These amendments relate to a number of housing issues, and I will deal with them in the order in which they are listed.
Amendment 104B would enable the Secretary of State to pass information relating to a claimant’s social security benefits to their landlord as long as the claimant had given written consent. As the noble Earl and the noble Lord have stated, knowing that a tenant has claimed a social security benefit will allow a landlord to take early action to ensure that the tenant does not get into rent arrears and jeopardise their tenancy.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said, the Secretary of State already has power to supply some limited information to a social-sector landlord when one of its tenants claims universal credit. This information is shared for the specific purpose of enabling the landlord to determine whether that tenant needs advice, assistance or support in relation to their financial affairs.
The Government recognise that the need for this support might arise because, under universal credit, claimants are now responsible, in many cases for the first time, for handling a monthly budget. Claimants must also use their benefit to pay rent directly to their landlords, something that social tenants were not typically required to do under the housing benefit regime.
However, we do not recognise the need for the same level of support in relation to claimants living in the private rented sector. This is because such claimants will typically already have been responsible for paying their own rent under the housing benefit regime, so will struggle less with the changes introduced by universal credit. In any case, if these claimants require support in relation to managing their finances, it is unlikely to come from their private landlords. We therefore see no need to put additional information-sharing provisions in place.
11 pm
One of the key aims of our welfare reform programme is to ensure that claimants accept more responsibility for their actions and take greater control over their lives. We expect claimants to manage their relationship with their landlord rather than passing this responsibility on to the state. Accepting this amendment would run counter to that principle. It would require that the claimant gave their consent prior to any information being released. If a claimant is willing to make such disclosures, they are perfectly at liberty to do so themselves and to share information with their landlord directly. I see no reason why the Government need to be involved in the process.
On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Best, that the Government should support good landlords, universal credit is essentially blind to the merits of individual landlords. The Government therefore do not need to make a decision on whether a landlord is good, bad or indifferent.
Amendment 104BA would require that deductions were made from a claimant’s ongoing universal credit to meet rent arrears owed to a previous landlord. I understand my noble friend’s reasoning in proposing this amendment. One of the key aims of universal credit is to achieve a better balance between a claimant’s rights and responsibilities. Walking away from arrears of rent in circumstances where the taxpayer has given you the means to meet those outgoings is abdicating responsibility, not accepting it. However, the underlying principle here is that we will make deductions from a claimant’s benefit where this is necessary to protect their welfare. That is why such arrangements apply only where necessary, to avoid the risk of the claimant being evicted from their current accommodation. Even then, this is not something that we do lightly. Benefit payments, while providing an adequate level of support, are not overly generous. Any reduction in support risks causing hardship. I am afraid that I cannot accept an argument that the needs of a former landlord outweigh the needs of the claimant in such circumstances.
The proposal also has the potential to be extremely burdensome. The provision would apply only with respect to arrears that accrued during periods where the claimant received the housing costs element. This part of any arrears would need to be disaggregated from other arrears owed, which would be particularly problematic where the tenant and landlord disagreed.
If I may step gently into the research quoted by my noble friend, particularly regarding the figure of 90%, I was delighted at the rare sight of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, championing the Government on this.