necessary. Having gone through the process once, it will have to be repeated because the whole point of discretionary housing payment is that it is supposed to be a temporary measure, as the Government noted, to tide people over. However, if there is nowhere for them to move to, the process will be repeated.

The officer in charge of housing benefit for Monmouth and Torfaen, Richard Davies, summed up the situation when he said that administering the huge demand for help has dramatically increased council work load and dealing with discretionary housing payment

“applications is like dealing with a totally separate benefit scheme. It’s shifted everything from statutory to discretionary”

so

“it’s a huge burden of administration.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I join in the congratulations to the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). I congratulate him on enabling the Committee to come up with a unanimous report. All of us who believe in the Select Committee system agree that Committees are at their strongest when they can be unanimous. He asked some specific questions for factual information, but in 10 minutes I will be trying to respond to two hours of contributions, so I apologise in advance if I miss one or two points.

I will concentrate on the spare room issue, but one or two hon. Members mentioned direct payment. As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, the philosophy of universal credit is to mirror in out-of-work benefits what happens when people are in work, so that if they make a transition from being out of work to in work, they will not have the sudden shock of having to budget from a wage and pay all of their bills, because they have been used to budgeting from the whole of their income for all of their outgoings. We want to improve that transition from out of work to in work.

The Government accept that direct payment will be difficult or not appropriate for a minority of people—that is not in dispute. Instead of having a system geared around the assumption that most people cannot cope, however, we are twisting that around and saying, “No, actually most people can.” Indeed, we pay housing benefit in the private rented sector direct to tenants, and most people cope. We should not patronise social tenants with the presumption that they cannot cope; we should presume that they can, but then identify the most vulnerable, who will have problems.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

No, I will not give way, because I have a whole lot of questions which have already been asked that I want to answer.

In response to the question of whether we simply let eight weeks go by, let two months of arrears accumulate and only then start thinking about doing something, the answer is no, we do not. The alternative payment arrangements of universal credit include an assessment of the likelihood that someone will struggle at the outset; we do not simply wait until eight weeks of arrears have arisen. Eight weeks of arrears may be a trigger in a case where we thought someone could cope, but things did not work. If someone is assessed as likely to struggle right at the beginning, however, we can go straight to direct payment to the landlord, if necessary.

The House wants me to focus my remarks on the spare room issue, which is what I will now do. On a matter of fact and numbers, and because the Chair of the Committee asked me for an update, our estimate in May 2013 of the number of Welsh claimants with a spare room with a reduction was 36,000; our most recent estimate is that that figure had fallen to around 32,000 in November 2013. At this stage, we are not able to identify how far that was due to trading down or taking a job and not needing benefit, and so on. Those figures, however, give an order of magnitude.

The issue of what the thing is called is not simply semantics. Whether it is a reduction in a subsidy or a tax gets to the heart of what the thing is. I want to compare three people: a person who is buying a house; a person who is renting on benefit from a private landlord; and a person who is renting on benefit from a social landlord. Two of those three people pay for the size of the house that they live in; the third does not.

The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) said, “Hang on, we are introducing this new divide between people who rent and people who buy,” but in actual fact we are treating people in those different tenancies in a parallel manner. If people are thinking of buying a house in Wales and want an extra bedroom, they can have an extra bedroom and pay for it. If people rent from a private landlord, are on benefit and want an extra bedroom, they can have an extra bedroom and pay for it. Until now, however, people who were social tenants in Wales and had an extra bedroom did not pay for it. That is why our measure is the removal of a subsidy; it is not a tax.

[Nia Griffith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

No. For example, when the Labour Government introduced the principle that private sector tenants with a spare room should have to pay for it, they did not describe the measure as a bedroom tax, so I do not see why a similar one for a social tenant should be.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

No, I will not, because I have two hours of questions to answer, and I want to answer them.

On the role of discretionary housing payments, several speakers, including the hon. Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Swansea East (Mrs James), mentioned the pressures in their area on the DHP budget. Let us go through the facts, because people might be thinking, “This is terrible. The Government have been withholding funds for local authorities.” Let me make it clear what has happened.

At the start of 2013-14, the figure for DHPs in Wales was £6.9 million; at the start of 2014-15, it was £7.9 million. All of us accept that those are substantial sums of money. We did not leave it at that, however, and one of the themes of the debate is whether we are monitoring and listening and then refining the policy. We listened in two important areas.

We first listened to the position of Welsh and Scottish—mainly—local authorities. We accepted the point also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and others that remote rural areas have particular issues. We therefore allocated additional funding. In Wales, that was £143,000 to Ceredigion, £449,000 to Gwynedd and £387,000 to Powys. Interestingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire said what a good job Powys had done as a local authority—I pay tribute to it—and one of the reasons it could do so is because the Government had recognised the additional pressures on remote rural areas and come up with the funding. He can therefore report back to the House that it was not largely an issue in his area, because we had monitored what was happening, responded and dealt with it.

We did not leave matters there. We had a national or GB-wide allocation and a remote rural areas allocation, but there might still be acute local circumstances requiring still more funding, so we came up with an additional £20 million pot and invited bids for funding from it. Three Welsh local authorities applied and were given money: Cardiff, Conwy and Caerphilly. No other local authority in Wales asked us for a penny. We cannot simultaneously say that there is unmet need in Newport, Swansea and other areas, and that local authorities are having to turn needy people away, when those authorities did not ask us for the money to top up their DHP budget to such an extent that central Government had unspent additional DHP pot still available for local authorities to claim.

What are those authorities doing? I have no reason to doubt the hon. Members who spoke, but if it is the case that they have constituents for whom the impact of the change has been inappropriate, harsh or unfair—many words have been used—what were their local authorities doing not drawing down the additional money that was available and that was not contingent on matched funding? We did not say to local authorities, “Ask us for more money—but only if you put more in”; we simply said, “Do you need more money?”, and only three Welsh local authorities asked for it.

A number of other issues were raised during the debate and I will respond to one or two. We are being told that allocations are now not based on need. Why is it appropriate to say to private tenants, “Your housing benefit may only cover a house of the size you need,” but not to say the same to social tenants? Why should we not say it to both? When I have challenged the Opposition about when Labour introduced what they now describe as a bedroom tax, but for private tenancies, they say it was for future tenancies and so it was fine. When we intervene on them and ask whether the policy would be fine for future social tenants, Labour Members mumble and go quiet, because they have no answer.

[Nick Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

No, I will not. Labour cannot explain why it is right to say that private tenants have to pay for the size of the house that they live in, but that social tenants should not have to. Some suggestions were made about our views on excluding pensioners from the measure. They are generally excluded because, for example, expecting them to take work would be unrealistic. We have excluded pensioners for that reason, but it is pretty obvious why the Labour party wants to exclude social tenants, but not private tenants.

Someone said during the debate that we cannot both save money and make better use of the housing stock, but we are doing both of those things. The original estimated savings from the measure for the whole country of some £0.5 billion remains our expected order of magnitude. In addition, some people are moving to more suitable accommodation and freeing up accommodation for the people whose voice never gets heard—as has been said in the debate.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

No—I have only one and a quarter minutes left. Why did we not hear about the 13,000 people in Wales living in overcrowded social sector accommodation? Where was their voice in the debate? What about the people living in overcrowded private sector accommodation, or the 90,000 people on housing waiting lists?

There is a whole set of unmet housing need while we have people under-occupying social rented accommodation —through no fault of their own, so it is not a criticism of them, but it is a fact. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said that when people’s kids grow up, they should go on being able to live in a big family house, but what about the people who would love a big family house, but cannot get it because it is under-occupied? We have to help people with the transition, but that is why substantial additional DHPs have been found.

Finally, on the specific issue of adapted accommodation. We would have loved it had we been able to write a law in Whitehall that said, “This is adapted; this isn’t. Here is how we define it in an Act of Parliament or a statutory instrument. We will have a blanket exemption.” That would have been great. We looked hard, but we could not think of a national and consistent way of defining what it was. We therefore found the money instead—£25 million across Great Britain, which was our estimate of the cost of buying out the impact on substantially adapted properties. No one in the country living in a substantially adapted property who goes to a local authority should be turned away because there is not the money for DHP. We have given the local authorities the money, and that should not need to happen.

There is lots more that I would love to say, but I am constrained by time. I hope that I have been able to give some responses to the questions asked by the Chairman of the Committee.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I will ask the Chairman of the Select Committee to respond briefly to this debate and then to introduce the second debate, which is on the Work programme in Wales. While that is happening, will hon. Members who want to speak in that debate indicate that to me? It will be helpful in apportioning the time.