HL Deb 11 June 1996 vol 572 cc1570-2

2.53 p.m.

Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they intend to introduce changes to housing benefit following recent court cases which found against the Department of Social Security.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)

My Lords, we await the Social Security Advisory Committee report on proposed legislation which would ensure that, as a general rule, housing benefit only meets charges for those services which relate to the fabric of the dwelling. The proposal was introduced after a commissioner's decision in an income support case cast some doubt on the meaning of current case law. It would be wrong to prejudge consultation.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the existing rules regarding eligible and non-eligible services are complex, as demonstrated by the court case he has just mentioned? Is he aware of the concern caused to voluntary organisations and housing associations responsible for the care and attention of elderly people by the fact that the latest proposals are capable of being interpreted as implying that many of the services associated with the management of residential accommodation should be withdrawn, leading to the possibility that some residents would be asked to find a further £20 to £50 per week to fund the shortfall in housing benefit? Surely it would have been far better to have awaited the outcome of consultations with the voluntary organisations and housing associations before making the recommendation.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, we are awaiting the outcome of consultation on the SSAC report. The SSAC has been out to consultation and will give us a report on our proposals to clarify the legislation. The noble Lord is right to mention the complexity in this area. It is complex. The position is that we now have two cases, one recently from Commissioner Mesher and the north Cornwall judgment three years ago, which appear to be pulling in two different directions. It is clearly in everyone's interests, including our own in the DSS, to clarify the position regarding the legality of the payments we make.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, were not schemes such as Abbeyfield developed precisely because the frail elderly need not just accommodation but communal and warden facilities? Housing benefit has paid for almost all of that. If the Government's proposals to cut housing benefit go through so that housing benefit does not cover the cost of heating, lighting and cleaning of corridors, lifts and communal rooms in a sheltered housing scheme, or does not cover the full cost of warden services, what then? Who will make up the shortfall of £30 or £50 a week if the Government will not, and the tenant and the housing association cannot? What will happen? Will we see 85 year-olds evicted because they cannot meet their bills in Abbeyfield?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, the noble Baroness has, as usual, hugely overstated her case. There is no doubt that the facilities she mentioned and the communal areas—the lifts, corridors, and so forth—clearly fall within the scope of housing benefit. It is necessary to draw a line between what services can be met by housing benefit, which is designed to meet housing costs and the related service charges which go with housing costs, and those other services which have more to do with the personal day-to-day care of the people involved. That is a difficult line. I do not think that it does anyone any good for the noble Baroness to exaggerate.

Earl Russell

My Lords, the Minister will, I am sure, agree that the cost of services for people in sheltered housing who cannot perform those services for themselves has to fall somewhere. Will he therefore give the House an undertaking that he will not shift those costs out of social security until he has reached agreement with the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment about what is the most cost-effective way of meeting those costs from public funds as a whole?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, we are looking carefully at the issue. Indeed, my officials met the leaders of the Abbeyfield Society yesterday in St. Albans to discuss all these matters. As I said, we shall wait for the report of the SSAC. Officials and Ministers will be discussing with their colleagues how we should proceed with this difficulty.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, the Minister has not really answered the questions we have asked. The court cases he mentioned were many months ago, and some many years ago. Why is it taking so long to bring forward this set of proposals? Is it not a possibility that the recent universal support for the Government's proposals to increase the disregard for residential accommodation from £3,000 to £10,000 means that people now feel that an attempt is being made to recoup some of that money by cutting the housing benefit? Would that not be just another cynical case of paying with the one hand and taking back with the other?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, the noble Lord has a very unworthy thought. The position came about because three years ago the north Cornwall judgment pulled in one direction, defining these issues rather tightly, while last year Commissioner Mesher defined them in a rather more relaxed fashion. That has led to considerable doubt about the propriety of some of the payments of housing benefit which the DSS is making. We have an obligation to the public purse, the National Audit Office and everyone else to ensure that the payments we make have proper legal backing. We are looking at the matter very seriously. I can assure the noble Lord that we are well aware of the importance of organisations like Abbeyfield. We wish to do nothing that would destabilise them.