Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Tuesday 14th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, as we have heard, without our amendment, the Bill will deny thousands of disabled people aged under 20 the right to a non-means-tested ESA when they reach working age. These young people are exactly those whom we discussed in the first amendment—disabled since either birth or childhood. When they grow up they will no longer be entitled to a benefit in their own right but instead will have to rely on means-tested benefit, depriving them of an independent income as an adult. As it stands, even those young people unlikely ever to be able to work will never be entitled to non-means-tested benefits as they will never have the chance to build up a national insurance contribution record. That means that those with early-onset conditions will for ever be disadvantaged compared with those who become disabled later in life and have therefore had time to build up enough contributions to receive non-means-tested benefits.

Clause 52 abolishes the right of people under 20 with work-limiting conditions to be treated as if they had met the NI contributions. I wonder whether our colleagues in the Commons really meant to reject our amendment in the knowledge that it affects young people, some with profound disabilities from childhood, and those with the greatest disadvantage in the labour market. The Bill removes their access to an independent income and reduces their chance of achieving independence. As my noble friend Lady Lister said, it was not to save money—at least that was not listed as a policy intent in the Government’s paper. Therefore, it can only be about changing behaviour, but how do these youngsters change their disability? Most of them would love to work but it is the behaviour of others, particularly understanding employers, which will be the biggest determinant of whether they can find work.

As my noble friend Lady Lister said, these changes are, for the country, tiny—£17 million cumulative—but the impact on young disabled people will be huge. On average, 70 per cent will lose about £25 a week, but 10 per cent of those 15,000 youngsters will lose entitlement altogether, because they have either savings or income from another family member. The Minister spoke earlier about inheritance. I do not know people who go around inheriting lots of money; maybe he does. The idea that because some people may inherit, everyone should be denied access to benefit, I find very strange.

The impact assessment also does not look at the effect on other family members. The introduction of a means test will undoubtedly decrease the incentive for anyone living with a young disabled person either to work or to build up savings. Indeed, these young disabled people will actually have a huge negative dowry to bring into any relationship, because the earnings of the person whom they would love to move in with will immediately kick in against the means-tested benefits of these young disabled people.

We do not know—we cannot work it out from the income assessment—exactly which people will be affected. However, the figures for those under 16 claiming DLA show that 41 per cent of them do so in relation to a learning disability. It is reasonable to assume that a large proportion of the people affected will also be in this group. As my noble friend has said, this is not the amendment she wanted to table. While we must accept that the Commons has given its decision on this provision that removes the right from these people, we ask the Government to monitor its impact, if only to assure both Houses that our fears for these young people are not justified.

The Minister has said that he will review all such policies and impacts of the Bill. We hope as we begin the ending, if you like, of this period of the Bill that the Government can say yes to this very small amendment, which only writes in that such a review should take place.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the short answer is that we will monitor it. However, I do not accept the amendment and I will explain exactly why. It does not work in the way that is intended. It is designed for us to have a full formal review. As noble Lords will recognise, we do have reviews and we treat them very seriously. If you look at the example of the Harrington review of the WCA, you see that they can be of immense value in the development of policy.

The way this one would work is that we would have a review one year after the measure came into force. The amendment would require that that report—a big formal report—is laid before the Houses of Parliament within three months, an incredibly rapid timescale as I am sure that the noble Baroness will recognise. We will monitor this and use evidence from a large number of sources on the experiences and outcomes of those affected. We will use DWP administrative datasets to monitor the trends in both the caseloads and in the level and distribution of benefit entitlements.

I want to put into context the huge paraphernalia that this amendment would require in practice. We are looking at the region of 15,000 claims to ESA youth every year. We expect 10 per cent of those not to qualify for ESA—not to be in the system. That is 1,500 people. It is not appropriate to have on the Bill a major Houses of Parliament review when the numbers are so small. The timing is not right. One does not look at a policy like this only once; one needs to keep it under review and look at it over a number of years, not do it in an inflexible way. I am trying to say that I buy the point that we need to watch it, but I do not think this amendment works. We can evaluate detailed specialist research. Broad surveys will be useless. It is too small and we will not pick up anyone if we do it on the FRS. It will be five people if we do it like that. We will have to review it very differently and then use it to inform how we guide our future policy direction and, potentially, operational improvements.

I do not wish to row about benefit tourism. The reason that it came through late, to be blunt, is that my blood was chilled towards the end of last year when I started working through some of this stuff. That is why I missed it in November. I had not really absorbed the implications. I do not think I would call it a panic—

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, under this construct, they will have to do the six months to wipe off the sanctions. Let us not forget that the sanctions that we are talking about do not involve the full amount of support but the equivalent of the JSA—£63-odd. There will be a very strong incentive on that person to take absolutely anything to fill in the rest of the time.

As I said, this is a very interesting area of deterrence and compliance and how we influence behaviour, which is exactly why I wanted to have the powers to pilot all these things. This is our starting point. Noble Lords have influenced us into making the lift at the six-month level, and it is clearly our best view today on what the reasonable balance is. No one can know yet as we have not done the live testing, but we will do it and we will be able to look at this and get the balance absolutely right. It might need to be milder, it might need to be tougher, but noble Lords will appreciate that if we pilot and test and look at these things in the way that I am describing, we will start to get answers on what works and move away from some of the rather more excited commentary and pressures from some of the media in this area. It could be of great interest to noble Lords if we start to move this into a social science area where we know the answer as opposed to an area where everyone has an opinion.

With those thoughts, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for passing the test on the regulations—obviously I knew; I was just testing him—and finding that out, which I had obviously failed to do.

As I said earlier, we welcome the fact that the Government have undoubtedly accepted that the three-year sanctions need to be lifted in certain circumstances. However, questions remain, some of which could be dealt with in regulations. For example, people need to know what the carrot is and what they have to do to get sanctions lifted. There is still the problem of defining work, particularly for someone who has childcare responsibilities and the job offer simply does not fit in with their responsibilities.

I am sure the Minister did not mean this, but I also worry about the idea of an incentive to take anything that is offered. Would that not allow certain rogue employers to exploit people on benefits because they know that if there are sanctions they can offer pretty thankless and underpaid jobs? Similarly, I also worry about people leaving a job. There is the problem of the strength of an employer, but those worries are by the by. The biggest thing to say about this is that the idea that you have to get a job to come off sanctions, even if you live in an area where there are simply no jobs available, remains a problem. However, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to pilot and test this. If it proved to be a big stumbling block, I assume that he could come back with regulations to allow for that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, does not Davos sound interesting? I gather that the Prime Minister is there as well as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, but that Mick Jagger decided not to turn up. The advantage in one sense of the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, is that we have had the privilege of hearing the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who is second to none in his experience of working with substance abusers and those with mental health problems. It is good to have him here.

The subject of mental health is an important one and has featured a lot in our debates throughout the Bill—in discussions on where and whether conditionality is appropriately applied, in looking at the length of time for which contributory employment and support allowance should be available, and in assessing ways of dealing with the caseload for DLA and how best to introduce and assess the new PIP criteria. In all these we have been dealing with the consequences of the increasing mental problems that have been touched on. We know that the diagnosis of mental health problems has been rising. An NHS study in 2007 found that the prevalence of common psychiatric disorders severe enough to need treatment was between 6 and 9 per cent among people of working age. That means that we are talking about between one in 10 and one in 20 of our fellow citizens.

The consequences of that for the Bill and for the DWP are most obvious in the growth of the number of people eligible for DLA. Since 2002 the rise in the number of claims—which the Minister has frequently cited when making the case for reform of the benefit—has been almost entirely accounted for by those with either learning disabilities or mental health conditions. So, ensuring that employment and mental health treatment services are working closely together would have clear benefits not only—although most importantly—for claimants, but also for the department’s own efforts to reduce the number of people forced out of work through ill health. Equally vital will be an attempt to work with employers to help them better understand and equip themselves to be able to use the talents of those who, whether on an ongoing basis or for short periods, experience poor mental health.

I hope the Minister will outline in his response not only how employment-focused services, in particular for those on ESA, are working with mental health experts and ensuring that claimants receive the right treatment, but also what his department is doing to encourage employers to put the right support in place and to take a positive attitude towards workers with poor mental health. If he follows up on the excellent suggestion of a meeting, it would be particularly appropriate, along the lines set out by my noble friend Lord Winston, to include the Department of Health in it. Perhaps we will be able to encourage a bit of cross-Whitehall working on this issue.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Layard, who is in a better place, and the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who moved the amendment, for all their work on mental health conditions. Last month I had a very good meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, on these matters, so there is an active dialogue. I want to put this into some context. This is an area that I have taken an enormous interest in, and I think that we need to go much further. What we need to realise is that we are right at the beginning of the process of even thinking that for people with these kinds of illnesses, work is a solution and not a problem for them. It is early days in our understanding of what to do and how to do it, but in the years to come we will have a really good opportunity to try to lock some of this stuff down. It can be done from several directions, which I want to describe.

The problem is that, as we know, around a third of those going on to ESA have a primary diagnosis of a mental health condition, although dual diagnosis and co-morbidity is seen in many cases. Indeed, a lot of people have mental health problems because they are long-term unemployed or long-term inactive. They need the right interventions to help them back into work, and mental health services are absolutely vital in that area, along with employment training and support. It must be the role of GPs and health services to diagnose conditions and work out what, if any, specialist health support should be provided to each individual, and to make those referrals to specialist health services. They have the knowledge to make those complex judgments. It is not the role of non-medically qualified individuals in Jobcentre Plus to do that; it is simply not appropriate. They can do some things—they can signpost people to health support such as the IAPT programme; they can provide work support—but they do not have the training or the knowledge formally to refer individuals to specialist health support. Nor do I want to go down the road of mandation into treatment or of out-of-work obligations. That is not the right way to go. I think that noble Lords will immediately understand all the human rights issues around that.

I assure noble Lords that we have a significant number of safeguards in place to ensure that individuals who present with mental health conditions and who may need specialist health support are signposted to such support. If at work capability assessment stage an individual presents with unexpected findings or undiagnosed physical or mental health conditions that cause the healthcare professional concern, and they feel that their GP should be aware of it, that information goes to the GP within 24 hours of the assessment. Again, it reinforces the role of the GP.

I am not talking about passing the buck to the NHS, because we have an important role to play. We need to ensure that the incentives in the system are right so that we stop people falling out of work—mental health conditions come second behind musculoskeletal conditions in the list of reasons. These concerns led me to commission the sickness absence review led by Dame Carol Black and David Frost. That important review has done a lot of the analysis that I wanted, and one of its recommendations was an independent assessment service which offers a kind of second opinion and a much more coherent view on what a person can do in terms of the workplace and their illness. That is about catching people at the right time, and I want to be able to catch people right at the start. The review has made a very serious set of recommendations which, as we work through their implications, could become a valuable motor to our rethinking how we supply help and make the connections between health and work. That is one opportunity that we now have. We are taking our time to get our reaction out because we want to get it right and to sort this issue out in its context.

We are also working with work programme providers to help them support those of their participants who have a mental health condition in gaining employment. We have had a bit of a slow start, as I had to admit in this Chamber yesterday, with the flow of ESA, although there are good signs that it is beginning to pick up. We have established a relationship between the prime providers and the mental health specialists, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who is one of the key people in working out the mental health interventions that help people on the road to work. He has started working that out precisely and I am looking to him to give me some of the answers. I should probably vote against him rather than him against me because he has the responsibility in that area.

Within Jobcentre Plus we have launched a new support for all advisers to ensure that they are better skilled in helping claimants to improve their health and well-being. Jobcentre Plus employs disability employment advisers who are able to help claimants with the most severe health problems and to refer them to specialist divisions, such as Work Choice. We employ mental health and well-being partnership managers to build practical links between the local mental health services and employment services. Outside of the employment support we provide, the department has been actively engaged with the Department of Health to ensure that employment support is an integral part of the IAPT programme. Similar work is ongoing with the devolved Administrations.

This is a serious amendment on a serious matter. It is a difficult matter and we are not going to sort it out with a little bit of legislation. I commit to continue giving the issue serious consideration and effort. We can make a big improvement to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and I commit to go on working in this area. I will have any meeting on this matter. My door is always open anyway but on this matter it is wide open. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I have to admit that this amendment is not as expensive as the £1.4 billion PIP one, because the noble Baroness is looking to do the research afterwards rather than stopping it all and doing the research first, which would have delayed it. The reason why the PIP amendment was so expensive was the one-year delay, meaning that all those savings would not have accrued.

The intention behind this amendment is to allow discussion of the impact of the universal credit on both the accessibility of childcare and work incentives for potential second earners. Working families will be able to receive support in respect of 70 per cent of monthly childcare costs up to £760 for one child or £1,300 for two or more children. These amounts are equivalent to the current arrangements in tax credits.

We understand that childcare plays a crucial part in parents’ work decisions and are determined to help those moving into the workplace, which is why we found the extra £300 million to help people below the 16-hour limit of tax credits. The childcare market is very varied and does not always effectively meet the needs of working parents. We are introducing flexibility into the system, such as through introducing monthly limits based on actual paid costs, so that it supports the childcare market better. Local authorities in England and Wales have the duty to secure as far as reasonably practicable sufficient childcare for working parents. The Department for Education is currently consulting on whether a local annual report would be a more effective and meaningful way of enabling parents to hold their local authority to account.

Let me move now to the concerns over the work incentives for potential second earners. My views on this are on the record. The costs are high. If couples who were both in work were entitled to an additional disregard of, say, £700 a year, the cost would be £240 million. If the disregard were £1,000, the cost would be £350 million. Those are the sums and we simply do not have them at this stage. Universal credit should mean that most families in which one parent works full-time for 35 hours a week for the minimum wage will not live in poverty.

The amendment asks us to confirm in legislation that we will undertake a formal review of both these areas. However, my real response is that these are just two particular areas. We will monitor the effect of universal credit right across aspect after aspect of its impacts. I have also included powers in the Bill to pilot different policy approaches. We will do that by having affirmative regulations to approve particular pilots. Any substantive changes following a pilot will also require regulations and be subject to the usual SSAC, so there are a lot of protections here.

It will not be a question of doing a review of something such as the second-earner incentive. I want to see a pilot in which we can pinpoint the value of moving it around. That is a far more useful way of finding out such things. What is the effect of the taper? What is the effect of the second-earner disregard? What is the effect of moving them around? We need to know all these things in a much more coherent way than we would from carrying out a review. We will have econometric analysis of a kind that leaves anything that we have seen in the past in the dust. Therefore, this requirement for a review and a report on specific impacts just creates unnecessary bureaucracy. That is not the way I want to do it.

To summarise, I hope it is clear that we are aware of these two issues, which are very important and interesting. I will continue to give them the attention that they deserve, and I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Having had the promise of the intention to give these issues the importance that they deserve, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, it seems that the HMRC’s position on tax credits is to say, “If we fail to meet our responsibilities but you meet all yours, we won’t ask you to pay back all of an overpayment caused by our failure”. That is quite a strong statement of their side of the bargain and recognition of an error made by HMRC. Its own code of practice and guidance sets out the limitations of payments where a claimant is experiencing hardship and the circumstances in which an overpayment will be written off.

Given that we will now have a new and unfamiliar system of universal credit, once it is clear both that there has been an official error and that the recipient could not possibly have known about it, if all those overpayments were to be clawed back in those circumstances the officials would have precious little incentive to get the system right, despite the hardship that that could later cost claimants who, through no fault of their own, were overpaid.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said:

“Although the starting point for overpayment recoverability will be that almost all overpayments of working-age benefits … will be recoverable … DWP will consider a claimant’s means, income or expenditure if the debtor”—

I do not like that word because it suggests that the claimant in some way invited this—

“considers that they are in hardship”.

However, that means that repayment is essentially means-tested in that the DWP will have the discretion to write off an overpayment based, in the Minister’s words, “on their individual merits”.

The Minister promised the Committee that the DWP,

“will ensure that deductions from benefit or earnings to repay an overpayment should not lead a debtor”—

a claimant—

“to suffer undue hardship”.—[Official Report, 23/11/11; col. GC 468.]

However, it seems to me that this has two problems. First, it is discretionary and possibly means-tested but without anyone knowing the rules. HMRC’s draft code, which was sent to us in December, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has said, says only that it might decide in exceptional circumstances not to seek recovery of an overpayment or part of it and that there are no prescribed circumstances for a discretionary write-off, although it hints that it would do so only in cases of immediate significant family hardship or a threat to their health, and emphasises that hardship is taken to be “other than financial hardship”.

Secondly, the code relies on claimants knowing that they can appeal against a required repayment without having been informed about that. The draft leaflet really does not make it very clear, nor does it explain how to appeal. If I have understood it correctly, it says only that you can consider the amount that is being asked for, but not the fact that you have to pay it because of your own circumstances. The Minister said in Committee,

“that if the debtor considers they are in hardship, they can say that and then there is a process built on that”,—[Official Report, 23/11/11; col. GC 469.]

but it is not clear how that would work. If this amendment falls and the system proceeds, will the Minister assure us, first, that anyone asked to repay to cover for official error will be told of their right to appeal; secondly, that they will be given rather more guidance than that given in the draft leaflet as to the circumstances in which any write-off will be allowed; and, thirdly, where the repayment is sought from landlords, which in certain cases it would be, that they will also have the right of appeal against a loss of income over which they will have no control?

The Minister knows that the IT problems caused significant headaches and hardship for many claimants in the early days of tax credits. Getting the position right on overpayments and ensuring that claimants do not feel that they have been unjustly made to pay for the errors of government officials will be essential to building confidence in universal credit. We look forward to the Minister’s response to these and the other queries raised, and emphasise that this amendment is about the consequences of official error, not of claimant mistakes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, as we have previously discussed, Clause 103 is based on the premise that for those benefits within its scope, most if not all overpayments will be recoverable. I think we are all in agreement that a benefit recipient should not receive any more money than they are due; nor should they receive any less. In keeping with this general principle, we believe that a benefit recipient should not be allowed to keep money that they should not have received and that this should hold true even if they were not aware of the mistake. I do not think that we can accurately compare the issue of tax credit overpayments, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, with that of benefit overpayments. That is because awards of tax credit are based on an estimate of what someone will earn, whereas benefit entitlement is based on actual information—and of course it will not have escaped anyone’s notice that the level of tax credit debt has grown significantly.

As we have discussed before, although the provision allows for all overpayments to be recoverable, this does not necessarily mean that overpayments will be recovered in all circumstances. We will endeavour to recover all overpayments where we are able to do so and where it is reasonable to do so without causing undue hardship. This remains a cornerstone of our overpayment recovery policy. The code of practice, a draft version of which has been distributed to noble Lords, will provide guidance about the circumstances in which recovery action will or will not be taken. It is intended that the code of practice will be available to the public in leaflet form and online. This will ensure that the decision-making process is transparent and that the right decisions are made about the recovery of overpayments. Where a claimant wishes to challenge a decision, they may exercise their right of appeal against it.

To pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on what compels decision-makers to apply the code of practice, the application will form part of the decision-making process, and failure to adhere to it would leave the DWP open to challenge and appeal on the decision itself or, indeed, judicial review for failure to apply good practice. While there may be no legal duty to comply, failure to do so renders the department more open to successful appeal by the claimants. So we have every incentive to adhere to the code of practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McKenzie, I also thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for that meeting. I know that he found it of considerable interest and use. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, of course knows rather a lot about penalties, sanctions and their fairness. His amendment seeks to ensure that the appropriate guidelines and procedures are in place when a jobcentre or local authority imposes sanctions, fines or penalties on claimants, and particularly that, when officials impose such penalties, they give clear reasons for doing so.

Clarity about circumstances in which a penalty, sanction or overpayment can be recovered is vital if administrative justice is to be realised but also to enable claimants to have confidence in the system. It obviously also makes the job of officials considerably easier when there is a clear set of steps to follow and a clear description of the circumstances in which they should consider possible hardship to a claimant. It is also essential that the reasons for any sanction or repayment are set out, preferably in writing, so that the claimant, any adviser or a reviewer can understand the grounds on which the decision was taken. We look forward to the Minister giving us assurances that a set of guidelines, safeguards and relevant procedures will be in place so as to meet the aspirations set out in the amendment.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I need to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for arranging a really useful seminar the other week on a range of issues related to sanctions and penalties. I was equally impressed by the content of that seminar, the iron discipline with which it was conducted and how much ground we managed to cover. We are very keen to draw on the expertise of others as we develop our implementation plans. I look forward to continuing to work with interested groups in this collaborative manner. I gave a commitment in that meeting that we would work collaboratively with the groups involved. I am pleased to repeat formally here that that collaboration will happen.

Turning to the substance of the amendment, I hope I have made clear that we are really on the same page on many of these issues. We absolutely agree that clear guidance should be issued to officials making decisions on behalf of the Secretary of State where discretion is exercised. We do this now and will continue to do it under universal credit. Decision-makers will be required to follow this guidance when applying the law to the facts of the case where they consider a decision about a claim, sanctions for non-compliance with work-related requirements, a civil penalty or the recovery of overpayment. As is currently the case, we will make this guidance publicly available.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I am looking forward to the Minister’s reply, otherwise we will worry about the sleeping patterns of the noble Lord. These amendments, as has been clearly set out, seek to mitigate the risk of paying the entirety of universal credit to one person and, in particular, to provide protection for women who are more likely to be the main carer in a couple and less likely to have the power in the relationship to determine how money is managed.

The Government’s proposals suggest that universal credit payments would not, other than exceptionally, be split between a couple. Instead, they would be paid, as we have heard, entirely into one bank account. The DWP briefing note states that,

“the Government wishes to place responsibility for household budgeting with the household. It is not Government’s role to dictate how a household spends their money”.

However, these amendments are not about how households spend their money but how they receive it. They are about allowing households to decide to whom the money should be paid. This principle is long established in social security policy. Households receiving child benefit can nominate a main carer and those receiving working tax credit can receive child tax credit in the bank account of the main carer and working tax credit in the bank account of the other partner.

Concerns about the shift in policy from this have been voiced by a wide range of organisations, all of which have presented strong arguments in favour of ensuring that the part of universal credit intended for children is paid to the person who has the main care of them. As has already been spelt out, we know that benefits labelled as intended for children are more likely to be used for that purpose. This amendment would enable the Government to identify the parts of the credit intended to help with the costs of children.

Research for HMRC shows that child tax credit is commonly identified as money for children and more often spent accordingly. Again, as has been said, we know that money within the household is frequently unequally distributed, particularly in low-income families. An Oxfam study of black and minority ethnic women in low-income couples revealed cases where,

“women had so little access to money that their husbands were effectively in control of key aspects of their lives”.

Benefits for children are sometimes the sole source of independent income for vulnerable women.

As the Women’s Budget Group points out,

“putting benefits together is key to the design of UC; paying it into one account is not”.

There can already be exceptions. Sometimes, for example, there will be rent for certain categories of recipients. Support for mortgage interest may be paid to lenders and, as the Women’s Budget Group states,

“a sanctioned claimant could lose their UC, and the remainder … paid to their partner”.

The DWP briefing acknowledges:

“There may, however, be exceptional cases that require alternative arrangements: to ensure safeguards. The Government intends to retain powers to split payments between members of a couple in joint claim cases”.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, will be able to sleep easy in his bed because it seems clear to me that the technology will exist to enable the Minister, if he so desires, to accept either or both of these amendments; that is, either paying the child elements of universal credit to the main carer or, in line with the Government’s assertion that they wish to enable choice, allowing families to choose to split their payments.

Resistance to these amendments would suggest that administrative simplicity is seen as more important than either ensuring that women have an independent income or encouraging money which is intended for children to reach them. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the argument for these changes.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, under universal credit, couples will make a joint claim for benefit payment. We have been clear that claimants will receive universal credit as a single payment, which will ensure that claimants can clearly see the effect of their decisions about work on total household income. The House debated this issue extensively in Committee. We also discussed direct monthly payments in another context when the House accepted the principle of a single payment. Couples will be able to choose which bank account the total universal credit award should go into. Once universal credit has been paid into that account, claimants will have the freedom to manage their money how they wish. They will have the opportunity to transfer some of that money into another account, or they may choose to have the universal credit paid into a joint account in the first place.

Giving people these choices to manage their money is in line with evidence that suggests that, in today’s world, the majority of couples pool their resources—

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, my name is also on this amendment and it is clear that we support it. The amendments are, I hope, welcomed by the Minister as an opportunity to firm up what, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has said, he said before Christmas: that carers of claimants of both rates of the daily living component will retain eligibility for the carer’s allowance, and to make that undertaking concrete by placing it in primary legislation.

The Minister and the House know well that the changes to disability benefits are causing considerable concern to disabled people and to their carers. This amendment is about providing some clarity. It cannot provide full reassurance because carers do not yet know how they will be affected by the 20 per cent proposed cuts or the exact way that the new thresholds will work. We know that half a million people will lose benefit, but we do not know how many of that half a million qualify for carer’s allowance at present. I am afraid we must assume that there will be a large number of current recipients who will no longer qualify for support.

There has not yet been any impact assessment—it is not simply that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, cannot find it. We hope—indeed, we expect—that there will be as part of the response to the consultation announced yesterday. However, for today, we would simply ask the noble Lord to solidify his commitment to those who qualify under the new assessment process that their carers will be able to receive carer’s allowance. At the moment, the Bill does not repeat what is there for DLA. It does not even appear to do it in regulations.

A move from warm words to an undertaking in the Bill to maintain the status of carers’ rights would be very welcome. It would be a sign that the Minister is listening to disabled people and understands their need for clarity. In Committee the Minister spoke very warmly of our 6 million carers. Along with those warm words, can we have something in legislation?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to place on record the value that this Government place on carers and their work. Although times are difficult, I have managed to redesign the universal credit so that we are ameliorating the £100 cliff edge, as carers do some earning, that they dislike so much. I hope that that is a token, even in these difficult times, of how much we value carers.

The second thing I would like to mention is more than a token. I was really pleased to be able to announce before Report that both elements of PIP will be a gateway for the receipt of carer’s allowance. I am grateful for the very detailed and knowledgeable debate that we had on this matter. We have had a lot of very thoughtful and clever representations from groups such as Carers UK, which we have taken very seriously indeed. I know that our announcement has been very warmly welcomed by various groups.

There is some concern about how the decision is to be enacted. That is clearly what is driving the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I want to give an absolute assurance on this. We will use the powers under Clause 90 of the Bill to make the necessary change. We will bring forward, in due course, the appropriate secondary legislation to amend Section 70 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and put the position beyond doubt by making clear that people will be able to access carer’s allowance from both rates of the daily living component of the PIP. That is how we are planning to lock that position down, and it is a commitment that I make here and now to carers in this country. We have listened to the concerns from Peers and the carers’ lobby.

The noble Baroness asked how many carers would be affected. We expect to undertake an impact analysis as we get to regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, spoke about large numbers being affected. That is a slightly brusque assumption given that carers currently on the lowest rate would not anyway be passported. We are talking about the top two rates. The assumption of a 20 per cent cut in that budget does not marry up. It is not a cut on where we are today; it is a cut on where we would be at the end of this Parliament. We have to await the impact analysis before we can know the real figures.

On the basis of the reassurances that I have provided, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, these amendments would improve the assessment process for the new PIP and allay the fears of many people with disabilities that the poor experience of the ESA assessments, where around 40 per cent have been successfully appealed, is not replicated under the new benefits system.

Amendment 50B relates to the training of those undertaking face-to-face assessments to ensure that they have knowledge of mental, intellectual and cognitive disorders, clear guidance about when to access more specialist advice, and a guarantee that such advice will be available. In Committee, we received some encouragement from the Minister who stated:

“Assessors will be required to have a broad training in disability analysis as well as training on specific impairments … we intend to ensure that they have sufficient training in mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments … and will stipulate this in our contracts”.—[Official Report, 16/11/11; col. GC 263.]

Perhaps the Minister could let us know what budget has been set aside for such training.

Amendments 50C and 50D would exempt certain people from a face-to-face assessment where sufficient evidence is available via other means. This would actually save money for the Government. I hope that the Treasury is listening. Implementing face-to-face assessments was to have cost about £675 million. The amendments would reduce the costs by removing from the process claimants for whom a face-to-face assessment is clearly unnecessary. This would help those with lifelong or degenerative conditions, for whom a face-to-face assessment could be stressful. For example, about half those with MS or Parkinson’s are receiving the highest level of DLA. Putting them through an expensive and stressful face-to-face test seems unnecessary.

Again, we received some assurance in Committee. The Minister stated that,

“where there is already sufficient evidence on which to make a decision … we completely agree … a face-to-face consultation should not be required”.

I hope that the flexibility would be there for that. However, he also argued that other than for those with a terminal illness,

“we do not agree that there should be different rules or processes for different groups of people … on the basis of impairment type”.—[Official Report, 16/11/11; col. GC 261.]

Yet, if the Minister is prepared to accept that those with a terminal illness should not be subject to unnecessary assessment, surely the same argument could be applied to those with degenerative conditions where there is no hope of improvement. We look forward to any assurances the Minister can give that unnecessary face-to-face assessments will not be necessary.

If he is not persuaded by me, perhaps he will be persuaded by someone of his own political background—the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. I have never quoted from one of his speeches before. He writes:

“Evidence from the individuals GP and/or a consultant will provide an accurate assessment of need. It would be difficult for a healthcare professional in a one-off meeting to elicit a comprehensive response about the daily reality for each claimant. Face-to-face meetings … could prove … inappropriate for an individual who may have difficulty with social contacts, such as those with autism, or for those with an intellectual or mental health disability”.

This brings me to the first amendment in this group which would ensure that the assessment process always takes account of evidence from the claimant’s old healthcare professional. It builds on the experience of the work capability assessment for ESA and is to help the Government to avoid history repeating itself. Unfortunately, in this case, it would be as tragedy not farce. The problem with the current proposals is that they put the onus on the claimant to collect the medical evidence and also to have the knowledge that would be helpful to provide this. As we have seen with ESA assessments, it is exactly this that often leads to unnecessary duplication as a case is assessed and then reassessed in the light of the evidence from the GP or professional. The initial failure to consider such evidence has contributed to the very high and expensive success rates.

In Committee the Minister argued that while medical evidence could be of use, he felt that it was not necessary to gather evidence in every case. He said:

“In some cases what the claimant has already told us … will be sufficient. In other cases, information … might be likely to add only limited value”.—[Official Report, 16/11/11; col. GC 261.]

Surely it would be better to err on the side of caution, given the widespread inaccuracy of the ESA assessments and the need to ensure that the personal independence payments do not follow the same route. Medical evidence is bound to assist the decision-maker in far more cases than those in which it proves unnecessary.

This is a modest amendment. It seeks to ensure that the introduction of personal independence payments proceeds smoothly and more importantly to ensure that the right benefit is paid to the right people. I hope the Minister will accept this. Certainly it would have our full support.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I could summarise my speech in about three sentences. I am in agreement with virtually everything said in the Chamber. I hope that after my three sentences I will be able to provide assurances. My only point of real disagreement is that I do not want it to be mandatory—in primary legislation. This is in regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood that it reduces flexibility and we are much better off setting it up in regulations and guides and in the contracts. That is our proposed approach but fundamentally we are absorbing all the valuable points made on this group. I will try now with some speed to go through those assurances. I ask noble Lords to stop me with the precise assurance they want if I am not making the assurance well enough.

Amendment 50A was semi-withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, but I will try to deal with it because it is a building block. People being assessed can bring in someone with them—a relation, a friend or a professional—to help them. That is really important in the group we spent a lot of time on this afternoon relating to autism and Asperger’s. When people are over-bright their relation can make the point about the reality and the over-anxiety of the person being assessed. That would be an active role in the process.

I turn now to Amendment 50B. Clearly, we need to make sure that assessors have all the appropriate training to interpret the evidence that they are provided with. I have to make the point that it is not a medical assessment PIP. It does not ask the assessor to diagnose a condition or to recommend treatment options. It is different. It looks at how the conditions or impairments affect individuals’ everyday lives. That is a different skill set from that involved in treatment. There is not quite the same level of need for specialist skills but it is our intention that assessors will have a broad training in disability analysis as well as training in mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments. That level of training will be stipulated in our contracts with any providers and we will be responsible for signing off the training syllabuses. There will be occasions when assessors need more specialist support in the course of making these assessments. We will ensure that they have access to and support from individuals who have the in-depth knowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned with regard to mental health conditions.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I think the fact that this amendment is necessary comes as a surprise. When we started discussions of the Bill, it seemed that the issue of whether recipients of debilitating cancer treatment in the form of oral chemotherapy should be automatically exempted from requirements to look for work was being dealt with in a sensible manner by discussions between the cancer charities, cancer specialists and the Government. It is extremely disappointing to find that these discussions appear to have broken down. Disappointing for us, but extremely worrying for the many cancer patients anxious about what support they will be able to claim and how they will qualify for it when their main focus is living through and coping with some pretty debilitating—as we have heard—albeit wonderful, lifesaving treatments. The Government’s response to the second Harrington review states that its new proposals to ask everyone experiencing cancer treatment to go through the work capability assessment process,

“would increase the number of individuals being treated for cancer going into the Support Group”.

It also states that:

“They would also reduce the number of face-to-face assessments for people being treated for cancer as most assessments could be done on a paper basis, based on evidence presented by a GP or treating healthcare professional”.

While we welcome the acceptance of medical evidence, this proposal still puts cancer patients undergoing treatment through the uncertainty and stress of not knowing whether they will qualify for essential financial support or whether they will be expected to prepare for work while undergoing their treatment. With the proposals to time limit employment and support allowance for those in the work-related activity group, these assessments take on an added importance, since for many people they will determine when the clock starts ticking to the point when they will lose this contributory support altogether.

We do not think that anybody should be written off because they have cancer. We certainly do not think that no one with cancer will ever be able to work again. A brief glance behind me in your Lordships’ House is great testimony. This is not, however, what automatic entry into the support group means. We know that those in the support group can volunteer for access to the work programme and the support there to help them get back into employment. We imagine that the vast majority of those who have overcome their cancer will want to do just that. But for the Government to suggest that those receiving chemotherapy need to be tested to see whether they are really ill enough to avoid a conditionality regime, which we will remind the House was intended to put pressure on people to return to work, suggests that the Government somehow view all cancer patients as potentially taking advantage of the state. We are sure that that is not the Minister’s view and therefore hope that he will be able to accept the amendment.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this is obviously a very sensitive issue, and I want to start by saying that we are determined that the benefit system should support in a sensitive, fair and appropriate way people who are diagnosed with cancer and coping with it. I shall try to go through the argumentation here in as simple a way as I can.

First, we know that cancer and cancer treatment affects individuals very differently. That was one thing that the Macmillan evidence demonstrated. It shows that some people can continue working straight through their treatment, are capable of doing so and want to do so. On that evidence, we believe that automatically putting everyone undergoing certain cancer treatments into the support group is not the right way forward. Clearly, there is the example that the noble Baroness raised, the one in the Sunday Times, of Jenni Murray, who had a bad reaction, and one can only sympathise with that. Everyone in this Chamber will have friends or relatives who have gone through this experience and had a bad reaction. It is always painful. We are all thinking exactly the same thing; we are all thinking of someone we know who has gone through hell on this process. But when you talk to the experts, you get examples of someone—let us take a man—who has had testicular cancer and has recovered well from curative surgery and is now being treated with radiotherapy without any significant side effects. On this ruling, he would be automatically placed in the support group. That is a kind of counter-example, which half of us should be so lucky to have.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hollis made clear, this amendment addresses the cases of those who, not having been housing benefit claimants, become in need of this, perhaps through the loss of a job, a change in domestic circumstances, illness or some other unanticipated event. It is aimed at the potential impact on vulnerable young adults: single people between 25 and 35, who rent in the private sector and from January will only be eligible for the single room rate, losing about £40 a week. Crisis—which we all know, particularly at Christmas, of course—an organisation that knows a thing or two about homelessness, believes that most of the 50,000 or more people affected are likely to lose their homes.

The amendment does not say that these people would be excused the shared room rate up to the age of 35, but it gives them a window of a year in which to find a new home or a job, to get well, or in some way to change their circumstances so that they are no longer dependent on housing benefit. It would extend the current 13-week breathing space to 52.

This is not just a matter of the individuals concerned sorting out their lives but of allowing the market to respond to these new rules. Research by the University of York on the impact of extending the shared-room accommodation rate found that there is insufficient shared accommodation available at the moment. Indeed, this would risk making such accommodation even harder to find for those aged under 25 as the supply of relevant accommodation takes time to build up. Furthermore, the York study found that sharing can sometimes be difficult or even dangerous, as we have already heard, and can have a serious negative impact on the health and well-being of vulnerable people.

As we have already heard, there are exemptions to the shared accommodation policy, including those for severely disabled people, care leavers aged under 22, people who have spent more than three months in a homelessness hostel and received resettlement support and those aged over 25 who are considered a risk to others. It does not include those who might themselves be at risk. In Committee the Minister reminded us of the other exemptions, such as those for certain ex-offenders who pose a risk to the public and certain former residents of specialist homeless hostels, which might include those leaving a refuge following domestic violence.

However, we also heard in Committee of a number of situations in which shared accommodation not covered by those exemptions would pose a real problem for people. My noble friend Lady Sherlock raised the question of single pregnant women, who may find such circumstances particularly difficult. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, raised the issue of those with obsessive compulsive disorder, who may also find the prospect particularly difficult. My noble friend Lord McAvoy, who is not in his position at the moment and is, in his own words, not a social liberal, talked about the situation of those with a mental illness and how they might gradually be forced out of successively worse forms of shared accommodation.

Many of the people caught by this proposed new ruling will be fathers of young children soon after a split, when it is particularly crucial for their relationship with the children to be maintained. If it is not kept close in that first year of separation it is very hard to re-establish it later. That relationship depends not just on shared hamburgers in McDonald’s but on cooking, eating and even washing up together. For this, a place of one’s own, where young children can feel at home—not a house shared with strangers—will be crucial. The amendment relates to that first 12 months, within which we hope finances, jobs or better accommodation can be sorted out. If it is not sorted out in that 12 months, at least it will be much less threatening for those children visiting their now non-resident parent to get used to a different way of living.

The amendment does not reverse the intention of the policy, which the Minister told us was to ensure that claimants make similar choices to those not on benefits. The flaw in his argument is that the circumstances of many of those on benefits are not the same as those who can support themselves. The benefits system is designed exactly to protect people when their circumstances change. The amendment provides a little extra support of this kind. It would give people sufficient time either to address the circumstances—whether job loss, illness or a change in family arrangements—that meant they had to claim benefit, or, at a later time, to find the shared accommodation that best meets their needs. It is a thoughtful amendment, which the Opposition are happy to support.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Amendment 19 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Meacher, deals with a subject that we have debated at considerable length—the shared accommodation rate. In case there is any doubt, let me be clear: the shared accommodation rate is what we pay people to share accommodation, not to share rooms, as some people think. We do not expect people to share one room or a bedroom, but to share accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, dinner beckons. Nevertheless, there are seven good reasons for accepting this amendment.

First, it is cost free. The facility to pay rent directly to landlords is there for certain beneficiaries, so it would simply be a case of using this for others.

Secondly, it helps to give financial responsibility and decision-making to claimants, as it would allow them to choose to have the rent paid in this way.

Thirdly, it is what the rest of us do with our mortgages or rent: it goes straight out of our bank accounts, normally the day after payday—in my case, usually the same day—so that we cannot get our hands on it in the mean time. The difference is, of course, that many of these claimants do not have bank accounts, or a joint bank account if they are a couple, and therefore do not have the ability to make such arrangements for direct payments. Furthermore, if they have a basic bank account, such accounts cannot go into the red, and so if there is not money to pay the rent, it simply will not be paid, even with a direct debit mandate, leading to the build-up of arrears.

Fourthly, this amendment is strongly supported, as has been said, by housing associations and by local authorities. Both know that arrears will build up more quickly without this amendment. For housing associations, the interest on borrowing will increase as their assured-rent income will decrease. To give the example of one housing association, 85 per cent of Riverside tenants choose to have their rent paid directly, as many of its tenants do not have bank accounts, and many more fear the bank charges if they go overdrawn. This is an important way for low-income households to manage their finances. If this existing facility is withdrawn, pilot studies show that, as has already been mentioned, rent arrears are likely to rise sharply, putting tenancies at risk. In addition, funders have indicated that they are likely to regard lending to housing associations as higher risk and thus to increase the cost of funding. In the long term, it will mean that social housing providers will simply be able to do less. Income streams to local authorities will similarly be threatened if direct payments, which exist now without any problems, are ended. CoSLA, the association for local authorities in Scotland, estimates that this will cost about £50 million a year in Scotland alone.

Fifthly, many vulnerable families will be at risk. To quote again from CoSLA:

“COSLA is deeply concerned that Housing Benefit paid direct to claimants without sufficient safeguards will result in an increase of rent arrears and evictions, sending households spiralling into debt and facing homelessness”.

We know the families for which the risk of not paying the rent directly will be the greatest: those with debts, where the pressure to pay these off—whether to the gasman or to the loan shark—will be pressing; those with a family member with a drink, drug or gambling habit, where temptation to use the rent money will be high; and those with immediate demands, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has said, for money to feed their children and yet who want to ensure that the roof over those children’s heads, albeit not today’s problem, is equally vital, so want to have that rent assured. While we know some vulnerable groups will have their rent paid directly, we can see no reason to wait until borderline cases get into problems, struggle and get into rent arrears, before we allow them to have the rent paid directly. Why risk that for no good reason?

Sixthly, it will make sure that we do not dissuade private landlords from coming into this sector.

Seventhly, the strongest argument: the noble Lord, Lord Best, who chairs the Local Government Association and has forgotten more about housing associations than most of us will ever learn, tells us it is the right thing to do. We concur.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, my intention is to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Best, so that he withdraws his amendment. I start by trying to convince the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and my noble friend Lord Cormack of the reason why we are doing this. It is not an arbitrary thing. We are not doing it because we want to annoy housing associations or local authorities. We are doing it for a very simple reason. If you are a tenant in social housing whose housing benefit goes straight through to the landlord and you take a job, all your arrangements for paying for your housing have to change. It is a major change in your arrangements and a real block on you taking the job. It is a major thing for you to organise, and you have to learn, when you take that first job and your housing benefit goes down within universal credit—because that is the change—that the money no longer goes through automatically to the landlord.

We have to break that link. It has to be the same arrangement whether you are working or not working. We deliberately excluded pension-age people from this because we are not expecting them to work. We do not need to worry about the people who find it difficult to work. It is working-age people who we want to go into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Absolutely not; £4 billion is a very substantial figure. Over the course of this SR, we are looking at a loss of £18 billion spread over the four-year period. The noble Baroness can do the sums. The most important thing about universal credit is that the money goes into the pockets of the lowest two quintiles very efficiently. I contend that the noble Baroness’s argument is not a real argument.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, if I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that this is all part of getting people off benefits and into work, which we absolutely support. However, this will also cover those people who are never going to work—those in the support group—as well as people with young children who are not in work for some time. Therefore, we are not talking only about people who are on the cusp; even those people will lose the right to have their rent paid directly.

[Lord Freud]

No, my Lords. We have made it absolutely clear that we expect those who are vulnerable to continue to have payments made directly to the landlord. Indeed, in the private rented sector, where this process has already been in place and has worked rather well, 80 per cent of people pay their landlord directly, and 20 per cent are regarded as vulnerable and have a payment made directly to the landlord. That is how it works there. At the moment in the social rented sector, 95 per cent have direct payments and 5 per cent pay the landlord themselves. Therefore, there is a real disparity there.

I want to provide some reassurance for noble Lords who think that this is a draconian measure. I need to explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that we are doing this for a real reason. It is not arbitrary; it is intended to make sure that there are no artificial barriers for people who would stay in the comfort zone of not working. We need to make it easier for them to make that transition, and that is one thing that we are doing. This will empower people and allow them to manage their finances.

I shall now come to the reassurance factors, which I hope will have noble Lords nodding happily on the Benches. I am determined that, while we introduce this system, the housing sector will remain financially stable. I talk regularly to banks and to rating agencies in particular about what we need to do to make that happen. I am absolutely convinced that we can have our welfare cake—the transformative cake—and financial stability for the housing sector. I shall do nothing that undermines the security of the housing sector in this area. I absolutely understand that this country needs more housing, and it would be madness for us to undermine that ambition.

I completely understand the two imperatives here. We are working closely with local authorities and housing associations in running half a dozen demonstration projects, which are designed to find out exactly how to make direct support payments for housing costs so that they work with universal credit. I have been incredibly pleased that the industry has shown real enthusiasm for taking part in these demonstration projects, with no fewer than 70 different groups looking to join in. During the selection process, we have been delighted at how much choice we have had, and we are finding out what is going to work to get the two things that we need. These demonstration projects will allow us to identify those who are likely to struggle financially. The projects are testing not whether we should introduce direct payments but how to support landlords and tenants ahead of the scheme being introduced. The important part is to get the safeguards operating properly. We need to see when people are not able to handle the system and switch payments to the landlords, and then find out how to recoup the money over the period when landlords do not have it so that their security of income is locked into the system. That is what we are trying to find out here.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned the London & Quadrant research, and we are aiming to apply that to the demonstration projects. It shows the importance of communications. Clearly, we want to improve the outcome and throw out the doubling of arrears.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

If the noble Lord has no idea of how many people are involved, but thinks that the number is less than 50,000, surely he cannot know how much it would cost, and therefore this may be another small amount of money. If the number is small, it cannot cost much to give these people an extra £4 a week.

[Lord Freud]

This is not directly a money matter; it is about the structure and the simplicity of the system. When you are changing from an inchoate system, which is what we have now, there are patches where people are a little less well off than they would have been, and that is why we have transitional protection. As you move to a simple, clean structure, there are problems in doing that, and that is what we are trying to address. By definition, it is not possible to overhaul and simplify a system and keep all the existing rules. Existing claimants will not lose because of the transitional protection, so those who have built their lives around a four-hour week will not lose by this, although within the structure there will be a drive to encourage people to do a little more.

I hope that noble Lords understand what we are trying to do here. I know that there is general support for universal credit, but we must maintain something that is tangibly more simple. With that explanation of why the Government cannot support this amendment, I would urge the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Monday 28th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I am going to apologise because I think that I now stand between the Committee and what I gather is the custom that the Minister buys drinks for the whole Committee at the end.

Despite the late hour, this is a really important issue that needs raising, but I fear that because of the hour we may need to return to it later. The Child Poverty Act 2010, which established the Child Poverty Commission, was passed with cross-party support, and we believe that there is now similar support for the proposal to expand its remit to deal with social mobility, a move which the Opposition certainly welcome. However, we have serious concerns about what will happen to child poverty in the coming years. It has been mentioned several times in the Committee. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has predicted that the number of children in poverty, which had fallen to its lowest level for 25 years by the end of the previous Labour Government, will now under this Government rise to its highest rate since 1999-2000 by 2020, by which time one in four children will be poor, measured in relative terms.

I am going to raise the main points. The main point is the duty. The potential rise in child poverty over the coming years makes the work of this commission essential. The debate about its function—whether it is simply going to help count numbers or whether it is going to give advice about the impact of the numbers—is crucial. If we look at the role of the commission, one of the most important things has been the proposal that it should have a duty to advise Ministers, but this is now to be taken out. It will therefore have no duty to advise Ministers on the preparation of their strategy. It has meant that this is only the responsibility of government.

Surely the commission should not just look at technical issues around the measurement of poverty and social mobility, but should also look at advising on the results of that measurement—to advise the Government on its role. If it was only measuring it, the commission itself would neither attract a high level of membership nor would it be able to do its role properly. We therefore ask why should there not be a requirement that it advise Ministers on the policy itself? Also, how can it be that this commission could be put together without a requirement that people so appointed should be expert in its field? The final question is that it should have to have the ability to get its own research otherwise it would be dependent simply on research from the Government, which it is meant to be scrutinising. I beg to move.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 114B, 114C and 114D, which would require the Government to consult the commission on the development of child poverty strategy, and for the commission to provide advice to the Government on eradicating child poverty.

We believe that unelected public bodies should be established only in cases where there is a clear need for their role to be carried out by an arm's-length body rather than within government. The new commission, with its remit to objectively assess government progress towards improving social mobility and reducing child poverty, is just such a case. A commission established to provide advice is clearly not. There are already a variety of consultation mechanisms by which the Government can obtain independent advice on child poverty and social mobility policy. Indeed, the consultation on the current child poverty strategy received 280 responses. Moreover, it is a fundamental principle of this Government that Ministers are accountable for the policies and strategies they put forward. These amendments put this principle at risk. They offer a degree of scope for Ministers to shrug off responsibility for any lack of success of their strategy.

Amendment 114E requires that the Government publish a response to each of the commission’s reports. By giving the commission the power to publish annual reports, we are actively ensuring that progress on social mobility and child poverty remains a priority for government. The legislation requires that the commission reports be laid before Parliament, providing the opportunity for parliamentary debate.

Amendment 114F reintroduces the requirement from the original Child Poverty Act that the commission should have a particular balance of child poverty expertise. This requirement has been removed because it is clear that the new commission will require a different balance of expertise. It will monitor progress towards both reducing child poverty and improving social mobility, meeting the child poverty targets and implementing the child poverty strategy. I can assure you that Ministers are fully committed to creating a commission with the right combination of expertise. To ensure that this is the case, the recruitment process for all members of the commission, including the chair and the deputy chair, will be carried out in accordance with the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Finally, Amendment 114G would give the commission the right to request Ministers to commission research on its behalf. It would also require Ministers to provide a reason if they decide not to meet the commission’s request. We do not believe that this provision is necessary. This is because the commission’s new role means that there will be no need for the commission to be able to access new research as it will not be responsible for developing new policy or strategy. Instead, the commission will produce annual progress reports, and we would expect the vast majority of the evidence needed to fulfil this role to already be available either in the public domain or from the Government. If the Government need more and need to access new research to fulfil their duties, the new legislation already enables Ministers to provide the commission with such resources,

“as the Minister may determine are required by the commission in the exercise of its functions”.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

I am thinking about this area. I do not think I am thinking in quite the same way as the noble Baroness, but I am looking at it and hope I will be able to have a vigorous conversation with her on where that comes in at a later stage.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I thank the Minister for his responses, although I may not like their content. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe, Lady Lister and Lady Sherlock, for their support on these issues, which are very real. My guess is that there will come a time when the Government will have to revisit this when they see the results.

The words of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, ought to be resonating around. She spoke about vulnerable women and inequalities within households. She said:

“These are women fighting for their children”.

We are talking about people without great access to income needing to feed their children. Very often, it will be a mother living with a man who is not the father of those children. This is great—I am a stepmum and well used to these relationships. But we have to understand that we are very often talking about not the idealised couple but the couple struggling to get their relationship together. Not to enable the woman as a right to have access to that, I find a little strange.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, as I have often said, my education on these issues has grown thanks to the Minister, but I am afraid that today he was trumped by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, from whom I learned that one may use the word “baloney” in your Lordships’ Committee. Given his reputation, I am slightly hesitant about speaking on this, but I will add a few comments. I must say that the last time that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, told us his story about Degsy in Liverpool, we got significant movement from the Minister, so I hope that his charm will work equally well today.

The amendment seeks to ensure that people who are coming out of custody get swift access to the benefits to which they are entitled. The Prison Reform Trust report, Time is Money, stated that eight out of 10 former prisoners claim benefits. Obviously, delays in accessing them can lead to enormous financial hardship and stress. It can also increase the risk of reoffending. We also know—although I am sure not as well as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—how many people in prison have multiple needs.

The transitions of entering or leaving prison, or becoming homeless, often lead to both personal and financial crisis. We think of coming out of prison as very positive, but it can be traumatic for people with multiple needs. With no financial contingencies, these people usually rely on a benefit system that they experience as complicated, slow and unhelpful. In extremis, some return to crime, as that was their proven source of income. The report found many problems experienced by people who were just out of prison, such as: delays of up to four weeks before the first payments, with little or no explanation; problems with claims that had been started before they had gone to prison, and which had to be resolved before any new claims could be made; problems of claims being delayed because they had no fixed address; disputes over prison admission and release dates, where timings can be crucial; and problems caused by not closing down a claim on entry to prison, resulting in a fraud investigation and the suspension of the new claim. Many of the people we are talking about have multiple needs. About one-third of people in prison do not have a bank account, which makes the payment of a deposit for housing or to cover early expenses even harder to organise on release.

As the noble Lord said, help beforehand with immediate access to benefits is key if the person is not to feel the need to return to using other people's money simply to survive. It emphasises the point that has been made about the need for help and advice while in prison. This will be particularly the case over the next few years, when the whole benefit system will have changed; the one that they knew on going into prison will be quite different from the UC world when they come out. We also know that in one survey that about half the prisoners had debts that awaited clearance on release, and one in three owed money for housing. That gets them started on a real problem of owing money on existing housing. It also touches on an earlier amendment about splitting a joint universal credit if they return to a partner with children and then want to take over responsibility for the housing amount. There could be some difficult readjustment or re-entry. When publishing a book about returning from the war in 1945—I remind noble Lords on that side of the table that we had a really good election result that year—it was interesting that it was difficult for stable, loving marriages when a man came home from the war and wanted to take over financial responsibility. So these things affect whole swathes of people. It is a stressful time, and getting benefits lined up early is really important.

The Centre for Social Justice, which is often mentioned in this Committee, has also highlighted the problems faced by people leaving custody. Its report, Locked Up Potential, recognised that delays in processing benefits meant that many people who are discharged have no source of income when it is most urgently needed. I am sure that the Minister is very familiar with its recommendations, which are that:

“To bridge the finance gap, with the objective of reducing the resulting crime which it can fuel, we recommend that all prison employment and benefits advisors be required by the Department of Work and Pensions … and the MOJ to initiate core benefit applications at least three weeks prior to a prisoner’s nominated release date”.

It would be helpful if the Minister could let us know what discussions the DWP has had with the MoJ about responding to the recommendations in that report and ensuring that those leaving prison are not left with gaps and delays in getting the financial support that may be essential to them in starting a new life outside custody.

We know that the coalition Government have decided not to continue with the progress to work scheme, which provided support to ex-offenders. That support will be provided through the work programme, although as we have heard there will be some difficulties there. It would be useful to know what decisions have been made about access to work programmes for ex-offenders and whether they will be fast-tracked to receive this support. If not, what alternative arrangements are being put in place to ensure that they receive the tailored employment support that they might need? While I hope that the Minister will respond to discussions for talk, I also hope that it will not just be talking the talk but walking the walk and that we will get some progress.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble Lord’s remarks and acknowledge his expertise on penal policy. I can also say that I am utterly delighted to meet the noble Lord. I can say now that I do not accept his amendments and I hope that what I describe of what we are actually doing will leave him joyful, both after what I describe here and after our meeting, which will happen as soon as we can. I believe that the route that we are going down will prove more beneficial in the long run than what he has suggested in this amendment, which is more expensive and resource-intensive, in terms of in-prison assessments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, as has been set out my noble friends and other noble Baronesses, the amendments relate to how and in what circumstances the state will seek to recover overpayment of universal credit from claimants. As many here, although not me, will remember, the issue of overpayments caused a considerable headache for the previous Government when tax credits were introduced, so it is vital that the present Government get this part of the Bill right. I am sure that anyone with those memories will support this.

In this Bill we have the added complication that, in addition to overpayments being recoverable from the claimant, they will also be recoverable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has mentioned, from landlords in certain situations. I am not talking about dodgy landlords but those who are blissfully unaware that the rent they were receiving was not from their tenant but was due to some sort of overpayment, whether by accident or design on the part of the tenant claimant or by error on the part of the DWP. We know that at present there are some cases of overpaid housing benefit that can be recovered from a landlord. Could the Minister tell the Committee whether this clause widens the set of circumstances in which benefits can be recovered? Also, what type of benefit could be recovered from landlords, rather than from claimants? What consultation has taken place on this proposal with the NLA or any other representative of landlords?

I have certainly heard anecdotal remarks from both actual and potential landlords. By the way, I am not someone who thinks that lots of anecdotes add up to evidence. However, I have heard that the idea that landlords might be asked to make good some overpayment made to a tenant when they have no way of recouping it from the tenant is a further disincentive to entering or remaining in this market. I remind the Minister that this comes just at a time when access to private rented accommodation, especially the one-bedroom type quite favoured by small landlords, is so needed due to the housing shortage; to take in the swathe of refugees from the social housing sector as his policy on underoccupation kicks in; and as families may be forced to leave high-rent London for far distant places, as we heard earlier today. We need to encourage landlords to make properties available, not threaten them that they may be left paying for overpayment of a tenant’s claims.

Amendment 103ZZA seeks to ensure that the recovery of any overpayment leaves the claimant with the correct entitlement based on their circumstances, as my noble friend Lady Lister spelt out. Again, this draws on the experience of tax credits, where in some cases claimants were asked to pay back overpayments on the one hand while applying for additional entitlement because of a change in circumstances on the other. The amendment would make sure that the end result is that the claimant receives the payment to which he or she is entitled.

Amendments 103ZZB, 103ZZC, 103ZZD and 103ZZE seek to replace references to earnings with those to income, and then to ensure that the recovery of overpaid benefits cannot leave a claimant without sufficient income on which to live. As has been said, within the current system protections of this type are in place, setting limits on the amount by which the DWP, local authority or HMRC can reduce benefit payments to recover an overpayment. Could the Minister let us know what limits the department intends to place on the recovery of universal credit, and whether they will meet the aim of ensuring that claimants retain a minimum amount on which to live?

Amendment 103ZA ensures that benefits overpaid as a result of official error cannot be recovered when the claimant could not reasonably be expected to know that he or she was being overpaid. In explaining new Section 115C in Clause 113, the DWP says that negligence constitutes not exercising the care which the circumstances demand; that is, being careless. It gives the example of not checking statements made in a claim. However, this amendment is quite different. It is not about lack of care; it is about lack of knowledge. The claimant cannot be expected to know that the amount they were receiving was in fact an overpayment.

Each of us, perhaps even some very rich people in this Room, would know whether £1 million came into our bank accounts as opposed to the £1,000 that we were expecting. However, I have to confess that when the DWP pays my pension I have no idea whether the amount is correct. It is difficult to determine that, partly because I do not get a monthly statement—the equivalent of a pay slip—from the DWP and partly because it is four-weekly and every now and again there is a month when I receive two payments. If that happened to fall in January and then perhaps in October and I got a double payment, I am afraid that I would have absolutely no idea whether that was the correct timing for my extra bonus month—it is always very nice—or whether it was an error, and I have precious little way of checking. This amendment is about ensuring that any overpayment which the claimant could not be expected to know was wrong should not be clawed back. I promise noble Lords that it is not intended to protect my own position; it is tabled simply in the interests of fairness.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am delighted to hear such full-hearted support for monthly payments. First, I would like to speak to Amendment 103ZZA in my name. This amendment is technical in nature and seeks to restore the policy intent and simple premise that where a claimant has a debt, the debt should be recoverable from them. In the majority of cases, overpayments of benefit, penalties, payments on account and certain hardship payments will be recoverable from the claimant and will be recovered by deduction from the benefit that is paid to them. As the Bill is drafted, however, the Secretary of State is prevented from recovering such payments where the claimant’s benefit is paid directly to a third party, for example a landlord. This means that recovery from a claimant is limited to deduction from those benefits paid directly to them. This is unintended and so this amendment seeks to ensure that where a claimant’s benefit that is subject to recovery is paid to a third party, recovery may be made from that benefit.

This ensures that the DWP maintains the same powers of recovery as it does presently for recovery by deduction from housing benefit where it is paid directly to a landlord. Although the claimant may have other benefits from which deductions could be made, to do so adds both cost and complexity to the recovery process. In such cases, where no benefit is payable other than that paid to the third party, the DWP would be reliant on negotiating repayment from non-benefit income or potentially using direct earnings attachments to recover from debtors who are in pay-as-you-earn employment.

The situation becomes even more difficult where the debtor will not negotiate repayment, has no benefits paid directly to them and is not in pay-as-you-earn employment. Without the amendment, this would result in a situation where the DWP or local authorities have no effective way to recover the overpayment or penalty. I am sure noble Lords will agree with me that where there is an obligation to repay benefit debt, the fullest possible powers should be available to the relevant authorities to make recovery by the most efficient means.

I shall now address Amendments 103ZZB, 103ZZC, 103ZZD, 103ZZE, 103ZA and 103ZZZA. These opposition amendments seek to achieve a number of objectives, but are primarily concerned with protecting debtors. I am sure that there is no disagreement over the need for safeguards for vulnerable claimants and those in financial difficulty. We recognise, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that protection needs to extend to the calculation of overpayments as well as their recovery. In common with the noble Baroness, we recognise that such a provision has value in ensuring that an overpayment reflects the true loss of public funds and for this very reason, such a provision already exists in secondary legislation relating to the recovery of overpayments of current benefits.

Like the noble Baroness, we believe that similar provisions should apply here, but feel that such a provision sits more happily in secondary legislation. For that reason, I am happy to offer my assurances that it is our intention to make provision for such a calculation in the regulations to be made under Clause 102, new Section 71ZB(4), which allows regulations to provide that recoverable amounts,

“are to be calculated or estimated in a prescribed manner”.

Placing the provision in secondary legislation allows for both flexibility and review.

Concerning the other issues raised within these amendments, I believe that future overpayment recovery from working-age claimants will be more streamlined and efficient than it is presently. Recovery will thus provide both greater returns and better value for money for taxpayers. For example, under the previous Administration, it was believed that there was a right under common law to recover overpayments occurring due to official error, and the DWP thus requested repayment of those overpayments on that basis. I see that noble Lords who may have been responsible for those requests are in agreement. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that there was no such right and that is why we are legislating to bring the law for working-age benefits back in line with the policy of the previous administration—a policy that we support.

Prescribing that an overpayment caused by official error would not be recoverable if the claimant could not reasonably be expected to know that they were being overpaid brings forward a need to make subjective assessment of the debtor’s capacity to understand entitlement before the overpayment is determined. Although I sympathise with the lack of understanding of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about all the incredible overpayments that she gets and the £1 million that goes into her bank account on a regular basis, I have to say that that is not workable in this context. The DWP will not be prescribing those circumstances for the discretionary write-off or non-recovery of an overpayment. Cases will be considered carefully on their individual merits because each case is different.

As mentioned earlier, the code of practice will outline the policy as to whether recovery should be pursued, and lead to considered, consistent decision making. in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I am happy to confirm that that will be published in the form of a leaflet.

Considering whether an overpayment can, or should be recovered, the DWP will look at a number of factors, not solely whether the claimant received the money in good faith. It will have regard to ensuring that deductions from benefit or earnings—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Yes, that is the process. It becomes a requirement, and then if the claimant says, “Look, I can’t afford that rate, I’m in hardship”, then it is adjusted. That is a regular process. In practice, only half the people now make repayments at the maximum rate. That is a very well established process which works pretty well, and I do not think we need to put in extra processes.

My noble friend Lord Kirkwood—Kirkwood of Kirkhope, some people were unaware—asked about an independent appeal right. There is just a general appeal right here for overpayments, and I think that covers this as much as anything else.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Is that an appeal that is open to landlords as well?

[Lord Freud]

What we are talking about, and what I was describing, is where a payment would be going directly to a landlord, but it is for the rent. There would be recovery from that, so then the obligation becomes the debtor’s to replace that amount for the landlord, so, no, the landlord does not have a right to appeal because it is not his money. It is just a direct payment device.

As my noble friend recognised with his amendments, claimants may have other debts that are being repaid that will impact their ability to repay their DWP debt. In such an instance, we may agree that recovery should be suspended until a particular financial commitment of the debtor ends. Additionally, because we recognise that hardship need not solely be financial, these considerations will include whether recovery is likely to be a threat to the health and welfare of not only the debtor but their immediate family. Exceptionally, where it is warranted, DWP may decide not to pursue or to stop pursuing recovery. These hardship situations are well established and balance the needs of the debtor and those of the taxpayer. I believe that this approach is more effective than the prescriptive considerations set out in the amendments. This approach ensures that those claimants who are able to meet the repayment obligations do so and recognises that in some instances there is a need to take into account a claimant’s specific personal circumstances. I trust I have assured noble Lords that these amendments are unnecessary as we already have protections in place to ensure that a debtor does not suffer undue hardship when deductions from benefits or earnings are made and that, where appropriate, a claimant’s individual circumstances will be fully considered.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked about limits on universal credit recovery. Recovery will be subject to a maximum rate, as it is currently. This will differ depending on whether the payment is wholly universal credit or a combination of universal credit and earnings. We still have well established hardship considerations. If repayment causes difficulty in those circumstances, we will be able to discuss it. I therefore urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has given notice of his intention to oppose the Question that Clause 105 stand part of the Bill. Clause 105 clarifies that the Limitation Act does not apply to the recovery of benefit overpayments and of social fund and tax credit debts by methods other than court action. It ensures that recovery of such debts by deduction from ongoing entitlement can continue beyond the six-year limitation period for bringing court action. DWP has long taken the view that the statute of limitations has no application to the recovery of benefit overpayments or social fund debts by means other than court action, including by deduction from continuing benefit entitlement.

However, in a 2009 case involving recovery of a housing benefit overpayment by a local authority the High Court came to a different view. DWP was not involved in that case, but given that it could be read as applying also to the recovery of other benefit overpayments and of social fund payments, we believe it is necessary to introduce this measure so that we remain able to balance the recovery of public funds against the financial circumstances of the debtor. In many cases, seeking to recover social security or tax credit debt by means of deduction in a period of no more than six years would place an unfair or impossible burden on the debtor and their family.

We are not proposing anything new; Clause 105 merely clarifies a long-standing and well accepted interpretation of the application of the Limitation Act limitation to the recovery of social security and tax credit debt. The provision ensures that all deductions of benefit made more than six years after the debt became due since Section 9 of the Limitation Act came into force were, or will be deemed to be, legitimately made. It is retrospective to cover the legality of recoveries of six years of debt already made under the presumption that that was the legal position.

By contrast, without this clause—Egyptian calligraphy is very complicated—we may be forced to endeavour to recover all overpayments within six years, and this would imply higher recovery rates and potentially hardship for claimants affected. We have made this measure retrospective to cover all recoveries already made, as I have already said. I hope this clarification will convince the noble Lord and the noble Baroness to allow Clause 105 to stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Monday 14th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

This is obviously more a matter for the usual channels. Having just asked that discussions should happen with representatives of disabled people, the other way of meeting the major problem is by delaying Report and not starting it before Christmas. There are two reasons for that. The first is that we do not have the information and the second is the difficulty of trying to get disabled groups to give us the feedback that we need over Christmas when many offices close down. We will not be as informed as I know the Minister would want us to be. The possibility is that we should not start Report. I know that this is well beyond the Minister’s decision, but there are two ways of cracking it.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the proposition is that we need to have this locked down ahead of the rest of the Bill. Regrettably, we are not expecting to have the passporting elements of this ready for the time we consider it. I will go into some detail. The timing issue is that there would be no gain, if that is the real concern, in pulling this information earlier and hurrying the consideration process artificially.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as I said earlier, the history of this is that only 30 per cent of the gain that we have seen in recent years has been due to demographics. The rest has been the result of a drive in demand. I do not think that there was any assumption of a huge change in expectation in the projection. I am sure that once she has gone through Hansard, the noble Baroness will work it out.

I shall take the question on transitional protection put by my noble friend Lord Newton that I failed to answer. He had to ask it again, and I apologise for that. We do not have any plans to introduce such protection for people who currently receive DLA and may not be entitled to PIP. While I accept that they may have been entitled to it for some time, it would be strange to continue to pay a benefit to people who no longer met the entitlement criteria. So there is no difference between this and the similar 2004-05 exercise where 12 per cent of people were found no longer to be entitled.

I turn now to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on the difficulty of working out what the assessments we published on Friday mean. That was an exercise in showing the weightings and how the criteria might work to prioritise relative need. We know that there are strong views on these relative weightings. That is why we have published them: so that we can now discuss and fine-tune them to the extent that we need to. As I said, we will be able to move on this when we come to these clauses on Report, having done the exercise and worked out what it means in terms of entitlement thresholds.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Will the Minister explain whether the department, having done that, will put everyone on a list depending on the number of points they have and then say, “Right, we have a fixed amount of money so we will adjust the levels accordingly”? Or will the divisions be based on a real assessment of people and will the Government then find the money come what may if people meet the thresholds?

The Minister did not answer my earlier question about the assumptions the DWP must already have made about the number of people who are likely to lose out. He said some will gain, some will stay the same and some will get less. After all the modelling that the department has done, there must be an assumption about this. It may need changing in the light of the thresholds, but it would be useful for it to be shared.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will pick up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I have no figures on how many people may or may not lose, mainly because we have not yet locked down the thresholds. However, I assure her that this is a bottom-up exercise based on assessing people's real needs. We are working at it that way round rather than working to a budget. That is what some of the testing we did over the summer was about.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked about the work we have done on some passported benefits. We had detailed discussions with colleagues in the Department for Transport about passporting disabled people to the blue badge scheme. We will include key outcomes from the discussions in the updated impact assessment that we will publish in time for Report.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Thursday 10th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Clause 59 repeals provisions introduced by Section 11 of and Schedule 3 to the Welfare Reform Act 2009. These provisions would have applied to claimants of jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance where their dependence on alcohol or drugs affects their prospects of finding or remaining in work. The regulation-making powers inserted by Schedule 3 to the 2009 Act could have been used to require JSA claimants to undertake a range of activities, including answering questions about whether they are dependent on or at risk of misusing drugs, and attending drug-related assessments or drugs interviews that would involve testing unless the claimant agreed to provide a sample that could be tested. Claimants could then enter a voluntary rehabilitation plan which might involve treatment. If claimants did not agree to enter the voluntary rehabilitation plan they could be required to enter a mandatory rehabilitation plan. Although a mandatory rehabilitation plan would not require a claimant to undergo treatment it could, for example, require the claimant to attend an educational programme or take part in interviews and assessments. These provisions also extended to alcohol dependency. Equivalent provisions were introduced for ESA claimants who are members of the work-related activity group. The mandatory requirements would have been enforced by using regulation-making powers to sanction a claimant’s benefit if they failed to comply.

These provisions, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested, have never been commenced. The previous Government produced draft regulations for a pilot scheme to run for two years from October 2010. Those regulations were considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee in March 2010. The committee’s report, published in May last year, raised significant concerns. It recommended that the pilot scheme should not go ahead as drafted. The committee considered that the pilots were unlikely to be effective, contained a number of significant flaws and would not produce robust results. Having listened to SSAC’s concerns and having undertaken their own work on drugs, in December last year the Government published their drugs strategy, Reducing demand, restricting supply, building recovery. The strategy recognises that work is a key contributor to sustained recovery from addiction, but we also recognise that the previous Government’s approach of mandating drug testing and assessments, and requiring claimants to undertake a rehabilitation plan on pain of losing benefit, is not the right one. We say it is not the right approach in particular for the following three reasons.

First, it mandates claimants to do something, such as being tested for drugs, that is not directly about helping people to approach the labour market. That does not mean that entering treatment is not the right approach to help many claimants who are substance dependent to address their barriers to work, but—and this leads to my second reason—claimants enter treatment for a series of complex reasons, and whether or not they succeed also depends on a series of complex reasons. Forcing claimants to answer, for example, questions about possible drug use, requiring them to attend substance-related assessments about drug use and insisting that claimants enter a mandatory rehabilitation plan if they decline to enter treatment voluntarily would be asking them to do something a large proportion of them would not want to do. If we took the approach of the previous Government, we would create a high risk of those claimants immediately failing these requirements and having to be sanctioned.

Perhaps I could pick a trick that the Opposition have enjoyed using on me on occasion. I am aware that there may have been some differences within the previous Government regarding their attitude to this legislation. I am enjoying watching on the faces of some of the people opposite a similar smile to the one that I sometimes have to use.

Finally, we consider that the previous Government’s approach towards substance or alcohol-dependent claimants would be one that all the evidence from treatment providers and agencies who are experts in this area, as well as SSAC which consulted with those organisations, say would not succeed.

On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about our alcohol strategy and what service will be available, the Department of Health will be publishing a new alcohol strategy early next year which will set out what services we plan to have available.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord when is “early next year”. I know that he likes dates. I had understood that it was going to be by the end of this year, but he is bringing us fresh news, if it is to be early next year.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I like to be able to flesh out these adverbs—no, they are not adverbs. My grammar is slightly frail. The answer is that I cannot be any more specific. If that is news, I am not in a position to provide any more definition.

Clause 59 removes Section 11 and Schedule 3 from the 2009 Act, and also removes the provisions which Schedule 3 inserted into the Jobseekers Act 1995 and the Welfare Reform Act 2007. We know that the vast majority of people with substance dependency issues eventually want to break free of their addiction. The National Treatment Agency reports that, last year, more than 200,000 people in England entered treatment. That represents about two-thirds of all those with dependency issues. In 2010-11, 27,969 adults left treatment in England free of dependency, which is an increase of 150 per cent compared with 2005-06. Waiting times continue to reduce—96 per cent get into treatment within three weeks of referral. In England, we spend more than £400 million on drug treatment and this budget has not been cut. We want to build on that. We believe that the right approach is to offer support and encouragement for those who want to tackle their substance addiction. We are therefore ensuring that our advisers have the confidence to engage in the often difficult conversations with those who they believe have dependency problems, that they understand the issues that addicts face and that they work in partnership with local treatment agencies to improve referral rates. By encouraging closer working between Jobcentre advisers and treatment service providers we will increase the number of people moving into sustained recovery.

If claimants decide to take up the treatment opportunities available to them, we will look to ensure that they have the opportunity to focus on that treatment and make it succeed. This is not being soft on addicts. The choice to tackle addiction is not an easy one, as anyone who has tried will confirm. Claimants who decline the offer of treatment will be expected to comply with their ordinary full labour-market conditions as a requirement for continuing to be entitled to their benefit.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about universal credit. We are clear that the imposition of work-related requirements under universal credit must not conflict with an individual’s treatment regime. We want to maximise every individual’s chances of an early move into work. For those with substance dependency, the first logical step will often to be to confront their addition, and we do not want simultaneously to impose labour market requirements that make it challenging or even impossible to complete treatment. This will be our guiding principle under universal credit and we will make sure that this can be achieved. The structure of universal credit legislation makes this relatively straightforward. We have considerable flexibility in the powers we are taking in the Bill to ensure that we can tailor work-related requirements to fit with the circumstances and capability of an individual. We will be considering how best this can be done as we develop regulations.

The provisions inserted by the Welfare Reform Act 2009 are inappropriate and likely to have unintended adverse consequences for substance or alcohol-dependent claimants, their communities and the public purse. The provisions have not been commenced and do not reflect this Government’s direction of travel in dealing with the very difficult question of drug and alcohol addiction, nor do they take account of the introduction of universal credit, which will replace both the income-related strands of JSA and ESA in due course. Hence we seek to repeal them. I beg to move that Clause 59 stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this is purely a minor technical amendment to remove references to specific maximum amounts of weekly benefit payable for successive accidents and prescribed diseases for persons under the age of 18. The present amounts specified as subject to uprating have changed since the Bill was introduced. The figures currently specified in Clause 64 were correct on the Bill’s introduction but have since been amended by the uprating order—and it is likely that they will change again before the provision comes into force. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the amendment, which will remove the significance of the age of 18 in industrial injuries benefits legislation. It will mean that all existing and new claims by persons under 18 will be paid at normal industrial injuries disability benefit rates. That is a very welcome move. I have no problem with the government amendment permitting the maximum amount to be specified in regulations rather than in the Bill. However, I will pose a couple of questions.

First, will the Minister put on record that the Government are not intending to reduce the maximum amount payable under this provision? Secondly, will he say whether, assuming the amounts will be in regulations, the regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure? Young workers who have suffered industrial injury may constitute a small group, but they are vulnerable and it would be useful to know whether the House will have an opportunity to debate the matter.

Thirdly, will the Minister let the Committee know whether payments made under the scheme will count as benefits under the proposed benefit cap? Our understanding is that they will be so included. Obviously, we will debate the benefit cap when we get to Clause 93. However, it seems that to include these payments, which are compensation for injuries at work, within a calculation of the total support that a family could receive from the state, would be somewhat unfair. It would mean that for a young person living with their family, any such support would be taken away from the total family entitlement, which would effectively turn the benefit into a means-tested benefit.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will pick up on those points. I am grateful that the noble Baroness said that she welcomed the amendment. Clearly, the main thrust of it is to simplify. In this case she will have been delighted to see that we levelled up rather than anything else. It is always nice to be able to give money away occasionally. I confirm that we are not intending to reduce the maximum amount, which will be specified in the uprating order. We are working on the precise treatment of different elements—I apologise for the technical terms—and looking at the interplay between different benefits. We will treat some as the equivalent of earnings, some as the equivalent of benefit, which will knock out the right to universal credit, and some benefits will be disallowed. Clearly, that will be specified in the regulations. We can discuss that entire area when we look at the whole range of benefits. The principle is that generally, where something is the equivalent of state support, one does not want to double up state support. Sorry, I should clarify. When I said that it is in the uprating order, that is subject to affirmative procedure, so it will be affirmative.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

I will be supplying annual figures later on. I wanted a single figure.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I think that the noble Lord wanted a big figure.

[Lord Freud]

It is a single figure. We believe that our one-year time limit is not arbitrary; rather, it strikes the right balance between restricting access to contributory benefits and allowing those with longer-term illnesses to adjust to their health condition and surrounding circumstances. In recognition of that, it is double the length of time allowed for contributory JSA and is one of a number of difficult decisions that the Government have had to make in view of the current fiscal climate.

Given that I was asked about the single figure, perhaps I may take the opportunity to read out the per annum figures. Next year, the change would cost £270 million; in the following year, 2013-14, it would be £420 million; the figure would be the same the following year; in 2015-16, we think that the cost would be £360 million; and it would be £140 million in 2016-17.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to tackle the introduction, under UC, of a poor work incentive for second earners who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has said, are mostly women. As my noble friend Lady Lister said, 300,000 second earners will see increased marginal deduction rates as opposed to only one-third of those who will see reduced MDRs. The policy to make work pay does not appear to extend, therefore, to a third of these affected second earners. According to the impact assessment:

“It is possible that in some families, second earners may choose to reduce or rebalance their hours or to leave work. In these cases, the improved ability of the main earner to support his or her family will increase options available for families to strike their preferred work/life balance”.

As my noble friend Lady Lister has said, it is not clear how this will improve options for families who prefer to have a more equal working relationship, where both partners combine work and child rearing. It also seems to be in conflict with other bits of coalition policy, such as the BIS modern workplace consultation, which sets out options for families to share parental leave more evenly between men and women. Perhaps, in responding, the Minister can let us know what discussions he has had with BIS about whether the incentives within universal credit support the BIS policy.

The reduced incentives for second earners to work come on the heels of the April cuts in childcare and therefore, as has been said, further reduce the incentive for anyone with a child to take a job, not to mention other little things such as cuts to the baby element of the child tax credit, the health in pregnancy grant, the Sure Start maternity grant and the freeze in child benefit.

As my noble friend Lady Lister said, the pay of second earners is crucial in keeping families out of poverty. If I may be forgiven for repeating her figures, which I hope I have right, child poverty is at 19 per cent where there is one full-time earner but it drops to 5 per cent with two earners and down to 2 per cent with two full-time earners. Therefore, second earnings are absolutely key to the Government’s objective of reducing joblessness, child poverty, dependence on universal credit and increasing the tax take. I look forward to the Minister’s answer to whether it was the gross cost after taking account of tax take which led to the projected cost of this.

Childcare has already been mentioned and is clearly particularly important in two sorts of families. One is obviously lone-parent families, and the other is where there is a second earner, with both parents tending to be out of the house at certain times. The disincentive to work increases where there are child costs to be met. As has already been said, childcare will cover only 70 per cent of costs, and that leaves 30 per cent to be found from earnings, which is already a high enough take from the second earner’s pay. Therefore, without an earning disregard of their own, the second earner has a very high deduction rate where there are child costs to be met, effectively making the taking of a job financially unviable. Yet, as I have said, second earnings are crucial in keeping households out of poverty. They will be even more important if, as we read today in the Financial Times, there is any truth in the rumour that when times get tough it is the poor whom this Government will seek to make pay. According to these press reports, the Chancellor is looking at cutting further billions from benefits by scrapping inflation-linked uprates, even—this beggars belief—freezing some payments. We read in the same article:

“The Liberal Democrats will oppose anything that suggests the coalition is unfairly passing the burden of deficit reduction on to struggling families”.

We look forward to hearing whether the Minister can say whether the Financial Times is accurate. Perhaps he can also ask those sitting alongside him—maybe they could pass him a note—whether they would like to place on record their opposition to any attempt to pass on any cutbacks to struggling families. They must know that the rich can pay far easier than the poor. Are they going to use their bargaining power, such as it is, in the coalition to protect the very weakest in society?

These amendments are about reducing poverty and increasing the take-up of work, and it would be useful to know on which side the Lib Dem/Tory coalition sits on this. Later today, we shall reach Amendment 75A to Clause 51 standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord German, Lord Stoneham and Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, which effectively asks for an earnings disregard from the second earner where the first earner is now too ill to work. We very much welcome that amendment, but it would useful to know whether the same principle could be more widely adopted, as this amendment seeks to do.

The Minister may well be forgiven for wanting to reduce the number of working women on this side of the Committee but perhaps he would make it clear that that is not the intention with universal credit by ensuring that second earners really will be better off in work.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I have enjoyed what we are calling the bevy of ladies on the other side. Their intellectual prowess has left me stunned on my heels. Let me go into this amendment, which proposes that we create a disregard for the second earner in a joint claim. This proposal was raised in Amendment 52DB, which we have already debated, so I am going to be reasonably brief.

First, this is not a matter of principle. We acknowledge that it would be desirable to incentivise both members of a couple to work. However, we have limited funding and we have chosen to focus that on creating a strong incentive for at least one member of each couple to work, in order to limit the number of workless households. This is clearly a difficult choice. We have discussed these choices, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, with other departments on a regular basis, and we are very aware of links to other programmes.

Clearly, this is something that, if we had some money, we could revisit at a future point, but let me give noble Lords the figures. If couples who were both in work were entitled to an additional disregard of £700 a year, for example, the cost would be £240 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Before the Minister stands up, as I think he might like to get everything together, there were two questions posed that he did not respond to. One was whether he had had discussions with BIS. I had also given him the opportunity to refute the story in the Financial Times. I hope he might use this moment to do that.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, let me try to pick up some of those points. Picking up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I hope that she is hearing that I am sympathetic to this point. I hope that noble Lords have heard that this is about money. We do not have this money. We have a very sharp choice to make, about whether to reduce workless households or to look after second earners with a disregard. We have taken this decision, and we have also taken a decision, when we do find some more money, to do something about childcare, which is another issue that I know greatly concerns noble Lords.

There are two clear issues when we look to improve this system, as we see dynamic effects coming through which are provable. We had a debate the other day on why we need to test things. Two of the obvious things to test will be second earner disregards and taper. Those are the first two things that everyone in this Room, I think, would like to know about as we get the system under way. Therefore, to the extent to which I am being asked “Will we look at it?”, yes, we will be looking at this. I am not going to make any assurances, because we should find the answers, but that is exactly the kind of question we want to have answered.

I shall take up the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on MDRs. You can freight all kinds of things on to MDRs if you want to, with different costs, and I am sure that you can create a position where the overall costs come up to high MDRs. The simple point that I would like to make is that with the universal credit itself, the MDRs come down.

On whether we will force people to take a job which leaves the household poorer, we made the point when we discussed this that we take these things into account when we set up the obligations of claimants.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, the Committee will know that my noble friend Lord McKenzie and I have added our names to this amendment, but we are delighted that it has been overtaken by the Minister’s own amendments. I am getting a bit of a record for doing this. Last night I commended the Government on their move on the Housing Ombudsman, and I am doing the same today. However, I have a couple of questions. Whether this is to be piloting or testing throws up exactly what I wanted to ask: what is the purpose of each of these pilots? Are they to test whether the principle of a particular part of the Bill is right—in other words, that the aim of each part of the Bill is being met—or are they simply to determine how best to implement each proposal?

We always welcome piloting and testing of whatever it may be, but the exact purpose of a pilot needs to be absolutely clear at the start, particularly for those who have to design and implement it, as well as for all the participants and evaluators. What is the pilot meant to achieve, and therefore how should it be monitored and evaluated? That is because whether it is simply to find the best way of making something happen or to see if the idea behind it is right is quite an important distinction.

We hope that the Government will be confident enough not to assume automatically that what they think will work, will work—whether to incentivise people or to simplify systems—and that they will use these pilots in order to test the assumptions underpinning particular proposals in the Bill. That means being confident enough to design the pilots accordingly to see whether the particular objectives behind the proposals in what will by then be the Act are being met. That is asking quite a lot of a Government. We are saying, “Are you confident enough and in a sense big enough to be able to call it a day if the end results of any particular pilot call for a big re-engineering?”. I believe that pilots of this sort will be worth their weight in gold to the Government in financial and administrative terms and to claimants, landlords, employers, carers and providers, all of whom are going to be affected by different parts of the legislation. The pilots can play a role in creating the sort of welfare system that is able to meet the demands made of it. We would ask the Government to be as adventurous as they can with these pilots by putting the difficult questions. Also, following up on what my noble friend Lady Hollis said, the results should be transparent.

Who is going to oversee the design and delivery of the pilots? Who will decide, under subsection (5)(b) of the proposed new clause, that pilots may be replaced or extended, and on what grounds? To whom will the evaluators report? That is more or less the same question as that posed by my noble friend Lady Hollis. How will Parliament be able to ensure that the lessons from such pilots are learnt?

[Lord Freud]

I thank noble Lords for their support. At this stage we are taking legislative powers in order to be able to do this. How it is done is something that we will actively develop. I will tell noble Lords what I think we should be doing without necessarily locking down that that is to be the process, because we have not developed it.

Universal credit is the most amazing social science laboratory that I suspect we have ever seen, and I wonder how many other people will see it. Under universal credit you can change different aspects of people’s support.

As such, it needs a unit built in which is constantly looking at how to improve it and optimise it or to adapt it to different circumstances. I anticipate, in answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that we would have a series of real questions. Many of the questions raised by noble Lords in the Committee—should we have a second earner disregard; should we have a lower taper; what happens when you move disregards up or down?—are real, basic questions. They are all being put in the form of amendments, but here, we can have a series of tests of different aspects, or tests in combination, to find out what really optimises the system. Clearly, it is impossible to get it absolutely right first time. No one would claim to do that, but this is an architecture which would allow us to optimise it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Absolutely. We are discussing a framework piece of legislation that will allow us to bring in the regulations. I am sure that next year many of us will discuss the detail of this for many months. It is an introductory, not a locked-in proposition. I have tried to explain, and hope that I have explained, that this system is an architecture and it can roll and improve. We may find in many areas that a change will pay for itself in its own terms, both in what the benefit system costs and the benefit to the economy. We will be able to test those propositions. A lot of what I talk about when we lay out the structures is simply what is affordable within a very difficult financial environment where we have had to put a proposition that we can float and that works. I have made the point before that that is within a context where we are injecting £4 billion into the pockets of the poorest people. Every time someone says, “Do that” or “Do the next thing”, they are adding to that figure. We can either take something else away or provide that. That is where we have come out. Later on, when the financial situation is more suitable or we establish that changing something pays for itself in its own terms, we can make changes and improvements. I labour the point only because we can spend a lot of time arguing whether this is better than a disregard or addition. The answer is that none of us knows but I hope that in the medium term we will.

In the example, we estimate that if couples who are both in work were entitled to an additional disregard of £700 a year, the cost would be £240 million. If the disregard was £1,000 a year, the cost would be £350 million. This is real money. We took the decision that it would be better spent, for instance, on childcare, where we had to find an extra £300 million. In current out-of-work benefits, there are no additional disregards for second earners. Similarly, working tax credit makes no additional provision for second earners. It is true that members of a couple may qualify for the disability elements of working tax credit if both are working and disabled. Equally, when a disabled person is not in work, no disability element can be paid. Indeed, working tax credit may not be payable at all.

I turn to the proposal that lone parents, disabled people and second earners should receive the sum of two earnings disregards if their circumstances entitle them to each, rather than the higher of the two as we propose. Many people on low incomes will have substantially more support under universal credit because of the earnings disregards that we propose. The standard weekly disregard in current out-of-work benefits for these groups is only £20, after which benefit is withdrawn pound for pound. Some people on employment and support allowance may benefit from the permitted work rule with a disregard of up to £95 per week. However, this provision is available only for one year, after which the disregard returns to £20 for most claimants. Crucially, earnings disregards are not added together in current out-of-work benefits.

In working tax credits, various elements can be added together. However, that does not differ from the way elements in universal credit build up to a total award. The earnings disregards in universal credit are more generous than those in the current system for lone parents and disabled people, helping in particular those working a small number of hours. For instance, a disabled person working 12 hours a week at the national minimum wage will be more than £50 a week better off, and a lone parent will be more than £60 a week better off in work because of the disregards in universal credit. This will provide a stronger incentive to work than exists in the current system.

For most people claiming universal credit, the main financial incentive to work will be provided by the taper. Our proposals for a structure of disregards are intended to provide an additional incentive for those who need it most. If additional funding were available, we would need to consider the taper as well as the disregards. Adding together two or more disregards simply because the claimant falls into a number of categories would be inconsistent with the approach that we have adopted. If the earnings disregards worked in this way, we would not have the funding to set each at the level that we have. Universal credit must be delivered within the financial envelope we have available. I hope that this explanation will persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I will raise a couple of points—and not simply to defend my aunt. I said that she worked at the Conservative club. She was the barmaid and cleaner. The noble Lord is very lucky that she is no longer with us.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and the speakers who contributed to the debate. I especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who is not in his place at the moment. Perhaps other noble Lords could pass on to him that he would never incur my wrath—the Minister’s, yes, but never mine.

The one thing that we have to take account of when we use words like “trust” and “availability” is that the debate is taking place within a much broader overall government policy. We have already mentioned in Committee that unemployment is at a 17-year high. There are already cuts to childcare. It is estimated that 32,000 people have already given up work because of the reduction in childcare allowance—at a cost of £50 million to the Exchequer, I gather, so the Treasury will not be very happy about that. Of course, it demonstrates yet again that if affordable childcare is not available, people do not go to work—fairly obvious, but there you are.

Unfortunately the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is not in her place. I was a little worried after what the noble Earl said about being an untrained play-scheme worker that maybe we were all untrained carers today for her daughter. At least with her mother here, I assume the child was in safe hands. As a grandparent, I very much appreciate the comments made about the contribution of grandparents. I am in the other position: with very new grandchildren, all the grandparents line up and vie to look after them. I am assured that this soon gets a bit too much and problems set in. Short-term care is much more easily set up than long-term grandparenting, unless the sort of help that my noble friend Lady Hollis mentioned is available.

I will make a couple of comments. First, I thank the Minister very much not only for saying that he will look very carefully at the suggestions made by my noble friend Lady Hollis but for the commitments he gave about including current protections. However, he did not answer one of my comments about whether they will apply to couples. He mentioned lone parents but not couples.

[Lord Freud]

Let me clarify that for the record. The protection includes couples as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

This is getting better. I have one more question and I wonder if I can risk it. The Minister was also helpful on the question of school hours. He did not mention the point about being available for work during school holidays and whether those protections will remain. But given that he is in such a generous mood, my estimation is that he will reassure me on this.

[Lord Freud]

It is my delight to be able to reassure the noble Baroness that those protections will remain.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I am twitchy about one more thing, because I know that the Minister will say no. Although we are happy about the responsibility being put on local authorities with regard to childcare, I cannot let the moment go without saying that their funding has been cut. I know that that is not within his department, but some of these things cost money.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Monday 24th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

Yes. I thank the noble Lord for that question. I have specifically asked the SSAC to cover the point of working with devolved Administrations when it comes up with its recommendations so that will be incorporated in its original review, let alone in our subsequent review.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, having learnt last week that the Minister is not a bad man, this week we learn that spring comes after winter and before summer. I have discovered that my education is absolutely complete. We welcome very much the assurance that at the point when he gets the report, he will be looking at this firm of the view that passported benefits should not undermine the incentives to work in the rest of the Bill. It may be no surprise but it is nice to have that—and the acknowledgement of the importance of making sure that any such passported benefits are spent on what they are needed for. Of course, the comment that these will not count towards the benefit cap is particularly welcome. With that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Monday 10th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on her first amendment, and I hope that she does not have too many like it. I was very impressed when she said that she was a conservative, which was obviously supported because my noble friend Lord Kirkwood called her his noble friend. Clearly we have some cross-dressing going on.

In the policy briefing note published on 12 September, we confirmed that the universal credit will be paid monthly. However, we do not intend to specify the payment frequency in primary legislation. As with all existing benefits, this will be dealt with in regulations made under the existing powers in the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That approach gave us the flexibility, for example, to increase payment periods from weekly to two-weekly for most out-of-work benefits. The amended provision would require the Government to pay universal credit more frequently than monthly. Amendment 27, for instance, goes on to provide that in some cases payments would be made twice monthly.

I need to make the point about the difference between assessment periods and payment periods, which is important to bear in mind. Currently, existing out-of-work benefits are made on an assessment period of a week, with a fortnightly payment cycle. That is fairly typical. The universal credit benefit represents a new approach focused clearly on work, which encourages out-of-work households to budget on a monthly rather than a fortnightly basis in the belief that it will better prepare people for the reality of working life. The figures have already been used. Currently, 75 per cent of all those in employment and 51 per cent of those earning less than £10,000 a year receive earnings monthly. In addition, monthly direct debits for household bills are often cheaper than more frequent billing options.

Many noble Lords raised the evidence base. As noble Lords know, we are conducting qualitative and quantitative research with claimants on many issues but particularly on the payment frequency issue. As some noble Lords have pointed out, on 7 October we published a report, Perceptions of welfare reform and Universal Credit. This outlines findings from research we conducted with claimants, the public, employers and staff in December 2010 and January 2011. There were critical findings in that piece of research that we are looking at with great attention.

I understand that many people on low incomes will be used to managing the fortnightly payment of benefits, and I am determined to ensure that there will be appropriate budgeting support to meet the needs of claimants. We want families to be able to manage their financial affairs in a manner that best reflects the demands of modern life, whether they are in work or out of work, and we are working with stakeholders and benefit experts to that end. We are setting up a series of demonstrator projects, as they are called, with housing associations and local authorities to look at how to structure the payment of rents to landlords. These demonstrator projects will look at a wide range of budgeting support. We need to make sure that budgeting advice and support is available for those who need it in order to help them manage the change.

We also need to consider those exceptional circumstances where more frequent payments will be required. To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, people with mental health problems are an example of a group that may need an exceptional service. To pick up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, where there is proven abuse or risk to other members of the family, one would have to look at the payment arrangements.

If you separate assessment from payment, the monthly assessment is intended to reduce the burden on claimants and reduce the risk of overpayments compared with a system where benefits are reassessed on a weekly basis, so there is a separation between the assessment period and the payment period. To pick up a question from my noble friend Lord Kirkwood on the impact assessment—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, the Minister suggested that payments for those with mental health problems, for example, could be looked at. Could he address how that might stigmatise a certain group; that is, when not everyone can choose to be paid fortnightly, just those with mental health problems?

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Thursday 6th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, these amendments would require a formal consultation on the operation of the claimant commitment and a yearly review on its impact. We will have the opportunity to discuss the claimant commitment in detail when we reach Clause 14, so right now I would like to make some specific points. Before I do that, I would like to make a more general response to some of the general points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made around the mutual obligations she said are not there and the argument that this is a one-sided commitment. Clearly, it is not one-sided. Part of the Government’s side of this is to pay the benefit to the claimant. The other part of it is to help claimants to find work through, in the case of Jobcentre Plus, adviser interviews and, more importantly, through the investment in the work programme which is, as noble Lords know, a very substantial investment in this country to help people back into the workplace. I will not go further on childcare costs, which the noble Baroness thought would be revealed very soon. Let us have some facts, and then have a discussion on them.

There is genuine mutuality, a two-sided commitment, in the claimant commitment. It is intended to be of benefit to claimants. It will provide all claimants with a single, clear statement of their responsibilities. This will ensure that claimants understand those responsibilities from the very start of their claim and help to improve compliance. Indeed, I am spending quite a lot of time to make sure that the commitment is helpful, understandable and specific to an individual. We are spending a lot of time and energy doing that because, up to now, similar measures have been rather vague and more general.

The content of a claimant commitment will include the hours the claimant is expected to work and it is drawn up between the claimant and the adviser in dialogue. The threshold for things such as the time spent on job search per week will be set according to personal capability and circumstances rather than being prescribed in legislation. The regulations set out only the maximum limit beyond which we will never apply conditionality, so some of the newspaper articles—I am not sure whether this was an upmarket favourite read or in a more downmarket one—apply to the maximum expectation. Clause 17 sets out the kinds of activities we might expect claimants to undertake, and we will get to it later.

We will ensure that the process of accepting a commitment is not onerous. For those claimants who have limited responsibilities—for example, where the only requirement placed on the claimant is to report changes of circumstance—the commitment will be an integrated part of the claims process and could be accepted online or via the telephone. For other claimants, primarily those we would require to look for work, their requirements will need to be discussed with an adviser face to face. They will be able to accept their commitment at their first meeting.

However, we recognise that there may be some very exceptional cases where the claimant cannot fulfil the requirement to accept a commitment: for example, where the claimant is suddenly incapacitated through illness or where the office we were expecting a claimant to attend is forced to close as a result of flood or fire. We will be using regulations under subsection (7) of this clause to cover such circumstances and enable us to treat the claimant as having accepted the commitment. Noble Lords may have spotted that we have responded to the Delegated Powers Committee and agreed to make these regulations affirmative for their first use.

My third and final point is that the claimant commitment is not an entirely new invention. It builds on similar products in the existing benefits regime, most notably the jobseekers’ agreement which JSA claimants must agree to as a condition of entitlement. Operationally, we already have good experience of the use and implementation of such products. Obviously we feel that the claimant commitment is an improvement on the jobseekers’ agreement. Most notably it will bring together all the requirements placed on the claimant, while the jobseekers’ agreement covers only some requirements. We intend to introduce and implement the claimant commitment in JSA in advance of universal credit, and we will, of course, be looking to learn from that experience in advance of universal credit. As I said, I will be able to explain more about this process later as we get to those clauses. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I thank the Minister for that reply, and, through him, I thank his officials for the examples they sent through of the individual claimant. I have only two points to make. First, the Minister said that part of the Government’s commitment is to pay the claimant. Many of these benefits are earned and contributed and are something that people have paid for, so it is not quite the act of generosity and philanthropy that he made it sound.

Secondly, on the individual threshold and the negotiation to make sure that the claimant commitment is tailored to particular needs, I echo a point that was made by at least two other noble Lords about the training of staff. Getting that right will be key to this and is important. As we go through, I look forward to further discussions on this. As I said, such a commitment is not new, but we want to make sure that it does what it is intended to do, which is to assist someone in finding their way into work or back into work rather than to be an excuse for sanctions as an end in themselves. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Freud

Tuesday 4th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

I am most grateful to my noble friend. I shall continue dealing with the questions. My noble friend Lord Kirkwood was interested in the interrelationship with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which, as he pointed out, has a statutory duty to examine all social security regulations. Any regulations for universal credit that rely on existing legislation—for example, those relating to claims, and awards and payments to joint claimants—will therefore be subject to full SSAC examination. I accept that there are large parts of the Bill that introduce new regulation-making powers. In these areas, the committee may not have its former role, but I assure noble Lords that we will continue to talk to the committee and use the arrangements currently in place allowing us to provide it with information on new powers and the regulations made, within six months of the commencement of those powers.

On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on how the system will cope with, for instance, a self-employed and an employed member of a household, any earnings received through the PAYE system will automatically be taken into account even though they may be from one or more PAYE sources. We will clearly need to take assessment of non-PAYE earnings through some other tool, and we are looking at developing a self-reporting tool to provide us with earnings information.

A number of noble Lords raised the issue of language, including my noble friends Lord Kirkwood and Lord Newton and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Campbell. I have to agree that language is extremely important. There are quite a few issues around it; some involve European legislation on exportability, so sometimes there are some constrictions. I see universal credit as a support for those who need it, whether they are unemployed, disabled, a lone parent or working for a relatively low income. We want universal credit to support as many people into work as possible.

I will come to the language issue around the name “universal credit”. One of the things about the word “credit” is that it carries with it a sense of entitlement, and I know that a lot of noble Lords are concerned about that. There is some language around that, and that is why the term was chosen in the case of tax credits. There is a sense in which it is a credit; there is an entitlement there.

I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about allowances for training of staff—clearly, one does not have a transformative project such as this without having properly trained staff. The total budget that has been set aside to fund the transition, including administration costs, is £2 billion. Training is a crucial element of that.

Amendment 1, raised by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, would rename universal credit. His title, “working age entitlement”, is a straw man, as he said. It is fair to ask where “universal credit” comes from. It has its origins in the financial dynamics paper, although the noble Lord will know if he remembers that paper well that there were two different credits. In this case, they were boiled down into a single credit for all people on working-age, means-tested benefit. That is where its universality resides: it captures everyone in that category.

One of the attractions of having one word to capture all working-age benefits is that we have two systems today, an out-of-work benefit system and an in-work tax credit system, and the differentiation between them has made it harder to move from one to the other. That is where the discrimination and the differentiation are; that is where the apartheid—if one wants to use an ugly word—lies. That is the gap that we are trying to remove. There is not a real gap, as noble Lords have pointed out today, between those who are unfortunate enough to be out of work, or those who have a disability or fluctuating condition that means that they cannot reliably go into work, and those in work. There is no hard line between the two, nor do we want there to be. We want people to be able to flow across easily. It is because we have two different systems that we have made it so much harder. That is what we are doing with the universal credit, and that is what lies behind our reason for calling it that. As the noble Lord said, what’s in a name? It may seem rather a wide name—“universal”—but it reflects the fact that a whole range of needs will now be met through a single payment rather than by a piecemeal and confusing jumble of benefits and credits. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I have two questions arising from what the Minister has said. The first is on the current impact assessment—we look forward to the new one soon—of the number of children who will be helped. I think that the figure was 350,000. Was that figure reached before other changes to the benefits system were taken into account, given that the IFS has estimated that child poverty will rise in 2013? The second question, briefly, is on IT. I was involved with some of the IT systems for automatic enrolment with NEST. I should like the comfort of knowing that these two will also be well connected.