§ 'Claimants living in hostel accommodation shall be treated on the same assessment basis with regard to entitlement to housing benefit as all other claimants.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mrs. Ann TaylorI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)With this we may take Government amendment No. 67.
§ Mrs. TaylorNew clause 17 deals with people living in hostel accommodation and stresses the point that we made in Committee: people who live in hostels should be treated on the same assessment basis, for entitlement to housing benefit as all other claimants. We note that the Government have put down an amendment about hostel 869 dwellers and I presume that that is the corrected version of the amendment that the Opposition put down in Committee.
When we discussed this in Committee, the Minister, who will again reply this evening, made some favourable noises about the Government's attitude to people in hostels. He agreed to meet outside organisations concerned with this problem. We want to know this evening the Government's response to the problems now that they have had that meeting and what they will do to improve the situation for people in hostels on the changes brought about by this legislation, especially to ensure that people in hostels get equal treatment. We also want to know what the Minister intends to do in order to use this legislation as an opportunity to remove some of the anomalies that he acknowledged in Committee existed for people in hostels.
I hope that the Minister will be helpful this evening, although I am slightly perturbed that he has postponed a second meeting with CHAR and SHAC until after this debate. As I understand it, a meeting should have occurred yesterday but was postponed until later in the week. I hope that that is not bad news about the Minister's attitude and, as the meeting was due to take place yesterday, that he can fully inform the House of the Government's intention on hostel dwellers. Presumably, he did all his homework beforehand in preparation for yesterday's meeting—the meeting that was not—as well as tonight's debate. Therefore, I hope that he will reveal all about the Government's intentions, although more briefly than his colleague did on the new clause we have just debated.
I ask the Minister to deal specifically with three points because we want to be brief. First, what consideration have he and his Department given to the definition of boarders? We know that there have been past difficulties with the DHSS and local authorities disagreeing on whether people living in certain hostels should be classified as boarders or should try to obtain entitlement as householders. For example, the residents of a lodging house in Coventry with 220 places had individual rooms with locks—perhaps better described as cubicles with locks—and the DHSS said that they were not boarders and not entitled to DHSS payments.
As the local authority did not want to treat those people as householders, they were obviously placed in a difficulty and the matter had to be resolved on appeal. It was resolved in the way that classified those people as boarders. The issue needs to be clarified before we proceed, because more and more voluntary organisation and housing association hostels are trying to give each person some accommodation to himself. The Minister should clarify the grey area here.
9. pm
The second point was one that I raised in Committee about the position of a person living in a hostel who then finds employment. The person will lose supplementary benefit and only be able to claim housing benefit. In view of the amount of eligible rent that is defined as part of the hostel charge, the person may be no better off in work than out of work, because of the loss of supplementary benefit entitlement. Had time permitted, I could have given an example to show how easy it is for a person to be worse off and out of pocket, simply because he finds work and 870 because, under the housing benefit scheme, the amount which can be claimed as eligible rent in hostel accommodation will be limited. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he thinks that the regulations should be framed to assess the eligible rent of a person living in hostel accommodation.
The third matter, which again was raised in Committee, is one about which the Minister himself expressed concern. It relates to the minimum qualifying periods before local authorities are willing to accept a person in hostel accommodation as a resident. When we discussed the matter in Committee on 16 February, the Minister said that some local authorities
have taken a fairly hard line and refused to grant benefit if a person occupied accommodation for less than six weeks.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 February 1982; c. 500.]I hope that the Minister will introduce regulations or give guidelines to local authorities. He could do that before the legislation is passed, because his Department already has the power to do so. I hope that he will tell us now that his Department is willing to clarify the position about residential qualifications and to issue an instruction to local authorities about residential qualifications. If he thinks that six weeks is a hard line, I hope that he will tell us this evening what the thinks is a resonable time limit. I hope that he will at least tell us that local authorities will be instructed that six weeks is an unreasonable time. If so, it will clear up what I said in Committee about authorities such as Kensington and Chelsea which have a six months' qualifying period. If the Minister thinks that six weeks is hard, he must think that six months is quite outrageous.Those, briefly, are the points that I hope that the Minister will clarify this evening. I hope that we shall thus make progress, and that the Minister will not just be sympathetic, as he was in Committee, but will make specific proposals.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young)The Minister will try to be as helpful as he can, but I have to say in advance that I cannot reveal all, as I was invited to do by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor).
I have much sympathy with the new clause, because its intention is to avoid any discrimination against hostel dwellers under the new housing benefit scheme. We have already accepted that the current situation whereby some local authorities refuse to grant benefit to hostel dwellers until they serve a long qualifying residential period is unacceptable. We tabled amendment No. 67, to which I shall come in a moment, to remove such discriminatory practices.
A second issue covered by the amendment is whether hostel dwellers in receipt of supplementary benefit should obtain rent and rate assistance via that benefit or through the housing benefit scheme. As one reads the amendment, they would be switched on to housing benefits instead of supplementary benefit. I am not sure that that is in the interests of hostel dwellers.
Supplementary benefit claimants who live in hostels are assessed as boarders under regulation 9(9)(b)(ii) of the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 1980. Their entitlement to supplementary benefit is assessed in a different way from other supplementary benefit recipients. Instead of having their entitlement assessed on the basis of a scale rate, plus additional requirements, plus an amount for housing costs, they are assessed on the basis 871 of their board and lodging charge, plus any additional requirements, plus an amount for personal expenses. The amount included in the assessment for board and lodging covers not only rent and the rates, but also board, heating charges and other service charges which would not be eligible for housing benefit.
Those different elements are not separately assessed for supplementary benefit purposes. Therefore, it would not be a simple matter for the supplementary benefit officer not to award an amount for rent and rates and instead to issue a passport which entitled the claimant to housing benefit. It is the local authority's responsibility to assess eligible rent and rates and the supplementary benefit officer would not know by how much to reduce the board and lodging award until the housing benefit had been calculated. The claimant—who might well be in urgent need—would have to wait, both for his housing benefit and his supplementary benefit.
The definition of a boarder is a matter for the interpretation of the regulations by the chief supplementary benefit officer. The great majority of hostel dwellers would be treated as boarders rather than as people who rent their accommodation. I am not convinced that in practical terms a hostel dweller, or any other boarder in receipt of supplementary benefit, would be in any way better off if the rent and rate element of his entitlement came via housing benefit instead of as part of his supplementary benefit payment. As that is the impact of the new clause—whether it was intended or not—I would have to advise the House to reject it.
On a more positive note, officials are currently discussing with the local authority associations and the voluntary organisations most concerned—SHAC, CHAR and the Scottish Council for Single Homeless—how best to help hostel dwellers and other boarders with their rent and rates. I can assure the hon. Lady that there is nothing sinister in the postponement until Thursday of the second meeting in that series. We have very much in mind not only what would be desirable in theory—on which there is no disagreement—but, more important, what would be the most practical arrangements for claimants as well as authorities. I cannot pre-empt those discussions with an amendment which I believe would not be in the claimant's interests. However, I can assure all hon. Members that there is no intention to single out hostel dwellers from any other boarders in receipt of supplementary benefit. Against that background, I hope that the new clause will not be pressed.
The hon. Lady asked me what I would consider to be a reasonable qualifying period. In column 503 of the Official Report of our Committee proceedings, the hon. Lady suggested that a qualifying period of two weeks might be reasonable. The matter is under negotiation, but I think that the hon. Lady is in the right territory when she puts that forward as a possible basis for local authorities to agree on. I hope that we can carry them with us in suggesting a qualifying period in that area.
§ Mrs. Ann TaylorIs the Minister willing and able to issue guidelines to local authorities on this matter, possibly even in advance of the housing benefit scheme coming into operation? His powers to issue guidelines, and the whole question of qualifying periods, come under the 1980 Housing Act rather than anything to do with this. Is the Minister willing to do that within the next few weeks or months?
§ Sir George YoungAs I understand it, the negotiations are continuing and we hope that they will be concluded before the guidelines are issued. I think that both sides accept that there will have to be some minimum qualifying period. Two weeks is what the hon. Lady suggested in Committee.
Once we achieve agreement with the local authorities on the qualifying period, we can promulgate guidelines or regulations. At this stage, while we are talking to local authorities and the voluntary organisations, it would be wrong for the DHSS to weigh in and say that that must be the minimum qualifying period. The discussions are going well and there is agreement on the principle. However, we should let those discussions continue and not pre-empt them by a minimum one-week or two-week period.
I turn to Government amendment No. 67. In Committee I gave an undertaking to re-examine the position of those who rent a room for a short period. I accepted the cause for concern expressed by many hon. Members in Committee. The amendment is intended to remove what is, in effect, a qualifying residential period. It provides for regulations to be made, under which someone who occupies a dwelling otherwise than as his home—in other words, far too short a period for the dwelling legally to be regarded as his home—to be regarded as occupying it as his home for housing benefit purposes.
Hon Members may well say that we should have deleted the words "as his home" from the clause. But there is a simple reason why we did not do so. If we had, we should have had to draw up further regulations to exclude people such as holidaymakers or travelling business men from claiming housing benefit on their temporary accommodation. The proposed amendment avoids that difficulty, while achieving the desired effect of ensuring that hostel dwellers are not arbitrarily excluded from housing benefit because they have lived in a hostel only for a short time.
We are trying to tackle the administrative problems that I have mentioned. Discussions are proceeding with voluntary bodies and local authority associations on how best to overcome them. When officials have reported back, we shall consider the content of the regulation. I cannot tell the House at this stage precisely how the regulation-making power will be used, but the regulation will have to come before the House in due course.
By tabling the amendment, I hope that we have shown our good intentions and that the amendment will command general support. Against the background of the Government's good will and intent, I hope that the Opposition will not press new clause 17 to a Division.
§ Mrs. Ann TaylorTo get anything like co-operation from Government Ministers today is a change. Therefore, we shall not press the new clause to a Division.
I welcome the Minister's remarks about the qualifying period and I am glad that he intends to make progress. Obviously, we shall have to leave some of the other points to the hon. Gentleman's further discussions with outside bodies. However, will he bear in mind the important point about those who live in hostels who manage to find work? They may be a few in number but the housing benefit scheme must take account of such people. Therefore, will he give serious consideration to the basis upon which eligible rents will be assessed for those who live in hostel accommodation?
873 It is something of an achievement that the Government are not outright opposed to the provision. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.