Housing: Under-occupancy

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 17th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

We put out a Ministerial Statement in September outlining our approach to supported housing, including sheltered housing, which looks to divide the support into two, with one element coming out of the housing benefit bill up to the limit of the LHA amount in each area, which is then topped up by local authorities through a fund. This will help them drive the commissioning of the appropriate level of housing, and supported housing, for the people in their area.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, given the harsher council tax support scheme, it is estimated that one in three of those affected is in arrears and debt. Of the people affected by the bedroom tax, two-thirds are estimated to be in arrears and debt. Of UC claimants for housing allowance, it is estimated that more than three-quarters are in arrears and debt. These debts are manufactured by government policy and will blight lives for some in deep debt for many years to come. We have a new Government and I am sure that neither the Minister nor the Prime Minister wishes this state to continue. What are the Government going to do about it?

[Lord Freud]

There is a lot of complexity around the arrears issue, which we are looking at. The overall figures on arrears are much lower than some of the dramatic specific figures that the noble Baroness mentioned. The overall position is that housing association rent collection is running at 99% on average, and the bulk of housing associations—92% of them—say that they are outperforming their business plans on levels of arrears. There are specific issues, but there are a lot of definitional problems—I have said that to the House before—about what is an arrear and whether, if you are a day late, you go into arrears. We are trying to separate out what one could call book arrears from genuine arrears of the kind about which the noble Baroness is concerned.

Welfare

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I have known Stephen Crabb for a time. He was a Whip for the department and then he was in Wales, where he dealt with welfare issues. I have high hopes for him in pursing the reform agenda. He is up for it and he will be pretty effective at it. I look forward to providing him with all the support that I possibly can in this agenda. Clearly, in getting this reform going, the conversation has to be balanced with the speed. He is conscious of that and will look to get something going at the fastest possible speed, commensurate with making sure that we get it right and get the views of quite a complicated set of constituencies.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend said, I think the whole House recognises the honourable way in which the Minister has behaved over recent days. I would like to associate myself with her remarks to that effect. However, I want him to return to the answer that he gave to one of her questions: she asked whether he would accept that the original decision to cut PIP was wrong. Listening to the Minister, I think he appeared to suggest that what was wrong—he used the word “wrong”—was its conjunction in the Budget with reduced wealth taxes for the better off. Do I understand from that that according to the Minister, had it not been conjoined with those Budget changes benefiting the better off, he would have supported, welcomed and gone ahead with the PIP changes?

[Lord Freud]

The noble Baroness deals me a compliment with one hand and a blow with the other in the way that I enjoy so much, as a masochist. I am not sure it is worth chewing over what I thought last week. We could do it, but I am not sure that it would be a valuable use of Hansard inches.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

To clarify, it was what the Minister said—

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

The way that this was introduced was to replicate what happens in the private sector, where the LHA does exactly that: it provides the family with what they require. The removal of the spare room subsidy brings the same system into the social sector as was introduced into the private sector by the very party that the noble Lord sits in.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, two-thirds of those affected by the bedroom tax have a disability. Will the Minister tell us what proportion of those people affected—the two-thirds—are actually receiving discretionary housing awards? The money does not stretch to them.

[Lord Freud]

I have gone through these figures before. When you look at the numbers of disabled people who are subject to the spare room policy, 63% of the original number were disabled on a DDA basis but, by the time you take it on to the higher rate DLA basis, the figure was down to 17%.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to add to the extremely powerful speeches we have had but I would like to ask the Minister a straightforward question. On Monday, when we discussed the benefit cap, we raised the issue of the guardian’s allowance. As noble Lords who were present at the time will know, the guardian’s allowance goes to those at the very sharp end of kinship care, looking after children who are not just neglected but orphaned and traumatised as a result. That benefit cap obviously interlocks very much with the issues of kinship care. In the light of that, has the Minister been able to think further on the arguments that were put during that debate and reconsider the guardian’s allowance issue? It is a subgroup within kinship care but a few may be affected by a benefit cap, which would have disastrous effects on their capacity to care for some of the most distressed and grieving children society is likely to see.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, noble Lords and right reverend Prelates for their amendments, and all those who contributed to the debate. The amendments all relate to exemptions in certain circumstances from the policy which limits the child element in child tax credit and universal credit to a maximum of two children or qualifying young persons from 6 April 2017. I think we have gone through those exemptions so I will not go through them in the normal way but take them as read.

We have been clear since the summer Budget, when this policy was announced, that we will exempt a third or subsequent child or qualifying young person who is one of a multiple birth where there were previously fewer than two children in the household, and we will exempt a third or subsequent child born as a result of rape. These exemptions will be developed and brought forward in secondary legislation, as subsections of Clauses 11 and 12 permit. We believe that secondary legislation is the right approach for specifying exemptions, to allow for flexibility and engagement with stakeholders. It will be important to get the detail right and we have time to do that before bringing forward regulations for April 2017.

I recognise the deeply felt concern in this House, the other place and more widely about how this exemption will work—something the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, pinpointed just now. We all recognise that this is a difficult and sensitive issue and I would like to provide the House with further information. Clearly, we need to establish a way of making this assessment that is sympathetic and responsive to the claimant and timely in determining entitlement to benefit. Our intention is not to focus on or pre-empt criminal justice outcomes but to ensure that mothers receive the help they need at the time they need it, using clear criteria that are straightforward to apply and not overly intrusive, but which secure the system against fraud and error.

While we continue to look at the detail, our thinking is that a third party evidence model offers the most promising approach to striking the balance we need to achieve. This approach would not be new for the benefit system. For example, we use a third party evidence model in universal credit for the temporary relaxation of the requirement to be available for work in cases of domestic violence. The evidence required is the reporting of the abuse to a third party acting in an official capacity, such as a GP or social worker. This model was developed with input from stakeholders.

Of course, a significant amount of work is needed to take forward and develop the detail of the model. I also want development of the model to include working with stakeholders to help ensure that the process is as compassionate and supportive as possible for claimants in these circumstances, while providing the right assurance to government that the additional support is going to those for whom it is intended. We will be getting in touch with organisations with an interest in this policy shortly to seek their input, and I encourage any other stakeholders who would like to be a part of this to let me know. While there is a significant amount of work to do and detailed questions to be answered, I hope this helps reassure the House and stakeholders that we are thinking very carefully about how we respond to this difficult and sensitive issue.

We have been clear since the summer Budget that we will bring forward further exemptions for exceptional circumstances, and we will be doing that today. I am grateful to those who have suggested amendments and contributed to the debate. As a number of noble Lords pointed out, I have been talking to Peers on this matter. We have carefully considered those affected by this policy and the options available, while taking into account the fact that one of our objectives for universal credit is that it will be part of a simpler and workable welfare system that benefits everyone. I know that noble Lords will remember my muttering about adding carbuncles every now and then.

Regardless, I am pleased to announce today that in recognition of the important role which family and close friends can play in caring long term for children who are unable to live with their parents and could otherwise be at risk of entering the care system, we are in favour of an exemption for children in such circumstances. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Drake and Lady Armstrong, have made persuasive speeches on this issue not just today but in Committee—so it is worth putting the effort into those speeches. We recognise that in these cases such carers, often referred to as kinship carers, are not in the same position to make choices about the number of children in their family as other parents are. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is now taking my distinction there in a positive rather than a non-positive way.

As I have already mentioned, the Bill provides the necessary powers to make regulations to provide exemptions to this policy, and we intend to use regulations to provide for this exemption. In developing the regulations, we will need to ensure that we get the definition right to make sure that the exemption applies to the children to whom it is intended to apply. We will work with stakeholders in developing the regulations to deliver a solution which meets the needs of vulnerable children, while protecting the Government from the potential risk of fraud and error.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

We have a regulatory process where these exemptions will be gone through in detail. I can make a commitment today where I can do so, but I assure noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate, that the machinery of government is not in a place which allows me to say anything more about anything else at this stage. However, the process of setting out regulations will take place some months from now, and we will be exploring in great detail how they work. If the right reverend Prelate is asking me whether there are going to be more opportunities to put pressure on the Government, I would imagine that there will be.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

In which case, given that helpful and tactful response by the Minister, will he help us even further by agreeing to publish draft proposed regulations before the formal procedure of “take it or leave it” in both Houses, thus allowing various participants to discuss those proposed draft regulations with the Minister before they are formally submitted?

[Lord Freud]

In practice, I think that what I have said produces that outcome. I have said that we will consult very widely with stakeholders to get this right, because these are very sensitive issues. The rape exemption is very difficult. Getting kinship caring and adoption right is not straightforward. In practice, there will be consultation, but I do not want to overformalise that process. I have committed to a much more open process than you might see in some other regulations that we issue.

The next complicated case is the formation of new households through re-partnering of single parents, which we have looked at very closely and which produces a number of difficulties. First, it would be perceived as unfair by those families with three or more children who stay together and receive a maximum amount of child element or child tax credit in respect of two children, whereas other families who have formed more recently could receive more. Secondly, there is a risk that families may try to manipulate the benefit system by breaking up and re-forming, or even claiming to have broken up and subsequently re-formed in order to increase the amount. Thirdly, there would be a practical issue in assigning children in newly formed families to a particular parent. We have not done that before. Your Lordships will hear me muttering the word “carbunclising”. That is not to mention the intrusive nature of that process.

Finally, I looked at the numbers involved. The reality is that, whether we like it or not, the bulk of children stay with the mother. The number of fathers with children joining mothers with children is not many. Once the measure is fully rolled out, we expect that only 7% of single men will have children, so it is not that substantial a problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, talked about half a million. That is just not the reality. I reiterate what I said in Committee about the way it is introduced in 2017 for child tax credit and universal credit. Any household which has claimed within the past six months will also be protected. For those reasons, I urge the noble Baronesses and the right reverend Prelate not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, all of us in the House supported universal credit and we all recognised the absolutely key role played by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, in seeking to deliver it. Why have those of us who worked on tax credits—my noble friend in the Treasury and myself as the Minister taking the tax credits Bills through this House—none the less gone on to support universal credit? It was because tax credits did make work pay, they transformed lives, and we were and indeed are proud of them.

But, first, without real-time information, we could not keep pace with the changes of circumstance. Half of all lone parents experienced more than a dozen changes of circumstance every year, and the computers never caught up. We had to have end-of-year adjustments and we had the sadness of trying to recover overpayments from people who could ill afford to make them. Secondly, as has been said, we absolutely needed to simplify the benefits system so that people would know what they were entitled to. Finally, tax credits were rightly built on a work model, and work was defined as 16 hours a week. However, we know that for many lone parents a job for fewer than 16 hours a week, a mini job, is the pathway into work. Instead of the cliff-edge of 16 hours, we supported the principle that the noble Lord enunciated in universal credit of a ladder up from mini jobs right on into full-time work. Over some 17 long Committee days, we supported the noble Lord on universal credit.

The architecture of universal credit remains, but to repeat the image of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, the key driver of making work pay is being shrivelled by the cuts, slice after slice. My heart goes out to the Minister because he must hate it. But, of course, he cannot possibly comment. Instead of universal credit being more supportive than tax credits, which is where we came from in helping people into work, as my noble friend Lady Sherlock has said, increasingly the opposite is now true.

Yes, last autumn we protected existing families on tax credits—not new claimants—from cuts to their existing income, given the commitments made on all sides during the general election. The Chancellor accepted that as people move from tax credits to UC as part of the migration timeline, they should not be worse off simply by virtue of that administrative change. It was the right thing to do and I believe that everyone in the House, including of course the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who was so key to this, was delighted by the move.

However, as my noble friend has said, such transitional protection may not cover situations where there has been a recognised, formal change of circumstance which, as it stands, could bring existing tax credits families immediately into UC over and beyond the migration timeframe, and at that point they will experience cuts in UC. I want the Minister to help us by clarifying the situation. What will take a person who is on tax credits now, who is not part of the planned timeline, into UC and thus experiencing immediate cuts? The reason it is uncertain is that at the moment, certain changes with tax credits must rightly be formally reported to HMRC. As my noble friend set out, that must be done when a lone parent becomes part of a couple or the couple breaks up, when there is another child or a child leaves school, and when hours of work or income change, or childcare costs change—for example, during the summer holidays. And, of course, tax credits rates are now and should continue to be properly adjusted to reflect those natural changes in circumstance. However, will such changes of circumstance, which would bring about a change in tax credits, now instead be a trigger on to UC, at which point families will find themselves caught by the UC cuts, or will they remain outside it? Or does this apply only when the tax credit claims have completely ended, so that no tax credits are in payment? For example, if a lone parent has repartnered and her partner’s income floats them off tax credits altogether and then, say, a year on, sadly, he moves out and she needs to make a fresh new claim, will that fresh claim be under tax credit rules or the more oppressive universal credit rules?

If the oppressive universal credit rules apply, will there none the less be a linking rule—as in the past with a well-established principle for disability benefits—so that within six months, or certainly a year, a new claim is regarded as a resumption of the old claim? In other words, the lone parent remains de facto on tax credits with the protection that that carries when, by the natural time migration, she moves over to UC. I apologise to your Lordships for being quite nerdish about this, but it is essential that the Minister clarify the position for us, which I am sure he will.

Finally, we supported UC over tax credits above all to incentivise people into work. My noble friend has spelt out the additional resource that the Minister was able to achieve to incentivise people into work, especially those more marginal to the labour market, by allowing them to keep more of what they earnt. We all thought that that was the right thing to do. Several years back, the Minister was absolutely right, while criticising tax credits because of the multiplicity of interlocking benefits, when he said that there was a high rate of benefit withdrawal—that is, the taper—which meant that some working people kept only pennies in the pound for every hour that they worked. Therefore, they did not.

However, although the universal credit regulations do not change the taper, in many cases they essentially halve the work allowance which can be earnt before the taper kicks in for many, and they withdraw it in its entirety for some. Therefore, cuts will affect people who come on to universal credit after April 2016. The cut in the standard work allowance for a lone parent working mother, from more than £8,000 to £4,764, means that she will lose half. Effectively, she will lose £2,628 a year by being on universal credit, which she would not if the work allowance had not been halved. Couple families with one partner with limited capacity to work because of disability will lose around £3,000. Single people will lose it altogether. Hence, this amendment.

I am concerned, as are my noble friend and others on our Benches, about the impact of these proposed cuts within universal credit, as we all are about work incentives. We need evidence. The Minister respects evidence. If it is not there it needs to be collected. If it is, I am sure the Minister would want us to address any problems that may arise. My fear is that universal credit, instead of encouraging people into work, will begin to disincentivise them. But I do not know, which is why, as my noble friend has argued, we need that report to determine how, where and with what severity those cuts will fall, and on whom. In particular, how will they affect the key significance of universal credit: to improve work incentives and, as we all wish, to make work pay?

Without improving work incentives, universal credit has lost its moral argument and becomes instead, I fear, a mere administrative tidying up of the current benefit system, with the added risk that we are already beginning to see of repeated cuts. There would be much upheaval for no gain for many claimants, and real, if potential, losses for many more. I hope that I am wrong but we need to know. Such a report would tell us and, if my noble friend chooses to put this to a vote, I hope this House will support her.

[Lord Freud]

Before I start, I acknowledge my appreciation for what Peers are saying. This is not an attack on universal credit. They are some of its greatest fans and it is in that context that they speak. I absolutely get that and I appreciate it. It has reminded me that I owe regular updates about progress of universal credit and has jogged me to get going on that as soon as this Bill is over.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, seeks to repeal the work allowance regulations. I am going to sound like the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. This measure has been debated and voted on twice in the other place, and both times these regulations have been retained. Therefore, this House should think carefully about using a Bill such as this to introduce opposition to a financial measure that has seen that kind of support in another place.

On the amendment, let me remind noble Lords of the context of those changes. The previous welfare system was not working. Spending went up from £6 billion in 1998 to £28 billion in 2010, when we reached the stage where nine in 10 families with children were eligible for tax credits. Some families could earn £60,000 a year and still receive benefits. Yet, at the same time, the number of people in in-work poverty increased by about 20%. It also did not do enough to support people to get into work, stay in work, and progress in work. People were left with unfulfilled potential and did not have an incentive to progress. Even if we forget the money, it undermined opportunity and aspiration due to the distortions and complexities of the system.

The Government have stated their intention to move from a low-wage, high-tax, high-welfare society to a high-wage, low-tax, low-welfare economy and have set out a package of measures. Let me remind noble Lords that the national living wage is set to reach over £9 an hour by 2020 and the personal tax allowance is set to rise to £11,000 in 2016-17, taking 570,000 more people out of income tax. I remember some debates about increasing support for childcare, and we have moved it up to a rate of 85% of eligible costs. We have doubled the early years’ provision, which is free for the working parents of three to four year-olds. When one looks at the whole of childcare, we now spend £5 billion in total across all the schemes, including UC, tax credits and the early years’ provisions, which is more than any previous Administration. Since 2010, there has been an increase of £1 billion.

To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, the measure is different from the tax credit cuts. Universal credit provides an incentive to making work pay and helps to move people off a life on benefits. They get personalised support through a dedicated work coach which helps them through the barriers. It is a different structure. It is not the same thing as the reduction in tax credits. Clearly, we have two elements; namely, the work allowance and the taper rate. We have already got evidence that it works and gets people into work much more effectively than jobseeker’s allowance. Apart from the savings we will achieve on taxpayers’ money, it will generate—partly by focusing the money more efficiently on the people who need it most—gross economic benefits of £7 billion every year once it is fully in.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow universal credit claimants to opt to have the housing cost element of their award paid direct to the landlord, irrespective of the reason. One key principle of UC is that the single, monthly payment mirrors the payment of monthly wages that most claimants would receive if they were in full-time employment. Whether they are receiving UC or are working, tenants need to make similar decisions on managing their money, including paying their own rent.

The Government understand that a move to a single, monthly household payment is a significant change for many claimants and that some will require help and support. Regulations came into force in February last year to allow DWP to inform social landlords whenever one of their tenants makes a claim for or is awarded universal credit with housing costs or when an existing universal credit claimant moves to one of their properties. This enables the social landlord to decide whether the claimant requires advice, support or assistance in budgeting so that they can manage their rental payments.

There will, of course, be instances where the claimant needs additional support and, to this end, the Secretary of State already has powers to pay all or some of a claimant’s UC entitlement to a third party through alternative payment arrangements—or APAs, in the trade. There are three APAs: paying rent directly to the landlord; making more frequent than monthly payments; or splitting the payment within the household. APAs can be considered by the Secretary of State at any point during the universal credit claim, whether at the outset or later on, if a claimant cannot manage the monthly payment arrangement.

Recent improvements allow the landlord to email their APA requests, which are dealt with in a matter of days as a priority—so some of the early teething problems as we started rolling out the system have been addressed to speed up that process. Wherever possible, these arrangements are time-limited and delivered with appropriate budgeting support to help claimants make the transition to monthly budgeting.

The arrangement also covers claimants who are in rent arrears, and managed payments to the landlord will be considered where claimants have arrears of at least one month due to repeated underpayment or where the claimant owes arrears of at least two months and is at risk of eviction. These protections, combined with the measures enabling landlords to recover arrears from a tenant’s UC award, already mitigate any impact on landlords’ income or on homelessness.

We are in fact making a series of initiatives in this area and one of the most interesting is the trusted partner trials, where we are working with local authorities so that they decide the people who should be put on an APA, at least initially, and then look to see the budgeting support that a person needs to run their own funding.

Picking up the point made by my noble friend Lord Cathcart on experience, in terms of arrears we did an elaborate direct payment project and we found that, in the early stages, the numbers who paid in full were running at 95.5%, compared with 99% of those where the state paid. However, by the 18th payment—these were weekly payments in the comparator in this project—the direct payments figure had risen to 99%. Interestingly, this happened when the removal of the spare room subsidy came in, and those tenants who had become used to managing their own rent handled the removal of the spare room subsidy better than the ones who had been on the state-managed payments system. That is not surprising because the managed payments system is not necessarily an easy option where there are reductions for non-dependants, the spare room subsidy and so on, because the claimant will still need to pay the shortfall to the landlord.

The other factor, which I am surprised that noble Lords have not clocked, is that a large number of the families on universal credit are in work. It is not like the old legacy system where you have one lot out of work and one lot in work; this is a blended group and people are moving from the out-of-work group into the in-work group. Therefore, the idea that you can be halfway down the taper—in the jargon—and have a managed payment would be incredibly hard for any organisation, including the DWP and the tenant, to manage. Two million households is equivalent to a quarter of the case load.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The noble Lord makes our point for us. If a substantial number of people are in work and managing fine—as, indeed, is the case; it is one of the reasons for supporting UC—they will not seek alternative payment arrangements. Who will seek them? It is those who have the self-knowledge to know that they are vulnerable when it comes to paying their rent, given the pressure of debt payday loans and all the other debts they may accrue. If they are being hounded, as we know they are, what will go first is the money that should be earmarked for their rent. I urge the Minister not to superimpose on people who find it hard to manage assumptions about how those of us with rather more comfortable incomes and reliable monthly salaries handle our accounts. It can be a very different and very difficult world.

[Lord Freud]

The core reason why I dislike this measure—and I do dislike it, so it is not a question of persuading the Secretary of State—is that we can actually see this situation right now. Interestingly, my understanding from conversations I had with welfare rights people in the 1980s was that they were against managed payments because they disempower tenants. It is funny that the political debate has come full circle. If you say that tenants can choose but you have an imbalance of power between the landlord and the tenant, which is the reality, you will find very quickly that every tenant will choose to have a managed payment because they will be told by their landlords—who would love to have someone with an AAA credit rating paying them—“You must have a managed payment”. That is what has happened. Some 93% of people in social housing choose to have a managed payment. They are disempowered, which makes it hard for them to get back into work—I think the noble Baroness is shaking her head, as a landlord. You say lots of good things—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I have spent years in either local authority housing management or housing association management. I have represented, possibly unlike the noble Lord, a council estate—one of the largest in the city of Norwich—and day by day, week by week, year by year, we went knocking on doors. We know what we are talking about.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Amendment 2 seeks to insert a new clause that would expand the annual report to include data on children living in households with low relative income, combined low income and material deprivation, absolute low income, and persistent poverty. It would effectively reintroduce the same income-based poverty measures as set out in Sections 3 to 6 of the Child Poverty Act 2010—measures that fail to tackle the root causes of child poverty. I know that the amendment is well intentioned, but as it is drafted, it is technically faulty and cannot achieve what the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness and the noble Earl want it to achieve. For example, the amendment refers to how equivalised net household income is to be adjusted by regulations, but there is no regulation-making power in relation to the life-chances clauses in the Bill.

However, this is not the foundation of my disagreement with the amendment. I firmly believe that the existing statutory framework, set around the four income-related targets, simply does not drive the right actions to transform children’s lives. That is what we are all aiming for, so I think it is important for me to spend some time explaining why income measures are not the way to achieve what we all want to see. There will always be natural variations in income levels in society. However, having less money than someone else does not necessarily mean that an individual is in poverty. Income measures do not take this into account effectively.

Income measures focus on the economics of poverty and ignore the human dimensions: the social causes and the reasons people can get stuck in poverty. But even as economic indicators they are flawed. They are an indirect and imperfect indicator of poverty. They do not account for the full needs of the family or other financial deductions that reflect a family’s true financial situation, such as the amount of debt a family has, or even their non-income based resources, such as the benefits from education, such as the pupil premium. Households that have large savings or capital can still count as being in income poverty. This means that income measures can provide only a partial reflection of a family’s economic well-being.

There are other weaknesses, too. For example, the measures are based on current parental income and do not incentivise action to prevent poor children becoming poor adults. They do not reflect government action on raising attainment and improving life chances for disadvantaged children. These are some of the general weaknesses of income measures. I would now like to speak briefly in turn about why specific measures of relative low income—including persistent poverty, absolute low income and material deprivation—are unhelpful in tackling poverty.

If we first consider measures of relative poverty, the problem is that a household can be moved into or out of relative low income without any change in its circumstances. For example, in a recession, as median income falls, so does the relative poverty line. This means that many households that were previously in poverty will now be above the new, lower poverty line, even though their income and life chances have not changed. This incentive of “poverty plus a pound” does not drive transformative change in the lives of family members who still face multiple barriers to lift themselves out of disadvantage.

Conversely, policies such as raising the personal tax allowance and introducing the higher national living wage that give poor families a higher income could lead to increased average household incomes. This in turn raises the poverty line and brings more children into low income, punishing Governments for doing the right thing. As an example, while the economy grew from 2003 to 2009, income measures incentivised the previous Government to tackle the symptoms of poverty through expensive income transfers, such as spending £300 billion on working-age welfare and tax credits. This strategy did not tackle the root causes of child poverty or make a long-term difference to children’s prospects as the number of children in relative poverty remained broadly unchanged. Given that the proposed persistent poverty measure is based on families being stuck below the relative low-income line, it, too, will suffer from these same weaknesses.

I turn now to the disadvantages of absolute low-income measures. By definition, absolute poverty measures the proportion of children below a fixed income line, which is only adjusted each year to account for changes in prices. The current measure of absolute poverty uses the relative poverty line for 2010-11. However, the decision to use this as the absolute low-income line is essentially arbitrary, in the sense that there is no logic to why this is better than any other reference threshold that could be chosen as the absolute standard of what households should be able to count on in order to meet their needs.

Notwithstanding the clear criticism that this measure is subject to some of the same flaws as the relative poverty measure, it also leads to illogical changes in the level of children in absolute poverty. When the absolute poverty line was rebased to the 2010-11 relative poverty line, the number of children in absolute poverty under this measure went from 1.4 million children under the old baseline to 2.3 million children under the new one. These children saw no material difference in their lives or changes in their circumstances, yet just because the line was being drawn somewhere else they were all brought into poverty.

Finally, measures of material deprivation simply do not capture real material living standards robustly. The material deprivation measure asks subjective questions around whether families think that they can afford a certain set of items. We have looked into the accuracy of what it is trying to measure. Analysis from the IFS shows that almost 50% of children who live in a household that is deemed to be materially deprived have incomes well above the most commonly used relative low-income line. This brings up questions around whether material deprivation measures accurately reflect the true living standards of families. I hope that I have been able to show why the existing income measures are a poor test of whether children’s lives are really improving and a distraction from the aim of tackling the key drivers of child poverty.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Before the Minister goes on to his next point, I am puzzled. He is going through the individual indicators as though those are the exclusive and sole measurement of child poverty. That is precisely why the previous Government introduced a suite of measures. Each one captured some aspect and together they captured the broad range of issues that determine how we assess child poverty. So deconstructing and challenging each individual measure is not the point: it is the suite of measures that is being dumped, and it is that suite which caught what it means to be in poverty.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, let me go straight to that question while it is fresh in my mind. It is, of course, possible to be poor while both parents are in work, particularly under the present legacy system. That is why we are bringing in universal credit—to make that much harder. We are not arguing about the level of poverty; it is about what is likely to happen to the life chances of that child compared to both parents being at that level of income and out of work and in work. That is the argument I have been trying to make all afternoon, with, I think, some resistance.

Under Amendments 8 and 11, noble Lords seek to expand the reporting duty placed on the Secretary of State so that his annual report to Parliament must include data on children living in low-income families where one or both parents are in work. Their amendments would add the terms “low income” and “in work” to the list of terms to be defined in the annual report.

I have already gone on enough about the centrality of worklessness and educational attainment. Alongside these statutory measures, the Prime Minister has announced that we are committed to publishing a life chances strategy in the spring, which will set out a comprehensive plan to fight disadvantage and extend opportunity, including a wider set of non-statutory measures on the root causes of child poverty such as family breakdown, problem debt, and drug and alcohol addiction.

I have said before that work is the best route out of poverty but I want to restate our arguments about the centrality of tackling worklessness. The risk of a child being poor is dramatically reduced if at least one parent works. According to the latest statistics, the risk of being in relative poverty for a child in a working family is 13%, compared to 37% for a child in a workless family. So a child in a workless family is almost three times as likely to be in poverty as a child living in a family where at least one adult works. Perhaps those are the figures for which the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, was asking.

Last year, we published an analysis on the transitions into and out of poverty. What we found was staggering, although some might say that it was obvious. Of the children who are in poor workless families, 74% will leave poverty altogether if their parents move into full employment. The analysis also made clear that the more work parents do, the more likely they are to leave poverty, with 75% of children from poor families in part-time employment leaving poverty if their parents enter full-time employment. I remind noble Lords that we have a package of reforms to encourage people to work. These policies include the national living wage and changes to the personal tax allowance, which will allow people to keep more of what they earn. Furthermore, over 30 million individuals will see a tax cut as a result of the changes we will make in this Parliament. Some 570,000 individuals will be lifted out of income tax altogether by 2016-17 and, as a result of the introduction of universal credit, more people will enter work due to improved financial incentives. We have a vibrant and growing economy, and last year real pay grew by 2.1%.

On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on support for women, we are supporting families through the national living wage, which is expected to have a stronger positive impact on the female workforce, boosting the wages of three in 10 female employees by 2020. Our childcare reforms will provide support to women who want to find employment, helping them to increase their income.

We have discussed before that two-thirds of children in relative poverty are from working families, but let me go over my argument. I am not convinced that it will convince the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, but I must try. It is correct that the latest figures published in the HBAI show that 64% of children in relative poverty are from a family where at least one adult is in work. This proportion has grown over the last couple of decades due to the improved progress in tackling poverty in workless families. In 1996-97—the earliest period for which data are available—around 60% of children in relative poverty were from workless families, which is around 2 million children, and around 40% of them were in working families, which is around 1.5 million children. During the 2000s, there was progress in reducing the number in poverty in workless families by focusing spending on tax credits, but this had the unintended consequence of weakening work incentives that resulted in hardly any change in the number of children in in-work poverty, which stood at 1.3 million in 2009-10.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, if the Minister will allow me to say this, he is misrepresenting the statistics. It may be a statement about children in poverty, but in particular the number of lone parents in that period who were in work went up from barely 50% to some 65%. Therefore, tax credits made work pay for them.

[Lord Freud]

It may have made work pay for some people, but it had the effect that, while it was possible, through income transfers, to drive down the out-of-work poverty of children, which is what they were designed to do, it had virtually no impact on in-work poverty. That brought that policy to a reductio ad absurdum: you could not do it without undermining your work incentives because you were raising the level of the benefit structure and it was beginning to knock up the income scale. That was the problem; that is what the data show.

In-work poverty, combined with falling levels of children in poverty from workless families, led to a greater proportion of children in poverty being from those workless families. This meant that, from 1996-97 until the end of the last decade, the proportion of children in poverty from working families actually went up from four in 10 to six in 10. That is the reality of the situation today. I can see that there is some ideological difference to be found over that analysis.

The evidence review, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, highlighted the importance of low earnings, but emphasised the impact of working a lower number of hours, rather than the impact of low-paid work. On the question of how we will know about the levels of poverty—in work and out of work—I reassure her, as I already have, that we will have that data in the HBAI. It will continue to be available. Indeed, those in-work poverty figures in the HBAI can always be broken down by whether the family is in full-time or part-time employment.

I described why having two separate systems worked so poorly. We are introducing universal credit exactly to address those disincentives. I can tell noble Lords that I have spent the most enormous amount of personal time trying to get this structure so that we do not have these odd disincentives, which are really undermining for society. Universal credit is the best way to give people the incentive to enter work: it reduces poverty by making work pay and making sure that people do not lose out as they start to earn more, which is the terrible discontinuity in the legacy system. It provides an effective route out of poverty, while supporting the most vulnerable households. We already see the evidence under universal credit that people are working more and are better off in work.

As with Amendment 2, which we discussed earlier, these amendments would reintroduce an income-based relative poverty measure, which, as I have tried my best to explain—perhaps not as successfully as I might—do not tackle the root causes of child poverty. The Government are concerned with focusing our efforts and attention on those areas that will make a real difference to children’s lives, and concentrating on those root causes.

Resources are finite. It is crucial that we prioritise our actions to make the biggest difference for children. Statutory income measures cause the Government to focus their action and resources on direct and incremental increases to family income, but that does not necessarily drive any real change and is detrimental to the things that we think are vital—noble Lords know what I think they are.

Let us focus on the things that matter and drive the actions that will give our children the future they deserve. Let us not be distracted by measures that detract from that aim. As I said, we will continue to publish the HBAI figures so that we will know exactly what is happening. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Amendment 26 seeks to remove guardian’s allowance from the list of those that are included within the benefit cap, so that it is disregarded when calculating the total amount of benefits a household can receive before the cap is applied. Guardian’s allowance is paid to those who are responsible for a child or young person and either both parents or in some circumstance one parent have died. The Government recognise the crucial and valuable role that recipients play in helping children to recover from the loss of their parents, but I do not agree that it should be excluded from the benefit cap. That is about the principle that there is a clear limit to the amount of benefits that an out-of-work family can receive.

In the interests of time, I shall not repeat my previous arguments, but will provide the best information that we have, which is that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is right to say that this affects very few people. On our sums, the inclusion of the guardian’s allowance within the cap affects fewer than 50 claimants—those are the figures that I have. Rather than a blanket exclusion of this benefit, it is better that targeted support is offered to those who need it. That is where the discretionary housing payments of £870 million come into play. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

First, I thank my noble friend who spelled out the devastating situation in which these children find themselves, and how those who care for them—on kinship care, usually—are therefore entitled to receive guardian’s allowance.

The Minister made two points. First, he said that the principle was that there is a clear limit to benefits that out-of-work families can receive, even when that out-of-work family has taken on the joyless but essential and necessary task of caring for another family’s children. Why does the Minister not consider that therefore they are entitled morally—I am not saying practically, but morally—to benefits for two families, because that is what they are doing? We are not talking about families of their own children; we can argue for that, as my noble friend did, and she was absolutely right to do so.

I am talking about a situation at the extreme end of kinship care, when somebody has taken on responsibility for another family’s children. To say that, on principle, that out-of-work family should not get additional money for doing that—that is not a principle. A principle usually has some sort of moral quality to it. That, I am afraid, is a Treasury statement. I cannot believe that the Minister believes that it is the right policy to uphold in this situation. We should be hugging those kinship carers who are entitled to guardian’s allowance and giving them every support we can. Instead, what we do is to make them poorer.

The Minister’s second point was that he reckoned there were 50 families. I would love to see how he got to that figure. I could not work it out—obviously, because I could not work out how many people were grandparents, how many were in-work families and how many were below the limit, and therefore exempt, because they did not already have children of their own.

If we are really talking about 50 families, why on earth are the Government not conceding? How much does the Minister think this will cost? Let us assume that the average number of children taken on by a guardian is one and a half—in some cases one child, in others two children, and in a few cases three or more. I estimate that that would work out at about £1,000 to £1,200 a year. For 50 families that would be about £50,000 to £60,000 a year. The Minister cannot find £60,000 a year—or £65,000, if we push it—to address this problem? I am going to sit down and ask him whether, in the light of the information he has so far given, he is willing to reconsider his position.

[Lord Freud]

No, I am not in a position to reconsider at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

What does that mean—“at this stage”? Is the Minister willing to come back at Third Reading with a little amendment just taking out this group of people, who are among the poorest of the poor, who are taking on the hardest of hard tasks—caring for bereaved and traumatised children—at a time when they themselves are probably also bereft?

[Lord Freud]

Regrettably, as I said, I am not in a position to make any kind of commitment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I guess it is my fault. I should have brought this up in Committee and perhaps given the Minister more time to think about it. Perhaps he will look back on today’s proceedings. He absolutely rightly responded to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley on a situation that we all recognised it was important that he should respect and meet—and not just because of the court case. I suggest to him that this is another such case—and I think he may wish to do otherwise. Obviously I shall withdraw the amendment now, but I would hope, none the less, that on reflection he will feel able, for 60,000 quid a year, to take guardian’s allowance, at the extreme end of kinship care, out of the benefit cap. He will not even notice it—but they will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as I have already set out, those with a sustained work history benefit from a nine-month grace period before the cap is applied to them. Therefore, those households that have been in employment for at least 50 out of 52 weeks will be exempt from the cap. This gives time for households, including those with a new child, to adapt to their new circumstances before the cap is applied to them.

Households in receipt of working tax credits or which meet the UC earnings threshold will be entirely exempt from the cap. Although some single mothers will not be immediately able to move into work, for those households consisting of couples, the partner need work only 24 hours a week for the household to qualify for the exemption. Around 45% of households that include a maternity allowance claimant who will be affected by the new cap levels are households consisting of a couple, meaning that a partner can help to exempt a household from the cap through work. Households that include a claimant in receipt of maternity allowance may also be entitled to working tax credits and so be exempt from the cap.

Although I am grateful to the noble Baroness for speaking on this issue and for the research that she has put into it, I am not sure that the amendment would do what is intended. It would not create a disregard or exemption from the cap for the specified group; it would, however, appear to make the group subject to a different prescribed list of benefits to be defined by the Government in regulations. That would of course go against the approach that the Bill adopts of providing certainty about the capped benefits by including them in the Bill. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I thank my noble friend Lady Sherlock. The Minister’s answer is that if a woman has a partner, he can increase his hours and she will be okay; if she does not, the amendment is technically deficient and so she cannot be helped. Is that a fair summary of what the Minister has argued? I think it rather is. But what about the situation of a deserted mum? She has one or two children already, she is now pregnant and the man has swanned off. What then? She has no partner who can increase his hours, she already has the care of children and she is up to or at the point of the benefit cap. She is now 29 weeks pregnant and trying to manage a budget, given she is in the private sector, that means she is probably unable to follow the nutritional guidelines and all the rest of it that is heavily recommended for her at this stage. I ask the Minister the same question that my noble friend asked: what is she supposed to do—apart from find another man?

[Lord Freud]

One of the things we have tested rather thoroughly through the courts is the role of discretionary housing payments for the kind of hard cases that the noble Baroness is so adept at finding. This is precisely where one would anticipate that provision, which is quite substantial, being used. The courts have found, again and again, that it is appropriate to use those payments for such cases because they are so hard to define in statute. Because of that difficulty, the flexibility of the DHP is the way to address the issue.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

In that case, why do such women not fall within the Government’s guidelines as having high priority for DHPs? As my noble friend says, they do not. Although I have not been able to verify it myself, I understand that, as a result of that, in most local authorities they do not get such money because the money is not there. They certainly, I suspect, would not get it for nine months after and up to two months before, or something like 11 months’ continuous payment, because local authorities cannot run it. They use DHPs to deal with temporary, immediate emergencies. Therefore, if the Minister means what he says, he should be giving guidance to local authorities that this should be a priority consideration and he should back that with the necessary money, which is not there at the moment, to do so. However, I see that he is standing up, perhaps to respond to that.

[Lord Freud]

I just want to make the point that DHPs can be used for the long term. They are not just a temporary thing and the guidance says that very precisely.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I do not know how many local authorities the Minister has spoken to about their use of DHPs, but that is not my experience. Obviously, I have not been able to test the opinion of the entire local authority movement, but certainly this is what I am assured. I have crawled over some of the priority considerations of certain local authorities and can assure the Minister that what he is saying does not hold good: there is simply not enough money.

As far as I can see, the only advice the Minister is offering is that these women should throw themselves on the mercy of non-existent DHPs from local authorities whose money is already spent, cross their fingers and hope. I do not think that is a policy. I do not even think it is appropriate for the Minister to possibly suggest that that is what they should rely on. However, at this point, and given the time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Housing: Spare Room Subsidy

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 22nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Yes, we have seen a substantial number of people downsizing—45,000 people have downsized within the social rented sector and another 12,000 have moved into the private rented sector. The number of people who have registered for downsizing is now running at 16%. Noble Lords may remember that when this policy started it was estimated from the surveys that about 20% of people would want to do so. We are well on the way to people making this adjustment. Other people, however, are looking to earn more money and to work. That is one of the factors, but not a major one, in some of the record employment levels we are now seeing.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, nearly 500,000 families are affected. Two-thirds of them are disabled, just 8% have been able to downsize and just 10% have received a discretionary housing payment to help them, so, as my noble friend said, 76% have cut back on food. Does the Minister consider this a success and, if so, what would he consider a failure?

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 21st December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Of course I did not support it; I am on the record as not supporting it. This is not an absolute regional cap—this is a two-tier cap, London and the regions—but, the Opposition may feel that it is better late than never. I look forward, by 2018, in another three years, to the full-hearted support of the Opposition for the current proposals.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, does the Minister not also accept—I am sure that his memory stretches back this far—that the main concern of the Opposition, led by my noble friend Lady Sherlock, who will no doubt respond to this in any case, was to come in behind the Bishops’ amendment? That was to ensure that we compared like with like—not, as the Government were doing, like with unlike. They were excluding from those in work income such as child benefit and additional forms of benefit, so they were comparing income for those exclusively on benefit with earnings only, excluding benefits, for those in work. We therefore came in behind the Bishops’ amendment to try to protect children caught in that situation.

[Lord Freud]

I am delighted to have a trip down memory lane, but since we have changed the basis of the measure, as noble Lords have pointed out, we might just spend unnecessary time on it.

Let me go on to the present proposition, which is to align the cap with the circumstances of many working people throughout the country. The Bill reduces the cap to £20,000 a year for lone parents and couples and £13,400 for single people without children, except in Greater London, where it will be £23,000, with a lower rate of £15,410 for single people without children. These are still significant amounts: £20,000 is the equivalent of an annual pre-tax income of £25,000, while £23,000 is equivalent to an annual pre-tax income of £29,000. About four out of 10 households in London earn less than £23,000 a year, while approximately four out of 10 households outside of London earn less than £20,000.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Has the noble Lord assessed the figures for their income rather than their earnings?

[Lord Freud]

I do not have that to hand. As a noble Lord said, we are now reaching a judgment on how to arrive at those figures. Indeed, the debate that we had in 2012 basically looked at the same point. We are looking at the level of earnings that we feel is fair above which people should not get benefits.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the Minister is not addressing the issue. What matters is income versus income, not income versus earnings, ignoring additional income. Therefore, if the Minister is going to run this argument, which I understand is a perfectly proper argument to run—and I think it commands a lot of support—he has to include actual income and not exclusively earnings, because those families that he is talking about will almost certainly have additional payments for their children and additional payments for their housing.

[Lord Freud]

Yes, I am just looking here at the level of earnings and that is the figure that we are taking. These levels for the cap will reinforce our message that work pays, and that it is not fair for someone on benefits to be receiving more than many working households. Having looked at the evidence, we believe it is fair to have a higher cap in London.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

This question session has not got anywhere. Those families do not have an income that is higher than that for those at work. The point is that if you compare it only with earnings, you are possibly excluding a substantial portion of income that is available to those in work. I hope that the Minister will correct his statements as he goes through, otherwise he is comparing apples with oranges, and it does none of us any kindness to continue down that path.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

The established procedures, of course, are basically to go in line with CPI; this is a much broader look than that, as I have tried to describe. While we have safeguarded those with illness or disability, we do not think it right that in undertaking a review of the level of the cap the Secretary of State should have a legislative requirement to take into account any extra impacts on specific groups.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If the Minister says—quite rightly and decently, and I am sure that the whole House will support him in this—that he will exempt people who are in the ESA support group because the Government acknowledge that they cannot be expected to work, and therefore the issue of work incentives does not apply, why does he not apply the same reasoning to lone parents with children under three or to the carers in full-time unwaged work that my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley described? The Government accept that those two groups are effectively out of the labour market in exactly the same way as the support group, yet one, decently, is exempted from the cap, while the other two, indecently, are not.

[Lord Freud]

There is a difference between having a specific provision that does not require people to work and having one that actually financially incentivises people to work. That is the difference. As the noble Baroness pointed out, we do not require anyone with a child under three to go to work, but people often go into work with a child much younger than that. When people look at this measure on balance, they may think that it is the appropriate thing for them. That is my best answer to this question.

This is a peculiar process and I am running incredibly late now, but I think that noble Lords would prefer me to finish. I have just had so much dialogue, and that is rather unusual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Amendments 75, 78, 80, 81 and 83 seek to exempt specified benefits from the list of those that are included within the cap or to exclude those benefits in the same way that pensioner benefits are. These amendments undermine the fundamental principle we established when we introduced the cap: there has to be a clear limit to the amount of benefits that an out-of-work family can receive. This is a principle that has gained very broad support across the country.

Turning to the specific proposals, after my intervention on the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on the carer’s allowance, I re-emphasise that the Government recognise the valuable contribution that carers make, and I will come back to that issue. Amendment 78 also exempts all those claiming employment and support allowance. Those in the support group are already exempt. But the benefit cap is a work incentive. Those in the WRAG have been assessed as being able to undertake some work-related activity, with a view to moving into employment in the short to medium term, and therefore we believe it is right that the cap be applied to these people.

The same principle applies to those in receipt of IB and SDA together. The recipients of these benefits will not necessarily be unable to undertake any work-related activity, but we are reassessing them for ESA and those who are found to be entitled to the support component will become exempt from the cap. Income support is a benefit paid to claimants in an extremely wide range of circumstances. It is an income-replacement benefit and as such, it is appropriate that, like the other income-replacement benefits, it is included in the cap.

The cap increases work incentives and promotes fairness by limiting the amount that those out of work can receive in benefits. I do not think that a blanket exemption from the cap for simply everybody in receipt of income support would support either of those aims. The vast majority of capped households that have found work include parents who have managed to balance their caring responsibilities with work—as millions of working households already do up and down the country. By going out to work, parents show their children the importance of a strong work ethic and reinforce the message that work is the best route out of poverty.

Before turning to Amendments 87 to 90B, I remind noble Lords of the exemption from the cap for anyone who is a member of a household that includes somebody who is ill or disabled and is entitled to attendance allowance, DLA, PIP, industrial injuries benefits or the armed forces independence payment. Additionally, as well as war widows and widowers, those who are entitled to the support component of ESA or universal credit’s limited capability for work or work-related activity element are exempt.

In recognition of the work incentive objective of the cap, households that are entitled to working tax credit or meet the prescribed earnings threshold for universal credit are also exempt from the cap. I have already mentioned the nine-month grace period from the cap for households that have recently left sustained employment. We have committed £800 million, as I have already said, for discretionary housing payments over the next five years to provide extra support for households that may be affected by the cap, within the context of that £800 million being for all the welfare reforms. I hope that noble Lords are assured that, combined with the additional funds that we have allocated for DHPs, there are already numerous safeguards in the design of the cap which protect the most vulnerable, as well as those with a strong work history.

I have already said that I will come back on Amendment 87. Amendment 88 would exempt from the cap all those in receipt of universal credit who are not subject to all work-related requirements. There is already an exemption, as I have said, for those who have limited capability for work or work-related activity. But this amendment would extend the exemption far more widely, including to those subject to work-focused interviews and work preparation requirements, many of whom will have a relationship with their work coach focusing on what they can do to prepare positively for a return to work.

Amendment 89 also seeks to exempts all those on ESA. I will not repeat the particular arguments but will add that there is a large body of evidence showing that work is generally good for physical and mental well-being and that where their health condition permits, sick and disabled people should be encouraged and supported to remain in or re-enter work as soon as possible. I am encouraged that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was happy to acknowledge that point a couple of weeks ago.

Amendment 90 would also introduce an exemption for all those in receipt of income support. Again, that is an extremely wide range of circumstances.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I accept the point about income support covering a wide category of claimants, and I know that we will come on to this later, but is the noble Lord willing to reconsider his position on attaching a benefit cap to people from whom work is not expected by virtue of, say, the age of their child?

[Lord Freud]

I have already answered that question in the first of these amendment groupings. I repeat: there is a difference between having a state expectation—and conditionality attached—for people to go to work, and a financial incentive for them to do so.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether responsible carers would be set requirements that they cannot meet. We will ensure that any work-related requirements will be tailored to individual circumstances and compatible with childcare responsibilities.

I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on kinship carers. The Government recognise the service that kinship carers and others provide, and the Bill continues the current provisions for foster carers, kinship carers, and family and friend carers. If they, or a child for whom they are caring, are in receipt of an exempt benefit the cap will not apply. In addition, any payments received from the local authority for providing care will be disregarded from the benefit cap. Finally, there is a nine-month grace period whereby the cap may not be applied to those who have recently left sustained employment. This will give time for kinship carers who may have had to leave employment to take on additional caring responsibilities to adapt to their new circumstances. Family and friend carers are treated in the same way as parents in the benefit system, so it is only fair to ensure that this principle applies to the application of the cap, too. The benefit cap is intended to promote fairness between those in and out of work, and to increase incentives for people to move into work—principles that I believe apply in the same way for family and friends carers as for parents.

Regrettably, I am not in a position to supply the specific data requested by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on what is happening in London. As I said, I will come back to the matter of carers at a later date but I cannot support the other amendments and I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

We did apply the family test; I had better write to the noble Baroness with the details because I cannot recall what was in it. There was quite a lot of material going through in a short time.

I think that I have now dealt twice with the fact that we are looking at earnings and we are not making that comparison, even though I know that neither the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, like the answer. That is my answer—I do not have another answer, however much I am asked.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Forgive me, my Lords, but an assertion is not an explanation. What we are getting is an assertion from the Minister: “I am not going to compare income and income, just income with earnings, and additional income for that person on earnings which comes from benefit will not be taken into account. Why? Because I say so”.

The Government are running two arguments, over and beyond the repeated headline stuff. One is about work incentives—people are expected to move into work by virtue of this Bill. The second is the question of fairness between those currently in work and those out of work on benefit. I understand why the Minister is making these arguments, but on neither does he have a case, nor has he made one. He has simply made assertions.

On excluding people, rightly, from the support group, the Minister is still not explaining, but merely asserting: a lone parent with a child of one or two may have the choice to work; the Government do not expect them to work; most people would not necessarily want them to work; none the less, the cap will apply. When it comes to carers, a pause button has been pressed.

On the Minister’s second argument, over and beyond the work incentive whereby he is comparing those in work and those out of work, he is disregarding a chunk of people’s in-work income, which is in addition to those earnings. Why? Because he says so. The incentive into work does not apply to some of the groups we have been discussing. On the fairness between in-work and out-of-work income, the Minister has not included part of the income which would establish a reasonable basis of comparison.

What does the Minister expect us to do? He is asserting things without giving us any evidence and not engaging in the argument. His two assertions—this is why he is doing what he is doing—are not substantiated by any evidence or argument that he has offered. I am sorry, but this will not do. It is not good enough. The Committee is owed more from the noble Lord than we are getting.

[Lord Freud]

I have done my best to lay out that this is based on equivalent pre-tax incomes of £25,000 and, in London, £29,000. The comparable earnings figure is roughly at the level of four in 10. But I cannot produce any more information or justification—I cannot give what I have not got. I am afraid that that is what I am able to provide today.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I do not want to be discourteous to the Minister. He is much respected in the House, and many of us engaged with him in a very satisfactory way on universal credit. He took suggestions away, he listened, he argued, he produced new evidence which made some opposition Members change their mind. We have every respect for the fact that, as a Minister, the noble Lord is genuinely evidence based—except on this. He has produced no evidence.

What puzzles me is that the Minister has not asked for the evidence to substantiate his two drivers about getting people into work and having fairness between in-work and out-of-work claimants. We know from experience that the noble Lord respects evidence and offers it to us. He has come to the Committee, after Second Reading and three Committee sittings, knowing that we will be looking for evidence to sustain his position—and if he has it, we will respect it—but he has not come forward with it; he has simply repeated assertions. Either the evidence is not there, in which case the assertions have no substance, or the evidence is there but is not being shared with us, which suggests a level of bad faith that I do not in any way attribute to the Minister. So where are we?

[Lord Freud]

I will try one last time. If noble Lords are dissatisfied, that is the reality.

We currently have a benefit cap in operation at a single rate of £26,000, and we are taking that down. That has mainly affected London. We are now spreading it out to affect just short of 100,000 people—90,000-odd on the impact assessment, although it is interesting that, in 2012, a smaller number were involved in practice than in our original impact assessment, so let us just see.

Our experience of running that benefit cap and the reaction to it were such that the Government decided that we could safely reduce the level and put it into two tiers, so that its impact is spread through the country more evenly. We have taken it down by 12.5%. It is the experience of running it live that has led the Government to think that we could move it to these levels and get the incentive effects that we are looking for to operate. I do not have any more information to provide for the noble Baroness—much though I know that she would like more. I apologise to the extent that she is disappointed.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 21st December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I will just ask a few questions slightly wider than the amendments tabled. The Minister will know that we have coming towards us a Housing and Planning Bill that will extend extensively the right to buy, treat starter homes as part of affordable housing and seek to both extend owner-occupation and push it further down the income scale to people who, at the moment, are not able to access it in terms of both deposit and repayments. The result of that will almost certainly be greater risk of default and problems in maintaining mortgage payments, a more precarious relationship to the world of work, and periods therefore where these people do not have reliable income.

The questions are very simple. Has the Minister talked to his colleagues in the DCLG about this? Is he aware that the demand for this sort of support will almost certainly increase substantially in years to come? What assumptions is he making about the implications of that money which must be made available, perhaps for long-term loans, to sustain people such as those who are fairly marginal to the owner-occupied market coming into it—possibly with the best of reasons, but none the less they will struggle to sustain their repayments? How much connection is there between this policy of the DWP and the work being pushed by the Minister’s colleague Greg Clark in the other place through the DCLG?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by responding to Amendment 103A, which would keep the waiting period at 13 weeks. The background to this is well known. Claimants receiving income-related benefits may claim help towards the cost of their mortgage interest payments. Apart from those receiving state pension credit, claimants must serve a waiting period before entitlement to help with mortgage interest begins. Before 2009, the waiting period for the majority of working-age claimants was 39 weeks. In January 2009, temporary arrangements were introduced that reduced this period to 13 weeks. This was to provide additional protection to those who lost their jobs during the recession. At the same time, the maximum value of mortgage for which support is available, known as the capital limit, was doubled to £200,000. In the summer Budget, it was announced that from April 2016 the waiting period will return to the pre-recession length of 39 weeks although the capital limit of £200,000 will be maintained.

This amendment would remove the current broad powers in the Bill that allow the waiting period for support for mortgage interest to be set out in regulations, replacing them with a narrowly defined 13-week waiting period, but I suspect it is a probing amendment. We wish to retain the ability to act quickly in different circumstances, and putting this in primary legislation would prevent that.

Let me be clear about why we help owner-occupiers with mortgage interest payments. The purpose is not to secure their asset or to reduce any outstanding payments owed to lenders. The purpose is simply to mitigate the risk of repossession. The CML now says that it believes the 39-week waiting period will drive repossessions, but it is unable to quantify the number of repossessions. We will work with the CML to assess any such impacts in terms of repossessions, but we do not believe that they will be significant, particularly at the current level of house prices. There is no evidence to suggest that lenders will do anything other than exercise the same degree of forbearance that they did prior to 2009 when the 39-week waiting period was last applied, particularly as we are maintaining the higher capital limit.

Amendment 104 seeks to change the way in which SMI loans are recovered from the equity in the claimant’s home. The intention is that a charge registered by a local authority to reclaim deferred payments for social care would always take precedence over a charge registered by the DWP to recover an SMI loan. As the Bill stands, the Government can require that a loan be secured by a charge over the claimant’s property. Under provisions in the Land Registration Act 2002, charges are recovered in the order in which they are registered. If the SMI charge was registered on the property before any deferred payment arrangement, it will have prior claim to any equity when the property is sold. The legal charge will therefore be subordinate to any existing charges on the property, including the mortgage. That answers one of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.

We envisage that advice would normally be given via a telephone conversation and would cover the following areas: the claimant’s financial position now and in future, their understanding of the terms of the loan, and encouragement for them to engage with any heirs they might have. The delivery of that financial advice will be outsourced to a third-party provider.

Section 34 of the Care Act 2014 obliges local authorities, in prescribed circumstances, to offer DPAs. The intention is that people should not be forced to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for their care. If there is no equity in the property—a subject raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock—the family would be able to apply for a funeral payment from the Social Fund.

I pick up on the question asked by my noble friend Lord Young. Local authorities are not required to make such an offer where there is a pre-existing charge on the property. Recipients of SMI loans by definition have a pre-existing charge—their mortgage—so in such cases there is no obligation to offer deferred payments. The registering of a charge in respect of an SMI loan does not, therefore, directly interfere with the policy intent of the Care Act.

The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, asked about the types of property on which it is possible to secure a loan. Charges can be secured on the claimant’s equity share in shared ownership and on leasehold properties.

I turn back to local authority provision. Local authorities are not precluded from offering DPAs where there is an existing charge so long as they are satisfied that there is adequate security. This means that they may still consider offering deferred payments if, after taking account of the outstanding mortgage, the remaining equity would be sufficient to cover an individual’s likely care costs. It is arguable that in some circumstances the existence of a charge in respect of an SMI may make authorities less inclined to agree to defer payments in such cases. However, it is important to note that deferred payments are available only where the person enters residential care. In such circumstances, payments of income-related benefits cease, including payments of SMI. As the claimant will have no means to meet their mortgage payments, it is probable that the property would have to be sold anyway. I should be clear that the position as I have just described it is not a consequence of changing SMI into a loan; it is inherent in the current system.

Amendment 104A is intended to exempt disabled claimants from the provision that introduces SMI loans and allow them to continue to receive this help in the form of a non-recoverable benefit. The purpose of providing SMI is to protect owner-occupiers from the risk of repossession and allow them to remain in their homes. In almost all cases, these payments are sent direct to lenders rather than to the claimant. When Clause 16 comes into effect, the level of support will remain the same as now—the point made by my noble friend Lord Young—and payments will continue to be sent direct to lenders. Neither lenders nor claimants will see any difference in the way the system works, so exempting any particular group would not have any impact on the level of protection they were afforded. The difference is that under the loans scheme the payments will be recoverable, but recovery will not be sought until the property is sold. So the day-to-day income of disabled people will not be affected.

SMI supports individuals in the accrual of a significant asset. Many taxpayers who are providing that support cannot afford to buy their own homes. It is only fair that this support is recouped where equity is available when the property is sold. I do not believe there is a sustainable argument that people with disabilities should be exempted from refunding some of the equity that the taxpayer helped them to accrue, while other people supported during periods of financial need should not.

The amendment is defective, in that it does not make a consequential amendment that would continue existing SMI entitlement for the group that the amendment is designed to protect—but let us leave technical issues aside.

Lastly, Amendment 104AZA would prevent the Government from changing support for mortgage interest into a loan for those on state pension credit, and allow them to continue to receive help with their mortgage interest as a benefit rather than a loan indefinitely. This would be unsustainable and unfair on the taxpayer. As I have previously said, it is not right that taxpayers, many of whom cannot afford to buy their own home, are subsidising the acquisition of a substantial asset. Pensioners will have access to the same level of support for mortgage interest payments as the current system provides, and the Government will not recover the loan until the property is sold. With pension credit claimants, it is most likely that this will be on their death and therefore will impact not them but the beneficiaries of their will.

Pensioners will have the same access to support that the current system provides, and the Government will seek to recover the debt only up to the level of available equity when the property is sold. In response to questions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Manzoor, I say that any outstanding debt at that point will be written off. Owner-occupation involves the acquisition of a potentially valuable asset that often increases in value over time. It is right and sustainable that the taxpayer reclaims their contribution to this asset.

The amendment would also introduce a waiting period for pensioners before they could receive help with their mortgage interest payments. There is currently no waiting period for help with mortgage interest for pensioner claimants, and it is not the Government’s intention to introduce one.

I cannot go into great detail on the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, but to the extent that more support will be required for people, this is a far more sustainable way for the state to provide it than through grants. We are still considering our response to the DPRRC line on whether the procedure is negative or affirmative. With these explanations, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Ha!

[Lord Freud]

All right, highly delighted.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Keep going.

[Lord Freud]

Half of those arrears were accrued in the first four-week period. We discovered in the direct payment project that there is genuinely an issue about moving people over in the first three months, and we are spending an enormous amount of energy and effort on pinpointing that. Indeed, we are doing a lot of work now with social landlords to get the problem under control.

I should point out that this proposition would be of greatest value to private landlords, as the social sector is much less volatile. It is not unrealistic to suppose that commercial landlords, like any other small business people, should make a certain amount of provision for bad debt. Rent payments can be made direct to landlords once arrears reach the equivalent of two months, which limits the degree of their exposure.

Amendment 104BB would allow universal credit claimants to request that the Secretary of State pay their housing costs element to their landlord. The Secretary of State already has powers to pay all or some of a claimant’s universal credit entitlement to a third party where it would be in the claimant’s or their family’s interests. In practice, these powers are used to protect vulnerable claimants or claimants in rent arrears by paying the universal credit housing costs element direct to the landlord. However, as I have already said, the default position is for universal credit to be paid as a single monthly sum direct to the claimant; that is designed to mirror what would happen if the claimant was in full-time employment, when they would be responsible for managing their own funds and paying their own rent. The direct payment project showed that after 18 months the rent payment rate was 99%, which was comparable to now. Where there are problems, the department can manage payments and look to use the arrears option.

The amendment would also go further than the current arrangements for housing benefit, whereby the majority of private sector tenants are paid their housing benefit direct. To allow claimants to opt out of managing their own budgets while receiving universal credit would be a step backwards for them and a step away from claimants being job-ready.

I will need to answer the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, in writing, so I will cover those later.

Finally, my noble friend asked a question about Scotland. The Scotland Bill grants powers to Ministers to decide how to make payments but this is not a straightforward thing to do, because universal credit covers people who are in work and out of work and presumably you would not want to make payments to in-work people because perhaps the payments do not cover their rental elements. Therefore, it is a much more complicated issue than people realise when they do not understand completely how universal credit works.

The Government believe that work is the best route out of poverty and that universal credit should help, not hinder, claimants on their journey into employment so that they do not fluctuate in and out of work or go up and down the taper. Paying universal credit as a single monthly payment will ensure that claimants are best prepared for the transition to work and for staying in work. I hope that, on the basis of the explanations and reasons I have provided, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, can the Minister help us? It would be very useful to have this information before we come to Report. The evaluation of the bedroom tax—obviously the Minister will be familiar with it— has just come out in the last three days or so. It shows that over 55% of tenants affected by the bedroom tax were in arrears in autumn 2014, although of course many of them had already been in arrears. Does the Minister have any figures to try to separate out the effect of the bedroom tax on the arrears issue from the move to universal credit and its payment methods? What information does the department have, and is it collecting any? It will be quite hard now, because problems in paying your rent are beginning to layer on top of each other. We will need to disentangle these, if not for this Bill then for the Bill to come.

[Lord Freud]

I will not resist the temptation of pointing out that there is no such thing as a bedroom tax; it is the removal of the spare room subsidy, and I will be answering a Question on that tomorrow. Interestingly, the direct payments project provided a lot of insight into this issue. It started off with direct payments and then people started taking on the removal of the spare room subsidy as well. I will try to find the precise figures for the noble Baroness, as I am speaking slightly from memory. We found that the people who had learned how to go through the direct payment process were able to handle the removal of the spare room subsidy more efficiently than others. I will aim to get the noble Baroness chapter and verse on that.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I realise that this is a sensitive issue, but the amendment in the name of my noble friend has been tabled for some time on sanctions, time, efficaciousness and the need for a review. I would have expected in the Minister’s brief the detail of how many sanctions for how long, how long the decision-making is taking, the number of people going through as a result to appeal, and the results of the appeals. I would have expected two or three pages in her brief giving her the statistical detail which would empower her to answer many of the questions which, understandably, she is taking away today. I am surprised at that, because the amendment has been tabled for some time. The department will have the statistics, and they should have been made available to us in Committee, so that we have that material here today before we consider what we—and my noble friend in particular—may or may not do on Report.

I am in no sense criticising the Minister, but Ministers are coming to this House woefully underprepared with the information they need, which is of a detailed sort, to deal with the amendments being discussed. Members on the Opposition Benches have a right to expect Ministers to have that at their fingertips.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, that was an unnecessary intervention. Most of the information that was asked for is available on public websites—in particular, on the question about the three-year sanctions. I will ensure that noble Lords have the address of that website to check.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

It should not be a question of going to a website. If a question is asked on the Floor of the House, and it is on a website, I would expect the Minister to have that detail in the briefing from the Box. That is their function—that is their job. I do not blame or criticise the Minister in any respect, but I would have expected a higher level of appropriate technical briefing for her, with which to equip her to answer what are obviously technical questions.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, would repeal the Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2015, which were laid before Parliament on 10 September 2015 and come into force next April. The amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, would increase the standard UC allowance payable for lone parents who are also care leavers. Both amendments refer to issues recently considered by this House. The work allowance regulations were lying before the House as recently as last month and we have already discussed care leavers in debates on the Bill, most recently last Wednesday.

The Bill does not make any changes to the standard allowances in universal credit, which are set out in the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, debated in this House in February of that year.

The Government set out in the summer Budget measures to transform Britain from a low-wage, high-tax, high-welfare society to a higher-wage, low-tax and low-welfare society. This package of measures included changes to UC and tax credit allowances but also the introduction of the national living wage and further increases to the personal tax allowance. Noble Lords will be aware that the Chancellor has subsequently announced changes to the tax credit element of this plan in response to concerns raised mainly by noble Lords about the timetable for implementation. However, the overall strategy remains unchanged. The welfare system needs to be brought under control to make it fair to the taxpayer and support economic growth.

This is perhaps a reasonable time to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about all the improvements that there might be to universal credit. I acknowledge that there may well be improvements. One of the opportunities that we have, uniquely in universal credit, is to start doing randomised control trials to discover how we might improve it. Some of those suggestions may well work when we have discovered the dynamic effect of making those changes. We do not know at this moment, but we and future Governments will have the opportunity to test some of those propositions.

Doubtless noble Lords will have seen analyses published by various organisations assessing the impact of these changes on claimants and are clearly concerned about the possible impact on families. As I start trying to explain the impacts, it is important to explain why those analyses tell only part of the story. First, they fail to reflect that the summer Budget measures are a package. The comparator, which excludes work allowance changes but includes all other summer Budget measures, reflects the Government’s policies to deliver low taxes but not those to deliver low welfare. If we are to deliver our commitment to stable public finances, we cannot deliver one without the other.

Secondly, they fail to take account of all elements of government policy that will have an impact on families between now and 2020, including spending on vital public services such as the NHS and schools, on which so many families rely. If you take the sort of analysis that has been carried out by the IFS and the Resolution Foundation but instead compare the net incomes of those on tax credits in 2015 with what they would get under UC in 2020, taking into account the national living wage, increases in the personal allowance, better provision for childcare and economic growth, the cash position would look broadly similar in 2020.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the analyses fail to take account of the dynamic impact of universal credit, or indeed of any changes in behaviour as a result of the measures in the Bill. We are introducing universal credit precisely to give people more choice and opportunity to get into and progress in the labour market. The early impact is already documented, but static analyses cannot help showing claimants as passive recipients of welfare, unresponsive to the new possibilities that this Government are opening up with these reforms. This is particularly important when we consider universal credit claimants directly affected by this change when it comes into effect next April. The overall numbers are of course small, given the controlled rollout. They are also made up primarily of childless singles.

Let us be clear about the group we are talking about. They are a group with no barriers to full-time work. Indeed, many of them already move off universal credit altogether by finding full-time employment. Those with residual universal credit awards in work are normally working part-time and would therefore have got absolutely nothing under the tax credits system. The changes in April will reduce that generosity but will still leave this group better off than under the previous system.

I recognise that there are some more complex cases in the current caseloads, with higher entitlements and greater barriers to increasing earnings. To respond to the first question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I can say that the Secretary of State has announced that we will use adviser support and the flexible support fund to ensure that each of those families is supported through the change.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

Would the noble Lord expand on that answer? How many lone-parent families? How much will they be supported by in terms of their finance—is he saying that it would be as though the cuts had not affected them—and for how long?

[Lord Freud]

It would be a small number of families; I do not have the precise number.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can he give us a feel: are we talking about 100 or 1,000?

[Lord Freud]

It is a small number. It is probably towards the lower end of that, but I do not have the precise number. We will use the flexible support fund—the measures the Secretary of State was talking about—to help them to make the transition, so that they manage the change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Does that mean that they will not be worse off in cash terms during their transition by virtue of the support system?

[Lord Freud]

It is not the same as transitional protection, as I was indicating. It is our means of helping people adjust to the change we are seeing in universal credit for those groups.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

How will that happen?

[Lord Freud]

We will help them make the transition. It will vary for each of those families: it might be some more work or it might be upskilling to earn more. The numbers are very particular and specific but they are clearly a focus of our obligation to those groups to help them to manage their position. We will put the resource in to help them to do that. That is what we are talking about. Helping those on lower income towards financial independence requires a tax and welfare system that encourages and rewards work, and one which provides people with the right support to progress in the labour market and provide their families with long-lasting security.

The next question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, was about how the transitional protection works. The people who get transitional protection are only those whom we have managed migration for, which, as the noble Baroness pointed out, will start in 2018. It is not designed to provide indefinite financial protection. Over time, transitional protection will be eroded as claimant circumstances change. It will be appropriate to end it when circumstances underlying the award are no longer recognisable as those on which the legacy calculation was made. We have not yet regulated for transitional protection, but we have described its principles. We will bring forward those regulations in due course.

[Lord Freud]

We put them out at the time of the Bill. They were reasonably large changes. There is a list of them: re-partnering would trigger one, as would a new member of the household. Other changes might be a sustained drop in earnings—an equivalent almost to moving out of work—or one or both members stopping work. As I said, those are all indicated. We will set out those changes in due course.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the noble Lord envisage a situation in which a couple—a family—received this, he moved out and she became poorer, but the result was a change in circumstances, so her reduced income was made worse because she no longer had transitional protection?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I do not have the precise figures here so it is quite hard for me to know how much of that flexible support fund will need to be diverted, but it is a mixture of support and funding. It is a question of how that is combined. We do not anticipate a large amount because the numbers are not very large. We have not isolated the precise numbers. It is too difficult—we just have not done that—but our anticipation is that it is not a substantial amount.

Let me pick up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on incentives to work. There are only two ways of reducing the cost of universal credit: looking at either the taper or the work allowances. The taper is what maintains the incentives to work and to work more. Keeping it at a steady rate so that people can understand exactly where they are, so that if they change their work hours they can understand exactly what happens in a way that they cannot with the present system, was something that we saw as a priority, particularly at a time when the economy is strong and there is work available. There may be a different dynamic at different stages of the cycle, but that is the position we are in now.

On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, the minimum income floor will continue to be calculated by reference to the national minimum wage, which includes the national living wage.

I turn now to Amendment 62D, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. In the current system there is considerable complexity around the rates for young people, with some differences between benefits. The structure of age-related rates in universal credit is much simpler than the benefits it replaces, with just four rates of the standard allowance: two for singles, two for couples. That compares with 15 in employment and support allowance, for example.

The age-related rates are now established in universal credit and the Bill does not make changes in this area. Doing so would start to replicate some of the complexity that we are looking to remove and noble Lords have heard me grumble about “carbuncleising” enough to know what I mean. However, the Government do recognise the challenges which these young people face. We should be supporting vulnerable young people and parents to stabilise their lives and find work and we have a number of measures within the context of universal credit. We will ensure that care leavers claiming universal credit who need help managing their money and paying bills on time will have access to personal budgeting support. Care leavers are exempt from serving waiting days in universal credit to ensure a smooth financial transition, and single care leavers aged 18 to 21 are exempted from the shared accommodation rate for LHA housing costs. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am still trying to make sense of the responses which the noble Lord very helpfully gave to my noble friend Lady Sherlock. I know that the Minister does not like hypothetical questions, but if we want a dynamic—to use his word—situation, we have to look at it in those terms. A lone parent with two children is currently on tax credits. Let us say that, in 2018, she re-partners. Her partner moves in and the tax credit transitional protection ends because his income floats it off. Within a year, he leaves her: does she then have to make a new claim to universal credit? Putting aside any question of the level of the national minimum wage, would that be at a lower rate, in cash terms, than she would have received on tax credits? In other words, what sort of linking would there be? If he moved out in less than six months, would she be able to resume her previous tax credit claim or will the cuts kick in at any point when there is a change in circumstance—even if it effectively only lasts for a fortnight—that takes her on to UC?

[Lord Freud]

We have not yet put out the detail of the transitional regulations and that is where one would expect to see them. We will be producing some precision in how the regulations will work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Before Report.

[Lord Freud]

I will take that request in the helpful way that it was offered. I will write to the noble Baroness to see if I can give her any comfort.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

And low earnings, my Lords. It says, in brackets, “low earnings”.

[Lord Freud]

It referred to “low earnings” out of worklessness; that is why the brackets are there.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, that is one reading of it. I am sorry to trouble the Committee with this but the review makes it clear that while worklessness with both parents out of work is obviously a primary driver, if only one parent is in work there is still a very substantial risk of in-work poverty, as has been explained time and again. That is why in the Government’s own research they are brigaded together.

[Lord Freud]

I will come to the point about the in-work and the workless in a little while. Let me go on.

Clause 4 will remove the existing measures and targets in the old Child Poverty Act and provide a statutory basis for much-needed reform to drive real change to improve children’s life chances and tackle the root causes. It introduces a new duty on the Secretary of State to report annually on children living in workless households and children’s educational attainment in England at the end of key stage 4. In response to the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham about the other indicators, alongside these statutory measures we will develop a range of non-statutory indicators to measure progress against the other root causes of child poverty, which include but are not limited to family breakdown, addiction and problem debt. Anyone will be able to assess the Government’s progress here. The Government are saying, “Judge us on that progress”.

I turn to Amendments 24 and 26. With Amendment 24, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, seek to expand the duty placed on the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a report containing data on children living in low-income families,

“where one or both parents are in work”.

I think I can add the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to that amendment in practice. Amendment 26 would add “low income” and “in work” to the list of terms to be defined in the annual report.

It is important to pick up the point raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Blackstone and Lady Hollis, and the right reverend Prelate, about two-thirds of children in relative poverty being from working families. It is correct that the HBAI figures show that 64% of children in relative poverty are from a family where at least one adult is in work. But this situation has developed over the past couple of decades due to the improved progress in tackling poverty in workless families. In 1996-97, the earliest period for which data are available, around 2 million children in relative poverty—around 60% of them—were from workless families, and around 1.5 million, or 40%, were in working families. During the 2000s, progress was indeed made in reducing the number of children in poverty from workless families by focusing spending on income transfers. Unfortunately, this had the unintended consequence of weakening work incentives and has resulted in hardly any change in the number of children in poverty from working families, which stood at 1.4 million in 2009-10. In other words, it was down by only 100,000.

This illustrates why we are transforming the benefits system and introducing the combination of out-of-work and in-work benefits in universal credit: it is to get rid of the position where you do income transfers one way and undermine the incentives for people to work. I ask noble Lords to think about this issue carefully. With the income transfer process under the old policy, which was not in the Act before, we drove straight into this conundrum of where the incentives were to get people into work.

As for the evidence we have on work being the best route out of poverty, according to the latest statistics, the risk of a child from a working family being in relative poverty is 13%, which compares to the risk for a child from a workless family of 37%. It is clear that a child in a workless family is almost three times more likely to be in poverty than a child who lives in a family where at least one adult works, meaning that the risk of a child being poor is dramatically reduced if at least one parent works.

Furthermore, earlier this year we published analysis on the transition into and out of poverty. This showed that 74% of children who are in poor, workless families will leave poverty altogether if their parents move into full employment. It also made clear that the more work parents do, the more likely they are to leave poverty, with 75% of children from poor families that are partly employed leaving poverty if their parents enter full employment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

We are putting a lot of emphasis on full-time employment, but children in persistent or recurrent poverty will usually be the children of lone parents, who by definition, because they are bringing up children, have limits on the hours they can work. Another such group would be disabled people. It is the combination of low pay in work and limited hours that keeps them in poverty, although they are in work. To say they must go into full-time work when they have young children shows no understanding —if I may say this—of what it is like to be a single parent bringing up several children on your own.

[Lord Freud]

I can only provide the noble Baroness with these relative statistics on what is happening—where the risks for being in poverty are much higher when you are entirely workless. Clearly, as we look at our statistics for the workless, we will have quite a lot of analysis behind what is really happening there.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 7th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for some very good speeches. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I have listened to those speeches very carefully, although I am not in a position today to provide much satisfaction as I stand here. Let me begin by setting the context for the policy.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

Does that mean that the Minister will give satisfaction to us before Report?

[Lord Freud]

No, it means that I am not in a position to provide any satisfaction and, by definition, that position does not change.

Let me begin by setting the context for the policy, which will remain relevant for the other amendments on these clauses. At the 2015 summer Budget, the Government announced their plans to move from a low-wage, high-tax and high-welfare economy to a higher-wage, lower-tax and lower-welfare society. This is part of the Government’s plan to deliver a new deal for working families, which also includes incentives to ensure that those who are in work are rewarded fairly. As part of this, we announced reforms to child tax credit and universal credit to help put welfare spending back on to a sustainable footing.

The tax credits system has become too generous. As introduced by the last Labour Government, it was originally forecast to cost £11 billion in its first year. In fact, tax credit expenditure more than trebled in real terms between 1999 and 2010; and increased by £9.6 billion in real terms between 2004-05 and 2014-15. Currently, the benefit system adjusts automatically to family size, while many families supporting themselves solely through work do not see their budgets rise in the same way when they have more children. The average number of dependent children in families in the UK in 2012 was 1.7, so the Government feel that it is fair and proportionate to limit additional support provided by the taxpayer through child tax credit and the child element of universal credit to two children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the Minister made much of the financial probity argument and said that tax credit expenditure had raced away out of control, with a threefold increase between its first year and today, at £30 billion. Will he confirm that, at the same time, the bill for income support has fallen from nearly £16 billion in 1996-97, when we inherited it from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to £2.9 billion now, because tax credits have helped people who depended on out-of-work benefits to come into work, as we all wanted? Will he also confirm what the OBR has told us: that welfare expenditure, including pensions, was 12% of GDP in 1983-84, was 12% of GDP in 1993-94 and today is 12% of GDP? So the untrue cliché that expenditure is racing away and out of control is not supported by the facts.

[Lord Freud]

I think the facts that the noble Baroness is comparing are somewhat spurious. Working age IS was £15.8 billion in 1996-97 in real terms, but when you apply that to lone parents—which the noble Baroness was, I think—the figure was only £6.4 billion. The best way to do this comparison is to take all the figures for tax credits and their predecessors—family credit, disability working allowance, child allowance, IS and JSA—and see where they have gone. Those figures have gone up from £7.1 billion in 1997-98 to £30.8 billion in 2010-11. It is really important, when we get into the figures in this area, that we look at like for like.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Would the Minister like also to give us the figures for the number of self-employed people who have been able to move into the labour market, alongside those for lone parents, whose median income is £10,000 a year, who are also dependent on tax credits and who, 10 or 15 years ago, were among the unemployed?

[Lord Freud]

Of course, one of the most interesting things about the way tax credit has moved is that people who might have gone into the benefits system may well have gone into the self-employed tax credit system, but the figures I have just provided are the best comparison and include the self-employed on tax credits. They show an enormous increase in the overall figure. Because this is clearly a complex set of figures, I am very happy to write formally to the noble Baroness setting out the true figures on this important matter.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 7th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for this debate and, particularly, I heard the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about how the lone parent—the mother—is so often left on her own with a disabled child. That is a very moving point and clearly rings true.

Perhaps I may look at the technical position. Amendment 3 would exempt those families who have at least one disabled child from the policy which limits support to two children. The intention of this amendment is to allow families with a disabled child to claim the child element of child tax credit for an unlimited number of children. Under Amendment 19, that intention would apply to both tax credit and universal credit. I should point out, as a matter of information, that the difference in having the child element allowed for a third child is not actually that great, if you look at the statistics. That is because the number of parents who go on to have more children is actually very few, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will probably know, so there is not a lot of difference in the cost. I know that she will appreciate the thinking behind that point. Amendment 8, meanwhile, which goes on to the point about paying the child element, is technically a bit misdrafted, but I know that the intention of the amendment is to allow that child element to be paid.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, drew on the issue of whether a choice has been made. Clearly, we have considered the issue of disabled children carefully and looked at the challenges which these families face. We are committed to supporting those families with disabled children by paying the disability element of child tax credit and the equivalent in universal credit. That is true for all disabled children, although there are in practice rather few—I mean that there will be some, but relatively few—so, however many there are, it will be for not just the first disabled child but all of them. From what I am hearing, I think that the debate is now around the child element as well as the disability element and that that is where the differences lie in practical terms.

I acknowledge broadly the figures to which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, drew attention in regard to the reduction without the child element. When that is in UC as a unified benefit, it will be only one part of the total payment. On the amount that the family gets, the reduction will be much less than the “down to a quarter” figure to which she was referring. On top of the disability element that we are exempting, we are exempting from the benefit freeze all those benefits which relate to the additional costs of disability, including PIP and DLA.

On Amendment 19, which would create a duty for an appeals process, I repeat the point that I made earlier: we already have comprehensive appeal arrangements and therefore do not need this amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made a point about what happens to HBAI figures. As we have found out year after year, it is impossible to predict with accuracy future HBAI figures. As is customary, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has a solution to it all, but I am not convinced that the discretionary approach would be the optimum one in this area. Whatever happens, I do not think that any kind of solution would come from that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Given the amendments that we have debated so far—in the first group, the second group and now this one—what proportion of the estimated £1.3 billion in savings that I think the Government were expecting to make from this would therefore be lost to the Government?

[Lord Freud]

I am simply not in a position to deal with what are entirely hypothetical issues. I am not in a position today to offer very much satisfaction in these areas, as noble Lords know.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can I push the Minister on this? In earlier debates, he was saying that the two main drivers for these proposals on the two-child policy were, first, the need to get financial control—he quoted very large figures that he expressed great concern about—and, secondly, the need to produce a level playing field between working families and non-working families. He must know the cost of all these amendments, because he will have had the briefing from the Box about them, but I have not heard him tell us that. How much would the cost be of the previous exemptions and, in addition, the exemptions referred to so powerfully by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher? How much of those savings would the Government lose if they were to meet the exceptions that all the Committee has, so far, argued for today?

[Lord Freud]

I am not in a position to answer those questions because I have had all kinds of amendments tabled—including one from the noble Baroness, which would remove the policy and lose all of the £1.3 billion. I am not in a position to go through the exemptions at this stage like that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

So are the Government really saying, “We are opposing amendments because we can’t afford them”, but do not know what they will cost?

[Lord Freud]

I have given out as much information as I can on the questions at this stage and indicated what the relative positions are. On this amendment in particular, I was careful to make it clear that there is not a huge difference in cost terms—and I will double-check this—between allowing a child element for the disabled and exempting the family which has a disabled child. That is the main cost implication which I have been able to provide today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Can I look at that? I am not sure quite how much of this is in my own purview. If I can, I will.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am amazed this information was not available at the Commons stage of this Bill, given it has been discussed in Parliament for several months— I think it was back in July that Second Reading took place—and to still not to know these figures surprises me enormously. While the Minister is being helpful in producing information, given that we know that 85% of the welfare cuts proposed by the Chancellor will fall on women and given we know that nearly all the “victims”—the recipients of concern in the exempted groups that we were talking about in previous amendments—are women, will he also do us a gender breakdown? He is absolutely right, as other noble Lords have also said, that it is usually the mother who is left caring for disabled children. I remember meeting vaccine-damaged children—part of the Minister’s responsibility, I think—and every parent there with a disabled child was a woman. Can I ask the Minister if he will add a gender analysis to the financial analysis of where some of these cuts fall and who the exemptions, therefore, would help to protect?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth]

My Lords, I express my strong concern about these clauses remaining part of the Bill. I offer three straightforward and, I hope, succinct comments: first, about the implications of these clauses; secondly, about the motivation of parents that is implied; and, thirdly, about where responsibility lies.

First, the Government place great emphasis on choice and personal responsibility for family size. I have to say that that assumes a remarkable assumption about the fail-safe effectiveness of contraception—or, if not, an apparent willingness for abortion to be appropriate as a sort of emergency contraception to keep family size to two children. I doubt the assumption, and would deeply regret driving people to seek termination on economic grounds. Is that really what the Government wish?

Secondly, over 35 years now I have played some part alongside others in preparing engaged couples for marriage and have often heard myself saying, “If you wait until you are sure you can afford children, you will never have them”. Religious traditions other than my own go further and specifically enjoin the blessing of children and family life. Are the Government aware of how these clauses will be received?

Thirdly, as I mentioned earlier in Committee, we—that is, a number of faith groups and organisations—made clear, in a letter circulated to all Members of the House prior to Second Reading, our belief that children are a blessing and not burdensome, a problem or a difficulty. To consign a child to being a financial problem over which the child himself or herself has had, and has, no control is indeed a singular responsibility—a responsibility for the mother and father indeed but, if these clauses go forward, it is a responsibility in which we shall all share. How sad it will be that a child growing up, becoming increasingly aware, will one day hear or discover that he or she is responsible in part for the family’s level of income simply by having been born. Although the Government seem to place that responsibility wholly on parents, I fear that the responsibility for this change would rest with us all. Is that what the Government want, and are we all prepared to accept that responsibility?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Clauses 11 and 12 introduce the Government’s reform to the child element of child tax credit and universal credit, which was announced by the then Chancellor in the Summer Budget of 2005. The purpose of child tax credit is to provide support to low-income families to help them with the cost of raising children, while universal credit, which replaces the child tax credit, is a unified benefit that provides support to low-income families both in and out of work. As it is being rolled out across the country it is providing a clearer and simpler system of support for families and provides real incentives for work. However, it is important that universal credit is kept on a sustainable basis and encourages families to make similar decisions to those who support themselves fully through work. The Government believe that child tax credit has become unsustainable, with expenditure trebling in real terms between 1999 and 2010, and going up the income scale to a level where a family with three children earning up to £40,000 will still be eligible for support. Last year the Government spent almost £30 billion on tax credits.

I will deal with the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on the dependency ratio. In recent decades Britain has had a higher total fertility rate than the average of the older EU member states. Most families will not be affected by this measure. The mean number of dependent children per family is 1.7, and 86% of families have one or two dependent children. In fact, those families with two or fewer children are remarkably stable, whether they are lone parents, at 88%; opposite-sex cohabiting couples, at 87%; or married couples, at 84%.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the point my noble friend was making was not just about replacement fertility rates. Given the time all of us hope to live longer, one of the responses of government has been to say that unless we can improve the worker-to-pensioner ratio we have to defer the age at which people begin to draw their state pensions, even if they have had hard lives previously. We do not have the resources to pay for it from existing workers as we do not have enough of them to sustain that pensioner support in the future. Nothing the Minister has said has challenged that.

[Lord Freud]

We are going way off the core issues by looking at the times people retire. A lot of things are changing, and it is almost impossible to fine-tune for that.

I will address the challenge set by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on what our rationale for this is. It is very simple: the Government want to ensure that the system is fair to those who pay for it as well as those who benefit from it. That is the government position. I should add that the Bill should not be taken in isolation. We are introducing a number of measures to support households in work by reducing income tax through increasing personal allowances, increasing wages and increasing free childcare.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the issue of those areas where there is a cultural disposition for larger families. To that, we make the point that all families need to think carefully and ensure that they can afford to provide for a new child in their household.

I make it clear that these changes will not mean a reduction in entitlement for those families already receiving child tax credit for children born before the 6 April 2017. In universal credit, for families already receiving the child element of universal credit, the changes will apply only to children joining the household on or after that date. I think that we have another amendment on which we can go into that in more detail.

Families moving to universal credit from child tax credit and receiving child tax credit for more than two children, and families claiming universal credit within six months of a previous universal credit or child tax credit claim that included the child element, will continue to be able to receive the child element for those children.

On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the EHRC, as she knows, the Government set out their assessment of the impacts of the policies in the Bill on 20 July, and the memorandum to the Joint Committee on Human Rights was published on 8 September. Ministers have considered impacts with regard to all the relevant legal obligations when formulating the welfare policies announced in the Bill. The intended impact of these reforms is to incentivise work and ensure that work always pays.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 7th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

Can the Minister help me? I was just checking, and as far as I can see from handbooks, we continue to support various partners in polygamous marriages and we do not say, “After two partners you won’t get any more support for your third, fourth or fifth member of a polygamous marriage”. Why is it okay to have several spouses who are financed by benefit, but if you have more than two children they are not?

[Lord Freud]

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for this amendment. On the ECHR point, the Government set out their assessment of the impacts of the policies in the Bill on 20 July, as I think I have already said. It is important to ensure that the dynamic behavioural effects of the changes are considered within that. Many of these analyses suffer from the fact that they are too static when considering gains and losses and too focused on notional changes.

On the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on child poverty impacts, I say that the intended impact of our reforms is to incentivise work, ensure that it always pays, and to allow people to keep more of what they earn. That is why, as we will go on to discuss, we are moving towards a life-chances analysis of poverty as our approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

This amendment is asking us to do an analysis over the next six months. In practice, that is what will be happening on a dynamic basis, because we have introduced as part of universal credit a test-and-learn approach in which we are able to assess what happens to families and learn the lessons in order to roll out universal credit. That is a pretty public process and we publish what we learn. So, in practice, we have a process that incorporates the dynamic effect of these changes in its overall impact, rather than taking individual bits and pieces of the policy. That is the best answer that I can give to the question. On that basis, I urge the right reverend Prelate to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I want to come back at the Minister. I was not trying to make a cheap jibe but, unless I am misreading a handbook that I have used over the years, if you are in a polygamous marriage and your spouse is married to someone else, you may claim as a single person within it, which is an allowance for you, including if the other person still lives in the same household with you. In other words, under UC—this is on page 154—there is continued financial support for other partners in a polygamous marriage. If that is so, why is it acceptable to apply that to adults but not to children?

[Lord Freud]

The noble Baroness has a long memory. Polygamous marriages were recognised in JSA, income support and ESA. We took a decision not to recognise those marriages in UC. Only the first marriage is recognised for universal credit purposes.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Except that financial support will, presumably, continue to be given to the other women who are in a polygamous marriage by virtue of their polygamous status.

[Lord Freud]

No. If there is a third person in that household they would be treated as a single person.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The point I am making is that they may be treated as a single person but they are getting financial support by virtue of that polygamous marriage, whereas the third or fourth child will get nothing.

[Lord Freud]

This is really becoming arcane. We have said that we do not recognise polygamous marriage in universal credit. But clearly there is an individual there, and we will treat them as a single person. It is actually, ironically, a little more expensive than treating them as a wife.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

How is the Minister going to account for poverty among children of working families?

[Lord Freud]

The HBAI measures are still there. We will have all the measures that we normally have.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis, Lady Sherlock and Lady Lister, were concerned about the impact of this on the Budget. Our reforms are designed to incentivise work and ensure that it always pays, and then to allow people to keep more of what they earn. The new life- chance measures will drive continued action on work and education, which will make the biggest differences to disadvantaged children now and in the future.

Numerous noble Lords argued that we should keep income-based measures and measure in-work poverty, as the noble Baroness has just reinforced. The existing statutory framework set around the four income-related targets is unfit for purpose. The framework does not drive the right action, so instead we will focus on the root causes such as worklessness and educational failure. The income measures led Governments to spend their finite resources on action that did not produce the best results for our children, and that is the reason for our new approach. As I just said, though, and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, we will still be publishing all the income measures and the HBAI report. I remind him that no other country in the world uses those measures as a target as opposed to a measure.

I am flattered by the vigorous quoting by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, from that small piece of work. I should point out that when I say there were some remarkable changes, there were no remarkable changes in the number of NEETs, which went up through the longest boom in history, nor in the amount of worklessness or social housing, which plateaued whether one was at the top or the bottom of the cycle, and I recommended a major effort to pull the disabled back into the labour market and into society. Of course some of the figures that I was so pleased with then fell straight off a cliff when we had a rather remarkable recession—probably the worst recession that this country has had since the 1920s. However, we took £60 billion out of the welfare bill over the last coalition Government, and up until the time for when we have the latest data, the relative measure of people in poverty had declined in that period by 800,000 people. So it is wise to use not people’s forecasts of income but what has actually happened.

I turn to the benefit cap. It is not fair for someone on benefits to receive more than many people in work; reducing the benefit cap to £23,000 in London and £20,000 elsewhere better aligns the level with the circumstances of hard-working families across the country. On the question raised by a number of noble Lords—the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Hollis, Lady Lister and Lady Warwick—about whether the level was too low, we originally set the cap at £26,000 but we want to balance the key aims of strengthening work incentives and promoting fairness between those in work and those in receipt of out-of-work benefits.

Any changes to the cap level will require the passage of regulations. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, who was concerned about this, that the regulations which lower the level of the cap will follow the affirmative parliamentary process. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, carer’s allowance is included in the cap. The Government fully acknowledge and value the very important role that carers provide to society but 94% of households in receipt of carer’s allowance will have a benefit income above the new cap level. They are, anyway, exempt from the cap.

The benefits freeze is a vital part of the Government’s welfare reforms, providing £3.5 billion of savings by 2019-20—without any cash losers—which would otherwise need to be found elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Low, asked about the impact of the freeze on the disabled. We have exempted the benefits which contribute to the additional cost of disability and care from the working-age benefit freeze. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Bakewell, raised the issue of the two-child limit. Families on benefits should make the same financial decisions as those families supporting themselves solely through work. Families on lower incomes will continue to receive child benefit for all children in the household, including a higher rate paid for the eldest qualifying child or young person. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Manzoor, both raised questions about involuntary two-child families. The Government will look at the important issues around exemption through secondary legislation and will provide more detail in due course. The situation with kinship carers is similar.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the point of the impact on disabled children. Parents of disabled children will continue to receive the disabled child element and severely disabled child element in child tax credit and, in UC, the additional amount of the child element in respect of all disabled children, regardless of the total number of children in the household. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, asked for assurance that the architecture of UC will not be lost. I appreciate her support on that and give credit to the Liberal Democrats, who were utterly supportive of universal credit and our efforts to bring it into reality under the previous Government. I am delighted to see that they maintain that level of support.

I turn now to the clauses which remove the work-related activity component in ESA, and its equivalent in universal credit, for new claimants from April 2017. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Manzoor, Lady Doocey, Lady Browning, Lady Meacher, Lady Howe and Lady Gale, asked for evidence that the WRAG component is a disincentive. A report by the OECD in 2005 argued that:

“Financial incentives to work can be improved by either cutting welfare benefit levels, or introducing in-work benefits while leaving benefit levels unchanged”.

On the other hand, employment support provides an opportunity to begin talking to ESA claimants about their ability to work. A positive relationship with a work coach, combined with evidence-based methods for goal-setting and striving, offers a promising way towards moving ESA claimants back into work. We will be increasing the practical support with new funding. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Manzoor, Lady Doocey, Lady Browning, Lady Meacher and Lady Gale, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, argued that these claimants have been found unfit for work. The ESA claimants in the work-related activity group have been found to have limited capability for work. This is very different from being unfit for any work and, although they are not required to look for work, ESA explicitly recognises that claimants may be able to undertake some work via the permitted work rules. This change, combined with the new funding, is about providing the right incentives and support to encourage more people to move closer to the labour market.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made a point about those with cancer. The vast majority of those with cancer claiming ESA are actually in the support group, a point that he himself made. This includes anyone who is preparing for, receiving or recovering from chemotherapy or radiotherapy that will significantly limit their ability to work. Only a small proportion of individuals whose initial diagnosis is cancer will be placed in a work-related activity group.

On mental health conditions, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Manzoor and Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Layard, it was clearly acknowledged that returning to work can improve mental health, which is why we are committed to ensuring that as many people with mental health conditions as possible receive effective support to return to and remain in work. We will actually be investing £43 million over the next three years in trialling ways to provide specialist support for people with common health conditions to get back into the workplace.

On conditionality for parents, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, we believe that more can be done to support parents with young children to prepare and look for work. Where childcare is not available, requirements will be tailored around caring responsibilities.

On the clauses to turn support for mortgage interest into a loan, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised issues around pensioners. Pensioners will have access to the same level of support for mortgage interest payments as the current system provides. This will be provided via a loan, but that will not have to be repaid until the individual’s property has been sold—which often, in the case of pensioners, will be on their death, so the people who actually pay are the inheritors; that is not something the party opposite would have a huge problem with, I would have thought.

A large number of noble Lords talked about social housing rents. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, is that the Government were elected with a mandate to put welfare spending on a sustainable footing to reduce the deficit. We are confident that housing associations and local authorities will be able to find and make efficiencies to accommodate the new settlement.

On specialist supported accommodation, which a large number of noble Lords brought up, we are proposing that there will be some exceptions from the rent reductions. We have set out some of those in the Bill and we will be setting out further exceptions in regulations. Our intention is to align exceptions with the equivalent provisions of the rent standard. At present these include specialised supported accommodation, residential care homes and nursing homes, and intermediate rent and private finance initiative housing. We will work with the sector to ensure that the most vulnerable people are not adversely affected—indeed, I am planning to meet St Mungo’s.

Regrettably, I cannot deal with all the questions and must draw to a close. I thank all noble Lords again for their contributions. Welfare reform is about much more than simply money. Our reforms seek to change the state of the nation, break the cycle of dependency, create the right kinds of incentives, have a fair welfare system, provide the best possible start in life for children, and bring lasting change that directly affects attitudes and behaviours. This Bill is a real opportunity to make a difference to the lives of some of the poorest, the neediest and the most vulnerable people in our society. It is an important and necessary piece of legislation. I commend this Bill to the House and ask for it to be given a Second Reading.

Benefits: Sanctions

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Thursday 10th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

The reality is that the number of ESA claimants being sanctioned is very small—it is running at around 1%—and we look at those cases very carefully. We do not have any plans to look at that specifically at this stage, given that it has steadied out.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My noble friend Lady Sherlock’s figures on the number of appeals are absolutely right: they are based on the annual figures. The DWP is sheltering behind monthly figures, which will not do. We know—as I am sure the Minister will agree—that over 50% of those who appeal after being sanctioned have their sanctions overturned, having lived for many weeks, sometimes months, without their benefit. Can the Minister tell the House how many of those sanctioned have mental health problems?

[Lord Freud]

Where people’s sanctions have been found to be wrong, they recoup that money. Meanwhile, we have an established process of hardship payments, by which people can now get paid within three days where that is appropriate, to deal with that problem.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will the Minister answer the second question?

Child Poverty

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, one has to look at all the elements that are going in. They are the new national living wage, the changes to welfare in both universal credit and the tax credits system and, clearly, the changes to personal allowances, which are moving up under our manifesto commitment to £12,500. Under universal credit there are gainers, but the real impacts that we will see from these changes will be on a dynamic basis because they will encourage people to go into work, and into better-paid work.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, these Budget changes will actually make working families £40 a week poorer, with larger families even more so. It is a Budget for security but not for working families with children; a Budget for the family but not for working families with children; a route out of poverty but not for the working poor and their children. Will the Government accept that they have ensured that the face of poverty in this country will continue to be the face of a child?

[Lord Freud]

No.

Housing: Under-occupancy Charge

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the number of those affected by the social rented sector size criteria who have downsized into smaller properties.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

Across the seven months between May and December 2013, around 22,000 households affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy either moved to the private sector or downsized within the social rented sector. The final independent evaluation report will be published later this year. This will provide more up-to-date information on how people are responding to the policy.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, 22,000 out of 600,000 people is very few. Most tenants cannot move, as there are not the small properties; nor can they afford to stay without going without meals or going into debt. Some are desperately downsizing from two-bed social houses at £82 a week to one-bed private flats at £140 a week. These are of poorer quality and half the size, but cost almost double the rent and therefore almost double the benefit bill, which we all pay for. We are smashing lives. Why are the Government pursuing such ugly, faulty economics, and why are they pursuing such pointless cruelty?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, looking at the position in the round, people move from low-cost social housing to higher-cost private housing, but that allows another family who may have come out of private housing to go into social housing. You have to look at the bill as a whole, and the saving on this particular part of the bill is running at £0.5 billion a year.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

This is an area into which we have looked very closely, helped by the noble Countess. We have an audit system for all of these tests whereby we test that they are being conducted to the quality that we require.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, of those people who are going from DLA to PIP, how many does the Minister expect will lose their Motability car? Will it be 50,000 or 100,000?

Universal Credit

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 24th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of a housing association. More than half of tenants affected by the bedroom tax are in arrears. We now learn that the Government propose to claw back those arrears by deducting a further 20% from those tenants’ benefits. For couples, this means a full £20 to £40 deduction a week from their benefit for living in homes that we allocated to them and from which they cannot move. The Government have created the debt and now seek to solve it by sending those tenants even deeper into debt. It is shocking, and many will never recover. Do the Government not understand that we are wrecking people’s lives?

[Lord Freud]

We conducted a painstaking process of testing how people respond to paying their housing rent directly. We found that there was a three-month adjustment process until people got familiar with it. We are now ensuring that we have the right systems to help people make that adjustment into the monthly payment situation.

Underoccupancy Charge: Carers

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

This is precisely the kind of circumstance for which the discretionary housing payment is designed. It has not been found possible to have a general rule, and that is why this system, which has gone through the courts in quite some detail, has been found to supply support where necessary.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, if, as the Minister suggests, disabled families with family carers are effectively covered by DHPs, why not simply exempt them? If he is wrong—which I suspect he is—why are we, quite knowingly, making lives that are already hard even harder, perhaps thus ensuring that the family carers will themselves become disabled?

[Lord Freud]

The courts have gone through this in some detail now and found that it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to take the view that it is not practicable to provide a further exemption for an imprecise class of persons, and that the flexibility of the DHP scheme can be relied upon to provide the additional help.

Work Capability Assessment

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Clearly, I am not able to respond on specific people going into specific places. The whole point of the assessments is to focus on functional capability or needs at the point of assessment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, 40% of people appeal against their assessment, some of them terminally ill. The DWP has added an extra stage to the appeals process, mandatory reconsideration by the department, but—and this is key—there is no time limit for staff to meet. Tiny numbers of appeals are being processed; the rest are being seriously delayed by six months or more. What is the Minister doing to speed up those appeals?

[Lord Freud]

The noble Baroness is quite right that the rate of appeals has fallen very steeply, by 92% in the latest quarter compared with a year earlier. It is too early to tell the definitive reasons for that. It may well be due to many of the changes that have gone through—75 recommendations have gone through—or to mandatory reconsideration so that we look at it early. However, when you look at the backlog of mandatory reconsiderations, you see that the pure numbers do not seem to be a huge influencing factor in this fall in appeals.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to change their policy following the publication of their report Evaluation of the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy: Interim Report.

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

We inherited a housing benefit system with costs spiralling and took steps to bring expenditure under control. This remains our policy. The interim report establishes an early baseline. Since the field work was completed, the numbers affected by the policy have continued to fall month on month, reported levels of arrears experienced by English housing associations have fallen, and there is emerging evidence that many landlords are adapting their building plans in response to this policy.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, everything we feared about the bedroom tax has been confirmed by this research—everything. Two-thirds of affected families are disabled. As there are no small homes, only 4% have been able to downsize. They cannot move but as most cannot get discretionary housing payments, they cannot pay and stay either. So 60% are in arrears; one-third face eviction; meals are forgone; debts are mounting; grandparents are cutting back on grandchildren’s visits because they cannot afford to feed them; people cannot stay; people cannot move. Does the Minister agree and accept that the bedroom tax—the coalition bedroom tax—is profoundly wrong?

[Lord Freud]

This report was based on evidence from last autumn and we have had data since then that show that people are adapting. The numbers affected are falling and are now down 70,000 people; arrears have fallen in the past two quarters and rent collection remains for the Homes and Communities Agency for the social sector at 99%; homelessness numbers are reducing and are down 7% on the year. As for DHPs, we had a quarter of a million payments last year to people affected by this policy and we had £20 million returned to us unallocated. Finally, the Court of Appeal has upheld the Government’s position that DHPs are the proportionate remedy for looking after people with problems from this policy.

Poverty and Social Exclusion

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Thursday 17th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

The noble Earl is absolutely right to concentrate on this issue because this group has traditionally done disproportionately badly. We have taken steps to ensure that these young people are better off in terms of housing than youngsters who are not coming out of care. As regards the mental health issues, it is absolutely correct to concentrate on the fact that a large proportion of people develop long-term disabilities due to mental health issues. We are devoting a lot of energy to consideration of that area.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, we have a bedroom tax because the Liberal Democrats voted for it—

Universal Credit

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

One thing I want to ensure is that I can get as much information to noble Lords as I possibly can. I am pleased to say that I have extended an invitation, which has been accepted, to arrange for a group of opposition Peers—as many as the noble Baroness would like to bring; well, not quite as many as that; we could not fit them all into Hammersmith; but enough to fill the room with a little standing room—to go through what is happening on the ground and the process.

One thing that I am keen to show the noble Baroness, which we saw this morning with a small group, is access to the work coaches to see how they work with clients in an entirely different way—in particular, to try to help the most vulnerable, whether it is looking at how they budget or various other things that they will need to do under universal credit.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, Mr Duncan Smith insists that UC is on time, on track and on budget. I fear that it is not. None of the monitoring bodies—the Treasury, the Major Projects Authority, the NAO, the DWP Select Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, Sir Bob Kerslake—believes that. To paraphrase Sir Jeremy Heywood, the project remains well off-track. We want this to work. Will the Minister, whose integrity we entirely respect, give us the facts and the future plans rather than recycle the empty bluster of the Secretary of State?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this is a very large programme and the way we are doing it is quite responsive. What we have is a test and learn process. That is not just an empty phrase. It is a very large process, based on a live run-out of many tens of thousands of people, which feeds into how we build a fully digital interactive service that we are building at the same time. We will make changes to the process. That is what it is about. It would be silly to do all that work without being responsive. We learn lots of things. One of my jobs is to try to understand what we are finding out and then make those changes. There will be changes. Having said that, we announced a rollout process in December and we are, to my pleasure, managing to get it out to time with those plans. The next stages, which are towards the end of the year, are really important—moving on to families, bringing in childcare and going to that digital place. By the end of the year we will have a working test bed of how a fully interactive process will work. I am not saying it will not change after that, but I am saying that we are doing what we were planning to do.

Housing: Inherited Social Housing Tenancies

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 24th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My noble friend draws the comparison between the amount of capacity that we have in this country and the demand for it. The number of people on the waiting list is 1.8 million, with the figure for overcrowding running at 250,000 on some estimates and 400,000 on others.

When this Government took office, we were left with the lowest level of peacetime housebuilding that this country had seen since the 1920s. Since then we have delivered nearly 400,000 new homes and put in very substantial investment. There is £11.5 billion public investment to boost housing supply over the four years of the spending review, and this is meant to lever in more private investment. The volume of housebuilding is now picking up. The starts in the quarter to December were up 20% compared with the same period last year.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, every stat I have heard from the Government is either misleading or wrong. The bedroom tax will not help the waiting list because they too want smaller accommodation. It will not much help overcrowding as most families who are overcrowded do not live in the places where there are underoccupied houses. It will not make government savings. As we see, the GHP figures keep going up but the savings stay the same—false. Had the Government followed their own precedent of 1996 of transitional protection for the private rented sector, or had they followed what we did in 2008 by protecting existing tenants in the private rented sector, we would not have the calamity, misery and distress facing so many vulnerable and disabled people in this country. It is shameful.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the figures show that there is a reasonable balance around the county; there is not one place with overcrowding and another with waiting lists. We are staying with the estimate of roughly £500 million a year in savings. On transitional protection, we have given even more notice on the changes coming through than we gave on the LHA changes at the emergency Budget of 2010.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

I am slightly puzzled, but I think that the Minister is saying that if you could devise a way in which to find out that those who are on the new state single pension were in the very bottom decile, that or a similar group would be an appropriate one to be eligible for a cold weather payment, because it would be the group that under the previous regime would have got pension credit. I would have thought that anyone getting the new single state pension without any other supplementary income coming their way, whether through savings or an occupational pension, would, in the past, have automatically qualified for pension credit—in which case, he already has his population.

[Lord Freud]

I am always grateful to the noble Baroness when she comes up with solutions for us, and I can see her yearning to be on this side—perhaps not in this particular coalition but in this particular ministry—sorting out these issues. She has gone to the issue of what the best way might be in which to help this group, which, clearly, we will look at precisely when we consider that matter. I shall pass on her thoughts to the consultation in the hope that it will speed it up.

As I say, we will consult on our strategy, and that will cover the two schemes referred to in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, as well as broader approaches to combating and preventing fuel poverty, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, indicated. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Well, if they started moving to active members as well, whatever the route, it would give this group of organisations an enormous market position. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, that I will have to write to him.

It seems strange that, in response to the OFT’s conclusion that there is a lack of competition in the pensions market, the Opposition are calling for the creation of a market dominated by a few big master trusts. We need only to look at other industries, such as the energy market or banking sector, to see that dominance by a few powerful players can result in real concerns for consumers. If we were to press on regardless with enabling these large aggregators to come into being, we would need to be clear that there would be no turning back. It would be extremely difficult to reverse the process if we found that an aggregator model was not sustainable, and to tackle the vested interests if consumers were getting a poor deal.

We have heard—for example, from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock—that the Government are alone in supporting pot follows member. It is not true that few people support it but I agree that there is a powerful lobby supporting the aggregator model. It is hardly surprising that those who are shouting the loudest are those who are lobbying on behalf of master trusts that could come to dominate the market under an aggregator model.

The ABI itself supports pot follows member, as do many groups within it—Aviva, Fidelity, Friends Life, HSBC, Origo, Scottish Life and Scottish Widows—as well as non-members of the ABI such as Alexander Forbes, Altus, Buck, Foster Denovo, the Investment Management Association, JLT and the National Federation of Occupational Pensioners.

This Government’s starting point is the consumer—and it is the individual who wants to see their pension follow them to their new employer, as the research from NOW: Pensions, which we have already touched on, underlines. The ABI’s consumer research showed that 58% of individuals said that the pot should follow them automatically to the new job; 10% were in favour of a new central scheme, the aggregator; 15% said the pot should stay where it is and it is up to you to move it; and 17% said it should be visible with all other pension pots at a central place online. That is the sentiment among consumers.

I appreciate that some consumer groups have concerns. I say to them that we are listening to those concerns and that low charges and scheme quality are top of our agenda, not just for automatic transfers but for all schemes. We want these groups to work with us and the industry now to deliver pot follows member in the simplest, safest way for consumers.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, raised concerns about consumer detriment. I remind the House about the work the Government are doing to ensure that all schemes are good schemes. Uniformity is not good for consumers, but only if all aggregators had identical charges and standards would we completely remove the risk of an individual moving to a worse scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Turner, made the point about the interconnectedness of these issues. The Minister for Pensions has confirmed that he remains “strongly minded”—I think that is fairly parliamentary language —to introduce a charge cap. My noble friend asked about the DWP response to the OFT and the consultation on charges. That response is coming soon and we will be discussing that later this afternoon.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell us what the department has in mind as an appropriate charge cap?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I am putting it on the record that we will aim to capture all costs, including all transaction costs. As noble Lords know only too well, when you look into this legislation there are bits and pieces scattered all over the place, but I can summarise it in that very simple sentence. It is very similar to the point about proposed new subsection (6): it is just a drafting requirement that we do not overlay things and that we have a clear line. It is not to do with the EU.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, was concerned about my overconcentration on my noble friend Lord Lawson. I did not mean to do any airbrushing but I did mean to concentrate on the fact that I believe that my noble friend Lord Lawson’s amendments in Grand Committee and at this stage have been especially helpful in pushing this whole debate forward.

Turning to Amendment 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I would actually be very disappointed in the noble Lord if he was to decide to test the opinion of the House. I have been absolutely clear about the timing of government action. I do not understand why he would want to start stipulating in primary legislation the timing of when regulations would be brought, given the language that I am using to talk about what we are doing.

Even though I may not satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, with the clarity of my expression, I will go through what we are doing. Consultations have sought views on policy implementation. Employers made clear that they wanted sufficient notice of any new scheme requirements. The Minister remains strongly minded to cap charges and, as former Ministers know and can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, significant policy decisions must go through due process, but the Government response is coming soon.

I hope that I have made it utterly, utterly clear what will happen. That is the reason that I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to test the opinion of the House, because that seems purely political, given what I have just said, and that is not in the spirit—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I thank to the Minister for giving way. Do the words of the Pensions Minister in the other place, “strongly minded”, have the full, unambiguous support of HMRC?

[Lord Freud]

Yes. I do not want to go into the Lobby on this. I do not think we should; that is not the way that we have conducted the Bill, which we have done by information, support and debating the issues. We should not reduce ourselves to having a debate when we are saying exactly the same thing across the House. That is my request of the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I do not think that anyone in the House can be under any misapprehension but that the Government value extremely highly the role of evidence, analysis, consultation and evaluation in policy-making. Our approach to designing this once-in-a-generation package of pension reforms has been heavily informed by a robust and wide-ranging evidence base. However, looking at the text of the amendment and its timing, I must make clear that the provisions on the new state pension, and many of the other provisions in the Bill, will simply not have been commenced by spring next year—the time used in this amendment. Therefore, all that would come out of such an amendment would be a rehash of the information that has already been provided to Parliament: there would be nothing to add. We have no particular objection to this amendment in terms of sentiment, but its timing is just not appropriate.

I will not spend a lot of time going through all the issues, which we have gone through in huge detail over the past weeks and months. However, I will touch on how we will monitor the impacts in the future and what the plans are. It is clearly imperative, as the noble Baroness said, that a set of reforms of this nature is accompanied by a strategic approach to monitoring at sensible intervals. I am not saying anything that noble Lords will disagree with when I state that pensions is a very long-term policy area, and that the impact of many measures will not be felt fully for decades.

As a society we are asking people to do more to think ahead and plan for their retirement. As a Government it is our duty to do the same in looking at the retirement outcomes of the population as a whole. Our retirement outcomes framework, published in September 2013, provides an overview of projected future retirement incomes, looking at the impacts of government pension reforms as a whole and across state and private systems.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps the noble Lord could write to me if he does not have the answer at his fingertips. I respect his concern for evidence and policy base, but, as he will know, that depends on longitudinal statistics and their consistency. There has been quite a lot of dispute about threats to discontinue some of the longitudinal statistics which show households below average income, recipients of benefits, what is happening with pension credit, and so on. My noble friend Lady Lister, who is not here at the moment, has been concerned about that. Can the noble Lord write to us and tell us what series of statistics will be kept from the implementation of this Act, so that we can track, for example, the groups that my noble friend has mentioned—the 1951 to 1953 group—and what is happening to people who will lose their derived rights as married women, widows, divorcees and so on? What assurances can he give us about how we can be sure that we are in a position, if we need to be, to adjust policy because we have the information to hand?

[Lord Freud]

That is clearly a relevant and central set of issues, and it is quite technical. As the noble Baroness invited me to write, I will make sure that we produce a comprehensive look at exactly what these series are and what they will contain. I will be happy to arrange that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Also, what if any future surveys does the Minister expect the Government now to engage in as a result of this Act coming into force?

[Lord Freud]

I am happy to make sure that we itemise those in a way that will help noble Lords keep an eye on what they need to monitor as we go along.

We will update the modelling as evidence becomes available on the impact on work and saving of automatic enrolment, the single-tier state pension, and state pension age changes. As noble Lords will know, the department conducts a six-monthly tracking study of attitudes and behaviours in relation to pensions, later life and automatic enrolment. A similar exercise will start after Royal Assent, to monitor awareness and understanding of the reforms.

We are committed to the principle of post-legislative scrutiny, but such scrutiny must have scope to provide insights beyond the impact assessment and consultation practices to which we are already committed. I know that the noble Baroness accepts the point on timing, but the timing of this amendment would not add materially to the powers of the Work and Pensions Select Committee. Indeed, there is an awkwardness about the timing, because it straddles the next election. However, we look forward to continuing to develop pensions strategy with that committee’s input.

I know that the noble Lord does not appreciate my asking for the other side to withdraw this amendment and not press it to a vote, but that is the position I am in. Maybe there is more warmth to my request than there has been this evening.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 24th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I should like first to say a word about procedure. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in her place; that is helpful. This is a paving amendment that the Public Bill Office assures me is appropriate. Amendment 21 in this group—and only Amendment 21—is consequential on Amendment 2. Therefore, any vote on the first amendment is, in the words of the Companion, also a vote on its directly consequential amendment—although it does not, of course, determine any other amendments in the group. If it were not directly consequential there would be no point in a paving amendment. As I have carefully taken the clerk’s advice on this, I hope that the Minister and the House will agree with my statements. If the Minister does not agree that Amendment 21 is consequential, perhaps he could indicate so now because I would not wish to waste the House’s time.

[Lord Freud]

I am happy to accept it as consequential.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, as this allows us to have a substantive discussion on bereavement—which I know concerns many of your Lordships—in good time and not in the late hours this evening. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the situation of distressed children and widowed parents. I hope that I can refer generally to widows, as there are three times as many women who are bereaved with children as men—and I know that the Minister means well by them. I hope that the House will agree that this is neither a party matter nor, as it is permissive, a cost matter, as the cost is almost too low to estimate.

This is a modest amendment that seeks to help widowed persons avoid additional pressure in the most stressful and distressing period of their lives. Three-fifths of bereaved parents are in work at the time of bereavement—virtually all fathers and around half or so of mothers. Most fathers with a terminally ill wife continue, or continued, to work. Most mothers, however, give up their jobs to care for their husband. Fathers would normally go back to work after a couple of weeks; indeed, they are often anxious to do so. Some mothers may feel able to do so as well, depending on the age of their children and the nature of their job. However, many widowed mothers were not in work, because they had younger children, or they had stopped working to become carers and—this is key—many mothers who were in work when their husband died drop out of work for some time while they support their children. If they return to work later, it may be to a different job, to one that is part-time or less demanding. Whereas work seems to be essential and continuous for fathers, it becomes secondary and broken for bereaved mothers.

The Government are reconstructing bereavement benefits, with more money paid as an up-front lump sum and less as a monthly payment—which, at £400 a month, will be paid only for 12 months and topped up by universal credit while the claimant is out of work. After 12 months, bereavement support payments stop and, if the parent does not return to work, she may draw her full income from UC. Being on UC normally entails work conditionality—entering or re-entering the labour market. The Minister has agreed—for which I am delighted—that for kinship carers, work conditionality associated with claiming UC should not apply for 12 months after they have taken on the care of children. But—and this is the point of my amendment—work conditionality for widowed parents, unlike for kinship carers, will kick in after six months, not 12 months, while they are still on bereavement benefit. That benefit runs for 12 months precisely because the Minister, in all decency—and I respect him for it—recognises that they need that support for 12 months. Surely work conditionality should be aligned with those 12 months.

The Minister said in Committee that he thought that six months’ relief from work conditionality while on bereavement allowance, if the claimant receives some UC top-up, was “generous”. I confess that that shocked me. It is generous only by comparison with the situation of someone who is not a bereaved spouse, and I think that that is not a proper comparison. If the mother has returned to work, or wants help to do so earlier than that—and some will—that is fine, but I do not think it right and decent to require her to attend work interviews and full work conditionality and job-hunting after six months, when she has grieving children who need her more than ever.

In Committee, the Minister justified this by saying that work conditionality after six months,

“is necessary to help them adjust and regain control of their lives”.—[Official Report, 15/1/14; col. GC 146.]

I was shocked by that as well. From my experience, the exact opposite is true. If work conditionality kicks in at six months while the woman is still on bereavement benefits and she is not ready for it, she loses what little control she has in handling her family life. Instead, that power is transferred to the DWP—perhaps to a 23 year-old young man in a local benefit office who, I expect, will be well intentioned until the pressure of targets bears down on him. He is probably a young man without children and without any experience of bereavement. It is assumed that he knows better than she does what is best for her and her children in their grief. I hope that he asks his own mother for advice, because he probably will not have a clue.

I do not think that that is acceptable. We are turning this young man at the age of 23 into her parent and treating her as the child, denying her, as a parent, the ability to look after her children in the way she believes is best. This is a sort of cruel-to-be-kind, tough-love philosophy towards a grieving widow and severely distressed children. Tough love is perhaps fine for youngsters who are on JSA and do not want to get up in the morning, but we are bullying into seeking work a widow with children who is still numb with grief and hugely distressed. We really cannot have that.

In this paving amendment and the consequential amendment attached to it I am not arguing that a widow’s benefit should be increased, although personally I would support that. The amendment is not about more money; it is about allowing widows to decide what is best for them and their family in the immediate aftermath of bereavement. For me, the immediate aftermath is the first year during which all the anniversaries occur—Christmas, his birthday and the anniversary of his death. I know, as do many of your Lordships, that that first year is the hardest.

I ask your Lordships to put themselves in the widow’s place. Her husband’s death may have been sudden, due to an accident at work or in the car, and she is still traumatised by the shock, or he may have died after an illness such as a stroke or cancer and she is exhausted through caring for him. She is wiped out and her mental and physical health is pretty fragile. It is just at this time when, although she is exhausted herself, her children are distraught and most need her. Children I know who have experienced the death of a parent have regressed into bed-wetting, nightmares, broken sleep and school phobia. They have lots of mysterious tummy aches and frequent headaches, and they display challenging and clearly needy behaviour. Irrationally, they suffer anguish that in some way they were responsible for their father’s death. They feel guilty that they had never told the lost parent how much they loved him and are fearful that they may lose their mother as well.

Older children worry about their mother’s safety if she is late back, or they fear they may lose their home. They are profoundly upset a second time over at their mother’s grief. Stoically they try not to weep, as that makes it harder for her to cope. “He is not here to hug me”, said one young girl. They dream of him and experience severe depression. Children need their surviving parent to be physically available for them. They need the trust that exists between a child and his mother to discuss their father’s death. Emotional availability follows from that. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord German, quoted very movingly from research into the effect of bereavement on children’s later lives, from delinquency to poor mental health and suicide risk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned cases of multiple deaths.

Every family is different, as is the work status of any bereaved parent, but this amendment, at no cost, permits the bereaved parent to decide what is appropriate for her and her family. We know that currently, bereaved parents do not take all the time off that they could from work. They do not exploit the system; they do not abuse it; they do not milk it. They want to work when they feel fit enough and their children are steady enough, but only they know that, not the DWP or the local benefit office. That is the point of having 12 months of bereavement payments. Insisting on work interviews and work conditionality at six months, or even leaving it to the discretion of 23 year-olds in local offices, adds stress to the suffering of the parent and distress to the pain of the child. We really should not do that.

The amendment would give widowed parents a breathing space from work conditionality alongside a bereavement payment while they rebuild their fractured lives. This House has always looked out for widows and children and I hope that it will do so again today. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the noble Lord has misrepresented both my amendment and my speech. I said that many parents would welcome it, but that the decision on at which point within that 12 months they returned to the labour market lay with them, not with the local benefit office.

[Lord Freud]

The point I am trying to make is that it is far better to recognise that individual responses to grief vary. As a number of noble Lords have said, grief often does not manifest in behavioural and emotional challenges until months or even years down the line, as a child matures. That is why, under universal credit, advisers have the flexibility to personalise requirements at any point, responding as circumstances arise. Where parents are facing difficulties with school, childcare arrangements or other extenuating circumstances, advisers can limit or even lift requirements.

I recognise that the application of that flexibility depends on the ability of those advisers. While I feel that our advisers are able, it is important to ensure that they have the best guidance and training to deal with such difficult cases. That is why we are currently working with experts in the field including the Childhood Bereavement Network, the Children’s Society, Cruse Bereavement Care, WAY and Gingerbread, to ensure that guidance and learning clearly articulate how advisers can identify and support parents in these circumstances, including the particular circumstances in which it would be inappropriate to apply conditionality. Our advisory services are also being repositioned as a profession with a clear career path, accredited learning and ongoing professional development. The learning programme will ensure that advisers have up-to-date skills to deal with any claimant interaction and support them in making relevant and appropriate decisions on an individual basis.

That is the standing position. I now move to the more specific response that I wish to make following our discussions in Grand Committee, particularly in answer to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I recognise that there are circumstances in which children could be in considerable distress and in which it is clear that conditionality should not be applied and flexibility is essential. I do not, however, see such cases as being limited to bereavement. There may be other circumstances in which children need additional care—for instance, where a family is fleeing domestic violence.

I assure the noble Baroness that we are not looking for a measure to define “distress”. Indeed, we need to establish exactly what the expression means; we are using it as a shorthand and there may be a much better way of capturing the concept, which is one of the things that a review should do. We are looking to identify specific circumstances in which we could expect a child to be distressed, and in which they will therefore have additional needs that need to be recognised. Claimants would need to demonstrate only the circumstances they are in, not the fact of distress, which is, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, extraordinarily difficult to establish.

I therefore want to conduct a review as quickly possible, in order to embed any new rules in the regime before we take new claims to universal credit from families. That is why I propose to undertake the review myself. I would like, in practice, to conclude that review by June or so. I will report back to the House following that. I am not quite sure of what form that will take but we will find the right form nearer the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry, but why? The noble Lord has already made the judgment on kinship parents. This is a permissive amendment, which he can draw on if needed. If he does not need it because of his review he does not need to deploy it. It is there as a safety net, so why is he asking the House to make it an either/or judgment?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this is not a permissive amendment. It makes a change to the conditionality regime for one element. If I need to look at how I do a review, I would have to look again at the specific context of doing this review.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry; I crave the indulgence of the House. Let me read the substance of Amendment 21:

“The Secretary of State may by regulation and within the overall budget for bereavement support payment exempt any widowed parent from work conditionality while in receipt of said payment”.

The Secretary of State “may” do that by regulation. As I said, the amendment is permissive. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not, perhaps, fully appreciate that.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, let me make my point here. I will have to look again. As noble Lords know, a “may” in this context is a very substantial “may”. I will have to look again at the context in which I would want to do something such as this. I may very well want to do it, but I cannot make a commitment to have both at this stage. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I am still slightly baffled by the less than satisfactory response of the Minister. Let me first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield and my noble friend Lady Sherlock for their very powerful and moving speeches on something that really matters: trying to protect and support widowed parents for the first 12 months of their bereavement. I welcome the Minister’s offer of a review on distress. However, what he has suggested is so wide that I rather doubt—although I would be pleased to be proven wrong—that he will be able to turn this into effective policy.

I give one tiny example, which I was thinking of as the Minister spoke. He was going to extend this to the distress of cohabiting parents when one of them dies. It is not too far fetched to suggest to the House a situation where a woman was with the father of her child or children in a cohabiting relationship but they then separated. She then had a period of perhaps five or seven years with someone else, to whom the children really connected and related. Then she moved on to a new boyfriend—a new stepfather—for perhaps the past year. Could the Minister tell me which of those three would have to die—forgive the language—for her to be entitled to bereavement benefit under the proposal of distress? Is it the recent stepfather, over whom the children are not especially distressed but the mother is highly distressed; the long-term stepfather, who has helped to bring them up, to whom the children were committed and over whom they are distressed while she is less so; or their natural father, who is giving them financial support and they see regularly? Which is it? I suspect one cannot do what the Minister seeks to do.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making the point for me. If we do these things piecemeal, we will not get the right answer. That is why my response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said to me in Grand Committee was to think that we need to look at this comprehensively. We need to get this issue right across the piece and understand how to incorporate it as a whole into our conditionality regime. That is the response that I am looking to do, not to sort it out on the Floor of the House where we simply do not have enough information to do it properly at this stage.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I make two points. First, we are not seeking to sort it out on the Floor of the House. I am seeking the consent of the House, if it is so minded to give it, to a permissive amendment, which does not commit the Government to anything they subsequently decide is inappropriate in the light of further research. The second point is that the Minister’s definition of distress is so wide that I genuinely believe, from my limited experience in Parliament, that he will find it very difficult indeed to turn it into deliverable policy. I am sure he is as aware as I am that it will end up depending on the discretion—he made this point himself—of local people in local benefits offices, such as the 23 year-old who will be interviewing the widowed parent. Is she numb? If so, does that mean she is coping or not caring sufficiently? Alternatively, is she voluble? Does that mean she is coping or not caring? He will have to peer into her soul and we should not go there.

The Minister says that he wants to help widowed parents to adjust, to,

“regain control of their lives”,

with tailored solutions. He is saying that the local benefits office, the 23 year-old, will decide. The 23-year old will turn her into his dependant, reliant on his judgment as to what she should do and what is best for her family. That is inappropriate and improper. You are making the adult back into a child and adding to her stress and distress. The Minister should not be going down that path. He will not be able to do it by clear policy; he will depend on discretion. Neither of those routes is satisfactory for a small and coherent group that we can easily define—that is, widowed parents with children following a bereavement.

The Minister is opposing a permissive amendment dealing with a small, specific group, which he can respond to exactly as he has already helped—and I am glad of it—kinship carers. He has allowed kinship carers 12 months off on work conditionality; he can do the same thing for this very specific group and make their work conditionality freedom align with the 12 months in which they are receiving bereavement benefit. After all, that is precisely why they have bereavement benefit in the first place. If they have it because they need support following their bereavement, at the same time they need the freedom from the additional pressure that the Minister’s work conditionality will ensure.

The Minister said that it was not quite either/or, but suggested that—

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I just want to make the point that if you pick out particular groups and have legislation just for them, you end up with the kind of carbuncled benefit system that we are trying to escape from. I am determined to try to build a system that is coherent across the piece, and I want to look at all the situations to make sure that they are consistent.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I understand the Minister’s support for grand schemes. We will see whether the grand scheme of universal credit, which I support, will deliver what he hopes that it does—and I hope it does. But here we are dealing with a situation in which we have kinship carers and widowed parents, and we may be talking subsequently about women experiencing distress in domestic abuse situations, and the Minister is trying to make something coherent. He is trying to fit them into one common mould, but he does not have to. He may come up with appropriate and different solutions for different groups because, as he himself said in his reply, every family is different and may need different help. This amendment would allow him to do precisely that.

The amendment does not cut across any review in any way, any more than his 12-month provision for kinship carers does. It seeks only to protect a small, identifiable and precise group from additional pressures of work conditionality at no cost at all and at a time when they and their children are most deeply distressed. I do not think that they should be put on the back burner for a review that may or may not deliver what I hope the House will think is the right path to take. If the review goes ahead and the Minister does not need the amendment, as it is permissive, he does not need to draw on it. If his review falters, which I think it will because he is asking too much of it, the amendment would give protection to some of the most vulnerable people in our country at the time of their deepest grief.

It is very simple. The amendment is permissive but says that we recognise the situation of widows and widowed parents and will give them, under the new system, one year of bereavement benefits and payments. This amendment asks for that one year, which we recognise is the period of most grief and distress, and that we should also not apply the pressure of work conditionality. This House has always looked out for widows and children, and I am asking the House to do it again today. The amendment is permissive and cost-free, and the Minister can build on it if he wishes to do the review. It is just a small safety net of help for grieving children and their grieving parent. I beg your Lordships to protect them tonight. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 24th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friends Lady Turner and Lady Sherlock for their contributions. I understand that the Minister is as committed as could reasonably be expected to trying to ensure that people are aware of and fully knowledgeable about their entitlements. I accept and absolutely understand that there is considerable virtue in having an evidence-based policy by building it up on the results of research into the most effective lines of communication. I also agree that a variety of responses may be wanted, including press, mailings and online, but I have to say that I would worry if it was largely dependent on online information, given what we know about many people’s recalcitrance over using online facilities as UC is rolled out. It may be that it is a generational thing and that over the next decade to 20 years the recalcitrance begins to disappear, particularly if places such as Norfolk end up actually having access to broadband.

My difficulty is that the Minister has a policy premised on the fact that those who know that they do not know will make the inquiry. The problem is around those who do not know that they do not know, and I am not confident that he has in place a strategy to make them aware of it. In the past, the people who were most vulnerable would have been married women who had been in and out of the labour market according to their caring responsibilities. They had a very straightforward safety net by the fact that they could have 60% of the husband’s pension as a baseline, and only if their own contributions exceeded that, as increasingly they have begun to do, would they draw on their own contributions. That is no longer the case. So the 60% married women’s pension is being withdrawn without, as far as I can see, ensuring that those women know, first, that they are losing what they would have counted on in the past and which is common knowledge, and secondly, what other benefits—or credits, I should say—they may be entitled to claim because that information is not being sent out to them in lieu.

I think that the Minister has a problem here. We are on the same side and I fully accept that he wants to make sure that people are aware of this, but I do not think he really understands what happens when the safety net of the married women’s dependency pension which has existed for 50-odd years is pulled away and women are told that they are on their own. He does not actually know, understand or appreciate what it may be like to find the headspace, resources and capacity to change behaviour in order to build up a pension. I am sure that this is not a gender point, but I really do not think that the Minister understands where women like that may be coming from. In the past, as the Minister will know, we had deficiency notices under NIRS 2. They told you whether you had incomplete NI records. When the computer, on which the Minister is relying so heavily, toppled over in the late 1990s or thereabouts and we could not get it back on its feet for several years, we increasingly lengthened the period during which someone could buy back their NICs or make contributions accordingly to cover the lack of deficiency notices. We were willing to do it then for everybody on an annual basis, as far as I recall, before the computer toppled over, yet the Minister is reluctant to go back to that. I understand the point about mailings and so on, but at the very least I press the Minister to identify in his research the at-risk group. For my money, the at-risk group are women, particularly married women, who had relied on the 60% married women’s pension, who were perhaps unaware in the past of the credits they could have claimed, including carer’s credits, and they are not on the list.

I would like some assurance from the Minister—it could just be a nod if he likes—that the at-risk group in particular can be identified. At 65 or 66, they could find themselves on their own with an incomplete state pension and it is too late to do anything about it because we have failed to keep nudging them. If the Minister could give me that assurance, I would be content.

[Lord Freud]

I would be very comfortable giving the noble Baroness that assurance. Clearly, a generalised mailing out is exactly what we are concerned about. The evidence is that people will get official-looking letters which they do not look at. We have to find a way of getting to the most vulnerable groups, who may take a Rumsfeldian attitude—they do not know what they do not know—and we have to find a way through that. Therefore, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. I think we are basically agreed around this Chamber about the need to get the communication right, but we need to do the research. There is no point in us making it up without that knowledge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, in designing the single-tier reforms our overriding aim has been to deliver a flat-rate pension above the basic level of the means test without increasing spending, and to do so in a way that recognises people’s contributions under the current system. This is not easy to do and it involves difficult trade-offs. Some elements of the transition necessarily generate costs in the early years, particularly the “better of” calculation, which means that people with low amounts of additional state pension, such as carers, receive a boost. There is also the fact that those with high amounts of additional state pension, which take them over the full amount of the single-tier pension, are able to keep the surplus as a protected payment. Nevertheless, we have been able to stay within 1% of projected expenditure until 2040, which is fair to current pensioners and to future taxpayers.

In answer to the blunt question of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, removal of the lump sum option for those who defer their state pension has played a key role in flattening expenditure. The early-year savings that this delivers have been ploughed back into the single-tier design. We are, however, still keen to preserve some flexibility for single-tier pensioners who, by choice or accident, claim after they reach state pension age, so people will still be able to build up an increase to their state pension that is paid on top of their single-tier entitlement for the rest of their lives. As discussed in Grand Committee, there remains the option of backdating a claim for a single-tier pension. By backdating their claim to a state pension, someone who has delayed claiming for whatever reason—either unintentionally or as part of a planned retirement—will be able to get up to 12 months’ arrears when they make their claim for a pension. This would provide someone who has qualified for the maximum weekly amount of £144 with arrears of almost £7,500 at 2012-13 prices.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the Minister help me with a technical point? With arrears, is the assumption that interest will be paid on the deferred money?

[Lord Freud]

What happens is that the amount is repegged to the year in which it is taken. If, for instance, someone’s delay in claiming exceeded a year, they would get an increment on top of the single-tier entitlement.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry but I still do not understand. This is a very simple point. At the end of the year in which you have not drawn your pension, do you get the equivalent of a return on capital—in other words, an interest payment—over and beyond the direct addition of 12 months of state pension?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

No, you do not get interest on arrears, but let me take the example of someone who delays claiming the maximum amount for two years and wants to backdate their claim for the 12 months. If we take the £144 example, they would get an increment of around £7.50 to £8 a week, depending on the value of the uprating, which would be added to their weekly entitlement. It would also include the calculation of arrears due to them for the backdated period. That would boost the overall arrears payment to more than £8,000, so that is the mechanism through which the delay works.

On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about why women in particular are deferring, one of the main reasons is that women have a lower state pension age than men, although of course the reasons will vary with individual circumstances. I am loath to go too deeply into the simplicity argument because we will have a row which will go on for ever. However, to conflate complexity with the number of extra pages in a particular pamphlet is, bluntly, a somewhat bizarre argument. The difficulty for individuals is in making the decision on what option is best for them in the longer term and what is best for their surviving spouse.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Has the Minister actually read the pamphlet?

[Lord Freud]

I must confess that I have not counted up the pages or gone through it in detail. I suspect that I have gone through it but I cannot remember it and have not done the counting job on pages that clearly I should have. I knew that I should not have said this. However, I am not going to back down and I will stay with my “bizarre” comment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is this evidence-based policy? The Minister has not read it but it is “bizarre”.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am most grateful for having a superb staff, some of whom have not only read the document but written it, so I am confident in the statement that I have just made.

The removal of the lump sum is not because we do not trust people; in fact, it is quite the opposite. We believe that people can make savings decisions for themselves. If they can afford not to claim the state pension, they can choose to save it.

Let me go to the figures on pensioner capital. We do not recognise the figures quoted by the noble Baroness. The figures I can quote—which are not averages, which I know the noble Baroness would scorn—are that almost three-quarters of the pensioner population already have more than £5,000 in capital, and more than half of all pensioners have more than £12,500 in net wealth.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister challenges my figures. Is that households or individual pensioners?

[Lord Freud]

It is households.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My point precisely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I am not sure why that was the point precisely, but those are the figures I have. The proposed amendment would allow for regulations to introduce a lump-sum payment into the new scheme. That would bring costs forward and would undermine the cost neutrality of the single-tier package, as well as the simplification.

Bringing costs forward may sound like a technical concern, but the timing of expenditure is vital. Without making offsetting savings elsewhere in the single-tier package, Governments in the early years of single tier would be forced to divert more spending towards the state pension system than under the current scheme, which means more government borrowing for future generations to shoulder, or less to spend on today’s priorities. We simply do not believe it is right to make this trade-off to enhance the personal financial management options for a relatively small group of people who do not need to draw the income from their state pension and are therefore able to exercise their option to defer.

We understand that a one-off payment can help people build up capital, and the backdating option can provide flexibility in this respect. However, we question whether there is a widespread problem of low capital for those in retirement. Introducing a lump sum would require us to make alternative savings from elsewhere in the single-tier package, most likely by reducing coverage. We simply cannot agree to that, and so I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, that was a very interesting reply. I only wish we were in Committee so we could show up more of the thinness of the Minister’s reply. For somebody who is so evidence-based—which is something I greatly respect about the Minister—he was dismissing it rather wildly out of hand.

The Minister pushed the argument that this is about cost and said that this removal played a key role in “containing expenditure”. That is very interesting. I had a discussion with his right honourable friend something like three weeks ago on precisely this point. He assured me most emphatically and vigorously—I am sure he would confirm the conversation, and there were witnesses—that this had nothing to do with cost but was only about simplicity. May I at least suggest that the Minister talks to his right honourable friend and agrees a common line on this? At the moment, one says it is all about cost and the other says it is nothing to do with cost but is all about simplicity. I suspect that the Minister in our House is probably correct about the cost argument, but that is not the position presented by the Minister responsible for pensions, who assured me emphatically to the contrary.

As to the point about simplicity, frankly, it is absurd. I checked my pages again. Pages 11 to 17 are a table showing the cost value of a lump sum compared with increments, and pages 26 to 29 are on taxing the lump sum. That makes 11 pages in total, and probably only three of those, on taxing the lump sum, would be regarded as any form of challenge beyond a reading age of seven and a quarter—so the Minister’s argument about simplicity is frankly absurd, patronising, condescending, lacking evidence and without any factual basis whatever. Frankly, we expect rather better from the Minister.

As for pensioner savings, as I suspected, the difference between us is that my figures are based on individuals, and I stand by them, and his figures are based on households, which does not help the argument very much. He seems to think that 64,000 people denied a lump sum is such a small number that we do not need to bother about them. It is three times the number of service spouses, if I remember correctly, that he is going to help through the military covenant, and no one said they were too small a number to bother about—yet the figure for a lump sum possibility which is three times larger is too trivial to be worth troubling ourselves with.

Frankly, I do not think the Minister believes a word of his argument. I think he does believe his argument about cost, but I do not think he believes anything else about it. He knows and understands that pensioners need savings. He knows that this may be a way for those who take this lump sum to exercise that choice. He knows that it is not difficult to understand. It could not be simpler. Do you want to take this two years’ worth of pension as a lump sum or do you want to add it on? If you are taking away the increment, that would be complicated to explain. A lump sum is the easier and simpler of the two options, and that is the one the Minister is taking away, to the pain of the individual who I calculate will reach their cross-over point—I asked the Minister for this figure, but it has never come to me—at about 87: I stand to be corrected if the Minister thinks I am wrong.

We are left with backdating—fine. All I can hope, and I am sure others do as well, is that we will keep up the pressure on Ministers to ensure that people are aware that they can take their pension lump sum in arrears, as a form of saving, after 12 months and get £7,500 or £8,000 for that sum, which will still keep them below any risk that other benefits, if they are necessary, including housing benefit, will be lost.

I am disappointed by the Minister’s reply, and I think that the Minister is disappointed by the Minister’s reply. He knows that it does not stand up to a scrap of scrutiny—not one scrap—but there is nothing much we are going to do about it at this time of night, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 24th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Take-up of pension credit guarantee credit, which is aimed at the poorest pensioners, is already high at 82%. However, I think that it would be better if I offered to write to the noble Baroness on the exact nature of the evidence which I do or do not have. Actually, I do not need to write because I can tell her that her second supposition is correct. We do not have any evidence either way. With that covered, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I am not going to pretend that I am not disappointed with the Minister’s reply. I thought that he showed a degree of sympathy and understanding in Committee, particularly of the plight of older pensioners in their late 70s or their 80s, or perhaps older still, who are getting increasingly frail and confused. I thought he understood that. That is why in this amendment I dropped the idea of periodic assessments and simply suggested that, while the Minister does what he thinks is appropriate or is required to do on this in terms of having annual means-testing until the age of 75, at least from 75 onwards he could abandon the annual means-testing system.

I really do not think that the Minister has addressed the issue. He said, first, that he thinks that the savings would be reduced by 30%. I suspect that that is a slightly arbitrary figure, arrived at by dividing the number of years and the percentage of savings, but it takes no account whatever of the fact that means-testing will already have excluded pensioners at an earlier stage. I suspect that at least half his savings will come from the fact that pensioners do not claim what they are entitled to, rather than them not getting what they otherwise would by having annual means-testing.

The Minister said that if those under 75 were annually means-tested but those over 75 were not, that would give rise to appeals and disputes. What evidence does he have for that? After all, we have had periodic means-testing since 2008. How many appeals have there been from people under the age of 75 against the “no further means-testing at 75” rule, and what has been the result of those appeals? I shall give way to the Minister. He ran that argument, so I presume that he has some statistics for us.

[Lord Freud]

I shall have to supply the statistics separately and will do so in writing.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, forgive me, but trying to persuade the House that this would generate appeals and disputes and not presenting to noble Lords what is already a firm basis of evidence from the existing situation does not seem acceptable. I rather doubt that the Minister has more than a couple of handfuls of cases but we will see when he digs out his statistics. I just do not think that it is a valid argument and I have not had a shred of evidence from him or the Box to support it, although I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

However, my deepest concern—and it is one that I do not think the Minister has addressed—is just how profoundly unfair this is. I am baffled that he does not seem to accept that argument. He is quite deliberately building means-testing out of the new state pension, and I welcome that wholeheartedly. However, every reason he adduces for building it out of the new state pension applies equally for not continuing to means test after 75. Every argument that supports the new state pension works to support the amendment and not continuing means-testing after 75. If means-testing is so innocent, why get rid of it in the new state pension? The Minister knows, as we all know, on the basis of good and effective DWP research, that means-testing is loathed by pensioners and they do not take up the benefits they are entitled to. That is what the Minister is counting on for his savings and it is profoundly unfair.

Pensioners slightly younger are built out of means-testing because the whole lot of pension credit has been thrown out of their new state pension. One day older and they are not only going to be means-tested but means-tested annually until the day they die, until they are 90. That is shameful. The Minister is widening the gap between younger pensioners, who will be much better off and with no means-testing, and the pensioners who will be staying with the old system, who are already older and poorer and who will have a lower pension and face means-testing. He is widening the disparity rather than narrowing it.

That is not good enough. It is not decent. The Minister is profoundly wrong on this but, given the lateness of the hour, obviously I will not seek the opinion of the House at this time of night. I will withdraw the amendment but with a heavy heart because it is profoundly wrong to widen the gap between older and younger pensioners at a time when we are trying to build means-testing out of the system and the Minister is reinforcing it back in again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the underoccupancy charge on tenants.

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

Both an impact and a quality impact assessment have already been published, although it remains too early to say how people are reacting to this change. We have commissioned a consortium to undertake a two-year monitoring of the effects of the policy. The research will include looking at the effects of the measures on supply issues, the impact on rural areas and the effects on financial circumstances and vulnerable individuals.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. Social security sanctions claimants and cuts their benefits if they break the rules, say on JSA, in order to change their behaviour. But the 660,000 families affected, whose existing housing benefit is being cut by the bedroom tax, cannot change their behaviour because there is nowhere smaller for most of them to go. Two-thirds of them are, in any case, disabled, and may need the extra space. Discretionary housing payments, on which the Minister properly relies, can help only a minority even of disabled people. Does the Minister really think it fair to sanction existing tenants for misbehaviour when they have not misbehaved and when they cannot change their behaviour? Are we not punishing people who have done no wrong but who, as they face eviction, are having wrong done to them? Is that now social security’s definition of social security?

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Clearly, one thing about this policy is that it makes properties that are underoccupied available for people who are overcrowded. According to the English housing survey, the figure for overcrowding is about a quarter of a million. Under the 2011 census, the figure was higher, going up to a third of a million—361,000.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, overcrowding is essentially a London problem, but the local authorities most affected are not London authorities; they are in places such as the north. I am sure that the Minister respects the facts on that and will share his information with the House. Does he agree that the problem that local authorities and housing associations face is that there is an absolute shortage of small accommodation to which people can move? Does he therefore agree that it would only be fair, right and decent if people were sanctioned by the bedroom tax only if they refused an acceptable alternative offer of smaller accommodation?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, less than half the overcrowding takes place in London. More than 30% of properties are actually one-bedroom and 108,000 have come up. We are adapting to the transition by using the discretionary housing payment system. The recent data on discretionary housing payments show that that is exactly how local authorities are using that money.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 20th January 2014 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as restrictions on entitlement to housing benefit based on accommodation size have been in place in the private rented sector since 1989, the local housing allowance introduced in April 2008 could be phased in. We have no plans to make similar arrangements for the removal of the spare room subsidy, which has already been applied, as it delivers a consistent approach to the treatment of housing benefit claimants across both the private and social rented sectors.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, the sectors are very different. The private rented sector seeks to make profit out of people’s housing benefit. That does not apply to social housing. Social tenants hit by the bedroom tax, through no fault of their own, are now trapped. They are unable to move to smaller social housing as it does not exist. They are unable to move to private housing because private landlords are rejecting or evicting them. They are unable to get discretionary housing payments because most are refused. Debts are mounting and lives are being destroyed. Will the Government please at least apply the bedroom tax only to new tenants who can cope with the new rules, as in 2008, perhaps over a transitional period until we have enough new housing to meet housing need?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the number of transfers into one-bedroom social rented accommodation in the past year is running at 108,000. There are more people in the private rented sector, not fewer, and DHPs are—if anything—underspent. Our indications are that they will be underspent. I am pleased to say that in Norwich, with which I know the noble Baroness is very closely associated, the spend was a little higher: £166,000 in the six months, against the allocation of £288,000. I am puzzled that Norwich has not put in a bid for additional funding. I urge it to do so because it has until 3 February to do it.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the purpose of this clause is to provide for the abolition of the assessed income period in pension credit cases from April 2016. I will just add that I was most welcoming of the reinforcements I had temporarily.

The assessed income period removes the requirement for certain people to notify the department of changes to their retirement provision for a defined period. The assumption when the assessed income periods were introduced in 2003 was that pensioners were more likely to have relatively stable incomes and capital, so a lighter touch to reviews was therefore considered appropriate as a way to minimise intrusion and ease the administrative process.

The logic behind the policy is clear, but operating the system over the past 10 years has shown the reality to be somewhat different. The operation of assessed income periods has proved to be more complex and intrusive for both staff and the individual than anticipated. For example, people can report a change during an AIP and, as a result, their award can be increased. However, because we have to look again at all of their retirement provision, not just the reported change itself, it does not always lead to a change in the award. This is nugatory work for the Pension Service and is confusing for recipients.

More importantly, our assumptions about the stability of pensioners’ incomes and capital have not stood the test of time. Our analysis shows that circumstances change and fixing retirement provision for such a long period leads to inaccuracies in benefit awards, which then remain in the system for some time. Based on a sample of around 100,000 cases that have been reviewed, the pension credit award required updating in 54% of them, and in 36% of cases the award was reduced.

In the current economic climate, we believe it is right that benefit awards reflect the individual’s current financial circumstances. We therefore propose to abolish assessed income periods by removing them for new claimants and phasing out existing fixed-term ones from April 2016. It is estimated that this measure will result in steady-state savings in AME of around £80 million per year in the long term. We recognise that removing assessed income periods will require pension credit recipients to report relevant changes when they occur—however, this will not necessarily result in increased levels of contact for all recipients.

We will be working with stakeholders and partners on communications products to ensure that people are clear about what this change means and what they will need to report and when. For example, there will be no need to report changes in capital provided it remains below £10,000. Currently, only 12% of recipients—around 290,000—have capital above that level. Above £10,000, changes are only relevant where they cross £500 bands. Annual increases in pensions will be taken into account automatically, as now, so only new income streams will need to be reported. It is also worth remembering that the impact of reporting changes will depend on individual circumstances and that not all will lose out. Some may see an increase in their award, while some may not experience any change at all.

Pension credit is a safety-net benefit designed to help the poorest pensioners, and as such it is right that it takes account of the income and capital people have access to. Through the abolition of the assessed income period, we will ensure that pension credit awards are accurate and that, in future, our limited resources are spent on those who require the most support. I beg to move that Clause 27 stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this clause. I would like to explain why I and my noble friend Lord McKenzie have raised this on the stand part debate so we can discuss the issues. As the Minister said, this clause proposes to abolish the current assessed income periods for pensioners claiming pension credit. At the moment, pensioners are means-tested for pension credit at their retirement at 65; then at 70; then again at 75 and not thereafter. I am genuinely surprised and, actually, disappointed that the Government want to make a quick saving of £82 million gross—as the Minister said—or some £60 million-odd or £65 million or so net by introducing annual means testing, although excepting current pensioners over 75 who may be in receipt. It will affect 1 million pensioners a year up to 2020.

Why do we have the current rules? My noble friend Lord McKenzie was instrumental in further enlarging and developing them in 2008. Very wise he was, and very good they were—of course. I hope Hansard records the “Hear, hears” to that. In particular, he introduced the indefinite assessed income period for no means-testing for those reaching 75. In my mind, that was a most important consideration, the one I am most concerned about. Essentially, we know that pensioners loathe means-testing so much that—either through ignorance or stigma—a third do not now claim that to which they are entitled. Those eligible non-recipients are missing out on something like a mean average of £34 a week. That is an average loss of £34 a week, an income that would transform their circumstances.

More means-testing, which is what the Government are proposing, will not, given this strategy, bring more pensioners in, but will deter even more pensioners from claiming what they should. That is why I am so pleased that we are extracting means-testing out of the new state pension, as the former Pensions Commission recommended when considering the old pension. I was pleased that we were removing it from the new state pension, only to find that the Government are foolishly importing it back in again and extending it through annual means tests, rather than five-yearly ones, in pension credit to make a quick buck. Therefore, those who get the more generous pension in future will escape the means test; the older, poorer pensioners—mainly women—will be subject to even more of it. I think that is wrong.

Why was means-testing for pensioners under my noble friend Lord McKenzie carried out with a light touch? It was essentially because pensioners’ income is pretty well stable in their retirement years. The three major events which are likely to affect their entitlement are, first, the death of their spouse. When he dies—and it is, alas, usually “him” ahead of “her”—his modest pension, if it is a single-life pension which two-thirds of them are, dies with him. That is why it is elderly widows who most need pension credit. The second major event is that they may, rarely, get a small legacy—say, from the death of an unmarried sibling. The third is that they may have to move into residential care.

Such big events should be reported, and I have no objection to reinforcing that and making it clear that capital from, say, a generous legacy of more than £10,000 or £15,000, acquired before 75, should be reported. I do not have a problem with that. Apart from that, a five-year check will discover not just whether pensioners are getting too much, which is rare, but sometimes whether they are getting too little. I do not think we have recently had much in the way of a take-up campaign—funny, that.

Now the Government are going to produce annual means tests, and the Bill team—I thank it for this—very helpfully sent me the best statistics we currently have, which show that twice as many people will lose under annual means-testing as will gain. The Government will not make their savings primarily because people are receiving too much, although some money may come from that and will be clawed back, and so on. No, if the Minister will actually make a saving, it will come from pensioners who should get it not claiming, and certainly not annually. The department has a lot of literature, which is entirely decent, about the problems of the means-testing, which informed the new state pension. It was absolutely right to do so, and yet it seems to be ignoring it in its efforts to make a quick £65 million or so saving from the poorest pensioners.

The Minister and his team will so increase the stigma of means-tested pension credit—with people annually reminded that they are suspected of error, if not downright fraud—that more of the poorest pensioners will slip down the snake of further poverty. Pensioners do not cheat on pension credit, but this proposal suggests that they do. Let us not have any spin about increased take-up as a result. This is about savings and nothing more, and I do not think it is decent.

The Government boast of their reduction in means-testing for the new state pension, while quietly importing a massive extension of means-testing for those not joining the sunny uplands of the full new state pension. They are deliberately widening the gap between those who will get the new pension, and those who cannot on grounds of age. Poorer pensioners will be worse off simply because they are a day older or a year older than other pensioners who are eligible for the new state pension.

Single people who are on pension credit because they are on the wrong side of that cliff edge will have £30 of pension credit added to their BSP of £111, giving them a total income of some £140. However, if they acquire any capital savings over £10,000, they will find them means-tested. In some cases they will then lose every penny of pension credit. Meanwhile, other pensioners, who are a day or a year younger, will get their more generous pension of £144, and will also keep every penny of savings they may have or acquire because we rightly float them off pension credit, and all credit to the Government for that.

The older and poorer start to lose if they have any savings over £10,000, so there is not an incentive to save. Yet pensioners a day younger not only have a higher pension, but their savings are not taken into account at all. This problem will of course be made worse by the loss of savings credit. Is this fair? Far from increasing means-testing for the poorest group, in my view the Government should do exactly the opposite. They should reduce means-testing to achieve greater fairness for pensioners who are being penalised for nothing but their age. That would give less of a cliff edge, and more equity between the two groups of pensioners who are divided by one day. It really is shameful to import an unnecessary cliff edge for trivial government savings, and it is also perverse.

Since my noble friend Lord McKenzie wisely reviewed AIPs, there have been huge cuts in domiciliary support for the elderly from social services. Mr Pickles has cut local government budgets by 35%, and inevitably this is passed on in depleted services. Nearly half a million people, mostly pensioners, have lost homecare since 2008—half a million. Only those with substantial or even critical care needs can now expect to have carers who are funded by the local authority.

Pensioners with only “functional” disability may have quite significant mobility or sight problems, and five years ago they could have received perhaps three or five hours per week of help from social services. They now get nothing, and their family may live 100 miles away. If someone’s needs are more substantial and they are frail, and they need help getting up in the morning and at night, the two hours a day which was offered may now come down to two slots of 15 minutes. On top of this has come Dilnot.

The Government’s response has been to emphasise co-payment. I do not disagree with that, but where is the money for that co-payment to come from? If you are a pensioner on pension credit, you have minimal or low savings and your only asset is your home. Outside London this may be worth perhaps £100,000 or double that. Some 80% of pensioners below 60% of median income are owner-occupiers. Half of those on pension credit are owner-occupiers. Equally, three-quarters of those who should claim pension credit—but do not and so lose out on £34 per week—are owner-occupiers.

Pensioners may have to contribute to the cost of their social care, or decide—rightly, in my view—that they wish to live independently outside of residential care, with more domiciliary support than social services can now provide. However, those on pension credit, having been means-tested at 65 and again at 70 and now coming up to 75, have only one way to do that, which is to release some of the equity in their home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I shall deal with the equity release issue first. Assessed income periods were never intended to enable people to shield their income and capital from interaction with the means-tested system. Pension credit is a safety net benefit providing support for daily living needs for the poorest and, as such, should be a last resort.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I am not sure that that is the case. Certainly equity release providers had discussions with the department, to my certain knowledge, and were told that somebody could acquire capital through equity release between, say, 65 and 70, and that if it was then spent down—that is, it was used for reroofing, or a new boiler, or insulation, or whatever—the department was entirely content with that.

[Lord Freud]

Yes, I shall come to that. In practice, that is absolutely the case. Money taken for essential repairs is disregarded. I can confirm what the noble Baroness is saying.

To go back to the argument, people should draw on the income and capital available to them before seeking help from the state. If people liquidise assets to release money or generate an income, that should be taken into account, no matter what the source—if they sell some shares, release equity or downsize. It has been suggested that abolishing the assessed income period will deter people from using equity release to pay for care under the new care funding regime proposed by the Government. The planned care charging reforms will provide greater clarity about what people will be expected to contribute. There will be financial advice to help people better meet these costs, and the Department of Health has been working with the financial services industry to help create the right conditions for a new market of financial products to develop that will be suited to this purpose. Equity release may be a product some may consider, but at this stage it is difficult to say how future care charging reforms will influence behaviour in this area.

The Government do not want people to be penalised for making proper provision to fund their care. That is why the Department of Health will consider how the charging system can recognise the provision people have made and why we are working with them to understand the impacts and the potential interactions with means-tested benefits. However, we cannot retain a complex feature of pension credit as a way of protecting the position for what may be a minority of pension credit customers in specific circumstances. This would not be a targeted response; indeed, it could be argued that it moves away from and undermines the rationale of a safety net benefit.

There may be alternative solutions that both departments will need to consider in due course to avoid penalising those who have made provision to pay for care, but keeping the assessed income period is not the answer. I can confirm what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said—that officials have spoken with the Equity Release Council and have agreed to meet with them in due course to talk through the implications of this measure. The council, in terms of the information base, has been careful about providing advice to those on pension credit about the potential impact on their benefit and designed products so that they do not breach the £10,000 disregard.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Except, my Lords, in referring to the brief to this extent, that usually the minimum sum from any equity release providers, from looking at the Aviva statistics and retirement statistics, is usually £10,000, at which point any moneys above that are netted off pension credit.

[Lord Freud]

Once these things are put in place with the social care provisions, there may be ways of dealing with that, but it is premature to address it until we have the shape of those social care provisions. As I said, the way to do that is not necessarily through a wholesale change to our AIP strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

As this is not an amendment, I do not have a formal right of reply to withdraw an amendment. Before the Minister sits down, therefore, could I press him on this? Why did he—rightly in my view—support his right honourable friend’s position in the other place, which was based on the recommendations of the Pensions Commission, to get rid of pension credit in the new single pension and therefore to reduce means-testing very significantly? Pension credit served its purpose in taking existing pensioners out of poverty. It possibly deterred other, future pensioners from saving, but it did tackle the problem of poverty. Quite rightly, in my view, the current Government have proceeded to take that chunk—a huge chunk of means-testing—out of the system. Why, then, does the Minister think it right to reintroduce it for some people who are simply a day too old?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I think there is a distinction to be made here, which the Government are making. You can reduce the level of means-testing by providing a higher single-tier pension, while still making sure that where you are providing people with a means-tested benefit, it is accurate, in order that the Government do not spend more money than they need to at a very tight time.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

But the Government are giving the equivalent of a whole pension credit to everyone who draws their pension after 5 April 2016, so the Minister is not worried about a safety net then, or spending money that is not necessary—he is just doing it. Everybody will get the equivalent of a full pension credit if they fall the right side of the line. If they fall the wrong side of that line, it will be means-tested annually. What is the decency behind that?

[Lord Freud]

As the noble Baroness is fully aware, the dividing line is actually much more spread given the complicated transitional arrangements between one system and another. There is not the sharpness of a dividing line—I know the noble Baroness is fully aware of that because we have debated it in great detail. I am conscious that we are pressed for time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords for their thoughtful speeches. I know that they have been considering these issues very carefully and I appreciate and take on board the sentiments that have been expressed. Bereavement benefit forms an important part of state support. Reforms have been made over the years, but they have tended to have been in response to particular pressures, and until now no one has really considered how this benefit fits in with wider changes in society and, indeed, within a new structure of benefits. By not addressing the radical social and demographic changes that we have seen or accounting for the far-reaching changes to the welfare system, the benefit is out of date, difficult to administer and hard to understand. Radical reform is necessary to make it more effective for this century.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

This benefit was introduced or revised after quite a lot of work and research in 2000. In what ways is it out of date? I can understand that the Minister may wish to make savings, but his proposals are cost-neutral. So, apart from the fact that funeral costs have gone up, and therefore there is a need for a larger lump sum, in what way is it out of date?

[Lord Freud]

The history is where it is thought that a partner is a dependent rather than an independent agent—and that is a fundamental change in our demography, and something that I know the noble Baroness welcomes, with the rise of women’s equality. It is one of the biggest structural changes that we have seen since the war.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I entirely agree with the Minister, but it is my belief that since 2000 the percentage of people in work, particularly mothers with young children, has changed by only three or four percentage points.

[Lord Freud]

I do not think that I want to get into a debate with the noble Baroness on whether the reforms that she was responsible for and those that I am responsible for are better. Let me try not to do it in that context. I shall describe what these reforms are doing.

The design is for the bereavement and support payment to be a significantly simpler benefit and to provide specific financial support at a time when it is needed most without affecting access to further support through other parts of the welfare system. The evidence from independent social research and our public consultation exercise found that the financial impact of spousal bereavement is particularly acute in the first months. Bereavement support payment is designed to provide a significant cash boost for people in these early months, with a lump sum followed by 12 monthly instalments. We recognise that those with dependent children need a greater level of support, so the Bill provides the ability to set out a higher amount in regulations, which is what we intend to do.

Amendment 61 is intended to allow us to pay a higher amount to those who have been caring for their spouse or civil partner prior to bereavement. Caring responsibilities at the end of life can be particularly difficult and distressing and we recognise this by continuing the payment of carer’s allowance for up to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for. Under the new system, this will be paid in addition to bereavement support payment as opposed to being taken into account in widow’s parent’s allowance and bereavement allowance.

The Bill does not preclude us from specifying a higher rate in regulations for people who meet certain conditions. However, making receipt of or eligibility for carer’s allowance or carer’s credit a condition is neither targeted nor fair. It would be particularly difficult to prove that someone would have been eligible for carer’s allowance, or would have met any other such conditions, after their spouse had died. Moreover, while we are spending more money on bereavement benefits over the first few years of reform, clearly we are in no position to significantly increase benefit expenditure. Money for increased payments to certain groups would have to be taken from elsewhere in the bereavement benefit budget, either resulting in lower payments for those without dependants or lower payments for all.

On the duration of payment, the 12 monthly instalments are not intended to equate to the period of an individual’s grief, nor are they intended to provide ongoing income replacement; rather, they seek with an initial lump sum to provide support when it is needed most.

To pick up on the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the overall effect, the DWP ad hoc report shows that overall, 52% of recipients are better off under the reform and that 62% of those out of work, who are typically poorer people, are better off, while 100% of those who currently receive the least, the BPT group, who get the lump sum of £2,000 but no regular payment, are better off after the policy change. On average, out-of-work parents in the poorest 25% notionally gain for 12 years. Out-of-work parents in the next poorest income quartile notionally gain for up to eight years. On average, out-of-work childless people in the bottom 50% of the income range notionally gain irrespective of age. In-work childless people in the poorest 25% notionally gain, regardless of age. In the structure I am describing, bereavement support payment must be taken in the context of the provision of universal credit, which is efficiently directed at helping the poorest people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps the Minister could help me. He is arguing that this is an improvement and an increase in generosity in work conditionality, but he is comparing what would be the case if someone did not get this payment under the new universal credit regime. At the moment there is no such requirement, if the income that has been provided is adequate for someone to live on. As I understand it, work conditionality therefore does not apply. If I have misunderstood, I am very happy for the Minister to correct me, but I think that he is making the comparison that we did not make, and he is therefore answering a different comparison.

[Lord Freud]

Clearly, if people can live on the current bereavement payments alone, no conditionality is implied. That is the difference between the systems. Under universal credit if people are reliant on universal credit, work conditionality will be implied.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

In other words, at the moment someone could get a full widow’s benefit under this, together with tax credits, housing benefit and so forth, and they would be free from work conditionality. In the future, I absolutely accept that there will be a different regime, but the point is that at the moment the Minister is making a comparison with the position of people who are not bereaved enjoying universal credit compared with those who will be bereaved under universal credit. I am concerned, as are many other noble Lords, with the position of those who are currently free and exempt from work conditionality with additional incomes coming through tax credits, housing benefit and the like, which therefore give them a higher or sufficient income which does not attract to it work conditionality.

[Lord Freud]

The noble Baroness is looking at a pretty narrow group where people are taking general bereavement benefits plus an income from work at over 16 hours to get the tax credits, which do not contain conditionality. Yes, there is a different system, but that is what the noble Baroness is describing in that particular example.

There are types of tailored work search requirements. There are no work-related requirements at all for the lead carer of a child who is under the age of one. There would be some work-focused interviews when the child is older, and noble Lords will be familiar with these. The work-related requirements can be limited in cases where the claimant has childcare responsibilities or has a physical or mental impairment. This is a flexible approach to conditionality, allowing it to be tailored to the individual, which ensures that all claimants receive the right support.

I am absolutely committed to making sure that parents who have suffered a bereavement receive an appropriate conditionality regime, so I have asked the Childhood Bereavement Network to advise us on how we should develop this guidance. Of course, the point about this, as noble Lords have made clear, is that we are talking about the married bereaved. Lots of other people suffer equivalently who are not eligible for bereavement benefit, and I know that there is some pressure to widen it. This conditionality regime could have wide benefits and I would be prepared to develop that guidance in a relatively transparent way.

We need to consider other people who are bereaved in order to ensure that the system is fair to everyone. Bereaved people in employment are not likely to be allowed to stay away from work for six months. On parental bereavement leave, which is a statutory entitlement, the ten-minute rule Bill was asking for a statutory period of only two weeks’ bereavement leave for an employed person following the death of a child. An additional 4,000 bereaved, non-married, non-civil partnered but nevertheless partnered people who are on UC will also be exempt, although they will not be entitled to the bereavement payments themselves.

Our analysis from the current flow of bereavement benefit claims indicates that 55% of claimants are in employment. Out of the remainder, only 9% of widowed parents are unemployed and, if they claimed universal credit, would be required to undertake work-related activity six months after bereavement. Given that the policy of not imposing conditionality requirements on bereaved claimants claiming universal credit for six months is already more generous than that for bereaved individuals in other circumstances, and that our flexible conditionality regime allows us to reflect on and respond to individual circumstances, I see no merit in having a longer period.

I turn to the distinction of kinship carers; I enjoy boasting about the one-year concession on conditionality for kinship carers. I did that for very particular reasons. The death of a parent at any time is clearly a huge loss to a family and children need support during the grieving period, which can be a long period of time, as my noble friend pointed out. In fact, the evidence tends to show that grief comes out well beyond the one-year period. The support will be not only for the surviving parent who has knowledge of their child and how best to support them, but in most cases there is an existing support network of extended family, friends, schools and clubs. Unlike bereaved children who still have a parent to support them, other children do not have that support as they move into a kinship situation. They may have moved away from their home and school, meaning that their social support network has also been removed, and they need time to make new friends, settle into school and learn completely new routines. The difference with kinship carers is that this marks a huge change for both the child and the adult. On top of that, the adult concerned may have little or no experience of looking after a child, and will need time to make adjustments to their own life in order to accommodate the child.

On the point raised by my noble friend on the move to part-time work, I can confirm that a bereaved parent who changes their employment to part-time work will still be eligible to claim universal credit.

Removing any requirement to engage with the labour market through universal credit for a longer or even indefinite period could have a negative effect on a person’s recovery and long-term job prospects. We believe that allowing people to engage with the labour market through universal credit is necessary to help them adjust and regain control of their lives.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Did the Minister say “allowing people”; in other words, is he suggesting that it is the choice of the bereaved parent?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, I did. There is an element of push-pull and expectation, and the expectation here is that people would engage with the labour market after six months except where there would be difficulties in doing so. That is exactly why we want to develop a good guidance package, which we shall do in consultation with the key stakeholder.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

One of the key things is that there are clearly some terribly tragic and difficult situations involved here. However, the risk is that one looks at the very worst cases and draws up a policy that suits them, even though the majority of people are not in those extreme circumstances. What we are trying to develop here is a reasonable norm and then a capacity to adjust for the kind of extreme circumstances that do happen. We need to make absolutely sure that we are able to adjust for those—that is the structure we are looking at here. The risk is, as noble Lords know, that we do something for everyone when literally only 2%, 3% or 4% are affected. Noble Lords will have heard the percentages I gave about the number of families, which is 9% of the total. I want to try to avoid designing a system based on one particular example.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

But why, unless the Minister is actually accusing widowed parents of exploiting or milking the system? Being more generous in the case of the very moving examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would give greater choice for other widowed parents with perhaps less difficult circumstances. Unless the Minister thinks they are milking the system, they will find their path back into the labour market. Why does he have to make it quite so tidy and precise? Why does he have to second-guess all the time?

[Lord Freud]

It is important that the system sets out some generous norms against other examples we are looking at. There are people in employment, who would very rarely see a norm of six months, and people who are cohabiting—a huge proportion of the people who suffer this are in that situation and, as I will go on to say, it is very difficult to help them any more. We set up a good norm and then have a robust system to make sure that we can make the appropriate adjustments for people for whom that norm is not appropriate. As I said, I have asked my officials to meet with the Childhood Bereavement Network in the coming months to discuss the policy approach in universal credit and to look at the guidance. I hope that I will be able to report back in time to inform our next debate on this.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and how widowed mother’s allowance and widowed parent’s allowance are to be treated under universal credit. She is not here now but I know she will read very closely what I say. As in the assessment of any income-related benefit, it is necessary to consider the income the house or individual has access to, including income from other social security benefits. As both the two benefits—the WMA and the WPA—are income-replacement benefits, it is right that they are taken into account under universal credit. Disregarding them would increase government spend on universal credit by a commensurate amount of around £300 million. Claimants migrating to universal credit from legacy benefits, where their circumstances have otherwise remained the same, will be transitionally protected.

This is what Cruse Bereavement Care said about the new system:

“It is a simple system that would provide bereaved people with access to immediate help. It gives immediate financial support at a time when other available sources can be rendered inaccessible … If the principle is that the universal credit should ensure that the bereaved family are adequately supported on an on-going basis then a lump sum to help enable them to get back on their feet may be simpler and more appropriate”.

Of course, this is exactly what we are doing.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Except that it may be better for some, but what the Minister is doing is making it a requirement for all.

[Lord Freud]

The noble Baroness is now going back to the conditionality debate, but I am now going on to the actual level of payments, which is a somewhat different point. I understand that there is a concern that there could still be a potential impact on a small subset of those universal credit claimants who also receive widowed parent’s allowance. This is the point about them being worse off by £7.56 a week. This is not an unintended consequence, because we have been clear about treatment of unearned income and that widowed parent’s allowance would be deducted pound for pound in assessing universal credit. As noble Lords know, universal credit is a fundamental reform of the current benefits system and leads clearly to both increases and reductions in the level of entitlements. However, no one already on benefit whose circumstances remain the same will lose out in cash terms as a direct result of the move because of the transitional protection.

The point is that widowed parent’s allowance is a taxable benefit. Working claimants might not only have their allowance deducted from the universal credit entitlement, but also pay tax on it through the tax code in their earnings. The reduction in net earnings as a result of the additional tax will be only partly offset by an increase in universal credit because of the 65% taper. Noble Lords will appreciate that there are good reasons why universal credit works on the basis of net earnings and tapered withdrawal, because that is the mechanism that is designed to incentivise work. Nevertheless, I will look carefully at the points that have been made on this issue in this debate and by stakeholders. I need to emphasise, however, that it would be a disproportionate and expensive response to move to a full disregard for all claimants of either of these two awards.

I now move on to the question of allowing bereavement support payment for unmarried couples and the request for a review within six months following Royal Assent. Our law and tax systems recognise inheritance rights and needs of bereaved people only if they have a recognised marriage or civil partnership. This stems from the founding principle of the national insurance system, which is that all rights to benefits derived from another person’s contributions are based on the concept of legal marriage and civil partnership. Allowing cohabiting couples to have access to bereavement benefits would significantly increase complexity; and proving cohabitation can be incredibly challenging, not to say an intrusion into claimants’ private lives.

On the request for a review, there clearly needs to be a period following introduction of the new payment to allow changes to bed down before we can review its effectiveness and impact on the different groups of claimants. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that we have already committed to review the change in our impact assessment at a point when sufficient evidence is available to assess all aspects of the policy.

I want to pick up another point made by the noble Lord on the take-up of bereavement benefits. The take-up is high at around 90%, which has been helped by the rollout of the Tell Us Once information service. The majority may not qualify for the full amount due to the complex contribution conditions. Indeed, this is why we have simplified them into a position where someone is entitled to the new payment on the basis of payments of 25 times the lower earnings limit in any one tax year. I believe that the bereavement support payment will be simpler and fairer than the current system, providing support when and where it is needed most by supporting people to regain control of their lives as soon as they can. These amendments would be a backward step resulting in more complexity in a system that would provide less help to those who need it when they need it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

The point is that, depending on if it is a late payment, it would be possible to make a very small contribution and get a large payment of £9,800 back. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with a full justification of that decision.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I am very appreciative of everyone’s contributions. A lot of issues have been explored, and although the Minister has been as fastidious and careful as he always is in trying to respond to the points, I have to say that, on what is now our fifth day in Committee, I thought that his responses here have been less persuasive than they have been to almost all of our other debates. They will certainly require us to look very carefully indeed at the small print of his responses because I am not persuaded by almost any of his points.

Let me first thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord German, who I think actually used the word “cruel”. If the noble Lord wishes to resile from that, I apologise. I think that they all spoke very well and movingly about the situations in which families find themselves—not just singly bereaved but doubly bereaved. Sometimes the surviving partner or spouse may be seriously injured, which means that they cannot support a child in the family in the way they would wish. We know that such tragedies exist and the consequences multiply in what is a ripple effect for families for many years. That is especially the case when there are multiple losses. All sorts of feelings of guilt continue to plague unreasonably and irrationally but completely understandably, those who survive such a situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I want to make sure that the noble Baroness adjusts the figure of 88% on the record, because that is not the figure. I was trying to supply the figures. Across all groups, 50% are better off compared to 48%. The figure of 88% is for a narrow group of those in work who are receiving the widowed parent’s allowance. A lot of misleading figures have been going around on the structure of this. There are effects of the combination of these payments with other benefits in the system, particularly universal credit. You cannot ignore those interactions and our figures show that poorer people in particular do well out of this new system.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I emphasise again that without seeing the Minister’s detailed working I will sustain the figures I have, unless, until or if the Minister can show me the points at which they are inaccurate. Is it 88% of widows with children in work who will be worse off, and 57% of those not in work who will be worse off? To put it another way, any widow with children who would have claimed for two years or more will in future be worse off. It may be that the Minister has not fully taken into account the cohort effect with regard to the point people at which join the labour market. Obviously, we should continue this in correspondence.

My noble friend Lord Browne pressed the Minister hard and showed again that targets interlocking with financial need are going to leave very many widowed parents in a far worse position. He encouraged the Minister to consult further with the Childhood Bereavement Network group of voluntary organisations to see whether a rearrangement of these benefits can meet some of our concerns. I am pleased that the Minister is willing to do this. He also argued not just for a reconsideration but, if necessary, a review, especially as regards cohabiting parents. If the Minister is serious about trying to bring benefits up to date, he should recognise that 50% of all children are now born outside marriage, even though the relationship may be an entirely stable one with two committed parents. The Minister deploys the argument of bringing structures up to date to suit his case, but apparently refuses to recognise other people’s positions. He is obviously right to want to continue to keep all benefits under review as an act of stewardship. However, if he is going to take account of this changed world, he is selecting what factors he chooses to take account of and ignoring others that are equally significant—and possibly in many ways more so—in their effects on families and their children.

The Minister made several points. First, as regards structure, I accept that we need to review it but I think that he is going about it the wrong way. Secondly, as regards money, he paraded the gainers against the losers and implied that somehow that is all right because there is some mythical average. It is not all right and I am sure we will come back to that point. The point on which he was least persuasive was that of conditionality. He seems to think that when you have lost a spouse and your children are very insecure, fearful and frightened, and need the surviving parent’s full-time attention, six months’ relief from conditionality is generous. I would tell him that he needs to live in the world that such parents inhabit. It really is not generous. He is making the comparison with, say, a single parent under UC. I accept that a widowed parent in that situation would be more generously placed in terms of work conditionality than a single parent unaffected by widowhood would be under UC, but that is not the point we are making.

I cannot believe that the noble Lord is deliberately bypassing this point. Our knowledge of what those widowed parents and their children experience was built into the previous structure that is now being abandoned. There is an apparent reliance on the fact that the relevant provision is somewhat better than UC, and therefore what have we got to complain about? The Minister needs to ponder some of the literature which the noble Lord, Lord German, identified; perhaps he has. It may shape his perception of this issue of work conditionality. He is so completely wrong on this that I am puzzled because I know that he tries to enter into the situation of recipients of benefit.

Finally, the Minister referred to kinship carers and charmingly boasted that he had been responsible for making their situation better. I am very glad indeed that he did, but the lesson I draw from that is that widowed parents should now turn themselves into kinship carers. Is it his intention to make the regime harsher for the parent and their children who are suffering grief than is likely to be the case for kinship carers, given that the latter are nearly always grandparents? I know they are nearly always grandparents as I have done some work on this. Is it the Minister’s intention that the regime should be harsher for the widowed parent with children than for a grandparent caring for the children, particularly if the maternal grandparent is involved who has suffered not the direct loss of a son but, say, that of a son-in-law? Is that what he is really arguing? I wonder how much experience he or his team have had of engaging with families in that situation. I would hope that at the very least he will take away from this the argument that whatever he may or may not be able to do in terms of budgets and cost neutrality—and that may follow discussions with the voluntary groups, which we welcome—he will at least extend his empathy for kinship carers, which we respond to and recognise, to the similar group of widowed parents, and at the very least not deploy work conditionality until a year has passed. That would at least go some way to meeting our concerns. Unless the Minister wants to respond to me further now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 13th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can I ask a question following on from my noble friend about the interaction of pension credit, which I was trying to tease out as he was going along? At the moment, if you have savings of more than about £40,000, the first £10,000 of pension credit capital is disregarded for pension credit purposes. Thereafter, you have the tariff income of £1 for every £500, which means that if you have savings at the moment of about £40,000 and you are single—I am not sure how it would work for a couple, because I do not have the figures in my head—you would be just about ineligible for pension credit, because your tariff income would float you above it. But turn that capital into a pension, given the fairly unattractive rates for annuity purposes, and I think as a result you would come into pension credit. I shall try to do some more work on this as the discussion moves on, but, if I am right, what the Minister will get in upfront savings he will lose not only in payments in perpetuity while those people live, through his additional pension, but also the immediate payments he will have to make in pension credit—because, having disbursed their capital, they will now come within the pension credit income rules.

[Lord Freud]

I need to thank noble Lords, as usual, for a mine of interesting questions, and I shall try to deal with as many as I can. On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, raised about the research and the understanding of the prices, we are clearly looking at how much the original research needs to be complemented—and, indeed, we may consider more polling work. The original testing was based on a stylised scheme, and further work, playing in the fact that the scheme is secured in national insurance and state pension, may be beneficial. We will also look to consider qualitative research to find out what sort of barriers there may be to taking up class 3A contributions, and I will be happy to provide further details of that research. On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about whether some of that research needs to be redone, I think we would say that it needs to be complemented.

The example of £1,248 raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, was not the cost of £1 for a 65 year-old; it was illustrative only, and we are looking to do some more research on the final price. In answer to questions from both the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord McKenzie, about information and timing, we will provide comprehensive information and get it quality assured by stakeholders, and we build on the kind of information we provide for class 3, which noble Lords will be familiar with. This is the standard background that we will build on.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, raised the question of the amount of financial advice that people will need before buying class 3A. Again, in this document, as in others, we draw people’s attention to the fact that they may wish to take independent financial advice before taking a decision that could affect their current or future income. We also need to note that HMRC, rather than the Treasury, administers this scheme.

On the point about pension credit that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was developing in front of our eyes, she is correct that some people would come within the scope of pension credit, but it is up to the decision-maker to decide whether people deprive themselves of capital in order to derive income. We will look at that point further.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

There is certainly a rule within all social security, along with the rule that capital may be treated as income and income treated as capital, that you may not wilfully deprive yourself of capital in order to boost income. However, to do so wilfully in response to a government campaign would be very different from handing a gift of £10,000 to your grandchild. I think that the Government would be open to mis-selling claims if they went down that road. I do warn the Minister.

[Lord Freud]

I am, of course, always very grateful for warnings from the noble Baroness or other members of the Committee. That is clearly one of the areas in which quite a lot of detailed work needs to be done. I suspect that it is a minority sport that she is defining, but nevertheless we will need to look at it.

On the question of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about what pension entitlement is necessary, people can have a pension entitlement that consists of graduated retirement benefit or state pension based on their own record of national insurance, which is a category A pension, or one derived from a spouse or civil partner’s record, which is a category B pension. Proposed new Section 61ZA overrides the rules that prevent people having an entitlement to more than one pension at a time.

On the question about what we call it, I think that the noble Lord called it a savings vehicle. We have to be rather careful in our language, which the noble Lord was good enough to recognise and acknowledge. Class 3A will be a one-off opportunity for today’s pensioners, with a cap on the amount of additional pension that can be bought and a limited window during which applications can be taken. As with other forms of voluntary national insurance, we do not expect it to be seen as an investment in a commercial sense. As class 3A is not an investment product, it does not require regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority and, therefore, people with defined contribution pension savings will not be able to get their pension pot refunded in order to take up class 3A as an alternative to an annuity.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about the belt and braces approach of the Government Actuary or the Deputy Government Actuary, this is a provision to cover situations where the post of the Government Actuary is vacant. It enables engagement for consideration. I know the noble Lord takes an Occam’s razor attitude to legislation, but that is the reason.

The question from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on the recovery—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

When I last talked to the noble Lord he was pretty indifferent about his pronunciation, but I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. He made a point which I want to reinforce. When we are looking out for 10, 20 or more years, it is quite difficult to specify all the considerations that a review should take into account. The risk is that that if you specify them, you become restricted.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister is being a little unfair in this argument because at no stage did I suggest that we remove the words “other factors”. They would remain. All I am trying to do is transpose the wording from this document into the Bill; they are both the Government’s documents.

[Lord Freud]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her advice, but we want to make sure that future Governments look at this themselves, take a proactive approach to the review process and are transparent and conscious about what they are commissioning. Stipulating now all the variables and all the factors to be taken into account restricts rather than supports that responsibility. Greater discretion will also allow an iterative approach with future Governments building on the reviews of previous ones.

A lighter touch approach will help to generate more debate at the time when the state pension age review is conducted. This should encourage all interested parties across Parliament and industry to feed in their thoughts and contributions and involve them better in the process.

The noble Baroness and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, discussed quite a lot of the factors. I do not wish to get into a huge debate about healthy life expectancy, and so on, but I will make just make a few points on it. The first is to warn noble Lords that the ONS measure of healthy life expectancy from 2000 onwards was changed to run in comparison with our EU partners, so we do not have a consistent data run for the whole period, although we have evidence that shows that healthy life expectancy has increased consistently since the 1980s. Do not use the run because there is a discontinuity in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

We are more stoical.

[Lord Freud]

It is a very fair point that health is, importantly, attitudinal. It is not a matter of just taking a medical model for this. I accept that point.

However, where we have an unbroken record, which is the time spent free of disability, which runs from 1981 to 2010, the figure for men in Great Britain rose by 2.9 years and by 2.8 years for women. It is possible to take a rather more encouraging attitude towards our healthy life expectancy compared with some of the gloom I sometimes hear. The House of Lords report, Ready for Ageing—the Filkin review to which the noble Baroness referred—concluded:

“The Government were right to raise the state pension age, but they are now adopting a timetable of increases slower than that recommended by the Turner Commission and will have to revisit this with rising healthy life expectancy”.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Yes, but one of the problems is that people quote that without reading the 980 pages of evidence that went with it, which show that the summary of those recommendations did not pick up most of the debates in the evidence.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I can only go with the conclusion that I would like to leave on the record alongside my warning to take a little care on some of the conclusions that have been drawn on the progress of healthy life expectancy.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked whether people can work longer and what the trends are in the labour market. The SPA has remained at 65 for men since the 1940s and the average age of labour market exit in 1950 was just over 67 for men and just under 64 for women. That figure has declined, ironically, along with the nature of the work that we have been talking about—hard physical labour. We have seen a countertrend in what has happened since then.

I genuinely welcome this debate and believe that it is important to keep having these discussions, whether inside or outside the House. But we should not seek to prescribe every last detail in the Bill; we must make sure that each and every Government revisit the issue in the light of the circumstances. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Despite being interrupted by a couple of votes, we have had an interesting, valuable and, I hope, important debate. I am very grateful to the number of noble Lords who have taken part in it, including those who had not expected to do so. I was certainly grateful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham—not to be confused with the housing association called Stonham.

I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lady Drake for joining me in pressing the Government to put these provisions in the Bill, not to challenge where we are now but for future consideration, when we are thinking about raising the state pension age—and I cannot emphasise too strongly—so that we have a coherent policy across government. We need that, because, as pension credit is withdrawn, with every year that we equalise the state pension age between men and women, we reduce the income of men who are in their twilight and who have dropped out of the labour market early, as 30% or more have and do. That figure will increase as the pension age rises—that 30% will probably go up to 35% and 40%, and so on, as we raise the state pension age, unless we can keep people in the labour market for longer, as my noble friend says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Let me just make a point, before we take those figures absolutely on face value. When you have differential incentives—in other words, the point that the noble Baroness is making precisely, when you have a higher level of pension credit than working age benefit—you cannot be too surprised when people elect to go with the better paying structure. That probably tells you less than it could about what is happening to those people.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Oh, dear me. Are we assuming that somebody who has a real choice about whether to stay in work is going to make a rational decision to forgo a job that pays £400 a week to take an extra £30 or £40 or £50 in pension credit to top up an employment support allowance? Is that what the Minister is saying—that that person is so rational that he will willingly reduce his income to one-third of what it was because of the enticement of pension credit? Is that the Minister’s position?

[Lord Freud]

I was referring to the differential between the two benefit structures. I was not referring to enticement; I was just saying that one cannot be too surprised if people select the better of two options.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think that I am right in saying that under 10%—probably about 7%—of those in that position do not choose to go on pension credit when that choice is available to them, and the rest do. So clearly the Government’s position assumes that people are making a choice that is attractive because they have been financially encouraged to do so by the relative generosity of pension credit. I cannot attach any other understanding to the Minister’s position. If pension credit did not exist, the assumption would be that the benefits structure was less attractive and therefore, presumably, that they would stay in work for longer—and that therefore they are being encouraged because of pension credit to leave earlier than they need to and that, therefore, withdrawing pension credit is a wise move in the process of the rationality of economic thought in the labour market. Is that what the Minister is saying?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am saying that when you have a higher benefits structure, it is not surprising if people select it, other things being equal, over a lower one.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think that the Minister and I have a very different understanding. My view is based on my experience representing—I do not know if the noble Lord has ever had that privilege—one of the poorest wards in my city for nearly 25 years. My noble friends here have either represented such wards or constituencies with very poor members and I can tell the Minister that if people can work they want to work. They want it for self-respect, for income, for social mobility and they regard going “on the club”, as it used to be called in my ward, or taking benefits as something that they are not proud of but reluctantly do because the labour market does not make appropriate provision for them, given the state either of their skills or their health. If that comes from experience of working with people, as I have done and as I am sure my noble friends have done, then I regret that the Minister cannot share that personal experience, which might give him a greater respect for the pressures that some people face in making decisions when they have to leave the labour market. I am not for a moment suggesting that he is lacking respect, but there is a great difference in perspective on this and I do not know that I can bridge it with the noble Lord.

It is certainly the case that, as pension credit is withdrawn, it will reduce the income of people who have already had to leave the labour market, usually on grounds of ill health, and as a result they will have less money for heating, diet and all the other things that we know they will need. People going onto pension credit are already effectively entering that second decade of disability without, in many cases, having gone through the first decade of reasonably healthy retirement. By withdrawing pension credit and putting no substitute in its place, we are ensuring that all we do is increase people’s poverty and thereby progressively increase the rate at which they go into further ill health, since they can no longer afford the heating, the diet, the aids and appliances, the cleaning help and all the rest of it which keeps them more effectively fit and engaged in society. Again, I am really disappointed in the Minister if he does not appreciate that.

[Lord Freud]

I cannot understand the difference between what the noble Baroness has just been talking about and what she was saying the other day when she was so indignant that men could get pension credit at women’s state pension age. She described it, if I remember right, as a smooth path to the beach before getting state pension.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Indeed so—I made the image up on the spot, but I will, indeed, repeat it. What I was arguing there was that women were facing a cliff edge. Men had always had that slow path to the beach, but that is now being withdrawn from them and as a result they have a cliff edge in the future between where they are, on benefits, and state pension. Unfortunately for the Minister, the argument continues to be made.

I do not think that any of us disagree, as my noble friend Lady Drake pointed out so well and as was reinforced by my noble friend Lady Sherlock, that we need to extend healthy life expectancy and that that requires health policies. We need to make the second decade of average life expectancy, of increasing disability, of as decent a quality as we possibly can. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said that factors will change. Of course they will. The Minister said that factors will change, but the point is that that is already covered, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Browne, but the wording of Clause 26(1)(a) gives the Secretary of State alone the privilege of determining the other factors. Putting all these factors in the Bill, as listed in the White Paper, does not exclude other factors that may develop as time permits; it is a basis on which I would hope that the DWP has its arm strengthened as it engages in battles for resources with other departments and with the Treasury.

Does the Minister really think that he will have greater powers of persuasion to get those health policies that we would want to extend healthy life expectancy, or those supporting policies from local government or from the DCLG for the second decade if these factors are not in the Bill and if the Government are not bound by the legislative requirement to consider those factors? On the contrary; by putting those factors into the Bill we will strengthen the DWP’s arm in requiring other departments to play their part in seeking to extend healthy life expectancy and to improve the quality of the decade of disability. Without it, his position will be weaker, not stronger. The other factors, as my noble friend Lord Browne has reminded me, remain the same. I hope that this addresses the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. We are absolutely right to challenge the assumption of reduced inequality.

My noble friend Lady Sherlock said that we are going to eat into capital. The point is that, for example, somebody who is in a position to draw down an occupational pension has a choice of when they retire and they are not dependent on their basic state pension. The people we are talking about in this Bill are, and they have no such choice. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, they will eat into their capital, thus ensuring an impoverished old age as they wait to reach their state pension age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I start by acknowledging the expertise and experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, as a member of the Pensions Commission, on which she was able to rest when she moved this debate.

The purpose of the review is to inform the Secretary of State. Its job would be to collect and analyse the latest data, compiling a report to give the Government of the day the information they need to make a decision. Of course, we are all keen that the Secretary of State receives a report that is both impartial and credible. We appreciate the attraction of a panel to ensure that a wide range of views are reflected in the compilation of the report. However, we have been clear that we do not think that prescribing a committee is the right way to go. We do not want to restrict future Governments by prescribing exactly what the review looks at and who is doing the looking. There is greater merit in allowing Governments to choose whether to appoint a single reviewer—as with the review of public service pensions by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton—or a larger commission, such as the Pensions Commission. Indeed, the latter, set up by the previous Government, was made up of three individuals, two from the worlds of academia and business, neither of which, incidentally, was mentioned in the amendment.

Both of those cases show that a legislative underpin is not required to set up a review that can win cross-party and wider public support and that there is no consensus on where is the best place to find the right people. We do not think that the proposal by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, to set up a permanent commission—an NDPB or a standing commission, as she put it—is appropriate. That kind of structure is simply not necessary for a review that will come together and publish a report on a single issue, wide-ranging though it may be.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is that so very different from the Low Pay Commission, which is also a single issue?

[Lord Freud]

The Low Pay Commission reports on a much more regular basis than the five years envisaged here. To pick up the timings that we have experienced, there is the example of Independent Public Service Pensions Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Hutton, was appointed in June 2010 and reported some nine months later, in March 2011. In the intervening period the noble Lord held two calls for evidence, undertook a research event, published an interim report and published his final report. It is clear that a lot can be done in the space of a year, and that is the kind of period that we imagine is about the right length of time required for a review.

NDPBs also tend to look at a wide variety of regularly changing data in the areas of longevity, healthy life expectancy, socioeconomic variations, trends in the labour market and so on, and they tend to be published on a much less regular basis than this. I want to be clear, though, that the groups indicated in Amendment 57A and many others should all be encouraged to participate and contribute in the process. Indeed, the review has been designed to ensure that both Parliament and stakeholders will have ample opportunity to participate in the process and shape the outcomes. Furthermore, because the reviews will be regular, stakeholders may indeed be able to better prepare and contribute than they are now.

Of course, if the Government decide to bring forward changes to the pension age, then those changes must be secured through primary legislation and subjected to the full scrutiny and approval of both Houses, as now. However, to have such extensive and political input at the data-gathering and analysis stage risks stymieing the process before information can even be provided to the Secretary of State. Indeed, the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 prevents MPs sitting on many public bodies, precisely in order to avoid politics influencing their work.

Regarding the publication of this report, subsection (6) of this clause requires all reports prepared under the clause to be published. This means that both the Government Actuary and the report from the independently led review, including any recommendations that that component of the review makes, will be published, so all the evidence that has been taken will be made available. Every report will be laid in Parliament and published, including the report from the Secretary of State. As I said before, any proposed changes will require primary legislation.

It is for the Government of the day to put forward proposals resulting from the reports and to present any legislation to Parliament. Responsibility for publishing any overall report on the outcome of the review therefore has to remain with the Secretary of State. I hope that I have been able to provide some reassurance about how we envisage the review working and why. In this case, less is more. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it might be helpful if I explain the principle behind having protected payments. We recognise that some people who will reach pensionable age under the single tier will already have amounts of additional pension which take them over the full single-tier rate. A key consideration in the design of the transition was that this extra would not be taken away. Revaluing the protected payment, at least by increases in prices, will maintain its purchasing power over time.

Let me deal directly with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about fairness in relation to expectations. Under the current system, the additional state pension is revalued up to state pension age in line with average earnings, but is then indexed only by prices once in payment. A man retiring in the first 10 years of single tier could expect to spend, on average, 20 years in retirement. In single tier, we have shifted this balance between adjustments before and after pensionable age, and the majority of people receiving protected payments will be better off overall as a result of this shift.

In the current system, only basic state pension is uprated by a minimum of earnings. In the future, the full amount of the single-tier pension would be uprated in this way. So using the 2012-13 White Paper figures, this means that people will see the illustrative £144 of their state pension being uprated each year by earnings, or more—potentially the triple lock—not just £107. People with a protected payment will be relatively close to pension age, so the revaluation will typically be applied only for a few years. So, for example, even someone with an above average protected payment of £20 with 10 years left until they reach retirement would find that revaluation leaves them £4 per week worse off upon reaching pensionable age, but £4 better off 10 years later.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would effectively incorporate earnings revaluation of the protected payment into single tier. As this is a cost-neutral package of reforms, we would need to make offsetting changes elsewhere. Given that we expect most people to be better off from the combined revaluation and uprating changes, this would be difficult to justify. To give noble Lords a response to their question about the costs we are talking about, I can tell them that using earnings to revalue the protected payment would have annual costs, which would peak at around £150 in about 2040.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

How much?

[Lord Freud]

It would be £150 million per annum—I am not doing too well with my millions and billions. Let me be specific: £150 million per annum at the peak in about 2040.

As regards the question from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on the review, we will look at how we do that as part of our overall communication strategy, part of which will be about providing people with individualised information. I hope that I have covered all the questions and therefore ask the noble—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister also gave those figures last time, when we debated the amendment on divorcees and the substitution issue. The 100,000 requests and the 150 orders are happening in terms of the protected or state second pension, or SERPS, now. Of course, it is only a tiny fraction of the occupational pensions which are usually the more valuable asset and make up the other 9,900 or so requests.

Perhaps I should have asked this before, and I do not mean to catch the Minister on the hop, but what is the financial distribution of the 150 within the 10,000? Are those 150 simply the largest, or are they associated with people who are tenants in rented accommodation, where there is therefore no unoccupied house to be set off in lieu, or what? What does the Minister know about them?

[Lord Freud]

Rather than going into the sub-detail of what is already a very detailed point, I ought to commit to getting whatever information we can find and supplying that by letter to the noble Baroness.

When pension sharing disappears, most men and women will be able to build up entitlement to a simple contributory pension above the basic level of means-tested support. This is the most effective way of ensuring that savers have a decent underpin which stays with them however their family circumstances change. More than 80% of those reaching state pension age by the mid-2030s will get the full single tier, a figure with which I know the Committee is familiar. The courts will still be able to take account of private pension provision in the divorce settlement. The expectation is that the vast majority of people will be able to build a single-tier pension in their own right.

If someone is the beneficiary of a pension share order they receive a pension credit. The person the order is made against is subject to a corresponding debit. State pension credits are normally awarded and debits applied from state pension age. If the order is made after state pension age, the payment is increased or decreased at that point. As under the current system, single-tier pensioners who have a state pension debit or credit will be informed of the weekly addition or deduction when the court order is implemented. Individuals will be able to ask for statements of their state pension, but the pension credits or debits would be consolidated within the individual’s single-tier payment or protected payment and so not identified as credits or debits. As now, these elements could be identified on request but I am informed by the department’s pension sharing administrators that no one can recall ever receiving such a request.

On communications, the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, our statements will give individuals an up-to-date picture of their single-tier state pension position, which includes their foundation amount, and explain how this may change with further national insurance qualifying years through work or credits. The foundation amount included in statements will take into account any pension share debits or credits, as I have said.

Let me make it clear that state pension sharing on divorce affects relatively few people. As I said, in 2012-13 the department implemented only around 150 sharing orders. The changes to the computer system necessary to generate such automatic annual statements would therefore be disproportionately costly to provide this group with information it can in any case request.

Finally, on the devolution issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I can confirm that this does not require a legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Government.

I hope that I have been able to go some way in reassuring the noble Baroness that, while there is low demand for this information, it is available if requested. I hope that on that basis, she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord McKenzie and Lord Browne for their contributions and also to the Minister for a helpful reply. However, I am still not secure on a couple of points he raised, if he would be so kind as to elaborate on them. He said that the recipients—I presume they would be almost all women; the Minister has not challenged me on this so I assume that it is correct—get information when the court order is implemented. Does that mean at the point of divorce or at the point of payment? What does “implementation” mean here? It could be the legal point of when the court has finished with it or the practical effect of when it is actually paid. I am not quite clear.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I think it is at the point of divorce.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

So it is at the point of divorce. Thereafter, from what the Minister has said, if they wish to see what has happened to that payment they can make an inquiry but the Minister says they never have so far.

[Lord Freud]

That is exactly right. We have the information and people who want to double check it can ask, although they seem to be satisfied with the level of information they had at the outset.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If it is 150 people, how much does an inquiry cost to handle?

[Lord Freud]

I beg your pardon.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If we are talking about 150 people, how much does it cost to respond to each inquiry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as I said, in practice we have not had an inquiry. We have to manage 150 sharing orders. Again, I am not sure of the cost of that and how easy it is to extract it. If I can do it, I will include it in a letter that I have committed to send.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am grateful for the Minister’s promise of further information and, on that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Why did the Minister in another place, Steve Webb, argue that one of the reasons for doing this was because the deferred pension, even at the proposed rate of 5.4%, was financially much more attractive to people and a much better buy, and therefore he was helping to protect would-be savers from themselves? If it is a better buy for the individuals receiving it, why does it therefore cost the Government money to keep the less expensive option going?

[Lord Freud]

It is a timing issue, of course, because you take the money in earlier. That is where the costs to the Government come from.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If the Government were making that monetary saving, they would have to show us that that would be a one-off saving and not a continuous saving. If those people then took instead the increased income, the cost of that would soar by comparison because the £62,000 or £63,000 would presumably move across. In order to save some upfront costs of the lump sum, the Minister is committing himself to an increased continued income on the deferred income option.

[Lord Freud]

I do not have the crossover point figure. I could look into that. Clearly, it would be different depending on the system. I can offer to discuss this with some graphics, which I suspect are essential, in a briefing session before Report.

[Lord Freud]

Yes. The reason is that that is the equivalent of the private pension provision, which is a purchase. We are drawing a distinction here between public provision and private provision. With the pulling into a single tier, that is where the line is drawn between the two. As private pensions offer lump sums, that is where we would expect people to be taking them.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That cannot be reasonable, can it? After all, the new state pension combines the element, including the state second pension, which was bought up by people in lieu of and as an alternative to or an equivalent of an occupational pension and contracting out into it.

[Lord Freud]

Deferrals of lumps sums are both complex to understand and cumbersome to administer.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Why are they complex to understand?

[Lord Freud]

That complexity is illustrated in the DWP information booklet which provides guidance on deferrals. It runs to 60 pages and then recommends after all that that people get independent advice before making their decision. Even so, given the factors and variables, there is no guarantee that such advice would be forthcoming.

Reverting back to the class 3A distinction, that is clearly being directed at existing pensioners who currently get existing increments as a lump sum, so they are within the old system. It is being directed at people who are in the existing system rather than those in the single-tier system.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

But that means, does it not, that the Minister is giving the option of a deferred lump sum within the state system, even though, a couple of minutes ago, he said that was exactly what he was not going to do because he wished to maintain the boundaries between state and private provision?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, that is the distinction between the existing system, where there is a lump sum, and the post-2016 single-tier system, where it is proposed that there should not be a lump sum. That is where the consistency lies.

The simplified arrangements under Clause 17 will mean that people will be able to work out both the level of increase they will build up as a result of deferring their state pension and the potential effect this will have on their future taxable income. People will be able to make their own arrangements to save their single-tier pension if they wish and build up savings in that way. This will give them a choice over what and when to save, in a form that meets their needs. We do not think that the state should continue to provide the lump-sum option as an alternative to savings in the long term.

However, there is a way of building up some capital, if people take 12 months of arrears of pension straightaway if they claim after state pension age. That is worth around £7,500 for someone with a full single-tier pension in 2013-14 terms. Our intention is to bring forward regulations for the single tier that will replicate the existing arrangements.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Could the Minister help us further? Is he saying that at the end of the first year post the conventional state retirement age you can choose to take your deferred pension as a lump sum for one year only but not for a second year? Is that what the Minister is now telling us?

[Lord Freud]

That is what I am saying.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Well, why? Why is it okay to do it for one year and not for two?

[Lord Freud]

That is the standard position whereby, if you are in arrears for a year, you can take the provision at the end of that year and that is treated as arrears of pension rather than a lump sum. Some noble Lords are very concerned about the issue of the nest egg. If we drop the distinction between arrears and lump sum, there is a nest egg opportunity in that £7,500, which may go a long way to satisfy the concerns that have been expressed with some vigour this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Personal circumstances to the fore!

[Lord Freud]

I must thank the noble Baroness for keeping me out of jail. Many a seminar that I have been to would have told me that. It is a matter for people to judge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all Members of the Committee. I am sorry we did not hear from the Lib Dem Benches as we would then have had a full hand. I am grateful particularly to my noble friend Lady Dean, to my noble friend Lord Hutton for raising the debate in the way he did and to the right reverend Prelate for his persistent questioning. Both my noble friends continue to interrogate the Minister, which is really valuable. The right reverend Prelate said, “If it is not broken, why fix it?”. I have seen no evidence at all, apart from the Minister saying this is not such a good buy for individuals as taking it as income, that the system is broken. The Government are relying on having the upfront savings rather than the longer-term costs. That is not, in my view, a prudent way of handling finance.

My noble friend Lord Hutton, along with the right reverend Prelate, stressed that it is no use saying that we have to go for simplicity and thereby remove choice, if choice would be part of the attraction for people to save and defer taking their state pension. We do not have hard evidence on this, but we know from everything that is coming through from auto-enrolment and the pilots—including under my noble friend—that the nudge theory of encouraging people to stay opted-in and having them opt out rather than choosing to opt in was transformative. I remember when we got the figures from the Newcastle brewery, where something like 43% of its staff opted in to a pension. When it went to opting out, that went up to over 90%, and the only people opting out were students working in the summer vac. It transformed the pension regime in that brewery. It relied on nudge and inertia and ensuring that people could save in the way that was least problematic for them. Unless the Minister can show noble Lords—certainly me—that denying people the right to turn a deferred state pension into a lump sum will not only not have a negative effect on their savings but actually increase their savings, he is storing up problems for himself in the future.

Research last month by the LSE found that 483,000 people—nearly half a million, almost all of them pensioners—had either lost their home care support or were no longer eligible to claim it, as compared with 2008. Now, that home care will need to be funded by savings; it will not come out of income. People are losing the capacity to pay for home care week in, week out, as the cuts bite. My noble friend Lord McKenzie—

[Lord Freud]

To go back to the point of how people use their lump sum, it is towards the latter end of the pension drawdown period that you are going to need to pay for care. It is exactly at that time that any lump sum taken earlier will have been used up on other expenditure. That is why this is such a difficult area. A lump sum taken at 70 is probably not going to be around when social care is needed in the late 70s, for instance.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

How does the Minister know? I represented one of the poorest wards in the city of Norwich and the pensioners I know were desperate to have a lump sum. Very often, they cast it in terms of paying for funerals, because that was a working-class, respectable-culture consideration. They desperately wanted savings and they did not have them. They managed weekly. Sometimes their daughters might help out with the odd bit of groceries when they did their shopping but the notion is that you can read across from people in the private sector having a car or holiday.

The same arguments apply to equity release. We know the research on equity release. We know that if people take it very early they may spend it on white-good replacement or on trying to keep up a standard of living but we also know that, as they grow older, they tend to take it for personal care. If, as the Minister suggests, he believes that it is going to be blown, why, for example, are his Government continuing to keep a tax-free lump sum? By his own argument, we should scrap that, on the grounds that the Government know better than the taxpayer how to spend the taxpayer’s money. We should instead roll it into the basic pension that people have from their occupational fund because we know that only between 11% and 13% of pensioners use their tax-free lump sum to increase their pension; instead they use it to give themselves savings. We know that from the private sector. We have no reason to think that it would not apply here. I am amazed that the Minister seems to think that there are different cultures between those who have private, occupational pensions and those who do not. As a result, we are making it harder and harder for the poorest to have what each and every one of us wants—a modest cushion against, as my noble friend Lord Browne said, the rainy day. The Minister, the Government or the department seem to be pulling that possibility away from people for no good reason.

My noble friend Lord McKenzie asked about health impairment. The Minister did not answer that question at all. Under the new scheme, a spouse would not be able to inherit a deferred income that was accumulated by their deceased spouse but they could inherit the lump sum. That, too, is unfair. The couple have made a decision together that that is what they will do. They can take it in one form, but not in the other. Why? That is just the point at which the spouse may wish to have the cushion of a lump sum and is not able to inherit it. It is unfair.

The Minister may also choose to look at my other consideration, which has not been discussed today. Perhaps I should have raised it in my opening speech. Once you hit retirement age, if you carry on working, you are not entitled to continue to build up national insurance contributions. I think you should be able to do so, with employer input, although maybe that is a debate for another day.

Drawing on the report from Scottish Widows, my noble friend Lord Browne emphasised how many people retire with debt, including mortgages. He is absolutely right. Taking a lump sum that actually pays off that debt, which it would take years to accumulate through a modestly increased pension, may be the most prudent thing that those people can do, because that debt may require a much higher rate of payments to keep it covered than any other income that they could get. It could be through a loan company, for example, where they were paying APRs of 300%, 500% or 1,000%. A lump sum would pay that off and therefore increase the robustness of the rest of their income. That is what you can do with capital—you cannot do it with income. Again, I hope that the Minister will reflect on this. I know that he is concerned about people’s indebtedness as they go into retirement, and by freeing them from a burden of debt he would actually improve their financial ability to cope once in retirement.

The Minister argued about the cost of the lump sum. He seemed to suggest that taking away the lump sum would produce 85% of the £800 million savings. I am completely baffled by that figure. What he is doing is removing the up-front cost of paying a lump sum while paying out over a period of time at a higher cost to the Government. There is therefore a break-even point, five or maybe seven years down the line, at which the Government incur additional cost—not reduced cost—by getting rid of the lump sum. Obviously it is less financially attractive; a return of 2.5% or 3% is less attractive than the return of 5.4% that he is proposing. In that case, how can the Government say simultaneously that they are going to save money by getting rid of the lump sum and that if a person takes it as deferred income instead they will be better off? He is going to have to do some nimble footwork—I am sure he will be able to do so—to explain to the noble Lords how he gets to those savings.

The Minister helpfully said that people could already take a deferred pension at the end of one year as arrears of £7,500. If he were able to say that two years could be taken as arrears, I would be satisfied because that would give people the cushion that they would need, or some such flexibility. I take heart from the fact that he has responded, as I was confident that he would, to the range of feeling around the Room that this is simply the wrong way to go. All parties have genuinely attended to pensioners’ incomes, and the present Government—I include both members of the coalition—as well as the previous one are entitled to claim high credit for that. It is a very good achievement for us to have taken pensioners out of income poverty. However, we are sending them into retirement with increased capital poverty. If we wish, we have the option of allowing them to do something about that. To say that we are removing the choice to address capital poverty in the name of simplicity is, frankly, Orwellian, and normally I would expect better from the Minister than that.

Under the circumstances, I will withdraw the amendment and hope that the Minister will be able to find a way through, perhaps around the hook of an assumption that this is actually paid as arrears. I thank again all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

The purpose is that we want to retain the ability to avoid cash losers. That is the purpose of this particular power. In relation to the potential impact of the removal of savings credit on passporting, I remind noble Lords that, while pension credit acts as a passport to a number of other benefits, most are linked to receipt of the guarantee credit rather than the savings credit. Housing benefit and council tax reductions are not limited to pension credit recipients; they can already be claimed on low-income grounds regardless of receipt of pension credit, and this will continue. Furthermore, there is a higher applicable amount for pensioners over 65 in housing benefit, essentially to ensure that the savings credit is not itself means-tested away for those paying rent. This higher applicable amount applies to all pensioners over 65, not just those receiving savings credit. This provision will continue for at least as long as housing benefit remains. As noble Lords may be aware, we recently announced that there are no plans to change housing benefit for pensioners until at least 2017-18.

Unlike housing support, entitlement to social fund payments, including cold weather payments, requires receipt of pension credit, and this can include people getting savings credit only. I assure the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that we have made no assumption of savings from cold weather payments as a result of the changes in this Bill.

On the question of figures—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is the noble Lord saying that cold weather payments will continue as is?

[Lord Freud]

No, it means that we do not expect that we will be paying out less in cold weather payments because of these changes.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Then I am even more confused. If we are denying a category of people the right to cold weather payments, how is it that the bill is remaining the same?

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, concerns the position of spouses or civil partners of service personnel who accompany them on overseas postings, a group in which I know the noble Baroness has a keen interest. The amendment would enable people in this position to be credited with national insurance contributions for the full 10 tax years between 2000-01 and 2009-10.

We have already taken steps to shore up the contribution records of this group. In 2010, arrangements were put in place to allow the spouses of Armed Forces personnel to gain a national insurance credit for time spent accompanying their spouse or civil partner on postings abroad. These credits are awarded for tax years from 2010-11 and provide entitlement to all contributory benefits, including the state pension. Their main purpose was to provide access to contributory working-age benefits to spouses and partners who might have difficulty in finding employment when they return home. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that no changes are planned to those crediting arrangements.

The amendment would enable a person to meet the minimum qualifying period for the new state pension and therefore qualify for a reduced single-tier pension. However, if we were to combine the qualifying years that could be gained under the 2010 credits with those available under this amendment, a person could be credited with up to 16 qualifying years.

We should caution that the existing arrangements incur administrative costs for HM Revenue and Customs and the Ministry of Defence. Applications for the existing national insurance credits need to be validated by service welfare officers and processed by HMRC. Similar arrangements would need to be put in place for these new credits, but that would involve more onerous administration because any validation would relate to periods some years past.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, made a point about difficulties with take-up of the current credits. We are not aware of any difficulties but, on the back of his concern, we will check with the MoD on that.

Currently, around 500 to 600 people a year have been awarded the credits that have been in place since 2010, but it is unclear how many are likely to benefit for pension purposes from the noble Baroness’s proposed retrospection measure.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister obviously agrees with my noble friend’s figure of 500 to 600 people, but how many eligible non-recipients does he think there may be? In other words, what would be the total population, of which 500 to 600 are claiming? Does he know the answer to that? I certainly do not.

[Lord Freud]

Unless I am rapidly informed otherwise, I do not think that we know either at this stage. It is likely that most of the people in this group will have been at work or be covered by other credits during the past periods covered by the amendment. Over the course of a 50-year working life, we would expect many to build the 35 qualifying years to qualify for the full single-tier pension in their own right. That is where this problem lies. That said, I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness and would not want to ignore the position of this group of people if they have genuine difficulties in building the qualifying years that they need.

The Committee will understand the Government’s general concerns about going back in time to treat particular groups in different ways, because there are always issues of fairness and parity when you do that—the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, talked about some of the relationships with people moving into UC and so forth—and that is the case even though special consideration is reserved for the Armed Forces and their families. However, turning to the point raised particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, we will consider this further.

I have to warn noble Lords that this is a difficult matter, so I am not promising that anything will come out of that consideration. Sometimes, in saying that, one suggests that there is a solution, but we are finding this quite difficult. We are doing that exercise and I am sure—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Why is it difficult? I understand that when most people in civvy life claim X years ago to have done Y it is very hard to check that, but the one thing that the MoD will have is records. So why is it so difficult?

[Lord Freud]

I will be in a much better position to explain the difficulties in a little while. So, rather than presuming on this, I would say that we are considering it. It is difficult, and I am sure that we will have the opportunity to return to it on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I will not answer what could in practice be a huge review of everything to make a hard statement on that, but I will write on that point. Having finished, I hope, all the questions asked, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I thought this was short, sweet and simple. It is now long and less simple but still very sweet, in the sense that I think there is consensus all round the Committee. I welcome that and I am very grateful to the Minister for his responsiveness to the concerns that we raised. Clearly this amendment was a peg for the discussion that we have had. My noble friend Lady Dean is highly knowledgeable about service families and speaks from very real experience. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord McKenzie was able to get on record from the Minister what the Government’s intentions were about easement, which was very useful. I am still slightly surprised that we did not have this information about the eligible population base for claiming credits since 2010-11 and how many have actually claimed. Is it 500 of 5,000 or 500 of 700? We do not know and I would have expected that information, but I am sure that the Minister will write to us with that because it gives us some sense of how problematic it is when you rely on people to claim, as we have experienced with means-tested benefits for pensioners, for example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

It is a little early to get into the practicalities, but I am sure that we can arrange, one way or the other —either from a spontaneous governmental unleashing of information or in response to an amendment —to get the latest information on the record at Report.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I thank the noble Lord. What I would love to see—I know that this has been done in the past because I have done it—is an amendment jointly in the names of my noble friend Lord Browne and the Minister, which will amaze and command total support. In that context, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for tabling this amendment on an issue which I know is of great concern to her: access to contributory state benefits, including pensions, for those who have more than one job but do not earn above the national insurance low earnings limit in any one of them.

We have debated this issue over the years. She will be aware that I have equal concern about this issue. Before we get into the specifics, we have a policy to seize this issue head-on, and that is through universal credit. When you look at the debate this afternoon when we talked about the present system—JSA, tax credits, the problems of going through—universal credit basically combines in-work JSA where you are credited for your pension, and in-work benefits. Therefore, the low paid will be credited in the same way as people on JSA are currently credited. Our estimate is that 800,000 more people will be credited as a result of the adoption of universal credit. Noble Lords may well say that universal credit is taking its time coming in: one or two noble Lords have made that point to me. I can only say that we are going as fast as possible. We are rolling it out.

That is the fundamental solution. Any of the adjustments suggested today would be time-consuming changes to make. One has to take a strategic decision. Does one have a system that sweeps away these problems, or does one make itsy-bitsy changes with HMRC here or there? They all take time. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, who said that HMRC is slow to make adjustments, but they are genuinely difficult to do. I have been involved in quite a few government change programmes now and even relatively modest changes are time-consuming and soak up the energy of the people doing them.

The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about cutting into the RTI system ahead of universal credit is an interesting one. Clearly, we are looking very closely at how we use RTI in different ways. One of the issues in terms of a comprehensive solution for this relatively small group is that we have to be sure they are on the PAYE system in order to use it as a comprehensive cut through. My instinct—again, data are short here—is that this is not a comprehensive solution in the same way as catching them at the UC level. If you are not on PAYE, you can self-declare and get the system to work. I do not think that RTI is the solution.

As noble Lords have pointed out, the numbers are relatively small—some 50,000—but just because the numbers are small does not mean that we should not worry about the issue. That is what universal credit is trying to catch.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister said that the numbers were small, which is to restate the 50,000 figure. I thought that my noble friend exploded that pretty effectively. Not only is that itself pretty doubtful, but we now have the issues associated with zero-hours contracts. We specifically asked whether they had been taken into account and what would now be a reasonable basis on which to go forward with shared information.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as I said even before the noble Baroness intervened, even though the numbers today are relatively small, I am not decrying that particular issue. I was referring to the 50,000 figure—the current estimate of those affected. Let me get on with my argument and not worry about that at the moment.

The drive to universal credit is to allow greater flexibility in the labour market, so zero-hour contracts work with universal credit. There may be elements of zero-hour contracts that are of concern, particularly if the balance of power between the employee and the employer is unfair, but universal credit works with that flexibility of the labour market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

The noble Lord is exactly right. It goes to the point of what we are discussing. It would get you the pension entitlement and the bereavement benefit entitlement but not the contributory entitlements. The current arrangements for crediting a person with national insurance contributions are comprehensive. They cover all the main reasons why someone may not be working, or working only a small number of hours, such as ill health and unemployment, or where people are caring for a child aged nought to 12 or for someone with a disability. They also cover those currently entitled to working tax credit, and we have recently introduced credits to protect the contribution record of working-age grandparents looking after their grandchildren.

Those who fall outside the scope of the crediting arrangements and who can afford to do so—higher paid households are clearly in that category—can make payments on a voluntary basis. The current rate of voluntary class 3 national insurance contribution is a very fair price at £13.55 a week, or £705 a year. The person could recoup the cost within four years of receiving basic state pension benefits.

Using this approach to establish whether a person’s combined earnings exceed the lower earnings limit would require the collation of tax and contribution returns for employees with multiple jobs. That clearly would place a burden on business and require HMRC to develop complicated IT which would take time and money and benefit a small number of people. We would also need to consider collecting the employer’s national insurance contributions in proportion to the earnings in each job, which would add considerable administrative complexity.

The question that one needs to consider is whether those who have aggregate earnings above the primary threshold should be credited or should pay a discount rate of national insurance. That is a question I address to the noble Baroness. It could be seen as quite unfair on someone who is earning just over the threshold in one job and has to pay full national insurance, whereas someone else just below might be credited.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That applies if someone is in one job and £1 below the PTT for these purposes; they will still be credited and not pay a penny. I do not see the difference at all.

[Lord Freud]

That is the issue about whether one wants to introduce this kind of system across for mini-jobs.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

We already have. All my lifetime, I think, we have had exactly the same cliff edge between those who are below or above the PTT when that diverged from the LEL. That exists now, so there is no difference at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

The previous estimate for zero-hour contracts—which is what we are talking about—was that there were 250,000. Let us see the figures today for those on part-time work. I cannot remember the figure offhand—is it 1.5 million? There is a boundary, therefore, about what proportion of flexible working is formally on the zero-hour contracts. Rather than speculate on what the real figure is, I think that we should wait until the ONS comes out with a figure, if it is going to revise that.

On the pointed questions about self-employment rates raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, rates of national insurance are clearly a matter for HM Treasury. However, we have not assumed that self-employed contributions will increase single-tier cost estimates.

I know that the noble Baroness has been a champion of this group and has genuine concerns about it losing out. As the new systems come into sharp focus—universal credit, RTI, single tier—there will be a chance to look at this issue properly when we know exactly what is happening, where the remaining issues are and then to find a precise way of dealing with it. It is simply too early, right now, to get a clean and elegant solution, but we do intend to look more broadly at crediting arrangements to examine the possibilities of modernising and simplifying the arrangements in that light. So there is a process. Her point is taken: it is just about what is the most efficient and effective way of solving a particular problem. What I do not know and cannot offer now is a timetable. It is something to be looked at some years—not a lot of years—in the future, in terms of exactly what should happen. I think that there will be a solution in the medium term. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am extremely grateful to everybody who contributed, including the Minister. The debate was very interesting and revealing and a lot of new issues were raised that had not been raised on previous occasions when we have debated jobs below LEL. That suggests that it is worth going back to some of these issues, as the information that we get and the changes in the labour market make those new concerns increasingly relevant.

My noble friend Lady Drake spoke with all the appropriate authority of one of the pensions commissioners. She rightly emphasised—and sometimes I feel that we are simply retreading the same territory—that every pension issue has to be judged through the perspective of how it affects women, because if we get it right for women we get it right for everybody. Actually, that is not usually what we do; we tend to go on bulk numbers, which are made up by men because they are more reliably, through their working life, attached to a pay grade in the labour market that takes them over the LEL level. As a result, we ignore pockets of women here, there and everywhere, around the system, because, for very good reasons indeed, they do not conform to patterns of male working life.

I honour the Minister in his appreciation of the need to have the recognition of mini-jobs through universal credit. He has never tried to underestimate the significance of these issues, and I put it on record that I appreciate that. However, where we have got to today is not quite good enough.

My noble friend Lady Drake emphasised the need to put up the gender filter and, absolutely rightly, emphasised that women are locked out twice over—in their own ability to get into the NI system and by their ability to go through their husband or partner. They are suffering a double whammy. This Bill makes their default position disappear, which is why the problem has increased urgency from when we discussed it around the universal credit and welfare reform proposals some 18 months ago.

My noble friend Lord McKenzie emphasised the practical feasibility of doing this through HMRC arrangements. Given his lifetime of experience in working with businesses on issues like that, I think that his expertise should be taken very seriously by the department, which may not have had similar experience.

My noble friend Lady Dean, like my noble friend Lady Turner, has fought for women’s pensions since the 1990s, as far as I am aware. She got it absolutely right when she said that this amendment, or an alternative way in which to meet that need, would conform to the spirit of the Bill, and that it should not be left in the hope that, in four or five years down the line, the world may be different.

My noble friend Lord Browne made a devastating critique in talking about the inadequacy of the statistics, how every month the number seems to double—geometrically, not arithmetically—and that very soon we will find that the whole basis on which the Government have estimated their costings and needs, on the basis that it is a tiny minority, will be undermined. He certainly makes me even more uneasy about the neglect of this group than I was before we discussed the issue today.

The Minister is relying essentially on universal credit. I see why he would want to do that, but I am trying to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. Let us take a group of women and say that the system comes into effect and is rolled out nationally in 2020. It may happen a year earlier than that, but it is unlikely to be more than a year earlier. Following the example of my noble friend Lord Browne, let us say that people leaving school at 18, or college or university, are going to a patchwork or portfolio life for much of the rest of their lives, given the increasing dominance of labour market flexibility. I calculate that when they come into the labour market, if at 2020 they subsequently need 35 years, which they will get through some universal credit arrangements—and thanks to my noble friend there is a big question mark over that—that means that they will qualify for a basic state pension in 2055. They therefore have to have been born in 1990 and are currently aged 23. Under the Minister’s own figures, as far as I can tell, any young woman or man who is older than that probably will not qualify under UC for a full pension by the time they retire.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I cannot leave that unchallenged. People will have inherited rights, including credits, before 2016. Clearly, many of the examples quoted by the noble Baroness related to people who had had children, so 12-plus years would be credited under the existing system to be pulled forward into the system with the foundation amount, building up beyond that. I also need to remind the noble Baroness that the intention with the universal credit schedule that we have announced is to bring in all people, certainly in the working population, by 2016 and 2017, with a group of ESA recipients left beyond that point for very good reason, because we need to deal with them very carefully. Therefore, under the timings that we have announced, the people about whom she is concerned would be brought in very shortly after the introduction of the single-tier pension.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I hope that the Minister is right but I do not believe that he is. It is very unlikely that the UC system will be sufficiently stable to be rolled out to the entire working-age population—the Government are not catching these people in their labour statistics—before about 2019 or 2020. I would like to be proved wrong but I very much doubt that I will be. Even somebody who has had two children, which means that they will have had 14 years-worth of credit under the new rules, would still be stuck at about 43 or 44 with no ability to add to those years if they came within this category of having no single job that took them above the LEL. Therefore, we wipe out people who are something like 20 years off their pension life, and they will go into retirement with a fairly trivial amount barely over the minimum qualifying amount. I do not think that the Minister can rely on that.

He is right that some women will manage. Particularly if they have children, they will be fine, but if they have no children, they may have a husband. They may both be on perfectly modest incomes but when, taken as a household, they are tested for their eligibility for working tax credits, where the threshold is relatively low, she will not qualify through that either under the joint claim.

Therefore, I am not at all confident but I would be delighted to receive the statistics from the Minister about the coverage, under the circumstances identified in today’s discussion, for those whom UC is intended to help.

The Minister wants a clean and elegant solution. The clean and elegant solution would be to get as many people as possible into the new system and not to rely on pension credit, a legacy system which will otherwise continue for 30 or 40 years. Unless we can get this group into the system as early as possible, he will not find clean and elegant solutions to sustain the Bill. I am glad that he is going to work on it. I hope that, certainly before Report, he can come back and give us an idea of how he is going to address this issue, even if it is about extending conditionality as a credit into JSA conditionality. That would work for me. I want some way of bringing these people in. I promise the Minister that, if he does not address it, this problem will not disappear; it will grow. It is his responsibility to bridge the deficit between where people are and where some of them may be when he has introduced UC three, four, five or six years down the road. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, there are three amendments that are closely related, of which this is the first. I welcome the fact that there seems to be general agreement in principle that what I will loosely call “derived entitlement”, established in the 1940s, is past its sell-by date and has no place in a modern state pension system.

I apologise for the fact that I am going to speak at some length, but it is important that I lay out the Government’s argument for removing derived entitlement by reference to the criteria for judging single tier as laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, at Second Reading: that is to say fairness, simplicity, sustainability, the provision of a decent standard of living for all and, at the same time, the encouragement of private saving through clarity of outcome.

First, we believe that fairness means ensuring an adequate state pension for people who have contributed to the system. That is why we are recycling the savings from aspects of the current system being abolished, including derived entitlement, to give a boost to individuals who have historically been excluded from additional state pension, such as carers, the self-employed and the low-paid. Indeed, around 650,000 women who reach state pension age in the first 10 years of single tier will receive an average of £8 per week more in state pension due to the single-tier valuation.

Sustainability and affordability are also key qualities that the Opposition have made it clear that they are looking for. Let me be absolutely clear that we are ending derived entitlement from principle and not to save costs. However, as we have been asked a number of times about this, and as affordability is one of the criteria of interest to the Opposition in judging single tier, I shall respond to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and deal with the cost issue.

Our analysis shows that to continue running the basic pension derived entitlement provisions for people reaching state pension age up to 2030-31, the cohorts targeted in these amendments, would cost around £200 million per annum in the early 2030s, and those are just the costs for Great Britain. We do not think that it would be possible to restrict transitional protection to those ordinarily resident in the UK, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, hoped. While it is difficult to quantify the cost for those overseas, we think it likely that it would cost about the same amount again as in the UK, meaning transitional protection for the first 15 cohorts could have further costs peaking at another £200 million a year.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Why does the Minister think that the courts would not support us in having transitional arrangements for those who are ordinarily resident? I am not a lawyer, but, in my somewhat limited experience of judicial reviews, there have been a number of challenges. The two criteria I lay down are: was Parliament’s intention was clear—Roe v Wade—and would it be a position that a reasonable person would think was not unreasonable. The addition of ordinarily resident would seem to fit the criteria for transitional arrangements. If the Minister could help us on why that is not the case, I would be interested.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My question is slightly different, but perhaps the Minister could answer them both at once. Are the costings net of any additional expenditure on pension credit?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, it is a net figure. On the legal position, clearly the noble Baroness will remember that we are in the European Union and there are definitions of which kind of payments are transportable, so to speak, and which ones can be restricted. That is where our legal issue comes from. Therefore, rather than go into huge detail on that—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Pension credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Perhaps I can make sure that the noble Baroness is briefed on that outside the Committee. The question of which types of benefit are transportable around the EU and which you can justifiably keep is immensely complicated. I think that the definition is that a social support you can keep within an area but a pension tends to be transportable. However, I can arrange a detailed legal session for the noble Baroness if she would like that.

Perhaps I may turn to the figures that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, was talking about. Some 290,000 people would be affected at some point up to 2030, which represents less than 4% of those reaching state pension age up to that point. The 30,000 figure is a snapshot in 2020 of the number of people projected to be receiving less at that point in time. That is the explanation of those two sets of figures.

One point concerning payments abroad is that it does not seem fair on our taxpayers and pensioners who have made contributions to the UK, or indeed even affordable, to spend money on those claiming overseas who have never set foot in the UK.

Simplicity is another virtue that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, concentrated on. If people are to save for their retirement or make sound decisions on purchasing voluntary contributions, they need clarity of outcome. Extending the derived entitlement provisions would run counter to the goal of achieving simplicity of outcome for tens of millions of today’s working-age people. At the moment, we are in the position where we can tell people shortly after April 2016 what they have, in the words of my colleague Steve Webb, banked to date.

The key to being able to do that is to have a full rate of single tier that people work towards and a base entitlement on an individual’s own record. At the moment, we will crystallise people’s national insurance record as at 2016, recognising past contributions, and we will move on from there into the single-tier system. We can say, “You’ve got this to date. If you get this many more qualifying years, then you will get the full rate of single tier”.

However, let us imagine what would happen if we were to put in place provisions that allowed people to continue to draw a pension based on someone else’s record. We would have to tell people, “This is what you’ve got on your record but if you’re married or divorced, or if you get married or divorced between now and state pension age, or you get divorced or are widowed after state pension age, then your entitlement might be different. We can’t tell you what it might be because you would have to look to your partner’s, or even ex-partner’s, record”.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I support the Government's position on this, as I think we all do, but what will be the position for the reduced married women’s election, where you are effectively introducing—I was going to say inventing—a 60% dependency pension for a whole new group of women which is rather larger in number than the group we are talking about?

[Lord Freud]

Because we can at that point tell those married women exactly what they will be getting. The difference here is that it is very hard to trace those people to tell them definitively what they will be getting. That takes us back to today’s problem, which is, when you phone up to ask what your pension is going to be in three years’ time, we can give a guesstimate at best. That will remain the case if it is open for lots of people.

Turning to the aim of providing a decent standard of living, we already have an underpin that guarantees pensioners living in Great Britain a minimum amount of weekly income. I confirm the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that the very purpose of pension credit is to provide support to people in Great Britain who, for whatever reason, have not built up sufficient savings or pension entitlement through their life.

If the current system were to carry on, we project that by 2020, fewer than 10% of people reaching pension age after 2016 would be on the standard minimum guarantee. We have also looked at the group of people who would, under the current system, have been claiming a basic state pension on their spouse’s record—either at the point of reaching state pension age or later, on bereavement. Even if the current system carried on for ever, 40% of the people in that group would be on guarantee credit. That group of people—this 40% of all of our people losing out from the removal of derived entitlement—will get their loss in state pension replaced pound for pound with more guarantee credit. But there will be people not on guarantee credit who experience a loss. If we look at the average changes to household income as a result of removing derived entitlement, we see that the median loss for households affected is about £6 a week. The mean average is about £10 a week. There will undoubtedly be examples where people do lose larger amounts, but again, pension credit is there for them.

I hope that by now it is clear why we have not put in place transitional arrangements and why we have no intention to undertake a review to this effect. We have, however, put in place some protection, specifically to ensure that women who had paid the reduced rate election within 35 years of pension age will get roughly what they thought they would receive. Putting in place protection for these individuals is right: they have clearly participated in the labour market and have contributed. The difference between them and the wider group of people who would have relied on derived entitlement is that those people made an explicit deal with the state.

Furthermore, to address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, those who have paid a reduced rate election are, crucially, easily identifiable. The message of simplicity for the wider single-tier population will not be affected, and the size of the group enables a bespoke calculation. Were we to apply such blanket protection to everyone, we would simply be awarding everyone with any history of work or credits a 60% basic state pension and, later, a full basic state pension; clearly the costs would become an issue and would not be tenable. We would ultimately be awarding people with just one qualifying year a full basic state pension.

On the point about the married women’s pension, if their entitlement under normal transitional rules would be higher, we will give them that instead, but we are not looking at their husband’s record for that; we will be assuming that they have a full record and award them a pension accordingly. Indeed, we project that, with the vast majority of couples involved, the husband will already have 35 qualifying years. It may be possible for people who are long-term sick but not claiming benefits to apply for credits for a past period. It is not essential for a person to be receiving a benefit to qualify for credits for periods of incapacity, but they would need to meet the entitlement criteria for incapacity for work or limited capability for work each day within the meaning of the legislation that applied at the relevant time. Provided that medical evidence for the whole period can be obtained, it may be possible to apply to a local Jobcentre Plus for credits for past periods. Clearly, I cannot comment on people’s success in that regard or otherwise, but I am glad to be able occasionally to provide some new information to the noble Baroness.

For the individual with 30 years who is looking for work, perhaps after looking after grandchildren, and is now worried, in the example that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, gave, we have credits for national insurance for exactly that type of situation.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I was talking about someone who had cared for her grandchild before the credits were introduced.

[Lord Freud]

Okay. On the specific case of someone who has 30 years and wants to get 35, that is part of the issue that we discussed at length at the last sitting. That individual should be able to benefit from the transitional arrangements. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the analysis in our recent ad hoc publication, which shows that the equivalent of the married person’s pension would be achievable even for the majority of those reaching state pension age in the initial period to 2020 through the purchase of voluntary contributions to cover years back to 2006, or by working or engaging in an activity that earned credits between 2016 and pension age.

I turn to the suggestion that we review the possibility of putting in place transitional arrangements. Such a review would be unnecessary and unhelpful. Noble Lords will agree that, in the interval between Royal Assent and implementation of the new scheme, communications will be crucial. A review at a time when we are preparing the implementation of the new state pension system would create great uncertainty just when we are being urged to ensure that we provide clarity. We had a discussion on that matter on Monday.

I make the general point that one problem here is that we are moving from the current system because it is too complicated for anyone to understand. The risk of some of these arrangements is that we just re-import all the complexity that we are trying to get rid of. That is a real and substantial risk, which we believe we must try to avoid.

In summary, we have had to make decisions about how we move over to the new system. In a system where changes to society and to the existing pensions system mean that a majority of women and men already receive a full state pension, these provisions, designed for the post-war era, are now an anachronism. I hope that I have set out the case that our approach in this respect has been as fair, simple and sustainable as possible. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Thank you. I would like to push the Minister on the comments made by my noble friend Lady Sherlock, who rightly warned against hindsight and applying modern attitudes to labour market decisions made some time back. That discussion will be repeated when we come on to widows in a moment. The Minister’s references to women being eligible in certain situations to claim pension credit precisely missed the point raised by my noble friend. If someone is in a couple with a husband who has acquired full contributory years, possibly with some minor additional savings, they will be floated off pension credit, so they will not be entitled to claim it, nor will she be entitled to claim it in lieu unless she is indeed solo.

I am grateful for the Minister’s help on “ordinarily resident”. I should like to see the legal advice, because I think it is arguable which side of the bridge it falls on. We have had plenty of debate on that in the past.

The Minister cited the four tests raised by my noble friend on Second Reading. I remind him of the tests in the impact analysis in October 2013: what are the policy objectives and intended effects? Four were offered. It stated that the intended effect of state pension reform was that,

“individuals have a better understanding of the state pension system,”

and how much they can expect to receive,

“and therefore engage more actively with planning for retirement”.

The people we are talking about understood the rules perfectly well. It is the Government who have changed the rules around them, not that they have failed to do anything that the Government think that they should have done at the time. We fail the first test in the impact assessment.

The second test is that the,

“inequalities of state pension outcomes within the current system are reduced”.

Some are reduced, but the Minister is substituting new ones, including those involving the green stamp and the women I am talking about. The third test is that,

“individuals have reduced interaction with means-tested benefits in retirement”.

That is highly doubtful, given discussion on previous amendments. The amount so far established is pretty trivial. The final test is that,

“the state pension system is more affordable and sustainable in the long-term”,

whereas the Minister has been arguing that it is cost-neutral. He failed to address the fact that there appears to be adequate money—£700 million—to introduce a marriage allowance while taking away support for marriage when it comes to pension arrangements. It is a modern world when it comes to pensions; it is what I do not doubt that the Minister would call a Beveridge world when it comes to married women’s tax allowances. I noticed that he did not venture a comment on or pray the modern world in aid against the Beveridge assumptions behind the married women’s tax allowances, as he would no doubt have described them if we had proposed them and he was criticising them.

The Minister says that the present arrangements are an anachronism. I am sure that it will be a great comfort to those women who are going to lose their 60% entitlement virtually overnight to be told that they are an anachronism and that it is their fault that they cannot shape up in the limited time available to change their situation.

Women have always had a lousy pension deal; it has never worked for them. By refusing to permit a transitional arrangement, we are colluding in that lousy deal by picking off an easy, voiceless, vulnerable group. I have to say that I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I am sorry, I was not referring to the Jack and Jill question; I was referring to the second example, where the noble Baroness asked me whether she had interpreted it correctly. I have the pleasure of telling her that, as always, she is absolutely correct, except of course where she disagrees with me.

I will not go into the arguments on simplicity and clarity or fairness, because the same arguments apply. In the light of my response, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, my noble friend was referring to Jack and Jill. I assumed when I read this that HMRC, with perhaps unsuspected irony—perhaps the people who drafted this have young children—remembered that Jack fell down the hill and no doubt departed from this life, and Jill came tumbling after, thereby losing her 100% derived rights. I suspect that that is what HMRC may have intended, in which case it was all too accurate.

I simply think that what the Minister is doing is harsh, unnecessary and not costly to remedy. People made decisions and plans for their lives many years ago and he is now—this is the same point that my noble friend made about hindsight—projecting current takes on the labour market and women’s role in it back on to a previous generation who shared no such perceptions and perspectives. I think that in all decency we should give them a chance to remedy their situation through transitional arrangements.

We may revisit some of these issues when we come to bereavement payments, and I am sure that the noble Lord is looking forward to that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

I support what my noble friend has just been saying; nobody likes being dumped. I do not know whether noble Lords have seen from the newspapers lately that there has been a rise in the number of older women divorcing. It is quite remarkable; people who are quite elderly and approaching pension age are getting divorced, whereas formerly they simply put up with it. It can be quite a problem.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will avoid the issue of divorce rates because I am aware of the quagmire in which I will incredibly rapidly end up if I say anything at all.

The final amendment tabled by the noble Baroness on the issue of derived entitlement focuses on the impact upon divorcees and people whose civil partnerships have been dissolved. Under the current system, divorcees can—through a somewhat complex mechanism colloquially known as “substitution”—use their former spouse’s or civil partner’s contribution record to qualify for a full, or enhanced, basic state pension. With the ability to derive a pension ending for post-2016 pensioners, we accept that some divorcees may be affected, and they are likely to be those divorced relatively late in their working life. We estimate that these individuals could number about 70,000 up to 2031.

Turning to the specific situation of divorced women, it is likely that single individuals who themselves have not achieved a record sufficient to build up a full basic state pension will be eligible to claim guarantee credit, which is considerably higher than the maximum a divorcee could derive from a former spouse through the current, complex substitution arrangements.

These provisions are extremely complex and, as with the married woman’s and widow’s pensions, there is no longer any substantial need for these arrangements because the vast majority of women will receive a pension in their own right.

I repeat that in designing the transition to single tier, we have had to make decisions about the way that we spend the money we have available and about how to achieve the simplicity needed for people to make decisions about their retirement plans. A safety net will remain in place and absolute losses will, on average, be relatively small. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right to say that it is a problem for late divorcees, as it is for widows or for women who married in their 50s and expect but then have removed from them the married woman’s dependency pension. Those people do not have time to rebuild their lives. My calculation is that that involves perhaps fewer than 5,000 people a year.

What interests me is that, given that the impact analysis claims that the Bill is determined to reduce means-testing, I have checked back in my notes and in something like five out of the last six amendments to which he has spoken the Minister has referred to pension credit and top-up, thus re-importing back into the system pension credit means-testing for cohorts of people that he could perfectly well take out if he was willing to contemplate transitional arrangements. He is getting rid of complexity for him and giving it over to them, because they will be required to go through all the stumbling blocks of pension credit and a reluctance to claim a means-tested benefit, which we discussed at some length on Monday. His position is harsh and unfair on all three amendments, particularly when we take into account that the Government are willing to find money for the married women’s tax allowance—which he still has not addressed, after three amendments—but not on these amendments, when older women are losing rights around which they have built their lives. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

They are all class 3 in universal credit.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

And JSA?

[Lord Freud]

JSA is, I think, already a class 3, is it not? I have a comprehensive list of national insurance credits. Rather than running through them all, perhaps I should just forward it to the noble Lord and the Committee to make the point.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 16th December 2013 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Greengross, for their amendments, which cut to the heart of the rationale for these reforms and provide an opportunity to discuss how this Government are committed to a decent and secure income for all pensioners.

Clause 1 is a landmark in the history of British state pensions. It creates a single state pension in place of the current two-tier system. It marks a return to the simplicity that Beveridge had in mind in 1942 and a withdrawal of the state from earnings-related pension provision. The fact is that we now need a new pension system to meet the needs of today’s working-age population. We estimate that 13 million people are not saving enough for retirement.

The single tier will provide a flat-rate pension above the level of the basic means test to most people in the future. This goes hand in hand with automatic enrolment and will help to give those saving today for their retirement far more clarity about what they can expect from the state. The reforms will also help to dispel any perception that people’s own savings could be offset by a corresponding loss of means-tested benefit.

The key point here is that the reforms are about restructuring spending to support saving. They are not about spending more or less on future pensioners, and they have been designed to stay within the amount that we were projected to have spent if we had rolled the current system forward. In designing the transition, we have been able to right some historic wrongs, as the Minister for Pensions has often said.

I turn to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, about what she calls the cliff-edge effect. Around three-quarters of pensioners retiring in the five first cohorts will see a change of less than £5 a week compared with if we rolled the current system forward.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is that medium or median?

[Lord Freud]

I think that in practice it will be a mean average. However, I will make that absolutely clear.

By withdrawing the facility to build a pension above the flat rate and modernising the system, removing elements such as savings credit and derived entitlement that no longer reflect the needs of the working-age population, we are able to fund the single-tier pension and improve the outcomes of groups such as the self-employed, carers and low earners, who have historically seen lower state pensions. It follows, therefore, that there are two means by which we could apply the new state pension to existing pensioners.

First, we could simply increase the pension of all existing pensioners to the full single-tier rate, if they are currently receiving less. In response to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Flight, we estimate that this would cost around £10 billion.

[Lord Freud]

It would be £10 billion per annum.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think that by the time we have a rolling cohort, by definition that cannot be the case. I realise that we are pressing the Minister for information while he is on his feet. It would be very helpful if, perhaps towards the end, he could pick up points on which we have asked questions.

[Lord Freud]

I will confirm the precise parameters around that £10 billion figure to the Committee as soon as I have that information.

On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on rolling together from an 85 base, we do not have those particular costs, as she might imagine. However, we can look at the numbers, although it will be a very complex exercise, not least because some will have a current pension in excess of the £144 base we are using on an illustrative basis.

If we were to take those extra costs they would fall to today’s workers; the risk would be that that would undermine the trust between the generations, which is at the heart of our pay-as-you-go national insurance system.

The alternative would be to assess the single-tier entitlement of this group and pay this amount. If we did this, and fully brought forward the single-tier rules for existing pensioners, this would entail removing some pension already in payment, such as derived entitlement and the savings credit. I suspect that we would all agree that this would be totally unacceptable.

However, this Government are equally clear that it would be unacceptable for today's poorer pensioners to get left behind, and have taken many steps to ensure this is not the case. We have restored the earnings link to the basic state pension. The coalition’s introduction of triple-lock uprating on top means that the level of the basic state pension is now at its highest proportion of average earnings in more than 20 years.

To ensure that the poorest pensioners benefit from the triple lock, this year the pension credit standard minimum guarantee was increased by the same cash amount as the basic state pension, and that will happen next year. These measures have been particularly key in the unusually uncertain economic climate we have seen in recent years. In a time of austere spending decisions, we have protected key benefits for older people, including winter fuel payments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is right to highlight the importance of effective monitoring of pensioner poverty and the effects of these reforms on retirement incomes; indeed, her sterling work as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Ageing and Older People has continued to champion this cause. The latest figures, for 2011-12, show that the rate of relative poverty among pensioners is close to the lowest ever recorded. It is at 14%. I recall with slight irony that when we debated the Child Poverty Bill in 2009, the expression “eradication” was used about bringing the poverty figure for children down there to 10%. The DWP publishes annually the households below average income report, a national statistic which provides a full analysis of the levels of relative and absolute poverty for pensioners, and pensioner material deprivation. In addition, in order to look at the impact of the Government’s pension reforms as a whole, the Government published a framework for the analysis of future pension incomes in September 2013, which provides an overview of projected future retirement incomes.

I will pick up the question from my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, who asked for reassurance on the delivery plans for the single-tier state pension. As noble Lords are all aware, it will be introduced from 6 April 2016. The single-tier programme was set up in early 2012 to undertake early feasibility work and test deliverability of the policy as it was being developed. It is a DWP programme, with changes being delivered by the DWP and HMRC.

We are confident of delivering by April 2016 for several reasons. First, there is broad consensus on the main principles of the reform, which provides a helpful basis to plan for implementation. The main development of systems will commence once the Bill gets Royal Assent, at which point the key legislation will be settled. This will ease the challenge of developing systems while policy is likely to change.

Secondly, the key change needed to deliver single tier is to reform the way we calculate state pension, based on an individual’s national insurance contributions. We have long-standing experience of using national insurance contribution records held on HMRC systems to calculate pensions. Single tier is just a variant of that process. We will, however, aim to use this opportunity to make improvements to the way that we deliver our services.

Thirdly, both departments have the capacity to deliver the programme, have a good recent track record of making major changes to pensions calculations to tight timescales and have successfully delivered previous pension reform changes. The programme will use a process of phased development of systems and processes to minimise any risks to delivery of single tier. Both the DWP and HMRC will use existing staff who have expertise in dealing with NICs and pensions to deliver these reforms. HMRC also has experience of managing the end of contracting out for defined contribution schemes in 2012. This will stand it in good stead for introducing the changes for defined benefit schemes.

Finally, we will engage users and interested parties in a very practical way, helping us to test each stage of developments to make sure that they work to provide an accessible and easy-to-use service. The new systems will be tested in advance of April 2016, through the advance claims process. Additionally, we are building in contingency to ensure that the existing telephony channel can be used, just in case the digital solution does not work on day one.

A clear governance structure exists to manage the implementation. A DWP programme board, on which HMRC sits, is in place to oversee delivery of single-tier pension and delivery teams have been set up in both departments. Both departments believe that delivery of the single-tier reform is challenging but doable. The main change needed to deliver single tier is to reform the way we calculate state pension and that remains the focus of the programme. We do, however, need to take this opportunity to move to a more efficient and customer-focused business delivery that meets the government commitment to deliver more services digitally. To achieve this, the programme team is working closely with the Cabinet Office. The department is also building its capability in developing digital services through the appointment of a director-general with introduction of single tier as a digital service as his primary responsibility.

To conclude, I agree that reducing pensioner poverty is crucial. The steps already taken by this Government will help to do so and the measures in the Bill will provide for a more secure future for generations to come. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am happy so to confirm. As I say, for existing pensioners we have no plans to make any changes to the way that pension credit works. I have got a little bit more information. The cost of £10 billion is to get everyone on to single tier, and that is the cost to get all current pensioners to the illustrative £144 per week. I can confirm that cost is £10 billion per annum. This is a figure taken at 2016 and clearly that would reduce over time. The other issue that we discussed as we went through this was the 75% of people who see a change of less than £5 a week: this is not an average and most people will see only a small change compared to the current system.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I will first follow up on my noble friend’s point on savings credit. The Minister says that it will remain unchanged, but given that it is going to be CPI uprated, where the guaranteed pension credit is earnings related, at what point does the Minister expect savings credit to no longer exist because the guarantee has caught up with it? Therefore, although it is technically true that there will be no changes none the less it is surely also true that, X period of time on, given assumptions about inflation and so on, savings credit will in practice no longer exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

In particular, my Lords, given that the Government are proposing to remove AIPs for those over 75, there is therefore going to be an annual means-testing of pensioners who, if they were 10 or 12 years younger, would have that £144 as of right.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I shall respond where I can. I think that I shall have to write on the future of the savings credit as a result of an earnings increase of guaranteed credit, as it is quite complicated. At this stage, I shall also have to write to confirm exactly where we are on the question of whether the figure is gross or net. In practice, I think that I will end up writing quite often on these figures because they are quite complicated and one wants to double-check them carefully. Offering responses on the hoof may be a little dangerous and I shall be reduced to writing more often than would be the case with some of the other things that we discuss. With those issues raised and with a process to deal with them, I again ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I will have to write with that estimate. There is every way of doing these estimates that one can imagine. That brings me to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which is to review how many women in this cohort are projected to derive a pension based on their spouse’s record. We have published a paper on derived entitlement, which covers the projected outcomes for people as a result of removing these provisions. As one may expect, individuals reaching pension age in the few years before April 2016 will have similar national insurance records to those reaching pension age in the few years after April 2016. As such, we can assume that the proportion of women in the cohort under question retiring under the current system who benefit from derived entitlement is broadly similar to the proportion of women reaching pension age just after 2016 who may be disadvantaged.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will the noble Lord write to us and spell that last comment out? If I understood it correctly, it was very revealing. He might like to repeat that last sentence for us and then perhaps enlarge on it in a subsequent letter.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it is now in Hansard. We will spend some time on derived entitlement in later clauses, rather than going through that issue now. We will, I know, spend an awful lot of time on derived entitlement thanks to a certain set of amendments from the noble Baroness, so I have no fear at all that I will not be utterly explicit on this matter before the end of this Committee.

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, recognised that a line had to be drawn somewhere, but she asked the House to think carefully about whether it is right that twins of different genders should find themselves in different positions. Equally, one could ask whether it would be fair for people who reach state pension age on the same day—for example, the 65 year-old man and the 61 year-old woman—to be in different positions. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is absolutely right that a line has to be drawn. We have been clear and consistent that only people reaching pension age after the new system is implemented may receive a single-tier pension.

The noble Baroness asked whether these women would lose out. It is not a question of this particular cohort losing out; they simply will not receive a single-tier pension, just like everyone else reaching pension age before 2016. The Government have not changed these women’s state pension age and so there has not been a change in the pension that these women were expecting. Regarding the leading question on discrimination raised by the noble Baroness, I can confirm that any difference in treatment is as a result of the legislation providing for the change in pension age, which is not in this Bill, and we are satisfied that there is no breach of Article 14 of the ECHR on grounds of sex. This is justifiable in helping to pursue legitimate aims and achieving them in a timely way to achieve an equality of state pension outcomes between men and women generally.

[Lord Freud]

That legal advice covers the full gamut of the legal position. On pension sharing, the average number of share orders is currently running to around 100 a year, so there is in practice a negligible impact on the gains and losses. We have written to all the cohorts affected by equalisation—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

We will come on to pension sharing later in much greater detail, but I am sure that the Minister will want to confirm to my noble friend that, as I understand it, the number of inquiries is 20,000-odd, compared to the number of take-ups. Secondly, I presume that what he is talking about is pension sharing in future only of the additional state pension, whereas of course at the moment anyone divorced can also take on the existing NI record—the basic state pension—of their former spouse if it is more favourable than their own. There are two sets of preferences or advantages to divorcees in play and only the first of those will continue, while the second will go.

[Lord Freud]

I can confirm what the noble Baroness says: I am talking about the additional pension, not the state pension.

To summarise: the women in this group are getting the pension that they expected when they expected it. We have produced analysis on this group of women as well as on the impact of changes to derived entitlement. We need a clear start for the changes and, in line with the 2010 reforms, believe that that should be based on reaching state pension age. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Freud]

It will be easier if I push that analysis of the figures into the letter-writing process rather than trying to summarise it off the top of my head, because it is quite complicated.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister has been generous in giving us access to his Box, but a lot of our queries and questions came up as we were writing our amendments, after we had talked to the Box. We therefore fully understand that the Minister is not able to give us some of the detail, which requires some fairly elaborate statistical cross-cutting behind the scenes.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I was going to suggest that we can come back to this. We have run some sessions with the team, who are doing a magnificent job. This is central stuff; all the things that we are covering today and on Wednesday are technical and difficult. One of the things that I could offer would be another session on this area between Committee and Report. I think that on Report we will want to boil down what the real issues are and what the real amendments should be, because otherwise we will spend a lot of time, sound and fury on issues that are not quite the point that anyone was trying to make.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think that that is prudent. We are dealing with a lot of stats. Certainly, I read the evidence from people who were witnesses to the Committee in the other place, as well as some of the stuff that came out in the Minister’s interrogation and speeches in Committee. Some of the discrepancies between that and what I call the “Apple Green Paper”—as that White Paper is neither white nor green—are because they cut the stats in different ways, and it is very difficult, if you do not have research staff, to recalibrate them to address some of the questions. We are not in any sense trying to put the Minister on the spot; we just want to elucidate, as far as we can, the information, so that we have a shared common body of knowledge on which we can base our estimate and analysis of this Bill. As the noble Lord will agree, that is primarily the job of this House, above all others.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kirkwood, for commenting on this amendment. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I took it for granted that there would be accrued rights. However, if there had not been, the courts would have rather a lot to say about that. In every pensions Bill we have ever done—the 2004 Act, and so on—that has been established. It is good that the calculations, certainly in the paper and all the rest of it, are so clear as to what people can expect. That is very welcome.

To the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I say that the point that I was trying to make is not that all men were in the same position as all women between the ages of 60 and 65. However, essentially, of men who chose to take early retirement only about 2% or 3% chose to go on to JSA or incapacity benefit in that period. The others went on to IS and were topped up by PC. Those men who chose to take early retirement were effectively retiring at the same age as women. That may, to a degree, have been forced on them by unemployment, but they had a choice. They could have gone on to JSA but, perfectly sensibly, they chose not to do so. Instead they went into effectively a pension regime, originally from the age of 60, which was when the age for women was the same.

Of course, other men, who were in work, carried on building up their pension until age 65, primarily because those between 60 and 65 on PCs still carried on adding to their NI years, as I recall. However, those other men were able to build up their additional pension and thus protect it as they went through—essentially, SERPS. Women of that age would have had little, if any, entitlement to SERPS. They would have had entitlement—as will younger women—to S2P, primarily because of the extension of the credits that apply to them, particularly for childcare. Those were introduced quite late, so those women will not, for the most part, have had access to an additional state pension. Men who continue to work to 65, as most of them will—the noble Lord is right on that—will continue to build up that additional pension, which will be protected after they are 65.

The Government are taking a swings and roundabouts approach on this. I think that 167,000—originally 235,000 in 2009-10, and before that a higher figure—had the choice of the same pension as women, age for age. Women have had no such choice. That is why they face cliff edges in a way that men do not. The problem for us has been about cliff edges. The point that I was trying to push was that men did not face any cliff edges. Whatever their age when they retired after 60, they could have a smooth pension level that was the same as women, then they progressed quite nicely at 65; if that happens after 5 April 2016, they will move on to the new pension. Women have no such choice. If they tick their pension, the same as the men, at 63 the shutters come down and they can never move that next step on to the new state pension, which men could in their situation. Women have a cliff edge, while men have a nice smooth path down to paddling in the sea. That is what I was primarily concerned about.

The problem comes as we recognise that we should try to equalise the state pension age at the same time as the Government are introducing the new state pension. I recognise the difficulty. When I started work on this I took pretty much the Minister’s line—that this was on the one hand or on the other—but the more I worked on pension credit, the more I saw the number of people claiming it and how substantial their numbers were. Not 5,000 or 10,000 but a fifth of all men claiming pension credit claim it before they are 65. That means, in terms of savings and the rest of it, that many of them will have gone on to claim that after 65 under the old system. Given that substantial number, it is worth emphasising that women have had a double hit and men have had a smooth transition throughout. Whatever the Minister may argue—and I understand his stats—if you hold up the gender filter to this issue, you can see exactly, as my noble friend said in her speech, why women, rightly, feel hard done by. They are faced with a cliff edge and have no way of ameliorating it, unlike men have had over the past few years—in some cases the past five years—of their working-age lives.

However, we have gone as far as we can until we get further information from the Minister that may or may not help us to progress on this issue. With the consent of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for this opportunity for the Government to set out our actions to support people in this area. I need to point out that when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, says that he is offering some relief, I am reminded of the song by Tom Lehrer about sliding down the razor blade of life, but there we are.

On the noble Lord’s first question about the new class 3A voluntary NICs, we will have a debate in the new year, and will work with stakeholders to get a clear and simple offer to pensioners, which will include how we publicise that new scheme, so that information will be available.

Including financial education in the school curriculum and increasing young people’s financial capability is an issue of importance to this Government and apposite to the point raised by my noble friend Lord German. In July 2013, the Department for Education published a national curriculum framework with increased focus on financial literacy in both the mathematics and citizenship curricula. This will be taught in schools from September 2014. In 2012, we established the Money Advice Service to help people manage their money more effectively and better understand financial products, including pensions. The Money Advice Service is one of our key partners in providing information to individuals who are being automatically enrolled into workplace pensions. The department has also played an active role in developing the Money Advice Service’s new financial capability strategy to help tackle the knowledge gaps which can inhibit individuals from saving in pensions.

We know that the delivery of information and government policy around financial capability has the potential to build trust and engagement in pension saving, and we are proud of our progress in this area. Our Automatic Enrolment and Pensions Language Guide, developed with partners in the pensions and financial services industry, promotes a consistent and simplified use of language in order to ensure that individuals seeking advice can better understand the information. In October this year the Government published updated regulations setting out the information that occupational and personal pension schemes are obliged to provide to their members, and the frequency with which this is to be done.

I turn specifically to the state pension reforms in the Bill. We are committed to taking action to help people to understand the reforms that we are making and what it will mean for them. As noble Lords know, the current state pension system is fiendishly complicated. In a 2012 survey, in response to a simple true/false question, only one-third of people agreed that it was true that the Government provided a second state pension related to previous earnings. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, noted its complexity and gave lots of saddening statistics. That is precisely why we are reforming the system to make it—in principle—comprehensive to as many people as possible. We are tackling this systemic problem by creating a simpler state pension so that everyone can know both what counts towards their state pension and how much they can expect to receive. However, we recognise that the benefits of this simpler system can be realised only if we communicate the changes effectively to the public.

I turn to the noble Lord‘s amendment about the timely provision of individualised state pension information. The Department for Work and Pensions currently offers a state pension statement service, which allows people to request an estimate of how much state pension they may get, based on their national insurance record to date. Last year, 2012-13, over 600 statements were provided.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Six hundred?

[Lord Freud]

Six hundred thousand statements were provided. I assure the noble Lord that we intend to continue to provide people with an on-demand state pension statement service after the introduction of single tier in 2016. Our intention is that the service will be predominantly, though not exclusively, digital—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Why on demand? Why not automatically, as a right?

[Lord Freud]

The cost of providing it to absolutely everyone in the country would be large and, in capacity terms, would be too great to be able to cover everyone on that basis.

[Lord Freud]

One of the issues here is that we will need to talk, or write, to people who cannot get the information in the digital way that we are planning as our primary way of communicating. Clearly we will be in a position to do that but, until we have the service up and running, it is difficult to estimate what the underlying demand might be.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The more the Minister describes this, the unhappier I get. The people who most need the information are those who least know that they need to know it—they do not know what they do not know. For me, that was the clear result from the TPAS survey: they did not know that changes were happening and they did not know when they were going to retire or how much they were going to get, and they had not done anything about it because they did not know what to do. That is the first problem: that those who request it—the Minister’s 600,000 a year—are those who are probably more alert to pension issues and more capable of responding in that way.

The second point if we are going to do this digitally is that we are talking about a group, particularly women, who may very well not have access to any such digital back-up at all. My housing association is already seeing issues with this in spades regarding the universal credit. I am doubly worried if, first, we are only responsive to requests and, secondly, if we propose to do this digitally, those who most need help will not get it and they will be the ones who suffer an impaired pension, even though, had the Government acted differently, they might have had enough time to turn the situation around.

[Lord Freud]

Well, my Lords, I can just take you through our plans in this area so let me continue to do that. For those who cannot get digital information, we will ensure that they can still get the information they need. Our statements will give individuals their up-to-date state pension position, including their foundation amount, based on their national insurance record to that point. Where appropriate, the statement will tell them how many further national insurance qualifying years they need to reach the full amount of single-tier pension. As noble Lords will appreciate, it takes a few months at the end of every tax year to ensure full consolidation of national insurance records. However, as now, people will still be able to get a statement based on their contributions up to the previous tax year, and we will update our statements to reflect people’s full record for their pre-2016 years as soon as the relevant data are in place.

PAYE records are now mainly electronic but we are working on an assumption that records on account should be ready by October 2016 for the April introduction. As for the timetable for sending out statements, we can give people accurate information on their single-tier position when all their contribution and credits to that point are recorded on their national insurance record. From Royal Assent, we will include simple information about single tier, including the relevance of this estimate in terms of working out their single-tier foundation amount. From implementation in April 2016, our intention is to provide an on-demand, largely digital, statement service.

Regarding the noble Lord’s question on querying the details, in practice relatively few people currently actually do query. However, we want to ensure that the default position is as simple as possible and we will, as now, ensure that where it is required people can get a detailed breakdown of the calculation. For people who are unable to access digital media, we will ensure that they receive the support they require in a non-digital way and we will work that up. To revert to the point on the implied question of issuing everyone with a statement, the issuance of a large number of unprompted statements—potentially millions of statements—would be expensive in terms of IT costs, production costs, postage and staff. Our evaluation of previous unprompted statement exercises show that there has been little, if any, benefit, and solicited statements are a better way of getting information to people.

I turn now to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. We know that the statement service alone will not be sufficient to inform and educate the public about the simplifications to the state pension system. We are developing a wide-ranging communications strategy, informed and supported by work across government to build financial capability. This will sit alongside the work I described earlier around improving the provision of information across the pensions industry.

To communicate on the single-tier reforms, with HMRC we are already carrying out research, testing language and building on the lessons learnt from automatic enrolment. We are in contact with front-line workers and consumer representative groups. Clearly, it will be important to have an effective mechanism in place for assessing the impact of our communications activity. This will form a key part of our communications strategy. We will publish a detailed update of our communications strategy in the new year, setting out how we will raise awareness and understanding. We will of course communicate that with noble Lords from the outset.

I hope that I have assured the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that the Government are fully committed to ensuring people will continue to have access to information on their state pension position to enable them to plan effectively for their retirement and, as previously stated, we will share our communications strategy with noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will the Minister think about the possibility of, say, when someone hits the age of 50, a pension statement or whatever being sent out? The whole push of the Government’s programme has been that people should have enough time to be able to make good any shortfall in their record.

They cannot do it six months before they are due to retire. If a statement was sent at 50 and then the usual one was sent a year before retirement when people may or may not be in a position to consider voluntary NICs or something like that, even that would be helpful if a statement cannot be sent out each and every year. I take the point about cost and effort but people need some snapshots so that they know what the position is as they go along at the ages of 50, 55, 60, 64 or whatever. Otherwise, we will find that a hell of a lot of people are going to remain on pension credit and two legacy systems will be running for 40 years.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I shall try to consolidate where we are here. We will provide full information on our communication strategy, and noble Lords will see that. We know that how and when you communicate is very important, and having a generalised communication strategy may not be most appropriate. As the noble Baroness said, there are particular points where we might want to get over particular bits of information, as is currently the case where people are informed about, for instance, the number of years of national insurance contributions that they have made when they reach a certain age. I would imagine that a sensible communication strategy, which we will show to noble Lords, will incorporate that kind of thing.

To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on appeals, people can appeal but not until state pension age, not least because, as the noble Lord will be fully aware, before then the pension is often a guesstimate. We are not able to tell people in advance what they are likely to get because the issue is so fiendishly complicated. The real question, which the noble Lord may ask, is whether, when the matter becomes dramatically simpler, we can provide that information, but then there will probably be no need for appeals.

The department tried automatic statements between 2003 and 2006, when more than 17 million were sent out. We stopped this activity after research showed us that it had a limited impact.

One issue on which we need to communicate is shortfalls and the opportunity to buy voluntary NICs. Rather than generalised information, some very targeted bits of information, particularly around that area, are far more likely to get people to respond and focus their attention on their interests.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps I may give the noble Lord another example, and this will apply to other amendments later on. You begin to get an increasing degree of ill health among some people at the age of 50. Women are now very often entitled to a carer’s credit, which, as the Minister will know, is much less heavy in its requirements than the carer’s allowance. However, the take-up is very low. Most people do not know about it at all and it is very hard to claim it retrospectively. Only when the Minister says to people at, say, the age of 50, “You’ve got this but the following credits may be available to you under certain circumstances”, will we know whether women, as they approach 63, 64 or 65, have built up an NI record on their own. The Government cannot be passive about this; they have to provide appropriate information to allow people to know both what they need and what they can do about it. It seems that the Minister is basically responding to those who already know that there is an issue and not to those who do not but should.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, just to wrap up this position, I do not think that any noble Lord in this Room will be under any illusion that we are not utterly determined to drive forward a transformation in both working-age and pension-age systems. One of the guiding principles for both those is simplicity so that people can understand what they are entitled to and there is an automatic process where you do not have to do so much work. It is an example of the kind of chaos that we have at the moment that people do not understand what their entitlement is. I am equally conscious of the figures in universal credit, where you have a clean working-age benefit. Two-thirds of the uplift of more than £2 billion per year that we are able to put through to people is due to giving them benefits that they do not currently claim. I do not think that there is any difference. Clearly, simplification and transformation are right at the heart of the Government’s strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

For the noble Baroness’s sake, I shall repeat what I just said. I will write to confirm that they are net, although I hardly need to do so. I will write to say what the position is with gross analysis at this particular moment. I do not know whether that is to say that they are available, not available or whatever. I will just write to let the noble Baroness know the position.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sure that the Minister will understand our need for clarity on some of these issues—whether it is net or gross; mean, median or average and so on—because they completely reshape the statistical base on which some of us are trying to base some of our contributions. The Minister is patient in taking our comments on this point, but we really need to know and we have not always had the statistics in ways that have allowed us to read across in a straightforward and simple form. This is not the fault of the Box; it is simply because that is the way in which, classically, statistics have been collected.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Drake, who emphasised both the need to deliver the Green Paper promises of a substantial headspace between the pension credit regime and the new state pension, and the way in which this is becoming narrowed. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, it is becoming very hard to calculate. I was checking back on what the Select Committee on Work and Pensions actually called for, and I really do not understand why the Minister cannot do this for us. The committee said in paragraph 34:

“There is no certainty about how long the triple lock will be in place and we believe that it is important that there is as much clear water as possible between the rate of the STP and that of Pension Credit. There appears to be scope for a bigger differential (either at the outset or over time) given the increased National Insurance revenue that the Government will derive from the ending of contracting-out and the overall long-term savings which will be made on”,

pension credit,

“expenditure as a result of the introduction of the STP. We therefore recommend”—

and I do not understand why the Minister cannot go along with this—

“that, when the Bill is before Parliament in the summer”—

that is, in the prior discussions at the other end—

“the Government publishes an analysis of (a) the cost of setting the STP rate at a range of higher levels; and (b) the level at which the STP could be funded if the additional NI revenue was used for this purpose”.

The Minister says that the whole of this project has to be cost-neutral. Yes, to an extent, but of course it is cost-neutral within a growing demographic population. When he talks about it being cost-neutral, I am never sure how much he is looking at the rise in life expectancy and so on and therefore at the number of claimants coming through, particularly for the post-war bulge. After all, the GDP figures show a drop for this group in going to pensions of something like 8.9%—I think I am right; I am doing this from memory—or about 8.23%. That is a significant drop in projected GDP going to a cohort that will actually have increased in number. When the Government say that this has to be cost-neutral, therefore, it seems to me that in practice, unless I have misunderstood the Minister, that could be achieved only by allowing the real value of the new state pension to fall simultaneously with the real value of pension credit. Perhaps he might like to write to us to confirm whether that is the case. However, as I have said, I do not understand why he cannot respond to what seems to be an entirely appropriate piece of analysis that was recommended by the Select Committee. Perhaps he could write to us and explain why it cannot be done.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My noble friend is exactly right and I thank him for that. Perhaps the Minister could write to us on why this is not possible. Why we cannot follow previous legislation in doing pension Bills, I do not understand.

[Lord Freud]

Maybe to save myself a bit of ink in letters, I should point out that we have done the range of start rates. In the White Paper, we showed it at the £144 point and the £145 point, and to increase the figure by £1 would cost £500 million by 2030.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

On what price basis—is that in real terms, in today’s money? What are we talking about?

[Lord Freud]

Clearly, a quote done at that time would be using the money of the day. We would not be doing it in cash terms; we would be doing it in today’s money, or the money of that day. Yes, it was 2013-14 money.

On the question of neutrality, the reforms would cost no more than the current system overall and will not be more generous to future pensioners, so the additional national insurance revenue will not be recycled within the state pension system but will contribute to other reforms such as the cap on social care costs and the employment allowance, as announced in the Budget 2013.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I have to say that I am not persuaded by those responses but at this point, I will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I must have swallowed my “eight”. I apologise for my grammar. I add that there is no cliff edge with these reforms.

I welcome the opportunity to put on the record that single-tier pensioners will continue to be able to fill gaps in their national insurance record by buying back qualifying years of voluntary national insurance contributions. These will be taken into account regardless of when they are paid. If they correspond to a pre-2016 tax year, they will be included in the calculation of a person’s foundation amount. If they are paid in respect of a post-2016 year, they will count towards their total single-tier amount.

Given that we are in the process of reforming the state pension system, the Government have recently made changes to the arrangements for voluntary contributions to ensure that people can wait until they are able to request their foundation amount after implementation, before making decisions on buying additional years. We have adjusted the rules for people reaching state pension age under single tier to extend the time limits for paying voluntary contributions to 5 April 2023, for the tax years from 2006-07 to 2015-16. Usually, contributions are paid at a higher rate if more than two years have elapsed from the year in which they were due, but this rule will be suspended until 6 April 2019. This will mean that a person retiring after 2016 will have had a considerable amount of time, up to 17 years since the relevant gap occurred, in which to decide whether to pay voluntary contributions.

So people will be able to buy after the state pension age point. They can buy back as many as they need, right down to 2006, so if someone reaches their state pension age in, for instance, 2018, they can buy 12 years. I hope that I have addressed the noble Baroness’s points, and ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, what the Minister has said is what I expected to be the case. However, he has failed to say whether the changes that we made in 2008 will be sustained—that is, whether, either before 2016 or after it, you can buy back years that were missed before 2006. I am perfectly well aware that you can go back to 2006 and carry on buying back to that date right up until April 2023, and I am pleased that the Minister was able to confirm that for us, but can you buy back years that were missed in, say, 2000 or 2003, up to 2006, which was sustained as a result of the 2008 Act? This all came into being in the first place because NIRS2 was flaky, and we turned mechanical failure into a moral virtue.

[Lord Freud]

No, let me provide clarity. The system does not let people buy back years before the 2006-07 point. We have relaxed the time limits because of the uncertainty around the new system. However, it is an insurance system, with the basic principle that you cannot insure after the event.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Without indulging in too much nostalgia, particularly as I was not present in 2008—or was not present here—that relaxation was because of the change from 39 qualifying years to 30. That was specifically introduced to exclude the cliff edge, and the concession was only for people reaching their state pension age before 2008. As I said, I do not think that we need to get over-nostalgic. As they move through into the new single-tier system, both before and afterwards, people now have a broad ability to purchase extensive voluntary national insurance contributions, and of course we are adding to that capability with the new class 3A voluntary contributions. Therefore, there will now be a substantial opportunity for people to buy state pension.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I am sorry but I really disagree with the Minister on this. My noble friend Lord Browne showed rather movingly how losing the 60% dependency pension along with a failure to claim credits and the limitations on buyback that will continue to happen interlock to ensure that a woman who has done “the right thing” by her family at every point that she has been asked to make a decision, putting her family interest ahead of her own, will end up with an inadequate, incomplete and pretty minimal basic state pension. That was why we fought quite hard in those years to enable people to buy back missing years. I can see no moral difference between a rich kid living in Antibes having the money paid for them by their father as they sail around the place and a woman who failed to complete a year’s contributions because she accompanied her husband when he moved jobs or because she was caring for somebody and was not eligible for carer’s credit and is not allowed to buy back. The time limit of six years or so is entirely arbitrary to suit the convenience of the DWP and to try to impose this measure on people’s very different and complicated lives.

I still think that our position was right and that the position taken by the department and the Minister is wrong. By 2030 or so this will not be an issue, but a lot of people are going to retire in 2016 and their missing years will not be from 2006 to 2016 but from 1995 or 2000. The Minister is now telling us that those people cannot buy back the missing years, even at an appropriate price, although it will be no problem for somebody 10 years down the road to buy back years from 15 years beforehand. That inconsistency, as well as a failure to recognise the problems that many women have had in the past—which have bedevilled pension issues—in building up a coherent NI record, will remain with us if the Minister is not able to move on this front.

[Lord Freud]

Perhaps I may respond to a clearly impassioned speech by pointing out that we have announced the introduction of the purchase of voluntary national insurance class 3A contributions, and that is there precisely for the reasons that concern the noble Baroness. There will now be an opportunity to buy voluntary NICs and we will give full details of that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Forgive me, but class 3A is for the additional state pension and not for the BSP. It will also be actuarially neutral, which means that it is going to be infinitely more costly. Nor have we heard any details. Unless I am mistaken, I do not think that this addresses the fact that a diminishing cohort of women will have spotty NI records by virtue of putting their family first at key points in their lives, just as my noble friend so eloquently described to us. The Minister has made no provision for them at all.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I need to point out that we have a comprehensive means-tested system. People who have fallen through the net will be supported by that system. That is the way in which we have devised the support network for people who do not have a contributory record.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I would have thought that the Minister would do everything possible to reduce the number of people having to fall back on pension credit as a safety net as opposed to getting them into the new system provided they pay their way. They have taken on these family responsibilities and are willing to pay for it, and the Minister is saying no.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Thursday 12th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, in asking the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as chair of a housing association.

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

My Lords, moving into the private rented sector is one of a number of options available to people affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy. The published impact assessment considered tenant responses, including moves. Savings from the policy are expected to be around £500 million a year. There is currently no reason to amend this assessment. The independent evaluation that is currently under way will provide more detail of the individual behavioural responses that are being made.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the Minister wants social tenants with a spare bedroom to free up their homes for the waiting list by moving to smaller flats, mostly in the private rented sector, where rents and therefore housing benefit will be £50 a week or more higher. If they move, the Minister will not make his savings. If they do not move and are fined, the Minister will not make his policy of helping those on the waiting list. The Minister can have his savings or he can have his policy, but he cannot have both. Which does he want?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, you have to look at the whole transaction, a bit like a housing chain. If a single person moves into the private rented sector out of a large social sector home, clearly that frees up room for people to move into that home from the private rented sector. That is where either you get a much more efficient allocation or you get the savings.

Universal Credit

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as the Secretary of State mentioned in the other House, one thing that influenced us a lot was what happened with tax credits, which was why we took the decision to move in early and do this reset. Tax credits were announced in 2001 and rolled out from 2003. In the first three years of operations, £6 billion was overpaid and 400,000 claimants received their payments late, a third of cases monitored by Citizens Advice had their payments reduced below the poverty line, and IT systems were deemed unstable and not fit for purpose by the PAC. We have not done that. We have moved in early and made sure that we go safely and securely, and that when we introduce a system it is one that will not let people down.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope very much that the Minister is right; we will be cheering him on if he is. Most of us, I am sure, support universal credit but the House has made its views clear on utility bills when they are entirely online and people cannot have a paper back-up. The more we learn about the potential instability of the IT system that will handle universal credit, the more I would urge the Minister to ensure that there is a paper system as back-up for those whose entire income may come, or not, depending on the stability of the IT system. If the Minister is wrong on this, they will go hungry. Can he ensure that we have a paper trail, at least while the system is bedding down?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we already have an electronic payments system, so nothing is different or will change in the actual payments system. I think that the noble Baroness was asking: is there a proper back-up to the IT information systems? Clearly, in any IT system—and in today’s legacy systems, which are kept on computers, albeit somewhat older ones—we need to record that information and make sure that we have back-ups in case of loss. We will maintain that principle.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I expected an interesting and valuable debate and I got one. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Balfe on his remarkable maiden speech, which I know we all enjoyed. I hope we provided him with adequate intellectual stimulation this evening of a kind he will remember. Whether we met the challenge set by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, in making the topic interesting, at least we will, as my noble friend Lord Paddick pointed out, have all gained an extra hour in our lives during this debate.

I shall focus first on the transition which many noble Lords rightly focused on. There are some tough issues around it. People who have contributed to or been credited into the national insurance system have expectations, so we cannot switch to the new system overnight. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that this is not a hard, fast transition. It is pretty difficult to design a transition that strikes the right balance and takes account of people’s expectations as far as possible while also ensuring that those who are part of the transition—in other words, those who will retire over the next 50 years—will see the benefits of the single-tier pension. I believe this Bill has been successful in this difficult endeavour, and for that reason I expect it to outlast by a considerable factor the 10 years predicted by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy.

The foundation amount allows people to see the value of their pre-2016 national insurance record in one figure, which gives simplicity to the single tier but also recognises past contributions. It is a smooth transition. For the vast majority of people reaching state pension age in the years after single-tier is introduced, their outcomes are similar to what they would have got under the old system. Nearly three-quarters of those reaching state pension age in the first five years will see a change in their state pension of less than £5 a week. Of those who see a larger change, five times as many gain as lose. Those who see this boost are likely to be those who have traditionally been badly served by the state pension system: women, carers and the self-employed.

While moving to a modern system based purely on individual entitlement, the transition provides, for example, for inheritance of additional state pension where one member of the couple is in the current system. There is also transitional protection for those who paid the married woman’s stamp. Difficult decisions and trade-offs have been necessary to redesign the state pension within its cost-neutral envelope, and inevitably this means that while some people get more than they would have done under the current system had it continued into the future, some people get less.

I shall move on to as many of the specific points as I can—there were a lot. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said I would delight the 1951 to 1953 generation of women by moving. I think I might delight them a little bit. Ninety per cent of these women will get more in state pension and other benefits over their lives by drawing their pension in the current system at their state pension age than they would if we gave them a state pension at 65 and single-tier pension. The women in this cohort will reach state pension age between two and four years before a man born on the same day, which means that they will get between £13,000 and £26,000 more state pension than a man of equivalent age. To correct the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, it is not a double whammy. They have not seen their state pension age rise, except for the equalisation under the 1995 Act. The only change this group has seen recently is in the triple lock.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised derived entitlement. We will clearly go into this in some detail, but we estimate that in 2020 fewer than 30,000 married and widowed women—less than 5% of single-tier pensioners—will be affected by loss of derived entitlement to a basic state pension based on their spouse’s national insurance record. I know this is an area we will debate in great detail.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

This is an area of some concern to a lot of us. Will the Minister be kind enough to give us all the stats he has, including how many of those getting the married women’s 60% were born or live overseas, do not have UK residence and so on, which was the argument in the Commons? We are very short of detail on this.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as I hope everyone in the Chamber knows, I have arranged to run a series of briefings at the appropriate time—about a week ahead of every Committee session—particularly to try to go through this detail. It really is extraordinarily complex, to reuse a tired word. One needs to go through it with examples and graphs and so on, which is much better. We will get all the information that we can, but we will do it in that context and will then be able to look at it in Committee on the basis of that process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked what the start rate will be. We will need to decide that closer to implementation when the level of the pension credit standard minimum guarantee for 2016-17 is known. I am afraid that I cannot reveal all tonight.

The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, asked about cost-neutrality. The reforms are designed to be cost-neutral in terms of spending on persons. The spending on the single tier should be within 1% of projected spend on pensions until the late 2030s. In the longer term, after that, the single tier will slow the rate of increase in pension spending, helping to make it a sustainable system.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the savings credit. One of the things that the single tier does is to clarify savings incentives, so that people will know what pension to expect from the state and be able to plan the additional provision that they want. The issue of passporting was raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Clearly, passporting will be through the guarantee credit, not the savings credit, although in practice the numbers are not that different. On the difference between being on the single tier and being on a credit, and whether you get various passporting, that is always the case when you have a system of passporting. However, it is worth bearing in mind that when you look at the relative rates for members of a couple, the single-tier rate is much higher than the credit guarantee rate; the single tier comes out at £288 for a couple in 2012-13 prices, against £216.55 at 2012-13 prices. So there is a very big gap for couples on that passporting issue.

My noble friend Lord German asked me for the latest correspondence on bilateral agreements. I regret that I just do not have that information to hand right now. I will search the cellars of the DWP to see if I can do any better and write; it is probably very heavily buried there.

Several noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy—raised the abolition of the rebate and the costs that would go to the public sector employers. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked whether we would talk to the LGA. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has met with the LGA and I can confirm that Her Majesty’s Treasury is happy to meet with them.

We will spend a lot of time on multi-jobs in Committee. One point to make is that the effect of welfare reforms will naturally be to improve coverage. All adults on universal credit, many of whom will be the lower paid that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is rightly concerned about, will get their pension correctly that way. In that way, the crediting system is extremely comprehensive. By the 2040s, more than 80% of people will receive the full single-tier amount based on the 35 qualifying years. Clearly, we will be reviewing the crediting arrangements in the light of reforms and will look at the position of these people as part of the review. The noble Baroness is as familiar as I am with the quite revolutionary opportunities which Governments can look at, now or in the future, around RTI when that is built in. I know that we will spend a lot of time on that.

A lot of noble Lords raised the age review and some of the relevant issues: the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Hollis, and my noble friend Lord Paddick. Clearly, one point of having a review is that longevity on its own is not the only factor. That is exactly what is being realised here. We have debated that in the past, and I know that we will debate it further.

On equity release and the AIP change, income-related benefits take account of any income and capital generated by liquidating assets. However, equity release may not necessarily result in a reduction in eligibility for means-tested benefits and will depend on overall income and capital.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised bereavement support. This is clearly driven substantially by the change in the welfare system when you have universal credit as a basic bedrock for people. Bereavement benefits were another way of producing that kind of income in an entirely different way. We are now targeting this support for the period of financial need, as we heard that it was required; we did a survey on that. One therefore needs to separate it from bereavement, and maybe the right reverend Prelate’s point about what we call it is relevant there. It is a financial support which is underpinned by the universal credit but, clearly, we do not offset it against universal credit which, if it went on for a long time, we would do. By not offsetting it, we are targeting help at those with the greatest need, whether they are a widow or parent or not. It is a very progressive structure in that way. It means that 62% of the very poorest are actually better off. We will go into this in great detail in Committee; I will not do so now. However, that is the structure and the thinking behind it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and my noble friend Lord German raised conditionality. The structure is that all recipients of bereavement benefits—not just partners, but also if you lose a child—have access to Jobcentre Plus, purely on a voluntary basis, for the first three months; no conditionality for the next three months; and at the end of the six months, advisers will use their discretion to ensure that individuals’ capability and requirements are taken into account.

We will have a major debate in Committee and, I suspect, beyond on the pot-follows-member approach versus the aggregator approach. At this stage I will make a few minor protests about why we have chosen the former rather than the latter. However, I will make an impassioned defence as we go through it in great detail. The pot-follows-member approach maximises the consolidation, is in the best interests of savers and will reduce by half the number of dormant pots by 2050. We estimate that an aggregator approach would achieve just half the cumulative administrative savings for the industry by 2050. We will spend more time on that.

The question from my noble friend Lord Brooke is a suitable last question: what more is there on which to legislate? We will probably have some open questions left after the Bill on how much people are saving. Quite a few noble Lords suggested that perhaps people are not saving quite enough for what they anticipate they will want to spend when they retire. There is also the nature of the savings vehicles—we talked about defined ambition. Those are the two big areas in pensions. I suspect that there are probably several more, but perhaps I would pick those two.

I close by thanking all noble Lords who contributed to the debate, which was informed, measured and interesting. As I said, we will hold a number of briefing sessions. I am keen that in this debate we deal with the real issues on an informed basis and do not waste time. That is what these sessions are for—so that we have full information. I will endeavour to make sure that noble Lords have all the information they need to make the contributions they want to make. In particular, I want to make sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is able to table all the many amendments that we all look forward to.

The Bill does a remarkable job of creating a pension system fit for the 21st century—nine times as long as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, thinks. It is a return to the simplicity of Beveridge’s model for the state pension, it strengthens the private pension system, and it will enable today’s and tomorrow’s working-age population to plan for and build towards a secure retirement income. I commend the Bill to the House and ask for it to be given a Second Reading.

Disabled People: Mobility Benefits

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I emphasise that a lot of attention was paid to that consultation, as to all consultations. The issue that the department had to deal with was whether there was a better suggestion for drawing a line and, in practice, we could not find one within the consultation responses. I remind noble Lords that, as a result of activity in this Chamber, we toughened up the definition with,

“reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a timely manner”,

locked into how it operates.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, nearly 30% of those who get enhanced mobility payments turn them into a Motability car, so approximately 100,000 to 120,000 people stand to lose their car. We know that when they go to appeal, 60% win their appeal but in the process, given the time it takes, they will have lost their car before having the additional expense of starting all over again. Will the Minister therefore ensure that anyone going to appeal does not lose their car until the appeal has been heard?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, that is not the process which we are going through. It is difficult to draw a line between people with enhanced mobility and those on Motability. That is one of the things that we will be looking at as we do this review, which will report towards the end of next year—before large volumes of people are due to go in, so we will be able to look at this closely.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the underoccupancy charge on the stability of communities.

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

My Lords, the impact of the removal of the spare room subsidy on the stability of communities will be assessed over the next two years as part of the independent evaluation currently being undertaken by a consortium which is being led by Ipsos MORI and which includes the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research and the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Good social housing requires stable communities where neighbours look out for each other. That is one of the differences between social housing and the scattered private rented sector. How will half a million disabled families cope without their neighbours’ support because they are forced to move by the bedroom tax? How will frail elderly relatives cope when their middle-aged children who care for them have to move away because of the bedroom tax? Ministers quote the changes to the private rented sector in 2008 but those changes were not retrospective, whereas these are, and that is what is so wrong. Will the Minister undertake to ensure, as a transitional arrangement, that the bedroom tax applies only to new lettings and will he lift the bedroom tax for existing tenants and help us to maintain stable communities on which our civic life is based?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the policy is in position and is going through. The latest figures came out last week and showed that it now affects approximately 523 million people—

Universal Credit: National Rollout

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 28th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, when you introduce a big programme of change, the important thing is that you test and trial it thoroughly. We have a major programme of testing and trialling, whether it is the intensive-activity programme, the in-work conditioning pilots, the housing demonstration projects or the 12 local authority pilots. I am hoping soon to publish the next issue of the local support service framework that is designed exactly to make sure that there is a support network for people who might otherwise look for the superglue.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

Like others in this House, I support universal credit and I welcome it, but I am deeply worried that it is going to be a paperless system accessible only online. A very large number of people in their 40s and 50s in limited financial circumstances on benefit do not possess computers, smart phones or computer skills. They will not be able to interrogate or correct errors on the system, and even if the Minister successfully delivers the structure, which I hope he is able to do, although I have my doubts, I am profoundly worried that an awful lot of people who should receive their full benefit will not be able to do so because they will not have access to a paper system.

Scotland: Underoccupancy Charge

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Thursday 24th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I have seen the research to which my noble friend refers. Clearly, it is encouraging. I also note that the report by the Scottish Parliament states that in one area the case load has fallen already by 15%. As I said just now, we need to be cautious about early findings but this one clearly is positive.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has stated that the bedroom tax will release larger, underoccupied properties for the waiting list but 80% of those on the waiting list want the selfsame smaller properties as the underoccupiers who have priority. This report shows that it will take three years to rehouse underoccupiers. Will the Minister therefore accept that it is false to claim that the bedroom tax will help those on the waiting list? On the contrary, their waiting times will probably double.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I must make the point that while the party opposite likes to use the expression “bedroom tax”, it is deeply misleading. A tax is when you take away money that people earn. We are limiting the amount of money that the taxpayer pays to people. There are 1.4 million one-bedroom properties, which become available at the rate of roughly 100,000 a year. Quite a lot of people are likely to want to keep an extra bedroom because they have the resources and the desire to keep it. Therefore, there will be a period of adjustment, and we are going through it. We are spending the discretionary housing payment to allow that transition to happen in an orderly way.

Housing: Under-occupancy Charge

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 21st October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of a housing association and I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, social landlords had more than a year to design, develop and deliver strategies to mitigate the effects of under-occupancy and were advised to start building responsibly to avoid driving people into arrears. Prior to implementation, the Government, working collaboratively with the Chartered Institute of Housing, produced specific guidance for landlords, Making It Fit, and continue to fund its Making Best Use of Stock team, which assists landlords to find suitably sized accommodation for tenants. Fact sheets containing advice on home swaps, money management, payment options and how to look for and find work have also been issued. To be clear, 60% of those requiring social housing are single or couples without children, but over the last decades landlords have ignored this fact, resulting in larger homes being built, even though the greatest need is for smaller properties. Finally, £190 million has been provided this year to help vulnerable claimants.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, a recent sample shows that half of all affected tenants are in arrears and that three-bed houses are now hard to let. Do we move tenants to smaller accommodation? It cannot be done because there is none. Do we increase income with discretionary payments? For the 90% who are ineligible, it will not be done. Do we allow arrears to soar? As this could send us into the red, it should not be done. Or do we evict vulnerable families from their three-bed homes into temporary accommodation, back into an unwanted, hard-to-let, three-bed house? That can be done if we ignore the futility, misery and cost. Which of these options does the Minister favour?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it is simply premature to come to any conclusions as to the level of arrears. We will, of course, provide that information when we have the kind of reliable information that this House requires me, as a Minister, to deliver. There have been various surveys, but the samples are just too narrow. There are 1.4 million one-bedroom properties in the social rented sector and we are looking to have those managed more efficiently. I remind noble Lords that the scare stories about what would happen to our LHA reforms were very similar to the kind of stories that are being propagated now and we have not seen any poor reaction in terms of homelessness as a result of those reforms.

Housing: Under-Occupancy Charge

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, there are no plans to suspend the removal of the spare-room subsidy policy. A formal evaluation of the policy is being carried out; this has already commenced and will be conducted over the next two years. To support people transitioned to this reform, we have more than trebled the discretionary housing payment fund to assist those facing extreme difficulties.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, two-thirds of the families affected are disabled—fact. Half of those in a recent sample are already in arrears—fact. Most local authorities are limiting discretionary payments to three months only—fact. Furthermore, there are no smaller properties to move to—fact. So disabled families cannot work, pay, obtain financial support or move. When will the Government have the guts to admit that their policy is impossible as well as cruel and follow our commitment to repeal it?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, there were a lot of issues buried there. I will just point out that, when you look at the disabled figures, and if you look at the people on DLA, which is an independent measure, the figure comes down to 27% of the total. For those with the higher rate of DLA, it is 17%. I also remind the Opposition that this is a substantial saving measure. Some £500 million has to be found, and there is a degree of cynicism about whether you can find that through closing tax loopholes. I also ask the Opposition a question—

Property: Under-occupancy Charge

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the purpose of DHPs specifically for the disabled in heavily adapted houses and homes is to make sure that they can stay there indefinitely. Clearly, it would not make sense for people to move when there would be a high cost of adapting a new premise. As I have said, it is too early to know what is happening in different local authorities. The information I have up to now from our intensive interrelationship with local authorities on this matter is that there is a great deal of variation in outcomes.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the Minister assumes that the Government will make £490-odd million of savings from the bedroom tax on the assumption that most tenants will stay put and take the hit. That is where the saving is coming from. However, all the evidence from housing associations, including my own, and local authorities shows that something like 30% of tenants will move, largely into the private rented sector, where rents, and therefore housing benefit, will be higher. Does the Minister accept that to send 660,000 families into misery for the sake of something like £50 million of net savings in the public sector is not only cruel but profoundly indecent?

Social Security (Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carer’s Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister knows what the figures were in the past; why can he not project them forward? I am relying on memory now, of debates we had 18 months ago, but am I not right in thinking that he told us at the time that something like 29% of those in receipt of higher rate mobility turned it into a Motability vehicle. If that figure is correct, which I believe it to be, then he can surely extrapolate that to the numbers of gross losers coming down from high rate DLA mobility, which I understand, again relying on memory, was 600,000. Therefore, 29% of 600,000 brings me to my 180,000 figure. What is wrong with that figure?

[Lord Freud]

The reason that it is wrong is that we do not know that the Motability figure lines up at that same percentage into the mobility. That is the reason. As a rule of thumb, it is one way of going, but we actually do not know whether or not the kind of people who will maintain their higher rate mobility will be the ones with Motability. That is the issue.

One of the questions that the noble Baroness was particularly concerned about in this area was the heavily adapted cars, and I think she described it as the foolishness of moving a heavily adapted car back. I emphasise that only 2% of Motability cars are heavily adapted, so this is a much smaller problem; most are just standard cars.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I was a patron—or something or other—of Motability, and that is certainly not my experience. They may be standard cars but they have been adapted to make them comfortable. Even people who drove ordinary cars beforehand transferred to a Motability car in order to get the adaptations and so on which made it comfortable as well as possible for them to drive. Obviously I am in no position to argue with his 2% figure, but I suspect from my own experience that another 20%, 30% or 40% will be using a Motability car which, to some extent or other, has been personalised or tailored for their use.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I do not think we have time to debate what heavily adapted comprises. However, the figure for cars heavily adapted for a disabled person is 2%. Clearly, we all personalise cars to some extent. I can let the noble Baroness have some more information on that to the extent that I have it, but that is the figure that I have. I confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, is looking carefully at how Motability can help to mitigate the impact for those who may be affected by the move to PIP.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, what advice would the Minister give to this chair of a housing association? We have a family consisting of a disabled couple who have two children and live in a house that has one double bedroom and two single bedrooms. They cannot move because there is no stock in rural Norfolk for them to move to. They cannot work because of their disability and caring responsibilities. They cannot afford the bills. They are applying for discretionary housing payments but that will run out by about September. At that point they will run into severe arrears. Would the Minister advise me as chair of that housing association to evict that family at that point and to send them into bed-and-breakfast accommodation at a higher cost to us all as well as to them?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the idea of providing discretionary housing payments is twofold. The first is to allow for the costs of making a change and a transition; and the other, in some cases, is to maintain the family in an appropriate home indefinitely. One of the most obvious examples of the latter is specially adapted homes where it does not make sense to move. So there should be a strategy of support for that couple regardless of whether it is in the short term or the longer term.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 25th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I support my noble friend in his amendments. Timely and efficient appeals systems are always necessary and in these circumstances they are essential. The social security appeals system is under strain and that strain will be intensified as a result of what claimants will now be experiencing. What are those difficulties? The number of social security cases going to tribunals in general were 418,000 in 2010-11, 70% higher than just two years previously, while, as far as I can tell, this year’s statistics are up a further 14% or so, and appeals against sanctions as such are only a modest proportion of these.

Social security appeals represent half of all tribunal cases. The tribunals are receiving social security cases faster than they can clear them, so that although half of all cases take 14 weeks or less, one-quarter take between three and six months to be heard and 10% take between six months and a year, so only half of those cases meet the key performance indicator, the KPI, of 16 weeks laid down by the department. During that time—that extra long waiting period already experienced—claimants’ circumstances change, they lose oral evidence based on memory and above all they are left without any benefit, some of them for months, and suffer real hardship. Timeliness and efficiency, therefore, are key.

We need the Government to tell us what problems they will meet in unleashing the stockpile of sanctions cases into a system already under strain, with the inevitable appeals that will follow, and how they propose to resolve them. How many cases are currently outstanding? Do the Government have the capacity to increase sitting days beyond the 80,000 or so required at the moment to deal with the full backlog? How long does the Minister expect claimants to have to wait? How many, and what percentage, will be over the three-month KPI target?

The second issue is not about numbers but about verdicts and outcomes. Of those cases going to appeal, some 40% overall are won by the claimant. Former presidents’ reports on this are, frankly, an excoriating indictment of the DWP decision-making process and their findings over the years are confirmed by the recent November 2012 report analysing appeals. The main reason why appellants win is that they produce additional oral evidence not previously taken into account by DWP. However, the reports and the research have noted that tribunal judges were continually frustrated by the behaviour of decision-makers within DWP. In the latest statistics, about one-third of local decisions on sanctions were reconsidered by the decision-maker and, of those, half were in favour of the claimant. Of those not accepted by the decision-maker, just over one-third are going on to tribunal.

Why are those tribunal judges so continuously frustrated by decision-makers’ efforts within DWP? First, we are told by tribunal judges that decision-makers choose not to accept additional, usually oral, evidence without having any good reason for refusing it. That is because they have often failed properly to engage with the claimant. Something like 65% of all appeals come into this category. Secondly, there is little evidence that decision-makers reconsider cases at all. They were, the report said, reluctant to do so and did not bother to explore any discrepancies in evidence or to follow up requests for further information.

Thirdly, decision-makers did not weigh medical evidence at all appropriately, especially for mental health claimants, nor did they seek further information when dealing with a progressive condition. That applied to something like 15% of the appeals that went to tribunal. Most damning of all, they often made different decisions from the tribunal decision-makers on the basis of the same evidence presented to the tribunal, which meant that decision-makers got it wrong, according to law, in 30% of the cases lost by DWP. In other words, had the decision-makers within DWP done their job properly, these reports suggest that DWP would either not have had the appeal because the decision-maker would have rightly reversed the original decision, or at appeal the DWP would have won most of the appeals that it lost because the tribunals would have accepted that all the appropriate evidence had been properly assessed. That is a pretty searing judgment of the current system.

What are the implications for those caught by this Bill? The problem is clearly threefold. First, local offices are making flawed decisions, including on sanctions, and that is before we get on to the disgraceful area of targets. Secondly, decision-makers are not doing a proper job reviewing those local office decisions and are endorsing flawed decisions that they should have corrected. Thirdly, the tribunal service cannot keep up with the increased number of appeals coming its way. Of course, this will get far worse now that legal advice and support are withdrawn and, as a result and as we shall argue later, tribunal cases will take twice as long to process.

Will the Minister reduce the pressure on tribunals and better support claimants by requiring decision-makers to do a more conscientious review of the original decisions? It is clear that at the moment too many of them are not doing a professional job—bluntly, they need to brought face to face with the evidence. Are decision-makers informed of the tribunal’s findings and is their performance reviewed when their decisions are overturned by the tribunal? Could that perhaps be a KPI? What guidance and additional training will be made available to decision-makers to improve their performance? If the Minister is going to review any targets, could we please have a new performance indicator, a really useful target that reduces the number of successful appeals by claimants from the current 40% or so down to, say, 20% or even 15%? That would really transform decision-makers’ behaviour.

Given the trivial basis for sanctioning claimants uncovered by the Guardian, many of whom we can expect to appeal, thus increasing the backlog before eventually being overturned at appeal, as many of them will be, will the Minister ensure that cases going to appeal are pre-reviewed and re-reviewed by decision-makers to improve their own poor-quality decision-making? Will he also ensure that the number of tribunal sitting days is appropriately increased to meet the target of within 16 weeks, so that they are timely, and that—I am trespassing into a following amendment—sufficient advice is given to claimants, as my noble friend Lord Bach will argue, to reduce the number of unsuccessful appeals, given the delays? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer these questions and those of my noble friend tonight and in the process perhaps allay our very real concern for these claimants who are going to be caught up in an appeal system that is increasingly flawed and failing.

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

My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the reconsiderations and appeals arising from decisions relating to sanctions that are dealt with by the Bill are considered in a timely and efficient manner, and that appeals take into consideration the delay between the failure to participate and the issuing of the sanction.

I am happy to give a commitment to the House that DWP will process the stockpiled cases, and any reconsiderations and appeals that follow, in a timely manner. It is not in the department’s interest to procrastinate on these cases any longer than necessary. I also note that the department is already required by Article 6 of the ECHR to deal with social security disputes in a reasonable time, while the First-tier and Upper Tribunals are also bound to deal with appeals in a fair and efficient manner. When the Bill receives Royal Assent, I assure noble Lords that processing the stockpiled cases, including any appeals and reconsiderations, will be given a high priority. Purely from a business perspective, DWP will want to unwind these cases and any follow-up activity as quickly as possible so that it can utilise its resource in dealing with more current claims.

The associated amendment seeks to ensure that when the First-tier Tribunals and the Upper Tribunals are determining an appeal against a sanction decision issued in reliance on the provisions in the Bill, they have regard to the circumstances around the Reilly/Wilson case, particularly any delay resulting from the case. I understand, given the noble Lord’s statement at Second Reading, that he is concerned that, because there may have been longer than usual between the failure to participate and the issuing of a sanction, the claimant will be unable either to remember or to provide evidence of any good cause they had for the failure.

I will spend a moment describing the process that happens between a claimant failing to participate and the issuing of a sanction. When a claimant gets referred to a DWP decision-maker for a sanction decision, a letter is sent asking them to provide evidence of good cause. The letter says:

“Will you please contact me before”—

and then a date is inserted—

“to explain why you did not undertake this activity. You should note that unless you provide a good reason for not undertaking this activity, your benefit may be affected”.

So the stockpiled cases would, at the time of the failure, already have been asked once to provide good cause. The fact that we did not deal with these cases immediately will not have prevented these claimants from providing evidence of good cause at the time of the failure. The decision-makers will have all this evidence on the stockpiled cases already, so the risk that they have been unfairly treated is significantly minimised.

I know that not all claimants will have provided their evidence of good cause the first time they were asked for it, although this is of course entirely their fault. However, I reassure noble Lords that in these cases, where a claimant is attempting to argue that they had a good reason for a failure that occurred many months ago, decision-makers and First-tier Tribunals will make an objective decision based on the evidence before them. They would of course take into consideration any claimant’s argument that they had good cause, but that they cannot provide evidence because of the length of time since the failure. It would be up to those hearing the appeals to judge on a case-by-case basis whether they thought this argument was strong enough.

I also note that this amendment only seeks to ensure that the appeal, and neither the decision to issue the sanction nor the reconsideration, takes into account any time delay caused by the Reilly/Wilson case. I assume that this was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. There is this oversight, and claimants in the stockpile would at the time have been asked for evidence of good cause. The tribunal is also already bound to have regard to all relevant matters.

Picking up the issues raised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on national insurance credits, prior to the changes to the jobseeker’s allowance sanctions regime from 22 October last year, national insurance credits were paid during the period of the sanction. National insurance credits are not paid when the benefit is sanctioned on or after 22 October. The Bill does not change these arrangements. The payment or not of national insurance credits with respect to stockpiled sanction decisions will therefore depend—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Perhaps I may make absolutely clear the point about the numbers. There was a lot of comment from noble Lords opposite that the system would be overwhelmed by the numbers because people did not have legal advice and the system could not therefore cope. The point I am making is that that argument does not stand in the light of the rather small number of cases—between 1,500 and 2,000—that might come towards the First-tier Tribunal as a result of the Bill.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If I may intervene, approximately 500,000 sanctions were issued last year. Something like 3,500 or 4,000 of those cases went to appeal. That was last year, before this additional provision hits them. The Minister may wish to reconsider his statistics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will address Amendments 4, 5, 5A and 6 together. The purpose of these amendments is to place in the Bill detailed requirements for the independent report set out in Clause 2.

I should be clear that Clause 2 provides for an independent review of the operation of provisions relating to the imposition of sanctions which would, without this legislation, be unlawful. The amendments could be seen to imply a much wider review; it is not a full review of the operation of sanctions, although clearly there could be wider relevance. At least one of the things covered in the amendment is not within the scope of the Bill: paragraph (d) asks about the number of penalties imposed upon claimants in receipt of employment and support allowance. I can answer that today, as the Bill is only concerned with JSA claimants.

The Government are happy to consider a wide range of areas for the review, but it would be unhelpful to lock down the terms of that review at this stage. Despite my earlier comments, the amendments list a number of areas the review could usefully consider. I am happy to confirm what I said on Thursday, and give a commitment that we will discuss further with the Opposition the scope of the review. Within that process, we can look at the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on provision for outsiders.

Amendment 5A would ensure that the independent reviewer makes an assessment of the extent to which senior managers in Jobcentre Plus have used targets in the operation of sanctions. This amendment is completely unnecessary. There are no targets for sanction referrals. The Government have made a point of removing the vast majority of targets within Jobcentre Plus. It is regrettable that loose drafting of an internal e-mail suggested otherwise. If noble Lords look at sanctions, there is no clear trend in the proportion of the caseload who receives them. Prior to 2007, the rate was running at around 4%; since then it has fluctuated between 3% and 5%. There is not the clear trend in the growth of sanctions which some people have been claiming.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I do not doubt the Minister’s honesty and integrity in his statements about targets at all. However, the staff clearly do not believe him. It is clear from the evidence that we have seen—the leaked e-mails and all sorts of other examples coming to Members of Parliament and so on—that the staff in local offices believe, because they are told by their managers, that they have to increase the number of sanctions. In the e-mail, the manager of the particular jobcentre was criticised and told that she would be subject to first-stage disciplinary hearings because that office was something like 93rd out of 101 in sanction production; they should have been producing something like 25 a week and were only producing four or six a week. Therefore: “Guys, we should raise our game”.

The e-mail was not loosely drafted. It was very precisely drafted; we have all seen copies of it. That e-mail, from someone senior in the office to their staff, made it very clear that if they did not increase a number of sanctions, they, too, would be involved in a disciplinary process. That is believed by those staff and by staff across the country. I do not doubt the Minister’s word, or that he does not intend that to be the case. What is he going to do, therefore, to ensure that local offices no longer behave in this way?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, let me make very clear the difference between having targets, having business or management information, and doing something with that information. Clearly, you collect these data not just to answer parliamentary questions but to run the business. It is used to look at where there are outliers and peculiarities, and what the norms are. When a particular jobcentre may be well outside the norm on either side, you might want to ask it why that was the case. Was it justifiable, and what were the dynamics of that? In some cases you are clearly looking at particular parts of the operation that are not operating in line with the norms. That is not having a target culture. A target culture—as the noble Lords opposite will know, because they were running one in many parts of the public services—is where you incentivise and drive performance based on particular targets. We do not do that. We do not have targets. We do, however, have management information and, as I say, we need to understand why outliers exist.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, will the Minister explain why this senior staff member—the manager of the office—told the staff underneath her that unless they increased the number of sanctions she would be subject to the first stage of a disciplinary procedure, and that that, in turn, would mean that she would have to discipline them? How does he explain that?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am not going to pick up a particular case because I do not have the detail on it. It would not be appropriate for me to hazard a guess on what was behind a particular e-mail or a particular concern.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I hear what the Minister has said, and he is held in high regard across the House. In view of what my noble friend Lady Hollis has said, will he therefore initiate an investigation into how this memo came about? Will he come back to the House to explain what action the Government are taking on this? Somebody is clearly acting against government policy, and it should be stopped.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will the Minister also, therefore, ensure that all DWP local offices receive the same information—that this is to be deplored?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I must repeat what I have just said. Clearly, we have internal management information. It is vital that we keep it, and we publish a lot of it. We need to understand why some areas, some jobcentres, have higher rates than others and why some have lower rates. Some may have very good reasons for having lower or higher rates, while others may not. We therefore need this information to correct the anomalies, and that is normal business practice. It may be that in particular cases a jobcentre manager is told, “You are running very high or very low figures, and you cannot justify the reason for that, so you need to get more into line”. It may happen. I have not got the particular details.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

In that case, what is the difference between coming more into line and targets?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

The noble Lords opposite know exactly how targets operate because they operated a target regime. Targets are when people are incentivised to perform to particular figures.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

What if they are incentivised by the threat of being punished?

[Lord Freud]

They are usually incentivised to reach targets, and we do not run a target regime. The no-targets message has gone out repeatedly.

[Lord Freud]

The difference is that where someone is not performing in line with the rest of the business for no good reason—in other words, where there is nothing different in the underlying constituency of the business—they are not operating the business in line with the standards that we have. That is entirely different from having targets, because it is understood that no figures are going out with instructions to achieve something. The message that there are no targets goes out repeatedly to jobcentre managers; there has been a reminder from the Work Services Directorate that there are no targets; and we will investigate if people have misunderstood that approach.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, this is pivotal. This is Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend by saying that I am mortified about the additional numbers on the other side as the result of our strenuous debate. I thought that we might have persuaded a few more to abstain.

I hope that the Minister can agree to this amendment. There are three broad reasons why we need new guidance and clarity on the sanctions regime: the issue of targets/norms, good cause and compliance. The Joseph Rowntree research that came out in December 2010 shows that claimants have a low level of awareness of sanctions and that the more disadvantaged they are, the higher the risk of sanctions and the less knowledge they have about them. This applies to young claimants, those with a disability, those with a poor education, those with large families and those from an ethnic minority. The research shows that they are not out to flout the system but that they have poor information or non-intentional behaviour such as forgetfulness. In that context, I want us to support my noble friend’s amendment.

I turn first to the issue of targets. The Minister was at some pains to explain to us earlier that “targets” is a relevant word only where you are rewarding behaviour, but when you are punishing it, that is a “norm”. We know that if you exceed, you get a target, and that if you underachieve, that is a norm. It is clear that targets or norms, whatever we want to call them, are the enemy of mitigation. Using them to allow the Secretary of State to claim clean hands while the staff do the dirty work under pressure from above is completely unacceptable. We need clear evidence, guidance and clarity from the Minister on the sanctions regime to ensure that targets do not stand in the way of mitigation. If people are allowed to mitigate and sanctions numbers therefore reduce, so will the targets, and staff will obviously have an incentive to fail to ensure that claimants follow good procedure and appropriate behaviour because they themselves face disciplinary action. That is a moral, or immoral, position, into which they should not be put.

Secondly, we need this guidance to ensure that claimants are aware that they may be able to mitigate sanctions by establishing good cause. My noble friend gave the example of the lone parent unable to attend an interview. Every parent in this House has had a child who has been sick and they may have missed an interview as a result. There is no doctor’s evidence because, by the next day, the child is well. Certainly that happened to me on numerous occasions. However, in this new, suspicious, look-for-any-benefit-cutting-excuse, hunt-them-down culture, of course we all now assume that any lone parent will keep her child at home and away from school simply to avoid an inconvenient interview. She says that the child was poorly, but why believe her? As she can provide no evidence, the office has got her and another tick is put on the whiteboard.

The third reason for needing guidance on mitigation is that, as the courts have indicated, claimants need to know and have a right to know how they may end their sanction by complying with jobcentre requirements. This issue marks the crucial line as to whether we are using sanctions to reduce the benefit bill or whether we are using them to change behaviour. If it is the first, giving little information or hope for people to find their way back into the system, then the Minister risks creating a growing underclass without income, without much hope and without any help. But people, as Carlyle pointed out 150 years ago, will not starve quietly. Some may have families to help them, and they will be the relatively lucky ones. Some may beg, while others will cross the line into thieving, drug selling and semi-criminal behaviour. This is what the Rowntree trust warns us of. They will come to regard social security laws, in so far as they understand them, and increasingly other laws, as not applicable to them. We will all then pay a high price. If it is the second—that instead of simply trying to cut the benefit bill on any hook we can find, we want people to change their behaviour and sanctions are part of the tough love regime, as I believe they should be—then we absolutely must encourage people to end sanctions by complying with what they are expected to do. When they do so, we should rejoice, even though it means fewer ticks on the whiteboard of targets to be met.

Research evidence shows up that up to two-thirds of those sanctioned do not know the whys or wherefores, or what they can do about it. The Minister, whose integrity we totally respect, accepted at Second Reading that that was indeed the case and that therefore the issue of sanctions had to be revisited. If the issue has to be revisited, he should now accept my noble friend’s amendment, because it amplifies what he himself has already agreed. Mitigation means ending the culture of targets and, incidentally, protecting any whistleblowers in the process. It means ensuring that people have the help that they need to claim good cause where that exists and it ensures mitigation so that claimants will know how they can end the sanction by conforming to benefit requirements. I hope that all in this Committee agree on these three goals. In which case, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the way in which claimants can mitigate any penalty imposed under the ESE or MWA regulations after the Act comes into force, is unnecessary, as this information is provided to claimants as a matter of standard practice. When a claimant is issued with a benefit sanction, they are as a matter of course sent a letter explaining the decision made and what effect it will have. The letter clearly tells claimants that if they want to appeal the decision, they should fill in leaflet GL24, If you think our Decision is Wrong, and that claimants can,

“get this leaflet from your Jobcentre or Social Security Office”.

Attached to the sanctions letter are two leaflets: leaflet 1NF1, on appealing against a decision and leaflet JSA9, the hardship leaflet). I have both of these leaflets with me today.

The leaflet on appealing against a decision explains in plain English who the claimant should contact if they want to know more about the decision or, if they think the decision was wrong, how to appeal it and what support they may get in formulating that appeal. The hardship leaflet explains what financial support is available, the eligibility criteria and how to apply for hardship, and provides the form they must fill in to claim hardship. The whole process is done as a matter of course and, indeed, is on the record and available for anyone to see how those leaflets work.

I turn to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on recompliance. If a claimant has been issued with a 26-week sanction but has complied in the intervening period, they will be served with a four-week sanction. Recompliance is not particular to any scheme and can include participation in any other scheme. Of course, the sanctions regime has changed, so if the failure to participate was before 22 October last year, the old regime, which includes the re-engagement, applies. However, if the failure to participate is after 22 October, the current sanctions regime, which has no engagement and which builds up, will apply. That goes on the time of the failure to participate.

The noble Baroness was concerned about the time between the failure and the sanction being imposed on the stockpiled cases. I am sorry that I have not yet found a better word than stockpiled but it is for cases not people. As I said on an earlier amendment, the process of finding that information takes place immediately on the failure. They receive a letter and need to provide good cause at that point. Clearly, where there is a problem and there needs to be amplification, and there is a problem of information or evidence, the decision-maker will have to take that into account in the normal way, given that there is a gap and it is a justifiable lacuna.

As a matter of course, the cases that we have stockpiled will get issued with a sanction and receive the standard letter, and those accompanying leaflets that I outlined. This amendment is therefore superfluous and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Thursday 21st March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it was clearly laid down in the primary legislation that that was an expectation, and they were informed by their advisers of that expectation. We are looking now at a subsequent finding by the Court of Appeal, on which we have asked for leave to appeal. However, nobody could have anticipated the finding, which is in dispute. There was a lot more information going to clients than was in that letter, because they were in communication with their advisers.

One of the fundamental points at issue here is that we are trying to design a much more flexible welfare system in which we individualise responses. That means that we do not send out loads of generic letters with long lines of prose about what will happen if you do this, that or the other. We are aiming to have a specific conversation with people through a flexible system.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, surely the Minister has accepted his own department’s research that up to two-thirds of those sanctioned did not understand that the failure to do as they were asked or told to do would result in a sanction. They did not know, and his department’s research confirms that.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness on this—the sanctions have not been well designed. We are redesigning the whole regime, as we did in the recent Act, to make sure that people understand what sanctions are about.

Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we know how many people will get the higher mobility component, a figure that will clearly be fewer under PIP than under DLA. I have provided those figures but, just for the record, the figure of roughly 1 million people on the DLA component in a steady state will reduce to roughly 600,000. That is the decline. What we do not have, and therefore find it difficult to comment on, is a read-across from how many people are on the full mobility allowance to those who have a Motability contract, because that is a private matter. Motability runs its operation separately from us; it is a charitable operation. It is therefore impossible for us or anyone to calculate a read-across of the percentage of people on Motability contracts who will be affected.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, perhaps I may pursue the Minister on that point about statistics. When we were discussing this elsewhere, he agreed that actually 200,000 people who currently get the lower rate because of problems of supervision, psychological issues associated with outside movement and so on would now get the enhanced rate. Therefore, the number of those who are losing the allowance on the grounds of physical disability only is not 400,000 but 600,000.

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords, there is some churn. By the time we reach 2018, we will be out beyond the major review process that we will have. The figures are therefore quite tentative for that stage. I am providing them to your Lordships but they are indicative. Clearly, there will be some churn, but the point is that we are trying to direct PIP at the people who really need it.

In closing, it is simply not possible for me to confirm, deny or reach any figures in answer to the noble Lord’s question on how many cars will go.

Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Again, I thank noble Lords for some very good contributions. This is not the easiest or most digestible set of regulations. They very much replicate the existing decisions and appeals provisions but, just as the welfare reform agenda has provided an opportunity to reduce the complex range of income-related benefits, with the introduction of UC, it has also provided an opportunity to rationalise the rules governing the administration of these new benefits. This consolidated set of regulations does that by ensuring that the rules underpinning decisions and appeal rights are clearer and more accessible, benefiting both claimants and, indeed, the department.

On the detail of mandatory reconsideration, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in particular, that we will closely monitor the impact on claimants, the quality of decision-making and appeal rates during the early stages of implementation. It is a key change that will improve claimants’ experience of the appeals process if we get it right. We will also monitor appeal volumes more broadly, particularly with the introduction of the new benefits, UC and PIP. We will review and amend the advice for decision-makers guidance as necessary, and if we find that the regulations are at fault there is an option to amend them.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, regarding the time limit, the key issue is that we will be able to handle some cases with extreme speed while others may take more time, particularly where we need to ask for more evidence. I will commit to keeping noble Lords updated on that matter. On reconsiderations, we envisage that the first point of call will be to our staff, but some people may choose to go to an independent advice centre, although we had not been envisaging this as part of the role of the local support service.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If the Minister will allow me, could he reconsider that last point? I had wondered whether to intervene following my noble friend’s contribution on legal advice. It would be extremely valuable if the local support services, which are there helping people to move from paper forms to online forms for a brand-new benefit structure, et cetera, were able to give claimants the sort of legal or welfare advice steer that they would have got elsewhere in the past. For example, I remember vividly cases in which parents were trying to claim DLA for children under the age of two, which is of course simply not possible. That sort of advice and guidance could very well be served by the local support services and would pay dividends in cash, as well as in buy-in to the whole UC procedure, if the Minister could ensure it.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the best I can do is to have a think about it. The issue is the balance of what we are trying to get the local support service, which is a partnership approach, to do. I want to get the balance of that right, and I will take that away and think about it. Clearly, at some basic level there will be that kind of support; it is the extent to which it becomes a more formalised process. However, as I said, I will have a think about that point.

The point about ESA is that there is a long-standing provision for it to continue during an appeal. That will continue, so there is no change there. The only difference from the current arrangements is in this rather short period of reconsideration, during which ESA will not be payable. Once the appeal starts, ESA will go into payment, as it does currently. I hope that I have just nailed that point and that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is not looking puzzled deliberately but understands it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

But the payment is in arrears for the previous month.

[Lord Freud]

Yes, the payment reflects what happened in the previous month, but it gives you what you need for the month that you are going to be spending that money in. I will take this debate outside over a cup of—sorry, over a glass of something; I think vodka is appropriate. I will argue this right the way through, because I think it is the most benign way to ensure that people have the appropriate amount of money for each month.

On the point about the advice sector, we are looking at working closely with the advice sector to look at how the existing infrastructure can be used to support claimants with complex needs, and we are looking at new services that we need to develop to ensure that claimants have access to the right support. I have already talked about the multimillion pound support package from the Cabinet Office and the Big Lottery Fund.

I hope that I can offer some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the question of supported exempt accommodation. I pulled this area out from the universal credit because I could see that people often came through these accommodations quite rapidly, and it just was not the appropriate way of doing this. We have left that for the time being but with a view to ensuring that there is a sustainable financial regime for this kind of accommodation.

I have to confess to the noble Baroness that I have heard concerns only recently that some of the kinds of accommodation that we would want to support are not within our definition of support-exempt accommodation. I will look at that when we look at the whole thing, and we will consult on it. It is an important issue that we have right up front.

I do not have numbers on payment exceptions. We do not want to set targets for this, but a useful figure to bear in mind in the private-rented sector is that currently about 25% of private-rental claimants have their landlord paid direct. We are trying to get as many people as possible to pay their own landlords.

Social Security (Payments on Account of Benefit) Regulations 2013

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am now completely baffled by the approach that the department is taking. On the one hand, the money-lending teams, which are obviously doing well, are seeking to exterminate illegal loan sharks and so on, but they exist because there is a demand for cheap credit, otherwise they would not be in business at all. We obviously respect what the Minister is trying to do with credit unions, which are an appropriate alternative—if, of course, you have first saved—but given that he has now agreed that the maximum figure for single people is £348, £464 for couples and £812 for families with children, why not use those figures as the maximum cap that people can borrow against for their payments on account, rather than be confined to one loan? Thereby, if you have taken out £70 or £120, you cannot take any more until you have paid that back. If you are going to have those caps, regard them as the caps against which money can be borrowed on several occasions and you will therefore teach people how to manage credit as well as income. I suggest that that would be much more appropriate, given the Minister’s other objectives, which we entirely share.

[Lord Freud]

This is a fascinating area because, following the growth of the micro-loan industry particularly in Bangladesh, where it started—it has spread all around the world—the lessons on helping people to learn how to budget are very much along the lines of giving someone a loan which they pay back before they get the next loan. There is therefore a real learning process. In our approach, we are picking up this global phenomenon, whereby we will provide credit—in practice, free credit behind which there is a discipline—which has to be repaid before the next loan is available. It is very much the same thinking as that which we see globally.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

If people know they can get only that amount, they will borrow more than they need at that point, knowing that that is it, whereas, as both of my noble friends are suggesting, you could have £100 here and £100 there, as you need it. I suggest that it would be good to look at this again.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I would artificially inflate my bid, knowing what you are doing to me. That would be a very foolish way to encourage me to learn how to manage credit.

[Lord Freud]

I can see that I am in the presence of experts—in an observatory context—on how people manipulate any system at all. I shall take away your thoughts, as always, about the fact that some gamesmanship may be going on.

It is getting very late so I shall wrap up. When you look at local authority provision, there are clearly opportunities. It is for each local authority to consider its own local circumstances. We are in the process of getting information about the details of those schemes, which will perhaps provide goods or services and some will provide cash. Then we shall be able to report back at the appropriate time when we have some more information.

I hope I have dealt with the questions. Clearly there will be teething problems, as there is with anything new, but we will monitor this very closely as part of our evaluation programme, and that will cover the introduction of universal credit. In addition, the intention is to review specifically universal credit advances and budgeting advances in 2017. Short-term advances for those on legacy benefits will also be monitored and evaluated. I commend the regulations to the House.

Social Security (Loss of Benefit) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am particularly grateful that this has been quite a short debate. I appreciate the words of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I do think that the debates we have on these matters are of an extraordinarily high quality. One of the reasons for that is that my department makes an effort to get information out to noble Lords so that these quite complicated matters can be understood and we do not waste a lot of time on points that are just misunderstood. However, I am deeply impressed by the number of people who have expended so much intellectual energy on gaining an understanding of what is in effect a rebuild of our social affairs. I appreciate that very much. As I say, I have taken a lot of ideas from noble Lords and I hope to be able to go on doing so. I therefore thank all noble Lords who have taken part in these debates.

I have one bit of information and one idea to steal from the noble Lord. We think that with the immediate three-year penalty for serious fraud, we estimate that there will be something in the order of 400 cases a year by 2020. The idea I want to take from the noble Lord is one that I do not think we have at the moment. It concerns the redirection of the payment away from the fraudster. That is actually a smart idea in these cases, and perhaps we shall claim it.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, this issue arose on the very first debate of the day. Will the noble Lord apply it where all sanctions occur, thus ensuring that there is an assumption that there will be a switch of payment to the main carer?

[Lord Freud]

The noble Baroness always takes a finger and seizes the rest of the arm. I have said that I will look at the idea.

It is clear that we do not have an effective deterrent at the moment. The view from the survey shows that people do not think that there is much to worry about from being caught out. We hope that the new regime will actually make people stop and think before committing a fraud. That is its intention, and I welcome the cross-party support for that. I therefore commend these regulations to the House.

Taxation: Families

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Thursday 17th January 2013 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this has been an interesting and important debate, and I am grateful to all those who have contributed. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, referred to the quality of the debate; there was something interesting in all the speeches, which is not always the case. I therefore thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for securing the debate.

I shall set some context for the debate before I try to deal with as many of the points raised as possible. The arguments for our programme of tax and welfare reform are well rehearsed. We have heard much discussion in the media, in Parliament and elsewhere on the welfare and tax policies that the Government have planned. However, I think that it is worth me touching on the rationale for our programme of reform.

We have already made significant progress in tackling the fiscal challenge that we faced when we came into office. We inherited the largest deficit in more than 60 years and, since then, welfare spending has risen from 11% of GDP in 2007-08 to more than 13% today, including pensions and working-age payments. In a constrained fiscal climate, this puts real pressure on key public services and is unsustainable. The deficit has now been reduced by a quarter, and we have created more than 1.2 million private sector jobs. Even if we play around with the small anomaly of those who are on skills training, there has been a huge increase in private sector jobs.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, raised a question about cumulative impacts, and I was fascinated by her sums on this. However, I need to point out that this Government publish impacts of benefit and tax changes alongside each Budget and Autumn Statement. That is something that previous Governments did not do.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is the Minister acknowledging that the Government have not published a cumulative analysis of the cuts, benefits and tax changes since 2010? If he is so doing, which I think is what he has said, it is still done slice by slice. Can we hope that he will do so—will he give a commitment to do so in future?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it is bluntly impossible to do a total cumulative assessment. I have looked at doing it, and you do not know what to put in and what to leave out. No one has done it in the past; it is not possible. Doing it year by year, as we do, is the best we can do—and it gives a fair view of what happens in a particular year.

I shall continue. While we are taking action to reduce the deficit, we have continued to support families by cutting tax for more than 24 million working people, lifting 2 million of the lowest-paid workers out of income tax altogether. Further freezes in council tax this year will help families with the cost of living by keeping the cost of council tax bills down. Here I pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, about localising council tax support. That is being done because it is at the local level where the need for particular support is best understood, and we have announced additional funding of £100 million to support that process. More widely, we are investing heavily in low-income families by supporting the most disadvantaged through every stage of their education.

On the question raised by my noble friend Lady Jenkin, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, and my noble friend Lord Bates, the Government remain committed to recognising marriage in the tax and benefits system. That is as far as I can go today. On the point raised by the right reverend Prelate on child benefit, it will be completely removed only from families that include someone earning over £60,000, and 90% of families will continue to receive child benefit.

It is clear that decisive action is needed to control the damaged and hugely expensive welfare system that we inherited. Labour increased spending on benefits and tax credits by £75 billion and, in real terms, expenditure on all working-age benefits increased from £59 billion in 1997-98 to almost £95 billion in 2010-11, in today’s money. These increases are simply unsustainable. In tax credits, spending increased by £23 billion in real terms between the same two dates, which meant that nine out of 10 families with children became eligible for tax credits—a point made by my noble friend Lady Jenkin. In some cases, families could receive more than £70,000 in earnings and still be entitled. It is clear that, given this level of generosity, we could not protect child benefit and tax credits from the need to make welfare savings.

The Government have not shied away from acknowledging that tough decisions are needed, and we are committed to ensuring that savings measures are taken in the fairest possible way. That is why the 10% richest households will contribute most as a result of the tax and benefit changes that we are making. My noble friend Lord German inquired about that. Overall, as a result of recent changes, we may have reduced the marginal rate from 50% to 45%, but everyone in this House will be familiar with the impact of the Laffer curve. What really counts is how much total tax is taken from the richest; a quarter of all income tax is paid by the top 1% of earners, and the top 5% pay about £50,000. In practice, our changes mean that, overall, the richest will pay £1,000 a year each more in tax, not less, as has been claimed.

It is reasonable to expect the richest to pay their fair share, and it was equally important that we took action to ensure that people on benefits did not receive support that far outweighed the income received by many families who do not rely on benefits to get by. We have, for example, done away with the frighteningly high rates of housing benefit in the private rented sector, and from April this year we are applying an overall benefit cap so that households on out-of-work benefits no longer receive more in welfare payments than the average weekly wage for working households.

The year 2013 is pivotal for welfare reform. The introduction of universal credit and the personal independence payment in April will kick off the most fundamental reforms of working-age benefits for generations. I am pleased to tell my noble friend Lord German that we aim, still on time, to start universal credit on 29 April as a pilot, moving to a national basis in October. The universal credit system creates a seamless system of support to make work pay. People will be able to keep more of their income as they move into work, and it delivers a smoother and more transparent scheme that does away with the administrative difficulties created by switching between benefits and tax credits.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, made a particular point on universal credit and the self-employed. She made a point about the carry-forward, and I can tell her that I am aiming to introduce something for that to work efficiently; that will be in time for when the people who need it will be using it, so I hope that I can reassure her on that important point.

In the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced measures to tackle the rise in spending on benefits and tax credits by increasing the majority of working-age benefits by 1% for the next three years. The savings in that Statement amount to £2.8 billion in 2015-16. We are aiming here to strike the right balance between the support we provide and the need to tackle the spiralling cost of the welfare bill. Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on disabled people, we are protecting those elements of ESA support, the disability elements of tax credits and the main disability benefits—DLA, carer’s allowance, attendance allowance and incapacity benefit. While I am discussing the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about disability—picking up his query on PIP—I suspect we will have a chance to talk about that more next week. There is not a difference: the 50 metre to 20 metre change does not create any substantial difference in entitlement. I will be able to go into that in some more detail.

Although the Government are committed to supporting working families, it would be unrealistic to exclude that group entirely from our savings measures. Although some families will be affected by the tax credit and child benefit changes, we need to put this into context: working households will gain by an average of £125 in 2013-14. Households will, on average, gain—no matter where they sit in the income distribution.

A lot has been made of the suggestion that 81% of the £1 billion or so raised by the tax and benefit changes will come from women. However, the analysis underpinning the 81% figure misrepresents the true impact of welfare reforms on women. It assumes that because the payment of child benefit is to women, its restriction hits women; but the reality is that in many cases it goes into households. The real figure, if you do that analysis, moves from the 80% or so figure to the 60% or so figure. The Government continue to support women and their families through their tax; 80% of households with children will see their tax credits increase. The across-the-board freeze in council tax bills will help families with the cost of living.

Picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on PIP for carers, I remind her that we are committed to linking carers to receipt of either rate of the daily living component of PIP. That is the underlying reason why the impact assessment published in May 2012 showed that broadly the same number would be entitled to the carer’s allowance. Of course, continuing on her theme, where a carer lives in the same household as someone who is disabled, the benefit cap will not apply anyway, because that is one of the exclusions.

On childcare, we are spending an additional £200 million on universal credit and the focus of that is on families who work fewer than 16 hours a week. This investment will mean that 100,000 more families will be helped as they move into work. The Childcare Commission has been considering the cost of childcare in England and we expect its report to be published soon, so there will be further developments on that.

Turning to child poverty, by the relative income measure, the previous Government may have made some progress in moving children from out-of-work households out of poverty, but the effect on children from in-work families was considerably less. As my noble friend Lord Bates pointed out, work is the best route out of poverty. However, only 13% of the reduction in child poverty between 1998 and 2010, came from this fundamental route of families moving into work. That is where universal credit is so important: our estimates are that up to 300,000 more people will enter work as a result of the introduction of universal credit through improved financial incentives alone; 75% of the gainers from universal credit are in the bottom 40% of the income distribution.

Universal credit will make it easier for people to understand the level of benefit to which they are entitled—compared to the current complex system of benefits and tax credits—and significantly improve the take-up of unclaimed entitlements. That is a powerful tool in tackling poverty, because in 2009 it was estimated that 400,000 of the people living in relative income poverty were doing so because their families were not receiving all the benefits to which they were entitled.

I need to point out the importance of our White Paper on pensions, published earlier this week. The reforms will give a boost to the people who lost out on the additional state pension in the past, such as low earners and self-employed people. About 750,000 women who reach state pension age in the first 10 years after the single-tier pension is introduced will receive an average of £9 a week more in state pension because of the single-tier valuation. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, this Government are committed to protecting pensioners—much though she may resent it. We have legislated to restore the link to earnings for the basic state pension, and are committed to the triple lock.

On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about relative beneficiaries, the people in the middle have been squeezed quite savagely in recent years overall. I refer her to the interesting article in the Financial Times suggesting that those brackets were back at the levels of 2002-03, whereas the bottom 30% had increased their income in real terms by 3% or 4%.

Our fundamental welfare reforms will transform the welfare system by 2017. The replacement of many of the current suite of income-related benefits and tax credits with our flagship reform—universal credit—will provide a streamlined and transparent scheme that will mean that 3 million families will be better off, on average, by about £168 a month. In April this year, the largest ever increase to personal allowances will benefit 24 million people and lift 1.1 million people out of income tax altogether. Our tax measures, coupled with a modern benefit system, will demonstrate that supporting families remains an absolute priority for this Government.

Welfare Benefits: Women

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the reason for the reduction in child benefit for those on higher incomes is so that it could be implemented in this way. As my noble friend will know, it has been adjusted to provide a taper at £50,000 to £60,000 to smooth that transition.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the noble Lord’s right honourable friends in the other place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, are waging war on so-called shirkers, in part by cutting their benefits. However, as my noble friend has said, two-thirds of those benefit cuts are falling on women. If you take into account changes in pensions, pay and taxes, more than 80% of the cuts are falling on women who are bringing up children, caring for the elderly and holding down a part-time job at minimum wage. Does the Minister agree with his right honourable friends that apparently the face of a shirker is now that of a mother, a carer and a woman?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as regards the reduction, or potentially below-inflation increase, in benefits, a lot is happening in the economy in relative terms. Today’s article in the Financial Times is one of the best analyses of that that I have seen. I am sure that others have seen that article, which shows how squeezed people are in the middle and upper-middle tiers of income distribution. They have fallen right back to the level of earnings in 2002-03, while real incomes in the bottom 30% were 3% to 4% higher than they were. That is the context in which we are looking at the adjustments to the benefit levels.

Personal Independence Payment

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, clearly what we are talking about today is a centralised national process. There are social care provisions on the ground which local authorities are responsible for. PIP will be far more consistent and, indeed, objective than the current DLA, where the criteria for deciding who is entitled to DLA have become increasingly fuzzy. That is one of the problems associated with DLA. The money is designed to deal with the extra costs of being disabled, and those costs are incurred whether someone is in work or out of work—they are extra costs that need to be borne. However, the point of it being made as a payment, as opposed to a provision, is so that people can decide where best to apply those funds. As the right reverend Prelate said, some people will decide on the softer things, which for certain people are just as important as the harder requirements, but it is up to them to decide how to spend that money.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I wish to make two brief comments. First, I have a question, which I am sure the noble Lord will be able to answer. Of the 170,000 people who are going to lose DLA when it moves to PIP, how many are on the current lower-level rate? Secondly, perhaps I may challenge the Minister to be wary of the assumption that DLA should be an objective test. It was never intended to be as such in 1992, when we introduced it, primarily because two people with the same objective disability may have very different competences in coping with that disability. It will depend on their resilience, their family support, their educational ability and their financial resources. Because DLA was person-centred and not a box-ticking exercise against some objective at their assessment, it was able to respond to that difference in competence, as well as to the depth of the disability. I very much hope that the Minister will not be led by a false myth into thinking that this can be reduced to an objective account of external health or mental health which is standardised across the country. It cannot be and, in my view, it should not be.

I support my noble friend very strongly in urging the department to come up with a layered assessment of how all of those benefit changes are interacting. I share briefly with the House a letter I received from a disabled middle-aged lady in an eastern region city who lives in a two-bedroom bungalow. She has rented a nearby garage so that she can charge up her mobility scooter. She is now faced with a housing benefit cut and losing one of her bedrooms of her bungalow, but as she says, there is no one-bedroom bungalow for her to go to. She has had a wet room installed under the disability facilities grant, so if she moves out within five years she would have to repay the grant. If she moves she has to repay the grant; if she stays she has a housing benefit cut. On top of that, she will almost certainly be forced to pay 20% for the first time on council tax, even though she is on benefit, and on top of that, some of her DLA support may also be questioned under PIP. What advice will the noble Lord give me to give to that lady?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, if I can deal with those in order. We do not have a breakdown of where people have moved from.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords—

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 15th October 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That will not do.

[Lord Freud]

I could go on for longer about this. Rural areas will need to look hard at the options of adaptations to property, lodging, moving or paying for the extra room. One issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is that this is not directed at pensioners who want to move down. The reason for that is the concern that it is pretty stressful for very old people to have these kinds of pressures on them. If we are to have this decision that we cannot afford to support people with extra bedrooms—they can of course have them, if they can find a way of paying for them—and have that mechanism happen to people who are still of working age and capable of making the adjustment, rather than to pensioners, then as time moves on you will move the cohort up into the pensioner group. That is what is happening with that particular issue. It is a timing issue.

On the sums and my noble friend’s question about what will be available, I will try to give a few figures for context. We expect probably around 400,000 underoccupiers to need the one-bedroom properties according to these size criteria. If we look at surveys that have been done—I am thinking particularly of the Housing Futures Network survey—around 25% of those people are likely to look for an actual move. In the previous financial year, there were about 100,000 new lettings of one-bedroom properties in the social rented sector in England and around 25,000 new dwellings completed.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

And about double that on the waiting list.

[Lord Freud]

There is an implication in that: who takes priority for those new houses and then who do you take off the waiting list for the larger properties? There is then a kind of order of position that becomes somewhat more manageable. Do not forget some of the examples given, such as that there would be children in these rooms. The reality is that for the bulk of people affected by this, their children have left home. That is why they have too many bedrooms. I think the figure is—I am plucking a number from my memory—70% of the people affected by this. I will be hit hard by someone if I have the wrong figure and I will get the right one in a second but, from memory, 70% of these people do not have their children at home. That is obvious because of the underoccupancy effect.

I responded to the question on DHP use from the noble Lord, Lord Best. We are not talking about a ring-fence system with the DHPs. When you have very hard cases, of the kind discussed this afternoon, local authorities can move in and help.

As to the total figure, I have already given that as £165 million for next year. That is made up of the baseline funding of £20 million, £40 million from the LHA reforms, £30 million from the social sector—under the size criteria that we are talking about—and £75 million from the benefit cap. These are the kind of figures for people who have multiple effects.

I must correct my earlier figure of 70%. My memory was just slightly faulty; the figure is actually 66%, not 70%. I apologise.

This is a good time to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about making an assurance. Actually, it was not Lord Best. Who wanted that assurance?

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 14th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

No, my Lords. The department has an international wing that monitors this matter very closely and is on top of it. It has lawyers and also takes advice from lawyers—although formally I am not allowed to say that we ever consult lawyers internally for advice. I think that is the position. All I can say is that there are many ramifications to this. I am not playing games. I am quite worried about the implications for our whole benefits system.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

In my experience in the department, over eight years and with a dozen Bills, the legal advice was usually gold-plated. When I scratched it, I realised that we were going over the top. Most outcomes that were predicted on such things as pensions did not occur. I urge the Minister to adopt an appropriate degree of scepticism toward the legal advice that comes his way.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am always delighted to take the advice of someone who occupied my room in the department for so many years—although I think that there is a progression and that ignoring it early on does not mean that it will not come back. I will not go into this in too much detail. I am sure that the noble Baroness did not mean to say that I was making it up, because I was not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion F. If I can just get to the right place—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Do the acceptance speech.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

When we were in opposition we certainly did not vote on a fatal basis, which was our policy. If the House feels strongly about a set of regulations and the Opposition do not have such a self-denying ordinance—which I think they do not—they can express their view in a vote on the regulations.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the Minister is encouraging us to defy all the conventions of the House. Perhaps I may say gently that he really should not go down this path. First, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is absolutely right: you cannot amend regulations. If you could, you would be in the game of primary legislation, because you would be toing and froing. Equally, if the House of Commons were to pass those regulations and we decided to overturn them, then the non-elected House would be overturning the will of the elected House. Both major parties have respected—I repeat, respected—that convention for the full 20 or so years that I have been in your Lordships’ House.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, before I say a few words of my own, I have to admit that the very last question from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was a tribute to him. It is quite difficult to answer; it is in a tricky area. We are pretty confident that we can maintain the position whereby it is only EU jobseekers whom we have to support and not others. As the noble Lord will know, we are moving from providing particular support in JSA to providing general support. That is where the protection is. We are hopeful that, by and large, we can maintain it, but there may be some shadowing of that position.

It is a shame that the crowds trying to get out of our deliberations earlier on slowed down the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I can clarify that we had a useful conversation on monitoring cancer patients and I said that the statistics which come out quarterly would become national statistics. I committed to look at what they would show in order to assess how the face-to-face process and other issues were dealt with. She very kindly said that she would help me with that after the consultation. Although we did not debate it, the position is now sufficiently clear on the record.

I do not think that we have seen the last of this Bill, but we have passed a significant point at Third Reading. Perhaps I may use this opportunity to place on record my thanks to noble Lords right around the House for the way in which they have been so constructive, have thought through the issues and been absolutely on the point. I have seen in other Bills a lot of grabbing of the wrong end of the stick and waving it about vigorously, but we have not had that here. Our deliberations have been outstanding. I shall not name all the contributors because it would take all evening—and I would forget someone, which would be invidious.

I was going to say how pleased I was that we had got universal credit through unchanged, but I cannot say that any more. Had it not been for today, we would have had it through. I know that what we are trying to do with universal credit has been understood. The complexity of universal credit is such that, if noble Lords had not appreciated it, it could have been cut to shreds and rendered completely unworkable and basically a disaster. I really appreciate the fact that it has not happened, except on one occasion.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

It has not happened.

[Lord Freud]

This is my speech.

I need to thank my noble friend Lady Garden for her support on the Front Bench, and my noble friend Lord De Mauley for his proficiency in covering a number of clauses. He drew one of the short straws, but he did it manfully.

I need to thank also the Bill team—a few of them are in the Box—who have been absolutely stunning in supporting me all the way through. As some of your Lordships have said, they have supported a lot of noble Lords in this process. The access and one-to-one contact that they offered were probably why the wrong end of the stick was not waggled quite so vigorously as it could have been. I hope that the whole House will join me in thanking them for their phenomenal support.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the Minister reminded the House that the current maximum weekly repayment for overpayments is some £10 a week. Will he assure the House that when a local decision-maker decides on the pattern of repayments that may be appropriate, one of the key factors to be taken into account is any other debts and debt repayments that that person may have? Under the old social security system the rule was that no more than 10 per cent of a benefit income should be top-sliced to repay debts for utilities, the Social Fund and the like. Can we have that assurance? Otherwise someone could find themselves trying to repay housing, fuel and pay check debts, and now overpayment debts. Each claim may seem reasonable, but the total may plunge the benefit recipient into total desperation.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I think I can give that assurance on the basis that we are looking at financial hardship as the key criterion. Clearly the benefit recipient’s other debts form part of that consideration, so they will clearly be considered.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Does the Minister think it reasonable that no more than 10 per cent of total benefit income should go towards the repayment of any or all other debts.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am not sure that I am in a position to give assurance on precise figures and percentages. I am giving a general assurance that that factor will be looked at as part of the financial hardship consideration.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can I ask the Minister whether “before too long” would be before Third Reading? We have had lots of debates in Committee on the words “too long”, “too soon”, “soon”, and “very soon”. Could the Minister help us? What sort of timescale does he have in mind on that?

[Lord Freud]

No, that will be beyond the Bill becoming an Act, so we are looking at how we do this in regulations.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Given that we are expecting a localism Bill next year—I guess—would it be incorporated in that, so the House would have a chance to amend? The trouble with regulations is that you cannot amend, whereas with primary legislation you can.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are going to spend a lot of time on getting this right. It is not something we want frozen in primary legislation. In fact, it would be very uncomfortable to freeze these items in primary legislation. Regulation is the right place to do these things. We have a consultation paper out on how we may move forward with temporary accommodation. There are some very obvious solutions within that—I touched on them earlier this evening—comprising separating out service charges and housing costs rather than bundling them up; that is where the temporary accommodation becomes so expensive. We need to get a solution to this so that we do not have a ludicrous go-round of people moving into expensive temporary accommodation which they can no longer pay for because of the cap. We are absolutely aware of this and have measures in train to get a solution in the round to that issue. However, it is not a simple set of issues.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

We are very much trying not to make people fit into boxes. We are not saying, “Because you have that condition, that’s your relevant position”. We are trying to look at people as individuals. Clearly, you go through all these criteria very carefully and reach a judgment. It is almost impossible for me to say whether a particular person would hit the assessment criteria or not. You just have to go through it and see. However, we clearly expect someone to get a payment who has genuine needs for coping with life because of their disability. That is what it is designed for. I cannot answer the specific question, but I can tell the noble Baroness the principle—where that person needs that support as a result of their disability, they should get it.

When we develop an assessment for PIP, we have to balance a range of factors. A complete model should include all the perspectives and important interactions between an individual, their health and the environment. That is what the biopsychosocial model does. There are limitations in considering only a single perspective, and this is a much more holistic approach.

I do not accept the criticism that our proposals do not truly reflect the extra costs faced by disabled people. As I have tried to explain, it would not be feasible to assess the actual costs without something hugely intrusive to disabled people and very complicated. We therefore have to assess other factors as a proxy for these costs. We are using “care” and “mobility” in DLA, which we do not think are broad enough. So, in our draft assessment criteria we have a range of everyday activities for PIP that we believe are a good proxy for the impact of impairments, the overall level of disabled people’s needs and the extra disability-related costs. We will go on refining those; we will not just stop when we finish the consultation in April.

The proposals have taken into account many of the key drivers of cost that Scope and others are obviously concerned about. For example, individuals who have difficulty getting out are likely to have higher utility bills, while those who need support planning a journey and moving about are likely to have higher transport costs. The proxies and associated criteria should therefore allow us to prioritise spend on those who face the greatest challenge and expense. In answer to my noble friend Lady Thomas’s point on the tick-box assessment, the proposals, which have been around since May, are very much not a tick-box approach; they are trying to look at people’s functional capability.

We have changed the assessment very considerably as a result of the enormous amount of engagement that we have with disabled people and their organisations. We will go on doing that. However, if we had fundamentally to revisit our approach in the way in which the amendment would require, we would have to go back to the drawing broad, spend more time developing and testing, and have greater consultation. It would push back the start of PIP by at least a year and reduce savings over the reassessment period by £1.4 billion. This is, I think, the priciest amendment yet.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

You wait.

[Lord Freud]

This is about doing the right thing for people and focusing money on them; it is not about playing silly games—by which I mean that we are not playing silly games here and we are determined to get this right. We are consulting widely and know that we have the right approach with the model that we are using. I understand the noble Baroness’s position, but we do not think that the Bill should specify that the assessment should consider social and environmental factors. That approach would be inappropriate and unworkable, because we need the assessment to be straightforward, objective and consistent. We would lose £1.4 billion of savings. For that combination of reasons, these amendments are not acceptable to the Government. Just for the avoidance of any doubt whatever, I confirm that the Government see Amendments 50ZJ to 50ZQ and Amendments 51A and 52A as directly consequential upon Amendment 50ZH. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

That is an assessment based on the delays that we anticipate from this amendment, which is actually similar to the previous amendment where I used the same figure. It would have the same effect of delaying the whole process. That is the Government’s position, having worked through the implications of the amendment.

I remind the House of where the Opposition have got to with their amendments. We estimate that as a result of the votes on amendments so far, over five years they have imposed £3.8 billion-worth of extra costs, and this amendment will take that figure to £5.2 billion.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry to see a Minister, whose integrity and respect for evidence has been apparent to the whole House, going back to the box-ticking, false assumption that there are no political choices available to this House. There are plenty of political choices if the Minister wishes to use them—for example, freezing council tax, increasing council tax bands, looking at some of the things that go on in pensions tax relief and so on. It is not clear to me that the economic growth of this country depends on taking away DLA from some of the most disabled people in the country.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I do not want to debate where alternative cuts would be found by the Opposition if they were in government and needing to balance the budget. All I can tell you is that the effect of the amendments that the Opposition have supported comes to that figure. It is amazing how, given an amendment here and an amendment there, pretty soon you are talking serious billions. I am afraid that this is another amendment which involves a serious amount of money and, for that reason, it is not acceptable to the Government. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Has the Minister learnt from this that the best way to encourage more sweetness and light is to agree with the amendments from all around the House?

[Lord Freud]

There are some other constraints that I do not think I need to spell out. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, we are picking up the same arrangements for DLA including those for residential schools and colleges. On that basis, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I first want to put absolutely on the record that we are not talking about the constant assessment of everyone. That is simply not how it is going to work. To the extent that there is concern about people being dragged in to face assessors every year, that is simply not how it is going to work.

When we talk about having another assessment for some people who have deteriorating conditions, noble Lords have to remember that they might have started on the lower rate of PIP and that in practice the assessment will move them to the higher rate at that time. DLA is an understudied phenomenon. It was studied by the previous Government in 2004-05 and it was found that £630 million was overpaid. That was not as a result of fraud; it was just that people no longer fitted the rather easier criteria of DLA that were in place when they applied, although we do not know where they fitted when they did apply. Just as worrying was the finding in that year that £190 million was underpaid. We want to make sure that the money goes to people in the right way in both ways.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I was the Minister responsible for those reports at that time, and I have to say to him that they did not apply to people with lifetime conditions. People with lifetime conditions should get lifetime awards. Clearly, if someone deteriorates, they or their carer may apply further, but the information on DLA that the Minister referred to was either about people with fluctuating conditions or about people who had become better but had not realised that they might no longer qualify as a result, and so on. We had no argument with the need to continue to review DLA for people whose conditions may change quite rapidly over a period of time, particularly if they have been recovering from an accident, and so on. We are talking here about lifetime conditions in which it is therefore decent to give lifetime awards. I can assure the noble Lord that the statistics to which he referred do not refer to that group.

[Lord Freud]

As I understand the statistics, they refer to the whole group and we clearly need a system that we can apply to everyone, within which there will be groups with lifetime conditions. Let me come back to my main point, which was my concern about the underpayments. People with lifetime conditions deteriorate, and they need to be caught at the point of deterioration in order to be paid the extra funds they need to cope with the higher level of disability or higher inability to do things.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, where they have other resources, as they move into young adulthood, clearly they have to be resources of their households at that stage and their own capital and household income. The reality is that very many of this small group of youngsters are inheriting very substantial sums of money; that is why they are in the position that they are in. That is a decision in principle over whether we should support people who have very adequate resources of their own. We will continue to support those who have deteriorating conditions even when they have a high income. They just go back into the support group.

Let me just go into the rather complicated position with European law and the specific judgment here, which I am looking at. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will regard it as recent enough—this is the Lucy Stewart case on 21 July last year. It is within half a year, so I think that is recent. We have a code for soon and sooner or whatever; recent is within half a year. That judgment made it clear that we cannot use the past/present test to deny access to a benefit if a claimant demonstrates a genuine link to the UK in other ways, which may include consideration of the relationship of a claimant and the social security system of the competent member state or claimants’ family circumstances. The past/present test requires that a claimant must be present in Great Britain for 26 weeks out of the last 52 preceding a claim for employment and support allowance. We still lost the case, even though we had lots of powers on residence. Clearly, the view of this Government is that it should be a matter for the Government of this country to decide how people qualify for benefits. The effect of this judgment is that young people can qualify for a benefit even when they have not lived in this country for many years.

I cannot be absolutely hard and fast on the European benefit-shopping issue; I can tell your Lordships only that this is causing us enormous concern at a number of levels and we are currently challenging Commission lawyers on it. The issue, at the simplest level, is that if you can call something social support it is much less likely to be abused and taken abroad than if it is a contributory right. That is where the battleground is and your Lordships can clearly see what we are doing here. When we are asked for a concession and whether we can get round the European law, what we are looking at is a system that basically provides the support for the vast bulk of the youngsters whom we want to support without opening our doors wide to current and future dangers of this kind of benefit exportability. That is the approach that we have adopted to try to get round this problem.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

It is a dilemma. I think that the entire House sympathises with the noble Lord. Many of us have been faced with this dilemma in the past. You are eligible for benefits in the UK if you are ordinarily resident. Much of the protection has been about whether you are allowed to go away for extended periods of holiday and still continue to claim. That is secure, but the problem of contributory benefits is that which flows out of the free movement of labour and, as a result of that free movement, generates you a right to a contributory benefit whichever state you may subsequently live in.

We understand the Minister’s dilemma very well, but I would have thought that there is a route out, which is of course to recategorise this as a special non-contributory benefit. That has a long pedigree in social security and European Union co-ordination of benefits and would therefore take it out of the label “contributory”. It would take it out of the labour market eligibility, because these young people have never been in the labour market. We are trying to apply a label to them that is not appropriate. By relabelling this, perhaps along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, we should in my view be secure.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I do not think that we ought to spend a huge amount of time on this—it is really difficult and moving very fast. The principle is that it is the automatic entitlement that makes us vulnerable. If it is for income supplement and social support, it protects us. Your Lordships can see that the change that we have made here is to cover the vast bulk of the youngsters with support, but it is not automatic. That is precisely the safety that we are going into with this European legislation. I do not think that the precise workaround from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, works or that we should sit round this Chamber and work something out. All I can tell your Lordships, for your consideration, is that this is the way that we have found to get round it while, as I say, covering 90 per cent of those youngsters.

I ought to hurry along, but let me move to giving your Lordships the figures on Amendment 45. The reduction in the cumulative benefits savings by 2016-17, over five years, would be around £70 million, which we would need to find elsewhere. A little bit here and a little bit there—it is a very hard thing finding bits of money.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I do not think that I can do that. We need to take a view now on this. All I can say is that Third Reading is probably not the time anyway for some of this stuff to come to a head. It is not the point at which my noble friend is thinking about it coming to a head. This kind of thing will probably come to a head when we have the debate between the Commons and the Lords. That is when some of these issues need to be looked at, so it is not helpful or productive to think of it happening at Third Reading. This kind of thing may become more relevant at a later stage, but not at Third Reading.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Does the Bill contain power by regulation, or would the Minister welcome an amendment to introduce it so that at some point down the line, possibly after further consultation and so on, he can make the changes which at the moment he is minded to make but is not yet in a position to introduce?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Without having those in my ever helpful Box right behind me to respond to that—I hope that they are writing—my strong impression would be that I would have powers in regulation. No, my strong impression is the opposite. I am on my own.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps the Minister could write to us.

[Lord Freud]

I think I will owe noble Lords a letter. Thank you very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I was the person who drafted Amendment 36A. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, clearly introduced it as the paving amendment to Amendment 46. So the Government cannot do as they are now suggesting.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, let me read out what I said in my speech. I said that I confirm that the Government see Amendment 46 as linked to Amendment 36A, but separate Divisions will be required on all amendments in this group.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the noble Lord does not make that happen just by asserting it. One amendment is consequential on the other. We have had a very clear and substantial vote on this, and it is quite disgraceful that the Government are seeking to undermine that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, does not wish to appear to be subverting the view of the entire House, which was expressed in the full knowledge that the amendment which we voted on was devised—I devised it—as a paving amendment to a substantive one, so that we could debate it in good time. Most of the population of the House has gone home, believing in good faith that the previous vote has established the principle—as it has. However, the noble Lord is trying to renege on that by forcing a vote despite the late-night keeping of the roster. That would be quite improper and quite unprecedented, and I strongly suggest that he think again.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I cannot understand this. I was extremely clear, and have been really clear all the way through, about which amendments relate to which, and which have to be taken separately. I read out what I said. I said it quite loudly and all noble Lords heard it. I cannot feel that it is right to accuse me of anything but absolute clarity in the House.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I am pleased to clarify that that is an annual figure that starts in the year 2013-14, when the actual provision comes in.

Next, I would like to clarify the rates of reduction to be applied under this measure. In setting the percentage reduction rates, we have considered the sorts of rent differentials seen in the social rented sector alongside the question of affordability for the taxpayer. We intend to set the percentage reduction rates at 14 per cent for underoccupiers with one additional bedroom, and 25 per cent for underoccupiers with two or more additional bedrooms.

We think that the average cost to affected claimants, in terms of reduced housing benefit entitlement, will be around £14 a week in 2013-14. The majority of claimants affected—just over three-quarters of the total—are underoccupying their accommodation by just one bedroom. For this group, the average reduction will be around £12 a week. For those underoccupying by two or more bedrooms, the average reduction will be around £22 a week.

I would like to assure noble Lords that discussions within the coalition Government in designing this measure were thorough and productive, and these will continue through implementation. My officials are working closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Education, and the devolved Administrations.

It is worth picking up the issue, which my noble friends Lord German and Lord Stoneham raised, of whether we can make the transition easier. It is technically possible to stagger implementation arrangements, based on the anniversary of the claimant’s tenancy, but this move is not cost-neutral, and the planned savings will be reduced, albeit modestly.

I must be clear that, principally, I am more concerned about the ability to deliver the proposal because it might be very difficult to police and monitor. I am concerned that some landlords will offer new tenancy agreements to existing tenants, so that implementation of this change is delayed, and then the costs would spiral very substantially.

We are, however, determined to make maximum use of the time available between now and the measure coming into force to help prepare local authorities and social landlords for the changes, which in turn will benefit those who are affected. I am sorry if I rather loosely used the term “two years”, on which my noble friend picked me up.

Amendments 14 and 49, from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would exempt claimants from the measure where they underoccupy by just one bedroom. Amendment 12 would appear to tie Amendment 14 in with the housing costs calculation for universal credit.

There is a tension here between the bedroom standard, which is a widely used standard which views underoccupation as having two or more extra bedrooms, and the local housing allowance size criteria, which we propose to use for housing benefit purposes and which we already use for the private rented sector.

Our size criteria take a more generous view on the age at which someone is entitled to their own bedroom. Since the deregulation of rents in 1989, we have been using 16 as the adult threshold in size criteria for housing benefit purposes. The bedroom standard, on the other hand, sets the threshold at 21. Against these stricter criteria, however, the English Housing Survey and other similar surveys then consider the household to be underoccupying their accommodation only if they have more than one additional bedroom above the bedroom standard, a point the noble Lord, Lord Best, made. The size criteria that we propose to introduce into the social sector consider any number of spare bedrooms to be underoccupation. Neither approach is right or wrong. In some cases, the bedroom standard plus one will be more generous than the local housing allowance size criteria, in some they will work out the same and in a few cases the LHA size criteria would actually prove to be more generous.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the person who needs an overnight carer, I need to make it clear to the House that where someone needs an overnight carer we allow an additional bedroom for that non-resident carer, and we have done so from June this year.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I said that she would “occasionally” need—in other words, the assumption is that she would not normally need an overnight carer but occasionally might. The Minister has not covered that.

[Lord Freud]

I suspect that we can look at the difference between “occasional” and “regular” in detail outside the House. Maybe we can exchange letters on the matter.

In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Best, spoke of the experience of owner-occupiers, explaining that 83.9 per cent would fail against our definition of underoccupation. I put it on record, however, that a similar proportion of working-age owner-occupiers, 86.7 per cent, are in work. We are not suggesting that households in the social rented sector should live differently. We all share the aspiration for a home in which our children can thrive, concentrate on their homework or leave to study or find work, but still have the option of returning home sometimes. To realise that, though, must the taxpayer be expected to pay in full for those extra rooms just because those people live in the social housing sector? The Government believe that it is reasonable to ask for a contribution toward the rent where there is, by definition, some degree of underoccupation. It is not a change to the allocation rules; it is a measure for housing benefit purposes only.

The research from the Housing Futures Network explores how those claimants affected by the measure might respond. As well as the 29 per cent who were likely to try to find work or increase their earnings, around 15 per cent thought that they would take in a lodger or ask another family member to move in. Another sizable group, perhaps 20 per cent to 25 per cent, thought that they were likely to seek help to pay the rent from someone within or outside the household—someone they know. Around 25 per cent thought that they were likely to downsize. There were also those, as some noble Lords have pointed out, who feared that they were likely to get into arrears; that figure was around 35 per cent. We will do our utmost between now and the measure coming into force to minimise that risk. This is what we are looking at as part of our work with the implementation group.

That said, we cannot ignore the financial position. I emphasised at the beginning of my response that the introduction of size criteria is fundamentally about savings. Without the inclusion of those who underoccupy by one bedroom, we would not achieve the £500 million savings expected from 2013.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, challenges our savings estimate. As I have set out in the evidence, though, a majority of people will pay the additional amount for the larger property. The cost of renting in the private rented sector may generally be higher but those who choose to move out of the cheaper social housing into private housing because they are underoccupying will by definition free up accommodation in social housing that can be offered to those on the housing waiting list or those living in expensive temporary accommodation. That argument from the noble Lord simply does not stand. If we excluded one-bedroom underoccupiers, we would lose around £300 million of the estimated savings. The fiscal case driving this measure forward must not be underestimated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I thought that I would be self-deprecating and leave the “very” out.

The noble Baroness asked me to keep the House briefed on the thinking here and return at Report. The best that I can do now is to say that we have not changed our views. There is a lot of active work, and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, also took a great deal of interest in this issue. The universal credit will recognise the general principle that adults who live in the household of people getting help with their housing costs should expect to make a contribution towards those costs. Not to do so would, in effect, mean that taxpayers would subsidise non-dependants through the benefits system. I think that that is common ground around the House.

It is also common ground that a reformed welfare system must make work in comparison to dependency benefits pay and be seen to be paid, and the current treatment of non-dependants can work against employment incentives for both the claimant and non-dependant. As I said, there are various factors that we have to juggle between decisions on non-dependants—the “touch wood” factor, taking in a lodger, and so on. These factors mean that the issue of non-dependants is complex.

I accept that the amendment is a probing one, but it would not work. However, we are considering it in detail, and it is an important area. It really goes to the heart of the simplicity agenda that we have, and I hope that as we flesh out the detail noble Lords will have something to which the expression “very intelligent” remains applicable. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I absolutely understand that this is a work in progress, but we now have the draft regulations, which we did not have in Committee, which is why we are trying to probe to see where this goes. The problem could be that, were it not for the earlier amendment being passed, a couple in a two-bedroom place with an adult son could be regarded as underoccupied if the adult son was not counted as eligible for the room, whereupon their housing benefit would be cut—but, because he was in the House, he would be expected to cover not just their housing benefit but the cut as well. It is that Catch-22 situation that I am seeking to avoid.

It is not straightforward, and I understand that. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I look forward to an appropriate, acceptable and welcome solution to these dilemmas. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Noble Lords will be aware that we propose to limit increasing the local housing allowance in line with the CPI index from April 2013. The aim here is to ensure that we continue to exert downward pressure on rents while looking at rent levels in local markets. The limit will apply only in areas where local market rent increases, at the 30th percentile, exceed the annual rate of CPI inflation. We have said that we are committed to making savings from this measure up to 2014-15. If it then becomes apparent that local allowance rates and rents are out of step, they can be reconsidered.

To prepare for this change, the Minister for Pensions set out in the uprating Statement the arrangements for fixing rates. The first uprating will be in April 2013. We have taken this step to ensure that CPI rating can commence from April 2013, but that nobody will see their ongoing award fall at that point as a result of LHA rates being uprated. As the annual rates will be set well in advance, we will be able to provide clarity and certainty to claimants and landlords. We will continue to monitor the path of market rents until 2015 and the Secretary of State will be able to review the LHA rate, or uprate it by some other method, should the need arise.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pointed out, the future is uncertain. Clearly, you can draw any scenario you like; the point is that we need to watch it and we will watch it very closely. In particular, we may need to increase LHA rates if growth in rents and the CPI are so out of sync that there is a critical lack of affordable housing. To pick up on the noble Baroness’s other point on extrapolating out to 2013, clearly we all recognise that over any kind of longer-term run rents tends to move with average earnings, not with average prices. Any extrapolation out that long will have a big gap, but we are not talking about that here. We are talking about a measure which is locked in for that two-year period at a time of great difficulty when we are trying to bear down on prices. Therefore, I do not think it is relevant for me to hypothesise about employment levels. That is not what is happening here.

On the point about data and monitoring and what Parliament can expect from us, we will provide to Parliament on an annual basis from late 2012 the relevant CPI data and the data on the 30th percentile of market rents. In addition, noble Lords should be aware that the Valuation Office Agency currently makes available quarterly data on market rents by local authority.

I should point to the major piece of independent external research that is already underway to evaluate the impact of the reforms to housing benefit announced at the June Budget and the spending review. Indeed, I need to thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for the way that he shaped that research effort. The research will be comprehensive and will be presented to both Houses and the public alongside a ministerial Statement. The department is currently considering how this research could be extended—subject, of course, to funding—to allow it to look at the impacts of changes to local housing allowance uprating over a longer period.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that we are committed to monitoring and evaluating this change really thoroughly. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for her support and her additional probing and questions. I am more than satisfied with the Minister’s reply, apart from one word. I wonder whether I could invite him to change that one word. He said that if the two tests, rent levels and CPI, are out of step, then they “can be reconsidered”. I want “will be reconsidered”. I invite the Minister to strengthen his position on that point. Everything else was lovely.

[Lord Freud]

On the basis that the noble Baroness is going to be incredibly helpful to me in all the consequent amendments in the Bill, I will change the word from “can” to “will”.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am very grateful and with great pleasure withdraw the amendment, knowing that our policy intent and the Government’s policy intent will now be met. Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I do not think anyone disputes that, but at the bottom end of the market it will be a room in a shared house, which means sharing a kitchen and bathroom, as we have discussed.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it is rather interesting to look at the actual rates. If you take two people, each with their own shared accommodation rate of housing benefit, that covers or exceeds the two-bedroom rate in 60 per cent of localities. We are not talking about a dramatic cut in much of the country. Indeed, if three or four people choose to share a house, taking their own shared accommodation rates, the amount of money that they get would cover the rate for three or four-bedroom properties in 90 per cent of localities. We are not talking about a hugely draconian cut in that context.

If we look at the amendment itself, it is not altogether obvious what rate of housing costs the noble Baronesses are proposing should be paid during the 52-week period of exemption. Since the amendment applies to new claims only, perhaps it seeks to ensure that new claimants have their full contractual rent met for the first 52 weeks, rather than being paid the local housing allowance. If it is the latter, we covered those points in Committee. We debated whether the current 13-week exemption from rent restrictions for claimants who could afford their rent when they first took on that commitment should be extended to 52 weeks.

I need to make clear that rent can be met in full for up to 13 weeks for those who could afford their rent when they first took on the tenancy and have not been in receipt of housing benefit in the past year. This means that those claimants who experience a short spell of unemployment are not forced to move, and it gives others time to consider their housing options. Around 40 per cent of JSA claimants aged between 25 and 49 have been claiming for less than three months, and around 60 per cent for less than six months. For completeness, I should add that there is a 12-month protection for people who have recently been bereaved.

As I said at the time, most claims for housing benefit are for short periods. The 13-week exemption protects a person’s ability to pay their rent during that time. Half of jobseeker’s allowance claimants aged between 18 and 24 have been claiming for less than 13 weeks and less than 5 per cent have been claiming for more than 52 weeks. We already know that more than a third of those who claim housing benefit choose shared accommodation. These are people who could be in either separate-bedroom accommodation or shared accommodation and choose the shared accommodation rate. Of the people who are not on HB, 40 per cent of 25 to 34 year-olds share. I am excluding students from this. This is not a form of housing that is unusual or imposed on people; it is an absolutely normal form of housing.

I accept that there is real concern about the impact of the shared accommodation rate and particularly about the availability of accommodation. I said in Committee that the market will not remain static and that I believe it will respond in time to the increased demand for this type of accommodation. The feedback that I had from officials following their recent meeting with a Methodist housing association suggests that this is already happening. The association is already converting some of its property into shared accommodation. I am also reassured by meetings that I have had with stakeholders that a number of support organisations are helping to match tenants to shared accommodation.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will also try to be as brief as possible. We had a very good discussion on this area in Committee, and I can make clarifications which have been informed by some of that discussion. One of those clarifications is that we will limit the sanction amount to three years, so we will not have it compounding above that level.

The second relates to the parable of the prodigal son. From the argument of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, there has got to be a way back into the system. We are trying to change behaviour: where someone has come back and got a job for six months at his job goal level, we will take away his sanctions at that point. I thank noble Lords for the very informed debate that we had.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Did the noble Lord say that if the person got a job, after six months in the job the sanctions would be removed?

[Lord Freud]

Yes.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I do not think that is good enough. That means that coming back in and searching for the job—in other words, conforming to the sanctioning conditions—is not enough. He also has to be successful, which will depend on the lottery of what jobs are available, and so on. I would have thought that providing he is conforming to the work conditionality regime in searching for a job, that ought to be enough. You should not be able to punish him just because he lives in Merthyr Tydfil and the jobs are not there, whereas in central London they may be.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we thought about this matter very deeply and thought that it was very hard to genuinely measure compliance if there was not a hard result. We decided that the hard result was taking a job and holding that job for six months, and then we would take away the sanctions. That is where we are. It is a lot better than where we were.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

But if that means that he was previously on JSA and HB as part of his universal credit, and he has now gone into low-paid work, so is getting a wage, then presumably if the sanctions still apply he would fail to get the housing element going into his universal credit, and he would not have enough to live on.

[Lord Freud]

No, my Lords, the sanction regime does not work like that. It takes away the equivalent amount of the JSA, so you keep getting your housing credit, but have this amount taken off, which will be a proportion of the total universal credit.

[Lord Freud]

I think I can safely say that we are not saying that. We are just saying that we want real proof of a change. The prodigal son must do more than turn up and warm his hands on the fire as the fatted calf is slaughtered. I am saying that he has to take a job and hold it for a minimum of six months.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Could the noble Lord perhaps move from the Old Testament to the New Testament?

[Lord Freud]

I thought it was the New Testament. It is definitely a New Testament matter. I am shocked that the noble Baroness—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I was a Methodist.

[Lord Freud]

I am utterly shocked. Let me keep going; the hour is late and I am forgetting what I am talking about very quickly.

Turning to Amendment 28, we will impose reasonable requirements, taking into account the claimant’s particular circumstances, including any health condition or disability. Universal credit claimants with a health condition or disability that limits their capability for work will not be required to look for work. There are specific safeguards in this area. Decision-makers must consider any relevant matter raised by the claimant when considering whether there is good reason for a failure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, when we discussed a similar amendment to this in Grand Committee, I explained that we intend to retain the existing practice in the benefit system whereby claimants can be treated as having income or capital in cases of deliberate deprivation. However, we believe that different issues arise in relation to self-employment. We think that it is right in principle to apply a minimum income floor to claimants who choose to be self-employed but whose earnings do not make them financially self-sufficient. I confirmed in Committee that the floor will not be based on the hours claimants work. We assume that claimants’ earnings are at a level that we would expect from claimants with similar circumstances in employed work.

Claimants will not be forced to take reduced benefit payments by accepting the minimum income floor. Self-employed claimants will have the choice in universal credit. Some will choose to continue solely with their existing activity with the expectation of increasing their earnings. They will accept the minimum income floor. Those who do not will need to satisfy conditionality requirements. The conditionality regime will aim to guide the claimant towards the most appropriate form of gainful work. For some claimants, this would combine their self-employed activity with part-time employed work. In other situations, the regime may very well encourage the self-employed to keep going in their self-employed efforts. We will need to build a quite sophisticated regime to manage this.

This approach differs from tax credits, which allow claimants to receive maximum support so long as they declare that they are working a minimum number of hours. However, in 2009-10, for example, around 60,000 of the households claiming tax credits that received some or all of their earnings from self-employment declared earnings of under £2,500 a year—less than £50 a week. While this is legitimate under current rules, we believe that some intervention to guide claimants towards increasing their income is justified in return for state support.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the Minister explain what he expects here? The old enterprise allowance scheme, which was very effective, used to give people a top-up of £40 a week to start a business, and as far as I recall this ran for up to two years to give people a chance to establish a small business. How long will someone be allowed to have low earnings while they try to build up a business, and how quickly will guidance from young people in Jobcentre Plus, who frankly have never tried to start a business, steer them back into sanction and conditionality?

[Lord Freud]

I do not automatically think that we will use the example of young people in Jobcentre Plus to deal with some of the more complicated issues here. We acknowledge that the real issue is that we need to create an environment that encourages entrepreneurship. We need to balance the exact rules about the interrelationship between the new enterprise allowance and the time that we will allow. I do not have the exact figures yet, as we are still currently elaborating them. We are looking through all the details of employment earnings. Clearly, the HMRC is expert in this area and we are working closely with it to develop our proposals. I must say to the noble Lord who said that it was a straightforward matter that on that basis he can come and help us to do it.

We are aiming to get the reporting requirements aligned as closely as possible with the tax system. However, in our view, it is reasonable for claimants to provide clear information on their income in return for state support. We are looking at a number of rules within the current benefit and tax credit systems to see what the most appropriate approach is for universal credit. We will then prepare regulations that will set out clearly the way in which earnings from self-employment will be assessed. This House will have the opportunity to debate those regulations in due course, and I think that that will be a fascinating discussion.

In today’s debate we should focus on principles. We clearly need to avoid requirements that will add unnecessary burdens, especially for people who are starting out in business—the people whom we really want to encourage. However, we cannot have a situation where people can be treated as being in full-time work for conditionality purposes, but because they declare no earnings they receive as much benefit as though they were not working at all. That is taking it to the absolute extreme. I hope that this explains why the Government cannot support Amendment 32 and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it. I know that we will be discussing this area again.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Yes I do, and I will come back to that if I may, because a whole series of questions was raised about transitional protection, which I need to deal with comprehensively.

Our impact assessments made clear that, overall, families are more likely to be better off on universal credit. In addition, departmental modelling estimates are that the impact of the reform of disability payments on the number of disabled children living in relative poverty will be negligible. We must remember that support for families with disabled children is provided by the universal credit package as a whole.

On the absolute figures of support, under universal credit, an out-of-work family with a disabled child will receive just over £8,000 a year in benefits for their child once universal credit has been introduced. That compares to just over £4,000 for an out-of-work family with a non-disabled child and about £1,000 for a family who receive only child benefit. The figure for a child on the severely disabled level is £12,000. That is the order.

Let me now turn to the really important point raised by many noble Lords about taking money away from families who have learnt how to build their lives around it. That is exactly why we have introduced transitional protection. My noble friend Lord Boswell has referred to an assurance on no losses for years one and two. The way transitional protection works is that where circumstances remain the same, people’s payment level is protected on a cash basis. That means that families currently receiving child tax credit will not see a cash reduction at all as a result of the move to universal credit, and we will provide cash protection for as long as the universal credit award is less than the previous benefit entitlement. I hope that represents a level of ring-fencing that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, will recognise.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord about cash protection. Does that mean it will or will not be inflated each year by CPI?

[Lord Freud]

No, clearly there is an erosion factor. Cash protection does not also inflate it. But the point about the universal credit is that it is structured to provide adequate support for families overall, and on top of that where there are differences we have a reasonably long period of transitional protection.

We simply cannot maintain the existing rates for disabled children if we are going to increase the rates for severely disabled adults. I know it is hard to absorb lots of figures at once, but let me just try and capture it. What we are looking at is fundamentally paying a severely disabled child or adult £77 once the universal credit is introduced. That is a big leap for severely disabled adults today who are on £32.35. That is where we are trying to move to, and that is where we are trying to put our resource.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I am afraid that I do not have any more precise detail but, although I do not think that in the consideration of the Welfare Reform Bill I can say soon, I can probably say that it will be between January and May or June, or something like that. I have no more precise information.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this brief expedited debate. I beg your Lordships on the government Benches to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in their ears; namely, that 400 schemes are inane, insane, unwanted and unwelcome, and that council tax benefit should be brought back to where it belongs in social security in order to make universal credit work. The Minister tried to suggest—I would say manfully—that it is too late to change. I do not believe that. That is why we have this House of Lords and this Report stage. Universal credit will not come online until two years’ time in 2013. If your Lordships today support what I believe is the real view of everyone in this Chamber—that council tax benefit should be part of social security—they will support this amendment today. I should like to test the opinion of the House.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 28th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Amendments 104A and 104B, tabled in my name, are similar in intention to an earlier suggested amendment to Clause 102. These two amendments will ensure that where a claimant’s benefit is paid to a third party, usually a landlord, recovery of any civil penalty, along with recovery of the associated benefit overpayment, may be made by making appropriate deductions from that benefit payment. Currently, there is a slight difference in the wording used by this clause and Clause 102 when specifying that amounts are recoverable. This was unintentional.

Amendments 104A and 104B remove that difference and ensure a consistent read across. This will mean that, in the limited circumstances in which the third party benefit payment is the only one from which we can make a recovery, we can ensure that whenever a civil penalty is imposed, that penalty and the benefit overpayment may both still be recovered by deduction from that benefit.

In every civil penalty case there will always be an overpayment of benefit and we intend that the civil penalty will be added to the overpayment and recovered in the same way. Being unable to recover the civil penalty in the same way as the overpayment would mean that some claimants could evade the consequences of their negligence or failures to provide accurate and timely information and unnecessarily limit the methods of recovery available for civil penalties.

We want to make it clear that the civil penalty is always recoverable from the person at fault, even if in practice the claimant’s benefit is being paid to a third party. The process for recovery of the civil penalty needs to fit appropriately with debt recovery processes. Aligning the wording in new Sections 115C and 115D with that used in Clause 102 helps us to do that.

Amendments 104AA and 104ZA seek to prohibit the setting of targets for the civil penalty and limit our ability to impose a civil penalty to cases in which there has been a failure to provide information. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale asked about negligence. We consider that the requirement of negligence in new Section 115C already implies that there is no reasonable excuse for the failure to take care of their award or claim. However, new Section 115C(1)(b) ensures that if reasonable steps to recover the error have been taken, the penalty will not apply. I certainly understand the possible ramifications if targets were attached to a penalty such as this. It is for exactly those types of reasons that we are not attaching penalties.

Perhaps I may update the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on the figures in the impact assessment and the number of penalties. Last week, on 22 November, a revised impact assessment was issued that reflects updated estimates relating to the new civil penalty. We are assuming that the changes based on assumed overpayments of above £65, rather than the overpayment of £15, which was part of the earlier working assumption, has led to a substantial revision, and the number of penalties that we will consider moves down to 400,000 a year. We expect to make only half of those, 200,000, which is a substantial decrease on the figures mentioned by the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I warn the Minister that that is one of the biggest elephant traps he is setting himself in the entire Bill.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I have to make clear that we are taking powers to do this. We do not have to use them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

That is as I would expect from the noble Lord. It is such a wicked question that I am baffled as to the answer. I think everyone is baffled. It is a magnificent question. It has bowled me out on my middle stump. I will have to find out the answer. I will not even hypothesise about where the different funds go. The right analogy for this is when you go to the dentist, having made an appointment, and you fail to attend. The dentist will charge you an amount in many cases in order to discourage that behaviour. When you are giving out a free good, it is very easy for the recipient to abuse it. You counterbalance that by making that somewhat expensive. When you go beyond a free good and you are giving out a positive good, that is even more the case.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the point is that, on any reasonable analogy, the simpler it is for the individual to make an appropriate response such as telling the dentist they cannot come, the more reasonable it is to have a penalty if they fail to do so. The more complicated quantum of knowledge that they are expected to have about their entitlement, and therefore the easier it is to make a mistake or to have a misunderstanding, the more unreasonable it is to have a penalty. Would the noble Lord care to share with us an analogy in civil life as complex as knowledge of this Bill is for the complainant or applicant, rather than the dentist analogy?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I hope that it will be as simple as the dentist analogy. The whole point of introducing universal credit is that we get something as simple as saying yes or no with regard to your situation. The existing position is much more complicated than that. As some noble Lords will have seen when I did a presentation on the universal credit, we are trying to boil it down to simplicity. Where it is complicated, that is prima facie evidence that there is no negligence. The noble Baroness’s suggestion that we might take time to check out how the system is bedding in is not a bad one.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Oh!

[Lord Freud]

Let us not bargain. It is not a bad suggestion. One of the things we want to do—

[Lord Freud]

It is very relevant. One of the things that we are going to be monitoring as we look at the system is clusters of mistakes because, by definition, the system is not working properly where we are in that position. We will need to work this system in carefully. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who is right on a lot of things, gives a warning, which is right. We cannot use this in an arbitrary way. We must have something, just as the NHS, HMRC and the train companies—I suppose everyone has boilingly paid the extra train ticket surcharge when they were on the wrong train—have systems to encourage people to comply with particular rules. It is particularly necessary where you have a system that is not even a free good. You are giving money out, so you have a positive incentive to shade a few inaccuracies without being fraudulent. We just want to keep people straight.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I thought it was very revealing when the Minister said the answers are yes/no. Most of these questions are binary—yes/no—but all the difficult ones, the ones people are going to appeal on, are not yes/no; they are shades of grey. When is a lone parent no longer a lone parent? Does a boyfriend stay one night, two nights or three nights? Does he contribute £20 for his weekend food or £50? Is he on the tenancy agreement? In that case, there is no question. That is a shade. It is a judgment call, not a negligence call. It is the same with the student son. It probably would not occur to parents in social housing that their son, who is at the local university and doing bar work at night, could be in the non-dependent adult deduction range. Why should they think so? It is a line, but they do not know where those lines are drawn.

The Minister is right that if somebody deliberately says, “I am not working and I want JSA”, but is actually earning £200 or £300 on the side in the building trade, that is a yes/no, but most of the issues that go to appeal—most of the difficult issues—are shades of grey, and many of us around this table would not be able to advise somebody. I really do not see how the client could possibly judge whether it was appropriate to tell the department or not.

[Lord Freud]

I do not think that we disagree on this. It would not be reasonable where there is clearly a lot of grey in the assessment, and I do not think a court in the land would allow us to say that someone was being negligent. That is not what negligence means. Negligence means not caring at all and just slamming down the wrong information or having information that you did not bother to put down. That is negligence. Getting something wrong on shades or “It didn’t occur to me” are not negligence and would not be construed as negligence in any court in the land. A lot of this is concern about things that the language does not support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

We absolutely will not do that. The noble Baroness drew a comparison with current levels of JSA usage. The online facility that we offer claimants is so markedly inferior that people would not want to use it. We need to make sure that people will want to use the online provision, and we are taking a lot of active steps to look at how to encourage and help people to use it. Indeed, this is one of the discussions that I am currently having with the various groups and charities that are trying to get the most disadvantaged in society online, because that is one way in which they become a full part of the economic life of the country, and indeed of the whole life of the country. They and I see that this could be an immensely powerful force for getting that inclusion. As I said, we will work very hard to encourage people to use it. One does not encourage people to do something that could be life-transforming for them through some of the things which the noble Baroness suggests I might be doing.

The aim of the civil penalty is to reinforce the importance to claimants of providing accurate information that we require in order to administer their claims and awards in advising us when they have a change of circumstance. It is a different issue when someone does something knowingly. That is fraudulent, and we will target that behaviour by looking at tougher punishments than the one for missing a dental appointment—I had better not talk about my teeth. We want claimants to take more responsibility for overpayments and to encourage a positive change in claimants’ future behaviour so that they take proper care of their benefit claims and awards.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, made an important point about mental health. We will take that into account. Indeed, that is why we require the claimant to have acted negligently and to have no reasonable excuse. The department must satisfy itself that the claimant has failed to take appropriate care. Each case will be considered individually by the decision-maker, and the penalty will not be imposed if a claimant’s state of health or mental health is considered relevant to the error that has been made.

Amendment 147ZA would mean that a civil penalty could be imposed only on those who failed to notify us of changes of circumstances and the failure resulted in an overpayment, while a claimant who incurred an overpayment by virtue of their negligence and who failed to take reasonable steps to correct the error would evade a penalty. We already help claimants in Jobcentre Plus and, as I have said, we will reinforce that. We believe that everyone should take responsibility for the accuracy of the information they provide in order to receive a benefit, whether that be at the start of their claim or during the life of their claim when there has been a change of circumstances.

As for the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on legal aid, information on benefits and the conditions of entitlement for them is readily available to the general public. If claimants remain uncertain of which benefit is most applicable to them or have a question about their benefit entitlement, they can and should seek further advice from the department. New Sections 115C and 115D will therefore act together to remind claimants that it is just as important that they correctly report their circumstances at the start of the claim as well as report changes that occur within the life of a claim.

I will aim to answer the remaining three questions, having been bowled out on the fourth. On the ability of local authorities to impose fines, we consulted local authorities on the detail of the initiatives in the strategy and on our plans to implement them. Local authorities have provided input to the various projects that we have set up to implement the strategy. We have local authority staff collocated with the DWP and working on the strategy. That includes the sanctions and penalties project, which is doing the work on civil penalties. We will support local authorities in their work to implement the new penalty, which will include providing clear instruction and guidance on how to operate the new scheme. On the £50—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps that would not work. For example, in two side-by-side authorities, a family with two siblings lives with one sibling in each borough. One local authority may decide to exempt in such cases. They have to make 10 per cent cuts and are required to exempt pensioners, which would make 30 per cent cuts. One local authority decides to exempt disabled people all together, so they would have nil. The other does not and the matter is worked out on income. In that situation, how will two disabled siblings who live in two side-by-side boroughs work that out? How will the local authority work out what they should declare, what they should not and what the appropriate penalty could be? It is a complete minefield.

[Lord Freud]

Clearly, there are always difficult and special cases. I suspect that an old lady would not be eliminated entirely. The answer is that there is support for people with particularly tricky circumstances. We will work with local authorities that will be collocated in many cases, especially with the single fraud operation being set up. The shades of grey, which will start to rule out negligence, will be very evident in most of those cases.

In justification of the £50, that sum was chosen because we believe that this is a sufficient amount that will act as a punishment and make claimants more personally responsible for the overpayments they incur and encourage a positive change in their future behaviour. We have also set a significantly lower amount than the harsher punishments available for fraud offences, which reflects the fact that it is directed at the failure to take proper care of a benefit award and is not about fraudulent behaviour. Under the appeal process, the claimant will be able to appeal against the overpayments decisions, the civil penalty or both.

For those reasons, I urge noble Lords to reject Amendments 104AA and 104ZA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think that the power exists for tax credits but not for other benefits. At a briefing session, I asked one of the Minister’s officials— I shall not land that person in it—how often it had been used. Their answer was that they were not absolutely sure. I asked whether it was 20 or 2,000 times. Nearer 20, came the reply—in which case, I wonder where that figure of 200,000 would come from and whether it suggests that a lack of clarity is expected in the forms rather than negligence on the part of the people filling them in.

[Lord Freud]

Let me quickly pick up three issues. First, when I talked about clusters, I meant that, where there are clusters and mistakes, something is clearly going wrong with the way in which we are presenting universal credit. In those circumstances, we would look very hard at fixing that problem and we would not be able to accuse anyone of negligence.

Secondly, I shall look very closely at the run-in to operating the universal credit system. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on lots of things. She is absolutely right that we cannot have a system that demonstrates problems in its run-in phase.

Thirdly, on targets, I need to write to noble Lords. I would not mind forbidding the DWP from ever using those targets in that way—and I could offer it as a deal any day—but a future Government might not want to be so constrained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I trust this information is reliable, but in today’s press there were quite a lot of stories about how long appeals are taking and that the department—or, rather, following Leggatt, the tribunals system—is having to appoint a further 85 judges to sit on appeals tribunals because of the backlog, which is up to 12 months. Can I have an assurance—I am sure that this must be the case—that, while waiting for an appeal, no interest is ticking up on sanctions, penalties, overpayments or anything like that?

Secondly, checking with the law on tax credit as opposed to what may be the case on UC, I think that nearly all the difficulties with tax credits were not at the initial point of claim but were changes of circumstance and nearly all of them were associated with childcare changes. Half of all lone parents had more than a dozen changes of circumstances in a year, the system never caught up with itself and the computer nearly toppled. How is this going to work in this situation? People’s childcare circumstances inevitably change over half-term, a Baker day, Easter and Whitsun. By the time you keep reporting them or not reporting them—or feeling that you do not need to report them because there has been no reply to the previous report—you could be in a complete mess. I do not see how the Minister is going to manage this.

[Lord Freud]

The answer to the first question is that interest is not ticking.

On the second question, I share the noble Baroness’s concern about how the present childcare system works on reporting, which is why we are producing an entirely new system with a monthly report and a monthly payment system. Basically, how the system will work is that you put in the receipt for what you have paid, and then that payment is repaid on a monthly basis. The problem presented by a change of circumstances will go. Roughly 15 per cent of problems are caused at the initial stage of the original application. It does not seem sensible to privilege one set of mistakes against another when it is a reasonably substantial proportion.

I am very happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to go through these issues in some detail, because I share his and other noble Lords’ concern that we get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords. I think, actually, I withdraw my offer of a meeting, because, given the level of interest, it is probably not appropriate. We should rather have a little seminar where the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is the leader, but I must welcome anyone who wants to attend that, because it does not make much sense to be too exclusive. Does that suit? Let us sit down and see whether there are any cracks in this, as some noble Lords are concerned about.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Sorry, if somebody puts the same information into their applications for universal credit and for localised council tax and the information is negligent or erroneous, though not fraudulent in both cases, are they exposed to two penalties?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

No.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Then who will get the money? Will it be the local authority or the department?

[Lord Freud]

When I have worked out the various recipients to the main fund and written, I will let the noble Baroness have a copy of the letter that I send to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Thank you.

[Lord Freud]

I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am not alone, I know, in acknowledging the vast knowledge of my noble friend Lord Kirkwood in this area. He was, of course, chair of both the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee in the House of Commons—I think I can say that now, if I am not pre-empting. His involvement in this important subject stretches much further than that. I welcome the probe and hope that I will be able to persuade him that the amendment is unnecessary.

The SSAC provides a valuable function and goes about its work very effectively. From my perspective and that of my ministerial colleagues, the relationship between the department and the committee is productive. We enjoy a similar relationship to the one that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, had. More specifically, the SSAC is currently working on a major study of passport of benefits in the light of the impact of these reforms. As my noble friend acknowledged, this is really the most significant ad hoc study by the committee that Ministers have commissioned for many years. It is a wish to look at situations in the widest possible way.

The committee’s current remit does not include the scrutiny of draft regulations made under powers recently enacted by Parliament. As my noble friend pointed out, this is for a period of six months, beginning from the commencement of the relevant enabling power. The amendment would therefore set the clock ticking from Royal Assent in all cases rather than from the commencement of the relevant enabling power. It follows that if an enabling power was commenced at a point more than six months after Royal Assent, regulations under that power would automatically be referred to the committee. I believe that that would be unnecessary. Informal arrangements are already in place in this area. As I explained when we debated Clause 1, we will continue to talk to the SSAC as we move to the implementation stage of this Bill and use the arrangements that are currently in place and that allow us to provide it with information on new powers and regulations made within six months of the commencement of those powers.

Noble Lords are aware that when the Government implement major welfare reforms, the relevant primary powers are sometimes commenced at different times, reflecting the staggered implementation process that can apply in such circumstances. Under the amendment, some of the regulations brought forward in this scenario—those brought forward within six months of Royal Assent—would not be subject to the committee’s scrutiny, but others brought forward subsequently would be, even though Parliament would have approved the primary powers applicable to the reform as a whole. That inconsistency would be undesirable and we do not believe that adding to the committee’s former role in this way would be warranted. Implementing the reforms in this Bill is an enormous undertaking.

A huge number of officials in the department are working on it, and others are working on changes to a very challenging timetable. It follows that the weight of draft regulations following the reforms would place an unreasonable burden on the SSAC if the Secretary of State were required to refer all regulations to the committee made six months after Royal Assent. That point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and I need to confirm that this is an overwhelming process, particularly right now.

I have emphasised that we already have effective informal processes in place in this area. I also believe that the application of the affirmative procedure to, for example, the first core set of universal credit regulations is another safeguard, making it less necessary to consult the SSAC on a formalised basis in respect of those regulations in particular.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think we would all accept that there is a difference between this Bill and, for example, a pensions Bill and its draft regulations, on which the Minister, his officials and his staff need to consult what I would call the professional organisations. These are quasi-technical and may be associated with the process; they have their own exchange and interchange of information and of what they flag up, and so on. In other words, there is a professional body of interested but skilled parties who can negotiate with a department on an equal base, and, as a result, draft regulations may be improved before they subsequently become full regulations.

The trouble with welfare reform and a Bill such as this is that, apart from the charitable organisations and lobby groups that have a wealth of expertise, for the most part there are not the bodies that the noble Lord and his staff would expect to negotiate with in the same way as he would expect to negotiate with business organisations or the NAPF about pension structures. Therefore, the very fact that there might be 200 regulations coming our way means that Members too find that they have no input from professional bodies that are equivalent to those pension bodies but that deal with welfare, in order to help shape our thoughts and give us an extra resource of experience.

This is not necessarily appropriate for Bills for which there are bodies that can serve that function, but for framework Bills and where bundles of regulation are likely to cluster in a particular field—housing here, or the benefit cap there—it would be very helpful for all of us seeking to scrutinise those regulations in due course to have had the input of the SSAC before we commence, because otherwise there is nothing between us, the draft regulations and the framework Bill, and we will not get the appropriate input that we need.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, what we are designing here is a massive undertaking. I know that I set a considerable challenge for the SSAC in the passporting arrangement alone. The noble Baroness and my noble friend ask whether adequate information flows are coming through to Parliament as we consider the regulations. We are in regular contact with the stakeholders on a wide range of issues. We have published a series of detailed policy notes. We are trying to have a very open process.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My issue is that there are no stakeholders as there are in other types of legislation. My argument hinges on that fact. In pensions legislation, and even in some of the disability legislation that is very specialist, such as the Disability Discrimination Act, which is a more legal framework, there are specialist organisations that can negotiate. We have no such organisations with this Bill. We have charities, but they are client-group representatives rather than bodies of equal professional standards, in the way that the Department of Education has teachers, the Department of Health has doctors and so on. The DWP has no equivalent.

[Lord Freud]

I accept the point. In practice, we face lobbyists and stakeholders, although one could argue that the pensions industry is also facing lobbyists, albeit slightly better resourced ones who are more interested. The core issue is what the SSAC can do with this Bill in its scale and size. The SSAC is a relatively small organisation. It has a secretariat of three or four, internal to the DWP. It has 13 or 14 members. When you look at the literally thousands of people who are creating this, it is very hard to imagine an ability to take this in its entirety, with all those regulations for the SSAC to deal with.

The SSAC has two functions. It deals with a regulatory rolling process, which is outside the major revolution that we are talking about. I hope that it will apply itself to particular issues on which we would really value its help. The first example is passporting. It was very much my own view that this would be a good way in which to start this process.

I think that noble Lords in this Committee underplay their own prowess in this area.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these amendments seek to provide exemptions on the face of the Bill from the application of the benefit cap for a wide range of different groups. I would like to start by repeating what I said on Monday. We have always been clear that we will look at ways of easing the transition for families and providing assistance in hard cases. We are very aware of concerns about the impact of the cap in specific scenarios. We have always said that we will take account of the sort of issues raised in this debate when preparing the regulations next year. The clause has been drafted to give us powers to set a cap that achieves its purpose in the fairest way possible.

Let me take this early opportunity to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that I have considered the requirements of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of this policy. I am content that the way in which we will implement these clauses will meet those requirements.

Let me also clarify early on the point about behavioural change and the logic of applying the cap to people with reduced conditionality—a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Our policy aim is to achieve a range of positive effects through changing attitudes and expectations. Clearly, we intend in particular to improve work incentives and reinforce the expectation that people of working age should work. However, it is perfectly reasonable to encourage and help people towards employment even if they are not currently expected to work.

I said on Monday that our original estimate was that only about 10 per cent of the households that might be capped would be subject to full conditionality, through the JSA regime. However, it is wrong to say that the remainder will have no work-related requirements. A significant proportion will be people subject to work-focused interviews or work preparation and who will be building towards work. I said on Monday that I would provide the Committee with a breakdown of the caseload of households which might be capped. I also said that we are in the process of updating our figures. These indicate that a higher proportion, about a third, will be subject to full conditionality. I will provide the full set of figures as soon as they become available.

The key point is that if we are to tackle the negative effects of the current system then it makes no sense to exempt people from the cap simply because they are not currently subject to full work-related conditionality. That would not change attitudes and would be very likely to further entrench the problems of worklessness and dependency that we are trying to address. We have therefore been very careful in providing exemptions and deliberately kept the list short.

We have always said that we will exempt households that are entitled to working tax credit and that there will be an exemption for working households on universal credit. I have already explained that I am not yet in a position to provide details of this, but I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that we are very conscious of the issue of cliff edges and the need to consider the impact of thresholds on households whose earnings fall.

We have always said that we will exempt war widows and widowers and that we will exempt households with someone in receipt of DLA or constant attendance allowance completely from the effects of the cap. I can confirm that this exemption will also extend to those in receipt of attendance allowance and PIP when it is introduced.

I am aware of representations already made that recipients of industrial injuries disablement benefit should be exempt from the cap in the same way as recipients of DLA. However, I do not think that these groups are in exactly the same position. DLA is paid to people to help with the extra costs arising from their disability. Other than through constant attendance allowance, industrial injuries disablement benefits do not reflect whether the recipient’s disability or illness necessarily brings extra financial costs.

We will be exempting people who are in receipt of constant attendance allowance because it serves the same purpose as DLA, but that does not apply to other industrial injuries payments.

I welcome the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on the important issue of carers. The DLA exemption will mean that the cap does not affect a carer in a case where, as she said, the person being cared for is a partner or dependent child. Households where a member receives carer’s allowance but no members receive DLA or PIP will however not be exempt. In cases where the recipient of DLA is not deemed to be in the same household as the recipient of carer’s allowance both will be looked at separately and for benefit cap purposes their individual entitlements will be assessed independently. We have also said that we will look at ways to ease the transition for families and provide assistance in hard cases.

On the passport, as I said, I will seek to set out our intention for the passporting arrangements for PIP to carer’s allowance before the start of Report stage. I hope that that is adequate assurance for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

No, my Lords. The Minister made that clear at the last sitting, but unless we know the actual numbers, as opposed to the structure, we will not know how many carers currently enjoying carer’s allowance, if I may use that word, will lose it and, as a result, become subject to full in-work conditionality—a clause in the Bill that we have to deal with before we get to carer’s benefits.

[Lord Freud]

By the time that I am able to set out these arrangements Committee Members will have a tight band in which to make a judgment. Although it will not be precise I hope that there will be a reasonable degree of precision to enable Members to reach key judgments.

As I confirmed on Monday, support for childcare—

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords; that is an excellent question in this sense. I have made clear that we are looking at transitional arrangements, and I will look at precisely this issue of the timing with PIP in the light of those transitional arrangements as people move through. Clearly I have already committed to looking at the three months and the six months, so I have something of a three-handed chess operation to get through, but I hope to come back with the pieces in the right place—or, rather, although the pieces might be in position, they might not be in the right place as far as the noble Baroness is concerned. It will at least be a clear understanding of the position. I absolutely bear in mind the point that she has made.

The noble Baroness’s other question was on school meals. I am happy to commit that, however we restructure the provision of the passported benefit of school meals, it will remain outside the cap in the same way as childcare.

With regard to the kinship care amendment, we have already discussed and recognised in Committee the valuable role that kinship carers fulfil. I made a personal commitment, supported by the Secretary of State, to look at a range of issues affecting this group. I have already had a number of meetings with organisations that support kinship carers to help me better understand their priorities. These carers are able to receive support for the children in their care through the benefit system as, unlike approved foster carers, they have access to child benefit and child tax credit on the same basis as parents. Any payments they receive from the local authority will be disregarded. This parity of treatment with parents will be continued with the introduction of universal credit.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That is very helpful and clear, but the point being made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others was that kinship carers very often take on children additional to those already in their family. Therefore, we are much more likely to see fairly large households with possibly five or six children and, as a result, those families could immediately be up against the benefit cap. How would the noble Lord suggest that is going to be addressed?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I accept the importance of this issue. There are a lot of angles to it, but I fully accept its importance and the argument that discouraging kinship carers could actually have a perverse effect, certainly in terms of cost.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the issue of children at risk. We as a Government take our responsibilities to vulnerable children and vulnerable parents very seriously. It is clear that such families are likely to have multiple problems that may not be solved by benefit payments alone. The noble Baroness is concerned that the benefit cap will force such households to be constantly on the move, which will make it harder for local authorities and support services to keep track of them. We recognise that a more co-ordinated cross-government response is needed, and so last December the Prime Minister announced a new national campaign to try to turn around the lives of the most troubled families in England—there are around 120,000 of them—by the end of this Parliament. Local areas are being encouraged to develop a new approach to supporting these families. It involves redesigning services so that each of the most troubled families is supported by a single key worker who helps them turn their lives around and engage successfully with education and employment. I can assure noble Lords that my officials will work closely with other departments to support the Prime Minister’s plan for these vulnerable families and ensure that those who may be subject to the cap will be given all the help and information available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords. Empson wrote a book called Seven Types of Ambiguity and my noble friend has cited two of them. I can clear up this particular dual ambiguity: the word “transition” here applies both to the running-in of the system and to the timing of how it will affect particular people when the system is fully run in.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Some of the Minister’s common phrases are “soon” and “very soon” and we are beginning to decode them. Another one is about the possibility of discretionary housing allowance being extended to plug all possible gaps in the system, and we have had some discussion on that. It would be very helpful if he could circulate a paper to us on all the areas where he has assured us that there are going to be transitional arrangements so that we can see what they will look like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I do not think that I am in a position to do that. I think that I will have to leave it to Hansard to pick up where I have applied the phrase “transitional arrangement”.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Forgive me, the question was not how many times the noble Lord has used the phrase but what it means in practice. Is there a three-year run-in? What are we talking about here?

[Lord Freud]

All I am able to say at this moment is that there will be transitional arrangements and help for hard cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, it also means that the noble Lord will face a lot of amendments on Report, which he would not need to face, calling for breathing spaces or a transitional period of one year for people who suddenly lose their jobs or are suddenly exposed, at 27 or 28, to living in a single room, and so on. If he were able to give some clarity about what he proposes, he could wipe out possibly a dozen amendments.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I have been set a challenge and a reward. It would be lovely to collect on that, but I cannot make any further assurances.

I shall continue to speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. Apart from the transitional arrangements that I have talked about, the underlying position is to ensure that people understand that they have to take responsibility for the decisions that they make in their lives in the light of what they can afford, and they cannot always look forward to the state stepping in to make good any financial shortfall.

I shall continue on to the more technical areas raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, on temporary accommodation and supported and sheltered housing. The amendments provide an exemption for households to which local authorities owe a duty because they are homeless, or threatened with homelessness, and for those living in supported or sheltered accommodation. As I said on Monday, discretionary housing payments will not be included as part of the cap, but in wider terms it is too early to say how we shall treat those cases for housing cost purposes in 2013 and beyond. We are exploring options for the treatment of housing benefit for people living in temporary accommodation within universal credit and the overall benefit cap.

Noble Lords may be aware that we recently consulted on high-level proposals to change the method by which help with rent is calculated for those who live in certain supported housing in the social and voluntary sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, indicated, there is a series of issues here. We are working very closely with local authorities, housing associations and other government departments, including the devolved Administrations, on these very issues. Our considerations will, obviously, include possible interactions with the benefit cap.

Finally, Amendment 99C, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, would place a requirement on the face of the Bill for exemptions for a range of groups. These include groups that we will provide exemptions for through regulations, and others that we have already discussed during the course of our debates today. The amendment also includes an exemption for lone parents with a child under five. I have made it clear that the cap is intended to act as an incentive to work. I acknowledge that we currently do not require lone parents with children under seven to work, although we are seeking to reduce this to five, but that does not mean that we do not want to encourage them to find employment Indeed that is the very reason why we provide extra support through work-focused interviews.

Each of these amendments would undermine the fundamental principles underpinning the cap—that ultimately there has to be a limit to the amount of benefit that a household can receive and that work should always pay. I have listened carefully to the measured and detailed arguments put forward today and will take them into account when deciding on the final design of the cap. In the mean time, I urge the noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Basically, the noble Lord is constructing universal credit based on meeting several different objectives and many of us support this very strongly. However, he then artificially reduces the amount that some people will get under the very structure he has set out to meet the objectives he has outlined. It is that inconsistency of a deliberate cut to an entitlement, constructed by himself through universal credit, that we find unacceptable—so far it has not been explained to us—particularly when some of the consequences may cost us more.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the best piece of information I can provide the Committee on that question is that it is the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. I think I am reduced to going back to the basic principle that there should be a limit and we have set that limit at the equivalent of £35,000. We are going round in circles slightly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are going round in circles. Noble Lords seem not to like this, although my understanding is that, as a principle, the Opposition approve of the benefit cap. There is a general level of support for it. I want to lay out the ground that working people with earnings of less than £35,000 already face these kinds of choices with regard to housing. Noble Lords seem to be arguing that people who are not working should be in a better position than those in work by protecting them from having to make this kind of choice. Bluntly, it was that kind of approach that has created or has been partially the cause of the high level of dependency that we have in this country.

I have, bluntly, said all that I can in this area. We can go round and round, but I am not in a position to offer very much more in the way of elaboration.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I just want to pick up on my noble friend Lady Lister's point. We know that most lone parents come out of a relationship: very often out of a marriage. These are not people who are regarded by others on the estate as shirkers who need to be driven—that sort of mentality. We could have a situation where, before they separated, the total household earned income was perhaps over £30,000 and there was some housing benefit because it was a three-bedroom property in an inner city area at a fairly high cost. He then leaves and she is left with three small children under the age of five in their existing home, which is rented. As a result, they are facing the benefit cap. How on earth do we think that any of these proposals under universal credit or the benefit cap could or should alter that behaviour, the judgments that they have to make and the possibilities open to them? All it can do is turf them out and send them up to Middlesbrough, as far as I can see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Regarding the payment on account, I do not know whether it is exactly the way to go forward, but I think it is the only way you can make this work. However, on the assumption that most people coming out of prison may well be under the age of 35, will the Minister confirm that he expects the payment to include at least the HB single room rent, as well as the jobseeker’s allowance? At £67, the jobseeker’s allowance will not go very far in paying rent. Therefore, the payment on account benefit of UC would include a putative amount for both elements—both what we know is called JSA and what we currently call housing allowance.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, there are two things here: budgeting advances and a process of how we move people on to the system that we are looking at. I cannot set that out in detail, but we will be doing so in regulations as we elaborate that system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Yes, I am pleased to confirm that it will be available in draft. I want to avoid the cost of printing up a leaflet.

We will ensure that deductions from benefit or earnings to repay an overpayment should not lead a debtor to suffer undue hardship. That remains a cornerstone of our overpayment recovery policy. As presently, future benefit recovery will be subject to regulations that provide for a maximum rate of recovery. In many instances, however, this maximum rate of recovery may still prove unaffordable for some claimants. In such cases, the DWP will discuss an alternative repayment rate.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I realise that the Minister is going fast, but let us be quite clear. In the past, and I stand to be corrected, my understanding is that when there has been official error and overpayment we would request a repayment. If that request was not responded to or met, effectively, that was pretty much the end of the story. In particular, somebody with a history of disability, poor health, financial pressures and so forth, almost invariably would not reply.

We need to hear from the Minister whether he is moving from request to require; whether he is moving the discourse from the first to the second. I thought that the first was reasonable, so that if they could afford it, they should repay, but if it was unreasonable, then they did not. If he is going from request to require, we need another step in the procedures to try to ensure that those from whom he will require the repayment of debt are in a reasonable position to do so. He cannot just change the words. He has to institute another procedure and another step in the equation. I know that the Minister is going fast but perhaps he might reflect on this and write to us so that we can take this up later. That must be the case.

[Lord Freud]

I am going to come on to that point, which is critical. Although the starting point for overpayment recoverability will be that almost all overpayments of working-age benefits within the scope of Clause 102 will be recoverable upon application, DWP will consider a claimant’s means, income or expenditure if the debtor considers that they are in hardship.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The point is that under the previous system the recipient determined what would happen. What the Minister is suggesting is that the DWP will determine whether recovery takes place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

No. I think what I said is that if the debtor considers that they are in hardship, they can say that and then there is a process built on that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry to take up the Committee’s time, but previously if the recipient said that they were not going to do it, that ended it. There was not an assumption that there was space for negotiation. What the Minister seems to be suggesting is that there will be a requirement, and then the claimant has to opt out rather than the old arrangement, which is that if the recipient said that they were not in a position to repay, that ended the matter. It is a question of where the power lies. Under the old system, the power of refusal lay with the claimant. The Minister is suggesting that it will lie with the DWP, and only if the DWP is persuaded will the claimant be allowed to opt out.

[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.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 21st November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If the Minister is staying on this point then I will sit down, but before he goes on to another point, could he please clarify further? Say that there are two households in band D in two different local authorities for which the council tax charge in one borough is £20 a week and in the other is £30 a week. In the first borough, the localised benefits system effectively allows a rebate of £15 out of the £20, but in the other borough facing £30 a week there is a localised council tax benefit of only half that sum, which is also £15. When it comes to calculating the universal credit, what elements of that mess will the Minister take into account? Will he look at the putative council tax that should be paid and the benefit or the net sum paid? What counts as income? What counts as cost? How will this be done when everyone will have a different calculation to be made locally?

[Lord Freud]

The noble Baroness is, as always, way ahead of the curve. As I hope I explained, there are several things that have to happen before we come to deciding some of those issues, and we need to know the shape of any replacement for council tax or the impact of localising council tax, which as yet we do not. I am left with my previous observation that we will take that information into account when we have it, but we have all the powers to do that so there is no issue here regarding our not being able to do it.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I understand the dilemma that the Minister faces and that it is not a dilemma of his making, so I have great sympathy with him. Will he expect income to be the council tax benefit, or the council tax benefit minus whatever element the individual may be expected to pay? In other words, are we dealing with gross or net? It could vary by £15 or £20 a week between two different households with similar income in adjacent boroughs, and that will make a lot of difference to their actual outgoings.

[Lord Freud]

Regrettably, yes, it may or it may not. That will depend on how we reach our design by taking in the implications of localised support. I cannot design a system on the spot when we do not know several of the components, but we have the powers here to take that into account and we are planning to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

The best I can say is that according to the current published impact assessment roughly 70 per cent of those affected are in social housing. However, the direction of travel of those figures in the new assessment is downwards, although I do not know by how much.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am not sure that I have an answer that I fully understand. The noble Lord, Lord Best, raised the question of affordable housing, which, as we know, is to be set at 80 per cent of market rents. The market rent for a three or four-bedroomed family house not in central London but in some of the outer suburbs might well be £1,200 a month or £300 a week. Social housing with an affordable rent would therefore have to be 80 per cent of that £300, which is £240 a week. Let us assume that a family consists of a husband and wife with two or three children. He is in work and is paying an affordable rent, then his job collapses and he goes on to UC. He then finds that £240 a week has to come out of his benefit and he is up against the cap. Precisely what is he going to do? Obviously he is going to search for work but what does he do in the meanwhile? This is an affordable rent, being 80 per cent of a market rent, yet this is social housing, so there is nowhere else for him to go. What does he do? As my noble friend said, the probability is that he has very modest savings, otherwise he would not be in that sector in the first place, and he has children in school. It may well be that he cannot reasonably expect to get a job within the next six months, however frantically he tries, and he is then up against a benefit cap while in social housing with children. What does he do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I have made it clear how we ease the transition for families, and that is one of the things that we are looking at.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the Minister at least help the Committee by indicating the shape—I shall not try to hold him to the precise details—of that transitional arrangement? Will it be over three years, or alternatively will extra resources be available through the discretionary housing allowance via the DCLG in order to allow local authorities to smooth that transitional arrangement? Would there be exceptions for particular payments, such as higher housing rent, because we are talking about social housing and affordable rents? Alternatively, would the Minister suggest to the DCLG that that rent could go from being affordable to the average social rent, even though that would then inhibit the ability to carry on with new building? I can think of three or four ways of doing it but what does the noble Lord have in mind?

[Lord Freud]

Regrettably, I am not in a position to be drawn. All I can say is that we are looking at how we can ease the position for families and how we can provide assistance for hard cases. I know that the noble Baroness has already created four different scenarios and ways of doing it, for which we are grateful, but that is all I can say at this point.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

But it is a problem of the Government’s own creation. This is the difficulty—there is no evidence that this will have any longer-term savings cost.

[Lord Freud]

I should like to engage in a detailed debate on this, but all I can tell noble Lords at this stage is that we are looking at how we ease the transition for families, and we are looking at providing assistance in hard cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I very elegantly have a wonderful piece of paper to hand. On the median, it works for total income—all gross and net household income—and it works for the mean. I can give noble Lords all the figures but it would bore them.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If the Minister could circulate those figures to all Members of the Committee, it would be very useful.

[Lord Freud]

I am sure that noble Lords probably have them at their fingertips anyway. They are meant to be accessible figures, but if noble Lords would like some help and for me to use up another Scandinavian forest, I will circulate them. I will put them in an e-mail instead. That would be cheaper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I will be happy to do that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will the Minister ensure that his colleagues in the DCLG do not give guidance to local authorities that anyone unable to pay their rent by virtue of these changes is therefore deemed intentionally homeless? That is absolutely key.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

As I said, we are working very closely with the DCLG on the implementation of the benefit cap. We will work through those issues in detail.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

When may we know the answer to that point? Conventionally, under homelessness legislation, anyone who loses their home by virtue of a failure to pay their rent is regarded as intentionally homeless. If they have children, they may get some help on grounds of vulnerability and the local authority may temporarily rehouse them. However, in future the local authority has only to give them guidance into the private rented sector, where they will be stuck. It is not a casual question. Unless we redefine the homelessness legislation from 1972 onwards, these families will be crucified.

[Lord Freud]

It is for local authorities to make decisions on individual homelessness applications, as they do now. Under homelessness legislation, if the only reason for the person’s homelessness is a reduction in benefit that is outside their control, they should not be considered intentionally homeless by their local authority.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 16th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, can I make one proposal to the Minister? He may not feel able to accept this amendment—although given the strength of feeling in Committee I hope very much he takes it back and reflects on whether he can move more than he has been able to do today, otherwise I am sure it will come up on Report. Can he at least consider, as a fall-back position, that for a year new applicants who have been refused and existing applicants who are currently on DLA who will lose entitlement under the proposed new PIP would have a further personal review stage put into the system? This would involve not just the decision-maker but the disability organisations so they can work through the material themselves to see whether they would uphold the decision.

The Minister and the department will need additional knowledge-building within the decision-making process. The best way to do that in that first year may be to look at the cases that are being refused or declined and reconsider them before the applicant is notified. This would ensure that errors have not been made and that the decision-maker understands fully—in the light of real expertise coming from the relevant associations and organisations—where that may take him or her. I would suggest a further stage of at least 12 months of a review process within the department in which rejections are analysed a second time around with the help of representatives from disability organisations which are experienced in these matters so that we build up expertise.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am very happy to reflect on that rather interesting point. I will go back and think about that very hard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

How many points do you need altogether if one produces 10 and the other produces 12?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this is a matter to be revealed at a somewhat later date. I am pleased to have provided a timetable of when this matter will become clear. However, the direction of travel is clear: the maximum number of points on that one is 15.

I almost want to call the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, my noble friend, but I am not allowed to do so. I invite the noble Baroness to join me; I have to find an appropriate enticement so that I can call her my noble friend. However, I must disagree with her concerns. I suggest that she is likely to score very highly in the assessment by way of the very aids and appliances that she has highlighted. As I said, electric wheelchairs are right at the top of that measure at 15 points. We will produce case studies by the time PIP is debated on Report which clearly illustrate how individuals who successfully use aids and appliances will continue to receive PIP in a similar way as they do with DLA.

I turn to the noble Baroness’s second amendment. We are committed to personal independence payment, like disability living allowance, being an extra-costs benefit for disabled people, to spend on whatever they see fit. Our experience of DLA tells us that in some cases the money will go towards the cost and upkeep of specific purchases or activities, such as aids or appliances, or that it may simply become part of the disabled person’s budget paying for things as and when they come up, such as the need for shopping deliveries or taxis. The clear intent is that the mobility component should be used to help improve the disabled person’s ability to get around but we have no wish to prescribe how they should spend the money.

Given that the purpose of the benefit is to contribute to disability-related costs such as aids and appliances, and that there are other support means available, we do not think we should be paying for aids and appliances in addition to this. Given these comments and the reassurances that I hope I have given on how aids and appliances will be treated in the assessment, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments and welcome the opportunity to respond on this important feature of personal independence payment. The required period condition has given rise to a great deal of considered and reasoned debate today. The debate has also been informed by the not inconsiderable assistance of briefing provided by the likes of Macmillan Cancer Support and the Disability Benefits Consortium, as well as many others over the past few months.

The amendments seek primarily to shorten the qualifying period before the personal independence payment can be paid. They also increase the onward period over which someone must be expected to satisfy the conditions of entitlement and modify how someone can satisfy the required period condition. Taken together, I was pleased to see that Amendments 86A to D preserve the overall required period condition of 12 months. I therefore welcome the fact that these amendments explicitly accept the principle that personal independence payment should be paid only to people whose needs arise from long-term conditions. This is a fundamental aim of personal independence payment and ties our definition of long-term disability in with that used in the Equality Act.

Under disability living allowance, people currently have to satisfy a three-month qualifying period and a six-month prospective test. These rules were put in place when the old attendance allowance and mobility allowance were merged to form DLA in 1992. However, for personal independence payment we are designing a new benefit; one fit for the 21st century, so it is only right that we looked at what it is the most appropriate length of the qualifying period and prospective test.

I know how much these changes to the qualifying period have worried certain groups of disabled people and their representatives, most particularly those representing people who have been diagnosed with cancer or who have experienced sudden-onset conditions. Noble Lords may be interested to learn that the changes found support in our consultation, in particular the link with the Equality Act definition.

Perhaps it may help to reassure noble Lords further if I set out that the required period condition is not a money-saving measure, nor is it meant to deny disabled people support where the impact of their condition is long-term. This is about having a mechanism which can identify, assess and pay a valuable cash benefit to individuals who have a long-term health condition or impairment which results in burdensome financial costs, regardless of income. Personal independence payment is not designed to assist individuals dealing with short-term needs.

Where there are immediate and ongoing costs which can cause financial difficulties, or have an effect on someone’s ability to participate fully so that their levels of independence may begin to suffer, there is a range of means-tested and non-means-tested support to help people through some of the shorter-term burdens, both financial and practical. I acknowledge that this help may not be available to all, but all provision has to be dictated by balancing need and an individual’s capacity to meet it from their own resources.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the noble Lord give us examples of that? Like others, I have nursed people through cancer—three people, including my late husband—and what we need is what does not exist, which is an upfront grant to cover costs until the condition has stabilised. During those six months, in his situation, I was all right, as I could throw money at it, but I noticed that in the waiting rooms for chemo and radio, then back to chemo and then to radio, a constant theme for the people there—some were feisty, some were broken, some were defeated and some were coping—was the huge financial pressures, particularly on those who did not have an adequate income or adequate family support to allow them to cope. If the Minister cannot move in this direction, he has to come up with something that will do the same job.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, among the elements available in the shorter term are healthcare, travel costs, free prescriptions or aids and appliances provided by the NHS or the local authority. Following the request by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, it may be easier for me to write with a list of particular supports.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I have slight jitters about that level of transparency, apparently.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Would it be the Treasury?

[Lord Freud]

No, no, no. The Treasury is not a disability organisation, let me assure you. Those who know the Treasury well will be absolutely confident in that description.

As I said, it is not a cost matter. It is a matter where people’s sensitivities have been very clearly expressed. We will go away to look at that very, very closely. Some of the observations in this room today will help us in that consideration.

I do not know if there are any other points I really need to make. I just reassure or assure the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the required-period condition will not be a snapshot in time. The legislation makes that quite clear by talking about the likelihood of the assessment being met on any particular day. It means that if someone is likely to meet the conditions for the majority of the time, they can safely be taken as being more likely than not to meet them than if we were just randomly to pick a day.

The other issue I need just to touch on, which is often misunderstood, is that during people’s stay in hospital, when the cost of their disability-related needs are being met, individuals will already be fulfilling the required-period condition for personal independence payment. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, was concerned that filling in your DLA or PIP assessment form was not the first thing on your mind.

That means that when someone is able to leave hospital, perhaps with a care plan in place and further rehabilitation scheduled, they may well have satisfied some or even all of the qualifying period. That currently exists for DLA and is often misunderstood, with people thinking that they become entitled only after they have filled in and submitted the form. The qualifying date starts on the day that the needs arise—the day you have the accident that has caused a particular problem, for instance—not from when the claim form is submitted. I acknowledge that some conditions that arise gradually and it is very difficult to pinpoint the precise day.

With those observations and commitments to reflect, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we have made a number of commitments in relation to people aged 65 and over. Noble Lords may be aware that alongside the Government’s response to the consultation on DLA reform, we also published a policy briefing in May that set out our policy objectives and proposals. We intend to make regulations for personal independence payment that will allow people who have reached the upper age limit to continue to receive personal independence payment. Our priority is to support those individuals with established, long-term health conditions or impairments that would put them at a financial disadvantage over a long period. We fully understand that receiving this benefit is important for those aged 65 and over, particularly for those in receipt of the mobility component. We also know about their concern that the loss of entitlement could affect their independence.

The intention behind this amendment is to ensure ongoing support throughout later life for individuals whose abilities are limited earlier in life, recognising that they may have had less opportunity to earn and save for later life. I can assure noble Lords that this is also our intention and that it can be achieved without amendment to the Bill, but instead through regulations. As it currently stands, the amendment would potentially widen the scope of the personal independence payment and undermine our intention of creating a more affordable and sustainable benefit.

Turning to the current rules, broadly speaking, current DLA provisions have a one-year linking rule. This allows individuals over 65 to renew an award within one year of their previous award without losing DLA entitlement. Similarly, we intend to allow a linking period for PIP. This will support those individuals who reach the upper age limit and have a break in their claim through temporary improvement, provided the individual makes a claim within a defined period and continues to fulfil the eligibility criteria for PIP. As with DLA, there will be restrictions on new and existing claims for those over the age of 65. As I have said, our priority is to target support, through PIP, on disabled individuals with established, long-term health conditions or impairments, who may incur extra costs throughout their early lives and would have had less opportunity to save for retirement. Those individuals who develop care needs later in life, as part of the natural ageing process, will continue to be able to claim attendance allowance provided they meet the eligibility criteria.

Under Clause 81 we already have a power to make secondary legislation and to provide for exceptions. By setting out these provisions in regulations we can ensure that the legislation can be adapted in response to any future changes in the social care system which might affect pensioners. The Personal Independence Payment Implementation Development Group will strive to ensure that policy design and delivery in respect of people aged 65 and over is informed by disabled people and their representatives.

On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on what happens to DLA recipients over the age of 65 whose fixed term expires, we have made it clear that they will not be within the scope of PIP for the time being. That means that existing recipients of DLA aged 64 or over at April 2013 would be invited to reclaim DLA towards the end of an existing fixed-term award. At this stage we have made no decisions on the rates of PIP or how these will compare with other benefits.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

In that case, how does the Minister establish any smooth movement on to attendance allowance, given that attendance allowance is not coming within UC?

[Lord Freud]

Clearly, that will be one of the issues we will need to take into account when we sit down to establish these rates. Given these reassurances on our approach, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, perhaps I might again interpose slightly out of order in the interests of clarity. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for tabling the amendment and for making some valid points. I revert to my opening comments today on the timing of the information. We aim to get more information on the passporting arrangements from PIP to carers’ allowance prior to the start of the Report stage, which I hope will satisfy the request. I should add that we are sympathetic to the position of carers—which I hope is recognisable code—and the Government recognise the important role that people with caring responsibilities have in our society. We are continuing to listen very carefully to the contributions that we receive.

I cannot at this stage add anything further. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, which clearly we will be able to consider in more detail in a little while.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for being fractionally late and therefore missing his statement. Had I been here, I would no doubt have been pushing him on the questions I now want to raise.

Although we welcome and very much appreciate that the passporting arrangements will be with us before the start of Report, we also need to know the statistics, the numbers. In other words, to what extent will the existing case load of people on middle and higher-rate DLA go through into PIP? Will some of those on the lower rate now come into PIP? If carers are passported, as the Minister gave us hope to believe, from both rates of PIP, will that mean there will be more carers in future because some lower-rate carers will be joining them, or will some disabled people on what is currently the middle rate of DLA, which entitles their carer to receive carers’ allowance, fall out of PIP altogether?

Until we know the mapping of the numbers we cannot understand the implications of the very helpful information the Minister is going to make available. The crude fact is that any carer who is now on CA who finds that the person they are caring for will fall out of middle-rate DLA—therefore they may fall out of even a relatively supportive interpretation of the new PIP arrangements with both tiers entitling you on to it—will then find themselves suddenly excluded from having carers’ allowance. Because they are caring for someone for 35 hours a week, that will vanish. As a result they will be exposed to full, in-work conditionality even though the care needs of that person—35 hours a week—will not disappear.

We need to know those numbers and they are issues that we are going to have to reflect on in Committee before we get to the relevant clauses associated with DLA and ESA. Will the noble Lord kindly say whether he will be able not just to tell us before Report, as I hope, that both the upper and lower rate of PIP will entitle you to carers’ allowance but how those two populations rub on to the two existing populations? Will there be losers as well as possibly gainers among carers with all the possible implications they will be exposed to? The Minister may be able to tell us what happens to disabled people and the numbers coming into the PIP framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as always, the questioning is pinpoint in its precision to rip open any veils that I may be draping over myself. I speak in the spirit of Salome. As I said, before Report begins, I will provide more information about the passporting arrangements from PIP to carers’ allowance. I cannot say more than that today or in practice, as noble Lords are aware, I would end up making the announcement, which I am not in a position to do. Threshold information for PIP will be available prior to the specific Report discussion on that part of the Bill.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Does the Minister accept the point that my noble friend made very fully, that we cannot do it that way around? It is back to front. We have to know what the thresholds are for PIP to know which and how many carers will be passported on, on either assumption, whether it is one band or both bands. The Minister has been very sympathetic on this, but unless we have that information, the information on carers will tell us only the mechanism, not the effect. We have to know the effect.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I feel slightly as though I have trapped myself, and I will explain exactly why. I spent a lot of time on the carers’ allowance. I was very worried about the cliff edge at £100 earnings, and so I reinserted a carers’ element into the universal credit, very deliberately, to get rid of that and to have a smoothed effect. I have spent some money—or we the taxpayers have spent some money; it is not out of my own pocket—and I find myself slightly hoist on my own petard by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, by making a subtle connection between the universal credit and the carers’ allowance. This was not there originally, when it was a carers’ allowance.

I see that there is a connection—I have created it, but it is fairly narrow—to get that taper to work. It does not undermine the way in which we think about carers and the way in which we look at the universal credit. As I say, I will be able to explain the principles of how the allowance will work right at the start. We will see the actual numbers later when we start to look at the real carers’ allowance. I think noble Lords should be more tolerant of me than they are being.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I should be very tolerant of the Minister if he had answered the question. However, my question was not about tapers and the interplay of carers’ allowance; that is a genuine set of questions, but not the one I was trying to explore. I was saying that because carers’ allowance is a passported benefit, we have to discuss, and have to know, how many people will be entitled to the original benefit, from which carers are passported, to calculate how many carers will or will not continue to qualify for carers’ allowance. If they do not qualify for it absolutely, then they come into the in-work conditionality issues that some of us are worried they may be exposed to. For once I think the Minister has not understood where I was coming from on this, which was not about tapers and the interplay; that is a separate bundle of issues that we will no doubt seek to tease out.

Let us assume that both levels of PIP, standard and enhanced, entitle you to a carers’ allowance. That would be very good news. However, we need to know how many disabled people are entitled to the standard rate of PIP, and whether it is just the people currently on the middle rate, or some of the people currently on the lower rate as well, or fewer people than who are on the middle rate now, who will be entitled to that lower rate. Only then can we work out how many carers will be affected, numerically. We cannot discuss, therefore, the extent and the value of a passported benefit until we know the original client group on whom that passport is dependent.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as I have tried to explain, we will introduce PIP from the bottom up. We will try to find the people who need the money and there will be winners and losers in that process. In particular, the PIP process is far more understanding of mental health issues. I do not think looking at absolute numbers undermines the principles of how you create the universal credit. It does not undermine our considerations of the principles of the universal credit but we need to understand the impact of PIP and the carers’ allowance in relation to it. We shall have that information in time and debate it in great depth. I am committing to providing those figures at the right time. It is not a trivial but a hard commitment. The timing has been produced under pressure from the Committee and I hope that it is accepted in the spirit with which it has been obtained.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 14th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we have published the criteria and weightings but have not yet gone into any further definition of how the system might work in terms of thresholds. I will aim to bring some more definition around that by Report.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Could the noble Lord bring back not just definitions but examples? He talked about a “dynamic” version. I do not understand that, except that “dynamic” is a sexy word. Perhaps he could describe how the situation of somebody who is currently on middle-rate DLA would change under PIP.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will be happy to produce case studies for Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I can understand that; that is where the noble Baroness is more up to date than I am. The Minister must be the most up to date of all.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I apologise that the information about the second draft criteria was not available earlier and I apologise for ruining a lot of weekends. What is the reason? We had a large volume of feedback to our informal consultation and we have made a significant amount of changes. It took some time—rather longer than we hoped—to work through it all. It is crucial that we get this right. One of the reasons—as noble Lords have pointed out already—is that there is a lot of sensitivity around this. If we put things out that are not right, we will create concerns where we should not. Misleading impressions here are very dangerous.

As I said, we aim to have the thresholds available for the Report stage of our consideration of this—not before the whole of the Report stage, but in good time for when we reach these matters at Report.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords—if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene again—I am sorry, but that really will not do. Too much depends on how you align the two rates of disability allowance; the passporting of carer’s allowance will depend on it; and, in turn whole issues such as couple conditionality, in-work payments and the like will depend on that. We cannot deal with earlier sections of the Bill if we do not know what the implications of this are. It will not do to leave this until Report. We have to have it before we start the Report stage.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I regret to say that I am not in a position to say that we will have the implications for carers ready for Report as well as the threshold information, which is another roll-on. We will be discussing the carer’s element in a later amendment, so I shall deal with that more fully then. I am looking at the timings of the information that I have. There is a large amount of co-production going on in the development of PIP, where we are talking to disabled people and disabled groups. That is what is taking the time to get to where we need to get to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Perhaps I could undertake to do that ahead of Wednesday’s sitting and go through what we are expecting to have when.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If the Minister were able to say, for example, that carer’s allowance will be attached to both rates, whatever they may turn out to be in terms of eligibility, some of our concerns would be removed. If he cannot say even that, I think half of Chapter 1, nearly all of Chapter 2 and quite a fair amount of Chapter 3 are affected by the passporting decision for carers.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will give a full report on Wednesday, but I have already indicated where I am pretty sure we are. We are looking at passporting in a much wider way. We are having the SSAC report in January with its recommendations. There will undoubtedly be a lot of work around that. It would indeed be foolish to look at one aspect of passporting without taking the whole of passporting together. As noble Lords know, this is a framework Bill. There will be plenty of time to consider all these elements as we go through the regulations when we will be doing things in the fullest possible way. I imagine noble Lords in this Room will be taking a very full interest in all these aspects. Let me leave it that I will come back with the timetable at our next sitting.

These amendments seek to broaden the scope of PIP—I do not know whether my noble friend’s formulation of the personal disability costs payment has found favour, but I will stick with PIP, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for the purposes of this—by introducing an additional tier to the daily living component. When we consulted on the overall framework to personal independence payment, we stated our intention to move to a structure that has two components paid at two rates. We decided on this structure for three key reasons: to simplify the overall structure by reducing possible award outcomes from 11 to eight; to make it easier to understand and administer; and to ensure that it reflects the range of individual needs and provides appropriate levels of support.

We also made it clear that the overall design of personal independence payment is intended to ensure that the benefit is fairer, more transparent and focused on the individuals who are least able to live independently. It also provides an affordable and sustainable platform of provision for the future.

In responding to our consultations, most organisations said that they supported the move to broader definitions for both components as they were a better reflection of the real experience of disabled people’s daily lives. Our view, therefore, is that a daily living component paid at one of two rates will enable us to better reflect the impact of impairment on an individual’s ability to participate. I appreciate the concerns of the noble Baroness that people will receive lower levels or no support under our reforms and that her amendments are intended to prevent that. However, that fails to deal with one of our fundamental aims, which is to give more consideration to whom we prioritise for support.

The Government have been clear here. We intend to protect those who are most in need and will prioritise support for individuals whose impairment has most impact on their ability to participate. That aim, and the way in which we intend to deliver it through the new assessment criteria, may necessarily result in shifts in provision. Some people will receive more support under our proposals; some the same; and some less. This is not an exercise in simply making arbitrary cuts to existing provision; it is about refocusing benefit provision so that it reflects disability impairments and barriers to participation in the 21st century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, let me start with the numbers. Large numbers are being thrown around about what is meant to be a 20 per cent cut. In practice, it is a cut from a projection because the benefit was rising very steeply, so measures were taken to get it under control. The whole caseload in 2009-10 was running at £3.1 million and now £3.2 million. In 2015-16 our projection is for it to run at more or less £3.1 million—£3.059 million. In terms of money, this is cash money. We are looking at a figure of £11.5 billion rising to £13.7 billion in 2015-16—and that is cash, not real. That was the projection we inherited and it is from that that we are cutting £1.3 billion. So from £13.6 billion we will take £1.3 billion, which will leave £12.3 billion.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am very interested in this point and it is exactly what I want to press the Minister on. Earlier he said that this was irrespective of—net of, if you like—demographic changes. Is he still saying that that is true for these figures? Certainly, all my assumptions based on his impact analysis and all the rest of it, and from what most of us know about this, are that people are getting their DLA and carrying it through into older age, and there is increased eligibility for attendance allowance by virtue of people living longer. So what one really wants to know is where he thinks the extra cost is coming from and whether, rather like pension costs, it reflects what is happening demographically and does not show any “looseness” in the financial gateways to the benefit.

[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.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Thursday 10th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, could I also ask a question, which is to turn the comments and questions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, around the other way? If a lone parent has found a job as a dinner lady, precisely because her hours fit those of her young children, and she is therefore not being paid and not working over the holiday periods, is she at all exposed to the issue of work conditionality?

The second issue is on transition. Again, speaking from personal experience—and we all brought our children through school—many children sail through and love that first year of school. However, many children who suddenly go into what they regard as “big school” can find it very stressful. They revert to bed-wetting, have disturbed nights, are fearful, actually hide under the table when the school bus comes, and so on. In those situations, the lone parent needs to be on hand and available to go into the school if necessary, to collect the child from the school, during that first year of settling down. Most of us can talk from personal experience in that respect. The noble Lord would be very wise to listen to the point about transition—whether it is for one year, or ideally for two years, before the full conditionality comes in.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, on the first question on whether the child happens not to be in school on their fifth birthday, there will be a small number of lone parents that we are aware of whose youngest child is aged five but who has not yet started school. We are therefore going to expand the existing flexibilities within jobseeker’s allowance to support these lone parents through the short period of time until their child enters school or reaches compulsory school age, whichever comes sooner.

On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the dinner lady—people who are employed through the school year—where the dinner lady is presumably on a contract through the process then clearly she has a job and would escape conditionality in holiday periods because she would be working in a long-term job. As one gets to short term fillings-in I expect that it becomes a bit more detailed and dependent on particular circumstances. The broad position, however, would be that they would be within the job for that period.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Thank you, I am very grateful for that. If I understand the Minister rightly, that means that through the period of the school holidays, for example, the dinner lady will go up the ladder—or down, whichever way you want to put it—to increase the amount of universal credit during that period, to compensate her for lack of income, and it would then be readjusted when she goes back to being a dinner lady in the school term.

[Lord Freud]

Yes, the noble Baroness is way ahead of us, as usual, as we structure how we do the universal credit. We are currently looking at that very closely in terms of how we do it. We have not settled this, but my view is to look at it in fairly cash-in-the-month terms, as she is implying. That is where I would come from as we started to devise it. However, I cannot give a commitment or go further than say how we would do that. I am not keen to elaborate averaging-out processes because I think that gets overcomplicated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I will make it absolutely clear that this is not a halving on an annualised basis when one considers the decline in trend. I would like that on the record as well.

I will take the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the risk of high-cost lenders, or loan sharks as she referred to them. We recognise the danger that illegal and high-cost lenders pose to vulnerable people, who can become very dangerously indebted if they are driven to use such services. We are committed to continuing to provide an interest-free lending facility for those who are least likely to be able to access mainstream credit. We call the process “budgeting advances”. That is a national provision of payment on account that will replace Social Fund budgeting loans. The budgeting advance will be paid to those vulnerable people least likely to access mainstream lending, to help ensure that they are not driven to use illegal lenders. That process, when we put it into the universal credit, will have a much different feel to the paper-driven process that we have today. The two systems of budgeting advances will run in parallel while we introduce the universal credit.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I note the Minister’s figures—which startled me—about what he thinks will happen to the crisis loan for general living expenses. Given that those are loans, does he expect there to be any virement? In other words, will the budgeting loans, the alignment process and the rise to 1,500 and so on meet some of the suppressed demand that will, in future, exist for crisis loans?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am not sure that I got the point of the question. Would the noble Baroness repeat it?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Yes, by all means. Crisis loans are for general living expenses. There is therefore a close connection between them and general budgeting loans, which also deal with those expenses—unlike community care grants, which are in a different category altogether, and which can be completely ring-fenced. Do the Government expect any virement between the two funding headings? The depressed figure that was responded to by my noble friend Lady Sherlock, which appears to suggest that about £60 million was coming down to £30 million, would none the less be offset by an appropriate increase in the budgeting loans that he is talking about as payment on account.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the straightforward answer is that currently we are not seeing that alignment, based on the measures that we are taking.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Do you expect to see it?

[Lord Freud]

We are not expecting it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I will have to fall back on offering to write on that particular matter. I do not know exactly how we finance local disasters. In practice, the Social Fund has not been much used in that area. However, I will have to write on how funding for local disasters works.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps I may give the noble Lord an example. It may not be as extensive as flooding, but a not untypical example is a gas explosion in a high-rise block of flats that results in 80 or 100 families having to be rehoused and needing financial support to buy furniture and this, that and the other. Is it expected that that will come from this provision or will there be additional allocations?

[Lord Freud]

The obligations of the local authorities are centred on housing provision. There are a number of duties around what local authorities have to do to rehouse people according to their homelessness obligations. That is where some of the crises would be dealt with. Local authorities could look to provide the support using some of the Social Fund money that they have available. In practice it will be a more efficient use of money because we will have a one-stop shop for that kind of problem in the housing area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

As I say, that is not a major use of the fund. Clearly, the local authority with its housing obligations is very well placed to manage that on a holistic basis. In the case of that example, there would be a better and more efficient use of funding than we have today.

The amendments in this group seek to place constraints on the changes to the discretionary Social Fund that would undermine the much-needed reforms and prevent the needs of vulnerable people being addressed in an effective way. In line with our commitment to localism, and to allow local authorities to make the best decisions for their respective areas based on their more detailed knowledge of local concerns and requirements, we do not propose to ring-fence the funding given to local authorities in England and in the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales. Local authorities have entered very positively into discussions with us and have come forward with interesting and innovative ideas on how support can be delivered. For example, one large rural authority is considering using some funding to pay the delivery fees charged by an existing provider to deliver free goods to the vulnerable people they need to reach.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked whether the funding would go to the upper or lower tier. The funding will be allocated to upper-tier local authorities in order to provide the greatest possible flexibility to local areas. From our discussions with local authorities, we know that a range of delivery models is being considered. Some of these models will result in funding being devolved to lower-tier services such as housing. Decisions about the ultimate funding route for each area will be determined by a range of local factors, including the location and the nature of existing services and how these align with areas of deprivation and need, and the level of funding that will be devolved. In less deprived areas it may not be necessary or practical to operate a number of services.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I simply do not understand that answer. It will go to upper-tier authorities: then what?

[Lord Freud]

As I was trying to explain, the upper-tier authorities will then design their services in different ways. Some will decide that the most efficient thing to do is to give it to a group of lower-tier authorities; some will do it themselves; some will devolve it to the housing operations within lower tiers. What I am trying to say is that there will be various responses.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

So it would be entirely up to the county council as to how they distribute this money, if they distribute it at all, and whether they actually use it for the services that are proposed.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, on the argument between the upper and lower tiers, yes. I will come back to the issue around ring-fencing, where there has been some pretty powerful argumentation. That is what Amendment 86ZZZB seeks to ring-fence. At one level, that will restrict such innovative thinking. Ring-fencing could also prevent pooling of funding streams and ultimately limit the ability of each local authority to devise schemes that best address the specific needs in their respective areas.

We have had some excellent contributions. I think the best one—no, that was invidious—very enjoyable one was from my noble friend Lord Brooke with his reminiscences of Degsy Hatton. It is quite clear that we need to make sure, if we are putting money out for vulnerable people, that it goes to vulnerable people and is not diverted elsewhere. We are localising this funding for sound reasons, because the closer to the ground you can get with this funding the better it is likely to be spent. Local authorities clearly already have duties to provide assistance to vulnerable people.

There is clearly a great weight of feeling in this Committee, very well expressed—brilliantly expressed in many cases—and I will take those thoughts away, reflect on them and come back with an answer about where those reflections have gone. Reflection can be a fairly external matter. However, we will be setting out the purpose of the funding in a settlement letter from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Clearly, at one level at least, that provides sufficient clarity on the purpose of the funding for local authorities. Picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on cash for emergencies, that cash is meant for emergencies. Of course, with local disasters, there comes a point when they are overwhelmed but I shall reply in writing on that.

Amendment 86ZZZD would require local authorities to provide victims of domestic violence with financial support. Local authorities, along with other specialist support services, often already provide more tailored support than the current community care grant scheme offers. Where an individual requires household items, it may be better to offer furnished accommodation in such circumstances. Local authorities will have the appropriate support services on the ground and be in the best position to assess what type and level of support is required. On top of this, they already have a duty to provide support and accommodation to anyone made homeless as a result of domestic violence, and this complements a wide range of assistance which is also available at local level.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, that is a district council function, not a county council one. When half the local authorities in England are split between two tiers, it really is not going to work like that.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness is very concerned about this issue and it may be that there is a breakdown in some particular circumstances. But there is a duty on authorities to meet these duties. In my reflections, I will look at this because it may be connected with how we might find a solution to the more general concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I would be highly delighted to provide that list of duties. The new national provision of payments on account will be monitored by the department to ensure that it is working effectively and efficiently. We are confident that the combination of this national provision and the new local provision will be a better way of providing support to those who need it most.

Amendment 86ZZZEB seeks to standardise the delivery by local authorities of the new provision and appeals, and introduce an independent tier of review for local authority decisions. This would defeat the purpose of our proposed reforms by, in effect, requiring local authorities to administer a national scheme. It is not clear whether this is intended to cover only English local authorities or to extend the responsibility to local authorities in Scotland and Wales. The whole reason for devolving assistance to the local level in England is to enable decisions to be made at the most appropriate level to effectively identify and target those in greatest need. It will be the responsibility of local authorities in England to decide on appropriate arrangements for internal review. As already discussed, local authorities are answerable for the services they provide and have a range of duties towards vulnerable people that they are required to meet, which I will list.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

By tier, if you would.

[Lord Freud]

Picking up on the powerful point made by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood on the Independent Review Service, that service review’s decision is made on whether to award discretionary Social Fund payment. These decisions must have been subject to an internal Jobcentre Plus review before being passed to the Independent Review Service. The reforms to the discretionary Social Fund will mean that the Independent Review Service’s workload will diminish and eventually come to an end. It would not be appropriate or feasible to have a national review scheme to deal with the diversity of new provision delivered by local authorities and the Welsh and Scottish Governments. Local authorities will set up their own internal review mechanisms if they think it appropriate to do so. In addition, the Local Government Ombudsman is fair and impartial, and is available to people dissatisfied with decisions made by their local authority.

Amendment 86ZZZF would delay the introduction of new systems until universal credit is fully rolled out and has achieved prescribed performance targets. This would delay the benefits of a more localised approach to the discretionary support. Performance standards are already in place for the current benefit regime, for which the Secretary of State is accountable, and this will continue to be the case for universal credit. The business plan for 2011-15 confirms that the department will continue to publish a range of indicators on the performance of delivery businesses, including claims processing, customer and employer satisfaction and labour market services. With these measures already in place, we do not see the need for regulations to set out the performance targets or standards for universal credit which the amendment would require.

On the question raised by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood on cuts-driven reform, the White Paper on universal credit gave the commitment that this was not a cost-cutting measure and that costs would be funded. The initial funding allocation is fixed for the rest of the spending review period and future allocations will take account of changes in need.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will the noble Lord also circulate to us in a letter what the future funding allocations will be by subheading, including that held centrally and that going out to local authorities over the rest of the spending review period?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I hesitate to commit to that. If it is available at a reasonable price, I will do it but I will not if it is not.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry but the noble Lord has just given a commitment that this is not a fixed money measure and that funding will continue at a certain level until the end of the CSR, so he must know what those figures are.

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords, the figure is £178 million per year, which I think is in the documentation, until the end of the spending review.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

But we also need to see the breakdown within those headings.

[Lord Freud]

Could the noble Baroness make it clear what breakdown she means? I think she meant by area.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

By allocation.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, clearly, the detailed mechanics of that is something that we will need to work out and set out in regulation. I am not absolutely convinced that we have it locked down—we might, but I simply do not know. But clearly we will make that clear.

I shall come on to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. The run-ons in practice are rather complicated. I shall come on and deal with that in a little while.

For the most vulnerable, we will provide the support when it is needed for as long as needed. When people can work, they should be expected to; a lifetime on benefits is no longer an option.

Amendments 72 and 76 are technical amendments that seek to restore the original policy intent for Clauses 51 and 52. The current wording of those clauses meant that days in the assessment phase before the determination that the claimant should be placed in the support group must count towards the calculation of the 365-day limit. This would not of course affect a claimant who remains in the support group throughout their ESA award, but it would affect those claimants who moved to the work-related activity group from the support group, at which point they would be entitled only to the balance of the 365 days after deducting the day spent in the assessment phase. This was never our intention and I urge noble Lords to accept this amendment.

I shall now address Amendments 71M, 72A, 73, 74, 75 and 75A. Amendment 71M would increase the time limit for claimants receiving contributory ESA in the work-related activity group from 365 days to a prescribed minimum of 730 days. We disagree that two years is the right approach. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie suggested that this was a modest change. It would, in fact, cost a total of £1.6 billion by 2016-17.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is that per year, not a roll-up?

[Lord Freud]

No, that is the total up to 2016-17—a roll-up.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

It would be more helpful and reasonable if we had annual figures, not roll-up figures.

[Lord Freud]

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

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Do those interesting figures mean that by 2020 the figure could be expected to be below, say, £50 million?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am not sure what the extrapolation would be. Those are the figures we have. If I have a longer run at it, I will make the figures available when, or if, I have them. I am sorry, but we do not have any figures stretching out beyond that point.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister accepts that point that it looks as though there is a reverse bell curve here. It would be interesting to know, perhaps at Report, some information as to how that would pan out.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, one can clearly see the process here, as you move through the bulge, of stopping as you take on the transfer from IB to ESA. You can see that the effect of moving from one year to two years is a reduction as you go through that group—the bell curve, as the noble Baroness described it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think that the noble Lord will also note from comparative research that their replacement earnings benefit, whether you call it JSA, IS or whatever, is a much higher proportion of earnings than is the case in the UK.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as noble Lords know, direct comparisons of systems are terribly difficult to make.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That is the point that we are making, I think.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Although we have what seems to be a rather modest level of primary benefit, whether it is JSA or ESA, we pile up a lot of other “elements”, we might call them, in terms of housing benefit to get substantial figures. Therefore, making a comparison internationally is not straightforward at all. I am not making a straightforward comparison of amounts; I am making a straightforward comparison of the timing issue. I am saying that the 52-week limit falls into line with much international practice in countries whose systems we generally admire. I am arguing that, to that extent, the accusation that this is arbitrary simply does not stand. We are conforming with norms which are followed very broadly internationally.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That may well be right and I would not disagree with the noble Lord’s point about time and the comparison that he made there. However, the point is that that time limit, although it may or may not be regarded as arbitrary, is not threatening if the drop-down from that limit to the alternative income, which is income-related, is not particularly significant. That is the point that some of us were seeking to make.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, in practice, other countries in northern Europe, as noble Lords will know, have a very much more contribution-based system, and the support for people who fall outside that system or are immigrants who never got into it is much lower than with our support systems, which are pretty good for people who are not in the economic system. Therefore, I am not sure that I accept that point at all.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry to intervene again but this is Committee stage. The point there is precisely the aim behind this set of amendments. Most of the European countries that I have studied—and I have looked at the Bradshaw research and so on—have a much higher commitment to the contributory principle. Therefore, this covers people for much longer at a much higher level with a sense of entitlement. This issue goes back to the very powerful arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Lister. With a strong commitment to a contributory principle, even if you have a relatively short time limit for sickness benefit, because of the resulting contributory benefits to remaining unemployed, the drop-downs are therefore not threatening. That is surely the point that some of us have been seeking to make.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I think that we could debate this issue for a long time. The point that I am simply trying to make is that the arbitrary nature which this time limit has been accused of looks much less arbitrary when it seems to be the time norm chosen by a whole range of countries. Other countries such as Canada, Germany, Poland and Australia also feel that it is right that there should be some limit to the state’s support for those who have an illness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

No, let me make that clear. I will take the points one by one.

Professor Harrington is looking very closely at cancer treatments and is working very closely with Macmillan in particular, to which I must pay testimony; it has provided a lot of extraordinarily valuable background data that we have been grateful for and are using. So there is a process going on.

The point I was making about the timescales is that clearly there is a time when not absolutely all but the bulk of all cancer sufferers going through treatment will be on the support, which is unlimited. They will have gone through that process, then they start the WRAG process, which is time-limited, after that. So it is not “one year for your illness”, if you like; it is one year on these particular benefits.

The noble Lord made a most effective speech at Second Reading, which I remember vividly. I am sure everyone else does as well. He was making the point about how tough it is getting through the experience of cancer—and we are worrying about that in detail. But I also want to give reassurance on the example the noble Lord used, when you get to a year and you are still having a tough time. That is probably not likely to happen in practice very much because of the different phases.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

What the Minister is saying, which is a welcome elaboration of policy, is that new entrants into the system who have the sorts of conditions that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others described, may very well be reassured by the fact that they have up to two years or longer on non-means-tested benefits. Does that not therefore put into even sharper concern the situation of the retrospective nature for people already on those benefits raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher? Does it not suggest that by comparison the situation is that much the harsher?

[Lord Freud]

I will come back to that issue and argue strongly that there is no retrospection. I will make that argument in a coherent way. No, the people who will have been on support will be in a position where there will be no difference between the existing group and the new group. There will not be that difference. As the noble Lord, who has infinitely more experience than I have, said, with cancer there is a differential experience, and some people literally sail through the process—the really lucky ones. Maybe that is slightly over the top, but they get through the process in a reasonable time, pretty fast, while others find it very tough indeed. If we put everyone in the same category by definition a type of illness, we get back to the problems that we have with treating people who need help to work and everything else—we are excluding them from that. Of course, once you set a precedent in that area, it rolls on and on. That is why we are going about this using the WCA as the route to putting people in different categories.

I was also asked about support to work. Support to find work will be widely available for all ESA claimants from the outset of their claim, irrespective of their health condition. Following the work capability assessment for most ESA claimants placed in the work-related activity group, that support will be mandatory either through Jobcentre Plus or through the work programme once their prognosis is down to a particular number of months.

The vast majority of ESA claimants who want the more intensive support offered by the work programme will be able to access it as soon as the outcome of the WCA is known. That includes contributory ESA claimants who can remain on the programme after their benefit has come to an end—to meet the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. That ensures that they receive all the support they need to help them to return to work. Clearly, that was a conscious decision in the design of the work programme because it is clearly not supported by any sort of delaying switch. This is a straight investment in helping those individuals back into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, people in the WRAG who have gone through their time-limited period do not then have a right to go into the support group on a contributory basis. Clearly, they have a right to go into it on an income-related basis, but not on a contributory basis.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am now completely baffled. I thought the argument was that if somebody had not exhausted their time on the contributory basis and had, for whatever reason, been able to get back into work, which then collapsed or folded, they would be able to get back into the support group using some of the contributions that were still available. The noble Lord ran against this the argument that this might be five years away and was therefore unrealistic in terms of connection. The point that I was going to press was that, in that case, the Minister was saying that one of the easements that we currently have is the 12-weeks’ linking rule. I was going to come back and suggest that in these circumstances it would be sensible to have something more like a 12-month linking rule so that there was a realistic time in which, if either the job or the person’s health folded again, they could come back and use up their unused period of contributory benefit.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, clearly, they can use up time that they have not used. Therefore, if you are nine months down in the period of the contributory WRAG but go to work and come back, and are due to go into the support group, you can do so. However, if you have used up your contributory element of WRAG, there are, as I was trying to describe, some quite complicated effects. In practice, there may be up to a two-year period to do that. We have an easement, allowing a claimant to satisfy the first contribution condition for ESA if they have paid contributions in any tax year at a certain rate and have received a contributory ESA award in the last complete tax year, before the current benefit year in which they are claiming again.

It is quite a complicated situation. In practice, the easement for many people will work for about two years in those circumstances but no longer. It will not, as Amendment 71P is looking to do, make it unlimited. There may be different costs to having an easement of five or 10 years but we have not had a chance to look at the costs of this amendment. So I cannot accept that we make this amendment and urge that it is not pressed.

I am completely lost in my brief.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps we should have a tea break. The votes were so demanding that we have not had time for one.

[Lord Freud]

Moving swiftly on—Amendments 72A and 73 exclude from time-limiting any days contributory ESA claimants in the WRAG have received ESA for before this clause comes into effect. We expect that around 100,000 people will have been in receipt of contributory ESA in the WRAG for more than 12 months by April 2012, plus an additional 100,000 who will reach 12 months’ duration in the WRAG during the rest of 2012-13.

On the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Thomas on retrospection, a benefit claimant has no right to receive ESA indefinitely if the conditions of entitlement change or their circumstances change and they no longer meet the conditions of entitlement. Through the amendments made by the Bill, we are changing the conditions of entitlement for the future so that entitlement will not end until Clauses 51 and 52 is commenced. This will not affect any entitlement that has already arisen. I assure noble Lords that we are not seeking to recover past ESA payments that claimants have received correctly, but merely defining their future entitlement to ESA on the basis of whether at the time the clause is commenced they have had ESA already and if so for how long, and whether they are in the WRAG. We took the decision to issue 115,000 notification letters to all claimants potentially affected by this change to ensure that they were given sufficient notice. This generated around 4,200 inquiries from claimants in response.

We wish to strike a balance between fairness of treatment for all those affected and complexity. We do not think that it is reasonable that people in the WRAG who have already received contributory ESA before Clause 51 comes into force should continue to do so for an additional year after the clause is commenced. This would be unfair to new claimants; we want as many people as possible to receive benefit for the same period of time. Given the very difficult financial position that we inherited from the previous Administration, this is another difficult decision that we have had to make to ensure that the economic well-being of our country is protected.

[Baroness Meacher]

Can I just raise a question? The Minister talks about the unfairness about those in the future and those in the past, but that issue exists anyway. People who started claiming 18 months or two years ago, or whatever, clearly had a different length of contributory ESA to those people who claimed any time from 1 April last year in the Government’s terms. What I was suggesting was that the conditions are changing as of 1 April next year, and it is retrospective to suggest that the conditions change from 12 months previously. That is what is retrospective. Of course, you will always have unfairnesses between the past and the future when you change laws. It is not logical to suggest that there is some sort of inequity between past and future and, therefore, there is no retrospection. I think that the Minister has to accept that there is retrospection here.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, perhaps I may add to the Minister’s woes. He will no doubt be aware that previous Administrations faced this difficulty when we moved from IVB—invalidity benefit—to incapacity benefit. What happened was that people on invalidity benefit remained on that benefit and only new entrants went onto incapacity benefit. That is one path. I can quite see that allowing long-term claimants to have two or three different paths is technically complicated and administratively undesirable, but it is what is most supportive and decent to the individuals concerned. Their expectations are not suddenly changed part-way through their later years.

The second path that the noble Lord could adopt would be to say that from now on, at a certain date, this will be a common rule for all new and existing applicants. That would be the middle path. What would clearly be wrong would be to say that this will apply only to new applicants and that we will knock off existing claimants who have come up to the time barrier. I have never known that in social security before—ever.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the accepted convention on retrospection is that it applies from the announcement of a measure. When the price of petrol goes up in the Budget, it goes up that night or the next night and then the Finance Bill becomes an Act four or five months later. That is the convention—you go from the date of announcement. We announced this move from October 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, one of the clear preparations is to understand whether you are now entitled instead to income-related ESA on the WRAG, or to take steps to get into a job, or whatever it is. There are a number of things, but preparation would cover all of them. However, the documents written in October 2010 were saying that this change was coming in April 2012, effectively giving 17 or 18 months’ notice that this change would apply. That is what was intended by the document.

We have taken steps to give people whose awards will end, either when the clause comes into force or shortly after, time to assess their circumstances and adjust to the change. We have written to all existing contributory ESA claimants who could be affected to make them aware of this change. It is important to remember that claimants in the support group and those claiming income-related ESA will not be affected. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised the issue of the impact on the lowest deciles. The analysis in the impact assessment shows that although many people affected are in the lowest deciles, they will tend to be fully or partially compensated by income-related ESA and those who will not be eligible for income-related benefits are typically in the middle or higher deciles.

The government amendments I have already outlined ensure that days in the assessment phase for a claimant subsequently placed in the support group are excluded from the 365-day total. Amendment 74 would go further than this; it would mean the 365-day limit for all contributory ESA claimants, including those placed in the WRAG, begins only from day 92 of the claim. This would therefore give an extra 13 weeks of contributory ESA to WRAG members, increasing their overall award to 15 months. Another effect of the amendment would be that, if claimants have repeated short-term claims and as a result they are not medically assessed via the WCA, these claims might never individually go beyond the 13-week assessment phase. If so, the 365-day time limit might never apply to their contributory ESA award. This amendment could therefore create a perverse incentive for claimants to terminate the award before the end of the assessment phase; they may also try to delay attending the WCA. We do not believe that such behaviour should be encouraged.

Amendment 75 would allow claimants receiving contributory ESA who move in and out of the support group, to start a fresh 365-day period each time they move from the support group back to the WRAG. For those claimants moving between the two groups regularly, it is likely to mean they would be able to remain on contributory ESA indefinitely. This amendment would lead to inconsistent periods on benefit for claimants. For some, time spent in the WRAG would count towards the 365-day limit while for others it would not. This is unfair. We believe that everyone should be treated the same, irrespective of when they are placed in the WRAG. I understand the noble Lords’ concern about fluctuating conditions, which may have prompted this amendment. We recognise the importance of the role the WCA plays for people with fluctuating medical conditions, as I have discussed.

To pick up one more point on the cancer issue, I want to make it absolutely clear that the present position is that anyone who is diagnosed as terminally ill and who is expected to die within six months will automatically be placed on the support group.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry, but could someone be diagnosed as terminally ill as a result of the biopsy and be given a life expectancy of 11 to 12 months, which may be accurate almost to the week, yet not be deemed under this condition to be terminally ill?

[Lord Freud]

That is correct. That is the current position but the reality is that the treatment provision is likely to catch most of those people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I know that this is a very emotive matter and I have said that we are looking very closely at the recommendations from Professor Harrington. I have picked up the concerns on this matter, and I think that that is as far as I can go today.

Amendment 75A would introduce an additional income disregard for partners when calculating an award of income-related ESA. Based on the current annual personal allowance for income tax of £7,475, this disregard would amount to a gross weekly amount of £143.75. Currently, when calculating an award of income-related ESA, we provide disregards on partner’s earnings of £20 per week and a disregard of between £10 and £20 for other specified income. This contrasts with universal credit, where a disabled person would have a minimum earnings disregard of £40 per week.

The practical effect of this amendment would be that the DWP would be forced to amend existing DWP regulations to remove existing disregards and make new regulations to disregard a minimum of what, under current tax allowances, would be £143.75 per week of a claimant’s partner’s gross income when calculating entitlement to income-related ESA. If we did not amend the existing disregards, the excess would then be subject to an additional £10 to £20 disregard where appropriate. In total, this would potentially increase expenditure on the ESA by up to £500 million per year.

We do not think that this approach would be reasonable. Introducing a significant new disregard for ESA claimants would be unfair to others receiving other income-related benefits, such as claimants whose partners claim income-based jobseeker’s allowance, where the earnings disregard is currently set at £10 per week, and ESA claimants who have no partner.

At this point, perhaps I may introduce the question of what happens to payments of contributory benefits—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Returning to the previous point on Amendment 75A, will the Minister confirm, for clarity, that the figure of £500 million per year was related to the cost of this amendment only, not to changing other disregards? I was not clear about that from what he said.

[Lord Freud]

Yes, it applies to this amendment only.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Therefore, having this exclusion for this group would cost £500 million a year with no knock-on consequences for other disregards for people on JSA or whichever benefit the Minister cited. I just wish to be clear on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

We have done a relatively simple sum on this and this is the change. We have not rebuilt the whole system to make it consistent.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is it therefore also net of the actual disregard that people will get, which will be £20 plus possibly some other amount?

[Lord Freud]

We have put it on top of that £10 disregard.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

In that case, before the Minister goes on to a different point, why does he think that the situation of someone whose partner is on JSA, but with no history of disability or whatever in the family, is identical to the situation of a partner who is managing to care for a person for possibly 20 hours a week or more—that is why they are on those benefits anyway—and is, on top of that, hanging on by her fingertips in the world of work? Incidentally, we have now established that this will, first, not make it pay for her and, secondly, will almost certainly encourage her to leave the labour market. Why does the Minister think that there is any equitable comparison whatsoever between that and JSA? I am all in favour of establishing simple parameters so that people know where they stand, but I should have thought that the noble Lord would accept that someone who is disabled and has a partner, or possibly a wife, caring for them for 20 hours a week and in a part-time job is none the less in a very different situation from a young couple in their 20s who are on combined JSA.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, at that kind of annual cost this really is an expensive amendment. Whereas one can clearly look at elements and disregards in the system later when there is some money—I have made this point before—this is a lot of money.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the Minister then tell us what the total saving on the ESA is going to be overall so that we can see what percentage this represents?

[Lord Freud]

Yes. I am speaking slightly from memory but the running rate is about £1.7 billion a year. I am sorry—I have tripped myself up on that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

It cannot possibly be. You cannot have £500 million a year and £1.7 billion in total. That does not work, but I would be happy for the noble Lord to refer to it later.

[Lord Freud]

I will refer to it in a minute. Let me gather my forces. I come to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on ESA contribution and universal credit. We are looking to simplify the payment arrangements for cases where there is entitlement to both universal credit and contributory benefits. Customer insight research suggested that claimants would prefer a single payment of universal credit rather than two separate payments, but no final decisions have been made. The key point is that contributory ESA and JSA will continue as individual entitlements. In other words, as now, they will not be affected in any way by the circumstances of the partner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we have had this discussion before. I come back to the point that one of the most interesting opportunities in the universal credit is the budgeting support. When I talk about budgeting support there is an element there of how you run your household finances, which we are just beginning to explore. There is huge potential in that and I am just beginning to think about what that could imply and what it means, so we will come back to this in the months to come because it has enormous promise in the areas that the noble Baroness is worried about.

Let me go through the AME savings, which were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Running each year from 2012, they are: £420 million; £780 million; £1,090 million; £1,330 million; and £1,380 million. The £500 million—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

What are those the savings on?

[Lord Freud]

They are the AME savings from Clause 51. The £500 million cost that we are talking about of this amendment is calculated on the basis of applying the disregard to all ESA claimants, not just those affected by time-limiting. We would have to apply it to everyone.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is the Minister saying that the £500 million cost of Amendment 75A exceeds the total amount of savings on all these changes in 2012?

[Lord Freud]

Yes. This is the ESA income-related claimants. I think that has a £500 million average cost per year spread over that period, but it is a per year cost. No, I am sorry; it is a steady-state £500 million, so it should be looked at against the £1.3 billion or £1.4 billion figures as a proportion.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

These figures seem deeply implausible to me, but we will work on them. Thank you.

[Lord Freud]

Additionally, the amendment would likely weaken the financial incentive for a benefit claimant’s partner to take up full-time work. It would increase the number of people who qualify for income- related ESA and therefore give them automatic entitlement to housing benefit and/or council tax benefit at a cost of approximately £50 million per year.

In addition, if Amendment 75A were accepted and we did not mirror that larger disregard in the housing benefit and council tax regulations, it would mean disparate treatment between those claimants passported automatically on to housing benefit or council tax benefit because they are entitled to income-related ESA, and those who claim housing benefit or council tax benefit on low-income grounds. That would be unfair. We estimate that it would cost approximately £50 million per year to mirror this amendment in the housing benefit regulations. That is in addition to the £50 million previously mentioned.

If the amendments tabled by noble Lords were accepted, either singularly or collectively, it would significantly reduce the expected benefit savings of these measures. If Clause 51 did not stand part of the Bill, the entire savings projected by this measure would be lost. That amounts to around £5 billion in total by 2016-17, and we went through the individual years.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry; the Minister said £5 billion went through the individual years. My figures add up to £3.5 billion.

[Lord Freud]

Well, I make it nearly £5 billion to 2016-17.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That is £420 million, £780 million, £1,090 million and £1,380 million.

[Lord Freud]

You missed out £1,330 million. I have £420 million, £780 million, £1,090 million, £1,330 million and £1,380 million. That is nearly £5 billion.

Accepting Amendment 71M would reduce the total savings by around a third by 2016-17, which is £1.6 billion. Accepting Amendments 72A or 73 would reduce savings by around £420 million, which represents the entire savings forecast projected for 2012-13. Amendment 74 would reduce savings by around £430 million in total by 2016-17.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Sorry, I withdraw that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is the Minister saying that after 13 weeks you get paid a higher rate even if you have not been assessed because the assessment is taking longer than your 13 weeks? It might take 20 weeks or 25 weeks. Is that what he is saying; that it is okay for part of the period to get the higher rates but the lower rate period counts in the run-up to that? Is that what he is saying?

[Lord Freud]

Yes.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Forgive me, but that seems to be a very confused position.

[Lord Freud]

Whether it is confused or not, the position is that, when you are claiming the ESA rate, the first 13 weeks you are in the assessment phase you are on the lower rate. Then you go on to the standard WRAG rate from week 14.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Grand Committee

[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.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Could the Minister be very detailed in his costings? When he says an additional £750—

[Lord Freud]

I said £700.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is that as an addition to the second earner?

[Lord Freud]

There was a question around that, so I will endeavour to supply all the information I possibly can. A sum of £700 a year in addition would cost £240 million; if the disregard were £1,000 a year, the cost would be £350 million. We simply do not have the money in our present envelope. There is no real difference between gross and net in those figures because they are below the personal tax threshold, so there is no tax effect to set off. We are doing all sums on a non-dynamic basis anyway, so there is not a dynamic effect. From the point of view of the architects of the universal credit, we would have liked to incorporate more dynamic effects, but there are certain other interests in the Government that take a very straightforward view of money.

Let me deal with the other issue—that making the lack of a disregard for second earners makes the universal credit bad for women. That is the underlying argument here and clearly one that would concern us very greatly. But it is clearly not the case. Universal credit has many features that will improve the position of women, most obviously in support for mini-jobs and childcare. We have a duty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked, to look at the impacts of policy changes on a range of particular groups, including the impact on men and women, and we are satisfied that our policy here is the right approach and that we can justify the impact. That is why I was able to sign the ECHR statement for this Bill.

Our impact assessments and equality impact assessments show that women in general are more likely to gain than to lose from universal credit, that this is also true for lone parents and couples with children and that lone parents benefit the most in both absolute and relative terms from the likely increase in take-up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I will not give that kind of assurance to noble Lords. This is clearly—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

You could, you know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Stop teasing me. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made the point about VAT; there is clearly a missing element there, and I acknowledge that there is a difference between the gross and the net.

I thought I had answered the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on talking to other departments. Yes, we are talking to BIS. As to the FT story: as you would expect me to say—it is something between, “Pick the normal stuff”, “I do not comment on press articles” and, “It is a matter for the uprating Statement”. Pick any one of those you want. I am not answering the question. [Laughter.]

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I congratulate the Minister on his nimble footwork; it was very impressive. However, what happens to Bhavna in this situation, where her childcare completely mops up £19 out of her £20 addition to the family earnings?

[Lord Freud]

In this example, there is a 65 per cent taper. Thereby, extra earnings produce an increased income of about £20. The effect of childcare costs would depend on the amount of the childcare costs. Under our current proposals, the parent is clearly expected to meet 70 per cent of allowable costs, and the state will cover the rest.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I understand that. I thought that that was exactly the point I made. The question was regarding the result of that calculation. She earns £60 and adds £20 net after universal credit, and £19 of that will, on any reasonable estimate, go on her share of childcare costs. That is before you take travel costs into account. Why work?

[Lord Freud]

We are going round in circles. We all know the point that is being made. We all know the reality of the iron triangle. We are wrestling with it. This is what we can afford to do right now. Some people may be caught in such a position and we make the point that some people will have higher MDRs—a lot will not. As we improve the position when we have funding, and have proof of the dynamic benefits that may free up main funding, we will be able to apply them. However, this is the best we can do right now. I would love to do more, but I cannot find any more money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Amendment 52D would take a power to disregard the full amount of any pension contributions from the assessment of both single and joint claimants’ income. In the universal credit White Paper, we set out our intention to disregard 50 per cent of contributions to an occupational private pension from the income assessment. This balances our commitment to encourage pension saving with fairness to the taxpayer and it is the current treatment in the benefits system. It is true that in tax credits 100 per cent of pension contributions are ignored, but tax credits are based on gross income. This is not therefore directly comparable with the 50 per cent disregard in the benefits system.

In addition to the disregard, universal credit claimants will also have tax relief on their pension contributions. This means that for each pound that goes into the pension pot of an employee who is a basic rate taxpayer and in receipt of universal credit, the take-home income is reduced by only 34 pence after minimum employer contributions, tax relief and increased universal credit payments are taken into account. It would cost approximately an additional £200 million a year to move from 50 per cent to a full disregard. While this would no doubt be welcomed by claimants on low incomes, not all taxpayers who do not claim benefits have the advantage of a private or occupational pension. We must therefore take a balanced approach to the disregard of pension contributions, and we believe that 50 per cent is the appropriate level.

Pension contributions are disregarded from the income assessment in tax credits. We have taken the view that this is one of several areas in which tax credits have been excessively generous to claimants when the position of the average taxpayer is taken into account.

On the operational point, we are already operating a 50 per cent disregard, including a payment towards personal pensions. The rules will operate in a similar way to the way that they do now, but clearly we will not be able to do all this through RTI, so there will need to be some direct reporting.

Picking up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, made about what we are doing for asset accumulation, I can point to a series of measures that the Government are taking in that area, not least the support being provided to lower-income houses to purchase a home. In universal credit, households are able to save up to £6,000 with no impact on the universal credit award. I should point out that an average household with a working-age adult has average savings of £300.

The convention is that “two Baronesses” makes “noble Lords”. If I made a mistake during debate on the previous amendment, I was possibly slurring my “s”. In this case, I can ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I was slightly taken aback by the Minister saying that he thought 100 per cent disregards in tax credits were regarded as overgenerous, when at the same time no mention is made of what we are paying in higher-rate tax relief. Currently, out of the £26 billion we spend on tax relief, some £8 billion to £10 billion is going to higher-rate tax relief. If we follow the Minister’s line, apparently we need only to incentivise the rich to save; the poor are being overincentivised and we are being overgenerous.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I think I am caught being slightly puzzled. I was strongly under the impression that pensions were removed from the higher rates of tax relief. I hope I am not wrong on that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The noble Lord is wrong.

[Lord Freud]

On that basis, I am probably the wrong person to interrogate on this matter.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

There is a limit on how much of your pot can attract higher-rate tax rates, which is the £50,000 figure. There have been some changes, but £50,000 of pension contributions is still tax free.

[Lord Freud]

I think we are now into the realms of minutiae. This has been subject to a substantial change. It was unlimited. Noble Lords can see that my personal interest in this is not as great as it might be. One can make comparisons and political points all over the place; let us stay with the business in hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am well aware of the work of my noble friend Lady Thomas on this, although perhaps not quite as well aware of it as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Clearly, the amendment is intended to improve the position of disabled people on benefits who participate in service user groups. Changes in the regulations to do just that were made towards the end of the last Parliament, and universal credit will carry these forward. Nothing in universal credit will worsen the position of participants in service user groups.

Looking purely at the earnings element—the fee element, not the expenses element—the structure of universal credit will improve the general position for participants. The earnings taper will ensure that any fees which are beyond the claimant’s earnings disregard will still make the claimant better off overall. The removal of the 16-hour permitted work rule and the personalised conditionality regime will see to it that the claimant will not fall out of the benefit if they undertake a modest amount of voluntary or paid activity. That is as far as the earnings element is concerned.

The amendments to the social security regulations made in 2009 exempted individuals covered by the definition of service user from the notional income rules and ensured that any expenses they received would be disregarded in the benefit calculation. I think that all parties welcomed these improvements when they were introduced. Therefore, my noble friend’s amendment seeks simply to build on those 2009 changes.

This is a matter for regulations, and there will always be scope to make further changes where these are needed. However, we need to ensure that any definition is clear and can easily be applied by administrators. The current definition was drafted on that basis. Like the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I am not convinced that it will be feasible to broaden the current definition in the way proposed by the amendment, but I am very pleased to meet my noble friend on this, as she requested, and I think that we shall be able to get this right.

In the current regulations, the definition of service user is limited to consultation for specified purposes. In all cases, the consultation with service users is required by law. The intention here was to avoid extending the easements to the activities of commercial enterprises. We also need to ensure that benefit claimants are not able to deprive themselves of regular earnings and so remain on benefit while operating as consultants to research bodies. These protections remain valid from the Government’s point of view, so any new regulations need to protect the Government in some of these areas.

On the general question of expenses, we will apply the same disregards in universal credit as in the existing benefits. We would not want claimants in work to see their universal credit fall as a result of their receiving payments as reimbursement for expenses that they have incurred solely in carrying out their job. To do so would reduce the incentive to take a job, which would undermine the core purpose of universal credit. Briefing note number 9 was intended to clarify that work-related expenses could continue to be disregarded in the same circumstances as apply now.

We also intend, as now, to exempt reimbursement of expenses made to volunteers who give their time to charities and voluntary organisations from the calculation of claimants’ unearned income.

I hope that this account will reassure noble Lords about our intentions for the treatment of expenses in universal credit generally. I think that there can now be a process of refining and enabling service user groups to make their valuable contribution in the fullest possible way, and that is what I shall be aiming to do with my noble friend when we meet. However, these are not matters for primary legislation; they are matters to get right in regulations. That is what we will be aiming to do and I hope that, on that basis, my noble friend will be content to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I chair a housing association, as I have declared previously, and we pay a very modest sum per year to our tenant board members. One of them was on disability benefits and preferred not to take the very modest emolument because of the interaction with his disability benefits and the problem that he would have of resuming them as and when the emoluments ended. However, because he could have drawn that emolument, it was assumed under benefit rules that he had done so and he could not make that move. I ask the Minister to look at this point. This was, after all, a sort of charitable housing association and he was stuck.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will look at it, but I am not sure I need to study it very hard. As I understand it, the fear of that individual is that if they earn too much money they get taken off their benefit structure entirely. Because they are earning too much, they are outside the disability benefit structure and they must therefore get on another one and they then have a terrible problem. That does not apply under the universal credit. The worst that could happen is that the universal credit goes down in the period, reflecting the emolument, but they are better off overall. That acute fear of being left stranded goes. In that particular case, and many others like it, the desperate cliff-edge position which currently exists is not there under universal credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

It is clear that a lot of changes are going on and I am not surprised that people do not understand them all. One of the things that we have done means that claimants in the support group can volunteer to go straight on to the work programme, where there is substantial help for them to get back into work. That is one way in which we are helping people who may find themselves in the worst possible position to get into work. We have made a very straightforward mechanism.

I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. We are instigating a process whereby people, if they are in the WRAG with a prognosis, are asked by work providers whether they would like to come in at any point—I think at six months. They are then encouraged to volunteer for the process early. They do not move from the WRAG to JSA until there is another WCA. We are talking about a process here; it is a dial for these people, as the noble Lord said, but it has to be understood in the context of how the work programme operates as well as how the WCA operates.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, may I ask the Minister a couple of questions? The first is about Atos. I was slightly taken aback by his statement that he did not want GPs’ and consultants’ evidence going to Atos because they were the patients’ advocates and this was the proper role of the decision-maker. Behind this and other remarks that the noble Lord has made when talking about DLA, for example, is the belief that somehow there is an objective assessment that is to be much preferred to a “subjective” assessment—for example, the sort of diaries that disabled people are encouraged to keep when trying to determine what level of award they would get on DLA. Does the Minister accept the point that two people can have identical physical conditions but very different capacities for work by virtue of their education, mental health, family support networks and, frankly, the savings and income that they have behind them? That dowry of resource would allow someone in an identical physical situation to someone else to go into work when the other person could not.

The Minister seems to believe that there is something objective about this and that it must therefore be left with Atos because there is a sort of box-ticking going on here that is reliable. He believes that the GP, who has extended knowledge of the patient or applicant concerned, is somehow on the patient’s side and is a subjective advocate whose view should not be taken into account. I find that approach wrong. Why, given that Atos is medically qualified, should it not receive advice from other medically qualified practitioners who know the patient’s ability in certain situations of stress?

My second question has nothing to do with that and is about Croydon. From the sound of it, the Government’s Croydon centre is breaking the law of the DDA. Could the Minister follow that up?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will follow up the Croydon situation. I was not aware of it, even though I was brought up in south Croydon.

Let me try to make this absolutely clear. The whole point of the assessment is to judge whether someone is functionally able to do the job, which is exactly what the noble Baroness was asking for. The point is that it can be done coherently and consistently by people who are experts in that function, whereas GPs and specialists are trained in diagnosis and treatments which are entirely different; it is not their job to see people and make those judgments day in, day out on a consistent basis. But that is what we are looking for. Atos Healthcare professionals are trained in disability assessment, which is assessing the functional effects of a person’s condition or disability. That is exactly what the noble Baroness is asking for.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, we recognise the value of further education and training. In England, the Department for Education is committed to fully funding education and training for all young people up to the age of 19. Everyone aged 19 and over is eligible for fully funded provision to achieve basic literacy and numeracy as a minimum to the equivalent of five GCSEs at grades A* to C. This is funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Higher education, as noble Lords will be well aware, is funded through a system of loans and grants intended to cover the cost not just of courses but of living expenses. Typically, the benefit system does not allow students in full-time education to claim benefits. That is in recognition that such individuals have access to other forms of financial support, either through the education system itself or because they are living at home with their parents. However, the existing system recognises that there are some circumstances where additional financial support is necessary. In particular, in income support, certain young people, for example, those who are estranged from their parents or lone parents with a child under seven, may be entitled to benefit while studying. Students who are themselves parents can also claim child tax credits.

Under universal credit, we are looking to maintain the status quo. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry to intervene so early, but unless I am badly out of date, there are two further circumstances in which you can continue to be on benefit while having education which have not been enumerated by the noble Lord. One of these is if you are a young person in FE and your FE contact hours are less than 16 hours a week and that is therefore thought not to impede your search for work, although your study time at home may be a multiple of that time. That is a key group, because most FE courses do not involve more than 16 hours a week of face-to-face contact, which therefore exempts quite a lot of the people my noble friend was talking about. The second exemption, as I recall, is that if you are more than halfway through a period of training—if it is an 18-week period of training and you have done at least nine sessions—you are allowed to continue even if you still receive JSA. Will the Minister confirm that those other two exemptions also apply to people on JSA or IS?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords, I am pleased to confirm that it is our intention to maintain those exemptions.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Forgive me. Would not the first of those neatly fit my noble friend's concerns?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I will take that on board. This is a very important point. It is not one that I would cavalierly dismiss at all. How we raise human capital among people who have perhaps not had as good a start in life as we would want them to have is a central point. I will think about it and try to make sure that the way we design the structure will allow the flexibility to incorporate future developments. I am grateful for this particular amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I would like to add a further comment to the noble Lord’s open-mindedness on this, which is appreciated very much. A lot of research shows that work is the best form of training in the first 12 months or so at an entry point. If you roll forward, six or seven years down the line, those who have invested earlier in education at the expense of early access to work find they are able to float themselves off the bottom and get off universal credit. The key question is not whether the best education or training either follows or precedes work but over what time scale this is judged. All the research shows that, if you are patient enough and give it about six years, it is the amount of education you have had, rather than work-based training, that allows you to lift yourself off the benefit track.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are getting into philosophy here. I accept the point and have always been uncomfortable with the “work first” philosophy. It worked in the short term, as the noble Baroness has said, but the evidence is that, in relative terms, we have a poor workforce because we have too many people with no skills and too few with intermediate skills by comparison with our main competitors. We have to think about the balance between “work first”—which does get people a job—and the risk that training is sometimes used as an excuse to do nothing. There is a difficult balance here. We have not got it right. We had a welfare-to-work system that got it completely wrong. We are trying to pull it together. I do not think that this is going to be a rapid process but everyone in this room knows that it is very important to get this right. It will take some years to get it right but we are beginning to travel in the right direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

May I add to that? I was going to wait until the Minister finished, but I wish to add two points which are germane to this discussion. First, the noble Lord is assuming—I absolutely understand why he would—that people respond rationally to sanctions. However, the group with whom he may well be dealing are those whose lives are feckless, chaotic and without much shape. In my experience, those people are semi-literate and probably do not understand what is going on when the sanction is imposed. It is just one of those things that happen to them in a passive way, which means that a high obligation is placed on staff, with the aid of easy-to-read literature and all the rest of it, to make very clear what is going on and what the nature of those sanctions are. My experience of people who have been sanctioned is that they do not know why they have been sanctioned.

Secondly—I was waiting to hear the noble Lord refer to this but he has not done so, so perhaps he will go on to do so, in which case I apologise for anticipating him—we have always had a hardship category in relation to sanctions. For example, if you have dependent children the level of sanctions is limited so that, because of your hardship, you are not sanctioned all the way. Disabled people and those with a mental health problem would in my view come into the category of vulnerable people entitled to a hardship adjustment so that their benefit is not completely wiped out. Again, this requires high levels of training and support from the very people who the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, identified; namely, the disability employment advisers in Jobcentre Plus offices. Perhaps the noble Lord can reassure us on those two points. First, can he assume that people with such chaotic lives will understand the rationality of a sanctions system? Secondly, will the hardship regime apply to some of the people who were identified by previous contributors to this debate?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, let me deal with the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, straight away. Claimants who fail to meet their responsibilities will have an opportunity to explain why they have done so and show good reason before a decision to sanction is made. After a decision to reduce the claimant’s award amount is made and processed we expect that, as now, a letter will automatically be sent to claimants setting out their appeal rights and details of how to request information on why they have been sanctioned. We will also communicate the amount and duration of the award reduction and, in the case of lower-level failures, what the claimant can do to re-engage and bring the open-ended part of the sanction to an end. We will not sanction claimants with limited capability for work, or those who have learning difficulties or mental health conditions, without first making every effort to contact them, their carer or healthcare professional to ensure that they have fully understood the requirement placed on them and had no good reason for failing to meet it.

On hardship, we are addressing the hardship arrangements in a later group but we are looking to maintain a hardship regime which will act in a similar way, although we will probably make some adjustments to it. However, we can discuss that a little later. I should clarify the point about the overlapping of different sanctions. Where a claimant subject to one sanction receives another, both sanctions run concurrently with one reduction suppressed. This means that for the period in which two sanctions overlap, the second sanction has no impact, as I said earlier. Under universal credit, where a claimant subject to one sanction receives another, the period of the second sanction would be added to the total outstanding reduction period. A claimant’s award amounts would be reduced for the entire duration of both sanctions. This ensures that claimants will always face the full consequences of failing to meet their responsibilities. There will be a change from the current system to the universal credit system. I apologise if I slightly misled the Committee on that.

Amendment 51FZZA seeks to prevent the imposition of higher-level sanctions on disabled claimants until such time as a disability employment adviser has been consulted. First, I assure noble Lords that we recognise that high-level sanctions of up to three years are not appropriate for all failures. Disabled claimants with limited capability for work will not be subject to requirements that are sanctionable at the higher level. Clause 27 provides for appropriate sanctions for failures that should not be subject to high-level sanctions, such as failures to attend a work-focus interview or a training course.

Disability employment advisers play an important role. I will pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lady Thomas. I hope that my answer will get to the nub of her acute question. The role of disability employment advisers is to assist claimants with a disability or health condition who need extra support to gain or retain employment. It is decision-makers who will look at all the available evidence and consider whether a sanction should be imposed. It is right that we should retain the clarity of roles in the system. I will not talk about the training of disability employment advisers because it is not strictly relevant in this context. If the noble Baroness would like a letter describing it, I will write to her, but it is not the point here. What matters is the training of the decision-makers. They will receive in-depth training. This will include how to assess evidence and determine whether a claimant has demonstrated good reason. Where necessary, decision-makers may seek additional advice from specialists, including medical professionals, with the consent of claimants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, they may need advocacy but they can find supporters and bring them along. However, it is not a legal process; it is a fact-finding process.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Did the noble Lord say that for somebody who was sanctioned, for example by the removal of benefit for three years, conditionality will still apply while the sanction operates? How will it apply if there are no benefits left to sanction?

[Lord Freud]

We would still expect them to comply with the conditionality regime.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That might be the expectation, but how would they be sanctioned?

[Lord Freud]

This is an extraordinarily small group. In extremes, we would look to run to more sanctions on top. I described how sanctions would work concurrently. We are looking at a sanctions regime that will replace the current regime, which states that people are not entitled to JSA because they are not complying at all with their conditions. In some ways it is a rather lighter regime than the current one.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps I could suggest to the Minister that the most successful use of sanctions is when there is a very close connection between behaviour, the sanction and the ability to lift the sanction by changing behaviour. I urge him to think again about running sanctions for very long periods and still expecting conditionality to apply. Frankly, that is in the clouds. If you are going to change behaviour, you need sanctions that will get switched off if there is compliance for a certain period of time. That is the way to get changes in behaviour to stick, which is what we all want. If it seems that nothing you can do can make any difference for at least two years, nothing will happen.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are talking about a sanction that, to put it bluntly, is there as a deterrent. We are not anticipating that more than a handful of people will move into that position. One can get overinvolved in what it means. The point of having a regime that builds up is to act as a very powerful deterrent.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will the noble Lord not accept the principle that if you want to change behaviour, you want that behaviour to have some positive effect—namely, to switch off the sanction?

[Lord Freud]

Clearly, I am interested in behaviour change. However, I would hope that before we get into these regions we will have had the behaviour change. There will have to have been a very bad failure in circumstances where we impose a three-year sanction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

No, I suggest that the Minister responds.

[Lord Freud]

At the risk of being a little repetitious, I will try to summarise. Obviously, hardship payments are there to ensure that claimants and their dependants are not left in hardship as a consequence of a sanction. We do not want the existence of those payments to make people feel that they can ignore their responsibilities. That is why we are looking at what reform we can make to the current system. We will continue to provide the safety net for claimants and their children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we learn more every Sitting. We learn that the mother of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is really a Conservative, and therefore that she is. We had the admission the other day from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that she actually was a Conservative. I can only say: “You are very welcome back any time; I would prefer you to come back very soon”.

I know that the noble Baroness was mathematically challenged over the past week. I can offer only my noble friend Lord German, whose ability to sort out the sums of Labour politicians is now famous; I am sure that he will help her sort everything out.

I have to be absolutely clear about the date when October happens. October happens when the Committee gets towards the PIP clauses. That is the definition. The fact that that has moved is due only to the extraordinary assiduity of Members of the Committee, for which I know that we are all grateful.

I should just deal with the council tax, which strayed into this. It is not possible to analyse how different tapers will work because we do not know how the council tax will work. We will find that out. One issue behind any restructuring is that we are determined that it will not undermine work incentives; in the universal credit, we are dealing with that by enlarging the disregards.

I must pay tribute to carers. I want to put on the record that they do a terrific job. We know that, and we have been very conscious of it as we develop the universal credit. Taking Amendment 52B first, we have looked at how we support carers. Rather than going through the complexity of the separate disregard route, we have provided an additional element that is included in the gross amount of the universal credit for carers. That is a change from carer’s allowance. This additional element will not be withdrawn when the claimant’s working hours pass a particular threshold, which is what happens now. Instead, the claimant’s award will reduce gradually as earnings increase due to the effect of the single earnings taper.

The structure of earnings disregards in universal credit is not the same as that in current out-of-work benefits. We do not propose to carry forward the weekly £20 disregard that applies to carers in income support currently. In practice, many carers will receive an earnings disregard that is higher than £20 because they are lone parents or members of couples or if they or their partner are disabled. All carers will have the earnings taper applied to earnings beyond the relevant disregard. These measures will significantly enhance work incentives for carers in the vast majority of circumstances. We have taken the decision to standardise the provision for single non-disabled people in universal credit so that all claimants in this group will have £700 of their annual earnings disregarded. Simplifying measures such as this are essential if universal credit is not to replicate the complications of the current system, which breeds confusion and error for both claimants and administrators.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I am following the Minister with as much attention as I can muster on a very complex subject. We share and appreciate his remarks about carers, of course, but does he not recognise the difference between a single person who may, for example, be a young man going into the labour market with an earnings disregard on his universal credit and the situation of a carer who may be caring for 40 hours a week and therefore has limited opportunities for work? If she does not have a disregard, it will actually not be worth her working at all, but the level of her caring responsibilities, although they do not qualify her for CA, will mean that she is unable to meet the work conditions and earn a living. What would the Minister have her do?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I turn to the example raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. With great skill she has found precisely an area of loss within a general position of substantial improvement. Let us take a single non-disabled carer. If they work between roughly two and five hours at the national minimum wage, they may have a marginally lower net income as a result of this structure. The maximum possible reduction in those circumstances is around £4.25 a week, which is in line with the noble Baroness’s example. But at only marginally higher earnings, work incentives increase significantly under universal credit. For example, at only eight hours a week, such carers would be over £5 a week better off, and at 12 hours a week they would gain nearly £15. So there is a stronger incentive to get back into work than the flat £20 flat disregard in income support.

I shall pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I still do not understand how she could be expected to add those hours of work to her hours of caring, even though the hours of caring do not qualify her for CA. Therefore you invoke not just four, six or eight hours, but full conditionality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I shall try to answer the questions. To pick up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, there is not an impact assessment on carers, but if we are talking about an entire universe of 50,000 and then we have to narrow it down to this very small group who are working two to five hours at national minimum wage, we are talking about a very small number. Do not forget that there is an element of the system that people change behaviour to fit around. You can see the encouragement here, as I was showing noble Lords, to start earning a little more than the five hours. The reality is that this is a very small impact. There are winners and losers all the way through the universal credit because we are putting in a new system.

To pick up the question from my noble friend Lady Thomas, the tax credits will no longer exist once the universal credit is introduced. As we stated in the revised policy briefing note—she has spotted this with her eagle eye—we aim to have a single assessment as the gateway to limited capability for work elements and the earnings disregard for disabled people. This assessment will be based on the work capability assessment and we are considering that this process may need to be modified in the context of the universal credit. We will have a chance at a later stage of the Bill to discuss the WCA in a little more detail.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister has been very full in his efforts to answer our questions. Could he have his staff prepare for us one of the very helpful briefing notes that we have had on the situation of carers in the various scenarios that have been outlined over the past few Committee days—carers who are one of a couple, single carers, carers who may be able to work a few hours, carers who are not on CA and are therefore exposed to work conditionality, and carers who are on CA? That is eight or 10 possible permutations, and that would be helpful. This is before we get to council tax benefit and its screwy effects on the whole system. It would be very helpful if the Minister did us a briefing paper as soon as was practicable on the situations that carers could find themselves in.

[Lord Freud]

I cannot absolutely commit to that, mainly because I have a department working at full tilt. However, I will look at whether that is the kind of work we can do without disturbing all the other demands on people’s time.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord because it is an issue that is dear to their Lordships’ hearts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am looking forward to my invitation to the McAvoy public house. I hope that it is called “The Lord McAvoy” with a nice—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Lord McAvoy Temperance pub.

[Lord Freud]

And I hope that it has a nice picture of him. I look forward to going there.

[Lord Freud]

The basic way to get information from the self-employed is this: they will put in the information in the universal credit system, or an equivalent system, which will potentially match up later with the information that they provide either to the VAT authorities or to HMRC. There is a process of reporting.

To get back to the point, there is an opportunity to provide real support for entrepreneurial business, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, so shrewdly said, we must not be an open cheque book for people who are not running genuine businesses. We need to get that right.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Something has been puzzling me. We are talking about self-employed as if it were a self-employed single person. What happens if you have a small family business—not quite the corner shop—where the income from that self-employed business in which the partner, say the wife, is doing some part-time book-keeping, answering the telephone, and so on and contributing to fairly low profits? How will you assess whether conditionality applies to her?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, universal credit is particularly well suited to that situation because it is a household income. We will have rules on the two benefit recipients in a two-person household, so we should be able to adapt to that reasonably straightforwardly. Clearly there will be circumstances when one person is in paid employment and the other is self-employed, and we need to mix that. We are working on defining all those situations so that we can make universal credit work appropriately.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am sorry. I probably broadened the point that should have remained narrow. When two people are working on one endeavour, because universal credit is a household payment, it can accommodate that without any distortion.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I have a little difficulty with that.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for speaking with the expertise and knowledge that we have grown accustomed to in this Chamber. I am particularly grateful for the mathematical expertise of my noble friend Lord German.

As I have already mentioned, the Government have acknowledged that the original timetable was too harsh on some women and have amended this. We have listened. We have amended. This is the very point of the legislative process. The elected Chamber brought forward and agreed Amendments 1 and 2 after significant and lengthy debate. Due consideration has been paid to the issue and I believe that we have reached an agreeable and responsible conclusion.

Indeed, I confess that I am slightly perplexed. We find ourselves considering a timetable that has already been proposed and defeated in a vote by both Houses. We appear to be back at square one. This should not be the case. The Government have reconsidered their original proposal and brought forward a reasonable amendment. Yet, the noble Lord opposite has still reinserted his familiar friend. I feel that we have offered a hand here and the noble Lord, like Beowulf, treats me like Grendel and tries to rip my arm off.

We have heard many of the issues today, but we have been here before and the facts have not changed. We are still talking about an £11 billion reduction in savings that the Opposition are proposing. In terms of fiscal sustainability, I hope that noble Lords can agree that this is simply not feasible.

Several issues have been raised and I want to touch on some of them. One that is of great concern was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Drake, in respect of the burden on women who are carers. Only around 3 per cent of women in the 55 to 59 age group are currently entitled to carers’ allowance.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

There are 6 million carers and only about 500,000 of those qualify for carers’ allowance because of the very high hurdles: you have to care for at least 30 hours per week for one person in order to receive the carers’ allowance for somebody who is on middle or higher rate DLA. Those are very tough hurdles. Very many other women—hundreds of thousands—are, I know, actively caring in ways that do not permit them to be full time in the labour market or build a pension, but they do not meet those very high hurdles.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we do not have the figures on more informal care; we do not know how many are in this age group. That is not broken down—I certainly do not have the figures to hand. I am providing the figures for the women most affected with full-time caring responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her precision analysis in this area, which—I say this as a compliment—has had the team seriously thinking about the issues involved. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, for applying such scrutiny to the powers contained within the Bill. I trust that noble Lords are as content with the Government’s amendments, even though they have some broad powers within them, as the committee was after its consideration.

Let me turn now to Amendment 29A. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, highlights a key question. How do we ensure that those people whose benefits are classified as money purchase benefits in payment, because their scheme has bought an annuity to match the liability, actually benefit from that annuity? The Government share the noble Baroness’s aim in laying this amendment, but the issue is how one ensures the right outcome. I have concerns that the way this amendment is designed could have desirable consequences and place an unnecessary regulatory burden on schemes.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think that perhaps the noble Lord meant “undesirable” consequences.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, when I look down at my notes, which perhaps I should do more frequently, I do notice that the word is “undesirable” and not “desirable”. I am most grateful that we have the record absolutely correct on this.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

The first point I make to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is to assure her that full-time is not the default setting. The default setting is that we look at the circumstances of the claimant, particularly taking into account their caring responsibilities and available care, and reach a reasonable position. That is the position. On that basis, a lot of her concerns surrounding her point fall away. Of course we are not looking to have latch-key children.

On flexible working, I made the point earlier that we understand that when we look at the value of a job, the monetary implications are not the only measure; and that the gains of flexibility, in terms of how the employer behaves, and the relationship, are key and critical factors and have to be taken into account.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I do apologise, as I know the Minister has taken care to answer my noble friend. Does that mean that conditionality would not apply where a lone parent or a partner in a couple with primary caring responsibilities was able to work—or felt they could or should work—only during school hours, given the suggestion from my noble friend of the situations families find themselves in? Most of us have been through that. Therefore the default position for a lone parent of a teenager or, to gender-stereotype, the mother in a couple would be that one of those two need be available for work within school hours only?

[Lord Freud]

No, my Lords. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, knows how the legislation works. That legislation now goes up to that 12/13 point and the formal protection around school hours. However, as I explained, the default setting remains that it depends more generally on the caring requirements of that parent, whether lone or in a couple, and their particular circumstances.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

How then do you avoid the question posed by my noble friend of latch-key children if you cannot ensure that the homecoming of the parent with primary care for the children coincides pretty approximately with that of the teenaged children?

[Lord Freud]

As I say, that will depend on the particular circumstances of that family. That is the point I am endeavouring to make.

I would like to finish with the point about the cost to the claimant of being employed. That is an issue that we are going to pick up in later amendments so I will not go into it in great detail. However, we recognise the need to take account of those employment costs, and I will pick that up more generally later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

At the risk of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, saying that we have not developed the whole system, I should say that it has not sprung, like Athena out of Zeus’s head, fully formed.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

It makes a change from Aphrodite.

[Lord Freud]

Aphrodite was in the seashell. I think Athena was the daughter of Metis, who was swallowed by Zeus, but there we are.

We are working really intensively now to get the customer interface with our IT system for the universal credit right. We are spending a lot of time on the support that we will be providing for that and the categories of people who cannot be expected to do it themselves but need other ways of being helped. In practice, we will wrap this up with the much bigger exercise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, let me just—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Soothe fears.

[Lord Freud]

Yes, soothe fears but also put this matter into context. We are essentially importing the existing arrangements, subject to the work experience issue that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised. We have drawn up an illustrative list. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to a draconian power. That is the structure that we have imported into this Bill. That structure has been debated thoroughly by many noble Lords in this Room over a number of Bills, so we are not trying to do anything dramatically new here, albeit with a nudge towards work experience. I said to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that I would make absolutely clear what the protections are and how we intend to run the system. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is looking at the whole thing as if it was a dramatically new and draconian way of doing things, but it is not. We are importing the existing methodology into the context of the universal credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I wonder if I could come in on this. I absolutely see the dilemma and I can quite understand why you may want someone to start in on something in the hope and expectation that a year down the line, that entry into low-paid work will have paid off. I put it to the noble Lord—I think he might be horrified by the possible complexity of it, but I have been looking at the additional material and trying to get my head around how disregards work—that the disregard is relatively modest for a single young person. I wonder, following the point made by my noble friend—I can see already that there may be too much downside to this and the arguments against it—whether the Minister could look at the issue of whether in such circumstances you could adjust the disregard to ensure that, even where it does not appear to pay, you could construct it so that at least someone is not worse off through working until the point at which the hoped-for job progression that we all want to see has taken them into the pathway. I would ask the Minister to take this away. It may be that this is too complicated, but making someone worse off is going to be hard to defend, is it not?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the best answer I can give on the whole area is to encourage us to wait until we get to the piloting powers before we have this debate. Let me explain it. We want to test every aspect of this system on a continuing basis. Rather than having a debate about whether we should make this little change, make that little change, do this or do that—we all like to design a system—I think the way to develop this system, which will not and cannot be perfect on day one because it is just too tough, is to have a process of constant improvement. That is my real answer. We should have the constructive debate on these issues when we get to the clause—I forget which one it is, but it is not very far away. I do not think that we will arrive there today—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Clause 42.

[Lord Freud]

We will get there soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If they have good reason, we should listen to them.

[Lord Freud]

I am laughing at the memory of my own children’s disapproval of their minders. Jobcentre Plus does not dictate to parents the type of childcare or which provider they should use, or make any presumption that a childcare provider is suitable for the parent and child in question. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked whether childcare costs would be taken as good reason. This goes back to my previous response: there is no blanket rule. We will consider each case and look at all the benefits of work. Clearly, we will elaborate the detail on that in due course.

Advisers will continue to have an important role in both challenging and supporting parents who may have preconceived ideas about childcare, who may have had previous experiences or who have not used the services before. The circumstances of all parents and the needs of their children vary, and advisers will continue to take this into account.

Several noble Lords raised the question of the availability of childcare. We should bear in mind that local authorities have a duty under the Childcare Act 2006 to secure, as far as is reasonably practicable, sufficient childcare for working parents of children aged from birth to 14, and from birth to 18 in the case of disabled children. They must formally assess sufficiency in their area every three years. Local authority decisions on what they regard as “reasonably practicable” should be documented and published to allow scrutiny and challenge. Parents who feel that their needs have not been met can complain to the local authority. In the event that they are not satisfied with the way that their complaint has been dealt with, they may make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. I will borrow the claim of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about the perfection of all things under the previous Government. This is after all the system that they put in place, so I am sure that she is absolutely satisfied with the arrangements.

A parent who considers that childcare is not available will need to demonstrate to the adviser that they have taken reasonable steps to secure such care. If childcare is available but the parent considers that it is not appropriate, he or she will need to provide information indicating that they have discussed their concerns with the service provider and give reasons why they do not consider the provision to be appropriate. Parents will need to demonstrate that there are no alternative arrangements that it would be reasonable for them to make. Where the adviser considers that the parent has not taken reasonable steps to identify or access appropriate childcare they will refer the question to a decision-maker. The sanction will only be imposed if the claimant does not have a good reason. In considering whether there is good reason, we will consider all relevant matters raised by the claimant, which would include the individual circumstances of the parent and children, and the availability of suitable childcare. Of course, any sanction decision can be appealed to an independent appeals tribunal for review.

Ultimately, we believe that in the vast majority of cases it is best for children if their parents are in work. Research into child poverty and workless households highlighted that:

“Parental employment is the key route out of poverty and disadvantage. Growing up in a workless household and/or in poverty can have a significant negative effect on a child’s development.”

That is from the 2004 Treasury document, Choice for Parents, The Best Start for Children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, there are two questions here. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked whether our provision could be improved and integrated more closely. Clearly we do have links with the family service that I was describing. What we are doing in Jobcentre Plus is trying to co-locate services, so there may be something there to look at very closely.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made a point about unpaid childcare by grandparents and others, which I was able to think about in the break. It is deceptively easy to say, “Oh, yes”, but actually it is very complicated. There is a whole load of things happening: increasing longevity; much later childbirth; and in some cases much earlier childbirth, especially in some of the groups we are discussing here. There is a lot of social change going on, including the pension provision, so this is pretty difficult to do much about. I could say consolingly that we will look at it—and I will look at it, I am quite interested in this area—but solutions here are very difficult and would be hard to find. I will look at it but I am not expecting huge things to come out of that look.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

It is very interesting that the noble Lord should say that, because it was exactly the advice I had from civil servants at the time. None the less, it did not stop us introducing NI credits for grandparents who did more than 20 hours’ care a week for their daughter, releasing her to work. If you can do it for national insurance and pensions, you can certainly do it for childcare, and it would be much easier to do it with conditionality.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, perhaps I could suggest to the Minister that Jobcentre Plus could encourage the grandparent to train as a childminder. The daughter could then claim help through universal credit to pay the grandparent for childcare. You could simply cycle the money round that way—it might be a better way to do it.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am really grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for her imaginative way of manipulating the system. I am sure that it is something we should look at very closely. No, come on; I will look at this. This is very difficult so I am not promising anything, but I will look at it.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

It is already the case that grandparents can mind a grandchild if they are a registered childminder, with the childcare taking place in their own home, and look after at least one other child. That is already done.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 24th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

Yes, I can confirm to the noble Lord that that is absolutely what is happening here. Clearly, we have debated the changes in pension age. That is to do with the very welcome increase in longevity and the length of people’s healthy lives. Returning to the point, the noble Baroness’s amendment would deal with the difference between pension credit levels and universal credit levels by including an additional amount in universal credit where a claimant is over the state pension qualifying age. I understand the reasoning—and indeed there are currently pensioner premiums along these lines in income support and jobseeker’s allowance. In designing universal credit, however, we have not included any additions specifically for people over pension age. There are two main reasons for this.

First, we think that it could reduce the work incentives for the working-age partner if they are paid a higher rate of benefit simply because they have an older partner. We are already including additions for specific reasons such as caring, or limited capability for work, where people are likely to have longer durations on benefit. Clearly, we are raising some of those levels appreciably. If in a particular case these additions are not appropriate, there ought, in principle, to be as much scope for the working-age partner to work as in any other case, so it is not clear why a higher rate of benefit should be paid.

Secondly, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Hollis, rightly pointed out, there is a significant programme of change under way for people over pension age. Following the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget of 23 March, the Government published the Green Paper A State Pension for the 21st Century in April. That paper set out options for reforming the state pension system for future pensioners. In the light of the responses to the Green Paper, we are currently developing proposals for changing the state pension system and at the same time are considering how pension credit may need to change to best meet the needs of future pensioners under any reformed state pension. It would clearly be important to make sure that any arrangements for pensioners dovetail closely with universal credit to ensure a smooth interface and also to ensure that we deal fairly with couples where one person is over pension age and the other is under it. Until our thinking is further developed, we have only one side of the equation. We need both sides of the equation to consider this issue fully. I should just add that clearly once there is a migration on changing pensions the migration strategy into universal credit and the timing of how we take different groups into it will also be hugely relevant. That goes to the heart of the very perceptive question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am grateful for the Minister’s very full reply on that. He clearly anticipated the question coming up. When will he be in a position to tell the Committee about the two timetables? There is the universal credit timetable and people coming over to that and the new pension timetable. When will we be in a position to see? Frankly, if there is only a year or so’s difference between them, that raises a question mark about putting this extra weight on to the complexities of UC for a very short period before it is overtaken in turn by the changes to pensions, at least for the older partner in such a relationship. Can he give us some indication? I suspect that this is probably not worth doing.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I do not think I can give a precise time on this because there are quite a lot of moving parts at the moment. All I can do is assure the Committee that we really do have this issue front and centre if we have these two sets of changes. I hope I have explained how we are planning to proceed, and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Yes. There are two or three issues wrapped up in that seemingly simple question around whether we got the differential pricing right when we set the contract terms up. The answer is that we do not know and we will not know. I doubt if they are completely perfect—that would be very surprising. But as we learn and get information, we will be able to adjust them. In practice, looking at the timescales of this, with the next set of contracts, which will be out in about five to seven years, you effectively have to start negotiating in four years’ time. By the time we have all the information on this, I suspect the reality is that it will not really be a question of changing existing contracts; it will go into the design of the next round. That is how it will happen in practice.

Let me now explain how much differentiation there really is, when you are looking at a regime for everyone. When you look at those who come off the system as jobseekers, half leave the benefit system within three months, and three-quarters within six months—the majority, to put it bluntly, with very little help from the state. So it would not be appropriate to offer support to all claimants early in their claim and, clearly, it would clearly be much too costly to do so. I am very comfortable in believing that those who have sat in my chair before me will be very aware of the dead weight issues of running that kind of system.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Does that mean that with the sharing of this insight, the Minister will therefore look more favourably at amendments trying to protect those who are temporarily caught in the housing benefit underoccupancy trap by virtue of suddenly losing a job?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I very much remember the debates we had last week. I am thinking very deeply about some of the observations made by noble Lords in this Committee, and I think that is probably as far as I should go today.

We operate in a world of finite resources, and we need to target them appropriately. Clearly, at the moment, we do not refer all claimants to the work programme until 12 months into their claim. We pull some further forward. So we need to ensure we continue to have flexibility to allocate resources in the most effective way.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked what is happening to work-focused health-related assessments—WFHRAs. The suspension of the WFHRA allows us time to re-evaluate the assessment, particularly in the light of the new work programme, and to consider whether its operation can be improved better to support claimants or whether this support should continue to be provided in other ways. I do not propose to second-guess the outcome of that review or to place constraints on our ability to take the best course of action on that.

On training, we already have a system in place for the professional development and upskilling of advisers. This includes access to a learning framework endorsed by Edexcel, the UK’s largest qualification-awarding body, which will be updated to reflect changes in policy ahead of universal credit. We strongly believe that our advisers are up to the task of personalising requirements and support. We have some very experienced professionals in Jobcentre Plus and their decisions are supported by relevant training, tools and guidance. In a Jobcentre Plus customer survey carried out this year, 88 per cent of claimants reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their experience of Jobcentre Plus. The changes we are making in Jobcentre Plus are precisely intended to allow district managers and their advisory teams more freedom and autonomy rather than having to follow a tick-box, process-driven approach. It is critical that we maintain flexibility in legislation to tailor training and tools according to business need and developing strategy. For all the reasons outlined here, I urge the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the size criteria measure marks a significant change in our approach to housing benefit for claimants living in the social rented sector. The current housing benefit system is not fair; it is not right that families on benefit in the private rented sector have been able to live in homes that most working families could not afford, and we have already begun to tackle that unfairness through changes to the local housing allowance. It is also not fair that, in the social rented sector, housing benefit pays out the full rent on properties that are larger than required by those who live in them, while at the same time over 250,000 households in England are overcrowded.

To pick up one of the many points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the bedroom standard, that standard actually expects children aged over 16 to share a room with children of the same gender until they are 21. That is a rather tougher requirement than that of the DWP and the LHA, which allows separate bedrooms for a child of the same gender, aged 16 and over.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, that was why I specified a 15 year-old in my illustration of bedroom size.

[Lord Freud]

I shall continue. By 2014-15, the annual savings achieved as a result of housing benefit reform as a whole will exceed £2 billion. It is right that the social rented sector plays its part in achieving those savings. The size criteria measure itself will achieve around £0.5 billion of savings each year from 2013-14.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, about room size—the example that he used was his nearby city of Glasgow and its tenements—the size of rooms is something that we are looking at with stakeholders as part of the implementation planning. That concern is shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. It is an issue that we are looking at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister on that key point. He has quoted a figure of £500 million for HB savings. The impact analysis that I think most of us were working off gave a figure of £700 million. If that figure is correct—it may have been overtaken by further refinement from the DWP—it would mean that, for less than half the cost of the savings, he would take some 80 per cent of those worst affected out of the equation. That seems to be very good value.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, without us rambling through the papers, I think that the figure is £500 million, of which £300 million is a very substantial proportion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, perhaps I may conclude on the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The confusion is between the £0.5 billion that we start to save annually in 2013-14 and the £770 million figure that she quoted from the impact assessment. It represents two years of savings on a GB basis, which is appropriately discounted and deflated.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, it is nice of the Minister to give us those figures, but is his £300 million the amount set off against the £500 million, or is it set off against the £770 million?

[Lord Freud]

No, it is £300 million set against £500 million—so 60 per cent.

I have already talked about the behavioural responses. I move to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about the number of bedrooms, the size of the rooms and box rooms. Again, we discussed that issue briefly in the previous set of amendments when the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised the window tax. It is the social landlord’s responsibility to specify the number of bedrooms in a property but, as I said, we are looking at this, including the size of the bedrooms, to explore whether it is an issue.

Amendment 35 of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, relates to support for mortgage interest payments and is connected with Schedule 4, concerning the payment of housing costs for pensioners. I understand only too well why noble Lords are seeking reassurance that assistance with eligible mortgage interest costs will continue to be provided for homeowners, including those with long-term disabilities. In fact, I met only yesterday representatives from Mencap to discuss these matters.

Approximately 430 claimants have purchased their properties through the shared ownership scheme known as HOLD—rather less than the 1,000 figure that has more generally been quoted. The Government want disabled people to continue to access suitably adapted homes, whether through a mortgage or housing benefit. The Homes and Communities Agency continues to support the provision of shared-ownership homes where this is a local priority, including shared-ownership homes under HOLD. The agency is holding ongoing discussions with lenders on the provision of mortgages for HOLD. Support for mortgage interest is intended to provide a reasonable level of help for homeowners but has never been intended to cover all of a person’s housing liabilities. As noble Lords can see from the draft regulations, help will continue for homeowners. So I see no need to set out in the Bill specific reference to mortgage interest payments. We propose to continue using the same standard mortgage interest rate for all claimants. As to Schedule 4, a housing credit element with broadly the same rules as housing benefit will be introduced into pension credit to ensure that low-income pensioners continue to receive help with their rent.

Regarding the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, on providing incentives for pensioners to move, our approach to this issue will, over the long term, help to ensure that people are in suitably sized accommodation before they become pensioners. Our expectation is that the proportion of pensioners needing to downsize will in future be lower than it is now. As several noble Lords mentioned, the Localism Bill includes measures specifically aimed at helping pensioners to downsize and will help to increase mobility in the social rented sector for this group.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Could the Minister at some point, not necessarily today but in due course, set out the stats on the number of pensioners underoccupying and what his projection is of the time it will take for numbers to diminish?

[Lord Freud]

I would be happy to circulate the information to noble Lords.

On the social sector size criteria measure that we are introducing through Clause 68, we will use the time before its introduction in April 2013, as we are already doing, to explore fully the implications for claimants and landlords. We acknowledge that the impact will not be the same across all regions; we will work with stakeholders to look at those variations as we move towards implementation.

Let me repeat: I value these debates and hope that they continue on a constructive level as we move forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I said earlier that we are working on the detailed implementation of this. It would be premature to make judgments on that. We need to develop strategies to ensure that those problems do not arise.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

In that case, can I ask the Minister to amplify his stats for us when he writes to us next? He has talked several times, over the few Committee days we have had, about a £60 million discretionary housing fund, and how it is going up threefold, and so on. I am not keeping a tight list, but I think we have now overspent that by approximately five times. Could he tell us—given that there are some 400 local authorities—even on a per capita basis, how it works out? On average an authority can only help 700 families, out of—for instance, in the Norwich situation—some 20,000-odd families that are in rented accommodation.

I believe that those people affected, who will not readily afford it, are probably more like 7,000 rather than 700. Could the Minister give us the assumptions, or the stats, behind that £60 million figure as to what this would mean in a typical local authority, per 1,000 rented homes, for a period of, say, six months, or what percentage of those families you could typically expect to support? So that, per 1,000, that £60 million would extend to 20 families for six months, or 50 families for six months. Then we can get some idea of how that money connects to all the various issues for which this will, apparently, be the solution.

[Lord Freud]

Yes. I always prefer to answer rather than write, but I think I will on this occasion go to paper. It may be that the noble Baroness prefers paper.

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

I will withdraw that name.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

We did not hear it.

[Lord Freud]

I muttered it. The letter was very moving and was about a particular individual.

Clearly, people on the autistic spectrum who are receiving severe disability premium are exempt from this measure. But not everyone, as my noble friend pointed out, is categorised as severely disabled. The question is: how does one best get support? Our basic view is that the local authorities are best placed to identify this group. Indeed, they have a duty to identify this group, unlike other groups. It is our view that discretionary housing payments to that group are the way to go. Clearly, it would be hugely in the interests of local authorities to make sure that happened because, as my noble friend pointed out, the ongoing costs of getting this wrong in particular cases are much larger than the DHP support. So there is a real incentive for local authorities to get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I apologise for not speaking in the debate. I did not do so deliberately, because I thought that we would go through a lot of these issues tomorrow, and it would be more sensible to wait until I had heard some of the arguments addressed. One quick point for the Minister is that, by the time that we have counted up the number of referrals to the local housing allowance of £60 million, I suspect that it will have been overspent by fivefold, but we will see.

The Minister made the point in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that a lot of people between the ages of 25 and 35 choose to share accommodation, which I entirely accept, and it is not right that people who are not in work should have separate accommodation when people in work cannot afford that. To my mind, the key question that has not been identified is how large that shared accommodation is. Clearly, it is reasonable for two people who are not connected to each other in an emotional or sexual partnership to share a two-bedroom flat, but the Minister seemed to be suggesting earlier that single people in a one-bedroom flat, rather than going down to shared accommodation, could take someone in and thereby go into shared accommodation. Can he help us with the statistics on how many instances there are of two people who are not sexually connected who share a one-bedroom flat, which is the obvious analogy, rather than a two-bedroom flat where they have separate accommodation within that flat?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I do not have that precise information to hand, but if I can find it I will make it available and write to the noble Baroness. I can say that, in 60 per cent of cases, two people claiming the shared accommodation rate would be more than the two-bedroom accommodation rate. There are many areas where sharing gets the group of people more money than if they formally join up as a couple and go for the same accommodation.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Sorry, is the noble Lord saying that someone who is in single-bedroom accommodation and now finds that they are subject to SAR because they are 33, should, instead of going down to a shared room, actually seek a larger two-person two-bedroom flat with another person, thus possibly increasing the HB bill?

[Lord Freud]

There will be quite a lot of flexing around, and people do accommodate to systems. According to the figures that I have, regarding shared rates, in 60 per cent of localities the two-bedroom LHA rate is less than twice the shared rate. In 90 per cent of localities the shared rate would cover the relevant share of the three or four-bedroom rate. The point is that, when you are looking at pressure on the market, which noble Lords and the SSAC have been concerned about, fundamentally we are taking pressure off the market by looking for more sharing. Clearly, there are local adjustments but, as I have said, this has proven to be a very flexible market in the past, and we have no reason to expect it not to continue to be.

The question raised by my noble friend Lord Stoneham about the shortfalls in London—the difference between the one-bedroom rate and the shared accommodation rate—reflects the generally higher rents in London. The ability of those not on benefits to live in self-contained accommodation in these areas is also very limited, and many, therefore, already choose to share. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Thomas pointed out, it is for exactly that reason that such decisions have been taken for very many years in London. I think I can join her in that experience.

It has been suggested that the Government are doing little to encourage the development of houses in multiple occupation. Landlords make commercial decisions about whether to provide such accommodation, and government’s influence on those decisions is limited. We do, however, have a role in setting the planning framework and licensing requirements. Communities and Local Government Ministers have considered whether the licensing regime, which places added burdens on landlords to comply with various health and safety measures, should be relaxed. However, with more people likely to require this kind of accommodation, they do not think it appropriate to remove or reduce this protection.

We also have the rent-a-room scheme, which is an income tax relief introduced in 1992 intended to boost the private rented sector. It encourages individuals to offer spare accommodation in their own homes at affordable rents to low-income groups. Homeowners and tenants who let furnished accommodation in their own homes are exempt from income tax on rental income of up to £4,250 a year.

As I said earlier, it is too soon to know how claimants might react to these changes. Those who will be affected by this change will have to consider their alternatives and make decisions about where and how they live. Some may decide to share with others, move back or stay with their family, or they may manage to find employment that allows them to stay in self-contained accommodation. These are the decisions that people in lower-paid work but not on benefits have to make, and those on benefit should not be sheltered by the state from this sort of responsibility. Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, on work incentives, there is clearly no incentive to work if someone is in a property that is unaffordable for those who are in work. We have at the same time the issue of fairness if someone who is not on benefits is unable to afford a house that someone on benefits can afford.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 10th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me with some stats. It was interesting that in his reply he told us that the current percentage of people who have savings above £16,000 is 13 per cent. However, when you start netting the figure and taking into account the notional income derived from that tariff, and given that something like 85 per cent of people on JSA expect to get back to work within nine months to a year, what does he think the real savings, or loss of savings, would be were he in a broader sense to accept that, with the integration of the two benefits, one should go for the tax credit system rather than the JSA system? Can he help us on that? In the light of that, we can perhaps press him further, but what real savings is he expecting to generate, given that most people who come on to JSA will be back in work within the year? In their first six months their benefit is contributory, so they are not affected and they will go back to work very quickly within the next six months. Therefore, if they have those savings and you say that because they are over £16,000 they will get not a penny of JSA, in real terms what net savings do you expect to garner? I would like to press the Minister on a further point, if I may.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I have to confess to the noble Baroness that I do not have my hands on that particular figure. I am not sure that I can find it out. We have other figures around the costs, but I am not convinced that I have that particular figure readily to hand. Can I leave it that I will try to find it out and supply it in the fullness of time?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I do not want “the fullness of time”; I want very soon, just as with childcare—the day after, if the Minister would be so kind. This is the key figure. The key stat is the real net cost of going for the more generous alignment with tax credits rather than bringing people down to the harsher alignment with JSA. That is the pivotal figure. I am surprised that this has not been brought into play in the Minister’s response. People coming out of work on to JSA are desperate to get back into work. Anything we do to make it difficult for them to get back into work is counterproductive. Anything that runs down their savings and that they are worried about, or anything that risks them when they go from work to benefit as opposed to from benefit to work is surely to be deplored. I suggest to the Minister that this is very unwise social policy.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I withdraw my previous reluctance to provide a figure. In much less time than I thought, I am now in a position to let noble Lords know that if we removed the cap limit entirely, the cost would be £500 million per annum.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Forgive me, but that is the net cost. If you removed the cap entirely and instead took into account notional income from those savings, given the stat of 13 per cent being over £16,000, as the noble Lord said, as well as people being in a range of between £6,000 and £16,000, and taking into account that they will have their benefit cut by virtue of their notional income, I take it that the £500 million includes that figure. It seems unlikely on the face of it, but it may well be the case. I suspect that it is a gross figure, not a net figure. I could be wrong, but we need to know the cost in effect of substituting one system over the other, not simply the cost of not having any savings rules at all.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I can clarify. That is a gross figure. Behavioural changes, clearly—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

No, they are not behavioural.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will complete my response to the questions. If we were to take a £50,000 limit with the tariff rules—in other words, starting at £6,000 and moving up on the tariff rules from £1 for every £250—the cost would be £90 million; so if we were to take the cap off completely, it would be a little, but probably not a lot, more. The £16,000 cap that we propose will affect 200,000 people in total. However, currently only 100,000 are on tax credits. That is the universe that we are talking about. I point out the political choices that we are making. We are designing universal credit to be for the poorest people and putting constraints higher up the income scale. That is entirely deliberate.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving us the figures. Perhaps he could make it clear that embedded in them is the scatter of JSA claimants who will return to work at different intervals. The first six months will be contributory. Thereafter, most of those coming on to JSA for the first time in that year will be back to work within three months or so on average after their contributory benefit has ended. Has the distributional factor of how long people stay on JSA been taken into account? I am talking not about existing JSA claimants but new claimants. What will the implications be?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords, a careful assessment has been done of how it will work in practice, which incorporates those kinds of effects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I will have to write to the noble Lord on ISA income in tax credits. I do not know the exact position. I hope that that explains why we cannot support Amendments 22B and 22F. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the noble Lord started off with a question that I suspect was meant to be rhetorical, but I think he is entitled to an answer. Is it right for the taxpayer to support someone who has £50,000 in savings? That was the noble Lord’s opening sentence. I agree with him that that is the key question. However, given the responses that he has heard today, the answer should be, “Yes, in certain circumstances”. The key question is, “What are the circumstances?”. There is no absolute yes or no answer.

The circumstances mentioned so far include whether this will help sustain savings and the savings habit. The answer is yes. Would it help people get back to work earlier than they otherwise would, and therefore depend less on benefits? Possibly, yes. Would it help families avoid falling into debt and thus lose even the tariff income that they would otherwise expect to enjoy between £6,000 and £16,000? Possibly. Should it be for a limited time so that it is not an unending commitment? Certainly. That is surely the way in which we should approach the question. It should not be, “£50K or not?”, but, “What are the circumstances in which it is reasonable to support people?”. Otherwise, we will make short-term savings at the expense of longer-term losses, which will come from keeping people on benefits longer than they need to be because they have gone into debt by having run down their savings. Surely that is the right question to ask rather than the bald one that does not take into account the very different situation of people who are marginal, who are in and out of the labour market but who hope to stay there with the help of savings to smooth out these movements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I need not write to the noble Lord on this matter because I am trustful that the impact assessment that holds these figures will be on its way—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Very soon?

[Lord Freud]

I was going to say today. In fact, I can say more. I have copies in the Room. I can do better; I can ceremoniously deliver the impact assessment to the noble Lord with that figure explained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, in the spirit of developing a system together, which we seem to have moved into, we can look at a greater amount of flexibility. Some things are not that expensive to do, but others are. Payment systems are not necessarily hugely difficult. I do not have my computer gurus sitting around me whispering how much things cost, but my feeling is that there are areas of flexibility here which we are going to explore in great detail in the next year or so in order to get this right. We can be flexible and make changes if we feel that things are not right.

I turn now to the series of questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the relationship with housing benefit. I will try to deal with them one by one. The universal credit will be an itemised statement. It is being developed and at the moment comprises three layers. You will see the summary on the top sheet, so to speak, and a somewhat more elaborated thing when you hit the button for the next level, and then you see pages of the stuff at the third level, which we do not think a lot of people will go to. However, we give them the option to do that. The statement is simple; it itemises the intention. The structure that we have arrived at has been the subject of a lot of toing and froing with the customer insight people. A couple of weeks ago I sat on one side of a piece of glass watching how people were using the system. That is where we have ended up in that particular bit.

I was asked whether this process would be slowed down to the rate of the slowest element. Where you have some decided elements, the JSA rate and so on, we should be able to get that going straight away without tying it up. We will be able to separate out elements with new claims involving big new changes rather than the whole claim waiting for the last little bit of evidence on, say, housing to come through. We are looking at tackling this matter much more flexibly.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am very grateful for the care and attention that the Minister has given to the questions. However, oddly enough, if you can fragment that way, you can certainly fragment in terms of payment rhythms.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thought I had delicately hinted that there could be some flexibility around that. In future, I will be less delicate in making my points.

We have discussed the other elements. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, directed a bit of abuse at the Warrington call centre. We are developing the system in Warrington, but that does not mean that the call centre in Warrington will do it all. We will have a much more sophisticated system. Indeed, the noble Baroness’s thoughts on using ATLAS, and the experience of housing benefit staff around the country in that regard, are very good. We are talking to local authorities to get the detail of this right. It would not make sense to lose the expertise of housing benefit staff, so we are involving them as we develop the process. It is too early to describe the system because it is not yet developed. However, the noble Baroness’s advice chimes with the way we are going about this, and we are grateful for it.

Amendment 28 would require the Secretary of State to conduct an annual review into the impact on claimants of monthly payments. I have already set out our firm commitment to safeguards, such as providing budgeting support and the facility to make more frequent payments where necessary or appropriate. I can assure noble Lords that in addition to this we will continue to monitor the impact of these policies after they are introduced. I urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Thursday 6th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

So do I.

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

My Lords, Amendment 2 would define the purposes of universal credit as,

“to support work for those who can and provide security for those who cannot”.

In Tuesday’s debate on Amendment 1, several noble Lords stressed the importance of language and risk. I am not sure that a definition that divides the caseload between people who can and cannot work is particularly helpful in that respect. However, it clearly is the purpose of universal credit to support people in or out of work, provide security and remove risk.

With regard to supporting people into work, I hope that it is already clear that work is at the centre of the new benefit. In designing universal credit our clear aim is to make work pay. In Tuesday’s debate I referred to the significant improvements that we expect, overall, in terms of participation tax rates, marginal deduction rates and levels of worklessness. Key to this is the single taper, which will ensure that claimants see the benefit of every extra hour worked. We will debate the level of the taper in a later session. For now, I hope your Lordships will agree that the principle of replacing the current tangle of overlapping tapers is the right one and a major step forward.

Other key elements of the work focus of universal credit are the work-related requirements set out in the Bill, the work programme and support for childcare. I said on Tuesday that I hope soon—very soon, in fact—to be able to give more details about the childcare element of universal credit. This is clearly an essential part of supporting parents in work.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, if “soon” is around a week, is “very soon” around a day? An hour?

[Lord Freud]

“Soon”, you can measure in weeks; “very soon”, you can measure in days. Well, let us say that noble Lords in this Committee can.

To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on the application of conditionality; in the Bill conditionality is linked only to employment outcomes, but any responsible Government will always want to look at options for achieving other outcomes for individuals, taxpayers and society as a whole. Indeed, I remind the noble Lord that the previous Government tried sanctions as a way to improve compliance with community sentences.

On the related point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on IB and ESA numbers, I need to point out that the numbers were pretty much the same in 2008 and 1997. I welcome her focus on reducing inactivity. That is exactly the right thing. One can get pretty historical going over who is to blame or who is not to blame. This is the situation we are in and I do not think that any Peer in this Room would disagree with the proposition that we now have a benefits system that traps people in inactivity through its structure, and certainly one that does not apply substantial help to people to get out of that trap. She asked me to acknowledge the continuity between the two Governments, and I am pleased to do that. I can absolutely confirm that the design of the work programme, for instance, is very much based on the fact that the employment zones pilot initiated by the previous Government was clearly the most successful pilot. We picked that up, effectively, in the work programme and made it a national programme.

While the aim is clearly to help as many people into work as we can, universal credit will also provide for those who cannot work. We have ensured that it is specified in the Bill that a number of groups will receive unconditional support without having to meet any labour market requirements. This will include those assessed as having limited capability for work and work-related activity; claimants with regular and substantial caring responsibilities; and lone parents or nominated carers with a child under the age of one.

In terms of benefit payments, the structure of the benefit is similar to existing provision for people who are out of work. We have announced changes where we believe change is needed, and the Committee will be looking closely at specific points, such as disability support, housing benefit and the household benefit cap, when we reach the appropriate clauses.

It is important to be clear from the outset that universal credit is overwhelmingly not about taking money away from people who are out of work. That much is very clear from the impact assessment, which shows that the majority of losers are people in work, many of whom have higher earnings. As I said on Tuesday, I hope that an updated impact assessment will be available soon, but the fact is that most workless people are not losers and the overall impact of the reform is progressive.

I shall here refer to the important matter raised in particular by the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Wilkins, of the work capability assessment. We continue to work with Professor Harrington to ensure that that assessment works effectively. Clearly, he is involving disability groups in that development in a very proactive way. I obviously know the concerns of disability organisations in this area and I will aim to explain that in much more detail when we get to Clause 12, if that would be acceptable to noble Lords. It is also slightly misleading to talk about losers when we have a package of transitional protection to ensure that there are no cash losers as a direct result of the migration to universal credit, where circumstances remain the same. I understand that noble Lords are concerned that any claimants should be worse off under universal credit, but the fact is that we cannot simplify the system while retaining each and every element of all the existing benefits. That would be simply unaffordable.

If I can touch on the introduction of the PIP on carers, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and my noble friend Lord Newton—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

How, precisely?

[Lord Freud]

As I was about to say, we will soon publish an impact assessment on the universal credit that incorporates this approach. As noble Lords will be aware, the existing impact assessment assumes council tax in the system. This one will assume council tax out of the system.

[Lord Freud]

I ask my noble friend to resist pressing me, which I know he enjoys doing, at this moment. Let us wait for the new impact assessment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will there not be 400 impact analyses?

[Lord Freud]

The impact assessment that I am talking about is the one on universal credit and how it will respond to the exclusion of council tax. We will not have an impact assessment from DCLG available for some time. I do not know when we will have that impact assessment, but I will write to the DCLG and find out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, without being over-coy on that question, this matter is out for consultation and we expect the responses from Scotland and Wales to be incorporated as part of it. So the answer, I guess, is that it will be looked at in that context. With that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. I am sure that we will return to the some of the substance later.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Yes. Before coming back to some of the main themes that your Lordships have adduced, could I thank everybody who has taken part, because all sorts of issues have come up that I had not fully clicked on? I now have an even clearer sense of indignation at what these proposals might mean for—as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, rightly said—the poorest people in the land. I appreciate your Lordships’ contributions.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, will take this Committee’s views back to his close working colleague Mr Pickles. Bar a couple of open questions, I think they were unanimous in being deeply concerned both about the effect on the individual and on universal credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

We expect the universal credit to be treated as social assistance, which is within the rules, so we can keep a reasonable amount of control over it. This is something that is causing great concern to countries throughout Europe. The European Commission is taking infraction proceedings against us. Twenty members have expressed strong concern. Fourteen member states have joined the UK in calling for a debate on the matter with a view to amending EU social security rules as soon as possible. This is a live and changing issue but currently, as we understand it—nothing is locked down in this area—we have designed the universal credit in a way that it is protected from some of the exportability concerns. That is our intention.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Could the Minister help us a bit further? It might be more helpful to have a letter on this later on. The benefits that he is bringing together have different rules—or they had different rules—according to whether they were regarded as coming within the free movement of labour and the support for this through some of the tax credit rules and some of the other benefits that were localised and related only to being present and so on. By bringing them all together, does this mean that, for the first time, universal credit, with a much bigger price tag—so to speak—on the individual entitlement, could now be freely exported to people who are coming to work in this country and whose family members are living in other European countries?

Lord Freud: As with the current income-related benefits, workers who come into the UK from other European Economic Area countries may be entitled to universal credit, but only if they meet stringent conditions. This ensures that the benefit tourist cannot take advantage of our benefits system. European Economic Area nationals who are neither in work nor seeking work will not generally be able to access universal credit. They will be required to be self-sufficient while they remain in the UK. Let me stand back generally. This is not currently a stable area of EU law and we are watching it very closely for the reason that the noble Baroness raised.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If the Committee will excuse me, I have one further point. One of the things that I thought was deeply unfair, but about which we could do nothing, was that a British citizen who took her child to Bangladesh, Pakistan or India for 12 weeks or so thereby lost her child benefit. However, if a worker from one of the eastern European countries came here, and their family had never even visited the UK and their wife and children and so on remained in their home country, they were able to continue to enjoy such benefits.

[Lord Freud]

I am slightly at a loss to respond, mainly because the noble Baroness has opened the door to such an enormous area. It is so complicated that I have spent quite a long time going through it. Yes, there are lots of anomalies because it is not a stable area of law, but the bottom-line point is we do not think that with universal credit we are putting ourselves in any worse a position than that we are currently in.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 4th October 2011 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, before I deal with the amendment, the stand part debate and the clause, I have to take on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, said, and her expression of concern. I do not have an answer for her now, but I will go back and get one and make sure that her concerns are addressed in the most thorough way possible. If things have not gone appropriately, I apologise unreservedly.

Before I turn to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, let me talk a bit about the universal credit. Clause 1 establishes universal credit as a new benefit under the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill. This is a modern, simplified benefit, available both to people who are in work and those who are out of work, instead of claiming a number of benefits and tax credits from different sources, as happens currently.

As the Committee will know, the Government are determined to reform the welfare system to make it fairer and more affordable while addressing the problems of poverty and dependency on welfare. Universal credit is at the heart of this strategy. I welcome the support from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for the principle of universal credit. While I am on that point, a number of noble Lords have thanked my Bill team for their accessibility and requested that that continue and I can again give an assurance that we will lean over backwards to continue that accessible approach. The reason is entirely one of self-interest, and when I say self-interest, I mean the interest of the governance of this country. It is vital that we have a proper debate on this very important Bill. A number of noble Lords have pointed out that this is a really important, transformative Bill and it is important that we address the issues properly and with full knowledge. That is why we have this very accessible approach.

We are currently updating the impact assessment—we have been working with a rather out-of-date one—and I am hopeful that we will be publishing that soon.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Could the noble Lord help us a little more? Some of us, in our amendments, are relying quite heavily on the impact assessment figures and we would not want to mislead the Committee by using figures that will be replaced quite quickly.

[Lord Freud]

Yes, I think that they will be replaced quite quickly. I cannot give the actual date or time now, but I think I am safe to say, “Soon”.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

A week? A month?

[Lord Freud]

“Soon” is closer to a week than a month.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Thank you.

[Lord Freud]

We will get a code. But even the current impact assessment shows the transformative effect of universal credit when it is fully implemented. The combined impact of take-up and entitlements may lift hundreds of thousands of individuals out of poverty, including as many as 350,000 children. The vast majority of gains from universal credit will go straight to the poorest households.

I shall pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on risk. By combining, effectively, out-of-work benefits and in-work tax credits, we effectively de-risk moving from one category to the other and that is a very powerful incentive for the poorest people to take a risk. One other aspect of it which I have been very conscious of as we develop the whole approach is that it is the best way of dealing with fluctuating conditions. You can move, take a risk and work for some months without being terrified that, if it does not work out, you have lost your benefit support structure, because you are just moving up and down the taper. So, from the aspect of risk, universal credit has huge advantages and it is one of the main drivers of our expectation to see many fewer workless households.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I reinforce my noble friend’s point. As every council tax taper will differ from district to district, and there are some 300 to 400 of them, it will be impossible for anyone to predict who gets what.

[Lord Freud]

We will have a debate on this matter rather soon, but maybe not today. The only way I can respond is to point out that, depending on how we adjust the system to have what is effectively a tax rebate system outside the universal credit, we could see different effects. Rather than prejudging this, I will reserve that information for another day. We will have plenty of time to deal with it.

I have been asked about IT by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Newton, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, among a few others who have some concerns. We have gone through a huge process of external assessment by the Major Projects Authority, which is a continuous process in stages. The most recent independent review stated a high level of confidence that the expert teams that we have assembled will see us deliver the programme. The review team said that we had made an impressively strong start.

The programme is on time and on budget. It is being developed in a radically new way to government programmes. The difference is that in a traditional government programme the whole system is built, trialled for a few months and then introduced. This system is being built in layers so that we can trial each layer as it develops and test it with customer insight. That process is happening. One of the things that we can do today is take some particular claimant types through the system. I am planning a demonstration for noble Lords later this month to take them through this process, because when they start to see the different elements coming together there will be a much better basis for understanding.

In my confidence, I can quote only these external sources; my own views are perhaps less relevant. The external sources are holding the programme up as an exemplar of how the Government should develop IT. We will be getting these external reviews regularly at each of the difference gateways, so it will be monitored externally very carefully. I have no knowledge of where this is on anyone’s risk register, so I cannot answer that particular question put by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Obviously, though, any big programme is going to be looked at to ensure that it is being done to time and to budget. That is just governance.

I think there is a lot of confusion in the external world between what is an appropriate level of governance and external monitoring of an important, big programme, and the fact that there are always risks involved in developing it. I responded to the article in the Telegraph, saying that this was a programme on time and on budget. Basically, the article was misleading and I stand by that letter.

Retirement Age

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, clearly that is the issue: life expectancy is growing rapidly. It is hard to set the figures many decades in advance. The responses to the consultation show that most people think that a period of around 10 years seems appropriate, although other countries have used shorter periods. It is right that we should look at a number of factors when we move the retirement age. These include not just longevity but healthy life expectancy and regional and other variations.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, it is clearly reasonable that the pension age for men and women should rise alongside longevity. However, it is clearly unreasonable that up to half a million women have recently learnt that they will have to wait up to two years longer than they expected for their state retirement pension. The noble Lord will know that many sectors of the House were deeply unhappy about this. The Pensions Bill is now in the other place. Will he tell the House whether the Government are shifting their position on this so that it is fair to all women and not so deeply unfair to so many women?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, we debated this in some depth when we looked at the Bill. Those concerns, expressed around the House, were taken very seriously. The Secretary of State responded at Second Reading in another place by saying that we needed,

“to implement the change fairly and manage the transition smoothly”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/6/11; col. 50.]

We are looking at how best to do that. Should there be legislative changes, they will of course come to this House to be considered in due course.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the opportunity to spend a little time today on our proposals for reforming the state pension. She has been instrumental, as other noble Lords have pointed out, in the move for better pension provision for those left out of the benefits of the heyday of the occupational pension and the earnings-related state counterpart. The Pensions Act 2007, with its enormous boost for women through the reduction in qualifying years for basic state pension and the increasing coverage of the state second pension, could have been the final push for equal treatment in state provision.

Even that was not good enough, though. In March last year, a week before the 2007 Act started to deliver for women, the noble Baroness launched the pamphlet The New State Pension: A Call to All Parties, which pushed for further radical change. Very skilfully, she got my honourable friend, the Minister responsible, to contribute a chapter to that. It proposed a new type of state pension with a near-universal amount, set above the level of the means test and made affordable by paying the pension to new pensioners only. Her main motivation, as ever, was to deliver an adequate state pension for women who, because of low pay and career breaks, have historically lost out in pension provision.

Just over a year later, the Government published their proposals for improving state provision, A State Pension for the 21st Century. That Green Paper confronts the big issue of how to respond to a decline in private saving at a time of increasing life expectancy. It describes how means-testing, with all the damage that it can do to private saving, pervades the state system. It describes the great complexity of the state system. Bluntly, for most people the system is simply impenetrable. Crucially, it fails to answer the most obvious of all questions from potential private savers: is it worth it? How much will I get from the state when I retire anyway? As importantly, it describes the extent of inequality in the state system—how women, on average, get £40 a week less state pension than men and how they are more likely to live in poverty as pensioners.

The Green Paper describes two options for reform to respond to the challenges that the pension system faces. The first option would simplify the state second pension. It would strip out the earnings-related part of the second pension, leaving just a flat-rate amount—the same pension for all workers and people who are credited into the system for caring and other good reasons. The second, more radical, option would effectively fold the basic and second pensions into one to create a simple single-tier pension, set above the level of the guarantee credit. This option, which is clearly similar to the one that the noble Baroness proposed a little more than a year ago, would mean that by 2020 no less than 90 per cent of pensioners—men and women—would retire on a pension above the guarantee credit.

The Green Paper, as I said, was published earlier this month and the consultation is currently under way. As the noble Baroness appreciates, changes of the magnitude proposed in the Green Paper can be progressed only by listening to the views of all those with an interest. It is far too early in the process for the Government to come to a view on the way ahead, so I cannot give a conclusion to the consultation. I assure the noble Baroness that, should the Government decide to bring forward proposals to reform the state pension system, we would as a matter of course publish a full assessment of impacts, including those on women, alongside any reform proposals.

I remind the House that we published an impact assessment, including a gender, race and disability impact assessment, of our proposals to increase the state pension age first as part of the White Paper setting out our response to the call for evidence and again alongside the publication of the Bill when it first entered Parliament. Those assessments will be further amended and revised as necessary for republication when the Bill enters the Commons and yet again once the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. I can therefore assure the House that, were the Government to publish a White Paper on reform, we would be no less diligent in providing detailed information on the impacts of any policy changes by gender, ethnicity and a range of other factors. In short, there will be plenty of opportunity for noble Lords, as well as Members of another place, to scrutinise any proposals for reform and their likely impacts, should the Government decide to proceed with reform.

I emphasise that the proposals that we have set out in the Green Paper do not depend on increasing the state pension age. As I said in our debates on Clause 1, the rise in the state pension age must be brought forward because the sharp upward revision in life expectancy projections has overtaken the legislated timetable. The revised timetable would be necessary with or without the reforms on which we are consulting. We have already discussed at some length the impact of our proposed changes to the pension age timetable, in particular on those cohorts of women who face an increase in their pension age of up to two years. A number of noble Lords have emphasised that point and I do not propose to rerun that debate. However, I draw attention to the fact that a key objective of the reforms, alongside simplifying the system and rewarding those who save, is to look at how the state pension could be made fairer for groups, including women.

The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to ensure that we consider the impact of the state pension age changes in conjunction with our proposals for reforming the state pension scheme. As I said, we are only at the consultation stage on our reform proposals but I can assure the House that although, as I hope I have made clear, these are not interdependent changes, we would undertake such an assessment if these reforms are taken forward. I trust that I have been able to assure noble Lords that the statutory duty that the noble Baroness’s amendment would impose is not necessary and, furthermore, is somewhat premature. We will have many opportunities to debate what to do with any reform proposals as they go through the whole process. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part around the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and my noble friend for their warm support for the principle of the amendment. If the comments in this House are anything to go by, the Minister can be assured of the reception that his Green Paper will receive outside the House. I am confident that it will be greeted with warm support.

I very much take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, that we have to see pensions as part of a structure. However, such a new single state pension is the keystone for any reform not just of state pensions but of occupational pensions that do not generate a savings trap for those on lower earnings. That is why noble Lords all round the House are so delighted to see the possibility of that keystone finally coming into place. The noble Lord said that we should minimise retrospective unfairness and avoid future moral hazard. Those words are well taken; they are wise words for us to absorb.

My noble friend Lord McKenzie is absolutely right that, with the advent of a new single state pension, the issue of the threshold of enrolment into NEST disappears. It does not matter whether you end up with £3,000, £30,000 or £300,000 of savings; you keep the lot if the new single state pension is in place. Therefore, you do not have to legislate to avoid the moral hazard of low-paid women earning less than £7,500 a year going into NEST because their savings may not be worth having, given the effect of pension credit. As NEST will be reviewed in 2017, which many of us are already looking forward to, I very much hope that we shall be able to revisit this issue then as, with the new single pension in place, a threshold of enrolment will simply not be necessary. However modest the savings, they will be worth having and worth encouraging, so that even the poorest of people can go into retirement with a cushion against the adversities of old age.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for his generous comments on the background to the single pension and to his officials for their work in bringing the Green Paper forward. My only regret is that the Green Paper came too late for Report and that Third Reading has come too early for the results of the consultation. None the less, we are trying to wedge this in between the two. I believe that the new single pension will transform the pension landscape and should receive huge support. I was delighted to hear from the Minister that there was no interdependence between the deferring of the state pension age—in other words, the raising of the state pension age to 66—and the funding or costing of the Green Paper. That is key. It gives me hope that he and his honourable friend Steve Webb will be seeking to smooth the bunching effect whereby some women have a much rougher deal than others. Some wait nearly an extra year for their pensions and some wait for nearly two years. We all recognise that that is—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell—rough justice. I would go further than that: it is unacceptable. I and, I am sure, the Minister hope that a decent solution can be found to that in the other place.

However, I am, in a way, using the amendment to do what we would have done had the Green Paper been introduced by a Statement, which was not the case. We are delighted to have the Green Paper in place. We wish the consultation good speed. We hope that the results will come through in such a way that the Government are encouraged to go down the path that they should. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Freud, that if he comes forward with such legislation in this House or the other place he will have wide and enthusiastic support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for raising this very important issue of allowing individuals early access to their pension saving. I was more or less as disconcerted as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the concept of it being “running away money”, not least because I thought that if the spouses of Members of this House got to hear of it, they might take advantage as we spent night after night in this place rather than at home with them.

The noble Baroness wishes to allow individuals to access a tax-free lump sum of up to 25 per cent, before the current minimum age of 55, when they have pension savings of at least £10,000. I am conscious that this is an issue to which the noble Baroness has repeatedly drawn our attention, and to which she returned at Second Reading when she asked where the Government's consultation paper on early access to pensions had got to. I can answer that particular question; I can report to my Lords that the Government published their call for evidence on early access to pension saving on 13 December last year. It set out the available evidence around early access and some of the potential benefits and risks, and then sought further evidence from interested parties. That call for evidence closed on 25 February. Drawing on the responses to the call for evidence, we will consider the arguments for and against allowing more flexible access to pension savings, based on firm evidence, before we consider further changes to the pensions tax framework.

It is too early to say what these changes might be. However, we need to bear in mind several principles. First, the purpose of tax-relieved pension saving should be, as the noble Lord would like me to say—I have to say it—primarily to provide an individual with an income in retirement. I think 75 per cent probably makes that point anyway. Secondly, any changes to the pensions tax rules must be affordable and sustainable for the Exchequer, and not, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, pointed out rather vividly, create opportunities for tax avoidance. I was pretty impressed that he was able to knock up a tax avoidance scheme so quickly, but we can see where he is coming from. Thirdly, changes should not create disproportionate complexity or administrative burdens for individuals, pension providers and schemes, or indeed for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

I am sure the noble Baroness will agree with me that it is right for us to examine the evidence submitted before making changes to legislation. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am very grateful for the support around the House—equivocal support, perhaps, in some cases—on the significance of this issue. Of course, this is not exclusively a women’s issue by any means, and if it was attractive to anyone who wished to take it up, as far as I am concerned they would be able to do so with the agreement of their trustees. My noble friend Lord McKenzie anticipated the paragraph that we have all had to repeat—I have had to repeat, my noble friend has had to repeat, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, has had to repeat—about how pensions are designed and so on, but I tried to hold up a gender filter because I firmly believe that it is still an HMT model that is based on male working lives. However, let us not go down the route of asking why the Treasury might not understand.

When we are trying to encourage poor women—women earning possibly well below average earnings—into a savings model, I do not mind very much whether it is saving for their current life or their retirement. I do not mind very much whether it is income or capital. We get hung up on divisions that make sense in the click-in click-off world of conventional male work; the noble Lord, Lord Freud, is absolutely right, in the universal credit, to refuse to accept that simple dichotomy of “in work, out of work” and see it as a dial. The same situation applies to women in pensions. They do not have a male life, where they are in work, they contribute to a pension, they retire, they are then poor and where you have to distribute from one to another—that is not the experience of poorer women in and out of the labour market who may face more turmoil and roller-coaster finance in their working lives than they ever will in retirement.

The question is how we best encourage those women to build some protection for themselves against the contingencies in their working lives, as well as to prepare as best they can for savings in retirement. We want to do this in ways that do not either exploit their naivety or get them into oversaving at a risk to their current living expenses. The more research that I and others in this field have done the more I believe we need a simple single product—probably not called a pension, probably called something else—into which you put your money and where a proportion is ring-fenced for retirement and a proportion is available for savings. We happen to have a very easy way of modelling that based on the tax-free lump sum; the other versions that the Treasury have put out to consultation are more elaborate, possibly more adept, models but will not particularly meet the needs of this client group. We need something that is simple, understandable, attractive, affordable and fairly obvious in what it does.

I fully accept that the amendment is probably technically defective. I was of course never intending to do anything other than trying to focus the issue, given that we have the consultation paper. I was hoping to take your Lordships’ views on this so that this might in due course, perhaps, be fed into the Treasury’s response to this White Paper.

The provision is not gender-exclusive. It would not exclusively apply to NEST. I would have it available for all pensions and, again, I would not particularly get hung up about what it was used for. Nor would I worry too much about the issue of moral hazard, providing we cap the amount that people can withdraw, which is why I would not go for the 401(k) models, because too many of them run their schemes right down and that is undesirable.

I fear that too many women may opt out of NEST or—this is more likely—fail to continue in NEST when the first financial crisis of many hits them in their lives and they realise they cannot access the money and they have nothing else. At that point the contributions of those individuals will drop off like a stone. How do we prevent that? We prevent it by running the two alongside each other and produce a package for women where it is attractive to save.

We have discussed it. I am very grateful for the support and encouragement around the House tonight. With your Lordships’ permission, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Disabled People: Employment

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Thank you, my Lords, I am grateful. We all agree, following the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the best strategy for work for disabled people is to see them coming into mainstream jobs. Anything that can be done in this respect by the current Government, as was done by the previous one, is greatly to be welcomed. Yet, frankly, that strategy only works when there is low unemployment. At the moment, in my county of Norfolk where 32,000 people are chasing 4,000 jobs, I suspect that the opportunities for disabled people will shrink unless Remploy can ensure supportive employment. Could the Minister not at least work with Remploy to ensure that there are continuing opportunities for disabled people until we see the employment market open up again?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, my last answer made clear the extraordinary success of Remploy in getting people with disabilities into jobs. That does not seem to have been affected by a very difficult employment market. I remind the House of the relative costs: the factory business of Remploy takes between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of the total that we as a country spend on disability employment programmes to support some 3,000 people.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. I have listened to the debate with great interest. Workers on low earnings do not qualify for automatic enrolment. They have the right to opt into pension saving but do not qualify by right to an employer contribution. The amendment seeks to ensure that these low earners receive a contribution to workplace pension saving from their employer if they choose to opt into pension saving.

I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, may have intended us to focus on NEST, but it is worth being aware that other schemes may have earnings thresholds in their rules. Therefore, we have looked at the issue from the perspective of low earners and contributions from pound one, irrespective of which scheme their employers choose.

Persistent low earners get a high replacement rate from the state without private pension saving, so for these individuals it is questionable whether it is beneficial to redirect money into private saving. For some very low earners who are not accruing a state pension, it may be beneficial to opt into pension saving. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, gave an example of women in households where there were other earnings. This was an important point brought out in the Johnson review.

During our previous deliberations, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, also brought to your Lordships’ attention the importance of adding to household saving. However, in practice, it is very hard to distinguish a clearly identifiable group of workers without qualifying earnings who would benefit from opting into pension saving. An employer contribution is an incentive to save, so it follows that for very low earners an employer contribution may be an incentive to opt in. We do not believe that it is right to encourage opting in for the very few low earners who may benefit from saving at the risk of penalising the many low earners who will not benefit from opting in. We also need to be conscious of the potential impact on employers.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I do not understand the point that the noble Lord has just made. Why would it penalise other low earners who do not opt in?

[Lord Freud]

I shall come to that question. There are around 1 million workers with annual earnings below £5,715. If these people were brought into pension saving, it could result in further employer contribution costs of up to £125 million.

There is another issue that makes me urge caution on this amendment, although I appreciate that its intention is laudable. We cannot legislate to discriminate unreasonably between different groups. This proposal could well involve such discrimination because those who earn less than £5,000 would have an employer contribution on their full earnings if they opted in. However, those who earn £8,000 would have a contribution on only £3,000 of their earnings and not on the full £8,000—I am rounding up these figures. If we did it for the lowest paid, we would have to do it for everyone, which would mean extending the requirement on employers to pay a contribution on the first £5,715 to everyone in pension saving. In effect, that would be the equivalent of removing the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band, which would be unaffordable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I obviously did not make myself clear. I said that there would need to be a threshold so that the ability to cover the first pound would apply only to those who are already over the threshold of, I hope, LEL and could even be at ET. In other words, if you are earning only £4,000 there is no suggestion that that would bring you into NEST, as the Minister appeared to think the amendment suggested. If that is what the words say, I apologise because that is due to my drafting. However, I had hoped that I had made the position clear in my opening speech.

[Lord Freud]

I am now slightly mystified by the intention of the amendment. I understood that it allowed an opt-in at any level. Perhaps the noble Baroness could clarify the position.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

No. I apologise. It says that at the moment you are automatically enrolled at £7,500 and can opt in from £5,200 if your earnings are between those two figures. I suggest that the same opt-in right should apply to pound zero, but only if you are already at the threshold. In other words, if you are on £4,000 or £3,000, you would have no right to make a pension contribution, but if you are on anything above £5,200—certainly above £7,500—you can make contributions voluntarily not only on the band between £5,200 and £7,500 but on the band £0 to £7,500.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. My point of concern remains unchanged: if we allow that to happen for this particular group, we must expand it and allow everyone to make a pound one contribution. I therefore do not think that it changes the argument and the concern about the extra costs implied, which could be around £900 million of additional contributions—around one-quarter of the total cost—and represent an unacceptable burden on employers. It would also skew the structure of the reforms that are designed to enable a median earner with solid state entitlement to achieve a retirement income of around 45 per cent in line with the pension commission’s recommendation. The Johnson review endorsed that original recommendation. As the noble Baroness said, I am not putting any weight on the small sums argument—that is not part of this argument. On her point about the move of the threshold up to £10,000, we will debate that later. Clearly, I am sympathetic to the drive behind this proposal. The Government are always willing to consider ideas that will allow us to keep the appropriate balance and maintain our key policy intentions. However, we are unable to accept this amendment and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Drake on this and for the thoughtfulness of the Minister’s answer. I suspect that, possibly because of my drafting, there is a misunderstanding. I had hoped that I had made it clear in my opening speech—obviously I failed to do so—that we were talking about the situation where, if someone was required to enrol through auto-enrolment but had the voluntary right to go back to £5,200, they would also have the voluntary right to go back to pound zero. It is as simple as that. At that point, it seems to me, the Minister’s statistics of £900 million apply to the very different scenario of someone earning £2,000, £3,000 or £4,000 who could voluntarily enrol. That never was, and never has been, my argument. It has always been that those already in the system should be able to cover the first pound.

[Lord Freud]

I want to make this absolutely clear. Our concern here is about the discrimination that would otherwise come up. We cannot just leave pound one for one group; we would have to extend it to everyone. That is why the costs would balloon from this. It is not possible to maintain a narrow right for one group; we would have to extend it. That is one of the reasons for our concern.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am simply not persuaded by this. Is the Minister saying that because the very poorest—those earning less than, say, £5,000 a year—could not come within the system, those above the LEL should not be able to go back to zero? I think it likely that the poorest might have a couple of mini-jobs or whatever and might well not qualify because they are below the LEL. The Minister would not dream of applying that argument to the national insurance system, the whole of which is based on a lower earnings limit. You are automatically brought into the NI system, building up your entitlement to the basic state pension, but you do not start to pay your NICs until you hit the £7,500 ET. That argument is the basis of the basic state pension. I have not heard the Minister say that this is unfair because someone earning £3,000 or £4,000, who is therefore below the LEL, cannot earn their way into the national insurance system. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on this.

What the Minister is saying is impossible here, because it is unfair, is at the very basis of the national insurance system for the whole of our population. If it is good enough for NICs, it is certainly good enough for NEST. I am sorry, but I do not accept the noble Lord’s argument. In practical reality, I doubt that someone on £3,000 or £4,000 would want to save, although I suppose that it is possible, as my noble friend said, because of her household circumstances rather than her own. What I am trying to do is to make available to those people in NEST the best practice for most pension schemes. That is, you can save from pound zero once you are over the earnings threshold—the LEL. Once that happens, you then end up, by choice, with a pot that is worth having. To say that it is unfair cannot be the case unless the Minister also accepts that the whole of the national insurance system is unfair. I am sure that he would not wish to go on record as saying that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

We are in danger of sitting here devising IT systems, which is great fun but rather time-consuming. The word “awareness” is more than modest, because making people aware in the present IT environment is a substantial requirement due to the privacy around the data concerned. It would not be possible. I come back to my earlier point: in the new world of universal credit, the way in which that information is used will change quite dramatically and things may become possible. However, this is not the way to do it. In the present context, it is practical neither technologically nor politically.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Before I decide what to do with the amendment, which will be fairly predictable, perhaps I may ask the Minister a further question—again, it may reflect my failure to understand either the briefing papers or their import. Let me give him the example of a woman in a job where she earns more than £7,500—let us say £7,600—and is automatically enrolled. What would be her situation if she had a second job which gave her £6,000 a year, taking her above the LEL but below the ET, and she might or might not wish to enrol? Alternatively, she might have a second job which paid £4,000; that is, below the LEL. Could the Minister help me on that?

[Lord Freud]

I shall try to answer that, but I shall keep an ear open to those behind me.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry to spring it on him.

[Lord Freud]

As I understand the situation, for the job paying £7,600, she would clearly be auto-enrolled. For the job paying £6,000, she would not, but she could opt in—it would be treated separately. For the job paying £4,000, she could opt in if she wanted to.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Even though one or two other employers were involved?

[Lord Freud]

The £7,600 would take her through the threshold. The additional incomes would be treated separately, because we do not aggregate. The £4,000 falls to a level at which she can make a contribution, although she would not get an employer contribution on top. That is how that would work. A thousand examples could be cited, but the basic rules remain.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Would she get an employer contribution on the £6,000?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, that goes above the lower trigger.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I would be very happy for the Minister to write to me; I realise that I am throwing this example at him.

[Lord Freud]

Just to make it absolutely clear: the contribution is made above that trigger.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The LEL trigger?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, the lower trigger. It is not from pound one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

To be clear—again, I am very happy for the noble Lord to write to me, because I realise that I have sprung this on him—I think that he is saying that, if a woman was earning £7,600, she would be automatically enrolled in NEST by her employer. If she had a second job which brought her in £6,000 and she chose to enrol, the employer would match it. So she would be running two NEST pots simultaneously.

[Lord Freud]

I do not need to write. I can confirm that. It does not have to be NEST. The pensions may or may not be NEST in each case.

[Lord Freud]

That is exactly what I said, so I thank the noble Baroness, who is an expert in this area, for giving me the relief of not making a horrific solecism.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think that where that takes us is that the woman in question would be getting information and contributions from two employers, in much the same way as would be the case if she were in mini-jobs which, if put together, would take her above the threshold. I accept the Minister’s point that at this moment in time this is a step too far for NEST to carry out. I genuinely understand that. As I say, we are putting down a marker. However, I am not sure that the size of the further step to take is as great as he originally suggested in the light of the exploration that we have had on having two streams of money going into possibly two separate NEST pots, according to whether one is default and the other is not. In order to handle that, we will need the IT on which one could build the push of my original amendment. None the less, this has been an extremely useful debate and I am grateful to the Minister, my noble friend Lady Drake and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for helping to clarify this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for leaping into the breach and allowing us to have this debate on the issue about the trigger at which an individual is automatically enrolled being reduced. We are looking at the three amendments, together with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.

The reference to the potential move to the tax threshold is a really important issue that deserves a robust debate in its own right. We have an opportunity to debate it in later amendments. Rather than pre-empting that debate—in which I will make a commitment—I turn to the specific proposals in the amendment. We have committed to alignment with next year’s tax threshold of £7,475. This is the right direction of travel. However, we also need to retain flexibility for the future in order that we continue to target the right groups at the right times. I very much take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. There are quite a few issues that have to be looked at in the context of that debate. Let me put that to one side because we will be reverting to it. I apologise for the scars that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, bears. As a result of the level of uncertainty that exists in the structure of the pension system, we look to have rather more freedom of manoeuvre than he was able to enjoy.

This Government have always supported automatic enrolment into workplace pensions. We believe that it is the step change that will make a critical difference to a boost in retirement savings. However, we also believe that the new automatic enrolment earnings trigger is a significant improvement to the breakthrough in pension reforms that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and so many other members of this and another place work so tirelessly to develop. Automatic enrolment for every individual into pension saving is not always the right thing to do. The key question is, and always has been, whether low earners would benefit from saving, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, pointed out. It makes no sense to require people to sacrifice income during their working life and redirect it into private pension saving, when that saving makes them no better off.

The nub of this issue is about getting the right people saving. We, therefore, commissioned an independent review to ensure that the scope proposed for automatic enrolment by the previous Government was right. We wanted to look again at the point at which people should be auto-enrolled to ensure that we capture the right group.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the Minister help me? He said that we should not encourage people to save who would be no better off as a result. That was the line he used. What does he have in mind? If his right honourable friend’s new state pension of £140 comes into play, that problem should not arise, apart from for those tenants who might be on housing benefit—who may or may not be a diminishing minority. Have I misunderstood the Minister?

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. Regrettably, she catches me at a time when I am not able to go as far as the Daily Mail, for instance, in saying what may happen as a result of discussions—which are entirely amicable—between the DWP and the Treasury in developing these proposals. Therefore, I cannot deal with her rather pointed query.

The Johnson review recommended that the personal income tax threshold of around £7,400 from this April would be the right starting point to trigger automatic enrolment. The latest announced pension and benefit rates bear this out. Persistent low earners get a higher replacement rate from the state, with means-tested benefits and the state pension, without private pension saving. This is clearly the other leg of the argument about whether it is attractive for low earners to save. From this April, the minimum annual guaranteed retirement income for a single person from the state will be around £7,140, with housing benefit on top of that. It is clear that individuals earning around this level during their working life can receive a similar income in retirement without saving. Therefore, it would be wrong to auto-enrol them. These amendments seek to introduce a lower entry point for automatic enrolment. This would mean encouraging a group to save who may receive more money in retirement from the state pension system than they earn during their working life.

There is an additional advantage to a higher earnings trigger that I would bring to your Lordships’ attention, which we believe will address a concern from pension schemes and employers. One of the persistent problems with the original design of automatic enrolment was to do with very small, low-value contributions on earnings just above the automatic enrolment point. We believe that the separation of the entry point from the contributions threshold creates a buffer against such small contributions. As a bonus, but not a driver, if we can settle on rates that employers already use, it would make the operation of payroll a great deal simpler.

We recognise that the increased automatic enrolment trigger has an impact on low earners at the point of automatic enrolment. However, we do not believe the effect is detrimental. The right people will be auto-enrolled and the lowest earners will not be. That is the right outcome. Critically, we have built in a safeguard. We support an individual’s decision to save where they feel that saving is right for them. Where someone below the threshold feels that they would benefit by saving, they can opt in to a workplace scheme. If they earn more than £5,715, they will get an employer contribution. We have just covered that ground.

I am acutely aware of the passions that the raised threshold has aroused. I am honoured to have taken part in such a robust and challenging debate. However, the automatic enrolment earnings trigger significantly improves the operation and the targeting of automatic enrolment. The new trigger ensures that the right people are encouraged to save. These amendments would encourage saving among a group of individuals, many of whom should not be saving. Therefore, we are unable to accept them and I ask noble Lords to withdraw them.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question? He rested much of his argument on this amendment, as with Amendment 16, not so much on the issue of small pots as the fact that people would get a replacement income in retirement sufficient almost to match their wage. Therefore, it is not worth their saving. I raised this in terms of its relevance to the basic state pension and whether it will lift people above pension credit. All the Minister’s assumptions are based on the belief that the household he is dealing with is a single-person household.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention and that question. We have looked closely at this issue. She is absolutely right that many low earners are second earners and have partners. The trouble is that it is very hard to identify them with any precision, which makes it very difficult to encourage them to save, because many of them—we do not know which of them—would not find it beneficial.

The noble Baroness will make an argument, based on the discussions between the DWP and the Treasury, about what a single-tier pension would do to that position.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Transform it.

[Lord Freud]

She would make an argument to that effect, no doubt. However, how that would happen and its timing would be very sensitive, so it is simply not appropriate at this stage to make any presumption which would drive one into this very uncertain territory.

[Lord Freud]

Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord on that and make absolutely clear the arguments that we will be taking from the Johnson review. It said that you needed to look at three things: replacement rates, earnings dynamics, and family make-up and characteristics. Looking at all three of those, on balance the recommendation was for a higher threshold of roughly £7,400, the reason being that it got the right people saving. That must be the core argument, along with the practical argument relating to costs. It is very expensive to manage small pots. The economics of running a NEST operation, let alone other operations, where it is important to get costs down, is an important secondary consideration. However, the primary one is to get the right people saving. After all, this is, as I have said previously, the biggest experiment in asymmetric paternalism. Let us get it right first and fine-tune it later.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

How can the noble Lord know whether it is right if he cannot establish the family circumstances which, as my noble friend rightly said, determine whether it pays to save?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are all using the Johnson review as a basis. It recommends that higher threshold and we are following that. It is straightforward and has been well argued. It is a review that has been well accepted across the political and industrial spectrum, and that is the basis on which we are making this change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That is a very interesting contribution and I hope that the Minister will follow it up. I want to put to the Minister a very simple but not obvious point. I understand why employers prefer a waiting period—obviously one is glad that it is not two years, as in some conventional schemes—but even with three months we must recognise that, given the figures on job turnover on page 103, with which I am sure the noble Lord is familiar, the median number of jobs that men and women have is 11. My previous research shows that the pattern of job turnover is different for men and women: men have more turnover in their earlier years and settle in their 40s or 50s, while women have a higher job turnover than most men by virtue of being much more frequently in and out of the labour market and more likely to re-enter into a different job. The report makes the point—although it does not back it up with research—that statistically there is not that great a difference between the two. It is worth pointing out that if somebody has 11 job changes, which is the median according to the report, having a three-month waiting period represents three years’ loss of pension contributions. Interestingly, 26 per cent of the population on this model have between 12 and 15 jobs in their working lifetime, which would mean, on average for them—if my sums are right—a loss of five years’ pension contributions. Furthermore, 15 per cent have 16 jobs or more—up to 23—which would be an average of something like eight years’ loss of pension contributions.

This is highly significant. Even reducing that by one month to two months would help; reducing it back to one month, as my noble friend has argued, would make a significant contribution for those who have staying power but none the less a rapid job turnover for whatever reason. It may be because of a cycle between self-employment and employment—take a hairdresser, for example, for whom the conditions of employment are often very obscure, whether you are self-employed or, even if you work in a salon, whether you are employed or not. None the less, the waiting period of three months can represent over your lifetime a significant loss of working contributions matched by the employer into your pension. For that reason, as well as others adduced so far, I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether he could make any movement in this direction.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Amendment 23 would reduce the maximum length of the waiting period from three months to one month. Amendment 24 applies an exception so that existing employees have a three-month waiting period. However, based on previous discussions with the noble Lord, our interpretation is that Amendment 24 is intended to apply an exception so that new employees would remain eligible for a three-month waiting period. I know that we are in Committee and so one can refine the intention of an amendment to make it more precise, but that is our understanding of its intention.

Clause 6 introduces the concept of an optional waiting period to the automatic enrolment process. Automatic enrolment has made numerous appearances in this place and another place. A recurring theme has been the extent of the duty placed on employers. I preface my remarks by putting this in context. We are talking about auto-enrolment for pensions—the biggest experiment in asymmetric paternalism that the world has ever seen, I think. We are trying to encourage people to save. We forget that the encouragement comes in the form of automatic enrolment. Let me say in response to both my noble friend Lord Boswell and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that if we overcomplicate this, we will not have a smooth-running system. Auto-enrolment is a means to an end. That end is for the norm to be for people in the country to save more.

The noble Baroness cited the median figure of 11 jobs over a lifetime. If that is the median, the noble Baroness is right: 33 months represents 7 per cent of the provision of a potential pension pot. However, if auto-enrolment has worked and people have started opting into pensions, by the time they are on their second, third or fourth job, they will opt in because it will have become a habit. One must look at what auto-enrolment is, rather than become overly mechanical about it, which these amendments are.

The aim here is to ease the burdens on business. This simplification measure of pulling two systems into one—to get rid of postponement and to have one system of waiting periods—has been widely welcomed by employers. A waiting period will free employers from the administrative burden of enrolling casual staff who are working for them for only a few weeks and wish to maximise their take-home pay, rather than save for a pension. I am thinking of most of Sydney in Australia when I make that remark; I think that most people in Sydney come to work in London for two years.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is that evidence-based research?

[Lord Freud]

A waiting period will also allow employers to align automatic enrolment processes with their existing processes and avoid part-period calculations of contributions. In addition, it will allow them to stagger auto-enrolment of large workforces. An employer will be able to apply a waiting period to all employees at their staging date. It will also be possible for an employer to apply a waiting period when a new employee joins the workforce or from the date when an employee becomes an eligible jobholder—for example, when they turn 22.

It is important to note that an employer will be allowed to apply a waiting period only if he gives the worker information about the waiting period within a certain deadline. This will ensure that workers are informed of their right to opt into pension saving during the waiting period. It is only right and fair that those who wish to start saving for retirement earlier are not prevented from doing so.

The waiting period is intended to ease the administrative burden and has been widely welcomed by employers. However, it means that, for those individuals who have frequent job changes, there could be a significant impact on their overall pension savings. This is particularly so, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out, if they are subject to a waiting period in every post. Allowing individuals to opt in during the waiting period will address this imbalance so that no one is denied the opportunity to save. As I said, if auto-enrolment has the impact that it should have, the psychology of saving should change for many people.

Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that much of the detail is on the face of the Bill. We propose taking regulation-making powers in just two areas. First, we will specify in regulations how quickly the employer must give notice to the individual about the waiting period. Secondly, we will set out what information that notice must contain and any other accompanying information that the employer must provide. For example, workers will need to be provided with information about the right to opt in during the waiting period. It is important that we have the flexibility to set the period and to provide for additional accompanying information in regulations once we have had an in-depth consultation with our stakeholders.

As I said, a key aim of the reforms is to encourage more people to start saving for retirement. However, at the same time, we have been mindful of the costs for employers of implementing the reforms. We believe that a three-month waiting period provides the correct balance between easing employer burden and maximising individuals’ savings. This amendment introduces a variable length of waiting period depending on the circumstances. There are two main issues with such an approach. First, introducing a one-month waiting period for existing employees would remove some of the flexibility afforded to employers through waiting periods; for example, they would not be able to stagger automatic enrolment of large workforces. Secondly, we are keen to ensure that the introduction of waiting periods does not make the automatic enrolment process more complicated. We believe that a simple process is key to employers understanding and preserving their support. A two-tier waiting policy would add complexity and would be difficult for employers to understand or use. It would add to the burden on employers, which is not the intention of waiting periods.

Waiting periods were designed with employers in mind and have been welcomed. We believe that they will provide a real easement for employers, as well as ensuring that individuals’ savings are protected. I urge the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I tried to explain that. There are a few things happening here but the relevant thing is to try to allow people with large workforces to time it so that they can do things in bulk rather than having to individualise. That will allow us to get a single system running through rather than having to have separate systems. Administrative simplicity has been the guiding goal here and it is also the reason why we have abandoned the concept of postponement, which was again a slightly complicated two-tier system. We are trying to get to one tier and a great deal of administrative simplicity.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister has already, and I am glad that he has, sold the pass on that by allowing voluntary enrolment for young people under 22 or for people, mostly women, earning between £5,200 and £7,500. The employer is already going to have to identify and respond to particular individuals rather than to cohorts of a labour force that may be moving tidily through the system. While we welcome the concession of voluntary enrolment, the noble Lord cannot now pray for administrative simplicity in cohorts when he has already sold the pass on voluntary enrolment.

[Lord Freud]

There is a great deal of difference between having a system that allows opt-in at any stage compared to a system that puts an obligation on an employer to do something at one month for some people and three months for others. There is a difference and I would not agree that any pass has been sold on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their observations and repeat how the structure works. The cycle would be starting again. However, I emphasise that we think that the group involved would be extraordinarily narrow. We could overcomplicate this issue, because in practice many employers will probably just enrol those people the following month, which they are quite free to do. They can opt in. As I said, we will be monitoring this very closely. If it becomes a substantive issue and we can see some peculiar games going on, we will have to move in and sort it out, and we will do that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I should like to reinforce that. I was struck by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. When I was doing some pension work on things such as buy-back and so on, I was struck by the number of women in a variety of jobs who told me that their employers very deliberately capped their hours at 15 to avoid national insurance. I am afraid that I can see very small employers—whether they run a launderette, a newsagent or whatever—having people working for them for two months, laying them off for a week and then starting them in work again. They could, for possibly quite a long time, avoid automatic enrolment and therefore avoid paying a pension, which they would be reluctant to pay because they would regard it as a burden on their business. I have no idea how many small employers might abuse the system in that way, if I can put it like that, but I fear that among small employers there will be quite a strong incentive to do that. I wonder how the Minister is going not only to watch that but to remedy it.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for that point. Clearly, in all these areas there is potential for abuse. However, it is very important that we do not overcomplicate the system in case there is abuse, which in this event is likely to be rather small. If, as the noble Baroness fears, it does become an abuse, we will be monitoring it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

How?

[Lord Freud]

I have given a commitment that we are going to monitor how all this works on a regular basis and I feel confident in saying that, if we find that it is a genuine problem, we will have to move in. However, it is pointless to try to pre-empt something that looks as though it is too small an issue to be concerned with.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I do not understand how the Minister can monitor the difference between the two months and the week’s lay-off, be it in the hairdresser’s shop or anywhere else, in order to restart the dinners as it were, and the non-occurrence of voluntary enrolment. I do not understand how the Minister can ensure that the person not joining the pension scheme is in the latter category and not in the first. I do not see how he will monitor it, because he will not keep the records.

[Lord Freud]

We have committed to monitor this situation quite widely, in particular how the waiting periods are working. It is essential to get it right. We have not developed the specification of that monitoring, but we will do so. We will watch closely that and other issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Wimp. [Laughter.]

[Lord Freud]

All this is saying to me that, right now, uprating measures for entry and savings levels need to be flexible. Therefore, we want to maintain flexibility to consider a wide range of economic measures. Pensions cast long shadows. Pension law has to last for the long term. We believe it is prudent to build in maximum flexibility for all eventualities, as regrettably we do not have 20:20 foresight.

I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment and I understand the concerns about any unfettered discretion or an unrestrained dash to a £10,000 trigger. However, the primary aim here is to ensure that we target the people who should be saving, while excluding those who should not. If, at the same time, we can align with a threshold that employers are already familiar with and minimise administration burdens, so much the better.

Automatic enrolment has to be sustainable. My worst fears are that we set rules which scoop up people who cannot afford to take a hit on their pay packet. If we get the trigger wrong—if we set it too low—we risk high levels of opt-out. Once we do that, we turn people off pension saving, even if we have applied asymmetric paternalism to get them to save. To get the trigger right, we need flexibility.

Today’s debate is further ample evidence that the automatic enrolment earnings trigger is a matter of deep interest and concern to this House. For that reason, we want to ensure that the House has an ongoing opportunity to debate this issue. We recognise that including such a flexible power to amend figures that appear in primary legislation represents a very broad power, and that is why the uprating order will be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure. It will mean that this complex issue, and the exact rates set for the launch of automatic enrolment, will be the subject of a full debate to ensure complete transparency.

It would be unusual to commit to an impact assessment in the Bill, as requested by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. However, I make a commitment to provide an impact assessment for the next five years, up to the 2017 review and shortly afterwards. This will allow time for the reforms to bed in and for us to understand the wider landscape. Therefore, there will be full information on the uprating order as a basis on which the House can conduct the debate.

I hope that I have been able to set out the case for flexibility and the need to future-proof these provisions. I also hope that I have provided the reassurance on transparency that noble Lords are seeking with their request for an impact assessment. However, I regret that I cannot give a guarantee that the trigger for pension saving will in future be set in complete isolation from prevailing personal tax thresholds. I am afraid we are unable to accept the amendments and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I must start by declaring an interest. I think I have one of these infuriating little stranded pensions. It is the most annoying thing. You look at the file, look at the headline and close the file because dealing with it is unendurable. I am far too polite to complain to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for not doing anything about it. If I thought about it I would resent him deeply every time I looked at the file.

I take the opportunity to let the Committee know, through these amendments, what we are doing to consider how transfers across the industry, particularly of small pension pots, can be made easier. The Making Automatic Enrolment Work review, carried out last summer, recognised that facilitating transfers was critical to the success of the workplace pension reforms. It believed, however, that the issues went beyond NEST. When automatic enrolment becomes the norm, there is a much higher risk that pension savings, particularly for lower earners and people who move jobs frequently, will become fragmented in several small pots—a point made so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, just now.

The Government are already acting on the recommendation of the review to consider how transfers across the industry can be made easier. The DWP is working alongside the Treasury, HMRC, the Financial Services Authority, the Pensions Regulator, employers and pension providers to understand better the burdens employers and schemes face when administering small pots, and to identify any barriers facing members.

In addition, the DWP recently published—on 31 January—a call for evidence on the regulatory differences between occupational and workplace personal pension schemes. We are seeking to address existing rules which could impact on the success of the reforms, such as rules on early scheme leavers and disclosure. The call for evidence is likely to consider actions better to manage small pension pots. This call for evidence closes on 18 April. Our response will be released later this year after we have considered stakeholder views and evidence of burdens and costs.

Her Majesty’s Treasury recently held a call for evidence on early access. This reflects the Government’s commitment to consider ways to boost individual saving and to foster a culture of personal responsibility over financial choices, particularly in encouraging saving for retirement. The document sets out the available evidence on early access to pension savings, some potential models for early access and the potential benefits and risks, and sought further evidence from interested parties. It included a specific question on ways to improve the transfer process and on whether there is a case for introducing further flexibility in the trivial commutation rules. The call for evidence closed on 25 February. HMT is currently considering the responses and will publish its findings in due course. So, across all three of these areas, we are seeking to identify options to improve transfers so that individuals can get the most out of their savings.

I appreciate the interest that noble Lords have indicated in the overall issue of transfers, which is much wider than the restrictions that are currently placed on NEST. The restrictions on transfers into NEST are intended to focus the scheme on its target market, particularly as the reforms are staged in, enabling its administrative processes to be simple, leading to lower running costs and creating safeguards against levelling down. NEST can already accept certain transfers in—for example, where a member with less than two years’ service has the right to a cash transfer. This allows jobholders who move from an employer not using NEST to one offering NEST to transfer their cash transfer sum into NEST. The Pensions Act 2008 commits the Secretary of State to review the effect of NEST transfer restrictions in 2017. But we are doing work now, before 2017, that will bring together evidence and analysis from a broad base.

As I know noble Lords appreciate, there is no straightforward solution and the outcome of any quick fix may not provide the universal remedy for individuals and pension schemes that we might hope for. Aggregating small pots by transferring them into another pension scheme is not necessarily a good thing to do for individuals, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, just pointed out, as it will depend on the merits—the risk, charges and growth—of the fund they are transferring into compared to those of the fund they are transferring from. It is not necessarily a good thing for pension schemes either, which, though they would no longer need to pay for the maintenance of a potentially smaller pot, would need to pay to transfer the fund out. Hence, the work we are already doing to see what measures we can sensibly take to minimise industry burdens while delivering the best possible protection of individuals’ retirement outcomes. We want to ensure that any solution will stand the test of time and meet the needs of all pension schemes and their members.

I do not want to prejudge the outcome of our considerations, but I can see the merit in a number of your Lordships’ arguments, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, that we should take into account giving the individual a choice, where they have very small pension funds, to take the cash. It is, of course, the very smallest pots that cause the biggest problems, as even if transfers can be facilitated, the frictional administrative costs have a proportionally higher impact. The noble Lord talked about sums of £20 and £30—I shudder to think of the proportion of administrative costs involved in doing anything with them.

Our ambition is that NEST will complement rather than replace existing good-quality pension provision. Changing the provisions now to allow NEST to accept transfers in during the critical implementation period could undermine that aim. By 2017 the reforms will have been fully implemented. We will have more evidence on the effect of the reforms as a whole, including the impact of NEST on the market. While I appreciate the principle behind these amendments, I urge the Committee to bear with us while we get to the heart of this difficult and complex matter. On that basis, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That is helpful and I understand the issues associated with it, but can the Minister give us some guidance on the timescale? This is a problem now, as my noble friend said. Women, in particular, are low-income savers and have small pots which they are losing. They are being stolen from them with nobody being a thief but with women certainly being the victims. Given that this Bill is still going through this House and will then go on to the other place, presumably once it has finished the Welfare Reform Bill, the noble Lord has until June or July or some time like that before the Pensions Bill completes its passage through both Houses. Can he come up with some proposal by the summer in which we can corral these small pots so that they are not lost permanently to those who can least afford to lose them?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am pleased to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She will see by the amount of work that we are undertaking and its complexity that getting a comprehensive review is not going to be possible in a matter of months. We are clearly talking about a matter of years to lock this situation down. I refer back in politest possible way to what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said. This has been a problem for a very long time and it is very complicated, involving a lot of different systems and structures of pension provision. We need a holistic solution. We have the work in train. We will get there but it will not be a matter of months, I regret.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, it would be very simple, at least as an interim stage, to build on what the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, was talking about and either have a cap on the size of individual funds that can be taken as cash or to raise the trivial commutation limit under specified circumstances. That would be very simple and would not get in the way of further more fundamental and wide-reaching reforms, of which I understand some of the bigger complexities—particularly between DB and DC schemes, although obviously DB tends to be confined to the public sector. But the noble Lord could make some interim arrangements which would not preclude an intelligent, sensible and decent wider response in the future. At the moment real people are losing real money who can ill afford to do so.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I accept the point that the noble Baroness makes that people lose money because of this. They have been losing money for many years. This problem has not suddenly emerged. Regrettably, because of the amount of work now under way, it would be premature for me to give any time indication about whether one could envisage some certain quick fixes that would go along with an overall strategy. It just depends. Noble Lords will understand that I am simply not in a position to say that we could apply some quick fixes along way. They may be possible but I certainly cannot indicate that that will be the case or the timing of it. I would love to be able to announce a wonderful transformation so that with one bound we broke free. But I can assure noble Lords that there is a major process in train to get a holistic solution to the issues of savings and these pots, and we are moving at a rapid speed to get that done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and my noble friends for bringing the important issue of the NEST contribution limit to the attention of the Committee. I shall deal with the amendments in the order they were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has raised, through Amendment 36, a vital point about the ability of NEST members to make contributions to their retirement pots that exceed the minimum contributions required by automatic enrolment. NEST has been designed to provide a low-cost, portable pension scheme for low to moderate earners. We want to encourage people, where possible, to save more than the minimum. The NEST order and rules already allow a member to make contributions up to the annual contribution limit in the financial year in which the contributions are made, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, pointed out.

The current limit is already set at such a level that it enables median earners to contribute as much as twice the minimum contribution requirement in a tax year. Allowing NEST members to make use of unused annual contribution limits in subsequent years would undermine the purpose of the annual contribution limit. This limit was designed to ensure that NEST does not adversely impact on existing good-quality pension provision. While I understand the principle behind this amendment, we should not forget the purpose of NEST. This is to enable millions of people to participate in pension saving from which they are currently excluded because they do not have access to suitable workplace pension provision. Filling this supply gap requires NEST to be both low-cost and as straightforward a scheme as possible. Adding to the complexity of administering NEST through complex arrangements for calculating the maximum annual contribution would undermine those aims.

Moving on to Amendment 37, the noble Baroness raises another important point, about how the annual contribution limit should be calculated. The limit, alongside the transfer restrictions, is designed to focus NEST on its target market of low to moderate earners. This is to ensure that NEST will complement existing good-quality pension provision, not replace it.

The baseline contribution limit was set at £3,600 in 2005 terms, following wide consultation on the proposals in the White Paper, Personal Accounts: A New Way to Save. Responses on the appropriate level for an annual contribution limit were based on analysis of several factors, in particular, the potential impact on existing schemes and the ability of individuals to save flexibly for their retirement. In line with the provisions in the scheme order, NEST Corporation has adjusted the contribution limit for 2011-12, prior to scheme launch, to £4,200. The current method of setting the annual contribution limit strikes the right balance. It ensures that NEST focuses on its target market of those excluded from pension savings as a result of market failure, while providing for a level of contributions that is sufficient to allow employers and individuals to contribute more than the minimum required.

I turn to Amendment 38, tabled by my noble friends Lord Stoneham and Lord German. This puts forward the recommendation from the Making Automatic Enrolment Work review that the Government legislate now to remove NEST’s annual contribution limit from 2017. That review recognised the importance of the NEST contribution limit during the introduction of the reforms. It acknowledged that there was broad consensus behind the reforms, and that NEST’s role was to fill the supply gap that those in the existing industry currently find difficult to serve. The review saw the contribution cap as a key lever in ensuring two things: that NEST remains focused on this target market as the reforms are staged; and that during this important period it does not adversely impact existing good-quality pension provision. However, the review team considered that once the reforms were fully implemented it may be appropriate to remove the cap. This is both to ease the administrative burden on NEST and to avoid any unintended message that there was somehow a maximum appropriate level of pension saving.

Great minds think alike. Section 74 of the Pensions Act 2008 already requires the Secretary of State to appoint a person to review the effect of the annual contribution limit in 2017. By this time, the reforms will have been fully implemented and we will have more evidence on the effect of the reforms as a whole, including the impact of NEST on the marketplace. I am not saying that the review team was wrong. I am saying that, given that it saw 2017 as the right time to remove the cap—by then we will have much more evidence of the impact of NEST in the real world—2017 is also a more sensible time to consider changing or removing the NEST annual contribution limit. Since this can be achieved by secondary legislation, there is no need to legislate now. I understand the principles behind these amendments. However, now is not the time and, given the scope individuals already have to make additional contributions and our intention to review the contribution limit in 2017, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I can well understand why pension providers are—let me put it politely—apprehensive about the competition offered by NEST in terms of fees and charges and, therefore, want to protect the funds under their management. I accept the noble Lord’s argument that the bigger issue of getting rid of the cap altogether may have to wait until 2017, although I am disappointed about that. What I do not understand is why there should be any threat to existing alternative providers for people who are in NEST and who, two or three years down the line, find that they have missing contributions, possibly by virtue of maternity leave or whatever. I cannot see how that situation—making good the shortfalls of previous years—is in any sense a threat to any other provider. Because they are in NEST, they will not be in any other provider’s scheme. NEST is not, therefore, in any sense, competition to them.

I support the second of these amendments, although I understand the challenge that it might represent. However, the first amendment would simply make good the headspace in back payments, and I do not see why that would represent a challenge or a problem of any sort. Given that people occasionally get modest sums of money, it would seem to be consistent with our wish to encourage people to think about their retirement and to be able to make that money available for NEST. I do not know whether the Minister has anything further to add; he may feel that he has said all he is going to say on this.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way and for giving me the opportunity to clarify matters. This is simply about administration, simplicity and cost. As you start to introduce these kinds of rules going backwards and forwards on what people can contribute, it gets very complicated and you start to build in the kind of complexity that we are all complaining about. Stranded pots are just one area generated by the complexity in the system. Therefore, the rationale here is: keep it simple.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, given the time, I do not think that there is any point in my pursuing this matter further. However, if not during the course of this Bill, perhaps subsequently we will come back to this bundle of issues, because it clearly has to be addressed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the purpose of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is to delay any change to the age of 66 until women’s state pension age is increased to 65 on the current schedule. The amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Boswell aim for, if I may use the expression, a third way, by proposing a timetable that increases the state pension age to 66—one year later than the Government propose, but one year earlier than proposed by the noble Lord.

I begin, however, by welcoming the fact that, in each case, the amendments propose to bring forward the increase to 66, in the first case by four years and in the second case by five. This reflects widespread recognition that the current timetable for raising the state pension age to 66, which was approved by this House and in another place less than four years ago, has already been overtaken by events. I will not, therefore, detain proceedings by repeating the case for a faster rise in the state pension age, which I am pleased to note that my noble friend supports. I will just go to the point made by the noble Lord about the coalition agreement, and I say upfront that my honourable friend the Minister for Pensions has said in another place that women’s state pension age does not start rising to 66 until 2020.

I will endeavour to explain why, notwithstanding the impact which we recognise our proposals will have on a small minority of women, we believe that we should not delay until 2020 before we start on the path to 66. We estimate that our proposals will save £30 billion, in constant price terms, in state pensions expenditure, after taking account of all of the increased spending on working-age benefits—a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was concerned about. The difference between what we have proposed and what is proposed under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is about £10 billion, which is a very significant sum. It is equivalent to one-third of the total savings to the public purse from our proposals. In proposing to forego this £10 billion, the noble Lord is perhaps losing sight of what such a sum represents. To help put this in context, in order to save even half of that today, which is broadly the annual savings from raising the state pension age by a year, we would, for example, have to cut the education budget by 10 per cent over the spending review savings. The estimated benefits from additional tax and national insurance receipts would also be cut by nearly a third, from £8.1 billion to £5.6 billion. The alternative proposition put forward by my noble friend would also significantly reduce the savings from our proposals, in this case by more than £7 billion.

The question is: who picks up the tab if we delay until 2022 or 2021? I suggest that the answer is: our children and our grandchildren. The point has been made that our proposals will make no contribution to reducing the budget deficit in this Parliament. This line of argument implies that, once the immediate fiscal crisis is out of the way, we can afford to relax. Although we expect public debt to be on a declining path by 2015-16, it will still be well above the pre-crisis levels. The OBR forecasts that public debt will be 67 per cent of GDP in that year, compared to less than 40 per cent five years ago. We need to do all that we can to keep debt down, and hold it down over the medium term, to ensure that we have the capacity to respond to future fiscal shocks. The cost of increasing longevity will not, unfortunately, stop increasing in 2015.

I turn to the impact on women, which is at the core of these amendments. The argument is that the adjustment we propose is unfair to women in their late 50s. I do not dispute the fact that a gender gap still exists in pension provision—a point made by several noble Lords. However, the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, do not suggest that we should delay increasing the state pension age to 66 until the gap is closed. Nor do I dispute that, because of our proposals, some women will need to work for longer than they may have otherwise planned to. I am prepared to say that I do not think that that is a bad thing. We need people to work longer because they are living longer. We need them to contribute more and, by working longer, they can save more for their retirement. Working longer has not just financial benefits for the individual; people of working age are generally healthier when they are employed than when they are not. Some of these women will indeed increase their pension saving as a result. Only a small proportion, some 4 per cent, of women currently aged between 55 and 57 say they are already retired; while around 70 per cent are still in employment.

Let me deal with two of the issues raised by noble Lords. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the cliff edge for men as well, I do not see a cliff edge in our proposals. The whole point is that there is a gradual increase. Anyone, man or woman, who is on pension credit, must already be above women’s state pension age, and by definition they will not lose out or have to move off pension credit as the state pension age increases.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That means that a man who is currently on pension credit, who qualifies for it shortly after his 60th birthday, will hold on to that for the next five years, while women’s pension age increases. Therefore, a woman of a similar age could have half his income.

[Lord Freud]

The point is that once you are on the system there is a gradual move up, so you do not bounce on and off it. You are on that system. Clearly, we are looking at two systems—a pensions system and a working-age support system. Nothing changes while we have that gradual increase for the individuals concerned. People will join the system at different points, depending on their age. Fundamentally, there is no difference between the Government’s position on either of the amendments.

Let me deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on buying back class 3 voluntary national insurance contributions. There has been a lot of debate about this matter during proceedings on various Bills, as he will be more aware than me. I believe that it took two Bills to allow people, mainly women, to buy additional years, going back to 1975. However, the noble Lord will also recall that this particular easement applied only to people who reached state pension age before 2015. People must weigh up their options when deciding to buy additional national insurance contributions, and we do not have any plans at this moment to provide refunds.

Let me turn to the facts about women’s life expectancy. Women will on average still draw their state pension for longer than men after the pension ages are equal—a fact that was rather put to one side during our debate before the Recess. It is important to record that, at the time that the decisions were made about when to raise the pension age to 66, a woman born in 1954 would be expecting to draw her state pension at 64 for an average of 24 years. Thanks to increasing life expectancy she will still on average draw her state pension for 24 years, even with the rise to 66 proposed in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I should like to push the noble Lord again about the timescale. I think that there has been unanimity, pretty much, that the state pension age for women and men should be equalised. The debate has been about the increased speed of it and, therefore, the degree to which women can reasonably have been expected to make provision for it, and to take into account whether they are in waged or unwaged work. As we know, many women will be in heavy but unwaged work at that point in their lives.

Is the noble Lord aware of a similar instance some time back? In the 1982 social security legislation—I am not sure whether it was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, but it might have been—the Government proposed, with some intellectual justification, to remove the right of widows to claim 100 per cent of SERPs entitlement, rather than the conventional 50 per cent as per the status of a widow. That was due to come into effect 20 years on, in 2002. The Government were going to give 20 years’ notice, except that they did not. They forgot about it entirely. Suddenly, in about 1997 or 1998, that issue landed four square on my desk. It was clear that women did not have sufficient notice and that three or even five years’ notice, as it would have been in 1997 for 2002, was regarded by the noble Lord’s party as unacceptable, even though it had been an omission of publicity.

We all agreed that five years’ notice of something which would happen only to a group who could not foresee their future, because it was about widowhood, and that they would inherit only 50 per cent rather than 100 per cent of SERPs as a result, was far too truncated and should be extended. Therefore, we brought back to your Lordships’ House, with all-party agreement, provision that that change should start from 2010 and that for each two years a 10 per cent SERPs reduction should take place. So, if you became a widow in 2012, you would get 90 per cent; in 2014, I think I am right in saying, you would get 80 per cent; and so on. Finally, you would get to 50 per cent by 2020.

In other words, we gave a further 15 years’ notice over and beyond what the Government of the day had originally intended because they had failed to publicise it. We were told that this was unfair and unreasonable, and might even be subject to judicial review, because people were not aware of what was going to happen. Five years’ notice at the point at which we could have escalated the publicity would not have been deemed to have been enough. Will the noble Lord care to comment on this story?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for that. I have to confess that I was not aware of those events in 1982. I was aware of some events—I think that I was writing a Lex column in 1982 so I was not completely out of the picture. The noble Baroness makes the point that there were five years of notice. Clearly, the smallest amount of notice that we have in this instance is 6.5 years for those who are affected at the tightest level. We believe that that period, which admittedly is shorter than other periods that we have seen, will still allow women to plan for their retirement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for tabling this amendment and for giving us the opportunity to debate a key concern about increasing the state pension age and longevity. I use the soft “g”, whereas I notice that the noble Lord uses the hard “g”. We probably differ on other things as well. The noble Baroness raised the question of what older people want and whether they want to work longer. Research has found that people want to return to work, whether for financial, personal or practical reasons, and will find ways to do so if they are motivated, have recent work experience and if illhealth does not act as a barrier.

In essence, the amendment is about whether it is fair for the state pension age to be the same for everyone irrespective of their circumstances or whether we should have a variable state pension age for certain groups. To echo what my noble friend Lord Flight said, one of our aims—which is in common with previous Governments—is to simplify an extremely complicated pensions system. The Bill contains various measures to simplify, from the abolition of the fiendishly complicated and fascinating PUCODIs, to which we will come shortly, the flexibility to consolidate additional pension—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

We are in a heightened state of expectancy.

[Lord Freud]

There are only two experts in the room on PUCODIs.

On the serious point, simplicity is really important in this system. Clearly, we have tipped over the edge in complexity in the pensions system, as we have in the welfare system. Our state pension system has always been based on a common state pension age—albeit differentiated by gender, at least for the time being. Each exception that we add would increase the complexity. Including health conditions, occupations—and even, as has been suggested, where someone lives if we add that into the mix—would rapidly pile confusion on confusion. Introducing different state pension ages at a time when we are working to simplify benefits and pensions would make the system very complex and difficult to administer, and would take us further away from our objective.

The amendment raises questions about parity of treatment between those who could get their state pension from an earlier date and those who could not. Of course, the kind of illness or infirmity envisaged would need to be defined, as would the types of employment that it suggests be covered. There are, of course, some countries where people are allowed to retire earlier than the standard state pension age from occupations which may be classed as particularly arduous or dangerous employment, but who is to say what is arduous or dangerous? The other point we must note here is that in many of those cases, retiring early results in a person’s state pension being reduced, as might be expected for any pension scheme. Through her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, shares our view that having poorer pensioners is not a desirable outcome, but to allow early retirement without reducing benefits could be very expensive.

Noble Lords will share the great sympathy that we all have for people who are in ill health, whether they have the misfortune to become seriously ill or are infirm. We also have sympathy and respect for the carers referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis— particularly for what she calls the heavy-end carers. I do not have an answer to that, certainly not today, but I will reflect on her comments. As Michael Marmot has shown, there are long-term differences in disability-free life expectancy between socioeconomic groups, and they need to be addressed. Noble Lords will be aware, however, that there have been improvements in both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy across all sectors of our society.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Given that the Minister referred to last year’s Marmot report on health, can he confirm that it found a 17-year difference in healthy life expectancy between the richest and the poorest?

[Lord Freud]

I regret that I do not have that figure to hand, but I can provide it later. I am sure that the noble Baroness has it to hand and that that is the point of her question, but I will confirm the exact figure.

The other point is on life expectancy across the regions. There are differentials, but it is important that life expectancy has risen in all regions and looks set to continue to do so. In England, in the 29 years from 1981 to 2010, it increased from 79 to 86 for men and from 83 to 89 for women. In Scotland, it increased from 78 to 85 for men and from 81 to 87 for women; and in Wales, it increased from 79 to 86 for men—the same as in England—and from 82 to 88 for women. There are differentials, but they are all moving in the same direction at roughly the same pace.

Likewise in terms of occupations, male manual workers have seen an increase of almost two years in their life expectancy at 65 between 1992-96 and 2002-05. Women manual workers have seen a one-year increase in the same period. Reverting to the point that we discussed under the previous group of amendments, there is no doubt that on average we are living longer and healthier lives than in the past. I shall not go through the figures that we discussed then.

When we come to what kind of support we can offer to people as they get toward the end of their working lives, I need to emphasise that we have developed a support network in this country, and we are going to transform it. Many people in this Room will be part of the consideration of the new universal credit. There clearly is support for people of working age with health problems.

With the universal credit, we have the opportunity to sweep away the patchwork of benefits and credits and to bring in a much more coherent and simpler system. That system can take the weight of the concerns of the noble Baroness. That is a better place to address the concerns underlying her amendment. For that reason, I do not accept that varying pension ages is the right way to support people who have ill health towards the end of their working lives, and I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for tabling this amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for introducing it. It allows us to consider the role that pension credit plays in providing income-related support for those over a certain age. These amendments seek to keep the pension credit qualifying age at the existing timetable for women’s state pension age by proposing a new and separate age schedule that would apply to pension credit between March 2011 and March 2020. The effect of these amendments would be to break the link between pension credit qualifying age and women’s state pension age.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, do we not already do this for men?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, but it is being pulled together for men. That is the point of the 1995 proposition and, now, the acceleration.

The effect of these amendments would be to break the link, as I said. As the schedule proposed by the amendment would effectively follow the existing timetable, it would therefore see a divergence from the increase to women’s state pension age from 2016 as proposed by the Bill. The amendment also seeks to ensure that the pension credit qualifying age cannot be set higher than state pension age in the future.

As life expectancy is increasing for people at all income levels, it is right that we raise the starting point for pension credit in line with changes to women’s state pension age and, beyond that, state pension age. A key part of the Welfare Reform Bill that is currently going through Parliament and of the introduction of universal credit is to ensure that people of working age have the opportunity to do just that—work whenever possible. To ensure that we provide the appropriate work focus and work-related support for all those of working age, we will be setting the upper age limit for universal credit at pension credit qualifying age. Setting the pension credit qualifying age at an artificial point below women’s state pension age will therefore undermine this fundamental aspect of welfare reform.

The amendment also suggests that the means-tested help available through universal credit will not be adequate for those approaching state pension age, and this is not the case. Universal credit is intended to provide appropriate levels of support, including for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to work or have limited capacity for work. Universal credit will also provide for a more generous treatment of earnings, and it is not right to withdraw this support for people who wish to continue working.

To pick up the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, when she referred to the impact assessment, I should make clear that the stylised cases in the impact assessment are designed to show the maximum possible loss. Most of those affected will not experience such losses. The noble Baroness addressed the issue around minorities and disabled people. I accept that there will be differences, but we are determined, and we have various programmes now to do this, to tackle the labour market disadvantage that those groups have.

Given the proposed upper age limit for universal credit, the amendment is not particularly well targeted. The extent to which people may see any benefit will depend on their own circumstances and on those of their partner. I should also point out that as this change would require a concurrent but different rise in state pension age and the pension credit qualifying age, it would add complexity to the system which, as we discussed on the previous amendment, goes the opposite way from our intentions. It has the potential to create a very confusing message to give customers about qualifying ages and what benefits are available to them.

Pension credit is primarily a safety net benefit for those over state pension age. It has been set at women’s state pension age to avoid discrimination until men and women’s state pension age are equalised. There has never been an intention to raise the qualifying age above state pension age. It is clear that this amendment is intended to help those people who might be described as “vulnerable”—people who might be in ill health or who have been in manual jobs and are unable to continue working as state pension age increases.

I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I take the opportunity to answer the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, regarding the Marmot review. I have now been able to put my hands on those figures. She dropped a nought in the differences in life expectancy where the highest life expectancy, in Kensington and Chelsea, was not 17 years but 10.7 years above the worst, which was Blackpool, for men—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to quote from the Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post-2010—the Marmot report, which states:

“In England, people living in the poorest neighbourhoods, will, on average, die seven years earlier than people living in the richest neighbourhoods”.

The report then refers to the graph in Figure 1, and continues:

“Even more disturbing, the average difference in disability-free life expectancy is 17 years … So, people in poorer areas not only die sooner, but they will also spend more of their shorter lives with a disability”.

The report goes on to state that even excluding the top 5 per cent and the bottom 5 per cent, the difference in years of disability-free life expectancy is 13 years.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness for saving my team from having to write a letter, given that she has isolated the issue. We are playing with different numbers—10.7, 17 and 7. I think that we have sorted out what each means. However, the point remains that for all groups there is a movement in the right direction towards longer lives and for longer healthy lives for all groups—albeit that there is a difference within groups.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Except that the point established by my noble friend Lady Drake and others is that the cuts, if you like, in spending on pensions and pension credit are falling heaviest on the poorest women who will have the least disability-free life expectancy along with their male counterparts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for raising this matter. Clearly this debate has been conducted before, although I was not present, but there is a potentially a new context for it. The fundamental issue of the aggregation of low earnings from multiple part-time jobs and how they could be made to qualify for basic state pension has been a matter of concern to her for some time. It was considered by the Pensions Commission and during the passage of the Pensions Act 2007.

Like her, I am keen to encourage mini-jobs, which I think are not just good in themselves for people in supplementing income, but are an invaluable stepping stone which we have made difficult for people to use in the current welfare system. A system that encourages that process and takes it out of the informal or grey economy and into the proper economy, will be immensely valuable for many people. What I am going to say at this stage and in this debate will be rather correct, in the sense that, in the present situation and in the context of our present systems, it is not be possible to go ahead with something like this. Until we have a new system defined, laid out, and understand its technology, we will not be able to look seriously at what we can do here, and it is an immensely complicated issue in practice. The structure of this answer may be negative as I go through it.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Cautious.

[Lord Freud]

Thank you, cautious is a much better word. It will be somewhat cautious, but I will make a commitment at the end of it, based on what might be achievable later.

I start saying that many of the changes that have been made have already reduced the problem, and I know that the noble Baroness would have been involved in making those changes. I am thinking in particular of the reduction to a 30-year contribution making up a pension. The estimate now is that in only a few years’ time 90 per cent of women and men—both genders for different reasons—reaching state pension age will be entitled to the full basic state pension.

Disabled People: Disability Living Allowance

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the target is to reduce the spending on DLA by 20 per cent by 2014-15. But that is against a projection of a benefit that is, frankly, out of control. The actual figure in that year will basically come down to the level that it was in 2009-10, which is just below the £12 billion mark.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the consultation paper proposes that the three rates of DLA should be so-called “simplified” into two rates, which presumably implies—as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, suggested—the scrapping of the lower rate of DLA care. Lower-rate DLA care goes to those with significant need of help or supervision. Does the Minister agree with the noble Baroness that if the Government go ahead with that, it will take almost £900 million—nearly £1 billion—out of the incomes of disabled people, some of whom are among the poorest in this country? Is that what he means by saying that we are all in it together?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I disagree entirely with that premise. The personal independence payment is a new assessment of people’s needs and is designed to help people to live independent lives and to give them mobility. To that extent there can be no presumption about what is happening to existing rates. We will set these rates based on people’s requirements to live independent lives.

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Very elegantly, I have an answer for him on my next page—although, of course, I am not reading, I am keeping carefully to my text in this important area. The noble Lord, Lord Best, suggested that the review should be published after a year and we considered that point very carefully, but given the implementation timescales for these changes, particularly the transitional protection arrangements that we have introduced, I think that one year is too soon for a meaningful piece of evaluation research. Many housing benefit recipients will not be affected by the changes until well into 2012. We will therefore make the findings available in early 2013, with initial findings available in the spring of 2012 and an interim report in the summer of 2012.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That is very helpful of the Minister. I fully understand his reasoning for why the report may therefore need to come out somewhat later than the noble Lord, Lord Best, originally proposed. Will the Minister also be giving us details about what is happening with rent levels, the 30th percentile, CPI and as a result, if necessary, the continued rebasing of the 30th percentile figure to ensure that it does not drift down because of the effect of CPI?

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. If I have one minute when I finish my prepared speech, I will try to touch on the CPI.

With regard to further reporting after what I have just described, I am not convinced that it would be appropriate to commit to an annual report on these reforms when so many other welfare changes will be made, as the noble Baroness has pointed out—not least, the introduction of the universal credit. I suggest that we ask the authors of the independent review to recommend whether they think that a follow-up evaluation will be necessary. As I said, I am happy to commit to the independent review that I have described.

Before I close on the CPI, I should point out that it is designed to bear down and we are locked into it for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Thereafter it is up to the Government to decide whether rates using that methodology go out of kilter.

These changes are important. We have put in a lot of transitional support along with a comprehensive programme of practical support to help local authorities implement these measures so that we can finally reform housing benefit and make it fit for purpose. There is no doubt that these statutory instruments are sensible and proportionate. They must go ahead and I commend them to the House.

Welfare Reform

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for putting his finger right on the point of these proposals: this is a measure to help people back into work. I should point out that a very similar measure, the Work for your Benefit scheme introduced by the previous Administration, was looked at by the Human Rights Joint Committee in the light of Article 4 of the ECHR, and it was found that it in no way went against people’s human rights or constituted forced labour.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the universal credit, which I and, I think, most of the House very much welcome. It will bring together half a dozen benefit payments into one. At the moment, as the noble Lord will know, some payments, such as tax credits, go to the mother, whereas others, such as JSA, may go to the father. How will the Minister ensure that with a universal credit mothers’ incomes are protected?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that question. With regard to the wallet and purse issue, we are giving each household the option to decide who gets the universal credit. We are also exploring whether couples can decide to divide the credit between them. Again, that is a decision that we have to finalise.

Welfare Reform

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Monday 11th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

The core difference between the work programme and past programmes is that we are determined to put price differentiation into it because otherwise, as the noble Lord pointed out, the financial incentive for providers is to concentrate on the easiest people. To neutralise that effect, we need to give providers a higher reward for helping the more difficult people. That also has the effect of encouraging the consortia which are formed to be rather rich in terms of their capability. As the noble Lord pointed out, the third sector has some of the greatest expertise in the most difficult people to help. Once you pay for that, it encourages consortia to form which include them. That price differentiation mechanism is one of the most powerful aspects of the work programme for lifting people out of poverty into jobs.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I very much support the Government’s approach in their 21st Century Welfare paper on making work pay and on the running particularly of benefits alongside low hour working in order to reduce the risk of returning to work. That approach is absolutely right and well done on that point. However, for most people of whom I have had experience the issue is not whether work paid, because people have an irrational attachment to being in work, it is whether you can reduce the risk of returning to work. If the job folds and as a result you have to go back on benefits, which may take three to four weeks to come through, and you are only two tins of baked beans away from not being able to feed your children, you may prefer the security of a low but steady income than the risk of work. I hope that the Government’s approach on that will identify that problem, but it is to be welcomed and very much supported.

I have two key questions, to which my noble friend referred, on child benefit. Perhaps the Minister can help us. One shocking consequence of the proposals is that at the moment, if you are on child benefit, through the passporting of HPP—home protection payment—being a carer of a child until your youngest child is 12 years old gives you credits into the state pension. Women who stay at home to bring up their children—all credit to them—whose husbands earn above £44,000 will lose their child benefit. At the moment, those same mums will simultaneously lose a huge chunk, potentially, of their state pension credits. That is completely and utterly unacceptable. If that is not amended, I am sure that this House may have a view which differs from that of the Minister as at present exposed. It would be good if he could help us on this. To penalise stay-at-home mums twice over with the loss of child benefit and the loss of credits into the state pension is completely unacceptable.

Secondly, I turn to the connection between JSA and HB with the threat that HB will be cut after 12 months on JSA. This assumes that what is stopping people on JSA after 12 months going into work is their unwillingness to work and that, therefore, they need to be sanctioned by an additional sanction of 10 per cent on their HB. On this point, I should declare my interest as chair of Broadland Housing Association. I had the stats done for me by the House of Lords for July. In July in Norfolk, 15,900 people—just under 16,000 people—were on JSA. The number of job vacancies in Norfolk was 3,500. The people who get those vacancies will be those who have been most recently made unemployed because they are the most attractive to the employer. Those of us involved in social housing will have on our books young people, who are sometimes difficult to place in jobs, who will have been on JSA for far more than 12 months by virtue of the job shortages that currently exist. Yet they will face a sanction of 10 per cent on their rent.

As a chair of a housing association, I can either accept that rent arrears will mount or I can evict them. They will become homeless and then they may squat. But if I keep them and their rent arrears go up, I do not have the money to put in the solar panels et cetera to reduce the fuel poverty of elderly people. What choice would the Minister have me make? Should I evict those young people who through no fault of their own cannot get a job where there are 16,000 people unemployed and 3,500 vacancies or deprive elderly people of the opportunity to reduce their fuel poverty? No Government should force socially responsible landlords into having to choose between those two categories. I hope that the Minister today will assure us that that will not be the choice we will have to make.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Again, I take comfort from her general support for the universal credit. The point I would like to emphasise is that because we have two systems, an out-of-work benefit system and an in-work tax credit system, the risk of moving from one to the other is enormous. One has only to experience doing a job which does not work out, having to fall back into out-of-work benefits with perhaps a delay of three months as the bureaucracy is sorted out and thus not being able to afford the baked beans mentioned by the noble Baroness, to realise that that kind of risk is highly unattractive. We have created a very conservative group of people who should be prepared to take that risk, by which I mean conservative with a small “c”. On child benefit, we have not made a full announcement of what is going to be in the spending review on 20 October, at which point the detail will be revealed, so I am not in a position to answer.

On the second point made by the noble Baroness, noble Lords will be aware that what we are looking at in the numbers is flows. Any work programme tries to balance the disadvantage experienced by people who have been out of the job market for a period and what it takes to get them back into work against those who have only just lost their jobs. Effectively, that is what all programmes try to do. Clearly, we need to ramp up the speed with which we can get people back into work, and this is one measure that is designed to encourage and put pressure on them.

Disabled People

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are making sure that all the impact assessments that we are obliged by law to go through are being done on a timely and appropriate basis.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, will the Minister kindly tell us what representations RADAR and other disability organisations have made to the Government in light of the proposed severe cuts to disability living allowance?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are just embarking on a process of investigating what to do in the context of DLA. As the noble Baroness knows, this is due to come in in 2013. We have to design a whole structure of making those assessments. We will do so in full consultation with members of the disability lobby.

Pensions: Automatic Enrolment

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Freud

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for raising this debate and providing the House with an opportunity to discuss this important issue. I also congratulate those taking part and join the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in her congratulations to those people on such an extraordinarily high quality of debate, which I personally found extremely valuable as we shape the immediate period ahead.

During the past decade, we have seen a big decline in the level of pension saving in the UK. Overall saving in the private sector workplace in terms of pension provision has fallen, from 46 per cent of employees in 1997 to 37 per cent in 2009. That means that 2.6 million more people are not saving in a workplace pension. In the same period, the availability of defined benefit schemes in the private sector has also declined, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out, and membership fell by 1 million between 2005 and 2009.

For those in defined contribution schemes, there has been a decade of lost growth in the primary market—the equity market. The average real rate of return between 1999 and 2009 was minus 1.2 per cent per annum, and just last month the typical pension fund performance for balanced managed funds was down 3 per cent.

While those trends have been happening, life expectancy in the UK has reached its highest level on record and will increase further to the point where in 2050 there will be just three working people for each pensioner. The reality is that, if people want to enjoy a decent standard of living in retirement, we all as individuals and as a nation need to be much better prepared. But that, of course, is not the only problem we face. Whatever we do now needs to be seen in the context of the worst recession since the Second World War, and the need to reduce the unprecedented fiscal deficit. As a nation, we simply cannot afford to continue without a step change in our savings culture.

This coalition wants to see the principles of fairness, responsibility and social justice apply to both our welfare and pension agendas. The Government want to encourage individuals to take more personal responsibility for themselves by saving more and saving longer towards a retirement income that will meet their expectations. Already, we are in a position today where 45 per cent of pensioner households are entitled to pension credit, and 50 per cent to council tax benefit. It is not sustainable for the state to continue to meet the challenges of undersaving all on its own.

The state pension needs to provide a fair and solid foundation for people to save for their retirement, so this Government will restore the earnings link with the basic state pension from April next year with a “triple guarantee” so that it will rise by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5 per cent. However, at the same time, we need to restore confidence in public finances, so we will hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66 years.

We also want a more flexible approach to retirement. People need to be able to retire when it is right for them, so we intend to phase out the default retirement age and will be consulting with employers and others on how to do this. However, if we are to have a pension system which is fair and sustainable into the future, we also need to reverse the significant decline in private pension saving that we have witnessed in the past decade. That is why we continue to support automatic enrolment.

We want to encourage employers to provide high quality pensions for their employees, but additionally we want to explore options that will stimulate greater personal saving. We are therefore considering additional ways of reducing the costs of running pension schemes, making pensions more affordable for employers to run, and investigating ways of making saving more attractive to individuals. Changes such as our commitment to abolish compulsory annuitisation at 75—as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, suggested—will provide greater flexibility for pension savers in planning for their future.

The big prize here is to help people when they are working to save more and save for longer, and to make it easier for them to do so—to take responsibility for their future. We need to encourage and enable participation in pension saving so that it is no longer the preserve of the financially savvy or those who happen to work for particular employers. Quite simply, we need to get people back into the savings habit and ensure that they have access to a good workplace pension scheme.

The Pensions Commission’s solution to this dilemma was automatic enrolment into a pension scheme, with mandatory contributions by employers. We on the Government Benches have long been firm supporters of automatic enrolment. We believe that it will be highly effective at tackling the failures in our pensions system by increasing participation in pension saving.

At this point, I pay tribute to the work of one of the earliest behavioural economists, Dr George Loewenstein, who happens to be my cousin. He created the concept of asymmetric paternalism which was so influential in getting these automatic enrolment features in a range of public provision. The evidence shows that it works, leading to increased participation. Your Lordships have only to look at the United States, where automatic enrolment increased membership of its 401(k) schemes among new employees from around 20 to 40 per cent to nearer 90 per cent. Another example is New Zealand, where the introduction of automatic enrolment is estimated to have doubled pension savings in the KiwiSaver product over a three-year period.

As we made clear in our coalition programme, we remain committed to automatic enrolment, but we need to find the right way to make it work. A lot has changed since the Pensions Commission published its recommendations back in 2005. Given the current economic climate, it is essential that we ensure that automatic enrolment is introduced in a way that strikes the right balance between cost and benefits, and ensures maximum value for money for individuals, for employers and for the public purse.

Our review of these reforms will cover the scope of existing plans for automatic enrolment and NEST. Noble Lords would agree that it is vital that the Government take ownership of this initiative so that we have cross-party agreement on this, which, as my noble friend Lord Kirkwood pointed out, is so essential.

We will reach our conclusions quickly and take a hard look over the summer at the plans that we have inherited. If necessary, we will make changes to ensure that the reforms deliver for individuals, employers and the taxpayer.

Let me deal with the many fascinating points raised in debate; I will aim to get through as many as possible.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I was fascinated by the noble Lord’s point about the review. Which areas in particular are the Government concerned about, and will therefore be discussed in the review? I do not mean what will the conclusions be, but what will the territory be?

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness. That is exactly what I was about to get straight on to. I will deal with her particular issues in that context. Before I get into what the review will cover, I start with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, particularly what he said about employer attitudes and his concerns after meeting the people from AXA and reading their research. Evidence emerging from our research—a large survey of employer attitudes—suggests that 56 per cent of employers believe that these reforms are a good idea. Seventy-seven per cent believe that when they are already contributing 3 per cent or more. There is no doubt that the cost to employers of automatic enrolment is significant. The cost to employers—the smallest employers in particular—concerns me and is something that I want to look at closely in the review.

We are committed to getting the details right. That is why we are carrying out the review—to ensure that the proposals work properly. Several participants in this debate have asked about the details of the review, including the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. We are finalising the details of the terms of reference, including who will conduct the review, its process, its reporting and so on. We hope to make an announcement encompassing those issues soon. To offer some reassurance, we are concerned about the impact on employers, particularly small employers. We also want to look at the position of older workers. We will review the contract for the NEST administration services, but with an open mind; if it fits with what is needed we will run with it. We aim to reach our conclusions quickly. Again, the detail is yet to be determined, but I expect we will know where we are with this before the House returns after the summer.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked about the NEST charging structure and whether we would keep it. He will infer, from my last answer, that that is a level of detail that we have not yet got to. The first question to ask is: does the scope of auto-enrolment work for both individuals and employers? Scope is key here. Secondly, given that, is NEST, as it is currently configured, the right intervention?

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked about the certification process and whether that meshed with the BIS drive to reduce red tape. We are committed to recognising and maintaining existing high-quality pension provision. That means developing a process for employers with good money purchase schemes to show that their scheme meets the minimum requirements for auto-enrolment. This is called the certification process. In the coming months, DWP officials will work with the pensions industry and directly with employers to develop effective processes to support automatic enrolment. This includes straightforward ways for employers to assure themselves that their pension schemes qualify under the law.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, queried the four-year implementation period. We are fully committed to taking forward the automatic enrolment provisions under the Pensions Act 2008. However, the effects over the medium and long term will be huge. That is why we want to take stock of where things are; that is what the review is about and I do not want to prejudge it.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, concentrated my mind on wider savings incentives. It is critically important that people have confidence in saving towards their retirement if we are to deliver the step change in savings behaviour that we want. The department’s analysis is that more than 99 per cent of people can expect to be better off in retirement if they have saved than if they have not saved. However, we need to take seriously the possibility of someone facing a loss. The problem is that the people who fall into this category are not like leopards with spots that one can see beforehand; that situation emerges later, so it is a difficult problem. It is important that we allow people to take personal responsibility. However, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made the point that people are woefully ignorant in this area. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said that he used the term “ignorant” in the best way in that regard. There is ignorance in this area, which means that it is very hard for people to take personal responsibility. Clearly, this is a vital area which we will address in our review.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, mentioned the costs of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority and the impact of any expenditure cuts. The reduction of the deficit is a number one priority for the Government. Therefore, we will need to look right through the cost base to ensure that the costs are justified and that savings can be made where possible. I reassure my noble friend Lady Noakes that we will take a hard look at those costs and that we will not spend money unnecessarily.

It is vital that individuals have information about opting out. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is concerned about that. That will be critical to the success of the reforms. We are working closely with the Pensions Regulator to ensure that there is coherent and consistent information.

The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, talked about the state of our state provision. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, again drew to our attention, as she did in her excellent speech last week, her booklet, A New State Pension. I was touched to think of her running on to the age of 95, and I hope that she does. However, it is slightly invidious to say that, statistically, only three noble Baronesses who were then present in the Chamber would do so, as I count seven who are now present, so it is a case of pot luck. There are clearly attractions in combining various elements of the state pension to introduce a single decent state pension. However, a large number of issues, not least one of them being cost, need to be considered before we introduce such a scheme.

I am very conscious that I am running out of time—unless noble Lords want to give me three more minutes.