§ Lord Henderson of Bromptonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the Motion agreed by the House on 6th July (col. 1029) calling for an amendment to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 to facilitate a premium in Income Support of £10 per week for each member of a family where: at least one member is a child or young person; that family has been placed in temporary accommodation by a local authority under the Housing Act 1985 Part III; and that accommodation does not provide all meals or self-contained facilities for preparing meals.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Government are always willing to listen to suggestions for improving the benefit system. In the light of the debate on 6th July, we have considered very carefully the idea of an Income Support boarder premium which seeks to assist families living in temporary accommodation without adequate cooking facilities. However, there are aspects of the proposal which undermine it as a potential addition to Income Support.
First, there is the important question of the fairness of introducing a substantial additional premium to families placed in temporary accommodation by local authorities when others in similar accommodation, perhaps gained by their own efforts, would receive nothing extra. Any such extension of the target group would create difficulties in distinguishing between people in temporary accommodation and any other tenant in multiple occupancy housing. This would lead to a return to something resembling the pre-1989 arrangements and the abuses associated with it.
Secondly there is an administrative aspect which is central to the income-related benefit system. Social Security is good at supplying standardised amounts to large numbers of people on a regular basis. Supplementary Benefit, which attempted to provide tailored payments to individuals, became increasingly unmanageable and expensive. A system with several premia each attempting to focus on one small group would represent a significant step in the wrong direction.
Thirdly, the motion proposed a premium to be available only where there were no, or inadequate, cooking facilities. Identifying properties which fall into this category would be complicated and expensive, especially since their status would change over time, requiring frequent reappraisal. In multiple tenant buildings the judgment could vary from flat to flat.
78WAFourthly, there is a risk that the possibility of a substantial additional income (a family of five would receive an additional £50 per week) would provide a real incentive for claimants to seek, or landlords to offer, accommodation of this type. However we might try to limit access to the premium, the pressure would be on for claimants to try to qualify for it. Similarly, landlords would be encouraged to provide more of the "right" accommodation so that their tenants could qualify, and certainly collusion between landlord and tenant was an underlying concern pre-1989.
Finally, the cost would be much greater than any mentioned in the debate. It is difficult to make assumptions about the number of people in temporary accommodation who do not have proper cooking facilities. However, the estimated cost of an addition of £10 per week for every claim for Income Support from a boarder would be in the region of £45 million. Making £10 per week available to each family member in every such claim would cost substantially more.
The Government believe that these objections all point against the introduction of an Income Support boarder premium as recommended by the House. Accordingly the Government have no plans to introduce an Income Support boarders' premium at present, although we remain open to further evidence on the issue.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Social Security met representatives of the London Homelessness Forum in November to listen to their views. He subsequently wrote to the forum; I have placed a copy of that letter in the Library.