Welfare Reform Bill

moved AmendmentNo. 103B: 103B: Clause 29 , page 20, line 16, at end insert— ““( ) Regulations specified in subsection (2) above may provide that the appropriate maximum housing benefit and weekly amount of housing benefit payable may be reduced in respect of non-dependants residing with the claimant, but that— (a) any such regulations must provide that no non-dependant deduction will apply for non-dependants in receipt of income support, job seekers allowance (income based) and pension credit, and (b) the total reduction attributable to non-dependants must not reduce the housing benefit payable below 50 per cent of the appropriate maximum housing benefit.”” The noble Lord said: The amendments, which are intended to probe any government intention to reform the non-dependent deduction regime, were suggested to us by Shelter and Citizens Advice. Those organisations have first-hand experience of the hardship that those deductions can cause. The effects can include pushing recipients of housing benefit into rent arrears, debt and possible eviction. They have also seen extreme cases where they have led to family breakdown and homelessness. The deductions also fall primarily on those least prepared to bear them. They disproportionately affect the elderly, those receiving other benefits and single parents—a point that the Government will want to consider carefully when pursuing their targets to reduce child poverty. Of course, we do not argue with the principle of the policy. Adults who are able to should be expected to pay a contribution to the household in which they live, but that principle should not be pursued to excess. When there is an incentive for many low-income benefit claimant customers to leave a household and move to a single tenancy where they can claim housing benefit separately, the cost to the taxpayer is considerably greater—a clear sign that reform of the system is well overdue. Many organisations believe that those deductions are unrealistic in the expectations that they place on the recipients of housing benefit. Many of those people find it difficult, if not impossible, to make up the deduction from their income of the non-dependent person, resulting in parents making a choice between evicting a child or someone in full-time education or an economically active dependant, or being evicted themselves. The complexity of the system is also a key reason that so many negative effects come from such a superficially reasonable policy. There are six different rates of non-dependent deduction, depending on the income of the non-dependent. There are also numerous exemptions based on certain types of education in which he or she may be or benefits that he or she may be receiving, combined with age criteria. Simplification of the system was recommended by the Social Security Select Committee five years ago and I wonder whether the Minister can explain whether the Government now have any plans to reform the system, given the reform that they are currently pursuing of other parts of housing benefit. I beg to move.