§ Mrs. Beckettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many households (a) in total, (b) by tenure (council tenants, home-owners and others) and (c) by household type (pensioners, families with children and others) are expected to receive (i) more and (ii) less
TABLE 1 Housing Benefit: Changes in disposable income after meeting housing costs without 20 per cent. rates contribution: by tenure and household type Effect of structural reform of housing benefit Thousands Client group Increases Total increased No change Total decreased Decreases £5+ £4 to £5 £3 to £4 £2 to £3 £1 to £2 £1 £1 £1 to £2 £2 to £3 £3 to £4 £4 to £5 £5+ By tenure: Local authority tenants 40 40 40 130 220 200 670 2,090 700 120 180 90 60 60 180 Owner occupiers 10 20 30 110 270 210 630 1,250 350 170 120 50 10 10 * Others 20 10 20 40 70 60 210 570 300 50 80 50 30 30 60 By household type: Pensioners 20 40 60 200 460 410 1,180 2,130 650 230 220 110 40 20 30 Families with children 30 20 10 40 60 40 200 1,090 360 50 110 40 40 30 90 Others 10 10 20 30 40 20 130 690 340 70 50 50 30 40 120 TOTAL 70 70 80 270 560 470 1,510 3,920 1,350 350 380 190 110 90 240 Notes:
(1) These estimates are based entirely on the Family Expenditure Survey (FES) simulation model. As explained in pargaraph 2.8 of the Technical Annex, estimates of the combined effects of the income support and housing benefit changes on claimants currently claiming supplementary benefit were based on a model which imputed levels of general rates using 1982 (ie pre-housing benefit) data. This was done because there is no single source which includes information on both general rates and details of supplementary benefits requirements. When the effect of the housing benefit changes alone is required, more accurate results are obtained from the FES model. The certificated caseload derived from the FES has been adjusted to match the caseload implicit in the Technical Annex; this is somewhat different from that derived from local authority subsidy claims (as published in the Public Expenditure White Paper).
(2) The estimates exclude the effects of the family credit proposals.
(3) The estimates are not adjusted for differential take-up.
(4) Some totals may not be equal to the sum of the component parts because of rounding.
604Whousing benefit by up to £1 a week, £1 to £1.99 a week, £2 to £2.99 a week, £3 to £3.99 a week, £4 to £4.99 a week, £5 to £7.49 a week, £7.50 to £9.99 a week and £10 a week or more as a result of the following changes to the housing benefit scheme outlined in the White Paper (1) the requirements that all households should meet at least 20 per cent. of their rates, (2) the changes to the needs allowance and taper formulae and (3) the treatment of capital; and if he will identify the gains and losses attributable to each of these changes individually and to the cumulative impact of all three.
§ Mr. Newton[pursuant to his reply, 20 January 1986, c. 62–3]: The information is not readily available in the precise form requested. Using the illustrative assumptions in the technical annex to the White Paper (Cmnd. 9691), estimates of the effects of the structural reform to housing benefit, with and without a 20 per cent. contribution to domestic rates, analysed by tenure and household type, are shown in the tables. As explained in paragraph 2.12 of the technical annex, estimates of capital are highly uncertain; it is not therefore possible to provide a precise analysis of the effects of the structural change to the capital rules.
For most households on income support, diminished entitlement arising from the housing benefit changes will be wholly or partially offset by increased entitlement arising from the switch from supplementary benefit to income support; the combined effect in these cases is shown in table 10B of the technical annex but, for the reasons given in the notes to the table following, the estimates are not exactly compatible. For most working families with children, decreased entitlement arising from the housing benefit changes will be wholly or partially offset by increased entitlement arising from the switch from FIS to family credit; the combined effect in these cases is shown in table 12(ii)B of the technical annex.
605W
TABLE 2 Housing Benefit: Changes in disposable income after meeting housing costs with 20 per cent. rates contribution: by tenure and household type Effect of structural reform of housing benefit Thousands Client group Increases Total increased No change Total decreased Decreases £5+ £4 to £5 £3 to £4 £2 to £3 £1 to £2 £1 £1 £1 to £2 £2 to £3 £3 to £4 £4 to £5 £5+ By tenure: Local authority tenants 30 10 30 40 100 90 300 330 2,800 890 1,280 260 90 60 210 Owner occupiers * * * 20 20 50 90 460 1,590 680 700 140 50 10 10 Others 20 * 10 20 30 20 100 240 720 250 230 90 50 30 80 By household type: Pensioners 10 * 20 40 110 130 310 800 2,740 1,150 1,140 270 100 40 30 Families with children Others 20 10 10 10 10 20 90 80 1,440 420 690 120 50 40 120 Others 10 * 10 20 30 10 80 140 940 250 380 100 30 30 150 TOTAL 40 10 50 80 150 160 490 1,020 5,110 1,830 2,210 490 180 110 300 Notes:
(1) These estimates are based entirely on the Family Expenditure Survey (FES) simulation model. As explained in paragraph 2.8 of the Technical Annex, estimates of the combined effects of the income support and housing benefit changes on claimants currently claiming supplementary benefit were based on a model which imputed levels of general rates using 1982 (ie pre-housing benefit) data. This was done because there is no single source which includes information on both general rates and details of supplementary benefits requirements. When the effect of the housing benefit changes alone is required, more accurate results are obtained from the FES model, The certificated caseload derived from the FES has been adjusted to match the caseload implicit in the Technical Annex; this is somewhat different from that derived from local authority subsidy claims (as published in the Public Expenditure White Paper).
(2) The estimates exclude the effects of the family credit proposals.
(3) The estimates are not adjusted for differential take-up.
(4) Some totals may not be equal to the sum of the component parts because of rounding.
§ Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give a breakdown of the losers from the £450 million cut in housing benefit under the Social Security Bill, by category of claimant and by numbers losing less than £1 per week, £1 to £2, £2 to £3, £3 to £4, £4 to £5, £5 to £6, £6 to £7, and more than £7 per week.
§ Mr. Newton[pursuant to his reply, 7 February 1986, c. 286]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply today to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) which sets out the information that is readily available. This table shows the effect of the housing benefit changes only and so excludes the effect of family credit which is likely to contribute something in the range of £25–£50 million towards the overall reduction in housing benefit expenditure, on the basis of the illustrative assumptions in the technical annex to the White Paper (Cmnd. 9691).
§ Mrs. Beckettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of households (a) in total, (b) by tenure and (c) by household type (pensioners, families with children and others) that will cease to qualify for any housing benefit as a result of the following changes to the housing benefit scheme outlined in the White Paper; (i) the changes to the needs allowance and taper formulae, and in the assessment of income and (ii) the treatment of capital.
§ Mr. Newton[pursuant to his reply, 20 January 1986, c. 62–3]: Using the illustrative assumptions in the technical annex to the White Paper (Cmnd. 9691), without a contribution to domestic rates of 20 per cent. the estimated numbers who will cease to be entitled to housing benefits, analysed by tenure and household type, are shown in the table. As explained in paragraph 2.12 of the technical annex, estimates of capital are highly uncertain: it is not therefore possible to provide a precise analysis of the effects of the structural change to the capital rule.
606W
Effect of structural reform of housing benefit without 20 per cent. rates contribution Thousands Numbers ceasing to be entitled to housing benefit All households 360 Tenure type —local authority tenants 150 —owner-occupiers 130 —others 80 Household type —pensioners 140 —families with children 110 —others 110 Notes:
1. The estimates exclude the effects of the family credit proposals.
2. The estimates are not adjusted for differential take-up.
3. Some totals may not be equal to the sum of the component parts because of rounding.