 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet Public Bill Committee Debates Welfare Reform Bill |
Welfare Reform Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John
Benger, Chris Shaw, Committee
Clerks †
attended the Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 28 November 2006(Morning)[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]Welfare Reform Bill10.30
am
The
Chairman: May I remind hon. Members that the Bill has been
carried over from the last Session and reprinted to incorporate the
amendments made by the Committee? Members should ensure that they are
using the correct copy of the Bill, which is Bill No. 1 of the current
Session.
Clause 36Payment
of housing benefit
John
Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con): I begto move
amendment No. 267, in clause 36, page 29,line 40, leave out
‘may’ and insert
‘must’. I
welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Hood, following our brief
break. It is hard to resist the temptation to begin by saying,
“As I was just saying”, after two or three weeks away for
the Queen’s Speech, but I shall try.
The amendment is aimed at
preserving the option of making direct payment of housing benefit to
landlords without going via claimants, should that be necessary. The
Committee had a useful and informative discussion—I think that
there was cross-party agreement on this point—about the
importance of trying to expand financial literacy and of deepening the
level of bank account penetration among claimants of benefits in
general and of housing benefit in particular. There is still great
support for that proposition.
However, there are occasions
when it would not necessarily be appropriate for some groups of
claimants to receive housing benefit directly, and when it would be
appropriate to pay the benefit directly to the landlord instead.
Examples of those to whom it might be dangerous to make direct payments
include drug addicts who are not yet recovered, who may be in the
process of recovery from their addiction. For such people, the
difficulty of dealing with financial affairs and, to them,
comparatively large amounts of money, which arrive in one lump every
week or so, will create an impossible degree of temptation that would
be impossible to manage, given the chaotic lifestyle of people who are
in the depths of addiction. Clearly, there are some groups of people
for whom direct payment may not be appropriate. The amendment seeks to
ensure that there will be a guaranteed facility to preserve the option
of direct payments of housing benefit to landlords if
necessary. A number of
landlords are very concerned about losing such an option as a way of
receiving the benefit. They regard it as an essential piece of
certainty and of
protection of the rent stream. Many have said that they are concerned
enough to consider getting out of the sector and stopping providing
accommodation if the option of direct payment ceased.
The Opposition are therefore
not asking that the proposed measure should apply to everybody. We
completely support the notion that there should be an extension of bank
accounts and financial literacy to the majority of people claiming
housing benefit, but we feel that for some groups, at some stages, it
will be important to maintain direct payment. We therefore hope that
the Under-Secretary can give us some reassurance on the
matter.
Danny
Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
(LD): May I also welcome you back to the Chair, Mr.
Hood, and say what a pleasure it is to be back here under your guidance
for the final sittings of the Committee? I shall pass up the chance of
making a meteorological reference at this stage—perhaps I will
do so on Thursday for the Committee’s pleasure.
I would like to question the
Under-Secretary on a further point that relates directly to the
provisions that assist those who until now would have been likely to
have their housing benefit paid directly to their landlord, but who
might well be required under the new system to take responsibility for
paying rent themselves, for all the reasons that the hon. Member for
Weston-super-Mare has rightly outlined. That is an idea that I would
support, subject to the caveats that he has
entered. In the
pathfinder areas, significant resources have been provided to give
financial advice, such as support from citizens advice bureaux, to
enable people who are going through that transition, and are perhaps
paying their rent directly for the first time, to cope with it. Advice
and support will be provided to them, for example in the process of
opening a bank account or taking advantage of other such payment
mechanisms. As the local housing allowance is rolled out throughout the
country, it is important that provisions for that sort of advice and
support are made as intensively in the areas where the new benefit is
being rolled out, as in the pathfinder areas.
Having talked to claimants and
administrators in the pathfinder areas, I know that the provision of
that advice and support, principally through Citizens Advice, has been
a valuable part of the package to ensure a smooth transition from the
old to the new benefit. There are also those claimants who are not
vulnerable according to the new vulnerability assessment but none the
less need a bit of help to get started in paying rent for themselves. I
would be grateful if the Under-Secretary outlined the plans that the
Government have to provide that sort of support and advice when the new
local housing allowance is rolled out.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Mrs. Anne McGuire): Thank you, Mr.
Hood. It is a delight to be back here this morning. I have suffered
withdrawal symptoms for the past two weeks when we have not been here,
as I am sure all my colleagues have done. I missed the weather forecast
from the highlands and islands—so much so, that I
have been forced to listen to the shipping forecast at10
minutes to 1 in the morning on Radio 4, before hearing the in-shore
forecast for fishermen. Anyway, that is enough of that. Those of us who
were in the highlands and islands at the weekend know that when a force
10 gale blows, it can fair blow. We have great understanding and
sympathy for those who are in the margins, in the more fragile areas,
in terms of the weather, in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Members for
Weston-super-Mare and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey
have raised some positive points on financial inclusion. They have also
highlighted the issue of those who are not able to manage their own
funds. We agree that direct payment is not appropriate for all
claimants. In the pathfinder areas, we put in place safeguards to
ensure that, if a claimant could not manage their own affairs, payment
went to the landlord. Having built that in in pathfinder areas, we
would have the same intention when rolling out the programme, because
it has worked well.
On funding during the roll-out,
I am not sure whether we have yet received recommendations from the
Select Committee on the Treasury, but I understand that it is looking
at the issue of financial inclusion. I can confirm that we will provide
funding alongside the local housing allowance roll-out to support local
authorities in the provision of money advice. The pathfinder evaluation
has demonstrated that the take-up of such advice was lower than we
anticipated, so it may well be that people are more able and willing
than expected to take responsibility, although the system has never
given them that responsibility. Limiting the roll-out to new claimants
and those moving house will help to ensure that the provision of advice
is manageable. We recognise the operational issue that
exists. We need to
continue to explore more coherent approaches to provide generic
financial advice. It is not just a matter of rent or rates when people
have serious financial difficulties: they are caused by a cocktail of
financial pressures. Having said that, we ask the hon. Member for
Weston-super-Mare to withdraw the amendment because it would restrict
the Secretary of State’s flexibility in such matters. The issue
that he raised is important, but we have built it into the system and
the amendment would not add anything to the Bill. I am happy to put on
the record the fact that we recognise that some vulnerable people are
unable to manage their finances in quite the way that we would want
them to. We have built in such support and, having highlighted such
issues, I believe that the amendment could be
withdrawn.
John
Penrose: On the basis that the Under-Secretary has put on
the record the fact that she envisages that an element of direct
payment will be retained, particularly for vulnerable people, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
36 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause 37
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 38DIRECTIONS BY SECRETARY OF STATE Question
proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe
Bill.
Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): I, too, welcome your return
to the Chair, Mr. Hood. In the spirit of my hon. Friend the
Member for Weston-super-Mare, I wish also to comment on the fact that
we could use the words of Louis de Leon, a lecturer at Salamanca
university who had tangled with the inquisition. He was imprisoned for
five years and, on his return, he started his lecture, “As we
were saying yesterday”, although he did say it in
Latin. On that basis,
I am sure that I, too, might be allowed to make a short personal
statement to the Committee although, during the interregnum, I have not
been subject to a period of imprisonment or, indeed, cruel and unusual
punishment. However, I have retired from the Opposition Front Bench and
I assure avid Labour Members that I have not done so from a desire for
a policy disagreement or even a particular sanguinary coup, but, as
they say, it is to spend
more— Mr.
David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): Will my hon.
Friend allow me to say on behalf of all his colleagues on the
Opposition Front Bench that we hope he comes back
soon?
Mr.
Boswell: That is ingratiating and delightful. It
may not be an offer that I would be entirely pleased to accept after 16
years, but there we are. I simply want to say that the Bill covers a
hugely interesting subject. I welcome the Committee, the tone of which
has been positive. Now let me get on with the points that I am anxious
to make. Given that we
have moved on to the exchange of personal information, it is right that
the Committee should pause for a moment to reflect on some issues. I
have a strong interest in human rights and civil liberties, which I
shall not rehearse at length. In fact, it is shared by many members of
the Committee and we just need to get the provisions right.
For the avoidance of doubt, I
wish to say that it is not wrong to provide for better data sharing in
relevant areas subject to the appropriate safeguards. That is not the
issue. The assurances that we seek from the Ministers are whether those
safeguards are appropriate or sufficient. I wish to pick out three
points that are, in a sense, generic to clauses 38 to 41. I want to
receive the right assurances from the Under-Secretary about the lowest
common multiple or the highest common factor. I notice that the hon.
Lady is wrinkling her eyebrows. I shall explain what I
mean. Several
different regimes are coming together, such as local authorities and
different Government Departments, in a way that is set out coherently
and clearly under the Bill. I am not arguing about that. They will all
have different cultures and traditions about information sharing and
protocols. Let us consider protection for people on benefits, many of
whom will be vulnerable and who should not be put upon through their
involvement with the benefit system. Whenever there is a meeting of
protocols or doctrines, the solution that is selected must provide the
highest possible degree of confidentiality and protection to the
citizen, rather than the lowest common factor on which they can all
agree. I would therefore like the Minister to say that we now need a
regime where safeguards are, if anything, enhanced and there is no weak
link in the system.
10.45
am The next point
is that we should ensure that the system is looked at as a whole, in
terms of training and the exchange of information about
practices—I am not talking about individual cases—between
the various participants. Misunderstandings arise when there is a
central doctrine and access to central computer system and other people
are outside that but may have access to the gateway for specific
reasons. It is important that the local authorities talk.
The Under-Secretary will be
familiar with the fact, through the Department’s own practice in
local benefit payment reviews that are reported to this House, that
there is already a dialogue. I am simply saying that, first, we do not
want any weak links in the system of protection for the individual in
terms of the formal safeguard set out in these clauses. Secondly, we
want as far as possible for everybody to adopt a similar and protective
approach. The
Under-Secretary will reasonably say that all this is within data
protection rules. She will also draw attention to the clause that
imposes criminal sanctions on the misapplication of information. I take
the view that the criminal law is not something that should be invoked
unless there are extreme reasons for it. There are cases where public
officials misuse information for malign and corrupt purposes but they
are not by any means common or typical. It is far more likely that
there is a great deal of over-enthusiasm or cutting of corners under
pressure of work, but the law is equally important in protecting the
citizen in that. The
criminal law is an important sanction and it should be there. But on
top of that is the question of operation in practice. I do not know
whether the Under-Secretary has given any thought to this, and I have
not rehearsed it with my Front-Bench colleagues, who may take a
different view, but it may be useful if someone kept an eye on the
process as it works in practice—someone outside the system,
outside the Department and outside the payment of benefits.It
may be a natural role for the Information Commissioner to look at how
it works, to ensure that nobody is abusing the system and that it is
not being stretched beyond the purposes that are tied down in these
clauses. If we can have those assurances, the Committee will not have
wasted its time. These changes should be made and it is equally wrong
that they should not be safeguarded.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 29 November 2006 |