---

Housing Benefit (Loss of Benefit) (Pilot Scheme) (Supplementary) Regulations 2007

My Lords, I am not aware that another order is in the offing or anticipated. I stress that we are dealing with pilots, and the flexibility that they present should be borne in mind, but it is quite possible that the guidance will be adjusted in the course of them. I stress that the guidance has been drafted with the pilot authorities and relevant stakeholders, including those who represent vulnerable people. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred to extensive consultation, which is right. We know that a number of stakeholders are not particularly happy with the direction of this policy, but they have engaged with us and, within the context of what is happening, they are content with the guidance. We are reassured by that. I am satisfied that the guidance is balanced and encourages those considering whether to sanction to take all circumstances into account in a sensitive way. The guidance sets out, for example, that a multi-agency approach should be adopted when a decision is being taken whether to sanction. It is envisaged that in most cases decisions whether to sanction will be made by a panel of key professionals and support workers. The guidance acknowledges that, with a multi-agency approach, some agencies may support the use of the sanction but others may oppose it. If this is the case, there will need to be a clear separation between assessment and decision. In determining whether a sanction should be imposed, the following should be taken into account: the circumstances of the household and the impact that a sanction is likely to have; previous support provided and the impact on the household’s behaviour; efforts made to engage with the household and the response; details of support available to the household and when it is available; whether the individuals know and understand that a sanction may be imposed and what this will mean in practical terms; and the likelihood that a sanction will bring a desired change in behaviour. Members of the household should be given the opportunity to explain why they will not engage and whether any circumstances should be taken into account. They should also be asked about the impact of the sanction on their ability to secure adequate housing, their physical and/or mental health, and their ability to maintain education, training and work. When doing this, the local authority should take into account literacy, language and communication skills if, for example, face-to-face contact is the best way in which to engage with the person. The guidance sets out detailed steps to be taken in dealing with vulnerable people, particularly those with mental health issues, physical and sensory impairments, learning difficulties and drug abuse issues. I have placed a copy of the guidance in both House Libraries and sent it to noble Lords on the Front Benches. On the more specific points that have been made, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred to the SSAC. It was consulted informally on the draft regulations and made its view clear. There has been extensive consultation, as we have said. The noble Lord is right in a sense in that any proposal that seeks to safeguard people and ensure that a provision is fair could add to the complexity; we see that in so many areas of government policy, not least in taxation policy, which we debate from time to time. The number of areas is eight, not 10. The noble Lord was also right that there can be no sanction if the relevant services are not available. That is very clear from the guidance and from statements that we have made on a number of occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked how many of the pilots had family intervention projects and instanced five. That is right. Part of the benefit of the pilots is to see what happens in other areas with mechanisms other than formal family intervention projects. I was also asked how many pilots are being held in respect zones. I think that three are. One is being held in London, which has no respect areas. Respect-area status was for the most active areas, so they are not all in respect areas. We have dealt with the point that not all pilots have FIPs. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked whether we thought that this would be a success and whether the sanctions would be used. The best outcome would be if they were not used, because that would mean that they were acting as a deterrent and were encouraging people to engage with the support that is on offer. That is particularly what we want. The noble Lord also asked about innocent members of households. This issue was also raised by the SSAC and is very much part of the judgment that a court would make, because the process is triggered in the first instance by a possession order due to anti-social behaviour. Obviously a range of circumstances would routinely be taken into account. I hope that I have dealt with most of the issues that noble Lords have raised. I am very happy to try to answer further questions if I have not. The sanction is not intended to be widely used, but it will provide another way for local authorities to help families in crisis to obtain the support that they need. I am comforted that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is not intent on pressing the Motion to a vote, but I appreciate the opportunity to debate this policy matter with both noble Lords.