Unified Housing Benefit Scheme (Hansard, 8 July 1981)

§ 14. Mr. Stallard
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many pensioners will be worse off under the proposed unified housing benefit scheme outlined in the consultative paper "Assistance with Housing Costs".

§ Mr. Stanley
It has been estimated that the housing benefit proposals referred to would result in about 1.1 million pensioners in Great Britain, with incomes above the needs allowance, being worse off, on average, by 26p a week. They would also result in about 900,000 pensioners, almost all with incomes below the needs allowance, being better off, on average, by 83p a week. This assumes the adoption of the topping-up scheme in the consultation paper. Fuller information is given in tables 1, 2 and 6 which have been placed in the Library, as announced in the reply given on 13 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire).

§ Mr. Stallard
I am grateful for that reply. However, will the Minister confirm that the payments that he has mentioned, which will be paid to some pensioners, will have to be paid for at the expense of other claimants because of the nil cost condition of this scheme? Furthermore, will he confirm that the Department of Health and Social Security estimates that it will save, on 2,000 staff, about £17 million if these proposals are adopted? Will the Minister accept, therefore, that because of those two conditions and the extra burden that will be thrown upon local authorities, which are not in a fit state to cope with this burden, the present proposals are unworkable and unjust and ought to be reconsidered?

§ Mr. Stanley
I think that the hon. Member will want to consider carefully the tables to which I have drawn his attention. One thing that comes out clearly in the overall scheme, when one is bringing together two separate systems of housing cost support, is that under the present proposals there is substantial overall benefit to pensioners. We estimate the current net financial benefit to pensioners at some £23 million, so the overall balance is in favour of pensioners.
As regards the administrative cost savings to the DHSS, the hon. Member is right when he says that the Government have produced an estimate of such savings, 400 and representations have been made to us that the utilisation of some of those cost savings might be directed towards those who are losers under the scheme. We shall be considering those representations after the consultation period.

§ Mr. Newens
How can the Minister possibly justify putting additional hardships on many tenants as a result of proposals now being put before local authorities? Does not the Minister recognise that many of those who will be hard hit by the proposals will have no means of paying off the additional amounts that they will be faced with paying? What does he propose to do to help those people?

§ Mr. Stanley
I hope that the hon. Member will analyse the facts. As a result of these proposals, we are producing a net increase in financial help to some groups, Including pensioners—

§ Mr. Newens
What about the others?

§ Mr. Stanley
—and that must be taken into account. But, in bringing together two separate systems of financial support, it is inevitable that there will be some gainers and some losers.
On the overall basis, pensioners gain financially. Also, one of the central justifications for this change is an attempt to end the very great difficulty of many low-income families in trying to make the best choice financially as between rent rebates and supplementary benefit. One of the major social benefits of this change is the ending of the great difficulty of many hundreds of thousands of families in making that choice.