Mr.
Boswell: It is genuinely useful for the Committee to hear
about some of that experience. The hon. Lady is entirely on the right
lines to suggest that the answer to the problem is to encourage local
authorities to get on with the job. Although it is now deeply
unfashionable on the Opposition Benches to speak up for landlords, I
make the point on their behalf that it is clearly unsatisfactory if
they cannot get service of rent. If we were to go along the lines of
the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch
and Strathspey, it would be equally important to ensure that landlords
were not disadvantaged. The answer is to get to the root of the
problem, whatever we may want to do about the legal shape or form of
the
sanctions.
Mrs.
McGuire: I am sympathetic to the points that have been
raised by both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Inverness,
Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who tabled the new clause. In practice,
very few landlords use the ground 8 provision to secure possession. It
is fair to say that they, too, are generally sensitive to the financial
difficulties that their tenants may face, particularly in relation to
delays, which should not happen but sometimes do. Most landlords use
the no-fault powers in section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, which allow
the landlord to obtain possession of a property without going to court,
by giving two months’ notice at the end of a fixed term of
tenancy, or after six months of a periodic
tenancy.
12.15
pm
Kali
Mountford: I am exceptionally grateful to my hon. Friend
for meeting members of CHAS from Kirklees, whom she kindly mentioned in
her opening remarks. Does she recall that, at that meeting, we noted
that some people are hidden among those figures?
There are still some exceptional cases. Are the Lord Chancellor’s
Department and the Cabinet Office still looking at possible remedies to
that
problem?
Mrs.
McGuire: Not only is my hon. Friend a wonderful MP and a
tremendous member of this Committee, but she has just added to her
talents, because she can read minds. I was just about to come on the
point about the Department for Constitutional Affairs to which she drew
the attention of the Committee.
The pre-action protocol for
possession claims on rent arrears, which was recently published, as
myhon. Friend suggested, by the Department for Constitutional
Affairs, applies to social landlords who applied for possession due to
rent arrears and includes current good practice in managing rent
arrears. It clearly recognises that it is preferable to resolve
problems, including those related to housing benefit administration,
without resorting to court proceedings.
The Law Commission
produced earlier this year a final report on renting homes, which
follows the tenancy review and pertains specifically to the new clause
that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey
tabled. There are many proposals in the report, including the possible
abolition of ground 8 for certain tenancies. I am sure that the hon.
Gentleman will appreciate that the issue concerns a change to tenure
law, rather than to social security law, and that the Bill concerns
social security law. In that respect, could I also refer to the
situation in Scotland? He is quite right to indicate that there has
been a change of policy in Scotland, but again, I emphasise that that
is a matter of tenure law and not homelessness or social security
legislation. I
understand, however, that the Department for Communities and Local
Government is generally supportive of the Law Commission’s
proposals. Although it is not yet in a position to comment on how the
Commission’s proposals may be taken forward within its wider
programme of work, I understand that my colleagues in that Department
are looking at opportunities to make legislation at some point in the
future. They are therefore keen to hear representations from the
stakeholders on all the Law Commission’s
recommendations. Yes,
we are sympathetic to the points made by the hon. Gentleman; we
recognise that this mandatory ground does not leave any room for
flexibility. It has been criticised by judges, as well as by
organisations such as Shelter, but this is not the appropriate vehicle
for doing that. I hope that he will accept the assurance that
colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government are
looking at the issue. With that, I ask him to withdraw his
motion.
Danny
Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for that very
positive response, and I trust that she will draw this short debate to
the attention of her colleagues in the relevant Departments who are
considering the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause
10Circumstances
in which a person is treated as occupying a dwelling as his
home ‘(1) This section
applies where a person is moving from a dwelling at which he qualifies
for payment of Housing Benefit to another dwelling at which he will
qualify for payment of Housing
Benefit. (2) Regulations may
make provisions that such a person may be treated as occupying both
dwellings as his home and be eligible for Housing Benefit in respect of
both homes for a period not exceeding four weeks if he could not
reasonably have avoided rental liability in respect of the two
dwellings. (3) Regulations
under subsection (2) may allow for Housing Benefit to be paid in
respect of both dwellings for a period exceeding four weeks where the
applicant is awaiting the outcome of an application under Part III of
the Social Security Act 1988 (c. 7) for a social fund payment to meet a
need arising out of the move or in connection with setting up the home
in the dwelling.’.—[Danny
Alexander.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. The intention
of the new clause is clear: it would remove the requirement for the
claimant to have physically moved into the new home and become liable
for rent on two homes. It is to cover the situation in which someone
who is entitled to housing benefit on one home is moving to another
home where they are also entitled to housing benefit. It would allow
the period of four weeks to be extended where applicants are awaiting
the outcome of an application for a social fund payment to meet the
need arising from the move or in connection with setting up home in a
new dwelling. I am
grateful again to Shelter for briefing and information in support of
the new clause. The idea is that regulations should be amended to
enable a household moving home to claim housing benefit on two
properties for four weeks in circumstances in which it continues to
have two rental liabilities but has not moved home. At present, housing
benefit is paid for rent on two properties only when the household has
moved to the new property. We are talking about the period before
somebody moves to a new property and has liability for two rents, upon
either of which housing benefit would be allowable.
By way of background, I would
say that homeless households living in temporary accommodation often
accrue arrears because, while they are not able to move into
unfurnished, permanent accommodation atthe point at which they
accept an offer of new accommodation—perhaps because it takes
time to obtain furnishings for the new home—the liability for
the rental on the new property cannot be delayed until such issues have
been dealt with. As a
result of the anomaly to which I draw attention, the regulations
governing entitlement to housing benefits on two homes can contribute
to hardship, rent arrears and, sometimes, repeat homelessness. The new
clause proposes a simplification of the existing rules to make them
more symmetrical in terms of whether the person has moved to the new
home during the four-week period. It would substantially improve the
situation. I admit—I am sure that the Under-Secretary will say
this too—that relatively few people are in such
circumstances. Given her positive response to the last new clause, I
hope that she can be similarly positive to this
one. Mrs.
McGuire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue.
I hope that he will accept that the new clause is not necessary because
the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 already
contains the power that it seeks to introduce. The difference is that
the existing secondary legislation imposes restrictions in cases in
which a customer is waiting for a decision on a social fund
application. I shall come to that point in a
moment. Regulations
made under the 1992 Act are in force and allow housing benefit to be
paid for up to four weeks on the former home as well as on the new home
if the customer has an unavoidable liability on the former home.
Regulations are also in force to enable housing benefit to be paid once
a customer has moved for up to four weeks prior to the date of the move
if the delay in moving is due to his waiting for a decision to be made
on a claim for a social fund payment in respect of a move, and if he is
disabled or aged over 60 or has a child aged under
five.
Mr.
Boswell: I did not want to interrupt the Under-Secretary
in the middle of what is clearly an important and complex technical
point. However, she seems to be telling the Committee that although the
payment relating to the new home could be backdated, it would not, by
definition, be available on the first day of moving. Therefore, a
tenant in that situation would potentially have a cash-flow
problem.
Mrs.
McGuire: That is the exact position, and weare
looking to alleviate it. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn,
Badenoch and Strathspey says, there are circumstances in which people
have difficulties. I know that the local Jobcentre Plus office in his
constituency has had problems because the delay in processing community
care grants is causing a delay for people in the position that he
highlights. We feel
that the measure goes wide enough and that any further widening would
be a matter for regulation rather than for primary legislation.
Therefore, the issues under discussion are matters for regulation and
not for the Bill.
Danny
Alexander: I accept the point that the Under-Secretary is
making. For the sake of the completeness of the debate, can she give
the Committee an idea as to whether, in the light of this conversation,
she is of the view that it might be worth while amending the
regulations in order to allow the powers to be taken in the way that I
describe, as opposed to the way in which they are currently
taken?
Mrs.
McGuire: The hon. Gentleman has raised a reasonable point.
In the light of the examples that he has highlighted—and, given
that we want to consult on the regulations—I hope he would
accept that we do not want to disadvantage anybody. I will obviously
reflect on this short debate to see whether, in the new
regulations, we can accommodate what he admits are unusual but important
circumstances for an individual. With those comments, I ask the hon.
Gentleman to withdraw the motion.
Danny
Alexander: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that
response. I had not intended to draw particular attention to the
circumstances in the local Jobcentre Plus, but she is quite right to
draw the Committee’s attention to that as an example of the
circumstances that I am trying to describe. I am particularly grateful
for her undertaking to reflect further on whether the regulations might
need to be updated in the light of some of these circumstances. I am
therefore happy to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
11Interim
payment of rent allowance on
account ‘Where a relevant
local authority has not determined a claim for rent allowance within 14
days of receipt of that claim, in such circumstances as the Secretary
of State may by regulation define, the authority shall make a payment
on account of rent allowance.’.—[Danny
Alexander.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second
time. Again, I will
try to be relatively brief but a few points need to be made here, and I
hope that our debate will stimulate a further fleshing out from the
Under-Secretary of the Government’s position on this important
issue. This amendment would put into statute the regulation contained
in section 91(1) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987.
Again, I am sure that I am only refreshing the Committee’s
memory of this and I can see that the Under-Secretary is fully informed
on this point already. The regulation requires local authorities to
make payment on account of a rent allowance within 14 days of receipt,
where an inability to make a decision on a case does not arise though a
failure of a claimant to provide required information.
This duty exists in secondary
legislation, which was the point the Under-Secretary made in response
to the previous new clause that we debated. However, in relation to
that, Shelter’s housing advice centres—and I am grateful
to Shelter for this point in its briefing on new clause
11—report that the requirement is all too often ignored or, in
some cases, treated as discretionary by local authorities. The idea
here is that placing this obligation in the Bill will reiterate and
underscore the vital importance of authorities making payments on
account of a rent allowance.
The duty exists to avoid
tenants falling into arrears at the outset of a tenancy and risking
evictionand homelessness. Prompt payment is, obviously,
particularly essential for private sector tenants—and evidence
would bear this out—as their landlords are perhaps more likely
to begin possession actions at an earlier stage than the relevant
social landlord. It is also vital for ensuring that private sector
landlords are willing to let to housing benefit claimants in the first
place—an issue that I know we debated in one of our
previous sittings, when the hon. Member for Colne Valley made particular
points about that issue. Along with benefit shortfalls, long delays in
beginning payments are cited by landlords as one of the main reasons
for not wishing to let to housing benefit—or, in future, local
housing allowance—claimants, so proper adherence to this
regulation could go a long way to improving the private rented
sector’s image of housing benefit, and so improve the ability of
tenants to access that sort of accommodation. It is worth saying that failure
to make a payment on account is not considered an official decision, so
there is no right of review or appeal. The only recourse for a claimant
is judicial review, or to complain to the local government ombudsman.
Although either course of action might, in the long run, get a proper
remedy, both might cause lengthy delay and further problems for the
claimant. Indeed, judicial review is not usually a proportionate form
of recourse; it requires legal aid, a solicitor and court time. Also,
while the ombudsman does good and worthwhile work, often reaching the
right decision in the end, complaining to the ombudsman is not a
particularly effective remedy in cases with a sense of urgency, as we
would all agree is the position with such
cases.
12.30
pm I hope that in
her response the Under-Secretary again underscores the importance of
following through the regulation consistently. By putting it into
statute, we could ensure that all local authorities properly adhered to
it so that potential tenants, tenants, benefit claimants and private
sector landlords have a sense of security and understanding that the
system works in the way in which it is intended to work. I hope that
the she responds positively and explains how the Government intend to
remedy the
problem.
| 
