REVIEW OF DECISIONS

HC Deb 23 March 1982 vol 20 cc851-66

'(1) Regulations may make provision for requiring or enabling in prescribed circumstances the Secretary of State to review any determination under this Part and as to the consequences of any such review.

(2) Regulations under this may in particular provide for any decision on a review carried out in accordance with the regulations to be subject to appeal in such circumstances and in such manner as many be prescribed.'—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 16—Appeals.

Mr. Bennett

The whole question of appeals is an important area. It is particularly disappointing that there are no Conservative Back Benchers in the House at the moment. [Interruption.] I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) enjoying the debate. He will be concerned about the rights of the individual and the right to appeal against decisions. No doubt he will join in the debate. I certainly hope that many other Conservative Members will look at this area.

It is one of the major weaknesses of this section of the Bill that many people's rights to appeal against decisions are being reduced. New clause 14 simply takes one of the clauses that the Minister tabled to the first part of the Bill, deletes some of the words which seemed to be irrelevant and repositions it in the second part of the Bill. I hope that it will give the Minister wide powers to set up art appeals procedure. That is not our preferred position. We would like to see that power specifically given to the supplementary benefit appeals tribunal. That is the purpose of new clause 16. I suspected that the Minister might have some difficulties in accepting that new clause, so I tabled this more general new clause, which allows the Secretary of State by regulation to review decisions.

When I tabled an amendment in Committee, the Minister said that he would be in favour of the local authority setting up a special committee of councillors who were not involved in the original decision to hear appeals. We would all have been pleased with that if the Minister had gone one stage further and said that there should be a final appeal to the Secretary of State. However, in Committee, the Minister said that that was impossible and that the Secretary of State could not be bothered with the possibility of appeals. Having assured us that there would not be many appeals or dissatisfied people, the Minister argued that there would be many, and that the Secretary of State could not listen to them all.

There must be some safeguard so that the matter is not left entirely to local authorities. In Committee, would have accepted the proposal for an appeal to councillors, provided that there was an ultimate appeal to the Secretary of State. In that way, if it became increasingly clear that the system was not working throughout the country, the Secretary of State could intervene. I am offering the Secretary of State the best solution. By regulations, he can introduce whatever appeal procedure should prove satisfactory.

Many pressure groups—particularly the Child Poverty Action Group—believe that it would be most appropriate to make appeals to the existing supplementary benefit tribunals and that would be the most helpful solution. However, the Minister seems set against that. He has not spent long enough considering the labyrinth of potential problems. The more we have considered the Bill, the more complicated it 'has become. As a result, people will feel that there has been an injustice and will want some right of appeal.

It is worth considering the way in which appeals now take place. If someone's application for supplementary benefit is turned down or if he does not receive the right amount, he has a right to appeal to the supplementary benefit tribunal. If the person is still dissatisfied after the hearing, he can make further appeals. There is a known and tried procedure. Many of us have been critical of the system and have said that it is often slow and that consequently people are sometimes granted money long after their need has passed. We have pointed out that they sometimes have to get by without the money. Often, such procedures are a little unsatisfactory.

Most people feel that the process is better than nothing. That procedure exists for anyone claiming supplementary benefit. Someone on supplementary benefit can claim a right to have part, at least, of his rent or rates paid. However, at present, those who do not qualify for that type of benefit qualify for the housing benefit. They only have the right to appeal to the council and it would seem that most local authorities do not have a specific appeals procedure. However, it is possible to make representations to a local councillor. Of course, representations are being made about a relatively small proportion of a person's total income, and not about the whole of his income.

If someone is dissatisfied about the way in which his supplementary benefit has been administered, he can make representations via his Member of Parliament to the Secretary of State, or via his Member of Parliament to the Ombudsman. Representations about the existing housing benefit can be made via a councillor and if he refuses the applicant can make representations to the local Ombudsman about the way in which local housing benefit has been administered.

Therefore, the system is fairly complicated. Although the Secretary of State is unifying housing benefit, he is not prepared to unify the appeals procedure. He will have two different appeals procedures running side by side. As a result, the two systems may come into conflict. Someone may apply for supplementary benefit, receive it and then be passported to the housing department to receive his 100 per cent. housing benefit. The housing authority may, for some reason, be dissatisfied with the passporting.

Although the Bill and the regulations may not have that intention, the local authority could decide that it was unprepared to pay the whole of the housing benefit. It might be that the local authority believed that someone had moved deliberately from cheap rented accommodation into dearer rented accommodation and that the move was not necessary, so it would not be prepared to pay all the benefit.

That is illogical, but whereas in the past that individual would have had the right to appeal to a supplementary benefit tribunal against the decision to withhold the higher rent he must now go to the local council and will have lost one of his rights.

There is also the case of someone who goes first to the housing department rather than to the supplementary benefit office. He is told that he qualifies for a 100 per cent. housing benefit and is also told that he qualifies for topping-up payments from supplementary benefit. If he qualifies for some of those benefits, the housing department will decide whether he receives them but the money will be paid out of supplementary benefit. There will be a problem. To which body should he appeal if there are difficulties? It may be that the housing department is happy to say that he can get the housing benefit but is not prepared to give him the passport back to supplementary benefit. Does he then appeal to the supplementary benefit appeals tribunal or to the local authority?

I could go on to show that there can be many difficulties when an individual will not know whether he should appeal to the housing authority or to the supplementary benefit appeals tribunal. The simple thing is to say that the provision of the benefit and any appeal against it should be considered by the tribunal. Then someone will not be refused on one regulation by the local authority and on a different regulation by the appeals tribunal. We could run into many problems, so I suggest that we have one appeals procedure.

One could envisage two appeals running at the same time—one to the local authority and one to the tribunal. It would be illogical if, on the same facts, one found in favour of the claimant and the other found against, but that sort of position could develop unless a proper appeals procedure is built into the legislation.

I hope that the Minister will give us a clear undertaking now that he is seriously considering the appeals procedure, that he has listened to all the advice that he received from the outside groups who have lobbied on behalf of the disadvantaged for the appeals procedure to be conducted by the supplementary benefits tribunal, and if he cannot say tonight that that is what he will do that he will at least say that he will take powers in the Bill to provide an appeals procedure. If he decides to leave the appeals procedure with the local authorities, he should retain the right to intervene and to reverse unfair decisions, because it is important that income support between one local authority and another should be fair and just and does not vary according to the whim of a group of locally elected councillors.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) moved new clause 14, with which is grouped a new clause in my name and several of my hon. Friends. New clause 16 also deals with the appeals procedure but has somewhat more specific proposals. We are standing by what we suggested in Committee—that the right of appeal available to claimants under the housing benefits scheme should be a right of appeal to a supplementary benefit appeals tribunal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North said that his suggestion is not what we prefer, because we believe that the Minister should be more specific and should accept the existing procedure for many of those who can claim their housing benefit as part of their supplementary benefit. The Minister said in Committee that he could make some headway. He suggested that local authorities should have committees specifically to consider the possibility of appeals from people who were dissatisfied with their level of housing benefit.

7.45 pm

We told the Minister then that that was not an adequate procedure for several reasons, but we were distracted in Committee about whether there was sufficient discretion in the scheme to warrant an appeals procedure. The Minister must acknowledge tonight that there are sufficient areas of discretion in his proposed scheme to warrant a full appeals procedure being available to all claimants.

When we discussed the matter in Committee on 23 February, the Minister eventually outlined some of the areas of discretion that he believed were important. I remind the Minister of some of the points that he raised, because he should not have quoted matters to us in Committee without being prepared to acknowledge their importance at this stage of the proceedings. I hope that he will acknowledge that there is a need for an appeals procedure because of the importance of the points that he mentioned in Committee. For example, he acknowledged that the local authority had much discretion on the determination of the status of claimants and whether people should be classified as non-dependants or sub-tenants. He said that local authorities had the power to decide the eligible rent for rate rebate or allowance purposes. He acknowledged that local authorities had a discretion on unreasonably high rents. He acknowledged and informed us that local authorities had the power to operate generous local schemes.

As to those schemes and appeals under them, we say that the local authority should have its own appeals procedure. However, we need a much wider procedure, such as we are suggesting, for housing benefits as a whole. The Minister raised many other points, such as rent arrears, assessment of incomes, the backdating of benefits, the length of the rebate period and the method of granting payments.

If the Minister examines the Committee Official Report of 23 February, he will see that I pointed out several other areas of discretion, which add up to a large area where claimants might say that they had been badly treated by a local authority in determining their right to housing benefit and the amount of that benefit. The Minister should acknowledge that there are wide powers of discretion under the scheme and, therefore, a basic need for a right of appeal.

We stand by what we said in Committee and what the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller), who unfortunately is not with us this evening, said in Committee about it being important not only that justice should be done but that it should be seen to be done. If local authorities are to act as the administrators and the appeal body of the scheme, they may be seen as the judge and jury. Justice may not seem to be done and many claimants may feel aggrieved about decisions that affect them so fundamentally.

Another point that the Minister should bear in mind is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North. If there is no right of appeal is not to the supplementary benefit appeals tribunal, many people will lose out on their present rights. That is important, because it was not the Minister's original intention to provide a scheme whereby some people lost out on existing appeals procedures and rights. The Minister did not cover that point adequately in Committee. I hope that he will deal with it this evening.

It is essential that in such a scheme there should be consistency of decisions from one area to another. Yet if the only people who are to consider the grievances of claimants are local councillors, there will be no procedure to ensure that the guidelines laid down by the Minister will be uniformly administered throughout the country. Under the Minister's suggestion of local authority committees of appeal, what procedures will he adopt to ensure that there is uniformity in the administration of the scheme?

We also find the scheme for local committees of appeal unacceptable because of the present financial constraints on all local authorities. If local authorities interpret their discretion generously and treat claimants generously, they will have to find from their resources a small proportion of the rebates that are to be paid to the claimants. Even though the local authorities will have to find only 10 per cent. of the total amount to be paid to claimants, many councillors will think twice before using their discretion generously, even at appeal stage, because of the financial considerations. Therefore, the Opposition do not believe that the local authority committee is a good idea. We stand by what we said in Committee—that we should unify the appeals procedure so that we adopt the best possible practice from the claimants' point of view. We stand by new clause 16—that the right of appeal should be to a supplementary benefits appeals tribunal.

Mr. Race

The Government are seeking to do today what they did in Committee: they are voting down an amendment by using their majority. That goes against the principles of natural justice.

We are seeking to establish rights for housing benefit claimants that are taken for granted by millions of other people. Only the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) criticised what the Government did in Committee. He said that the Government must ensure not only that justice is done, but that it is seen to be done. That is right. We wish to see a system 'whereby claimants who are prevented from obtaining the correct benefit by a local authority will have somewhere to go on appeal. At the moment, under the proposals in the Bill, they have nowhere to go.

That position is made even worse by the fact that we have not yet seen the regulations that will put the Bill into operation in detail. Although the Minister spent a considerable time in Committee going through the areas where he thought that a local authority had discretion to do one thing or another, local authorities may have more discretion to interpret the regulations than he thinks.

In such a situation it is right that a claimant should have the opportunity to go through an appeals procedure. There are many areas where claimants for benefit already have that right. Reference has already been made to the appeal rights of supplementary benefit claimants who are refused benefit. Those who receive national insurance benefits can go through an appeal system. There is also the rating appeal to the valuation panel. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) mentioned the appeals system in the Education Act 1980 by which a parent can object to the choice of school that is being offered to a child by a local authority.

The most important appeal principle of all is the appeal that the wealthy or moderately well-off can have by recourse to the courts. Can anyone believe that people who are not being paid their housing benefit in the proper way will have the means to go through the courts to protect their interests in the same way as many people do, who have specific financial interests to defend when those interests are under attack?

One of my final points concerns the way in which local authorities may deal with appeals if left to themselves. When we discussed the matter in Committee, the Government proposed a national code of practice. If there is a national code of practice, that may not solve the problem. Although many local authorities will seek to have good practice and although many local authority councillors will seek to ensure that any code of practice is carried out properly in their area, there may be officers in local authorities who say, privately or publicly, to their elected councillors—their masters—that if they allowed the system to develop and let it be known that many people could object to the way in which the housing benefit was worked out, the council's administrative system would be flooded with claims against the way in which the benefit was worked out, making it impossible for the officers to do the job. I fear that, although there is a national code of practice and although there is the possibility of such a code being imposed by the Government, there may be a problem because the officers of local authorities may not be as sympathetic to the principles of an appeals system as they should be.

As the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough made plain in Committee, we are seeking to defend the principles of natural justice and to enable people to have somewhere to go if they have a legitimate grievance. I would be astonished if the Government sought to defend a system that was indefensible; in other words, if they did not recognise the right of appeal against an injustice meted out to an individual claimant.

Mr. Field

I support new clause 16. In doing so I want to look briefly at the two arguments that the Minister put forward in Committee on why the House should not accept a new clause such as this. One point in the argument that the Minister presented was that the scheme was a simple one easily understood by most of us. I showed by my earlier intervention that I did not fully understand it, so the chances are that quite a few other people do not fully understand it.

The image that the Minister presented was that that simple scheme would be easy to administer because somehow people's lives fitted easily into little boxes. However, our experience as Members of Parliament dealing with our constituents is that people's lives do not come in such easy packages. Once we start the administration of the scheme, we shall find that there are many peculiar differences in people's lives that make it difficult, if not nigh impossible, to operate the scheme fairly without an appeals mechanism.

The more the Minister spoke about how simple the scheme was, the more I was reminded of a comment that Aneurin Bevan made about Neville Chamberlain when the latter was Prime Minister. After listening to Neville Chamberlain he said that he got the impression that life was like a trip round Woolworth's. Everything was in place and nothing was priced over sixpence. However, life is not like a trip round Woolworth's and there are many things that are priced over sixpence.

All too often individual family circumstances can be fairly complicated. Even if the scope of the dispute is limited, as the Minister insists that it will be limited, to the decision on the level of the housing benefit, then the circumstances of many of those families will be difficult to interpret. What better method of arbitration is there than the one we have for claimants who are drawing supplementary benefit and wish to appeal against their benefit or that part of their benefit which relates to their housing cost? That is one argument.

8 pm

Even if the Minister's scheme were simple—as I tried to show by my intervention, it is far from simple—the circumstances of people's lives are not simple and they will not fit easily into his scheme. Because of that we need some form of adjudication.

There is a second reason why there should be support for new clause 16, and why there should be opposition to the offer that the Minister made in Committee. The Minister suggested that he would lay down national procedures whereby local authorities would carry out the adjudication. If I remember correctly, in Committee he was thinking that local councillors would do this job. However, if there will be so few disputes—if the scheme is simple and people's circumstances are simple, there will be few disputes—why not let them go to the supplementary benefit appeals tribunals? If there are to be many disputes—the Minister seemed to suggest in Committee that there might well be quite a few—why does he think that councillors will have the time to take on this task among their many other tasks? Perhaps when he replies the Minister will tell us whether he has had any reaction from local councillors, or bodies representing them, to his idea. Those are two issues that I hope the Minister will take on board.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) touched on a further point. This Government rightly emphasise the importance of law and order and the role that our legal system plays in peacefully settling disputes in our society. There is one aspect that is important to the poorer people. They now have the right to dispute with authority over a decision that affects them and take that authority to an independent tribunal, yet the Minister is tearing up that right. It is a serious matter for any Government to do that. Governments and Parliaments should be in business to extend and codify rights and not make out that the due process of law is an unimportant way of making sure that our nation settles its disputes peacefully.

These are three reasons why the Minister should have second thoughts. First, it will be a complicated scheme and people's lives are complicated. There will be many disputes, and those disputes ought to be settled independently. Secondly, although we are grateful for the Minister's offer about national guidelines on how councillors should settle these disputes, what evidence does he have that these people are either suitable to do this task or wish to do it? Thirdly, it is surely an important stage in our history when a Conservative Government come forward to destroy the rule of law in one area of people's livelihood.

Mr. Rossi

These two new clauses ask me to do two separate and contradictory things. I shall try to discuss each in turn, but before doing that I should like to put on record the Government's case, as the Opposition have not represented it fully or fairly.

The Government support the need for new arrangements for claimants to challenge the decisions of local officers who have considered their case. It is in the interests of everybody that these arrangements should be as speedy and as direct as possible, especially when we consider that housing benefits will be a weekly benefit, the detail of which will be essentially set out in the regulations.

Housing benefits will be built upon the current rent and rate rebate and allowance schemes. There are no detailed review arrangements in the present legislation, but a number of authorities have rightly set up their own arrangements whereby claimants can challenge officers' decisions before a committee of elected councillors. Our proposal is to build on this good practice. We shall set out in regulations provisions whereby all the housing benefit claimants would have the right to a review of their housing benefit determination by a committee of councillors. The committee's decision, with reasons, would have to be given to the claimant in writing. Thus, good practices would become a general requirement, which it is not at the moment. For the first time, all rent and rebate allowance claimants will be assured of a decent and detailed review if they are dissatisfied.

There is also the additional safeguard that I announced in Committee, that Ministers will keep a close watch on this part of the scheme. We shall be asking the authorities to provide the Department with information about the number and kinds of reviews that they undertake, and the outcome. If we see particular problems arising we shall be able to amend the regulations to ensure that equity prevails.

In answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I have not yet had the opportunity of discussing the detailed arrangements with the local authorities but my officials have been able to establish that their initial reaction to the outline proposal is favourable.

Mr. Field

I wish to develop further the point that the Minister touched upon before replying directly to one of my points, for which I am grateful. If we take the point that the Minister has just made that the Government will keep this under review and, if he finds that there are inconsistencies, unfairnesses or injustices, will then send out new guidelines to local authorities, will the Minister tell us something about the time scale?

I should have thought that it would be difficult for the Minister to collect information within the first year of the scheme coming into operation. If he tries to do it earlier, many local authorities will tell him that there will be little point in completing the returns. Therefore, it will be about 14 months before he can report back to the House on how the scheme is operating.

Within that time most people will have had to settle on what their new rent levels are. What right of appeal do they have to open up disputes where they have felt they were unfairly treated, when the Minister issues new regulations? It will be months if not years later before the Minister gets to know how some of our constituents have been treated.

Mr. Rossi

Questions of time scale are always difficult, especially in an operation of this kind but we shall be monitoring it closely. At the slightest signs of difficulties and problems we shall immediately begin discussions with the local authorities concerned to try to resolve those problems. In the background there is always the prospect of amending regulations being brought in if we find it impossible to resolve the problems by discussion, or in any other way, with the local authorities that may be creating a situation that might be reckoned to be undesirable by any reasonable standards.

I have put forward these particular proposals for a number of reasons. First, they build on the existing successul arrangements. I say "successful arrangements" because I know from my personal knowledge the way in which this system has already operated in local authorities that have instituted it. I have not been able to find any suggestion from anybody that the present way in which local authorities deal with matters of this kind has given rise to any particular problem. So, in so far as we are building upon something that has proven itself, I think that Labour Members are possibly exaggerating the fears and the problems that might arise.

Mr. Race

rose—

Mr. Rossi

It seems inevitable that the confusion between supplementary benefits, housing benefit and rent rebate will crop up. It arose in an earlier discussion in which the hon. Member for Birkenhead participated. Those in receipt of supplementary benefit who are entitled to passported rent and rate rebates have to be paid by the local authorities, but someone's entitlement to supplementary benefit is an issue to be determined by the existing statutory procedures. It is determined by a benefit officer and there is the right of appeal against his decision. Local authorities will have no say. Once a person has been established as entitled to supplementary benefit, he will be given a certificate on which the local authority must act. It will be obliged to give 100 per cent. rebate for both rents and rates. Indeed, that will carry through to water charges.

For the topping-up cases an automatic supplementary benefit payment is not made. These are those who have been floated off on to housing benefit, but because they are losers as a result of being floated off they receive a topping-up payment. As I have explained, the topping-up payment is itself a supplementary benefit. If someone is dissatisfied because he feels that he is not being properly treated by not being given the topping-up payment, he can appeal to the supplementary benefit appeals tribunal. We are left, therefore, only with those who are not in receipt of supplementary benefit and who are not topping-up cases but who apply to the local authority for rent or rate rebate as at present.

We are proposing by regulations to set up a mechanism whereby they can challenge the local officials' decisions in a way that cannot now automatically be done as of right. We are proposing that those who are in that position should be able to ask locally elected councillors to deal with the problem. Some authorities have this procedure already. Those that do not will be asked to conform with the new form of good practice that we are proposing to introduce.

I accept that to a certain extent councillors will have an interest in the decision. However, they have an interest first and foremost as elected representatives for their local community. They have a responsibility to their electors and to the community that they serve. I have known a great many local councillors in my political life and I have had a great deal to do with local government. I have found that councillors discharge their obligations and duties fairly and conscientiously. I cannot believe that the fears that are being expressed by Labour Members about the inability of local councillors to see fair play are well founded. However, as I have said, we shall monitor the scheme closely. If we see that problems are arising, we shall discuss them with the local authorities that are concerned. If we find that discussions do not resolve the problems, we shall have to resort to amendments and regulations.

Mr. Race

I am not really concerned about the attitudes of local councillors, and I suspect that that is not the concern of my hon. Friends. I am concerned that the officers who will filter the claims of beneficiary claimants will build bureaucratic procedures. Secondly, I am concerned about whether an appeal system that is staffed by local authority officers will be seen to be independent and fair by claimants. I do not believe that the Government's proposals meet that test.

8.15 pm

Mr. Rossi

I do not accept that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong and that I am right but time will show. If he is right and I am wrong, the matter will be cured in the way that I have suggested. Any person who is aggrieved by an official's decision will, under our proposals, have the right to make a complaint in writing, which will require councillors to review it. The councillors will have to give their reasons in writing in turn to the complainant. There is question of filtering in the sense that the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply. Officials will not keep these matters from councillors. If someone is dissatisfied, he will be entitled to demand that the issue be brought before councillors.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

Does the Minister agree that the scheme that we are discussing is extrememly complex and that to understand it many councillors will have to rely to a great extent on the advice that will be given to them by their officials, who will have made the decision against which the claimant is appealing? The Minister says that there are not many complaints within the existing rent and rates rebate scheme, but will he acknowledge that the new scheme will be far more complex and that there will be far more areas of discretion for the local authorities to administer?

Mr. Rossi

In a sense the present rent and rates rebate scheme is complex, but local authorities have been able to manage. There has not been any evidence of widespread discontent or, indeed, any discontent. We have received letters from outside pressure groups and Opposition Members are responding to those groups' requests. The pressure groups want these matters to be taken out of the hands of local authorities. They would prefer them to be dealt with by the Secretary of State or by an appeal tribunal. Many days and weeks have elapsed since we discussed this issue in Committee and no one has produced evidence to show that the present system under which rent and rate rebate questions are determined has caused any problems, let alone any problems of magnitude.

We shall build upon the existing scheme. We shall make some modifications to it to enable it to harmonise with the current benefit schemes. The modifications will relate to status and levels of additions. The changes to the current scheme will not be so complex and drastic as to cause councillors to find it beyond their ken to contemplate and resolve the issues that are presented to them.

I hope that I have explained adequately to the House that supplementary benefit issues will remain within the supplementary benefit system and will not go across the desks of local councillors. I suggest to the Opposition that their fears are exaggerated. It is right that they should probe the Government proposals and advance alternative suggestions, but at the end of the day a judgment must be made. I have not yet been convinced by anything that has been said that the Government's judgment is wrong and that what has proved its worth in the past will prove unsatisfactory in future. We are making it universal. We are making it apply to all local authorities. It will be spelt out in regulations in a way in which it is not now spelt out, and we shall monitor it. I ask the House to accept that as a reasonable proposition.

Mr. Field

The Minister does not seem to realise that there is an issue of principle at stake here. The principle is whether power should be concentrated or spread around. We believe that it is safer for a democracy to have checks and balances rather than a state of affairs in which people with vested interests, however well intentioned they may be, make all the decisions.

Mr. Rossi

I am simply saying that the scheme is more than safely left in the hands of elected representatives who are very much answerable to the people whose affairs they will decide under the scheme.

Mr. Race

But they do not know the regulations.

Mr. Rossi

New clause 14 deals with whether local authorities should be answerable to anyone. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has again advanced the idea that was discussed in Committee—a review of local authority decisions by the Secretary of State—and has added the refinement of a further right of appeal against the Secretary of State's review.

I did not find the prospect of the involvement of the Secretary of State attractive when it was discussed in Committee, and I do not find it attractive now. The Secretary of State cannot personally consider all the requests for reviews that might be made. On the figures for mid-1981, there will be more than 6 million claimants for housing benefit. Even if only one-tenth of 1 per cent. asked for a review, that would produce 6, 000 cases. The Secretary of State would of necessity have to leave such work to officials, who in turn would depend upon reports received from officials of the local authority. Even if the locally elected representatives, the councillors, had to clear their officials' reports before they were sent to the DHSS officials, I would still regard that as a bad arrangement. It would be slow, indirect and cumbersome and it would be largely out of the control of elected representatives, be they councillors or Ministers. Inevitably, a system of that type must be run and decided upon by officials.

New clause 16 proposes that there should be an appeal to the supplementary benefit appeals tribunal. My own proposals will ensure, for the first time, that all non-supplementary benefit rebate claimants will have a right to a review of their claims. Supplementary benefit claimants would no longer be able to appeal to the SBATs, if I may so call them, on decisions affecting their rebate assistance—by which I mean the figures relating to their rent and rate rebate assessment, not their entitlement to supplementary benefit or topping-up.

The Opposition have not thought through their new clause and the wording that they have employed. It is defective in that, by not referring to local authorities, rent allowance cases are not covered. That is an unfortunate oversight that I am sure that they would not wish to see pass.

Apart from defects of that kind in the new clause, I do not believe in any case that the supplementary benefit appeals tribunals are appropriate to intervene in local authority matters. We are dealing not with the supplementary benefit or topping-up aspect, but with housing benefits, with rent and rate rebates, which are local authority matters. The SBATs form part of the independent supplementary benefit adjudication system. They have a very specialised role. Their main task is lo review decisions of the independent supplementary benefit officers. They have no expertise at all in the calculation of housing costs using the existing rebate rules and needs allowance formula. To extend their remit to housing benefits would be to require them to take on a new and in many ways very different role. They would have to develop expertise in housing benefit rules from scratch, at a time when they are still building up their knowledge of the new supplementary benefit scheme introduced in 1980.

Mr. Field

Leaving aside the point about tribunals needing expertise to administer the scheme—it is debatable whether local councillors have that expertise—the Minister has just said something that is new to me in terms of how extensive will be the loss of rights resulting from the change made by the Government.

Until now, I had thought that only those receiving exclusively housing benefits would lose the right of appeal. The Minister now says that all claimants will lose the right of appeal on that part of their benefit which relates to their housing costs, thereby disenfranchising about 4 million households from the right of appeal. That is far more serious than the position that I thought that we were debating.

Mr. Rossi

I am saying that the supplementary benefit appeals system remains to deal with all questions relating to supplementary benefit—entitlement to supplementary benefit and topping-up. I have already said that two or three times. Questions relating entirely to housing benefit—rent and rate rebates and rent allowance—will be dealt with under the new proposals that I have outlined, and which will be subject to close scrutiny and review. We believe that those matters are best dealt with in the local authority milieu because they are local authority problems, rather than in the supplementary benefit milieu in which the necessary experience and expertise do not exist.

Mr. Field

Does the Minister realise how serious a change that is? Most supplementary benefit claimants, when they make an appeal, do not really understand the ground for their appeal. They often put on their appeal form "I cannot manage—I cannot pay my rent". When they go before an appeals tribunal the members try to find out whether the claimant is entitled to some form of help even if it is not the help for which they are asking. What is now happening under this procedure—which is very serious indeed—means that one whole area on which supplementary benefit claimants in the past used to appeal will no longer be acceptable from the word "go". Therefore, claimants will not have a chance of appearing before an appeals tribunal. The chance is that if they do appear before an appeal tribunal, the members will see whether they can offer any help at all. It is a much more serious change than the Minister is trying to present to the House tonight.

Mr. Rossi

It is also a question of scale and size. We discussed these matters in Committee. I would remind the hon. Member for Birkenhead of the figures that I quoted for April to September 1981, which is the latest period available. There have been 54, 318 appeals against supplementary benefit decisions. Of these, 1, 969 were lodged specifically on housing cost assessments and only 152 were successful. One cannot say in the light of that experience that a great number of people will be disadvantaged. The scale of the operation is relatively minute. In any case one cannot say that the system we are proposing for the determination of these matters by local authorities through the procedures I have outlined will be any less satisfactory to the claimants than has been the position up to now under the supplementary appeals tribunal system. All the evidence is the other way.

8.30 pm

The way in which local authorities have been seen in the past, and are seen currently, to deal with questions of rent and rebate assessments has shown no cause for concern. Therefore, I do not see why, in the minute number of cases that are likely to arise, there should be any great concern. There is always the proviso—and I am repeating it for the third and fourth time—that we shall closely monitor the size of the problem. If it is greater, it will be dealt with; it will be looked at.

Mr. Field

I promise not to intervene any more on this clause, but the figures the Minister has given are misleading for the reason that many people on their appeal forms put such statements as "I cannot manage". They then go before an appeal tribunal, and if they have two or more good members on the tribunal those members try to find if there is any help they can offer to the claimant. As an example, they may well find that the rent share has not been worked out correctly, and that the claimant is entitled to more benefit.

To present us with figures showing that only 1, 000 appealed on rent is misleading. What those figures do not do is to take account of ways in which appeals tribunals find that they can help claimants when so many claimants who do not understand the scheme appeal on the grounds that "It is impossible to manage. Can the tribunal help me?".

Mr. Rossi

On the general point of somebody who finds that life has generally become too much for him, that he cannot manage financially and is seeking help, we hope he will still go the DHSS and ask for help. If he does, his entitlement to supplementary and all other benefits will be carefully considered. He will have a right of appeal if he feels that a wrong decision has been reached.

There will be some people who, instead of going to their local DHSS office, will go to the town hall because it is nearer or more convenient. They will say "Look, I cannot manage with my rent, I want some help". That will trigger off a consideration of whether that person is entitled to a rent or rate rebate.

Subject to the kinds of procedures I have mentioned I want to emphasise that—and this is part of the working arrangement that we intend to build up between the local authorities and the DHSS—if it becomes apparent to the people at the town hall that the person concerned requires more help than is possible through the rent rebate scheme and that his case ought to be considered for supplementary or other benefit, he will be referred to the local office for that purpose.

So there will be two nets to catch people who find that they cannot cope with life: they either go to the supplementary benefit office or they go to the town hall. If it is a supplementary benefit provision, a State provision, financial help, benefits and all the rest of it, we hope that we shall be able to give the officials in the local authorities sufficient instructions and sufficient information on whether there is a prima facie case for further entitlement. That person will then be referred for supplementary benefit. The people concerned will be better off in that they will not be placed in the dilemma of choosing which benefit to take. There will be no question of going to the town hall and electing to take the wrong benefit, which is a problem now. They will be caught up by one agency or another and referred to the correct benefit. The hon. Gentleman is once again possibly fearing more than he need. The proposals offer claimants a direct and speedy means of seeking and securing a review of their housing benefit claims from the body best able to help them—their local council.

The alternatives suggested by the Opposition are more cumbersome. They require a major shift in the operation and outlook of the supplementary benefits appeals tribunal. We do not need to go down that path to provide a means of challenging local authority decisions when my proposal builds on an existing system in many authorities. The Opposition have not shown that the present system is defective or that local councillors are not able to pursue instances on behalf of their constituents where officials have made a wrong decision.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

We still believe that the new system is far more complex than the one that he says is not creating difficulties. Will he acknowledge that not only are the Opposition and some outside pressure groups recommending appeals to a supplementary benefit appeals tribunal but also his advisory committee on rent and rate rebates and allowances? Should he not also take account of what it said?

Mr. Rossi

The advisory committee did not consider the matter in the round. There were some aspects to which its members did not apply their minds. We take the considerations of ACRRRA seriously, but when it made those observations it had not fully considered the Government's alternative proposals. Its advice would have been more valuable if it had first done so.

Mrs. Taylor

Is the Minister saying, having made his new interpretation of how the local authority appeals procedure is to work, that if ACRRRA now says, after considering his new proposals, that it still believes that there should be a supplementary benefit appeals tribunal, he would reconsider the matter?

Mr. Rossi

We would always seriously consider any advice from ACRRRA, but at the end of the day the judgment must be ours. Clearly, we would be interested in ACRRRA's considerations after it has had an opportunity of considering our proposals. We want to ensure that we have a system that is effective, speedy and practicable. For the reasons I have given we would need a lot of convincing that it is practicable to deal with these local authority matters at supplementary benefit appeals tribunals. The expertise is not there. They would have to be trained. I am not sure that that procedure would produce the quick result that is obviously needed where a weekly benefit is at stake.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

The Minister has helped hon. Members, but his speech was disappointing. The hon. Gentleman has put on record what the Government intend to do. Opposition Members do not feel that what he says goes far enough. I do not believe that the Minister has examined what actually happens to individuals under the existing system and what is likely to happen to them. It is all very well working on the theory of the Department and the advice that he receives. The hon. Gentleman should sit in on one or two appeal tribunals and trail around with a few people to the offices to see what happens in practice.

The hon. Gentleman argued that there was no difficulty. If someone applied for and got supplementary benefit, he would have a 100 per cent. passport to housing benefit. What happens if that individual moves from cheap accommodation to more expensive accommodation? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the local authority will have no discretion about whether to pay the new rent and rates because that person has moved from cheap to expensive accommodation? That would be very nice, but I suspect that the Minister is not saying that the individual will have the right to move from cheap to possibly expensive accommodation and that the local authority will still automatically pay without argument.

I shall give another instance. A woman, the tenant of a house, applies to the local authority for a rebate and it is granted on the basis that a man living in the house is merely the lodger. She then applies for supplementary benefit, or a topping up from supplementary benefit, only to be told that the man is being treated not as the lodger but as the cohabitor. The woman does not like the situation and therefore appeals to the tribunal. Does the decision of the tribunal have an effect on the local authority? Does the local authority reverse its decision? Or does the woman decide that she will not appeal against the decision or that she will not apply for supplementary benefit because her lodger might be treated as a cohabitor?

We have two different sets of regulations. I was pleased when the Minister made it clear in Committee that the existing housing provisions, which treat someone else living in the house as a lodger, as opposed to a situation in which questions would be asked about whether they were cohabiting, was very good and that it would remain in the local authority scheme. If the Minister starts to think about the matter, he will realise that there could be different interpretations by the housing appeal tribunal and the social security advisory tribunal. Many people will cross from one side of the divide to the other. If different criteria apply, problems will quickly arise. The Minister should examine the matter again. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pressed in the other place to include a proper appeals procedure.

It was interesting during yesterday's debate on the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill to discover the degree to which hon. Members were concerned to ensure that people were given their legal rights and that there was a proper appeals procedure. Many hon. Members, I am sure, will want to insist that the Government adopt a proper appeal procedure. I accept that my amendment is only a halfway house and that it is not particularly satisfactory. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment in the hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will press new clause 16 to a vote.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.