Welfare Reform Bill

moved Amendment No. 108: 108: Clause 36 , page 30, line 21, at end insert— ““(2C) Regulations made under subsection (2) above may also provide for— (a) a requirement by the authority administering the benefit to establish arrangements to offer referrals to free money management advice and support for any person entitled to housing benefit and receiving direct payments of that benefit who requires such help, (b) a requirement for the authority to take steps to proactively identify claimants who are unlikely to have sufficient money management skills for accepting direct payment of housing benefit; and to make arrangements for the payments of benefit to be made direct to the landlord in such circumstances, (c) in respect of paragraph (b) the authority will take such steps as are necessary to determine that the claimant is not a person at risk, (d) for the purposes of paragraph (c) a claimant is a ““person at risk”” if he— (i) has a learning disability; (ii) suffers a medical condition that seriously impairs his ability to manage on a day to day basis; (iii) is illiterate or unable to speak English; (iv) has an addiction to drugs, alcohol or gambling; (v) is fleeing domestic violence; (vi) is a care leaver; (vii) is someone who has recently left prison; or (viii) presents himself to the authority as someone otherwise at risk.”””” The noble Lord said: The amendment stems from Citizens Advice’s experience of the Pathways project, as well as from the proposal to pay the new local housing allowance directly to the claimants, as opposed to the current situation where much housing benefit is paid directly to the landlord. Paragraph (d) of the proposed new subsection states that, "““a claimant is a ““person at risk”” if he—" (i) has a learning difficulty; (ii) suffers a mental condition that seriously impairs his ability to manage on a day to day basis; (iii) is illiterate or unable to speak English””— I would have worded that differently— ““(iv) has an addiction to drugs, alcohol or gambling; (v) is fleeing domestic violence; (vi) is a care leaver; (vii) is someone who has recently left prison; or (viii) presents himself to the authority as someone at risk””. Primarily, these are people who will have trouble coping with or organising their financial situation. At the moment, they do not have to worry about the temptations of money going through their hands or through bank accounts. Many of them will not have bank accounts, or will have terminated them. These people will be at risk of severely mismanaging funds. It is well established that not only lack of money but also handling money incorrectly leads to a great deal of poverty. In this case—and we are talking about somebody losing his home and all the consequences that flow from that—I ask the Minister whether the Government can find some way to accept this amendment or something very like it. If it is to become the norm for people falling into these groups—for example, someone with a drugs, alcohol or gambling addiction, or who is just out of prison—to have access to the money, why do we not simply straightaway hand the money to the suppliers? It is literally that simple. My noble friend used the term ““no-brainer””. I do not know if that is parliamentary language, but this is roughly getting towards it. I beg to move.