Clause 27
Welfare Reform Bill
9:45 am
Alison Seabeck (PPS (Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, Minister of State), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The importance of an address has been raised by organisations that are involved in housing and homelessness. Some employers know the whereabouts of shared room accommodation and houses in multiple occupation and are therefore more reluctant toemploy young people in those circumstances. I shall come back to those on benefit who seek better accommodation than those in work, and the resulting unfairness. The latter argument was put forward frequently in 1996.
One of the other reasons that has been cited for the ongoing need for the regulations is that to remove them would lead to abuse. Many organisations involved in housing and homelessness say that most people on benefit are not renting homes that are larger or more luxurious than they need. In fact, the opposite is usually the case. I suspect that most of those who are eligible for housing benefit, especially young people, are not looking to manipulate the system in that way, just as the majority of taxpayers are not seeking to avoid paying tax.
It is difficult to get away from the evidence that, in the local housing allowance evaluation areas, the fall in the number of people experiencing a shortfall between their benefit payments and housing costs is small and that the shortfall remains stubbornly high with an average gap of about £27 a week. I must say in fairness that such figures are not those of the DWP, but of the citizens advice bureaux. Within the evaluation areas, there were variations in the reduction, too. I welcome the Under-Secretary’s comments on the reasons for that. Was it down to the type of advice that was being offered? Was it down to the response of landlords?
We have touched on the role of landlords and their becoming increasingly unwilling to let to those who are claiming single room rent. The supply issue has been well discussed by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I accept that such matters genuinely exercise Ministers and I appreciate that it is unlikely that total abolition will be possible, but has any work been done in the Under-Secretary’s Department on the breakdown of the age group of those claiming that particular benefit? How does the age breakdown relate to whether or not the young people are in employment? There might be a case, for example, for lowering the top age end of the benefit. Are young people who are affected by the regulations more likely to be in the world of work if, say, they are over the age of 21?
If getting young people into work is one of the key factors in keeping the regulations in place and if the evidence shows that a significant proportion of young people over 21 or 22 are in work, perhaps the regulations are inappropriate and fears about benefit abuse are less founded. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could look into such matters. If the evidence is not available, perhaps there can be further consideration in another place of the thorny issues raised by the amendment. I question whether the age restrictions can be tweaked further to meet the genuine cost, outside organisations’ concerns and the Government’s concerns about risk of abuse.