HOUSING BENEFIT AND COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT: REVISIONS AND APPEALS (Hansard, 29 March 2000)

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 16.
Amendment No. 80, in page 116, line 24, at end insert— '2A. The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that any child support maintenance received by a parent with care shall be disregarded in calculating her (or her partner's) entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit.'.
Government amendments Nos. 17 to 25, 13 and 14.
Amendment No. 78, in clause 66, page 68, line 5, at end insert— '(2) Section 175 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be amended in accordance with Schedule (Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996).'.
New schedule 1—'(Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996)— In the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 after section 175(10), there shall be inserted— (11) The Secretary of State shall by order amend the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996 in accordance with the following provisions—

(a) In regulation 12A of the principal Regulations (requirement to refer to rent officers) leave out paragraph (1B);

(b) In regulation 11 of the principal Regulations (maximum rent) leave out paragraph (3A).".'.

§ Mr. Burstow
I am grateful to the Minister for moving the amendment formally so that we can have a debate in some detail on these important matters.
The amendments cover two separate issues. Amendment No. 80 deals with an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) and I raised in Committee, and I do not intend to go into great detail about it. However, I intend to spend some time debating amendment No. 78 and new schedule 1 which raise another matter that I believe needs urgent attention, and that I wish to deal with first.
The purpose of the amendment and the new schedule is to abolish the single room rent restriction on housing benefit payable to single people under 25 in private rented accommodation. The restriction was introduced in the House in 1996 by the previous Government. When they consulted about their proposed draft regulations, the Social Security Advisory Committee said: We do not agree with the principle of making rates of benefit which distinguish those age 25 or over and those under 25. We consider that the consequences of the proposals could well be that some people dependent on benefits will face a choice between homelessness and living in accommodation of an unacceptably poor standard.
The Minister will be aware of the widespread support among organisations with experience of dealing with homelessness and housing for the repeal of that regulation and the legislation that underpins it. Organisations such as Shelter, Centrepoint, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Local Government Association, NACAB—the 458 National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—and many others recently wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging him to do that.
11.15 pm
There is growing evidence from the Government and other bodies that increased hardship is being caused by the single room rent restrictions. I am sure that Ministers are aware that there is a wealth of research on the matter. The Government's research, published in April 1999, examined several case studies. It considered a west-country city, a seaside town, a northern city, an inner and an outer-London borough and a market town, without giving their names.
The findings were disturbing. There were widespread shortfalls between housing benefit and rents. Indeed, 90 per cent. of the survey respondents reported such shortfalls—ranging from £10 to more than £20. The report concluded that one in five of those people owed more than £500 in back rent. Two thirds of them did not know of the existence of exceptional hardship payments.
In a written answer of 20 March, I was told that 62 per cent. of the Government's contribution of £20 million towards exceptional hardship payments in 1998–99—£12.51 million—had not been spent. People are not claiming that money; they do not know about it. That is hardly surprising because even the Government's research acknowledged that there was inadequate information and a lack of consistent practice between housing benefit offices in different local authorities.
However, it is not only Government research that gives cause for concern. Research by Shelter and Centrepoint found that there was a lack of accommodation matching the single room rent definition. Many landlords refused to let accommodation to young people—a fact picked up by the Government's research. Many people feel trapped in expensive accommodation from which they cannot afford to move. There is no affordable or cheap accommodation in their locality, which creates great difficulty for them.
When the Conservative Government introduced the single room rent restrictions in 1996, the Labour Opposition rightly opposed them and secured debates on the matter. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who was then an Opposition Social Security spokesman, moved the motion initiating the debate. At that time, the Opposition were very much in new Labour mode and were being exceedingly prudent as to their spending commitments before a general election.
The hon. Gentleman said: Under these proposals, many young people will suffer the double disadvantage of a cut in their housing benefit, leaving potentially large rent payments to be made up out of an already reduced income support level … Again, we share that view. We share the concern that the response of landlords is likely to be to withdraw from providing accommodation for young people.
The hon. Gentleman made a point that is entirely germane to this debate when he stated: We believe that the draconian regulations to restrict housing benefit to single people under 25 further constitutes a form of age discrimination within the means-tested benefits system, and is likely to force young people into unsuitable housing and lead to an increase in youth homelessness.—[Official Report, 5 June 1996; Vol. 278, c. 619-23.]
The hon. Gentleman was right, as were the present Prime Minister, Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister and the many other Labour Members who voted against 459 the regulations. I hope that they will do the same thing tonight. It is time that the regulations were removed from the statute book and replaced by a rent and housing benefit support system that offered equality of treatment for everyone.
The matter was dealt with in some detail after the election. I pay tribute to the Government for taking the opportunity in June 1997, when given the chance to extend the scope, to revoke the regulations that had been introduced by the Conservatives. Although I fully acknowledge that, as we did at the time, the Government have been reviewing and considering the matter for three years. Three years is a long time, especially for people who have been clocking up rent arrears and living in unsatisfactory accommodation. That is why we ask the Government to move on the matter—if not through the amendment, through other means. We feel strongly that they should take action now.
Amendment No. 80 proposes that maintenance should be disregarded for the purposes of calculating housing and council tax benefits. That is an entirely separate matter, which takes us back to the debate on the Child Support Agency and the simplified formula. Parents with care receiving tax credits have all their maintenance payments disregarded. However, the disregard on housing and council tax benefits remains at £15. That means that up to 85 per cent. of any maintenance over £15 is lost in the extra rent and council tax that the parent with care must pay. A parent getting £30 a week, for example, keeps just £17.25 of that. The value of a more generous tax credit disregard is therefore eroded, and the Government fall short of their goal on child poverty.
We propose, with the support of the Child Poverty Action Group, that maintenance should be completely ignored for the purposes of housing and council tax benefits. That would better align practice with the goals that the Government have set.
Amendment No. 78 and new schedule 1 give hon. Members the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that they wish to see the end of such a pernicious set of regulations, which penalise the under-25s and cause many to suffer homelessness or to find themselves in inferior, inadequate accommodation. It is time, after three years, that the review ended and the action began.

§ Angela Eagle
Amendment No. 78 and new schedule I would remove the restriction on the amount of rent that can be used to calculate housing benefit for most single young people under the age of 25 living in the private rented sector. As has been said, the restriction was implemented by the previous Government in October 1996 and we have pledged to review it in the context of our wider housing benefit agenda. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for having the grace to thank us for not extending that rent restriction to those under the age of 60, as would have happened under the Conservatives.
We understand the concerns raised about the restriction and are looking very carefully at the effects of it as part of our welfare reform agenda. We shall issue our Green Paper on housing soon; all interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on it. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the issue will be addressed in the Green Paper.
Amendment No. 80 would mean that parents with care would have any maintenance disregarded when entitlement to housing and council tax benefits is calculated. Currently, £15 of any maintenance is ignored for the purposes of those benefits.
460 Concern about the impact of specific elements of the housing benefit system, which is expressed through both amendments, is understandable. Indeed, many such impacts must be considered—all of which we have been considering, in respect of and in parallel with housing policy. It is not wise merely to consider housing benefit issues in isolation from housing policy. We shall be publishing the Green Paper in due course following such consideration.

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
Will the Minister be more specific about when the Green Paper will be published and in exactly which terms it will assess the questions of housing benefit, applicability and administration?

§ Angela Eagle
I understand my hon. Friend's impatience and I hope that we shall be able to reward as quickly as possible any patience that he may show between now and the publication date. The Green Paper will be published soon. It will have a tremendous sweep and he should be reasonably satisfied with its scope when it appears.

§ Mr. Pickles
Surely the Minister can be a little more forthcoming. The Government have suggested that the Green Paper will not be produced until July, so why does she not say so?

§ Angela Eagle
Because that would not be accurate. The Green Paper will be published soon—I have to stick to that mantra. I ask the House to be patient, because there is a serious debate to be had on housing policy and housing benefit. That debate will include—my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will be pleased to learn—discussion of its administration. That is a vital part of the benefit, as we all realise from the constituents who visit us. We will have a much fuller debate on these issues once the Green Paper is published, and that will be soon.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 25 make minor changes to clause 65, which provides for funding of the new discretionary housing scheme and the housing benefit and council tax benefit revisions and appeals that appear in schedule 7. The amendments do not introduce any policy changes. They iron out the slightly deficient technical wording. They remove certain duplicate or otherwise unnecessary measures and make other minor or technical changes. I commend them to the House.
In the light of the imminent Green Paper, which will appear soon, I ask Liberal Democrat Members to withdraw their amendments.

§ Mr. Burstow
We have heard "soon", and "in due course"—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to seek the leave of the House.

§ Mr. Burstow
With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I reply? I am grateful to you and to the House.
We have heard the Minister say soon, in due course and imminent. They are not the same; they mean many different things. If she had said that the Green Paper would be 461 published in a matter of days or weeks, we might have been persuaded. However, after three years of review, the offer of its being published soon is not adequate.
A Green Paper leads to a White Paper and a White Paper will lead to legislation after a general election. Four or five years of this Parliament without sorting the matter out is not acceptable. We wish to press amendment No. 78 to a vote. We believe that the House should have the opportunity to divide on it.