Mr.
Ruffley: May I raise two points quickly? The first is
about something that puzzles me. Under-25s on income support or
income-based JSA are exempt from NDDs, but those of the same age group
claiming contribution-based JSA are not. It happens with other benefits
too. Why is there this separation for those in the younger age group,
in this case the under-25 demographic, between income-based JSA and
contribution-based JSA?
My second question is one that
the Minister will not be embarrassed to answer because there is no
price tag attached, although technically there is one. When will more
research on this important area be commissioned by her Department? Is
it intended to refresh and renew the research work done in 1996,
particularly in view of the disincentives to keep a family together
caused by the current regime? The present regime might lead to a
perverse incentive for a non-dependent to leave shared accommodation in
which they may be lodging or living and applying for their own tenancy,
thus putting pressure on housing stock and the Exchequer by giving rise
to a brand new housing benefit claim. There is anecdotal evidence that
that could be a problem, and any Minister would want to deal with it.
Will more research be done? Has any research been done on that? It does
not seem to do anyone any good if the current regime is forcing people
out of their homes and leading to further householder unit formation,
with people having to find their own housing and claiming more housing
benefit in their own
right. I shall finish,
having asked a grand strategic question about research and made a
technical query about the distinction between income-based and
contribution-based
JSA.
Mrs.
McGuire: I hope that I can tell the hon. Gentleman why the
two regimes are different. First, however, I should like to say that we
keep our research under review and I would not be surprised if we were
considering how to refresh—as the hon. Gentleman said—our
research in this field. That is within the Department’s research
priorities, into which Ministers may have some
input. On housing
break-up because of a deduction, we have to be clear that when a person
moves into their own household, the £7.40 deduction is not the
only factor—there are many elements that someone needs to
take into account in moving. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said,
but he did say fairly that the evidence was anecdotal. Obviously,
however, we will keep an eye on that. As I said to the hon. Member for
Daventry, we have to recognise that, if we look at things in isolation,
an incorrect conclusion can be drawn because it is based on only one
piece of logic, if not
evidence. On the
contributory and non-contributory elements of JSA, if the benefit is
income-related, we recognise that the individual’s income and
capital is low, so there is an element built into JSA that takes
account of individuals’ financial circumstances. However, a
person can be on contribution-based JSA and not need any additional
income support, because they are entitled. If any Committee member
needed to do so, they could sign on for JSA as an entitlement because
of their contribution record. There are two different circumstances
that reflect the fact that within our large social security system
there are different ways of supporting people at various points in
their lives and in the light of individual circumstances. The new
clause opens up a discussion about that sensitivity; nevertheless, I
ask the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to
reconsider and to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Danny
Alexander: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that
clarification, although I should be grateful if she wrote to Committee
members about the regime for under-25s, not least about circumstances
where someone might be entitled to both income-based and contributory
jobseeker’s
allowance. In her
earlier remarks, the Under-Secretary mentioned a particular change that
the Government are seeking to make to the non-dependent deduction
regime relating to circumstances in which there is more than one
householder and one non-dependant, and the way in which the
non-dependant deduction is shared between those people. Members of the
Committee may wish to reflect further on that point. One possible risk
is that it provides an incentive for one householder to wait on the
other to notify the Department. There are swings and roundabouts in all
these
things. 12
noon I echo what
the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said about research. The Minister
said, slightly bashfully perhaps, that Ministers had some influence on
the Department’s research programme. I hope that
Ministers’ influence on that programme is considerable when they
feel that a particular area is ripe for further research.
We have had a good debate,
which has highlighted the fact that the NDD regime is ripe for
additional research, none having been conducted during the Labour
Government’s term of office. The last research took place under
the Conservative Government, and Ministers may therefore want to have a
fresh look at it. I
share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about household break-up. I
appreciate that many factors are involved, as the Minister said, but
that could be usefully addressed in further research by the Department.
I hope that it will also be taken into account in designing the
Department’s future research programme, with due ministerial
influence.
Mrs.
McGuire: Just to clarify the position, as Hansard
may show, I appreciate that I said “some” influence; I
meant, of course, that we have great influence on the Department for
Work and Pensions’ research
priorities.
Danny
Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for that
intervention. I hope that she will use her great influence to ensure
that further research on the matter is
conducted. The
Minister made some important criticisms of the amendment. As I said
when opening the debate, it was designed to probe the
Government’s thinking and I hope that some of the issues that
have raised in the debate will be taken further in another place. With
that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
9Possession
action for rent arrears involving housing
benefit ‘(1) Section 7
(orders for possession) of the Housing Act 1988 (c. 50) is amended as
follows. (2) In subsection (3),
for “subsections (5A) and (6)” substitute
“subsections (5A), (6) and
(6A)”. (3) In subsection
(4), for “subsections (5A) and (6)” substitute
“subsections (5A), (6) and
(6A)”. (4) After
subsection (6),
insert— “(6A) If
the court is
satisfied— (a) that
Ground 8 in Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act is established;
and (b) that rent is in arrears
as mentioned in that Ground as a consequence of a delay or failure in
the payment of relevant housing benefit, it shall not make an order for
possession unless it considers it reasonable to do
so.”. (5) At end
insert— “(8) In
subsection (6A)
above— (a)
“relevant housing benefit”
means— (i) any rent
allowance or rent rebate to which the tenant was entitled in respect of
the rentunder the Housing Benefit Regulations
2006(S.I. 2006/213);
or (ii) any payment on account
of any such entitlement awarded under Regulation 93 of those
Regulations; (b) references to
delay or failure in the payment of relevant housing benefit do not
include such delay or failure so far as referrable to any wilful act or
omission of the tenant.”.’.—[Danny
Alexander.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move that the clause be read a Second
time. The new clause
may be slightly technical but it makes an important point. It would
amend ground 8 set out schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, with which
members of the Committee will be familiar. Private landlords and
housing associations can use ground 8 to seek possession of
accommodation let on an assured tenancy when a tenant has arrears of
more than two months’ rent. Unlike other rent arrears grounds
for
possession, ground 8 is mandatory: the court has no discretion to decide
whether it is reasonable to make an order for possession. The proposed amendment to
ground 8 in the new clause is designed to give the courts discretion in
cases where housing benefit issues are outstanding—for example,
the court can decide to adjourn the case or to suspend an order for
possession. I believe that that will help to ensure that tenants are
not evicted from their homes due to non-payment, or delay in payment,
of housing
benefits. The Minister
will be aware of the present position on delays in housing benefit
decisions and the problems that can sometimes cause. The average time
taken to process a new claim for housing benefit in 2004-05 was 36 days
and the worst-performing authorities took approximately 117 days to
process a new claim. I know that those are 2004-05 figures and that the
Government have been trying to improve them. In fairness, it is worth
noting that one of the benefits of the local housing allowance pilot
areas has been the speeding up of administration and the processing of
claims. Having said that, if one looks at the different pilot areas,
one can see that there is quite a degree of variety in the times taken
to process and administer claims.
Certainly, the worst-case
scenario of it taking 117 days to process a new claim takes us well
beyond the two months’ arrears which currently allows possession
to be sought under ground 8. Faced with such an application, the courts
would have no choice, even if there was an outstanding housing benefit
claim and all the evidence suggested that once that claim was
processed, it would result in an award being granted. The way in which
ground 8 is framed gives a court no option but to enforce possession.
It important to say that under ground 8, a court has no discretion to
refuse an order, whatever the reason for the arrears. It is unable even
to adjourn the case. Ground 8 is open to private landlords and housing
associations that use assured and assured shorthold tenancies but not
to local authorities.
The inclusion of ground 8 in
the 1998 Act was originally designed to stimulate the private rented
sector and to make it easier for private landlords to recover their
property. However, since 1993, private landlords have been able to gain
possession of shorthold tenancies quickly and without a hearing under
section 21 of the 1988 Act. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will be
aware of the 2004 case of North British Housing Association v.
Matthews, which explored in some detail the problems relating to ground
8, but I shall refresh the Committee’s memory on the point
because the case starkly illustrated the problems caused by ground
8. The housing
association brought possession proceedings under ground 8 despite being
aware that the tenant had an outstanding housing benefit claim. A
county court judge decided that he had no choice but to grant an
outright possession order. However,Ms Matthews subsequently
received a backdated payment of housing benefit, which completely
cleared her arrears and, what is more, put her rent account into
credit. The Court of Appeal heard that where ground 8 is involved, the
county court had no power even to adjourn the hearing for a short
period to await a
housing benefit payment. The Court of Appeal was troubled by that
situation. Lord Justice Dyson
concluded: “It
is a sad feature of contemporary life that housing benefit problems are
widespread. To a substantial extent these are no doubt the product of
lack of resources. But we do not consider that the non-receipt of
housing benefit can, of itself, amount to exceptional circumstances
which would justify the exercise of the power to adjourn so as to
enable the tenant to defeat the claim. We acknowledge that this
conclusion will lead to tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit
having no defence to a claim for possession in circumstances where they
are not at fault. The statutory scheme is, therefore, potentially
draconian in its
application.” That is
fair comment on the current powers.
The Under-Secretary, who is,
like me, a Member for a Scottish constituency, will be aware that the
Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have already introduced
measures to prevent the eviction of tenants with rent arrears caused by
housing benefit problems. Section 12 of the Homelessness etc.
(Scotland) Act 2003 amended ground 8 in almost precisely the same way
as is proposed in new clause 9. However, section 12 goes further,
requiring the court to have regard to non-payment or delay of housing
benefit in deciding whether it is reasonable to make an order for
possession under other rent arrear grounds.
The new clause may be technical
in nature, but it has important implications. I am sure that everyone
in the Committee who is concerned about social justice wants to make
sure that where there are administrative problems with housing benefit,
they do not leave the court with no choice but to order possession. I
therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will accept the new clause, or
make it clear that the matter is something on which the Government will
table amendments in due course.
I am grateful to Shelter and
Citizens Advice for their comprehensive briefing and background
information on this important matter, and I look forward the
Under-Secretary’s response.
Mrs.
McGuire: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised
these issues. The new clause may be technical but as he indicated,
ground 8 can have a serious impact on the life of an individual. It is
not used extensively, but he is right to point out that it is in the
law and has the potential to be used. I am aware of the case that he
highlighted. The
figure of 36 days that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is correct, but we
are not sure where the 117-day figure came from. In 2004, the bottom 15
per cent. of authorities took an average of 74 days for processing. We
suspect that the figure may have come from the London borough of
Hackney, where the local authority took an average of 117 days to
process new housing benefit and council tax benefit claims in 2004.
That improved to 55 days in 2005-06, and Hackney is now processing
claims within 30 days on average. I had the pleasure of visiting
Hackney recently and I know that it has invested a great deal of effort
in managing the front-of-house and back-of-house operations to ensure
that people get the benefits to which they are entitled.
Members of the Committee may be
interested to know how their own local authorities have improved their
processing. Slough, which I think is the local authority of the hon.
Member for Windsor, took an average of 67 days to process new claims in
2004; that figure is now down to 33 days. The Highland council was
taking 53 days to handle new claims, which was within the average, but
that has now decreased to33 days. South Northamptonshire has
gone from 97 days in 2004 to 26 days, which is a tremendous
achievement. Caerphilly’s average processing time was 46 days in
2004 and is now 34 days. Waverley, which I understand is the authority
of the hon. Member for South-West Surrey, had an average of 81 days,
which is now down to 46. Kirklees council, of which we have heard a
fair bit in the Committee, has reduced its average time from 49 days in
2004 to 30 days. The star prize goes to Mid-Suffolk, the council of the
hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, whose average in 2004 was not so
fine, at 90 days; that is now down to 32 days. I do not know whether
the hon. Gentleman’s interest in housing benefit, which is newly
found, as he admitted this morning, has prompted his local authority to
improve so dramatically.
We can see that local
authorities recognise that they need to deal with the claims quickly.
They are working very closely with our Department and sharing
experience and good
practice.
| 
