| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North): Does that not show how the housing benefit system has distorted the accommodation available on the marketplace in terms of over-emphasis on quality? It is not right that young people should expect the taxpayer automatically to fund self-contained accommodation for them, come what may. Most citizens expect young people to look for jobs before they enjoy such luxuries.
Mr. Bradley: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman suggests that quality accommodation should not be the norm. Presumably he wants low-grade accommodation and little provision of basic facilities for our young people. That view is not shared by many organisations that represent housing groups, or even estate agents, who perhaps should want taxpayers' money to be involved. Clearly the hon. Gentleman does not understand the conditions to be found in many houses in multiple occupation. Forcing young people to live in such conditions is quite scandalous.
It is important to make four further crucial points. First, the Government claim that the changes will save£65 million a year, but they do not seem to have costed spending to deal with the subsequent rise in homelessness, and the further cost of administering the new regulations coupled with the changes that were made to the regulations in January. Will the Minister provide the net cost of those proposals, taking into account the factors that I have just identified?
Secondly, I turn to discretionary payments to vulnerable people. The discretion to pay above single-room rent will be cash-limited. Local authorities simply cannot exercise discretion properly when they are expected to do so within the confines of a cash-limited budget. For example, a single person under the age of 25 who applies for a discretionary payment in, say, December of this year may be successful, but someone in identical circumstances who applies in, say, February next year could be unsuccessful, on the sole ground that the cash-limited budget has already been spent.
We have ample experience of the way in which people are treated unfairly under the social fund. People in identical circumstances are not receiving help when it is desperately needed. Will the Minister comment on the cash-limited budget for discretionary payments?
Thirdly, I turn to exemptions. The Opposition believe that the safeguards built into the regulations are wholly inadequate. I should like to return, as I said I would, to care leavers. As I understand the regulations, only care leavers who have been subject to care orders under the Children Act 1989 will receive exemption from the proposals--but, even then, only until their 22nd birthday. Young people who are looked after voluntarily or following agreement with parents are not to be exempt from the changes for any period.
In March 1994, of the 45,200 young people looked after by local authorities, 53 per cent., or 24,400, were subject to care orders, whereas 20,800, or 47 per cent., were accommodated but not subject to such care orders. The source of that information is the Children Act 1994. The trend is that the number of people accommodated but not subject to care orders makes up an increasing proportion of all young people in the care system.
Scottish care leavers will have no such exemptions, as the Children Act applies only to England and Wales, and the regulations exempt only care leavers who are subject to an order under the Act. The Government have so far given no explanation of why care leavers in Scotland and the other group I have identified should be treated more harshly. Will the Minister confirm my interpretation of the regulations, and if it is correct, explain why it does not apply in the way I have described?
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
To supplement my hon. Friend's point, we have received representations from Glasgow Women's Aid, which is absolutely desperate about the matter, especially since Strathclyde region, which was extremely helpful, has been dismantled. I shall give the documents to the Government for their comment.
Mr. Bradley:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point, and look forward to the Minister's response to the problem.
Time is short, so I shall make my fourth point briefly. It relates to the Government's policy on non-dependant deductions, which seems contradictory to the regulations. I obtained figures from the Library that showed--it is complicated because of the different income bands--that, on average, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the non-dependant deduction, but, at the same time, only about a 9 to 11 per cent. increase in the income bands to which the deduction applies.
That would seem to encourage young people to leave the parental home because there is an imposition through the benefits system on non-dependants who remain within the family home, but the Government's stated rationale is to stop young people leaving the parental home. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the apparent contradiction between the two policies--between non-dependant deductions and the proposals before the House.
I turn now, briefly, to the other key changes to the housing benefit system in respect of future payments. Although it could be argued that the proposed changes are
merely technical and will not have a substantial effect, we believe that many claimants will be seriously disadvantaged.
The Government's reason for the changes is primarily to avoid overpayments. Although that may occur, it is important to stress that housing benefits payments are made only two weeks in advance, so there is only limited scope for overpayments as a result of payments in advance. However, the negative effects on claimants of a shift to payments in arrears may well be serious.
Most landlords require rent to be paid in advance. Therefore, it is reasonable that housing benefit should be paid in advance. At the start of a tenancy, claimants are often faced with demands for a deposit and a month's rent in advance. There is no provision in the benefits system for deposits, and only limited provision for loans for rent in advance from the social fund. If claimants have to wait longer for their first housing benefit payment, it will be even more difficult for claimants to gain tenancies, and landlords will become more reluctant to grant tenancies to housing benefit claimants. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that point.
Many organisations are concerned about the shift to payment in arrears, coupling it with the shortfalls in rent caused by the January 1996 benefit cuts and the proposals in the Housing Bill to reduce the period of rent arrears that justifies a possession order from 13 weeks to merely eight weeks. That may cause great hardship and insecurity for families and single claimants in private rented accommodation.
We believe that the draconian regulations to restrict housing benefit to single people under 25 further constitutes a form of age discrimination within the means-tested benefits system, and is likely to force young people into unsuitable housing and lead to an increase in youth homelessness.
The Government have refused to accept the main recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee that
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans):
We now know that Labour's considered position is that the regulations are draconian and age discriminatory. The Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), has invited his hon. Friends to vote them down. I am disappointed to hear that, as the Opposition have made no alternative suggestion as to what should be done to restrain the growth in housing benefit or as to what the alternative possibilities in their minds might be.
I have in mind the observation in The Times on18 May, when the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East(Mr. Brown) was reported to have
There is a pressing need to tackle the rising costs of housing benefit and the abuse of public funds which, unhappily, has been associated with it. The housing benefit bill stands at more than £11 billion a year, and a significant part of that is spent needlessly and wastefully.
Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon):
The Minister expresses concern about the abuse of public funds. Does the Department of Social Security ever talk to the Department of the Environment? While his Department is proposing these measures, which will increase poverty, homelessness and unemployment--as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) so eloquently explained--the DOE is proposing nearly to double the amount of financial work that is to be exposed to competition. How will farming out the administration of housing benefit to private agencies assist the DSS in what ought to be its crusade to root out fraud? How will that assist the DSS in its duty to ensure that housing benefit is properly paid on time?
"the proposal should not be implemented in its present form."
We agree with that, and with the SSAC's devastating conclusion that
"the consequence of the proposals could well be that some people dependant on benefits will face a choice between homelessness and living in accommodation of an unacceptably poor standard."
That is why we prayed against the regulations, and that is why we will vote against them tonight.
4.32 pm
"emphasised his message to Shadow Cabinet colleagues that they must make no spending commitments before finding savings."
If the regulations do not take effect, there will be costs, to which I shall return later, but we are debating whether they are appropriate measures in their own terms. I appreciate that that is what primarily concerns the House, but the country will be interested in the political point as to exactly what Labour's spending proposals are.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |