My Lords, this debate perhaps illustrates why the way in which the House scrutinises important, not to say controversial, statutory instruments is not satisfactory and is rising to the top of the procedural agenda. I know that there is a move afoot for a delaying power; in fact, we now have the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I have also put forward what I believe is a better way of debating controversial SIs, with advisory amendments being suggested. But for the moment these two types of Motion, moved by my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, are the best that we can do without killing the regulations. However, I should make it clear that I see no merit in the Government’s proposals at all. It is tempting simply to recommend that the regulations be annulled. The suggestion in my noble friend Lord German’s Motion for removing the housing benefit element from UC waiting days, from the Government’s very own advisory committee, is the very least that the Government should do. However, I will support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, as the second-best option after that.
The purpose of the Social Security Advisory Committee is to advise the Government on secondary legislation and to issue occasional reports in this area. Its report on these regulations details what it calls “compelling evidence” as to why they should not proceed, received in response to its consultation. The Government’s reasoning is that the new arrangements refer only to new claims for universal credit made after 3 August this year and do not apply to certain vulnerable groups or those migrating to UC from existing benefits. They therefore believe that those who qualify for UC by a means test are likely to have savings to fall back on because they will be,
“coming from the world of employment”.
In any case, they then say rather vaguely,
“advances of benefit will be available to help those who are in financial need”.
This is a thoroughly misleading sentence which turns out not to be entirely true, as I shall demonstrate.
We are told that the principle behind the waiting days policy in UC is,
“not designed to provide cover for moving between jobs or brief spells of unemployment”,
although this somewhat sniffy comment does not take account of the fact that universal credit, like PIP, is an in-work as well as an out-of-work benefit. I have been very fair to the Minister by spelling out the Government’s rationale for the policy. So why is the policy being questioned by not just the SSAC but our very own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee? I prefer to call that committee by its old name, the Merits Committee, because the clue as to what it does is in the name. I am very pleased that the chairman of the committee, who has been writing letters to the Minister, is here.
The committee has been like a terrier with a bone. First, it points out that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said, no impact assessment giving costs and savings has been provided, so there is insufficient information to gain a clear understanding of what is going on. I take the noble Baroness’s point that the impact assessment would in any case probably be out of date but that is no excuse for the Government not having done it. The equality assessment is not a substitute for a properly done impact assessment. There is a glaringly obvious example of why an impact assessment is vital. The Government maintain that benefit advances are available for those in financial need, as I said just now. But the SSAC report tells us that the Government admit that advances will not be available to everyone, especially not to those who will not be able to afford the repayment. So what will these people do when they are left with no money for six weeks while almost certainly having debts, being in danger of being thrown out of their accommodation for non-payment of rent and with no food?
No wonder the Government have not done an impact assessment. If they had done one properly, they would have had to admit that there will indeed be extra burdens on landlords, local authorities—particularly if they have to give out loans—housing charities and food banks, and quite possibly the police and health services. But, I hear the Minister saying, “These are people from the world of work, surely not those at the bottom of the pile. They must have some savings, mustn’t they?”. But the evidence provided to the SSAC does not back this up. As my noble friend Lord German said, research by HSBC showed that 34% of the UK population have less than £250 in savings and do not have the means to cover a week’s rent and living costs if the breadwinner’s job were to end. Scottish Widows found that of those with no savings, two-thirds had debts. There are lots of similar comments. We also know what happened when there was a computer glitch at RBS recently: many of its wage-earning customers said that they could not manage to pay their outgoings, even for a very short time.
The SSAC report sums up the argument by saying that the question as to the balance between those with sufficient savings and those without has not been resolved in the supporting paperwork from the DWP. What the Government seem not to have understood is that what they call the “world of employment” might mean a very low-paid job in an expensive place such as London.
Turning to the crucial question of the housing benefit element of UC, the SSAC says:
“The fact that the Committee received so many submissions from landlords and their representatives is an indication of the degree of anxiety that has been generated in the housing market by this proposal”.
The Cornwall Residential Landlords Association is more forthright. It says:
“Many landlords have expressed concern about the payment of Universal Credit at the end of a calendar month leading to late payment of rents and other bills. Adding a further barrier to claimants being able to meet their financial obligations is likely to result in an increase in the number of landlords no longer willing to accept these people as tenants”,
as my noble friend Lord German said. It added:
“The increased risk of homelessness will add to the costs of policing and health services”.
The Notting Hill Housing Trust also makes the point that having rent arrears has the potential to inhibit the free movement of labour, thus hobbling those who are looking for work in as wide an area as possible.
Turning back to the absent impact assessment which should have provided costs and savings, the Minister’s letter to the chairman of our secondary legislation committee gives us more information. It says that the anticipated savings will all be spent in giving additional support for claimants in Jobcentre Plus offices but we have heard before of all the support that claimants are now supposed to be getting from JCP offices. As for the impact assessment not having been done, the reason is given that the legislation does not directly impose obligations on public or private bodies. In other words, it is almost admitted that parts of impact assessments are tick-box exercises, often not worth the paper they are written on. That is something those of us interested in statutory instruments know all about.
However, I am concerned not just with process but with the end result. I fear that the result of the Government proceeding with this arrangement will be real hardship for many of those affected. The Government do not seem to acknowledge that many UC claimants will have been trying to find work before they apply, which makes this proposal particularly harsh. I urge the Government to withdraw the regulations—and if not, to take the housing benefit element out before pressing ahead.