Universal Credit and Welfare Changes

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend. I went with him to his local Trussell Trust to see what other changes we should be looking at, and one of them involved the payment system for people in work. Remember, this is the first time we have ever had a benefit system supporting people in work. Beforehand, it was always for people who were out of work. I pledged to look at that, and the team is doing so. As I said, we are supporting people.

What my hon. Friend says about the Opposition is quite right. The NAO did not say that we should stop universal credit; it said that we should carry on and, if anything, proceed more quickly. But remember, this is the Opposition who said that our changes in 2010 would result in 1 million more people being unemployed. How wrong they were, and how wrong they are again!

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

The NAO says that universal credit is expensive, massively delayed and over-complex, and that the Department will never be able to provide evidence that it helps more people into work. The Secretary of State says that everything is tickety-boo, and that this is a personal, tailor-made system based on the individual. Perhaps I could encourage her to meet my constituent, Augustin, who did not meet the minimum income floor and expected earnings under universal credit and has been made homeless as a result. She could meet him at my local food bank, which has seen a tripling in the number of children it supports as a direct result of universal credit roll-out. Will she meet him?

[Ms McVey]

A couple of things, starting with the minimum income floor: this was brought in for when people had set up a business and were getting paid below the minimum wage in order to support them and to help them to improve their business case, but so that if that was still not working, we could then say, “How do we help you to become employed, because self-employment is obviously not working for you?” That was why the minimum income floor was brought in. If anybody has been made homeless through this, I will meet them. We have advance payments and support, and our work coaches work with homelessness charities to achieve the exact opposite of that. In fact, I can tell the hon. Gentleman about countless cases where they have stopped people being homeless, but if that has not been the case for his constituent, we need to listen and get that changed rapidly.

Personal Independence Payments

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that anybody was bragging. It is known as just putting the facts on the record after people have sometimes sought to provide misinformation or incorrect facts, merely by stating that more people are getting the higher benefits and more people are getting PIP than were getting DLA. That really needs to be heard so that we dispel any myths from the Opposition.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State suggests that PIP is more generous than DLA. Can she confirm that the Department’s analysis shows that, once it is fully rolled out, PIP will support 500,000 fewer disabled people than DLA? Can she conform that, six months after the Government admitted that a previous mistake on assessments affected 220,000 disabled people, not one of those disabled people is receiving the full benefit to which they are lawfully entitled?

[Ms McVey]

What we can say is that the reality is that more people are getting PIP than are getting DLA.

Personal Independence Payment

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend, because the point really is about the practicalities of getting this right. It is about engaging with stakeholders and charities. It is about working with our Department to get this right. Mind has welcomed the decision, as have other charities, and it is working with us. Once we have worked through that, obviously we will disseminate it through the whole system.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that the Department will now be identifying the 164,000 disabled people who were wrongly denied the help to which they are entitled. Her Department also recently announced it is scrapping a target it previously denied existed—that of upholding 80% of initial decisions. When will the DWP be contacting the 83,000 disabled people who were potentially wrongly denied help under that equally dodgy practice?

[Ms McVey]

We will do everything systematically and coherently. We will get to people affected by any incorrect decision as soon as possible.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

I will come back to the Labour party’s record on rolling out benefits in due course, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I wish that Labour Members would speak up more loudly with their support for the principle behind universal credit, because at the moment it sounds like they are calling for not a delay or a pause, but a scrap. The Labour party has opposed every single benefit change that this Government have brought into effect, and the cost of its position would have been tens of billions of pounds. However, this is not about the money. More importantly, it is about the people, and universal credit is about encouraging people into work.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I am really pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman is supporting universal credit, although he failed to vote in favour of it the other week. Would he also support a renewed project to study how universal credit supports people to get into work? The Department for Work and Pensions has delayed and denied an opportunity to review the original study to prove whether universal credit is still working, because lots of people expect that it is not.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Perhaps the Minister will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point in due course.

I chair the all-party group on youth employment, so I want to use any mechanism available to encourage young people—everyone, in fact—to get into work. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) could listen to my response, rather than just shaking his head and taking part in exchanges across the Chamber.

[Neil Coyle]

The Minister is chuntering, so I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Forgive me; I will speak up. If the hon. Gentleman stops talking, however, he might be able to hear a little more easily. He is more than welcome to come along to the meetings of the all-party group. We met yesterday, which was the date on which the latest Office for National Statistics employment figures came out. We track those figures each month. It was pleasing to see that there are still record numbers for youth employment and record lows of young people who are out of work. The youth unemployment rate of 11.9% is in touching distance of the lowest ever figure on comparable records, and it is almost half the youth unemployment rate of over 22% in 2011, which followed the disastrous Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for securing this debate and acknowledge that this is the start of the Work and Pensions Committee’s work on this matter. The six-week delay has become totemic, but it is far from the only problem with universal credit which, let me be clear, has been a disaster. Anyone who looks at its original plan, budget and timetable cannot conclude anything else. The roll-out should have finished this year. Instead, it has reached only 10% of people, but it has done 10,000 times the damage to those who are now affected by it. Universal credit has cost more, and it has delivered less. It was always intended to cut help for 450,000 disabled people through axing the severe disability premium, ending the disability income guarantee and making DLA or PIP less generous for disabled people in work and for disabled children. That was the intention, and it has been made still less generous through the tax allowance changes.

The pretence that the roll-out has gone smoothly needs debunking. Instead of listening and acting on concerns, the Government have doubled down. They told us that things were tickety-boo and hunky-dory just a few weeks ago. They told us that they did not need to pause, tweak or fix it. Then, however, they did not vote on our Opposition day motion on universal credit because they know that universal credit is failing. They have yet to outline how that structural incompatibility will be changed in the longer term.

My home is in Southwark, which has been affected by universal credit and is in the test area. I refer people every week to my food bank, which has seen a third more people this year and has seen a tripling in the number of children needing help solely due to universal credit being extended to parents. Southwark Council has £6 million-worth of arrears from universal credit recipients. Ministers like to pretend that people are carrying arrears and debt over from other systems, which is simply untrue—it is a myth. The average housing benefit tenant in Southwark is £8 in credit, and the average Southwark tenant on universal credit is now £1,800 in arrears, which is unacceptable.

Cutting the timeframe might help, but many other problems need to be fixed including tackling problems with payment amounts. We have heard about real-time information problems today, but payment amounts will affect many more in self-employment and on zero-hours contracts. The Government also need to make clear what payment options, including fortnightly payments, are available, and they need to make alternative payment arrangements the standard for some groups. They need to enhance the trusted partners scheme to allow councils greater management control. They need to maintain housing payments for people moving on to universal credit from housing benefit, and they need to remove the seven-day waiting period before assessment, which is an utter con.

Ministers have had the chance to fix those issues, and they declined the opportunity to do so a few weeks ago, so anyone trying to claim universal credit today will see Boxing day before they get a single penny of support. Father Christmas will arrive before any support and, because of the delays, the Easter bunny is likely to arrive before some people get a penny of help from this Government. For the record, I do not believe in the Easter bunny, but I am still optimistic about Father Christmas appearing today in the form of the Minister offering an early Christmas present by announcing that he will tackle payment delays and resolve all the other problems with universal credit.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Julian Knight]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am about to discuss tax credits and my experience of dealing with that area as a personal finance journalist in 2003, when the credits were launched.

Work is the only long-term route to financial independence. Not only does long-term unemployment sap an individual’s self-confidence and erode their employability, but children who grow up in workless households are far more likely never to enter employment themselves. Generations of people do not get into work, and therefore poverty beds down. By acclimatising claimants to the rhythms of working life and being designed to ensure that employment always pays, universal credit not only supports today’s claimants, but is helping to steer many of the next generation away from the welfare system altogether, which is a very good thing indeed.

This is, undoubtedly, an enormous change, and Ministers have been wise to choose to proceed cautiously. The full roll-out of universal credit will not be completed until 2020, a whole nine years after the policy was first trialled and enacted. That involves many dry runs, and the process is in very stark contrast to the introduction of tax credits in 2003, when I remember very well that there was huge disruption to millions of people’s lives.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 2017-18 was supposed to be the final year for the roll-out of universal credit under the initial plan, but that the Government had already accepted that they needed to improve the process? Does he wonder why the Government are being so stubborn now?

[Julian Knight]

I applaud the Government for taking the roll-out to 2022—it shows they are listening. They want to get this right so that we do not end up with the situation we saw in 2003 with tax credits when, frankly, there was a dead ear from the then Government.

I will conclude as I am aware that many Members wish to speak. It is only right that we acknowledge the measures that the Government have put into place to protect vulnerable users, to provide an advanced payment system for claimants who cannot afford to wait for six weeks for new payments, and to ensure that people who are transferred on to universal credit see no loss in their entitlement in cash terms. The Government have rightly announced a review of DWP phone lines, which is a welcome and positive development. I hope that all Government Departments are cognisant of such situations and people in need are not charged excessively for using phone lines.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I recognise that time is limited, so I will limit the number of times I give way.

Universal credit is not just about getting people into work; it is actually about changing lives so that those people are ready and better able to enter work. Why are there monthly payments? The very simple answer is that over 80% and rising of all work is paid monthly, and the figure will soon be close to 90%. That means that if people are not ready, able and prepared to pay bills and deal with their money in monthly periods, they will never survive in the world of work, as has happened to many people crashing out of work.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will give way to other Members in a minute, but let me make a second point. When it comes to housing, why do we want people to pay their rent, rather than always have it paid for them directly? There is a simple answer. All too often, housing associations and local authorities receive the money directly, but then do very little for the tenants. They often know very little about their tenants, and they quite often care even less about their lives. The result is that many tenants run up arrears because nobody bothers to get involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is not a theory, but I will come on to that in a minute. The right hon. Gentleman and I have had plenty of conversations and discussions about the structure of this, and I want to take him up on that point.

I want to make the point, which is not often referred to by Labour Members, that the whole nature of the roll-out was deliberately set so as not to repeat the grave mistakes made when they rolled out tax credits and other benefit changes.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No, because I am conscious that others want to speak, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.

I recall that my surgery was full of people who, under the tax credit changes, found they had no money at all. When Labour rolled out tax credits in a big bang, over 750,000 people ended up with no money at all. Since then, the thresholds have had to be raised dramatically to get money to those people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has borne the years better than me. However, I will do anything for a kind look—[Laughter.] Particularly from my right hon. Friend.

It is interesting that, in the past 24 hours, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has made the following statement:

“Universal credit has the potential to dramatically improve the welfare system, which is fragmented, difficult to navigate and can trap people in poverty.”

It went on to say that the system will help people

“transition into work and will respond better to people’s changing circumstances.”

I agree. It would have been nice if the Opposition had started their debate by being clear and positive about how and why universal credit can change lives.

The point about test, learn and rectify is that it does exactly that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made many points in his excellent speech about the changes that are already beginning to happen. For example, some of the rent arrears are beginning to come down and the portal will help enormously with that.

However, I ask my right hon. Friend about universal support, which is the critical other bit of universal credit that no one has mentioned. It allows us to pick up the pieces around universal credit and deal with them on a human basis. Universal credit flags up when somebody has a debt problem and when they are running into arrears. Universal support is vital to work directly with them, using councils, jobcentres and all the other agencies, and hub up around them to help them change their lives on the basis of knowledge about how to pay their bills, their banking facilities and their debts. I ask for reassurance in the winding-up speech that Ministers will put in the extra effort, focus—and money, when necessary—to ensure that universal support rolls out successfully alongside universal credit. That is critical.

[Neil Coyle]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to acknowledge that universal credit has not worked for everyone, so does he agree that it has been almost as bad for some of those affected as online reviews of his novel, “The Devil’s Tune”? Comments include: “frighteningly bad”, “rubbish”, “utter drivel” and “hilariously awful—an outstanding compendium of bottomgravy”.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I thought that was a reference to the hon. Gentleman’s speaking ability in the House.

Universal credit is a huge driver for positive change that, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said, will not just get people into work quicker, but help us identify those in deep difficulty and change their lives. That is the critical element that I hope will unite the House on what universal credit is all about.

We should not stall universal credit because doing so would damage it. Changes need to be made, and the problems that have been discovered need to be rectified as we move forward. The way that the system is being run is therefore right.

I direct my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to some of my earlier comments. As I said, I hope that the Chancellor will look again the way in which financing for the work allowances has been reduced. I would like that to be changed. My right hon. Friend made a very good point when he said that we keep what needs changing constantly under review. The issue around waiting days is critical—I know that he will consider that and see if the evidence stacks up for whether changing that would make a major difference.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on moving swiftly to ensure, as was always the intention, that jobcentre staff can pay out the advances on the day or within the week and, more than that, notify every would-be recipient of universal credit that they are eligible to receive them. That will dramatically change the position of many who have found themselves in difficulty because of the monthly wait.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

The roll-out of universal credit affects more than 5,000 of my constituents, as Southwark has been one of the trial authorities for “full service area” and has suffered all the consequences as a result. It is fair to say that it has been a disaster for some of those involved: the individuals left waiting 12 weeks-plus in many cases; the 1,242 Southwark Council tenants facing eviction-level arears owing to universal credit delays. Only 11% of council tenants are on universal credit, but it accounts for 40% of all arrears—over £5 million. To cite the comparator that the Secretary of State seemed to struggle with: the average account balance for people on housing benefit is £8 in credit; the average universal credit claimant is now £1,178 in arrears.

It is equally damaging for some other landlords. Leathermarket JMB is absolutely brilliant and has done a huge amount of work to support people through the process, despite being denied information and access to the landlord portal at the beginning. Its average tenant not on universal credit is £73 in credit, whereas those on universal credit have arrears of £648 on average. Jobcentre Plus staff know that the system cannot cope and that the IT system is too fragile and inflexible and does not reflect things such as childcare costs or fluctuating incomes.

As for the voluntary sector, according to the food banks and Citizens Advice Southwark, the number of people coming through their doors has gone through the roof. Among the last tranche of people to whom universal credit was extended—[Interruption.] The Minister is disagreeing. We have had this discussion elsewhere. I will send him a letter about it rather than get into it now. Following the extension of universal credit to parents, the number of children using Southwark Pecan food bank tripled. That is not uplifting—the word credited to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—but shameful.

[Ms Buck]

We have heard from Government Members about the advantages of bringing all the benefits together into a single system, and there are indeed benefits of simplification, but is not the downside exactly as my hon. Friend says—that when something goes wrong in one part of the system, it brings about a potential catastrophe right across the system, including the potential loss of people’s homes?

[Neil Coyle]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The Government stressed again today that they put a lot of faith in advance payments, but those cannot cover full rent costs. We found out this morning that the new guidance for Jobcentre Plus was only sent out this week, demonstrating perhaps that the Government were more afraid of their Back Benchers in today’s debate than they were concerned to address the underlying problems. We have just had a spat about the landlord portal. It is still not fixed. The Government claim it is, and there is some faster information sharing, but there is no evidence of an impact on cutting delays, inaccurate payments or overall arrears levels. The Government acknowledge that 20% of social landlords will never be included in the landlord portal—and that is before we look at the private rented sector.

There are other solutions that have been put to the Government not just recently but for months and years. We need to end the insistence that only the claimant can confirm rents. There is no point having “trusted partner” status for landlords and then ignoring them when they say that rent is owed. We need to remove the seven-day wait period for housing costs and introduce a transitional period of rent payment for those coming from housing benefit—rents do not change just because DWP decides to force someone on to a different programme. We should also backdate housing costs. All these issues have been on the table, but the Government have ignored them.

The Government also need to improve real-time information collection. We know that DWP and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have now set up a “late, missing and incorrect” joint initiative, thanks to information shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), but the Department acknowledges that that does not address the system defects. The Government are treating the symptoms not the cause of the problems. Today is an opportunity to pause and address those underlying problems, not to push out universal credit even further, thereby increasing debt, poverty, arrears, evictions, food bank use and homelessness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I am sure that the hon. Lady was here and heard the Secretary of State make the point that the calls that have been made were all to local rate numbers. It is not right to say that they were premium rate numbers. As of today, those calls have been made free for all claimants, although they were offered the opportunity to be called back for free if the call charge was difficult. I am aware that the average wait time is two minutes, and of course a wait time of an hour is unacceptable. I am sure Ministers have heard that and will be doing everything they can to ensure that everyone across the country benefits from a prompt and cheap response.

At the same time as simplifying the system, universal credit humanises our bureaucracy by recognising that those who need our help do not have exactly the same needs. Instead of a faceless homogeneity, for the first time personalised work coaches can compassionately take into account the specific needs of each individual and their specific circumstances, tailoring the approach to them and ensuring that they get the specific help that they need.

[Neil Coyle]

How simplified, fair and supportive does the hon. Gentleman think it is for the 116,000 working disabled parents who are set to lose £40 a week from the disability income guarantee?

[Rishi Sunak]

I cannot say that I recognise that figure, because £700 million more was made available in the last set of universal credit reforms, all of which was directed at the most vulnerable in our society.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Rishi Sunak]

No, I will carry on, given the number of people who want to speak.

Compassion alone is not enough. The effectiveness of our welfare system should be properly judged by the number of lives that it transforms, and that transformation comes from well-paid work. Universal credit ends the well-documented problem of single parents effectively working for free if they want to work for more than 16 hours. Universal credit ensures that all work truly pays, and it is working. Compared with the system that it replaces, claimants spend twice as much time actively looking for work and, for every 100 claimants who found employment under the old system, 113 will find employment under universal credit. In reality, the lives of more than 250,000 people will be transformed over the course of the roll-out through having a decent job and the opportunity to build a stake in our society.

Finally, universal credit is fair to the people who pay for it. In Britain today, we spend around twice as much on working-age welfare as we do on education. To put it another way, for every £1 that the taxpayer sends to the NHS, they also send £1 to the working-age welfare bill. Given the sums involved, I make no apology for speaking up for those who ask me, “Is this money well spent?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

I am grateful to have a chance to speak in a debate that has had well-informed contributions from Members on both sides of the House. Rather than going over all the arguments we have heard so far, I want to talk about a couple of personal examples I encountered in my previous career in retail, which show why this reform is so important in creating a system where it does pay to work. Retail is an industry where there are inflexible working hours and unpredictable amounts of overtime are often available; it is often dependent on the demand for the products in the store and so on.

Let me give a couple of examples that I saw during my time as a store manager in Lidl in my constituency: almost 10 years. As happens in many discount retailers, we often worked with a skeleton crew in the store—often as few as 12 members of staff. In such a situation, if one or two staff are limited to working 16 hours, it has a big knock-on impact. It does not just affect the individual who struggles to work the overtime, even though they want to; it has knock-on impacts for the business and means salaried employees, who might not be paid any overtime, still have to work late into the night because of the reduced flexibility that the current system offers. That is clearly not what it was designed to do, but it is one unintended detrimental consequence for the business and other employees.

I wish to make one other point about the unintended consequence of the current system for people who want to work more than 16 hours but are prevented from doing so. What they often do in these situations is end up hiding the hours that they work, through moving around holiday pay in the payroll system and even, as happens much more regularly than we might think, through store managers agreeing to pay other employees in the store; the money is received into their bank account and they then pay their friend, who can actually work the overtime but refrains from doing so because of the 16-hour limit. Another point to make on that is that the people who end up willing to be part of those trades are younger and often get paid by the retail business at a lower wage because of that. They therefore end up passing across the lower wage to the person who would work or lose out on money themselves because they transfer across to somebody else from the post-tax income.

One other point about the UC system is that because it offers support to people through the work coach system, it helps a lot of people in industries such as retail who are under-confident about the progress they can make in that role. When I started as a shelf stacker in Lidl at 18, I was lucky enough to have parents who pushed me to keep progressing through the ranks. A lot of people who are under-confident and do not have that support do not get that sort of help and encouragement to step up through the business. Often we get people who are reliable employees—

[Neil Coyle]

I am struggling to follow the point, because one of the biggest challenges of UC is that those with fluctuating incomes struggle to get a consistent payment in order to pay their arrears. Although the hon. Gentleman may have been successful in retail, he is going to struggle to sell this particular turkey to employees in my constituency.

[Luke Hall]

As I say, my experience for many years has been of a hugely detrimental experience for people who try to work over the 16 hours if they are pushed to do so. So I do not accept the point, because I think the work coaches genuinely help people with their confidence in order to move forward. I have seen real-life experiences of that in Tesco and Aldi in my constituency, where I have spoken to employees who receive that sort of support.

In the short time I have left, I should say that I am encouraged by the Secretary of State’s announcement of the cancellation of the helpline fees. That is surely a simple and right change to make so that people on low incomes who are struggling to find work do not have to pay those charges. I am pleased by the Secretary of State’s assurance that we will not move faster than we should, in order to be sure that the system can take into account any difficulties in moving forward. I look forward to supporting a system that is helping people to move into work faster and to stay in work for longer. Universal credit is helping more people to move into work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We are very keen to ensure that the advances system means that people can access funds so that they do not have to visit food banks. In recent months we have seen an increased use of that system, because we have done more to publicise it, and I want to go further on that. I think that is an important part of a system that, when we step back and look at it, is ensuring that more people are able to work and to progress in work, and that should not be forgotten.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

8. What steps his Department are taking to ensure that personal independence payment assessments are undertaken fairly and efficiently.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

16. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that personal independence payment assessments are undertaken fairly and efficiently.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)]

We are committed to ensuring that people receive high-quality, fair and accurate assessments. The Department robustly monitors providers’ performance and independently audits assessments. Both providers are now increasing clinical support across their centres and providing more personalised coaching for their healthcare professionals.

[Neil Coyle]

The Department seems to conclude that everything is hunky-dory with PIP assessments, just as it did—erroneously—with work capability assessments. The Disability News Service says it has more than 200 cases of inaccurate PIP assessments, and I have come across plenty in Southwark, including that of my constituent, Tarik Ali. Tarik was assessed as having no evidence of hearing loss, despite being deaf in one ear. He was awarded no points for needing support to manage medication, despite the fact that he sees a GP every three weeks and that his carer manages his medication on a daily basis. There was no mention of Behçet’s syndrome in his assessment, despite its having been included in five hospital reports, his GP records and his medication prescription. When will the Minister stop cutting vital help to genuinely disabled people, stop wasting taxpayers’ money on inaccurate assessments and fake mandatory reconsiderations, and finally end the glaring inaccuracies in PIP assessments?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Currently, 3% of caseload is overturned on appeal, and in the last quarter the number of cases having to go to appeal dropped by 22%. We have introduced changes to get evidence in earlier and to improve the quality of assessments, but we will respond to all the things that Paul Gray has set out in his review this autumn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

No. That is why we are trying to get better decisions earlier in the process. We have made progress. As I said, the number of PIP cases going to appeal has fallen by 22% over the last quarter. We will continue—

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Will you publish those figures?

[Penny Mordaunt]

They are published; they were published a few weeks ago. We will shortly bring forward our response to Paul Gray’s second review, which will contain further things that I hope the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) will welcome.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The Access to Work programme is popular, and is just one of the Government’s schemes to provide support and financial assistance to employers. One way in which we are publicising that is through the Disability Confident scheme, which we relaunched last autumn. Around 4,000 organisations have now signed up to it, and it is one way of ensuring that employers really do understand the support that is there for them, as well as the huge talent and insight that this group of people can bring to their workforce.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Many people with mental health problems pay the bedroom tax. Three months ago, the Government lost three cases in the Supreme Court that had been brought by disabled people over the bedroom tax. How has the Department identified other disabled people who should not be paying that tax, and when will disabled people in Bermondsey and Old Southwark and across the country stop having to pay it?

[Penny Mordaunt]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a discretionary fund that is administered at a local level. Many local authorities have not accessed the fund. The vast majority of people, including those who are disabled, are exempt from the scheme. If he has examples of cases where that is not happening, he should write to us and let us know.

Supported Housing

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of Government proposals on supported housing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank hon. Members for their attendance. I formally congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery on her newish role—this is the first chance I have had to do it publicly.

We are here to talk about the effect of Government proposals on supported housing. Once again, this is a Government targeting a significantly disadvantaged group with ill-thought-through plans that will have long-term negative cost effects and which have already had a negative effect on the provision and supply of supported accommodation. In a September 2015 Department for Work and Pensions release, the then Secretary of State stated:

“Supported housing supports hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable people across the country”.

[Interruption.]

Some of them are on crutches. The Department’s definition of vulnerable people covers older people, homeless people, people fleeing domestic violence, people struggling to overcome drug and alcohol addictions, and disabled people, including many people with mental health conditions and learning disabilities. Those are the people who use, and need, supported accommodation.

In 2010, the Department for Work and Pensions published a report that suggested that of people living in supported accommodation 25% had a learning disability, 42% had a severe disability or a physical disability, 17% were recovering from addiction, 5% had a significant mental health problem and 5% were fleeing domestic violence. We must ask ourselves why any Government would choose to make life more difficult or more uncertain for those groups of people. We are talking about a truly shabby policy on top of policies since 2010 that have significantly targeted, again and again, disabled people and other disadvantaged groups with cut upon cut. I will outline what the Government say they intend to do and why so many organisations and people have significant concerns.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember that only weeks ago we had a debate on homelessness in the House of Commons, and a motion was passed. I am interested to know how that motion can be implemented when there is a situation like this with regard to homelessness, particularly with capping going on. That is surely a contradiction in terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

It is an absolute contradiction. Since 2010, we have seen a shocking rise in homelessness across the country, particularly in my constituency. I did a sleep-out for the Robes Project there last Friday evening, in very cold temperatures, so if Members have not already done so I urge them to sponsor if not me the project more generally.

In the 2015 spending review the Government outlined plans to cap the—

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He seems to be a bit stuck in a time warp from several months ago. Does he not recognise that the situation has changed and that there is a commitment to a new funding model based on localism, which should help with the allocation of resources so that those most in need will get the most help?

[Neil Coyle]

I am about to run through how the Government have ended up where they are now, but when it comes to localism, this Government have a record of devolving responsibility without the resources to meet the demand. That point should not be lost, as it is an important factor in how many organisations see the current consultation.

Coming back to last year’s announcement, the Government said that they would cap the amount of rent that housing benefit will cover to the relevant local housing allowance—the LHA—for supported housing, with a top-up paid by local authorities. Initially, they announced that the measure would apply to those who had signed a tenancy since April 2016. There was an immediate backlash, and it was clear that the Government had not properly thought through the plans or considered very well whom they would affect. They then announced a delayed roll-out of the change, initially for one year.

The hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) alluded to the fact that there is now a consultation on further plans for a 2019 roll-out, including of the new funding model, but it should not be forgotten that the cap poses a considerable risk to supported housing as it might be insufficient to cover full costs for the people affected. Management costs for supported housing are significantly greater than generic housing costs. The limbo period has already caused some damage.

Alongside the delays to 2019 for both the change and the proposed new funding model, the Government have announced further damaging changes in addition to the proposals that they outlined last year. They have now included suggestions that will affect all universal credit claimants when the change is rolled out in 2019, not just those who have signed a tenancy since April 2016. There is concern among many organisations that the universal credit system is too clunky and inflexible to take into account what the Government had originally planned. It would be useful if the Minister indicated whether it is a “computer says no” approach rather than the flexible model that perhaps is needed. In another damaging change, the Government are applying a rent reduction to supported housing, with rents decreasing by 1% a year for three years up to and including 2019-20. That was not in the original plans and it has caused much dismay among the organisations and people affected.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I applaud the hon. Gentleman for bringing to the House this debate on a very important subject. Does he not agree, however, that it is local authorities that know where best to place the money and whom to help the most? That is what the new funding model will address. I am a firm believer that money should not come from the top, but locally. That is how best to spend it. I would welcome clarification about whether the funding will be ring-fenced. I believe that the Minister will promise that, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to hear that that is the case.

[Neil Coyle]

I will come on to ring-fencing. The trust that the hon. Lady puts in local authorities is, I am sure, welcome, but often that trust comes without the resources to meet the demand, and that has been a continual problem.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. Does he agree that as part of Government proposals regarding the provision of supported social housing, recognition needs to be given to the best locations, with good access to hospitals and other public services, as many of the people concerned are vulnerable and require care?

[Neil Coyle]

Location is important, and I will come on to discuss where needs are best met. For too many of the people directly affected, that has been in NHS accommodation, which has been inappropriate and at far greater expense, but the Government’s plans do not address that.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I do not think we should let the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) get away with what she said about passing responsibility on to local authorities. That is a cop-out. Local authorities can do the work with Government resources but if they are not given those resources all that happens is that they get the blame and the public suffer.

[Neil Coyle]

It is the individuals who need the accommodation who suffer, and also the taxpayer in the longer term, for reasons I will come on to.

I want to give some national and local statistics. It is estimated by the House of Commons Library, which I thank for the figures, that there are 651,000 supported accommodation places across the country. That is not a massive number, as accommodation goes. Across my borough of Southwark, there are 1,200 places in a range of schemes.

I want to flesh out a bit more who is affected, by citing a couple of anonymised case studies from AmicusHorizon. The first is Mrs W, who is disabled and lives on her own in sheltered accommodation. She has no close family, and has mobility problems, a visual impairment and a learning disability. That is who the Government are targeting. She lives in sheltered housing, which means that she is in an accessible and supportive community with unobtrusive support from a scheme manager who operates as a kind of warden. That support enables her to live independently. Her combined rent and applicable service charge is £123.10, which is £57.44 more than the applicable LHA rate.

The second case study is that of Mrs P, who lives in an extra care scheme. She lives on her own and does not have contact with her children. She moved to the scheme after a spell in hospital because of a fall. In the accommodation her health has improved and the staff provide support to ensure that she stays well and is able to get out more and attend social activities. Without that support she would be in residential accommodation at potentially higher cost. Her combined rent and applicable service charge is £174.71, which is £64.04 more than the applicable LHA rate. Golden Lane Housing, which is a Mencap subsidiary, provides homes for people with very complex needs in my constituency, including people with learning disabilities. I visited its accommodation in Rotherhithe, and the people being supported there do not just have severe learning disabilities; they also have communication impairment. One was deaf and could not speak, and that is who the Government are targeting with the change. The wraparound support that those people need is absolutely essential, and by its very nature it is more expensive than routine housing costs.

St Mungo’s is another brilliant local provider of emergency and supported housing in Southwark. It helps people out of homelessness, and helps people with high support needs. In its client group, as it calls them, in Southwark, 53% have slept rough; 73% have mental health needs; 44% have a significant physical health condition; and 55% have or have had a substance misuse problem. As well as providing shelter for those people, St Mungo’s runs workshops that improve life skills and help many residents to avoid more intensive NHS services and to stay out of the criminal justice system.

The Government’s plans from last year and from before that simply do not take into account the broader benefits of supported housing. First, there is the social benefit. Supported housing gives people who would otherwise struggle to live independently control and choice over their lives while allowing them to receive essential support. There is the human, personal benefit of supported housing. There is also a financial benefit. The cost of supporting people in specialist supported housing can be half the gross cost of residential care placements. Lifeways estimates that the average net saving achieved by moving from residential care to supported accommodation is at least £185 a week.

There is a clear cost saving available if we get the policy right, but the Government have failed to do that. The lack of specialist supported housing is pushing people with learning disabilities, dementia and a range of conditions into more expensive residential care, including hospitals. The National Housing Federation states that stable and certain funding for supported homes and services reduces pressure on public services such as the NHS, saving the taxpayer around £3.5 billion a year. That is the potential saving from getting this right.

I thank all the organisations that have given me briefings or meetings on the issue, including the National Housing Federation, Golden Lane Housing, Lifeways, AmicusHorizon, the London Borough of Southwark, St Mungo’s, the Salvation Army, which I think is here today, and London Councils. Their involvement and all the supported accommodation that they provide has built up in the years following the extensive shift in public policy to enable disabled people to live more independently. In particular, that shift was meant to support disabled people to live outside NHS accommodation and residential care. That reflects a demographic shift, and we need to be aware that we have an older disabled population. We should celebrate the fact that more young disabled people are surviving into adulthood, but that comes at a cost. They need more support. In Southwark, the fastest growing cost group to social services is 18-year-olds with learning disabilities. Mencap estimates that that group alone requires the provision of 1,000 new places a year in supported accommodation.

There are some worrying statistics on how things will be directly affected by the Government’s proposals. Golden Lane Housing has suggested that 82% of local authorities agree that there is a shortage of supported housing for people with a learning disability. More worryingly, 41% of current schemes could be at risk of closure if the Government do not shift their plans. Some 80% of schemes due to be built to support that group would cease and not go ahead, leaving many disadvantaged people unable to access the homes and support they need and directly undermining Government efforts to provide supported housing in the community as part of the Transforming Care programme.

All of that has been put at risk by the mess, limbo and confusion from Government on the issue. There has been a clear lack of co-ordination across Government, with a rush to continue the squeeze on budgets without thinking more strategically or for the longer term. In September, the new Secretary of State said:

“The Government values the role supported housing plays and is committed to protecting and boosting the supply of supported housing”.

However, DWP policies have put existing and planned supported accommodation at risk. For example, Golden Lane Housing had to postpone a £100 million five-year bond to provide supported housing. It would not have relied on a penny of public funding. It is also likely to have to turn down a £500,000 grant from the Homes and Communities Agency it applied for under the care and specialised support initiative to develop new homes. Accommodation has been put at risk as a direct result of the Government’s confusion on the issue.

Unable to meet higher needs, the executive director of operations at AmicusHorizon said:

“The impact of the cap will be more than £1 million of annual rent and service income being put at risk. It will also have a significant impact on our residents. None more so than those living in extra care schemes. We’ve calculated they will have to fund an average shortfall of £41.00 per week”.

The Government have said that

“from 2019/20 core rent and service charges will be funded through Housing Benefit or Universal Credit up to the level of the applicable LHA rate…For costs above the level of the LHA rate, Government will devolve in England an amount of funding for disbursement locally.”

Very little detail has been provided, and there is an ongoing consultation on the issue.

Lifeways is based in my constituency and provides accommodation for more than 5,000 people with learning disabilities across the country. It has commented on the uncertainty that the Government have created and the lack of clarity in the funding model:

“The current uncertainty about the future funding of specialist supported housing is putting at risk our ability to deliver high quality, permanent homes in local communities...The new funding model currently been consulted on needs to ensure that the money devolved is sufficient and gets passed on to the right people. People with learning disabilities must not be overlooked.”

[Julian Knight]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is most generous. We have had lots of detail from him on what he sees as wrong and so on. I am a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, and we have heard quite a lot of evidence on this, but I wonder what he proposes to do about the matter. Does he think that the status quo is the way to progress ad infinitum, or does he have any concrete proposals?

[Neil Coyle]

As I have outlined, if the Government introduced concrete proposals and knew what they were doing, we would not be in this position. I have some specific recommendations for how the Government might go forward, even though I fundamentally disagree that this group of people should be targeted for a reduction in support.

Lifeways has expressed concern about the fact that providers need confidence to invest and build. The Government’s position since September last year has undermined that confidence and caused some schemes to be put on hold or cancelled altogether. Some providers of supported accommodation have said that they will pull out of the sector if the policy is not done in a way that reflects actual costs. The pressure is on the Government to get it right. While it is welcome that the Government have made exemptions for some groups—in particular, people fleeing domestic violence—Lifeways’ concern about people with learning disabilities should not be overlooked. Sadly, there is a clear history in public policy of people with learning disabilities often being left behind or neglected in policy initiatives. It would be useful to hear from the Minister whether there are plans for other groups to be offered specific protections.

Many organisations expressed concern about the difference between supported accommodation and sheltered housing. It would be useful to hear how the Government see the difference between supported accommodation and sheltered housing for older people and the homeless.

As a London MP, I wanted to speak about the higher costs in London. I am grateful to London Councils for the information that they have provided. Its figures are based on applying LHA rates to the current total weekly costs eligible for housing benefit. It should be remembered that most providers cannot reduce rents in reaction to lower housing benefit entitlements set by Government due to the higher cost of provision, because of the nature of the needs of people in supported accommodation. If the Government plans go ahead as on paper, it is estimated that the London Borough of Ealing could have an annual shortfall of £528,000 a year. “Red” Kensington and Chelsea has forecast an annual loss of £440,000 a year. My borough of Southwark could have a shortfall of £167,000 a year. It would be useful if the Minister outlined how the Government will ensure that those additional costs are recognised and met. There is a lack of detail on the local top-up fund that forms part of the consultation. An indication of how the Government intend to operate that would be useful.

Conservative Back Benchers are keen to suggest that discretionary housing payments will always cover any housing shortfall from the Government. I hope that we do not hear a lot of that this morning. It is an insufficient answer and only a temporary solution, even when such payments are possible. For Greater London, there was a £23 million cut in DHP between 2013-14 and 2015-16. My borough regularly spends well over what the Government provide for DHP. It would be useful to know how the Minister intends to meet that need without relying on discretionary housing payments.

I have some questions on the operation of the new scheme and funding model. Is there an intention to pilot the new funding model rather than rolling it out nationally? The changes proposed are significant. The National Housing Federation and others are keen to work with the Government to ensure a successful pilot, not just for the individuals but in terms of value for money under any new model.

The Government have suggested an element of ring-fencing, but ring fences do not always work; people are looking for an iron-clad ring fence on this issue. How will the Government give certainty that any ring fence would last in the longer term? If housing associations and others are to be able to plan to meet the higher level of need for supported accommodation that we know we will see, the ring fence must be iron clad, not just for current demand but into the future. The Government need to be clearer about how funding will keep pace with the level of demand. How do they intend to measure and monitor the level of need and the level of funding required?

I conclude by repeating that this policy change is very poorly targeted. It was ill thought-through last year, it has been poorly developed since and the limbo period has caused considerable discomfort. There is still a very poor level of information available on how the Government plan to take the policy forward from 2019.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I add my congratulations to those offered to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on securing this important debate. Prior to his election, the hon. Gentleman worked in the field of disability and he continues to be an important campaigner for disabled people in his role as a Member of Parliament. He will know from his experience—we have heard a little of it this morning—how broad the supported housing sector is. He therefore has an excellent insight into the challenges of finding a proposal that will work across the whole sector.

As we have heard, supported housing is vital for many vulnerable groups. Whether additional support is needed for a short time to help someone recover from difficulties or setbacks in life, or whether it represents a longer-term arrangement, the valuable role that such accommodation plays is clear. Last week we published our evidence review of the supported housing sector, which we commissioned jointly with the Department for Communities and Local Government. The review has given us an important indication of the scale, scope and, indeed, cost of the sector across Great Britain. It estimates that there are about 651,500 supported housing units, predominantly provided by housing associations, local authorities and charities. The majority of the units—about 71%—are for older people, and the remainder for those of working age. It is estimated that at the end of 2015, just over £4 billion of housing benefit was being spent annually on the sector in Great Britain. That amounts to 17% of the total departmental expenditure on housing support. The review also provides an indicative estimate of just over £2 billion per annum for additional funding from other sources in addition to housing benefit in Great Britain. That was largely made up of local authority spending.

The focus of debate today is specifically the effect of the Government’s proposals on supported housing. The Government are committed not only to protecting but to boosting the supply of such housing, and ensuring that it provides value for money and works for those who use it, as well as those who pay for it. As Members will be aware, we have announced that a new funding model will be introduced for supported housing when the local housing allowance rates are extended to the social rented sector from April 2019. In future, housing costs up to the level of the relevant LHA rate will be met through either housing benefit or universal credit. Funding for the additional costs of providing supported housing in excess of that amount will be met through local funding, which is to be devolved to local authorities in England and to the devolved Administrations.

[Neil Coyle]

I think three different Members have asked about the potential for a pilot of the new funding model. Will the Minister clarify whether there will be one?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman must not fret; I will come to that later. Many comments were made by hon. Members and I will try to respond to most of them, but I am conscious that time may not allow for all. I will allow the hon. Gentleman time to come in at the end as well.

As hon. Members have heard, the Department for Communities and Local Government and my Department last week jointly launched a consultation on the detail and implementation of the new sustainable funding model. I welcome this debate as an important opportunity to draw Members’ attention to that. I will turn to the specific points raised by hon. Members in order. I hope to get to every point, but if time does not permit, I will write to hon. Members to clarify a few points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and the hon. Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned local funding and why it is important that local authorities and devolved Administrations are going to be involved. I absolutely believe that local authorities are best placed to make decisions about how to support vulnerable people in their own areas. We heard about location from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and the hon. Member for South Down, and they are right that it is important. However, it is also about understanding local need and being able to reflect that in the most appropriate type of provision.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned disabled people, and he was right to do so. As he will know, disability spending will be higher every year to 2020 than it was in 2010. He also spoke of the types of people living in supported accommodation and, like me, he celebrates the numbers of young disabled people who are both living longer and wishing, quite understandably, to live more independently. He is right to point out that that is also a challenge, but it is one that we are determined to rise to.

Likewise, we have a growing elderly population. At the start of the debate, the hon. Gentleman outlined some percentages of individuals living in supported accommodation and what their particular needs might be. I emphasise that people do not necessarily have single needs. We have an ageing population, and as people grow older, their needs tend to become more acute and they tend to have more of them. It is important that we have a system that enables those with really quite intense needs to live independently for as long as they can and, indeed, for as long as they wish to.

Under the Care Act 2014, local authorities have a general duty to promote an individual’s wellbeing when carrying out their care and support functions. Through the consultation, we will be seeking views on whether further protections may be required to ensure that all relevant client groups can gain appropriate access to funding, including those without existing statutory duties.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that Departments across Government have worked closely together on the proposals and will continue to do so. They include the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education and the Home Office. We are also working with colleagues in the devolved Administrations.

We have to make it clear that this is not about targeting individuals but about ensuring that we have a system in which the quality of services is central and there is a clear focus on outcomes for individuals. Under the current system, effective oversight of quality and value for money is not strong enough. Through the consultation, we will consider new approaches to transparency and oversight. Our aim should be consistent standards for everyone living in supported housing, alongside a clear demonstration to the taxpayer of value for money.

We want to ensure simplicity and a streamlined process, in line with the principles of universal credit, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned. We have a solid foundation of universal credit delivery in every Jobcentre Plus, and people who are moved from housing benefit to universal credit by the Department after April 2019, and whose overall benefit entitlement will be lower, will be protected in cash terms under transitional arrangements.

As I have said, we recognise the diversity of the supported housing sector, in terms of both the groups of people who live in such provision and the range of support needs that they may have. Officials and Ministers from across the DWP and DCLG have held extensive meetings with representatives from across the sector to understand the nuances of what a new model needs to deliver. They have asked specifically about additions in the consultation document, including what potential role additional statutory provisions or duties for local authorities in England could play, particularly in terms of protecting provision for specific vulnerable groups. The task and finish groups we are setting up to consider a number of detailed aspects of the model are being carefully put together to ensure that the breadth of the sector is represented. I think three hon. Members asked whether the Government would commit to piloting the new funding model. There will be shadow-year arrangements in place on the detail and allocation of funding, to allow for the full transition to the new model from April 2018.

During the last two financial years, the majority of local authorities spent less than 100% of their allocation of discretionary housing payment from central Government. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark has urged me not to dwell on DHP—this will be one of my few references to it—but we provided local authorities with £560 million in DHP funding in the last Parliament, and we have committed to a further £870 million over the next five years. The amount of top-up funding will be set on the basis of current projections for future need. Budgets for years beyond those already set will be determined in the usual way: at future spending reviews. I emphasise again that we want to work with the sector, through the consultation, to consider the wider strategic goals, such as responding to expected future growth in demand.

We see an opportunity here to do things differently, and to create a new strategic approach to commissioning supported housing. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) made a number of important points about doing better. He also raised the issue of the YMCA. I have been pleased to visit a number of projects since coming into this role in July, and I have long been a supporter of the work of the YMCA and have welcomed the input it has made to this process so far. I also visited a foyer in St Ives, and I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance, particularly for young people in the supported housing sector, of having move-on accommodation and increasing their level of education and training so that they have a better opportunity of employment.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) spoke of Open Door in his constituency and its supported flat service. He made the valid point that there are very different accommodation landscapes across Scotland. We recognise that challenge, which is one of the reasons why we are devolving this responsibility to local authorities and to the Scottish Parliament.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) asked what contact I had had with Scottish members of the sector. In one of my roundtable meetings, I was pleased to have representatives from Scottish housing associations who came down to London to put their point of view across. I pay particular tribute to Scottish Women’s Aid, along with Women’s Aid nationally, which has been really constructive and engaged throughout this process, both with myself and with my noble Friend Lord Freud, who is the Minister for Welfare Reform. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives mentioned a specific case in his constituency about students. I will be happy to meet him later to discuss that.

As we know, the Scottish and Welsh Governments have devolved responsibility for housing policy and already determine their own priorities. We anticipate that the Treasury will advise those Governments of their allocations at around the same time as the local authorities in England, which we expect will be in autumn 2017.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate and I also thank the Minister and the Front-Bench spokespeople. Members from St Ives to Strangford have emphasised the need to get this right. The context is that the Government made an ill-thought-through announcement last year. They got it wrong, and while there have been some welcome comments from the Minister, I note that there was no apology for the damage done to the sector by that uncertainty and instability over the last year. It is a sector that saves the taxpayer about £3.5 billion through things such as preventing bed-blocking, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day).

I hope the Minister will use the consultation and the next few months to genuinely develop and improve these plans, to ensure that the Government get the policy right for the people, organisations and councils affected. I am sure there will be further opportunities to examine the issue in more detail, including through the joint inquiry by the Work and Pensions Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee in the new year. I hope all Members will contribute more fully over time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the effect of Government proposals on supported housing.

Under-occupancy Charge

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

In what can only be described as coalition fervour, my Liberal Democrat predecessor voted for the bedroom tax eight times, despite a severe local impact. Based on the court decision, how many of the 4,238 people hit by the bedroom tax in Southwark should not have been affected?

[Damian Green]

I do not have figures at that level of detail. I hope that Southwark Council has been assiduous in using discretionary housing payments to make sure that people have not lost out financially, because those DHPs are available.