Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I should like to comment on some of the amendments. We touched on the issue raised by the amendments of my noble friend Lord Whitty at the end of our previous session. The fundamental point that he is making is right: there are major issues of public policy around housing. They interlock; they are integrated; there are consequences certainly for how support for housing is provided for in universal credit or any other benefit system. I agree particularly with his point that housing costs elements are not only a consequence of what happens in any policy area review but they also impact on its ramifications, because they have a potential impact on the market. Notwithstanding that argument, I say to my noble friend that it would be quite difficult to unpick housing benefit, local housing allowances or whatever it is from the universal credit, although I have a question for the Minister on that. If you let the current system continue alongside universal credit, you would in any event need rules as to how they interact. I suppose that would be made easier if the capital rules for housing benefit pretty much align with what is proposed for universal credit—as I think they do. I think that the taper rules for housing benefit would also currently align with what is proposed for universal credit, so some adjustment would have to be made along the way. However, my noble friend makes a fundamental point. If, after this review, when the dust has settled on it and the analysis has been undertaken, it is acknowledged that the current proposals for dealing with housing support were to change—in particular, if it were accepted that we move away from a single factor of uprating those allowances year by year and perhaps revert to something like the current system, where you look on a regional or other basis at actual rents—would the system cope with that? Does that fundamentally challenge universal credit and could it be encompassed? That is, by pressing the button on universal credit as planned, are we passing the point of no return if we wanted to re-evaluate how we deal with housing support? My noble friend seems to have a valid argument in the points that he raises. My noble friend Lady Donaghy spoke particularly to the amendments that our noble friend Lord Kennedy tabled. Again, I have a good deal of sympathy with the thrust of these amendments, which really touch upon the practicalities of universal credit. I know that a lot of those are issues quite properly to be worked out along the way when we have made further progress, but we are only two years away from the start of universal credit: 2013 is a near time and I am sure that the Minister is feeling the heat. I missed Questions today but I thought that the Treasury had a risk register and I am surprised that it does not—I am sure that it will after this. It would be helpful to have some understanding from the Minister of some of the broad practicalities in how all this is going to work, particularly on the prospects of picking up these concepts of local delivery to which my noble friend spoke. We know and understand the ambition for significant access to the system to be online and we would support that approach, but obviously it will not cover everyone. Those who access online will, presumably, necessarily all do it remotely from home. There may be some for whom face-to-face engagement prior to that is necessary and, presumably, notwithstanding the start in 2013, the existing systems will have to be maintained until migration to universal credit is complete in 2017. As I say, a start date of 2013 is now less than two years away. Powerful arguments were made for the expertise that resides in local authorities for dealing with housing benefit—their face-to-face contact and knowledge of council tax—quite apart from the ramifications of some of the contractual issues which would have to be unpicked if that approach is not adopted. It is not only an issue for local authorities. There are many employees in HMRC and DWP, as well as in the 379 local authorities, who will be directly affected by the proposed changes. Accepting that detail is to come, perhaps the Minister can this afternoon give us at least an outline of how the system will work on a practical basis. It will be the case that not all claimants will have access to online facilities and not all will be able to move to self-service models of operation without assistance, guidance and support. What type of support is envisaged and by whom does he see it being provided? Is it envisaged that it will be entirely paperless? As my noble friend Lord Knight said, there are issues about security, identity and the sources of information that have to be provided one way or another. Another point flows from this. At the moment, when they are dealing with housing benefit or council tax benefit claims, local authorities do not look narrowly at just those claims. They liaise appropriately with social services and housing. It is increasingly joined-up working, not only within local authorities but between local authorities and, not least, the DWP. We also know that, despite some of its IT challenges, HMRC does joined-up work, and it should be an integral part of channelling people to the options programme of CMEC. In universal credit, we are joining up the payment, but what is going to happen to all these different levels of co-operation that exist to support people across different policy strands, not just the benefit strand? How is that going to be provided for and encompassed in the new world of universal credit?