Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, we have learnt some interesting things in this debate. First, the Minister is not a bad man; secondly, my noble friend Lord McAvoy is not a social liberal; and, thirdly, some of us have had some interesting shared accommodation in our past, although most of us were rather under 25, let alone 35, at the time. The shared accommodation rate, which is a lower rate of housing benefit, applies to single tenants under 25. The Government intend to extend that to people up to the age of 35. The estimate is 60,000 and we have to agree that they are somewhat vulnerable people. Assuming that there is no transitional relief, as from January the average loss will be £41 a week, or in London up to £100 a week. None of us doubts that that will mean that most of the 25 to 35 year-olds will lose their current homes. Crisis, which I still think of as Crisis at Christmas—that shows my age, I guess—has already found a shortage of shared accommodation as the market simply cannot respond that rapidly to these changes, which will come in over a very short time. There is a real risk that some of those affected will become homeless, especially, as we have heard, in rural areas or, indeed, in Winchester, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, have already described. It would be interesting to hear the DWP’s own estimates or of any action being taken to promote the availability of appropriate accommodation within that timescale. As Crisis has said, and as many noble Lords have voiced, sharing can be difficult and even dangerous. It can have serious impacts on vulnerable people, hence our concern about the proposed extension from 25 to 35 years of age. The existing exemptions, which are set out in secondary legislation, are for severely disabled people, care leavers aged under 22, those who are aged 25 or over who have spent more than three months in a homelessness hostel and received resettlement support, and those aged 25 or over who are considered a risk to others—not those at risk, but a risk to others. Those exemptions, announced in July, are undoubtedly welcome and indicate that the Government recognise that sharing can be inappropriate for some sorts of vulnerable groups. As we have heard, the Government have made the case that discretionary housing payments could be used to protect vulnerable people, but as both the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and my noble friend Lady Lister have said, it lacks certainty. My noble friend also referred to the amounts—I was going to use the word insignificant, but she spoke of loaves and fishes, which is a better description of how often those discretionary housing payments will be used. The total pot is only £190 million over four years. This is intended to help those who currently have a shortfall as well as those affected by all the cuts to housing benefit. I think the Budget made £1.8 billion-worth of cuts to housing benefit, in addition to the £215 million proposed to be saved from changes to the shared accommodation rate. I argue that the discretionary housing payment will not suffice. We will therefore be interested to hear whether further exemptions will be considered. I would like to highlight four of the exemptions that have already been mentioned. First, there are pregnant women, but that exemption has probably been well enough described, and I think is even accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, which must be a special tick for it. Secondly, there are those who have been victims of abuse or are at risk of violence or fear violence. The fear of someone they have been living with makes a locked door and a completely safe environment a priority for those people, who are mostly women. Thirdly, there are those who are vulnerable because of previous rough sleeping or drug or alcohol dependency, and I declare an interest as a trustee of CASA, a service for alcohol misusers. As our clients move out of treatment or of previous unsuitable accommodation and learn to live with a new sobriety, it is hard to emphasise the challenges of sharing a home with someone who continues to drink. I do not necessarily mean to drink heavily, but even to drink socially. It is very hard to describe how once you have given up alcohol what the smell of a thrown-away bottle of beer or wine, let alone just having drink available at the time that you are trying to maintain sobriety, can mean. It is a real challenge. Fourthly, there are non-resident parents, who have been well described already, whose relationship with their children could be adversely affected by this. We are talking about an older age group who are much more likely to have children than the under-25s. I think that 18 per cent of the 25 to 34 age group on single homeless benefits who do not have dependent children are absent parents. That is a high proportion. As has been stressed, a safe place to host one’s own children is key to that relationship. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, you cannot be outside all day, especially with very young children. Cooking and sharing food with your children is an important part of being a family community. Other changes in this Bill will already worsen the existing shortage of one-bedroom flats that we have discussed on other days. This change could have a similar effect on the shortage of shared accommodation as it will in effect double the number seeking this stock. We know what that will do to prices. There is not enough of this sort of accommodation available, and the market takes time to respond, especially when the banks are so loath at the moment to make loans, yet investment is needed to create flats of that sort or to improve and adapt housing in this way. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, this increase to 35 year-olds will increase the pressure on the under 25 year-olds who are seeking that sort of accommodation. As my noble friend Lady Hollis has set out, Amendment 46 seeks to protect those who were renting non-shared accommodation either out of their own resources or when in work. It is to prevent them being evicted because of their housing benefit being cut to cover only shared accommodation and to protect them for 12 months. It would prevent all that unnecessary upheaval for those who might be out of work for quite a short period of time by preventing them having to move from sole occupancy to shared accommodation. Losing a job and a house at the same time creates enormous stress levels that will not help someone focus on stabilising their job search. They will be spending their time looking for a new home. I think it was the report by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for the DWP that showed that around half JSA claimants find work within three months, so we are talking about a lot of people being able to find work fairly quickly, and it would be dreadful to move them for a short period. Amendment 46 would prevent the half who are likely to find a job from suffering needless upheaval in having to move. It would give them a breathing space, in the words of my noble friend Lady Hollis. I should like to say a word in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. It would be a false saving if cuts in this part of the benefit then appeared as a greater expenditure in other parts when further resettlements, A&E or other things would be necessary. So, in order to help quite a small group of vulnerable people, in the words of my noble friend Lord McAvoy, we support the approach of these two amendments and we hope very much that the Minister will respond sympathetically to them.