Welfare Reform Bill

moved AmendmentNo. 104B: 104B: Clause 30, page 21, line 34, after ““reduced”” insert ““by up to 50%”” The noble Lord said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 104C, 104D, 104E, 104F, 105, 106, 106A and 107—there is a grouping for you. These amendments deal with the controversial government policy of reducing housing benefit for those who refuse rehabilitation after being evicted for anti-social behaviour. The Government have admitted that they expect the number of people whose behaviour is bad enough to warrant this sanction to be tiny. We think that it will be closer to zero. We feel that these powers are disproportionate and even counter-productive and will have such a potentially damaging effect on any innocent members in the affected family that they will never be used, so their inclusion is unnecessary. I am glad that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has also expressed concern about the clause, reflecting the seriousness of the sanctions and the enormous harm that they could cause. This is not the place to discuss in detail the Government’s respect agenda, but we might be excused for thinking that these proposals are included for show. Maybe the Government are right—you may need a stick to coerce difficult cases—but a lot depends on the quality of the carrot. I welcome the theme of support and getting alongside people in such situations, but success needs trust and trust needs nurturing. Draconian action does not build trust—indeed, it can destroy it. These amendments have been tabled to explore whether the Government would consider modifying the powers, which up to now they have insisted on pursuing in full. The imposition of a 30 per cent benefit reduction on a recipient who has been identified as in hardship is excessive. The shortfall between the benefit and the rent would have to be made up from income support, driving the recipient below the poverty line. The 100 per cent reduction in benefit proposed by the Government in some cases is also extremely harsh. We have therefore suggested that reductions be limited to 50 per cent in all cases and to 10 per cent in cases of hardship. These sanctions would also be time-limited to a much greater extent than in the Bill. Our final amendment is aimed at ensuring some transparency in the implementation of the sanctions. In the debate on Part 1, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale sought assurances that the Government did not intend to introduce potential sanctions without providing commensurate support to give claimant customers the opportunity to change their behaviour and avoid losing their benefit. Can the Minister explain why that sensible principle is not being applied? The Government are introducing new sanctions but have refused to expand the support available for rehabilitation. Many organisations have expressed concern that existing services designed to aid rehabilitation for drug or alcohol dependency, and so on, are not equipped to provide the rehabilitation service that the Government have promised. If the claimant customer has failed to engage with the rehabilitation services partly due to his lack of capacity, do the Government intend to punish him anyway? Would it not be far more appropriate to move such a claimant customer closer to the rehabilitation services? I also have a great deal of sympathy with a couple of the other amendments in the group. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to add my name to Amendment No. 105, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, with which I wholly agree. We have had many representations from mental health charities that are concerned that those suffering from a mental disability may be subjected to eviction and benefit reduction because of a failure to diagnose their condition and approach their anti-social behaviour appropriately. I hope that the Minister will listen to those concerns and will keep an open mind on how the sanctions will be imposed. The organisations that have been lobbying us on the powers are certainly not vulnerable to the charge of ignoring the needs of people who suffer from anti-social behaviour, because many of their clients are those same people. I look forward to hearing how the Minister considers that the worst effects of the sanctions will be avoided. I beg to move.