§ Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the question "whether it is right, in principle, for the State to support the housing costs of people whose behaviour brings misery to the lives of individuals and communities" (Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-Social Behaviour) can be answered without reference to an alternative, and if so, why; and whether prisoners in gaol are exempt from this principle, and if so, who else is exempt; and [HL3089]
What reason they have for believing that housing benefit sanctions will diminish anti-social behaviour rather than increase it; and [HL3090]
Further to paragraph 6 of Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-Social Behaviour, why they believe that housing benefit sanctions will contribute to restoring a sense of social responsibility; and [HL3091]
Why they believe that housing benefit sanctions are compatible with their own social responsibility. [HL3092]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The Government strongly believe that all residents are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their housing, a right undermined by anti-social behaviour.
As the consultation paper makes clear, we are not proposing housing benefit sanctions as the only way of addressing bad behaviour. Sanctions would be one of a number of measures that might be used to address the type of anti-social behaviour that can blight neighbourhoods. We are seeking the views of those involved in dealing with anti-social behaviour on whether a power to impose sanctions would be a useful and effective additional tool.
Housing benefit continues to be paid when a convicted person is in prison for 13 weeks or less. Many prisoners spend relatively short periods in detention for comparatively minor offences and it would be inappropriate to remove housing benefit from these persons. However, if the offence also involved anti-social behaviour, a benefit sanction might also be appropriate.