Written evidence submitted by Equality
and Human Rights Commission
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (the
Commission) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to this
inquiry into the impact of changes to Housing Benefit (HB). We
have previously submitted evidence to this committee's inquiry
into Local Housing Allowance (LHA)[232].
2. Although it is not for the Commission to question
the spending decisions of the government, it is our role to ensure
public authorities comply with the law and assess efficiently
the impact that financial proposals might have on equality before
any decisions are arrived at. Also, when a potential disproportionate
impact on a protected group is identified, that mitigation actions
are identified and implemented effectively. We are therefore working
to remind government departments and other public bodies of their
requirements under equality legislation, including the need to
assess the impact proposed policies might have on equality. We
welcome the fact that an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) has
been published looking at the impact of changes to the Local Housing
Allowance arrangements, and size criteria for people with non-resident
carers.
3. The Commission strongly supports the change
to ensure that Housing Benefit claimants with a disability and
a non-resident carer will be entitled to funding for an extra
bedroom. However we do have concerns about whether, in conjunction
with the accompanying cap on Local Housing Allowance rates and
the removal of the five bedroom rate, all relevant individuals
will see a benefit financially.
4. We also welcome the increase in the government
contribution to Discretionary Housing Payments. We do have concerns
however, of the "discretionary" nature meaning that
not all people requiring such support will be successful or aware
of the fund, and in relation to the fairness of the criteria for
accessing the funds given that this is allocated by local councils.
5. We understand that both the government and
previous government have been concerned about the increase in
spending on HB. As the EIA sets out, expenditure on HB has increased
from £11 billion in 1999-2000 to £20 billion in 2009-10,
and is forecast to reach £24 billion in 2015-16 without these
changes.[233]
6. These reforms are relevant to the work of
the Commission as there is potential for them to impact disproportionately
on certain groups. As the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies
report has pointed out, the reforms mentioned in the June 2010
budget affect those most reliant on benefits[234].
Given the overlap between groups within our remit and an increased
risk of living in poverty, this is obviously a matter of concern
to the Commission.
INTRODUCTION
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (the Commission)
is working to promote fairness, eliminate discrimination, reduce
inequality, protect human rights and to build good relations,
ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to participate in society.
The Commission is a non-departmental public body (NDPB) established
under the Equality Act 2006—accountable for its public funds,
but independent of Government.
The Commission brings together the work of the three
previous equality commissions, the Equal Opportunities Commission
(EOC), the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) and the Disability
Rights Commission (DRC) and also takes on responsibility
for the other aspects of equality: age, gender identity, sexual
orientation and religion or belief, as well as human rights.
A separate Scottish Commission for Human Rights, with whom we
work closely, covers aspects of the human rights remit in Scotland.
WHY THIS
IS AN
ISSUE FOR
THE COMMISSION
Although some positive announcements have been made
in relation to Housing Benefit, we are concerned about the impact
of the measures as a whole on certain groups. The changes have
the potential to impact on a significant number of people as in
May 2010, 4.75 million people were claiming Housing Benefit. Over
one million HB recipients are within the Local Housing Allowance
scheme[235].
Recipients of Housing Benefit will be in low income
households. Therefore the groups within our remit are likely to
be over-represented due to their increased risk of living in poverty:
- over two thirds of HB recipients with dependent
children do not have a partner.[236]
This is a gender issue due to the fact that of the lone parent
households, 93% are headed by a woman;[237]
- 32% of families who are LHA customers are headed
by lone parents[238].
The Family Resources Survey report shows that generally, 6% of
households are made up of one adult and one or more children;[239]
- the EIA also states that 19% of LHA customers,
and 26% of the overall HB caseload, are disabled people. This
compares to just 1% of non-HB renters in the private rented sector;
- 13% of Housing Benefit recipients in the private
rented sector are non-White (11% of the overall Housing Benefit
caseload) compared to 9% of the general population, according
to the Family Resources Survey;[240]
and
- statistics show that the percentage of older
people households that were in social rented accommodation increased
with age. Among those households where the household reference
person was aged 50 to 64, 16% were social renters. This percentage
increased to 22% for those aged 65 to 84 and to 32% for those
aged 85 and over.[241]
We also know that certain groups are already more
likely to experience problems with their housing. For example:
- overcrowding is most severe among Pakistani,
Bangladeshi and black African households. These three groups also
have the highest numbers of children;[242]
- families with disabled children are 50% more
likely to live in overcrowded accommodation than other families.
Every Disabled Child Matters also report that research has consistently
identified that Pakistani and Bangladeshi families with disabled
children appear to be particularly vulnerable to unmet housing
need and living in poor housing conditions;[243]
- According to Radar, there is a real housing crisis
facing disabled people, "with 329,000 people living in completely
unsuitable housing (spread across tenure classes) and a general
shortage of affordable housing"[244]
- 33% of homes occcupied by older people fail the
Decent Homes Standard, with the majority being in the private
sector;[245]
and
- These figures show that any changes to Housing
Benefit could have a disproportionate impact on certain groups.
Reforms to housing or benefit policy could play a role in either
widening or decreasing gaps in housing provision between equality
groups.
The Equality Impact Assessment which has been produced
by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), focusing on LHA,
estimates that these changes will impact on 99% of the cases assessed
under those arrangements (estimating an average loss of £12
per week). However, this does not take into account the wider
cumulative impact of all of the changes to HB, such as the 10%
reduction to Housing Benefit for those who claim Job Seekers Allowance
for over one year.
We are concerned about the potential for these changes
to undermine the fulfillment of the aims of LHA (for example,
fairness,financial inclusion, transparency etc[246]).
For example, when looking at financial inclusion, given the staggered
nature of the changes it is important that people understand how
their finances are likely to be affected over the longer term
so that they are able to plan. The changes to the overall caps,
and removal of the £15 excess will take place in April 2011,
but the setting of rents at the 30th percentile of rents will
not happen until October 2011 which could make it difficult for
people to understand what their financial situation will be.
We should also point out that, given the increased
risk of poverty for certain groups, the Commission is not only
concerned with the changes to Housing Benefit, but to the overall
impact or aggregated effects of the proposed changes to the tax
and benefits systems on equality groups' income, poverty risk
and standards of living.
STATUTORY DUTIES
It is not for the Commission to comment on the spending
decisions of the government. However it is our role to ensure
that government departments and other public bodies meet their
legal requirements in relation to equality when making these decisions.
Like most public authorities, the DWP is subject
to the public sector equality duties on race, gender and disability.
The duties include the need to assess the likely impact of proposed
policies on people in respect of disability, gender and racial
equality before any decisions are arrived at. This enables any
adverse impact on any group or groups to be identified and mitigated
before the policy is implemented, and supports policy makers to
consider any opportunities to promote equality that have previously
been missed or could be better used.
A new integrated public sector equality duty, covering
all seven of the protected equality grounds (race, gender, disability,
age, sexual orientation, religion or belief and gender reassignment
in full) comes into force in April 2011. In preparation for the
new duty and as best practice, the Commission is of the view that
public bodies should consider the potential impact of policy decisions
on all of these groups.
The Commission sees EIAs as a vital tool to be used
in evidence-based policy making and improved service delivery.
It is also an effective means to assist public authorities in
understanding the full relevance and effect of policies being
delivered to a diverse population and ensuring that the policies
successfully meet their intended aims. The equality duties do
not prevent difficult decisions being made, but actually help
demonstrate that financial decisions are being made in a fair,
transparent and accountable way, considering the needs and the
rights of all members of the community.
The Commission's role is therefore key to making
sure that those operating in the public sector comply with the
existing public sector duties and that any decisions they make
are informed by the best possible information of how those decisions
may affect different groups of staff and service users.
There are a number of pieces of guidance on our website
which are available to government departments and other public
bodies:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/public-sector-duties/guidance-and-codes-of-practice/general-guidance/
We are pleased that the DWP has published an EIA
relating to changes to the LHA arrangements and the Housing Benefit
size criteria for people with non-resident overnight carers. However
this does not consider the cumulative impact of related measures
such as the linking of LHA rates to the Consumer Price Index,
and the 10% reduction in HB for those on JSA for 12 months.
Although we welcome the EIA, we do feel that there
are certain limitations that we would like to raise, including:
- the impact assessment appears to be a report
of the impact of decisions that have been made, rather than identifying
issues and addressing them. All EIAs should contain action plans,
for example setting out how impact will be assessed on an on-going
basis, or where a potential negative impact is identified, stating
how this will be reduced;
- the EIA states that "it is not possible
to provide the specific impact of the measures on race equality
as such data is not collected." Given the issues faced by
some ethnic minority groups, consideration of how to overcome
these limitations should help to provide a clearer assessment
of the impact of reform, particularly the removal of the five
bedroom rate. A lack of data is not a sufficient reason to conclude
that there is no impact; and
- the EIA compares whether an impact is disproportionate
on a group based on the proportions who are Housing Benefit recipients
in the PRS; the EIA could also consider the impact on particular
groups compared to the population as a whole. For example, if
certain ethnic minority groups are overrepresented in the HB PRS,
then these changes would have a disproportionate impact on them
compared to the overall population with the potential for increasing
gaps in poverty rates and suitability of housing provision.
We understand from the "Explanatory Memorandum-Housing
Benefit Amendment Regulations 2010" that the DWP plans to
further explore the impact on housing, schooling, health and social
services to inform the impact assessment which will be published
when legislation is laid before parliament[247].
We are also interested in the overall impact or aggregated effects
of the proposed changes to the tax and benefits systems on equality
groups and would like to see more analysis of this as a whole.
DISABLED PEOPLE,
CARERS AND
SPECIALIST HOUSING
The Commission has previously raised concerns that
disabled recipients of LHA were facing detrimental impact due
to the rules relating to size criteria failing to account for
a non-resident carer[248].
We therefore welcome the change to the size criteria
for people with a non-resident carer where the customer, their
partner or both need an overnight carer. However, we are concerned
that this does not recognise that disabled people may need a larger
house, not just for a non-resident carer, but to accommodate equipment
or adaptations. Also this policy does not apply to children, nor
take into account couples who because of disability, are unable
to share a room.
The EIA also recognises that despite being eligible
for the extra room, there may be disabled people who are worse
off or who see no benefit, due to the interaction with the other
changes. It states:
"It is possible that a small number of people
receiving an additional bedroom entitlement in their Housing Benefit
calculation could receive cash awards that are actually lower
than their previous Housing Benefit entitlement due to the impact
of other changes. Analysis has shown this situation could only
arise in the few areas affected by the Local Housing Allowance
caps (three[249]
out of around 200 Broad Rental Market Areas
in Great Britain, most notably in London). There are a further
ten[250]
Broad Rental Market Areas where it is possible
to have a zero net gain when the impacts of all the measures are
considered".
The other measures, such as the link to CPI, capping
at four bedroom rate and setting of rates at the 30th percentile,
could mean that it will be increasingly difficult to find suitable,
affordable housing.
The Commission would like to see more analysis of
the cumulative impact of all of the measures on disabled people,
with a particular focus on the availability of affordable, accessible
homes in light of these changes.
The discretionary fund has been suggested as a solution
to various identified areas of concern. The Commission would therefore
like to see further analysis of the anticipated demand for this
funding, compared to the resources available, in order to understand
the extent to which this fund addresses the problem. DWP could
also examine some of the potential problems of this being "discretionary",
such as ensuring fairness in criteria for accessing the fund.
Finally although it is estimated that approximately
30% of the houses in most areas will still be affordable, further
consideration should be given to the percentage of available accessible
housing in order to assess the suitability of this housing. As
well as this, the CAB have previously raised concerns about the
willingness of landlords to let to Housing Benefit recipients.
In their survey, they found that 82% of landlords had accommodation
at LHA rates but only 12% gave an unqualified yes to accept tenants
in receipt of Housing Benefit. 23% said no and 65% imposed additional
conditions such as several months rent in advance, which would
not be possible for many people.[251]
INCENTIVES TO
WORK AND
ACCESS TO
LOW PAID
WORK
The Commission recognises that work is the best route
out of poverty, and have supported the aims behind welfare reform,
although we are aware of poverty traps created for example, by
withdrawal rates. In increasing the employment rate, we would
prefer to see more of a focus on supporting people back into sustainable
work.
The Budget set out that "Housing Benefit awards
will be reduced to 90% of the initial award after 12 months for
claimants receiving Jobseekers Allowance. This will be introduced
in April 2013"[252].
The Commission is concerned about this measure, as the Treasury
committee's recent inquiry[253]
explained that up to 300,000 individuals may be affected. We understand
that primary legislation will be required to make this change
and would welcome more information regarding which groups are
likely to be most affected.
The Commission is concerned that this measure will
apply to those people who are meeting the requirements placed
on them under the Jobseekers Allowance regime. More attention
should be paid to the extra barriers that certain groups of people
face in accessing employment. For example, lone parents and disabled
people are likely to require flexible working. Affordable childcare
is also necessary, which must be accessible particularly to those
with disabled children, and for ethnic minorities. It is unfair
to place sanctions on people who are meeting their obligations,
without a full assessment regarding the availability of such provision.
The Commission welcomes this government's intention
to extend the right to request flexible working to all, as the
Commission's Working Better project found a mismatch between the
aspirations of how parents want to manage their caring responsibilities
and how this actually works in practice[254].
We also found that the cost of childcare can be prohibitive for
lone parents on low incomes. Childcare hours also typically assume
that people work 9am-5pm. Lone mothers are more likely than "couple"
mothers to report having no flexible arrangements in their workplace
that would enable them to use inflexible childcare. The Government's
Child Poverty Unit and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have identified
more flexible jobs as one of the key ways to get people into work
and tackle child poverty.
Flexible working is also important to people who
may have fluctuating health conditions for example, and the Commission
will soon be publishing another report in the Working Better series,
looking at the experiences of disabled people.
In applying sanctions, consideration could also be
given to the discrimination that certain groups of people face
in entering employment. For example, DWP research finds that "ethnic
minorities do report higher rates of job refusal and higher rates
of unfair treatment with regard to promotion than do members of
the white comparison group"[255].
Another research report looked at discrimination in the recruitment
process and found "that the level of favouring of applications
with white names over equivalent applications from ethnic minority
candidates was 29%".[256]
DWP research from 2002 also found that "seventeen
per cent of disabled people said they had experienced actual discrimination
in the workplace because of their disability. In addition, 37%
of respondents said, when prompted, they had experienced some
kind of prejudice or unfair treatment".[257]
Again, this demonstrates that reducing Housing Benefit by 10%
because people have been in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance for
12 months could disproportionately impact on those who want to
work, but are unable to access employment because of (multiple)
external barriers. The Commission would therefore like consideration
of such external barriers, and the willingness of employers to
make reasonable adjustments.
As well as this, in light of the current economic
situation, the availability of jobs needs to be considered. There
are expected to be job losses, particularly in the public sector
where women make up 65%[258]
of the workforce and so may be more heavily affected by the pay
freeze, pension changes and job losses. Also, further analysis
of suitable job opportunities in areas with affordable housing
would be useful.
We do recognise the need to create incentives for
people to move into employment. We believe that the following
measures can help ensure that work pays:
- reducing complexity in the benefits system so
that people are able to see clearly the financial benefits of
entering work (we will be responding to the DWP's consultation
"21st Centure Welfare");
- changes to withdrawal rates;
- ensuring that benefits aid the transition into
work; and
- raise awareness that people can claim Housing
Benefit when in-work, as this will help people to see the incentives
of being in employment. The DWP consultation on Housing Benefit
from 2009 estimated "that around half of working people entitled
to Housing Benefit still do not claim it". [259]
As stated in the section above, there are potential
impacts within the changes to HB that could actually undermine
incentives to work, and it may therefore be useful to consider
them in more detail. For example, for working HB recipients, moving
to affordable housing may increase their travel expenses, length
of commute, and take them away from informal support networks.
The availability of job opportunities in areas of affordable housing
is also important.
REGIONAL VARIATIONS
There is recognition that some people may have to
move in order to access affordable housing, and the potential
impact that this could have on demands for services in the new
area, and we note the intention to work with other departments
and Devolved Administrations to carry out an "economic impact
assessment" looking at the wider impacts on local authority
housing departments, and other local services particularly with
regard to social mobility, homelessness and overcrowding. It may
therefore be useful to consider more fully the limits to mobility
that some groups face, for example, lone parents using grandparental
care, as we know that between one half and two thirds of working
lone parents reliant on grandparent provided care.[260]
Consideration could also be given to the impact of having to move
on older people, as Joseph Rowntree Foundation research states
that they "tend to need easier access to facilities such
as post offices and doctor's surgeries than the general community."[261]
The Commission is concerned about the links between
ethnicity and geography. For example, the EIA states that people
living in London are more likely to have to move in order to access
affordable housing, there is no analysis relating to ethnicity.
We know that in 2001, "nearly half (45%) of the total minority
ethnic population lived in the London region, where they comprised
29% of all residents".[262]
It is therefore possible that people required to move in order
to access affordable accommodation will be disproportionately
from ethnic minority groups.
COMMUNITY COHESION
The Commission works to strengthen good relations.
We are concerned that the changes to Housing Benefit have the
potential to increase segregation by further separating people
on low incomes.
Shelter have previously raised their concerns on
this issue. 81% of respondents in their LHA survey found it difficult
to find suitable home that is affordable. This meant that LHA
recipients could be barred
from living near the places where employment opportunities and
transport links are likely to be found, and that LHA recipients
were being forced to congregate in the most deprived areas[263].
Reducing affordability further may make this problem worse, and
the Commission would like to see more analysis of this issue.
JRF research has found that mixed income communities
"were not characterised by the problems often linked with
exclusively low-income areas".[264]
LARGE FAMILIES
AND LONE
PARENTS
The Commission understands the government's aim to
"bring the housing choices of larger families more in line
with those who do not claim Housing Benefit" by capping LHA
at the four bedroom rate. However, we are concerned that this
measure, along with the other changes which could reduce the amount
of affordable homes available to Housing Benefit recipients, will
have a disproportionate impact on people with dependent children,
resulting in overcrowding and increased pressure on families.
The EIA concludes that families are likely to be
disproportionately affected by the overall caps in LHA rates,
and the removal of the five bedroom rate. For example, we know
that as a result of these changes, the average loss is likely
to be £12 per week. However, this rises to £57 for those
currently with a five bed house[265].
The EIA recognises that some ethnic minority groups
tend to have a higher proportion of large families, and so these
measures may impact on them disproportionately. However, it also
states that there is a lack of data on this issue to allow a full
assessment. The Commission is disappointed that there is no mention
of action to remedy this problem.
The assessment acknowledges that this measure may
result in overcrowding for some families. Given the Commission's
support for the Child Poverty Act and its aim of eradicting child
poverty by 2020, we are concerned that these changes to HB will
undermine that objective. Children in larger families are already
at increased risk of living in poverty as JRF research states:
- in 2004-05, 50% of children in 4+—child
families were poor compared with only 23% in one-child families;
and
- children in 4+—child families constitute
19% of all poor children.[266]
As well as this, we know that:
- families with a disabled parent are also at heightened
risk of experiencing poverty, particularly where both parents
have a disability, or the disabled parent is raising a child alone.
Like other vulnerable groups families in which the parent has
a disability are also more likely to experience persistent poverty.[267]
The Commission would like to see more analysis of
the impact of these measures on the child poverty targets as set
out in the Child Poverty Act, including on the material deprivation
measure.
CONCLUSION
- The Commission believes a reviewed EIA would
give greater understanding of the implications of these changes.
For example, we are particularly concerned over the disproportionate
impact on ethnic minority families (especially those with a disabled
child).
- The cumulative effect of spending decisions across
government needs to be considered, to understand the interaction
of various measures, and how this will impact on equality.
8 September 2010
232 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmworpen/memo/local/ucm9702.htm. Back
233
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lha-and-carers-eia.pdf. Back
234
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn108.pdf. Back
235
http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/stats_summary/stats_summary_aug2010.pdf?x=1. Back
236
http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/stats_summary/stats_summary_aug2010.pdf?x=1. Back
237
http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbctb. Back
238
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lha-and-carers-eia.pdf. Back
239
http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/frs/2008_09/frs_2008_09_report.pdf. Back
240
http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/frs/2008_09/frs_2008_09_report.pdf. Back
241
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1265. Back
242
http://www.housingcorp.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.15528. Back
243
http://www.ncb.org.uk/edcm/disabled_children_and_housing.pdf. Back
244
http://www.radar.org.uk/radarwebsite/tabid/29/default.aspx. Back
245
http://policy.helptheaged.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2A643FC6-E01F-4F1C-9749-BF3A87C61706/0/op_decenthomes_fuelpoverty_june06.pdf. Back
246
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/local-authority-staff/housing-benefit/claims-processing/local-housing-allowance/background/. Back
247
http://www.ssac.org.uk/pdf/housing-regulations-2010.pdf. Back
248
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmworpen/memo/local/ucm9702.htm. Back
249
Central London, Inner North London and Cambridge. Back
250
Bath, Birmingham, Central Greater Manchester, Coventry, Doncaster,
Greater Liverpool, Grimsby, North Nottingham, Sheffield and Sunderland. Back
251
http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/campaigns/policy_campaign_publications/evidence_reports/er_housing/let_down. Back
252
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/junebudget_complete.pdf. Back
253
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtreasy/350/35006.htm. Back
254 http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/working_better_final_pdf_250309.pdf. Back
255
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2005-2006/rrep341.pdf. Back
256
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/eop/raceq/DWP.pdf. Back
257
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rrep173.pdf. Back
258
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Women's%20Budget%20Group%20Emergency%20Budget%20Response%20(June%202010).pdf. Back
259
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/hb-consultation.pdf. Back
260
http://www.grandparentsplus.org.uk/publications_files/Protect%20Support%20Provide%20Report.pdf. Back
261
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/n32.pdf. Back
262
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=263. Back
263
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmworpen/memo/local/ucm6502.htm. Back
264
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/0176.pdf. Back
265
http://www.ssac.org.uk/pdf/housing-regulations-2010.pdf. Back
266
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/child-poverty-large-families. Back
267
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/age/protect_support_provide_full.pdf Back
| 
