Housing Benefit (Loss of Benefit) (Pilot Scheme) (Supplementary) Regulations 2007

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for giving us the opportunity to have another debate on this issue. I am conscious that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, are not very keen on these proposals, but I hope that we have a shared objective as they are to proceed in making sure that they are dealt with effectively and sensitively. Before I start to deal with some of the detailed points, I remind the House of the wider context of the regulations. As has been acknowledged, anti-social behaviour ruins lives and creates an environment where more serious crime can take hold. Anti-social behaviour is estimated to cost the British taxpayer £3.4 billion a year; even if that figure is subject to challenge, it is acknowledged that a lot of money is involved. We are determined to stamp out anti-social behaviour. The respect programme is delivering an approach that tackles and prevents damaging behaviour, for example, through additional investment announced earlier in 2007 for extra parenting provision. In April 2007, we announced that we have delivered on the promise to establish a network of 53 flagship family intervention projects. That deals in part with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, about what happens if we rolled this out across the country. The housing benefit sanction is part of this overall approach but only part; it is one of many tools that we have given to local authorities at the front line in dealing with anti-social behaviour. The aim is to provide a strong incentive to encourage households where a person is evicted as a result of anti-social behaviour to undertake rehabilitation when they have refused other offers of help. As we know, this measure was thoroughly debated during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2007, so I know that there are concerns, particularly at the impact of this measure on vulnerable people. However, this is about helping people in crisis to accept support offered to them. Because they have already been evicted, the chances of it happening again are high unless they change their behaviour. As I have said before, and I repeat today, this policy will be considered a success if no sanction is imposed. That will mean that people have accepted the help that we believe they need. We know that intensive rehabilitation can achieve positive and significant changes in behaviour, resulting in longstanding difficulties and entrenched anti-social behaviour being stopped. In previous debates I have set out in detail the supporting evidence. Given this strong evidence that such rehabilitation works, it is justifiable that a sanction of benefits should be linked to the refusal of such help and support. The fate of those who have a sanction imposed is in their own hands. Benefit will be reinstated if they choose to take up the rehabilitation services offered to them. This summer, we debated the regulations that provide for the pilot scheme, and the pilot will run for two years, starting from 1 November 2007. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to another date in the Explanatory Memorandum. I suspect that that was the final date by which pilots had to be completed and was the date at which the sunset clause kicked in. I will look at that and write to the noble Lord if it is other than I have said. The debate in the summer approved the essential elements of the scheme, and the regulations set out in more detail the rules on how the sanction will work, for example on good cause and information sharing. They do not contain any new provisions. I am pleased to say that my department has been working closely with the eight local authorities that have volunteered to test the measure. There are indeed eight, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that they are all still on board and actively engaged. They have the necessary procedures in place and are ready to start the pilots on time. Detailed guidance has also been developed, as we have heard, for housing benefit administrators, the courts and local authorities. I am sorry if that guidance was not issued a long time before the opportunity for this debate arose, but it has just been finalised. It is draft guidance, because it is anticipated that they will learn from the pilots and that there may be the need to revise the guidance in the course of those pilots.