HL Deb 01 December 1983 vol 445 cc801-3

3.25 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the transfer of responsibility for the payment of housing benefit from the DHSS to local authorities has proceeded smoothly; and that extra costs to the local authorities have been fully covered by subsidy.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the introduction of housing benefit affected over 7 million households, and it was only to be expected that authorities would experience some difficulties at first over one aspect or another of the new arrangements. However, we believe that most of the initial problems have now been sorted out. On the question of subsidy, the Government have made arrangements to meet in full the additional costs incurred by local authorities as a result of the new scheme.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that in Cambridge city the figures given me by the city treasurer indicate that there will be a shortfall of about £41,000 on the reimbursement which they expect to get from the Government, and that this will have to he met from the rates?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the noble Baroness will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases. It will not be possible to make firm estimates of local authorities' administration staffing costs until the new scheme has settled down, but all reasonable additional costs will be met.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, is it not irresponsible of the Government now, while local authorities are going through these difficulties, to place upon them new changes in the housing benefit arrangements? Can the noble Baroness tell the House how much the Government are expecting to gain from further impoverishment of the poorest people in the country? How many tenants are involved in these changes? Does she know how many of them are pensioners, and how many are unemployed young people? Has she talked to the Social Security Advisory Committee about these changes; and does she not agree that the Government really ought to reconsider their proposals in the light of the existing difficulties instead of adding to those difficulties?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I am positively drowned under the eloquence of the noble Baroness. May I deal with how many will be deprived, which I think was one of her supplementary questions? I presume that the noble Baroness is referring to the proposed reductions referred to in the Autumn Statement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the moment, it is not possible to give an overall figure of gainers and losers from this package because of the complex interaction between the various changes. However, we estimate that 2.2 million people, including 1a million pensioners, will be affected by the higher tapers and increased minima. But the scheme will give help to 6¼ million households, including 3½ million pensioner households. The scheme has been introduced, apart from the savings which it is hoped will ensue, to help the very poor.

Lord Banks

My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what will he the maximum loss under the alterations which are now being made? Is it true that in particular cases it could be as much as £60 per month?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, there is little point in talking about people with exceptional or peculiar combinations of circumstances with regard to maximum loss, because this is not representative. I can only repeat that we have designed the package so that the majority of losses are borne either by those on higher incomes or by those with non-dependent people living in their households.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, could my noble friend clarify for me whether this housing benefit applies to privately rented or local authority property and, if to both, whether she is aware of the proposal put forward by Sheffield City Council of their intent artificially to increase the rents to the poorest tenants in order to be able to manipulate the scheme and achieve extra benefit for their own city council at the expense of other people in this country?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, the package is for private housing as well as for the public sector. I am not aware of the particular case to which she refers and, as I have said before, it is impossible for me to comment on individual cases.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, in view of the answer which the noble Baroness gave to my noble friend Lord Banks, since when did the Government take unto itself the power to dictate what should or should not be discussed in your Lordships' House? Would not the noble Baroness reconsider her refusal to give my noble friend figures of the maximum loss that could be sustained by a tenant?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I cannot possibly give a maximum loss, because there are too many individual cases.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, would my noble friend assure me that, although she cannot comment on particular cases, the Government do take the view that housing benefit is to help those in real need, and that any schemes deliberately arranged to manipulate this benefit for the benefit of those not in real need will be carefully looked into by the Government and efforts made to control them?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I confirm the first part of my noble friend's question: of course that is true. As to the second part, 1 am sure that my right honourable friend will look into these matters.

Baroness Wootton of Abinger

My Lords, surely the noble Baroness is not saying that it is impossible to calculate what the maximum loss might be under the regulations? Does she not have the advantage of all modern methods of calculation?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, this scheme has not been running very long. It is impossible to tell at this stage what the maximum losses will be.

Baroness Wootton of Abinger

My Lords, is the noble Baroness admitting that they made the scheme without that information?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I can tell your Lordships how much money the package will save. The package will save about £230 million; and about £170 million is saved on housing benefit and £60 million on supplementary benefit.

Lord Banks

My Lords, is it not a fact that the extent of the cuts which the Government are now making is considerably greater than they indicated at first? Have not the Government made a serious mistake in this matter? Would it not be wise to withdraw these drastic proposals now for review and consultation to take place?

Baroness Trumpington

No, my Lords.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, may I press the noble Baroness again? We are trying to help some of the poorest people in this country. If they are going to take away from them £170 million, surely this should be looked at again. I sympathise with the difficulties of the noble Baroness in dealing with all these questions, but surely that difficulty indicates the need for the Government to look at the matter again?

Baroness Trumpington

Aha! my Lords, I have discovered what the average loss is. The average loss from the main changes—higher tapers and increased minima—will be £1per week for non-pensioners and 80p for pensioners.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us what effect the 75p per week increase in the recommended guidelines issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment some time ago will have on the figures she has given us today?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, that is another question.

Forward to