Danny
Alexander: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for her
response, which rightly emphasised the ongoing efforts to improve the
speed of administration. I recently took part in a conference on
working age benefits with the Minister for Employment and Welfare
Reform, who said that, in relation to working age benefits, even a
two-week processing time was too long and asked why benefit claimants
should have to wait two weeks for decisions that in the private sector
would be made in a matter of days. I am not sure that it was a target,
but it may have
been a long-term aspiration and if that is the context of the
Government’s overall thinking on the issue, it is to be
welcomed. The
reasoning behind the new clause relates to the cases of a minority of
claimants in which the Minister’s aspirations were not met. I
appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley and the
Under-Secretary’s remarks, with one proviso: I hope that she
will use the full power of her ministerial office to remind local
authorities of their obligations under the existing regulations. My
point was less about the rectitude and value of current regulations and
more about their non-observance by many local authorities. Perhaps the
Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State could issue a stern reminder
to local authorities oftheir obligations under the
regulations. With that imprecation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
16Local
Housing Allowance: transitional
arrangements ‘Regulations may
make provision for those in receipt of Housing Benefit to be entitled
to claim Local Housing Allowance from the coming into force of this
Act.’.—[Danny
Alexander.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
Time. This new clause
relates to the treatment of awardsof existing housing benefit.
Schedule 4 provides for regulations that will make provision for the
transition of those people receiving incapacity benefit on to the
employment and support allowance instead. However, the Bill includes no
similar provision in relation to housing benefit, so I look forward to
the Minister’s response.
In her previous remarks, the
Under-Secretary made it clear that the Government’s intention is
that the new local housing allowance system should apply to new
claimants only and that it is not their intention to remove people who
are in receipt of housing benefit to the new local housing allowance.
The new allowance will be rolled out on a new claims only basis.
Ministers have made clear previously that, after two years, the
Government intend to review the situation and consider transferring any
remaining claimants on to local housing allowance.
I am grateful to the Citizens
Advice, in particular, for its comments on this proposal. There are a
number of potential criticisms to which I look forward to hearing the
Minister’s answer. First, that this is an untested approach.
Under the local housing allowance, two approaches to implementation
were piloted. The
phased approach meant that new claims were transferred on to the local
housing allowance immediately and existing claims were transferred
gradually when their claim was reviewed or renewed. Secondly, in
another of the pathfinder areas, there was a big-bang approach. All the
claims were transferred from day one. Both approaches were extensively
assessed in the DWP’s evaluation of the pathfinder areas, which
runs to several volumes. I know that every word of them will have been
studied by members of this Committee. For the natural roll-out, the
DWP is now proposing a third approach that has not had the benefit of
having been piloted or assessed in any of the pathfinder areas. In his
response, could the Minister set out what lessons the Government drew
from the evaluation of approaches one and two which have led
him—if he will pardon my choice of phrase—to choose a
third way in relation to the transitional
arrangements? The
proposed implementation approach could be seen to undermine one of the
key principles thatwould guide the development of the local
housing allowance—the promotion of greater fairness. Under the
Government’s proposals, similar households with identical
incomes and rent levels may end up receiving different levels of
housing benefits for an undefined period of at least two years. Some
claimants may face a shortfall between their benefit and their rent,
whereas others in identical circumstances might receive an
excess. In addition,
local authorities will be required to keep the two systems of
administration running in parallel. The hon. Member for Colne Valley
has made repeated references to the need for rent officers to be more
open. I fully agree with that, but if rent officers are going to be
asked to provide information for two systems that will run in parallel
for at least two years for existing claimants versus new claimants, one
suspects that there is another difficulty facing that particular group
of people. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how that is
being thought through and why this conclusion has been
reached. That relates
to another point that I hope the Minister will address. Where the local
housing allowance results in a higher level of benefits, there will be
a risk that some landlords—and I appreciate that this may only
apply to a small minority of them—may seek to evict the existing
tenants in order to let to new tenants on the higher rate of the new
benefits. Although that may only apply in a small minority of cases, it
is a risk that has to be weighed in the balance in relation to these
transitional arrangements. It is worth noting that some citizens advice
bureaux, working in the pathfinder areas, have reported many cases of
landlords increasing their rent up
to— It being
One o’clock, The Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant
to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
