David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

There was originally a slight mistake on the amendment paper but hon. Members now have the correct version.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendmentNo. 263, in page 24, line 44, at end add—

‘130H Limitation

(1) Regulations to which this section applies may not remain in force after January 2010.

(2) This section applies to regulations made under any of sections 130B to 130F above.’.

Thank you for drawing the Committee’s attention to the correct version of the amendment, Mr. Amess. The amendment proposes what is colloquially known as a sunset provision that would ensure that regulations under the clause would cease to have effect after January 2010. The arguments in favour pertain to the content of the clause, and I hope that you will permit me to range quite widely, in the hope that the need for a clause stand part debate may thereby be obviated—from my point of view at least. [Interruption.] I was going to say that the clause refers to antisocial behaviour. We may have just seen an example. I do not think that the hon. Member for South-West Surrey is in receipt of an antisocial behaviour order, but maybe one would be appropriate. I do not know what other Committee members think.

Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify for the sake of the record why he thinks that it might be appropriate for me to be in receipt of an antisocial behaviour order?

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I shall not try the Chairman’s patience too much on that. Throwing bottles around is generally deemed to be at the antisocial end of the spectrum, although I appreciate that in this case it was accidental and I withdraw my comment.

There are significant concerns as to the powers in the Bill, as I said on Second Reading. I understand that the Government intend to pilot the idea, but as Committee members know, the Bill contains power whereby the housing benefit of someone who has been evicted for antisocial behaviour can be progressively sanctioned to nil for a period of up to five years. That is quite a severe financial sanction.

The Under-Secretary may wish to clarify, but it seems that the power will not be that widely used. I have seen figures—I think that they are public—indicating that the Government envisage 1,500 cases. I gather that in Scotland there might be six cases where this might apply. In practice, given the severity of the sanction and the poor quality of rehabilitation services for antisocial behaviour in many parts of the country, it may be used much less than that. This power is in the Bill more to grab headlines than to do anything serious to tackle antisocial behaviour. That would be my first reason for worrying about allowing these powers to remain in the Bill and to be rolled out across the country without any further primary legislation or debate on the Floor of the House.

I have listened to the views of a wide variety of external organisations and I have not been able to find a single organisation that has lobbied in favour of these provisions. The Under-Secretary may have been lobbied extensively in favour of them, but I certainly have not. Whether it is the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance  Group, the Child Poverty Action Group, the British Council of Disabled People, Shelter, the National Housing Federation and especially the National Landlords Association, they have all made strong representations against the inclusion of these powers. There are a number of reasons for that.

First, there is the question that I raised on Second Reading about the impact on families and children. There is a serious concern that removing housing benefit could have unintended consequences for the dependants of those people, whether it is the children of the person who is behaving antisocially or perhaps the parents if the child is behaving antisocially.There were reports today, according to a study for the Youth Justice Board, of antisocial behaviour orders becoming a badge of honour among young people. Of the 137 young people surveyed, 67 have breached their ASBOs at least once, 42 more than once and six on six occasions or more. There are already questions about the way in which this approach is working.

When it is the antisocial behaviour of a child that has resulted in an eviction, the parent may be unable to control the child and the rehabilitation services may not be available in that area. As hon. Members know, there are serious concerns about the quality of rehabilitation services for antisocial behaviour that are available in different parts of the country, so we could have a postcode lottery in the implementation of this provision.

Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire, Labour)

One of the other elements that has alarmed people, quite apart from a postcode lottery, is that in the former pit villages that I represent where there was a lot of social housing and many people exercised the right to buy and are now private tenants, there is one rule for private tenants and a completely different one for those people who are in social housing. From the outside they appear to be exactly the same sort of houses, and the provision seems to discriminate against those with less money.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Lady makes a very important point and I was going to come to that. It is yet another reason why a sunset clause, which would cause the powers of the Bill to lapse after three years so that the matter would have to come back to the Floor of the House to be debated before it could be rolled out across the country, would be a good idea.

Another objection to these powers is that they are discriminatory between people in receipt of housing benefit and those who are not. There is no such sanction for someone who is not in receipt of housing benefit. I should be grateful for the Under-Secretary’s response to this. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) referred to the idea of probationary tenancies as an alternative to these sanctions as they could have a wider application.

Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Daventry, Conservative)

I cannot forget to allow my civil libertarian instincts to come out from time to time on these sorts of issues. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the clause appears to set no limits on the warning that a local authority may issue? Not many people who have been evicted from a house will have a  tame in-house lawyer to take them to judicial review, but nevertheless, I suppose that local authorities always have a duty to be reasonable. However, there is no circumscription of the powers. The clause does not even say that they must be relevant to the housing experience as such—if I may put it that way. Should not that be judicially tied down a little?

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes a useful and important point, which I hope the Under-Secretary will consider in her response.

Kali Mountford (PPS (Rt Hon Des Browne, Secretary of State), Ministry of Defence; Colne Valley, Labour)

May I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) raised a bit further? The issue is not about whether a person lives next door to somebody who is also in receipt of housing benefit, but about people who live in similar accommodation and who are sometimes also on low pay or housing benefit. However, the terms of their tenancies vary, because some people rent from private landlords and some live in social housing. The problem is that sanctions can apply in social housing, but no sanctions apply where accommodation has been bought. People living in such accommodation can cause dreadful mayhem for the people in their neighbourhood. It is the tenants who live in the locality who want some sanction to apply, not the landlords who want their rent.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

My response to that—I thought that this was the point that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire was making, but perhaps I misunderstood—is that antisocial behaviour can be caused by a range of people, irrespective of the nature of their tenancy or whether they receive housing benefit. I am sure that the hon. Member for Colne Valley would not claim that there is a preponderance of antisocial behaviour among housing benefit recipients, so her comment does not affect my argument in favour of restricting the powers in the Bill.

Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire, Labour)

Just to clarify, the issue really has nothing to do with housing benefit and everything to do with whether a person is in social housing as opposed to privately owned housing. That is the distinction. It is wrong to have additional powers to penalise somebody for being in social housing rather than a privately owned property.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Lady makes a fair point, but my argument is that the problems that I have identified with the powers in the Bill are such that they apply whether somebody is in social housing, private sector housing or whatever. I seek to curtail those powers with the amendment. She is right that there is an argument for the same considerations to apply to everybody, but I question the motivation behind introducing the powers, their potential impact and the extent to which the Government should be free to continue to roll such powers out throughout the country without having further recourse to Parliament through primary legislation. That is what I should like them to have to do, which is why I seek to have the amendment inserted into the Bill.

Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)

I slightly disagree with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Colne Valley and for North-East Derbyshire on one point. Of course anyone is capable of antisocial behaviour, whether they are in the private rented sector, the social housing sector or whatever. However if they are in receipt of my and other taxpayers’ money, which allows them to live there, I object to their using that to behave antisocially.

Kali Mountfordindicated assent.

Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)

Perhaps I am not disagreeing with the hon. Lady, in which case I am delighted to agree with her. My point is that I object to such behaviour as a taxpayer. As taxpayers, we are perfectly at liberty to say that if we subsidise someone’s living costs, we expect them to use that money to behave responsibly. Furthermore, other people on the street, who are also taxpayers, feel that particularly strongly.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. My point is not that we should not be tough with people who are guilty of antisocial behaviour. Many measures are available to deal with such behaviour and Liberal Democrat Members have made proposals for others. I am just not convinced that this measure will have the consequence that we all desire—that of curtailing antisocial behaviour. I suspect that we are all agreed on that. This is a question—to use an earlier phrase of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds—about means and practicalities, not ends or principles.

Having expressed reservations about the powers in this Bill, I conclude by asking the Under-Secretary to reflect on another issue. I know that one of the conditions in the provision is that, in addition to someone having to be evicted from their tenancy, they would also have to have refused engagement with rehabilitation services. It is important to say that the quality of rehabilitation services is patchy across the country. What proposals does the Under-Secretary have to improve those services and what right of appeal does she have in mind against these sanctions, particularly on those grounds? Is she aware—and I am sure, as the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, that she will be—of the problem of mislabelling disabled people, who have been inappropriately served with an antisocial behaviour disorder? Two out of three individuals described as being involved in antisocial behaviour have some form of vulnerability, 18 per cent. have a mental disability and 9 per cent. have a physical disability. Is she really saying that people who are already in a vulnerable position—for a variety of reasons, perhaps to do with a lack of understanding among the services dealing with antisocial behaviour—should have their benefit taken away as well as being evicted?

David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

Does that not give rise to the thought that has been pursued throughout the Committee’s proceedings, that those who are threatening sanctions—in local government and elsewhere—need better training, not just on disability awareness, but on mental health conditions? They have huge powers at their disposal to affect the lives of people, whether through eviction or benefit sanctioning as under this clause. We need to do a better job in training public sector decision makers.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more. That point has been made throughout the deliberations on part 1 of the Bill. It applies equally here. If the people engaged in administering the powers do not have the knowledge or understanding of the range of conditions that they might be dealing with, some extremely vulnerable people could end up having their benefit taken away from them inappropriately.

I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary would reflect on that point in her response and also on what consideration the Government have given to the impact of these measures on child poverty. That is a serious matter that the Government have not adequately addressed. I share the concern of the Child Poverty Action Group that if these measures are used inappropriately, they could have a serious effect on some vulnerable young people and families.

For all those reasons, I hope that the Committee will consider supporting this amendment on the basis that it seeks to restrict the application of powers in this Bill for a limited period. That would allow the Government, if they wished to do so, to pilot these measures—to get their press releases out and so on—but would require them to come back to the House for further primary legislation before these provisions were rolled out across the country. This would enable the Government to report back on the impact they had found in those areas that I have discussed and many others. Without that, we might be in a seriously difficult position indeed.

David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

I rise to support the amendment for one very simple reason: the Conservative Opposition have a track record of supporting sunset clauses and this is a sunset clause of great importance because it relates to a proposal that, to my mind, is easily the most controversial in the Bill. Frankly, the Opposition have serious problems with it.

The amendment would in effect turn the clause into a pilot. If the powers are used—I hope that they are not—Parliament could look at the evidence for the effect of the powers, not only on the income levels of the adults sanctioned, but the knock-on effects on the children in a sanctioned household, if there are any. Parliament would also be able to examine the approach of local authorities, the advice given to them and, most importantly, the available rehabilitation services, which should if successful preclude the need for benefit docking.

All those things need to be tested to destruction. One way in which to do that is to set a time limit for the clause. In that spirit of evidence-based policy making to ensure good public policy and that those who are potentially the most vulnerable have their interests protected, I support the amendment.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I trust that I can provide a reassurance that will allow the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to withdraw his amendment and obviously encourage others to support its withdrawal.

Before I get to what I hope will be the killer point, I shall deal with some of the general ones that havebeen raised. I agree with the hon. Member for Bury  St. Edmunds that we should test the clause, not necessarily to destruction, but rigorously and robustly through the piloting stage. That is why we want the powers to pilot. I can reassure the Committee that, during the piloting period, we will discover whether local authorities find it useful. We have an undertaking already from Sandy Bruce-Lockhart who has indicated that he is willing, on behalf of the Local Government Association, to enter into serious discussions with us. So we appreciate that local authorities need to feel that it is a useful tool.

We need to look at whether the sanction is an effective incentive to the take-up of rehabilitation, which I shall come to in a moment. We need to look also at the resources needed to set it up and run it, the impact on landlords and the effect on rent arrears—whether it will be sustainable. We will consider also the impact on housing and homelessness, which will include vulnerable people, and on charities and voluntary bodies, as well as the profiles of those sanctioned. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey is correct: we estimate that no more than 1,500 people will be sanctioned because of the way in which it will kick in.

We need also to understand why people are prepared to be evicted when significant support is offered to them—the imponderable in all this. In a rational discussion, I would have thought that given the choice between being evicted and potentially being made homeless or taking up support, rehabilitation and help with their behaviour, people would accept the latter. We must have a deeper understanding of why that is not always the case, although, as the hon. Gentleman said, the figures show that it is still a tiny minority involved. We need to consider monitoring in the non-pilot authority areas to see whether there is any significant difference throughout the country.

Rehabilitation and the right support have made a difference to how people operate in considering their behaviour. In Scotland, the superb Dundee families project was highly controversial when it was introduced. Many Labour members were astonished at the bravery of some of our Labour colleagues in Dundee who agreed to establish that project. That brave step has proved to be a very positive experience for most of the people who have been supported.

Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)

As it was such an interesting project, could the Under-Secretary tell us what it did?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

It offered support for those families whose behaviour was so unacceptable that they were no longer welcome in their own communities. It took them out of that community and put them into what was called core housing, a group of houses concentrated in one area. Intensive work was done with those families. I shall read an extract from one case study, which states:

“My problems before I became involved with the Dundee Families Project were not being able to cope with my kids’ behaviour. There had been complaints from previous neighbours and I was subsequently homeless and wanted to get a home for me and the kids and I wanted to be happy again. I was trying to come to terms with the recent loss of my husband and I was not coping well. I was very depressed at the time and having panic attacks.”

Those are the images that the hon. Gentleman conjured up. The letter goes on:

“When I became involved with the Dundee Families Project I was offered help to manage the kids’ behaviour through the Dundee Families Project Parent Support Group and individual work. The children also got help...We were living in the project for about eight months before we got our dispersed flat.”

People move out of the core housing into a dispersed flat where there is still support. The letter continued:

“We got a lot of support. I owe a lot to the Dundee Families Project for all the help they have given me for the past20 months.”

Although the Dundee example is about families, the majority of people that we envisage would be part of the sanctions regime would, we suspect, be mainly, but not exclusively, single people whose behaviour is unacceptable to their neighbours in the social rented sector and in the private rented sector. Recipients of housing benefit should not be treated differently in the two sectors.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

Where was I? Oh yes, I was in Dundee. It is a lovely place to be.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

Before the break, the Under-Secretary was talking, quite rightly, about the achievements of the Dundee families project. Can she confirm for the record that it did not involve any form of benefit sanction?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I was using the project as an illustration of the importance of rehabilitation, not necessarily in connection with our current proposals. I was asked about the evaluation of the success rate. Using a variety of care indicators with the most difficult families, it is about 84 per cent. I was being illustrative rather than saying that such a process would be used in all cases.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

On the basis of those wonderful results, which did not require benefit sanction, why is there a mad rush to enact the clause immediately when, clearly, there are many other ways the results can be achieved?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I thought I had dealt with that matter in my opening comments about the series of issues that we want to look at in the piloting process. The amendment is unacceptable to us. In some respects, that is because of the way in which the parliamentary process operates. However, I thought it was important to deal with some of the points raised in the debate. Obviously, there will be a right of appeal against the imposition of a sanction, as there has been in relation to all areas of sanction.

I need to be clear: we do not want people to be sanctioned and we do not want to impose a sanction on housing benefit. It is important to emphasise that we want people who have been evicted for antisocial and unacceptable behaviour to be offered the option of looking at that behaviour with a view to going back  into housing benefit. The policy will be successful if it encourages people to take up rehabilitation. If no sanction is imposed, we will consider the policy to be successful.

We are asking the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to withdraw his amendment because we intend to commence the pilots for the proposal as soon as is practical—in the winter of 2007-08. I assure hon. Members that we are considering pilots of two years only. At the end of that time, we will decide whether to roll out nationally on the basis of a full evaluation of the effectiveness of the scheme, using the criteria that I have indicated. That evaluation will include a full regulatory impact assessment for the proposal. If the hon. Gentleman’s amendment were to be agreed, the difficulty would be that there would be no flexibility as to the start time. He is asking for a sunset clause at a time when, because of the parliamentary process, we cannot be definite about when we can start the pilots. However, I can tell the Committee that we are looking at two years only, and that when we come to discuss the regulations we will have a much clearer idea as to when the pilots will commence and, therefore, end. The hon. Gentleman would be proposing a sunset clause without knowing when sunrise was going to take place, so I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary, and I hear what she says about the parliamentary process. However, on Tuesday we debated the length of pilot projects, and I tabled a probing amendment to find out whether she thought that two years was long enough. She said that she did, and that is the case here too. The sunset clause is important because the critical issue for me is that Ministers, having evaluated the pilots, should return to the Floor of the House to debate the matter. It is not merely a question of rolling out regulations.

David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

We have just had quite a wide-ranging debate, but I wish to flag up one or two points. I am rather sceptical about the clause and the powers that it contains. I was heartened by the Under-Secretary’s comments, although not so heartened that I decided to vote with her. I am not casting any aspersions on DWP Ministers, particularly the two before us today, who are  good eggs, but I shall cast aspersions on the Prime Minister’s motives. Yes, the end of consensus has come.

I want to evidence that proposition by asking this question: how did the clause get into the Bill? I ask because the Government first floated the withdrawal of housing benefit from those who commit antisocial behaviour in their 2000 housing Green Paper. It was acknowledged at the time, after the consultation, that it would be difficult to reduce or withdraw housing benefit from a claimant guilty of such behaviour without adversely impacting innocent family members. After that Green Paper, Ministers pretty much gotit right. What then happened was that a DWP consultation paper on the proposed withdrawal of housing benefit—[Interruption.]

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member is not allowed in the Committee. I kindly ask him to withdraw if the Minister needs to have a conversation.

David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

It is a disgraceful diversionary tactic to try to put the shadow welfare reform Minister off his stride, but it will not succeed. [Interruption.] And now the chuntering from a sedentary position. The Government obviously do not like this very much, but I shall continue.

In 2000, Ministers in the DWP decided that withdrawing housing benefit from those who committed antisocial behaviour was a bad idea. They did not want to go ahead with it. It was then resurrected in May 2003 in a DWP consultation paper. That paper gave two options. One involved a sanction triggered by court action, which is what we have here, and the second involved administrative action without the trigger of court proceedings. At that time, both options were opposed not just by a majority but by an overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation.

I shall list those who oppose sanctions triggered by court action, which is materially what is in the clause. They know quite a bit about the subject: Barnardo’s, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Children’s Society, Citizens Advice, Crisis, Homeless Link, Mencap, Mind, the National Autistic Society, the National Children’s Home, Turning Point and Shelter.

Objections were also registered by those representing professionals working in the field, including—the list is not exhaustive—the Association of Directors of Social Services, the British Association of Social Workers, the British Property Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Housing Corporation, the Housing Law Practitioners Association, the National Housing Federation, the Small Landlords Association, the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group and the Tenants and Residents Organisations of England.

Ministers have obviously been considering the issue and not wanting to get on with it, because there has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing. In the face of all that opposition, it went quiet for a bit, but not without others piling in to say that it was a bad idea. Eighteen of  the 20 community safety partnerships that responded to the consultation opposed the sanction because it was not seen as a useful additional tool. The most persuasive objections came from local authorities themselves—145 out of the 178 authorities that responded opposed the sanction, not only because it would compromise their rental income, but mainly because they wanted to concentrate on better use of existing powers. Let me underline that point. Opposition Members are not saying that there should not be tough measures on antisocial behaviour. As Shelter and others rightly point out, the victims of antisocial behaviour are often precisely the people whom Shelter and other bodies have as customers. We all know that from our constituencies. We are not against tough measures, but we want to know more about why the existing powers are deemed not to be strong enough.

There was then a formal announcement in June 2006 by the Secretary of State—I keep on getting confused as there are so many of them, but it must have been the current Secretary of State—on the reintroduction of plans to withdraw housing benefit from those guilty of antisocial behaviour. I wonder whether it was all his own idea, or did it have more to do with the Prime Minister’s respect agenda, which he wanted to get kick-started? Most people believe that it was a headline-grabbing measure, inspired by No. 10. That would not be a great surprise to me. I do not blame the Ministers here today, or departmental officials; I think that they probably find it as unwise as all the groups that I have listed find it. That is because there are existing powers, so it cannot be for any reason other than No. 10 wanted to headline it. That is the way it looks, not just to me but to many other people. The Under-Secretary made a good fist of defending that. I repeat: the fact that she says it will be subject to rigorous piloting and scrutiny is welcome. However, I can assure her that we will be watching the evaluations of the pilot like hawks.

Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)

We are not doves.

David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position that we are not doves. Could we be hawkish doves? I do not know, but we are going to scrutinise it very carefully and look at it like hawks.

I have two final points. First, the clause makes it clear that rehabilitation services and support will be deployed. I hope that that will be before any decision to dock the benefit, which is clearly envisioned in the legislation. That is fine, but there are doubts as to whether those rehabilitation services will be widely available. My understanding is that the DWP says the rehabilitation that is envisioned in the clause will be provided through existing services. Is more money going to be made available? Can the Minister tell us specifically about that? In the experience of all of us, current levels of, for example, drug and alcohol dependency services and mental health services are not anywhere near good enough. We all share a responsibility for that; we can always do more and always do better. However, the hon. Lady cannot rely on the proposal contained in this clause about their being rehabilitation and warning notices and help and support before any benefit sanction if those rehabilitation services are not properly resourced. It is not just about help and advice with managing one’s  lifestyle; it could actually involve quite sharp-end interventions to do with drugs and health conditions.

Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Daventry, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point is that many people, such as those we have been hearing about in relation to the Dundee families project, require the most intense attention, a greatdeal of time and what might be called “tough love”. Although it is not clear to me, is it clear to himwhether the existence of rehabilitation services in the Government’s terms is a formal condition of proceeding? If that is so, is there any guarantee written in that those rehabilitation services have to be of an adequate or appropriate quality?

David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I understand that rehabilitation services would have to be provided and fail before any sanction was deployed. We should be comfortable with the terms of the Bill. There is a firewall, as it were, in that rehabilitation services have to be accessed and must be succeeding in turning around the offending behaviour. However, I am concerned that, if those services are not adequately resourced, they might not be adequate. The Under-Secretary needs to say whether the provision will be funded from existing budgets or whether there will be additional money.

Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be open to a proposal from Shelter and Citizens Advice that might be worth piloting, in relation to those persons in hardship—mums and people over 60 and others—who might be subject to a sanction. Shelter says that the30 per cent. reduction in benefit, which is part of the current proposals, is too high and would be quite a big hit to the family finances. Shelter suggests reasonably that, where there is hardship, the 30 per cent. reduction should be limited to 10 per cent. throughout the whole restriction period, rather than there being a 30 per cent. reduction in the post-eight-week period. The Under-Secretary might want to take that on board in the trialling and piloting that she eloquently described, which will happen over a two-year period. Is that is on her agenda?

I started by departing from the path of righteous, but I have veered back. We appreciate what the Under-Secretary said in the previous debate, but could she consider Shelter’s proposal and tell the Committee a bit more about resourcing? I know that, if she had the money, she would put it in tomorrow. However, there is a question about whether the Treasury will be similarly minded.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I will be brief. I have a few pertinent points to make, which I aired in the previous debate but to which the Minister did not respond.

I share the concern of the hon. Member for BurySt. Edmunds that the principal motivation behind these measures is more to grab headlines than to deal effectively with problems of antisocial behaviour. This is more legislation-as-Government-press-release than something that is seriously intended to do the job that all parties agree on: taking tough measures that will be effective in tackling antisocial behaviour.

I share the concern of the hon. Member for BurySt. Edmunds on funding for rehabilitation services. To  what extent does the Under-Secretary expect that services of the quality of the Dundee families project will be available in every area of the country? Will such services have to be available and exist as a condition before the sanction proposed in the measures can be applied?

I want to reiterate my concerns about two particular groups of people. The Under-Secretary has said that the Government intend the measure largely to apply to single people, but can she be sure of that? I am concerned about the impact on families with dependent children and child poverty. I would be grateful if she were to address that issue.

I would also be grateful if the Under-Secretary were to address the impact of sanctions on those people, whom I mentioned before, who are wrongly labelled as antisocial, where the issue might be a consequence of a mental health problem or a lack of understanding and training. According to some research, that is the case with 18 per cent. of those who currently have antisocial behaviour orders. It would be a matter of grave concern to both sides of the Committee if people who are mislabelled as a result of mental health problems have their benefits sanctioned, too.

Finally, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has said, it might be useful to hear the Under-Secretary’s response to the proposal that has been put forward by Shelter and the Child Poverty Action Group about reducing the level of sanctions in the case of vulnerable people. I add to that a question about the unusually lengthy period for which sanctions can apply, which is up to five years. Will the Under-Secretary tell the Committee more about the Government’s thinking on having sanctions in place for such a long period?

Kali Mountford (PPS (Rt Hon Des Browne, Secretary of State), Ministry of Defence; Colne Valley, Labour)

I want to ask the Under-Secretary to take special notice of one group of people. I fully understand the reason behind the piloting of the scheme and all the safeguards that she has outlined, which will hopefully bring somebody into line, if we can put it that way, before any sanction is necessary. The group of people who I hope receive special attention in the pilot is people experiencing domestic violence.

Domestic violence is often regarded as antisocial behaviour, but there is a much deeper concern of which we should all be aware. I know that the police deal with domestic violence differently in different areas. In my area, there is a database which should be referred to at every report of any kind of incident in which a victim of domestic violence is named. However, it does not always work, and I know that other areas do not have a similar database. I am anxious to ensure that what is apparently antisocial behaviour, but is actually of much deeper concern, is properly accounted for in the pilot.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

It is worth reflecting on the fact that this is not the first time that sanctions have been introduced into the benefits system. Indeed, sanctions have been part of the benefit system since 1913, so in many respects the Liberals and their successors blazed a trail on sanctions. I have to admit that I am not sure  whether the sanctions that were imposed then would be supported by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and his party now.

We need to return to the point about the rights and responsibilities agenda. For a moment, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds lost his warm and cuddly cool—my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have been taking bets on how long it would last. My hon. Friend and I will not divorce ourselves in any way from the respect agenda, because we think it important that we rebalance the rights and responsibilities agenda in this country—I know that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was perhaps trying to make a political point in looking towards the Prime Minister. I should reassure the Committee that the proposal is not about antisocial behaviour orders, but about antisocial behaviour and what we can do to help deal with some aspects of it. It has the overwhelming support of most of my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party, because we recognise that many communities are blighted by serious antisocial behaviour. Yet, even after eviction has taken place, there is no current sanction to stop those who make their neighbours’ lives a total misery from going back into the housing sector with the same rights and privileges. That is a powerful argument.

We are not proposing sanctions against people who are currently in tenancies, because the most severe sanction—eviction—will already have taken place. We shall not write off people after eviction, even if it is only 1,500 people, or the six people in Scotland—I feel like Abraham trying to find 100 just people. Even if people’s behaviour has been so bad that the local authority has gone to court, has presented evidence, and has gone through the long process of eviction, we will still offer people rehabilitation, if they want it, to protect their rights under the benefits system. I think that that is a reasonable deal, given the misery that is sometimes caused by antisocial behaviour—even in sunny Inverness.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

The Under-Secretary is absolutely right. Antisocial behaviour is an incredibly serious problem and blights hundreds of families in my constituency and in the constituency of every hon. Member. There is no disagreement in the Committee on the need to take tough measures to tackle antisocial behaviour. I referred earlier to an idea proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, which, while serving a similar purpose, may in some ways even be tougher—the introduction of probationary tenancies so that people may lose not their benefits, but their house.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I wonder whether we are talking at cross-purposes. I have said that the sanction will not kick in until two criteria are met. One is that the person has already lost their house, and the second is that they have refused to accept rehabilitation. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is agreeing or disagreeing with me, or whether, like many Liberal Democrats, as it is late on a Thursday afternoon, he is doing both. It is all right for him to say that he is against antisocial behaviour, but him and his party need to answer a question. The question concerns the worst offenders, of  whom we estimate there are 1,500 in the country, who are so bad in their behaviour both in the private and publicly rented sectors that their private or social landlord has gone to the bother and expense of serving an eviction order. Is he not willing at least to try ways of bringing those people back into the housing fold?

Jeremy Hunt (Shadow Minister (the Disabled), Work & Pensions; South West Surrey, Conservative)

The Under-Secretary spoke persuasively about her vision of what should happen under the system. If someone behaves antisocially, goes through the process that she has described, is evicted, refuses rehabilitation and is then not offered any support for housing benefit, what will happen next and where will that person go?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

This is the great philosophical argument that we are all going to have to deal with—the rights and responsibilities issue. We cannot say that people can opt out of their responsibilities to other members of their community, and that is not only in respect of accepting a benefit from the state. The hon. Gentleman perhaps answered his question in a previous debate, although a little more starkly than I would have done. I reassure the Committee that if the individual co-operates with the rehabilitation process and the support that will be built into it, the sanction can be lifted at any point. That is what we are seeking to do.

When he returns to Inverness tonight, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey might wish to reflect on what he will say to the neighbours of the six people who are so bad that Highland council is going to evict them if he will not support the piloting—we are not rolling it out—of the sanction regime. The sanction regime tells people starkly, “We are at the end of our tether with your behaviour. We are still prepared to invest in you and we still want to get you back into the mainstream, but you have to do something too.” The Dundee projects and other projects have shown that that can happen, if there is give and take on both sides by the state and the community and by the individual.

I turn to the issue of resources, which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has mentioned. The Government are investing heavily in rehabilitation. The respect action plan announced our commitment to establish a national network of family intervention centres. We are on track to deliver them in 50 areas by the end of 2006.

Mr. Boswellrose—

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

This might deal with the hon. Gentleman’s question. If the appropriate support is not available in the local authority, that authority would not be able to use the sanction, so the two go hand in hand. I do not know whether that deals with the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Daventry, Conservative)

It helps a good deal with one of our major worries, but I have a rather narrower question for the Under-Secretary. The benefit sanction of course applies to the recipient of housing benefit. The Under-Secretary has said that most of the cases that she envisages would involve single persons but, as it happens,  much of the debate has been about families, partly because of the Dundee project. Will she assure the Committee that the rehabilitation support will be holistic and available to the whole family, notwithstanding the fact that, technically, only one person stands to lose their benefit?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. We would not seek to victimise other members of a family where only one person is the perpetrator of the difficulties. There is a good case for ensuring that we support the whole family, and we will. To reassure Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends, I have said that sanctions are more likely to be used on single people. The reason why we say that is that single people are more likely to be evicted for antisocial behaviour and are therefore more likely to be in the pool—if I may call it that—to be sanctioned.

Several new intervention projects have been established since 2003, six of which have been run by the National Children’s Home and one of which has been run by Sheffield city council. The rehabilitation results have been first class, because the process is not only about reintegrating people into their communities, but about ensuring that children attend school. For example, there are reports of an 84 per cent. improvement in school attendance, which illustrates the holistic approach highlighted by the hon. Member for Daventry.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

There are many such projects, including those in Aberdeen and other places that the Minister has mentioned, but will she tell us whether financial sanctions were imposed on the families involved?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I said to the hon. Gentleman earlier that we are using such projects as illustrations of the benefits of rehabilitation. Yes, of course they are operating under the current process, but to repeat my earlier point, the most severe sanction in the instance to which we are referring this afternoon has already been levied. The most severe sanction is the eviction of people from their home. We are providing the opportunity for that sanction to be lifted and for people to move back into housing.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

The Under-Secretary made a sensible point about pilots. Previous exchanges have brought a question to my mind: if the sanctions are piloted for two years in certain areas but the national network of rehabilitation is rolled out throughout the country, does she foresee the evaluation of comparing performance in areas where sanctions apply with areas in which they do not apply, so that it is possible to understand whether sanctions make any difference in themselves to the success of rehabilitation processes?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

I have actually already answered that question and said that a comparison would be made between the piloted areas where there would be a sanctions regime, if necessary, and those areas where there would not be a sanctions regime.

To pick up on the comment by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, let us consider the neutral stance of organisations, including the Local Government Association,  to that particular housing sanction because it is significantly different from the previous ones. As I have said on a few occasions, it is post-eviction sanction. We appreciate the grave misgivings and worries that were expressed about a sanction when someone was in situ in a house in receipt of benefit. However, although issues have been raised about some of the details, there is a far more neutral approach to the benefit sanction in principle that we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the worries about the previous sanctions that we had put out for consultation.

The fact that there was widespread anxiety about such matters meant that we did not pursue them. However, we still believe that it is important for those very few people who have tried and tested the system to the nth degree that we consider another way to deal with such matters. I know that hon. Members are worried, and rightly so, about people with mental health difficulties and those who might have behavioural problems. Yes, that will be part of an assessment involving individuals, households and their needs.

I reassure the Committee that we do not intend to push people into rehabilitation services that would not be appropriate for them. I recognise some of the scenarios that have been presented by members of the Committee about people with behavioural difficulties that perhaps can be misinterpreted. We shall obviously be working with local authorities, many of which will have significant skills in the area of assessment of those with difficulties.

David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

Can the Under-Secretary say whether she would like to pilot the proposal from Shelter and Citizens Advice to the effect that the 30 per cent. docking would be reduced to 10 per cent. for vulnerable people?

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not give him a definitive answer to that question. We are aware of the proposal and I am sure that members of the Committee will come back to it at further points in the process.

Kali Mountford (PPS (Rt Hon Des Browne, Secretary of State), Ministry of Defence; Colne Valley, Labour)

May I pursue the point about domestic violence? It often happens that the person who ends up being evicted was the victim of someone else’s crime. I know of cases when the whole community gangs up on the victim rather than the offender and the person is misidentified as an offender when they were not. If we were to pilot such a project, there would have to be a proper understanding of how those offences are pursued.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

My hon. Friend speaks words of wisdom. I recognise the position that she has highlighted and, once again, that is an area where we shall be working very closely with local authorities that have expertise and knowledge. I am sure that they will engage with the local network of voluntary and charitable organisations that have front-line experience, not only in domestic violence but, as I said earlier, in particular  circumstances that, if not handled properly, could result in an eviction when not all individuals in a household are the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. I hope that the Committee will endorse the clause.