Welfare Reform Bill

In speaking to the amendment, I shall speak also to AmendmentNo. 104, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Addington. First, I thank the noble Earl for stepping into the breach left by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and, if I may mix my metaphors, doing much of the heavy lifting for me on this amendment. He made the case in principle very well indeed, very strongly relying, as I do, on the advice and expertise of Shelter and Citizens Advice. On Amendment No. 104, we took the view that in order to have a full debate in Committee it would be a good idea for both amendments to be considered. Our option is slightly stronger, to abolish this unfair and discriminatory legislation completely; but the noble Earl’s amendment is certainly half or three-quarters of a loaf and we are essentially singing from the same hymn-sheet. As it stands, the Bill will provide tenants under 25 with a considerably lower rate of housing benefit than everyone else. If the single room rent were abolished, which our amendments would achieve, we would finally have a situation where everyone, no matter what age, had access to housing benefits on the same basis. In Standing Committee in the Commons, the Minister, Anne McGuire, was asked how the Government could continue with a housing benefit regime that created shortfalls that were so severe that young people faced rent arrears and eviction. In her reply, she said, "““local authorities have the discretionary housing payment scheme that allows them to give additional financial support when a person’s situation is not covered by the local housing allowance””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 2/11/06; col. 426.]" That is no answer. It almost accepts that the position is unfair, but effectively states that there is a sticking plaster solution and the sticking plaster in this case often runs out well before the end of the financial year in many authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has already referred to a postcode lottery in other areas and there is certainly a postcode lottery here. Ms McGuire went on to acknowledge that the LHA had done nothing to increase the supply of accommodation that young claimants were supposed to live in. She said: "““All hon. Members who have spoken have said that they are concerned about the supply of shared accommodation. I confirm that in the pathfinder areas the supply of shared accommodation has not changed in any respect””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 2/11/06; col. 428.]" I touched on a little bit of history in my Second Reading speech, but it is equally relevant now. This restriction—single room rent—was introduced in October 1996, just before this Government came to power, in the face of combined opposition from Labour and the Liberal Democrats. It was made quite clear by the then Labour Front-Bench spokesman that the response of landlords was, "““likely to be to withdraw from providing accommodation for young people””.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/96; col. 622.]" Just for the record, Tony Blair, John Prescott and John Hutton were among those who voted against the proposals. The single room rent means that young people who lose their jobs are almost immediately faced with the prospect of losing their homes. It forces them to focus their attention on finding a new place to live, when their time would be much better spent trying to find alternative employment. Rather than acting as a work incentive, the single room rate is actually a barrier to dealing with youth unemployment. We agree. We do not believe that that is what the Government want and we invite them to end this gross injustice.