Asked by: Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the National Audit Office report The Effectiveness of Government in Tackling Homelessness, published on 23 July 2024, what plans they have to update the housing benefit subsidy regime for temporary accommodation.
Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
DWP pays local authorities a Housing Benefit subsidy for temporary accommodation cases. There are restrictions on the amount paid, including a subsidy cap which is £500 per week in certain areas of London or £375 elsewhere.
We recognise the financial pressures which local authorities are experiencing. MHCLG are increasing funding for homelessness services this year by an extra £233 million compared to last year (2024/25).
We continue to keep the rates used for Housing Benefit subsidy under review and are working closely with MHCLG and the Inter-Ministerial Group on Homelessness and Rough Sleeping to explore the impacts of subsidy rates on local authorities.
Any future decisions on subsidy rates will be taken at the appropriate fiscal event in the context of the Government’s missions, goals on housing and the current challenging financial environment.
Asked by: Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Baroness Altmann on 13 July stating that the total cost of equalising survivor benefit payments would amount to £3.3 billion (HL Deb, col 343), what assessment they have made of the cost of equalising payments specifically on the grounds of sexual orientation; and whether they consider those costs to be prohibitive.
Answered by Baroness Altmann
The capitalised cost of eliminating all differences in survivor benefits because of sexual orientation is estimated at £120 million, as set out in the Review of Survivor Benefits in Occupational Pension Schemes.
Although all differences because of sexual orientation in the provision of survivor benefits would be eliminated, differences because of sex would remain. This would mean that there would be differences in treatment between male same sex couples and female same sex couples. This is because male same sex couples would receive survivor benefits based on accruals from 1988 (in line with widowers of an opposite sex marriage), with female same sex couples receiving them based on accruals from 1978 (in line with widows of an opposite sex marriage).
The Government must take into account the costs and all other effects of reducing or eliminating differences before deciding on whether the law should be changed.