Welfare Reform Bill

These amendments seek to ensure that disabilities and health issues are taken into account before a household is served with a warning notice; to reduce the length and severity of the sanction; to ensure that support offered to the household is appropriate; to introduce a right to independent review of the actions set out in the sanction warning notice; and to ensure that pilots regarding the sanctioning of housing benefit end in January 2012. Perhaps I may deal first with AmendmentsNos. 105 and 106. We appreciate the concern that people with health issues should not be unfairly treated because their condition is not recognised or taken into account; hence, we already have sufficient safeguards in place to address this concern. Many health conditions will not affect a person’s behaviour or hinder their engagement with rehabilitation. The health issues that may be most relevant include mental ill health, alcohol and drug addiction. It is these health issues that may affect the person’s capacity to engage with support. Post eviction, when support is offered and the household refuses to engage, an anti-social behaviour co-ordinator will consider whether a sanction is appropriate. This decision will be taken in discussion with relevant agencies. Exactly which agencies become involved will depend on the circumstances of the household and may include the police, social services, mental health agencies, children’s services, housing managers, education or the Family Intervention Project. Amendment No. 105 would place a duty on local authorities to liaise with health services. This amendment is not necessary and is impractical. The term ““health services”” could encompass hospitals, GPs, psychiatrists, physiotherapists, dentists and many others. It would require local authorities to contact a large number of services in every case, not all of which would be relevant. To make the amendment workable and compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Data Protection Act, we would need to limit liaison to relevant areas of the health service. In addition, the amendment places no duty on relevant health service providers to co-operate with local authorities. Medical confidentiality would preclude the sharing of this information without consent. Amendment No. 106 would require any person who has responsibility for issuing a warning notice to have an understanding of disabilities or health conditions. It does not make clear how an anti-social behaviour co-ordinator would be able to demonstrate an understanding of disabilities or health conditions, and it is also not clear about the level of knowledge and experience that would be deemed necessary to meet the test. I do not doubt the importance of having medical input in the decision, but a wide range of issues need to be considered alongside health issues to best assess an appropriate course of action. Anti-social behaviour co-ordinators have a wealth of knowledge and experience in dealing with all the issues that can contribute to anti-social behaviour. Amendments Nos. 104B and 104D seek to reduce the severity of the sanction. The intention is that the sanction should act as an incentive for households to take up support, and, to be effective, the sanction must carry weight. We want to send a strong message that the right to housing benefit comes with a responsibility to be a decent neighbour. The graduated increase in the sanction from 10 per cent for four weeks to 20 per cent for four weeks and then to 100 per cent gives an increasing incentive. If hardship were to be limited to a 10 per cent reduction, this graduated approach would be lost. We believe that the level of the sanction should be set in regulations. The regulations will be affirmative and therefore subject to approval by both Houses if they are changed. This is the way that sanction levels are set in other benefit regimes and it gives the necessary flexibility should changes to the rates of reduction be required. Amendment No. 104C would remove Section 130B(4)(b), which provides safeguards for vulnerable groups by making housing benefit payable in certain circumstances even when all the conditions for the sanction are met. It allows the local authority not to sanction at all if it considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances of the particular household. Removing this subsection would undermine the safeguards built into the measures. Amendment No. 104E would reduce the maximum possible length of a sanction from five years to12 months. The starting point of the possible five-year period is the date on which the relevant order for possession is made. In practical terms, there may be a significant delay between the start of the five-year period and a sanction actually starting. For example, the order might be suspended and breached at a later date, leading to eviction; or, after being evicted, the household might live with family or friends for a period and would not therefore be in receipt of housing benefit. The intended outcome of the proposal is that problem households stop causing trouble within their communities. That will not happen overnight. Intensive support is often required. It is important that households are encouraged to undertake a full process of rehabilitation, and that can often take longer than12 months. Having a sanction period of 12 months would reduce the effectiveness of the sanction and could in some cases render it unusable. Amendments Nos. 104F and 106A are both concerned with ensuring that support offered to the household is appropriate. It is in no one’s interest for local authorities or rehabilitation service providers to provide support that is unsuitable. And it is not the intention that households should be sanctioned for not accepting support that is not appropriate to them. Households that have already been evicted for anti-social behaviour may have many and complex needs. The support they require must be carefully considered. Our intention is that rehabilitation service providers will work closely with the household when considering the needs of that household. The development of a support package would involve discussions with the household to arrive at a support package that was appropriate to them. As a further assurance, during the development of the pilots, officials will be working closely with support providers and other relevant stakeholders in producing guidance for developing support packages. Amendment No. 104F would omit the words ““or may provide””. The practical effect of the amendment would be that an authority would not be able to use a sanction unless it could provide rehabilitation services. I can confirm that the sanction will be available only where support services are available and where they have been offered and refused. That is explicit within the legislation and so this rewording is not necessary. Local authorities will need regularly to review all the circumstances of a case in considering whether to end the sanction. This will include a regular review of the appropriateness of actions being taken to address the problem behaviour. We will set out in guidance that regular reviews of cases must be undertaken. This isa sensible approach, which we will test throughpiloting. Amendment No. 106A would allow an independent review to be requested at any time—perhaps many times in relation to one warning notice. It would not, however, prevent a sanction being imposed or continuing if a review were requested or was underway. Nor does it consider who might carry out such a review. Under these circumstances, the amendment would not be a helpful addition to the Bill. Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 107. The amendment seeks to ensure that pilots regarding the sanctioning of housing benefit end in January 2012. It also seeks to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of any decision to roll out this scheme nationally by requiring that primary legislation is revised and new regulations made before a national rollout. As has been identified, a similar amendment was discussed and voted on in another place. We intend to commence the pilots for this proposal as soon as practicable. This will be in late 2007 or early 2008. I assure noble Lords that these pilots will last for two years, and for two years only. I can also give an assurance about the level of parliamentary scrutiny that would be necessary before this proposal could be introduced nationally. Before national rollout, we are committed to producing a full regulatory impact assessment for the proposal. New regulations, both affirmative and negative, would also need to be made. This will provide sufficient scope for parliamentary scrutiny of the proposal prior to any national rollout. There are relevant sections in both the affirmative and negative regulations for this proposal that will limit the length of the piloting powers. At the point when the regulations are being made, we will havea much more precise idea of when the pilotswill commence and therefore end. We will make a decision on national rollout at the end of the pilots based on a full evaluation of the effectiveness of the scheme. There is strong evidence that intensive support can help to tackle the root causes of anti-social behaviour. It is right that we do all that we can to encourage households to take up such support when it is offered and necessary. It is not our intention to sanction widely. Local authorities will have discretion when considering whether a sanction is an appropriate course of action, which it certainly will not be in every case. The authority will also have discretion to end the sanction at any time. There will be an appeals regime and hardship rights. Households can choose to end the sanction. Benefit can and will be reinstated if those being sanctioned take up the rehabilitation being offered to them. I shall address some of the additional specific questions that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked what would happen if there were a severe shortage of available rehabilitation. That is a reasonable question. The Government are investing heavily in rehabilitation. The Respect action plan announced our commitment to set up a national network of family intervention projects. The Respect task force has worked with around 50 areas to establish a national network of family intervention projects, for which funding will be provided in 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Department for Education and Skills has also made an additional£6 million available for 2007-08 to enable the new Respect areas announced on 22 January to invest in extra parenting provision to tackle and prevent anti-social behaviour. The sanction is intended as a tool to get those who are evicted for anti-social behaviour to take up the support offered to them. Where appropriate support is not available, the local authority will not be able to use the sanction—I stress that point. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, asked whether we are targeting people on housing benefit and in the rented sector. No one is suggesting that anti-social behaviour is confined to those who are in rented accommodation or those who claim state benefits. We do not see this measure as the primary tool for tackling anti-social behaviour but, rather, as one tool in a range of measures that we are developing as part of the Respect agenda. As noble Lords will be aware, there are already other ways to tackle anti-social behaviour, such as anti-social behaviour orders or injunctions, which do not rely on there being a claim for benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, made much of the huge impact of the sanction on families and children, yet the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, predicted that it would not be used at all. In reality, we expect it to be used in very few cases because it is meant to encourage people to participate in the support that is available to them, and we must make sure that that is accomplished. I was going to raise a number of points to take noble Lords through the process and to reassure them about the steps that will be involved, but, given the business still before us, I will not extend this debate unless anyone presses me to do so. In the light of the assurances that I have already given, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.