Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to everyone who took part in a very illuminating and informative debate. My regret is that while we in this Committee have come to value from the Minister, who I rate highly, a willingness to take a wider perspective and understand that costs do not stop when you chop a benefit—they merely get exported somewhere else—I am sorry that today, on something which affects so many vulnerable people, he has unusually taken such a narrow, cost-focused agenda, leaving other bodies, agencies and often children to pay the bill for that narrow agenda. The costs have been exported elsewhere. We have seen some of the examples offered today by colleagues around the Table: the care and education of children, offered by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel; or contact with children, powerfully argued by my noble friend Lady Sherlock; or the mental health of someone with obsessive disorder from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell; or women’s safety, mentioned by my noble friend; the ability to find work; pregnancy; and health. The costs of addressing all of these issues will be exported to other agencies. They will not go away. The DWP may make its savings. Housing benefit may make some savings. But the costs will be exported somewhere else and, in the process of the hand-on, I suspect from my experience that the costs and the problems will get larger and multiply. I think that this is the first time since he has taken office that I have said this to the Minister: this is unbelievably short-sighted. This is not an all-encompassing amendment, saying ““Get rid of the 25-to-35 rule””. It is quite clearly focused on two groups. The first is women, particularly those who are likely to get back into work within a year—it could be a good year for a man. We should not put them through the trauma of possibly three house moves in the space of nine months in order to satisfy some narrow benefit rules. The second is a group of very vulnerable people. I am perfectly happy—as I am sure that my noble friends around the Table from different areas on this have greater expertise than I—to work with the Minister to get a more precise and useful definition of those most at risk. We do not have to take opposite sides on this. I am sure that we share a common agenda. As my noble friend Lord McAvoy correctly said, we do not want to expose this fairly narrow group of people to the risks that may come as a result of the Government’s changes. If we can work with the Minister, and the expertise around this Table—which I gently point out matches that of the department—can be drawn upon, then I am sure that my noble friends and all colleagues around the Table will be happy to offer it. But this will not do. None of us has any problem if people, whether in good health or poor health, wish to share with other people. That is fine, particularly as they are likely to be sharing with friends—and many of them do. But the amendment focuses on two particular groups. I am not trying to repeal this back to 25, although I wish I could, but I accept the cost arguments and the Government’s agenda. I am trying to focus on two groups, the first of which is those recently in work and trying to get back into work. They will be sabotaged—I mean that, sabotaged—because their energy, effort and focus will go instead on having to sort out their accommodation. That is folly beyond belief and so short-sighted. I am puzzled that the Minister would run with that argument. The second group is vulnerable people. There are people with far more expertise than I around this Table who would be happy to work with the Minister to come up with more precise definitions and to extend the categories of those who should be protected, either because they would be a risk to themselves or a risk to others if we force shared accommodation on them. Frankly, they will otherwise be on the streets or in homeless accommodation. My noble friend Lord McAvoy has made it very clear that this is not an all-encompassing amendment. I tried to press the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, who came in with some ambiguous support for the Minister—the only support he had, I think—as to which groups on my list he would exclude, but answer came there none. But my experience and that of the noble Baroness who talked about HMOs shows that they will be reducing just at the time when pressure on them increases as the numbers rise. Students are in a far better financial position, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, said, to access this accommodation. We are now learning that landlords cannot make money out of this unless it involves at least four bedrooms plus, which means that they are mainly going to be picking up large Victorian and Edwardian houses. HMOs for people other than students are going to be reducing just at the point when the numbers increase. My noble friend Lady Hayter made this point clearly and I am sorry that the Minister did not respond to it. What will happen to rents when we have a reducing number of HMOs and an increasing number of people seeking access? Under the legislation, something like 60,000 new places will be needed. Rents are going to soar. What will happen to the quality of available property that people can afford within the 30 per cent rule? The quality will go down and down. Again, this is not an all-encompassing amendment. Many of us would be perfectly happy to work with the noble Lord and to share the experience that is around this Room. On discretionary housing allowance, I would say that it is becoming the lucky bran tub. I shall not talk about loaves and fishes, but the lucky bran tub. My authority, Norwich, ran out half way through the year. The money is going to increase by something like threefold. I checked to see what the money was being spent on. Largely— not entirely but largely—it was being spent on families who had lost the home they had been seeking to pay for. They were going into emergency or temporary accommodation and needed additional help with their rent above and beyond what they were entitled to, given their income and the rent charged. That money is going to go up threefold and, as a result, instead of being helped for just a couple of months, families may now be helped for a little bit longer. Perhaps more families facing that situation may be helped, particularly as the recession bites. But none of the money will go to any of the groups listed here. That may change, but all they will have is a tiny amount because in effect only one-third of the total will be new money. That cannot even begin to have an impact on a quarter of these groups. I hope that the Minister can set out in a letter, one that I am sure we would all wish to see, how he expects this money to be apportioned given the bids that are going to be made on it. I would be content if I could be persuaded that the discretionary housing allowance was genuinely generous enough to allow local authorities to make local choices, to help the groups most in need at a time when the pressure on this accommodation is going to double. If I can be given that reassurance, that will be fine. I am a local government person and I would welcome that autonomy. As to talk about loaves and fishes, I cannot believe this money will be faintly appropriate. The Minister said the savings will be £200 million and that the additional money going in will be something like £20 million to £40 million for all fields of housing cuts. It does not even begin to connect. I hope the Minister will write to us and tell us how he expects this money to be expended; how we can avoid unnecessary churning; and in what ways we can tighten the amendment to meet his willingness, perhaps, to extend the categories. It will not do to have the poorest, most vulnerable, most fragile people in our community bearing some of the most savage cuts in the Government’s proposals. These should fall on broad shoulders. We should not have a council tax freeze at a time when people such as these face having to move out of accommodation into shared room rent or get into serious arrears. It is not right, it is not fair, and I am sure the Minister agrees with me. I hope he does. I hope, as a result, that he will come back to us. If not, we will press him with further amendments to ensure that if he cannot support an amendment that lists exemptions, he will ensure that there will be sufficient resource in the discretionary housing allowance for those groups most in need, most vulnerable, and who none of us with any claims of decency should see going to the wall. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 45 withdrawn. Amendment 46 not moved. Amendment 47 Moved by