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

I beg to move amendmentNo. 259, in clause 33, page 28, leave out lines 21 to 23.

This Committee seems to move in fits and starts: long periods of debate on some clauses followed immediately by periods of dramatic progress. I intend to speak to the amendment briefly, because the issues that it seeks to address have been well aired in earlier debates, not least in remarks made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley on clause 27. However, it gives the Under-Secretary the opportunity to answer some of those points in more detail.

The amendment seeks to probe the circumstances in which the information prescribed in subsection (1) is to be provided for use by the Department. Will the Under-Secretary clarify whether information relating to individual cases will be required to be provided for those five areas listed in subsection (1)? Is the intention to prescribe general information about housing benefit or specific details about a case, relating, for example, to individual child support cases, when such information may be shared? Will she explain the Government’s intentions?

John Penrose (Weston-Super-Mare, Conservative)

I should like to press the matter a little further. We have discussed, particularly in the debate on the single room rent restriction, whether rent officers are getting their decisions right in all cases. There was much disquiet in that debate about whether they are setting single room rent levels correctly. It was felt that there could be a vicious downward spiral: the level was set too low, which led to shortfalls in claimants’ benefits, which in turn they had to make up. That also had a negative knock-on impact on the supply of suitable properties, which made it harder for rent officers to determine what the correct rent level should be.

One obvious way to deal with some of these problems and allow a degree of external verification and audit, and justification as to whether the rent officers are getting such decisions right, is to increase the amount of transparency. We could shine a little more sunlight into potentially murky corners by ensuring that rent officers show their workings when they take the decisions about the local housing allowance in any one area. I am sure that it is germane and important for the single room rent restriction, but it will be important in respect of many other classes of property.

As the earlier amendment about the single room rent restriction was not agreed to, my suggestion is an alternative way of dealing with the problem—a point that I was making at the time of that earlier debate—and it would be tremendously beneficial. I see no downsides in making the information available to the public and to all interested parties, so that they can check that the decisions are justifiable. In the spirit of open government, I therefore hope that the proposal will be relatively easy for the Under-Secretary to agree to.

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

Once again, I hope I can allay concerns of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey as expressed in the amendment. Clause 33 establishes a gateway, enabling the Secretary of State to require rent officers to pass information to him or to a person providing services to him, for various specified purposes, including social security purposes. The information is already being provided under existing powers, but the Secretary of State can only request the information.

Taking forward legislation to facilitate the local housing allowance roll-out has provided a suitable opportunity to enable the Secretary of State to require rent officers to provide him with information in a manner and form that is useful to him. The information will include details such as how many determinations rent officers have made and what proportion of these have meant that housing benefit has been restricted. In future, it will also include information about the local housing allowance rates and the broad rental market rates.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey asked what personal information would be transferred, and I can assure him that we do not envisage that personal information would be transferred through the proposed gateway. Analysts tend to make broad assumptions based on their analysis, and that detail is not necessarily appropriate.

May I also answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose)? I appreciate that there is some concern about the transparency of the rent officers’ deliberations and I hope that in the last debate I highlighted the fact that there is a great deal of market evidence and information to be gathered, including that from professional contacts and letting agencies. It is difficult to see whether that information could be published in full because there would be potentially serious consequences. For example, the rates might be seen as an indicator of a customer’s housing benefit entitlement, and assumptions that would be very misleading to customers could be drawn from the unexpurgated information. Dare I say it, it could also encourage landlords to increase rents and we must be careful that housing benefit and local housing allowance do not start to lead the market in determining what the rent could be. If landlords increase rents, that could increase the shortfalls to the customer.

The average data for each local authority is published in the Rent Service’s annual valuation report. Concerns were raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee relating to data transparency, and my hon. Friend the Minister and I will look at the comments that have been made to see whether there is anything else we can say or do that will give comfort to hon. Members on the issue.

As with all benefit information that the Department holds, its use will be strictly governed and controlled. The information will be accessible, as now, only to certain officials of the Department and then only on an “if required” basis. Each time the information is accessed, the access has to be justified by a business case showing that it is essential for the effective running of the Department. The business case also has to show that Data Protection Act and European convention on human rights issues have been carefully considered. The information is essential to our ability to monitor the impact of our policies on all DWP benefits, but it is done within a framework of safeguards. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey 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 for her reassurance on the transfer ofdata. She answered the point that I was getting at. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I beg to move amendmentNo. 265, in clause 33, page 28, line 26, at end add—

‘122G Supply by rent officers of information to claimants

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulation make provision about the obligation of a rent officer to provide information to claimants of housing benefit.

(2) The Secretary of State may impose on a rent officer obligations with respect to making available to claimants of housing benefit information about the basis of calculation of levels of housing benefit.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may require the production of information or documents used in calculating local levels of housing benefit.’.

I shall dwell on the point about data for a bit longer. Amendment No. 265 deals explicitly with the provision of rent and the making available of information that rent officers use in making their calculations. It would allow for the provision of information to claimants and so, by implication, make that information available more widely to the general public.

The amendment and this subject are particularly important, not just in relation to information on individual LHA rates, but more so to information that leads to decisions about what constitutes a broad rental market area. This issue is of concern to Members on both sides of the Committee and it seems to me that the key issue is this: a decision by a rent officer about what constitutes a broad rental market locality—to use the shorthand—has a great impact on people in that area. For example, would they decide that the entire city of Glasgow should be a broad rental market area, or would they look within the city and identify clear local markets where different conditions pertain and where, in order to maintain the social mix, different LHA rates and broad rental market areas should be established?

One could say the same about rural areas. A decision about whether the whole of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey should be a broad rental market area would be of great significance. That is especially the case because—picking up on a point made by the hon. Member for Daventry—in rural communities dominated by second homes and holiday homes, rental prices are likely to be much higher than perhaps in the more deprived parts of the city of Inverness. So those decisions can have a real effect on where people can afford to live if in receipt of housing benefit.

That it is not possible to understand the basis on which rent officers make those decisions is a matter of great frustration for many people. The information that they use to make those decisions is not publicly available. I welcome the fact that our deliberations have so far been conducted in a spirit of openness, as was shown by the decision of the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform to make available all documentation on the contracting-out arrangements. It would be in a similar spirit of openness if the Government were to adopt the amendment—it is a simple change—or something like it, to enable greater public access to information supplied by rent officers.

In response to the previous amendment, the Under-Secretary made the point that making information publicly available could lead either to people thinking that they are entitled to a certain allowance or indeed to some landlords seeking to push up their rents to the level of the local housing allowance. However, those considerations pertain only to information relating to the rate of local housing allowance. In any case, the rate of that allowance in pathfinder areas has been published already—for example, on the Department’s  websites. Regardless of whether that is the case when the scheme is rolled out, the rate of allowance for different categories in an area will be obvious to everyone and so the questions about people thinking they have an entitlement or landlords knowing what the rate is will apply anyway.

The information that people will need to help them understand the considerations taken into accountwhen establishing broad rental market areas will notbe available. That is critical, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will make it clear that the Government accept the need for that information to be available in relation to the broad rental market areas. Even if the amendment is not acceptable to her, I hope that a suggestion will be made at a later stage to enable openness.

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

I wish to give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the opportunity to put it on record that she has agreed to meet me and representatives of CHAS to discuss the proposal and other matters, so that we can consider whether a degree of transparency may properly be supplied. There could be dangers in that, as I outlined at greater length earlier in our proceedings. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her acceptance of our concerns and willingness to consider them further. I welcome this opportunity to put on record my thanks for her help.

John Penrose (Weston-Super-Mare, Conservative)

I should like to restate my concern about transparency, but I welcome the Under-Secretary’s comments on the previous amendment. She has said that she will reconsider the matter, so I do not intend to make a long speech. I await Report with interest. By that time, with any luck, she will have had a chance to reconsider.

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

We are on—[Interruption.] There was a lack of a gateway of communication network there with the Whip. We need to get semaphore working.

Many of the comments that I made on the previous amendment also stand in relation to amendmentNo. 265. We need to be careful how we put information into the public domain. I appreciate that, under the current housing benefit rules, it can be confusing for customers to work out what their housing benefit will be, and that is one reason why we are introducing the local housing allowance. We are committed to publishing the rates for that allowance and the broad rental market areas every month through the Rent Service. That will assist customers greatly and allow them to see in advance the maximum level of housing benefit for a particular size of accommodation and what it will mean for them. It will provide a more transparent system of calculations and of giving information to customers.

I assure the Committee that the Rent Service answers questions from individual customers about how decisions have been made and the direct impact that they will have on those people. Of course the service must have regard to public law requirements such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. To ensure transparency and accountability, the Rent Service will also publish maps of various locations on its public website.

I hark back to my comment earlier that it is difficult to publish some parts of the information gathered, partly for the reason that I gave earlier—the distorting effect that it could have on the local market. The data could also undermine customer confidentiality and have an impact on the relationship with local stakeholders. With those comments, and with thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, whose point I appreciate and whom I will be delighted to meet, I ask the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to withdraw his amendment.

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

We might wish to discuss this issue again at a later stage, particularly the information used to define what a broad rental market area will be and whether an area should be one. I accept fully what the  Under-Secretary says about the need to keep personal information confidential, and I accept the worries about individual cases, but I see no reason why information on the generic decision about where a BRMA should be and what will constitute one should not be made public. I accept that the Under-Secretary wishes to consider the matter further, and I look forward to the results. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.