New clause (Hansard, 13 May 1998)

§ Mr. Keith Bradley
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 91. I should inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.

§ Mr. Bradley
Amendments Nos. 76 and 91 propose to legitimise, from the date of Royal Assent, payments of housing benefit that have incorrectly met charges for personal general counselling and support or "personal care". As Baroness Hollis explained in the other place, the measure has a long history. We inherited a situation whereby many thousands of vulnerable people had come to rely on housing benefit, which is generally intended 477 to meet only accommodation-related support services that relate to the "bricks and mortar" of a dwelling, to fund the support services needed to keep them in the community. The previous Secretary of State had commissioned an interdepartmental review to consider the long-term funding of that sector.
The trigger for the amendments was a divisional court judgment in July last year to the effect that only service charges that relate to the fabric of a dwelling are generally eligible for housing benefit. Evidence suggested, however, that most local authorities may have been meeting a wider range of service charges for personal support from housing benefit than was originally intended.
The ruling meant that there was a danger of a potential crisis in community care. The Secretary of State therefore immediately announced interim measures legitimising the vast majority of such payments in order to provide stability for tenants and landlords in "existing supported accommodation" pending the implementation of a sustainable long-term funding regime that could protect and maintain that important component of community care.
The measures consisted of interim regulations that took effect from 18 August 1997, which enable all reasonable charges for general counselling and support in "existing supported accommodation" to be met from housing benefit, and a compensation scheme to enable authorities to compensate providers that had lost income because housing benefit was no longer meeting charges for "personal care".
The new clause is designed to provide stability for local authorities that have previously met a wider range of support charges from housing benefit than was originally intended, by similarly legitimising such payments as having been properly made.
I must stress that we did not reach that decision lightly. In proposing to legitimise such payments, however, we have given due weight to the fact that they have enabled, and presently continue to enable, many thousands of vulnerable people to live independently in the community.
Most such payments will be for personal general counselling and support, which will be eligible under the interim regulations from 18 August 1997. We therefore propose to validate such payments up to that date. Remaining payments not eligible under the interim regulations, which will mainly be those where housing benefit has previously met ineligible charges for "personal care" in "existing supported accommodation", which are eligible for help under the compensation scheme, will be validated until either the benefit payable in respect of the charges is reviewed and revised following the introduction of the interim regulations on 18 August 1997, or up to the final cut-off date of 31 March/5 April this year, whichever falls first.
I commend the amendments to the House.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)
I shall not necessarily expect the Minister to answer in detail the points that I make now, because I suspect that what he has just said has gone over the heads of most Members in the Chamber. None the less, I want to declare an interest in supporting groups, including those known as Emmaus, that provide accommodation for people who are moving 478 from being on income support to not being on income support but not being taxpayers either, and who find a community that answers three questions in one place—in effect, a secular monastery.
That is a place where people can find a roof, worthwhile activity and people who will accept them as they are. Not all succeed, but many will. I hope that in time—perhaps not by the millennium but shortly afterwards—there will be about 100 projects throughout the country assisting people who are not teenagers looking for work, whom the welfare-to-work programme may help, but who may have had difficulties such as psychiatric illness or alcoholism. Some may have been criminals; some may still be criminals.
Those are people on the margins of society who are looking for the opportunity to get their lives back together and a degree of confidence. The housing benefit system has properly been used to provide the kind of support that allows them to get out of the benefit trap and regain some degree of confidence; it may enable many of them to get back into the communities where they will be welcomed. I do not ask the Minister to reply tonight, but I hope that those who examine our comments will try to ensure that both the foyer and Emmaus-type projects will be given the allowances and the room that they need. We should not have to tell vulnerable people to go to one place for a day centre, another for a hostel and a third for the chance of finding worthwhile activity and a community that will accept them as they are. I am sure that that matter is related in some way to the Lords amendment, and I am pleased to commend it to the House.

§ Mr. Keith Bradley
The purpose of the amendment is to legitimise the previous payments that the divisional court ruling made illegal. We are also seeking future long-term funding and a robust arrangement for the type of support that the hon. Gentleman has identified. I assure him that we shall consider that position in the long-term review that is under way in order to ensure that there is stability in supported housing in this country.