Creditworthiness Assessment Bill [HL]

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 11th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Naseby. He cannot be here today but he has asked me to make it clear that he is not opposed to the principle of this Bill, as am I, but he is worried that it ties the hands of the FCA and is too prescriptive. That is why he seeks to delete the word “must” in the first group of amendments and substitute it with “may”; rather than the instruction to the FCA to “ensure that”, he suggests “consider whether”; and the word “should” in the final amendment in the group is a grammatical change.

In all of these amendments he was guided by the advice of the Consumer Credit Association and I would like to justify the amendments by explaining the CCA’s concerns. I want to set out this properly in this group so that there is no misunderstanding where my noble friend is coming from—the amendments are not a rabid desire for unfettered market forces. These are not so much probing amendments as airing amendments, if your Lordships will accept the term, to air the concerns of the CCA. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, with his tremendous experience in this matter, has considered them and will have impeccable detailed arguments against them. If that is the case, then we will have succeeded in airing these amendments today.

The Consumer Credit Association says that it is not against the general evaluation of credit referencing systems; however, it considers it inappropriate and disproportionate for the law to force firms to use and pay for rental data—or any other specific type of data—in their commercial assessment. It is concerned about what it calls unintended consequences.

At face value, most people would think that requiring lenders to use more data would inevitably lead to better decisions and improved consumer outcomes. However, a number of complexities appear not to have been properly considered, says the Consumer Credit Association. For instance, the rents of just under 4 million households—that is 40% of the rental market—are subsidised via housing benefit to the extent of about £5,000 per household per year. This means that the rent payments in these cases reflect receipt of subsidy rather than a tenant’s propensity to pay. Where the subsidy is paid direct to the landlord, this effect is even more pronounced. In the same vein, non-payment of rent may often reflect delays in paying the benefit rather than the unreliability of the tenant. It also says that well over 1 million tenants are already in arrears on their rent. The proposal would not help this large group; on the contrary, these consumers would find it more difficult to access credit and would therefore become even more financially excluded.

The collection and use of rental data is being marketed to landlords as a means of reducing arrears. The proposal would give unscrupulous landlords who fail to repair their properties increased leverage over tenants, because it would increase the risks for a tenant making any reasonable attempt to withhold or set aside their rent against getting repairs done to the building.

The CCA also says that it is not a given that council tax and rental data would add value for all types of lenders in all situations, yet all firms would be required to pay for this data whether or not they used it. This would be commercially inefficient and the cost would be passed on to consumers through higher prices for credit. It is the CCA’s strong view that firms are the best judges of whether it makes commercial sense for them to subscribe to products such as rental exchange and credit lending. Compelling them by law to do so would, on the other hand, be inappropriate.

Consumer representatives are divided on the potential impacts of the proposal but have flagged the risks of possible harm to some consumers. The Centre for Responsible Credit, for example, has urged caution, because failure to pay rent could lead to the loss of a home, bailiff action and, ultimately, imprisonment. Mainstream lenders are unlikely to consider the data predictive. For many people who miss a rental or council tax payment, it could lead to complete credit exclusion or higher cost credit.

The rollout of universal credit is expected to lead to a significant increase in rent arrears for housing benefit claimants. Similarly, private tenants face rising rents and a freeze on local housing allowance rates. In evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on 28 February this year, both StepChange and Citizens Advice acknowledged the potential negative impact. StepChange said:

“That is fine if the thing that is going to be included is something that you are paying well and on time. If you are behind on your rent and your council tax payment, all that is going to do is enhance the social exclusion for those individuals”.


Matt Upton of Citizens Advice said:

“It is important to acknowledge that it is a double-edged sword. As you say, we see lots of people struggling to pay those bills, and that will not necessarily affect them in a positive way … of the clients we see who struggle to access credit there is a proportion for whom credit referencing is a factor. For a greater proportion it is not the big factor”.


The ambition to increase access to credit for those who rent is laudable. As said by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, I believe that it will help about 80% of tenants, but the CCA says that the proposal’s potential benefits are uncertain, unquantified and currently unsupported by robust independent evidence. My noble friend Lord Naseby thinks that more studies on this must be done but he respects the point of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that millions of honest, hard-working tenants who pay their rent and council tax would benefit from having their good record of payments used to get a mortgage or cheaper white goods.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, is keen to pick up the 20% who are in debt and seek ways to get them out of that hole, but my noble friend finds the CCA’s worries and concerns quite persuasive. As I read them, I found them persuasive too. I look forward to the answers of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the Minister. All we wanted to do was give these amendments an airing, raise the CCA’s concerns and wait to hear the answer.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very supportive of what the noble Lord, Lord Bird, is trying to achieve with the Bill. I have to admit, I was not aware of the issue until I read the debates on it and the Big Issue article he wrote.

I also have some worries about the potential unintended consequences raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which I have communicated to the noble Lord, Lord Bird. We have to think about the context: more people are getting into rent arrears, partly because of universal credit and partly because of cuts to the benefits they rely on—in or out of work—at a time of rising rents. We know that council tax arrears are also going up because of what has happened to the council tax support system. This group of people will not be helped by the Bill. That is understandable: the Bill will help those with a good record, which is very useful and important. In his reply, I would like the noble Lord, Lord Bird, to assure the House that things will not rebound on that group and that they will not be in a worse position than they otherwise would have been. It would be helpful to have that assurance on the record.

Benefits: Two-Child Limit

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

I pay tribute to the work that the right reverend Prelate does as an advocate for children among the Bishops and his consistent interest in this. The change in policy that he is referring to in effect came in at the beginning of April last year. We have said we will look at the statistics as they are gathered over a period of time and keep them under close review, particularly in relation to the exemptions, and will publish information on that. Ultimately, in the short term, the key message that we want to send is that the heart of the policy was built on the principle that work should always pay and that people should always be better off if they are working. The fact that we have near-record levels of people in employment, which is continuing to happen, is some evidence that the policy is working, but we need to keep the specific effect of this particular change under review, and we will.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

The policy is affecting those in work in particular. The Government claim that their policy-making gives primary consideration to the best interests of the child, in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Can the Minister explain how the policy fulfils that principle, when all the independent analysis indicates that it will worsen child poverty significantly in addition to the increase in relative child poverty among larger families, particularly among certain ethnic minority groups and those in paid work?

[Lord Bates]

The benefit applies to those in work and those who are not. However, we were also seeking to introduce an element of fairness. People on very low incomes, in the low £20,000s , who may not have any children are forced to make very difficult decisions that impact upon themselves financially when they are about to have a child, and they will do so without any support—certainly child benefit, but also in terms of any additional support from the state. We feel it is only fair to them that other people ought to be in similar positions when considering whether to have a third or subsequent child.

Domestic Abuse

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support survivors of domestic abuse and to prevent future abuse.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to be able to open this short debate, which provides an opportunity to discuss the consultation document published on International Women’s Day. For all my criticisms of the Prime Minister, I applaud her commitment on this issue and that of the Minister. Indeed, it was she who negotiated the concession on the Housing and Planning Bill which led to the Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill, which had its Third Reading last week.

I do not join in the criticism that this is only a consultation document, because consultation is good. I am particularly pleased that it aims,

“to harness the knowledge and expertise of victims and survivors”.

What is disappointing is that it has taken so long to get to this point.

There is much of value in the document and many of the proposals should help tackle what the ministerial foreword rightly describes as a particularly shocking form of violence and abuse. I commend in particular the recognition that domestic abuse is a gendered crime, overwhelmingly, though not uniquely, perpetrated by men against women especially in its most serious forms, and the proposed new statutory definition’s emphasis on economic abuse—of which, more in a moment. However, Women’s Aid has expressed some concerns about the definition which I hope the Government will look at.

I welcome the emphasis on protecting children and a degree of recognition that there is considerable room for improvement in how children’s services deal with domestic abuse—although it will need to go further here. I was also pleased to see acknowledgement of the need to improve how the immigration system deals with victims of domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds, and the support for Southall Black Sisters, whose work in this area has been an inspiration. It is good to see proposals designed to enable ratification of the Istanbul Convention. Do the Government have a target date for ratification?

That said, I am sure that noble Lords would be surprised if I spent all my time praising the Government, so here come two big “buts”, both of which relate either directly or indirectly to universal credit. First, due to the rollout of UC, the Government have proposed a new funding model for refuges. At present, most of the housing funding element comes from housing benefit, but, as that is incorporated into UC and paid monthly in arrears—often with delays—it will no longer work easily. In its place, the Government have proposed combining refuges with a disparate group of short-term supported housing services and devolving all the funding in a ring-fenced grant to local authorities. This has caused dismay among refuge providers surveyed by Women’s Aid, to which I pay tribute along with other organisations in the field for its work on behalf of victims and survivors. Main concerns include: given that more than two-thirds of women flee to a refuge outside their area, a totally local funding model is inappropriate; the history of the Supporting People programme does not instil confidence in the longevity of any ring-fencing; and, as we have seen with devolution of funding from the national social fund without a ring-fence, this can lead to complete closure of local schemes.

As a joint report of the Communities and Local Government and Work and Pensions Committees emphasised, the unique challenges faced by refuges requires,

“a distinct model of funding, separate to the arrangements for other forms of supported housing”.

Otherwise, the kind of specialist support required by the Istanbul Convention, and in particular that for marginalised groups such as disabled and BME women, will be at risk. Indeed, it is already highly insecure, as noted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I was then a member, in its 2015 report on the issue.

This is highly relevant to Ministers’ reassurances that there are 10% more bed spaces since 2010 for those fleeing abuse, which no doubt the Minister will repeat later. What that figure hides is the loss of beds in specialist refuges, as competitive tendering and commissioning have driven a trend to larger, more generic providers and funding reductions have meant less funding per bed, thereby making it harder to provide the necessary support for women with complex needs. It is important to emphasise that specialist services are essential in supporting often traumatised women. In its latest domestic abuse report, Women’s Aid warns that such services are already,

“facing a funding and sustainability crisis”.

It believes that the impact of the proposed funding model will be catastrophic. It is therefore welcome that the Government appear to be listening and have now said that no options are off the table. But to provide reassurance, they should go further and drop the proposed local model completely. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, said recently:

“It is important that we recognise that there is a national dimension to the funding of refuges, not least because people … often are fleeing from the area where they live, understandably, to another area. Also, specialist services could not necessarily be provided on a local basis”.—[Official Report, 6/3/18; col. 1017.]


Indeed, my Lords.

My other big “but” relates to question 35 in the consultation document. It asks:

“What practical barriers do domestic abuse victims face in escaping or recovering from economic abuse and how could these be overcome?”.


I would argue that one of the biggest barriers is the Government’s own so-called welfare reforms, which it is in their power to overcome very easily. Among those highlighted by Women’s Aid are: the reduced benefit cap—which is undermining the exemption of refuges from the original cap because the exemption applies only to the housing benefit element—and the barriers it can create to women moving on to new accommodation; the need for a transitional period of exemption from the bedroom tax for women in a refuge or temporary accommodation, to ensure that suitable move-on accommodation can be secured; and the two-child limit, which could affect a significant minority of survivors.

While conception in the context of an abusive relationship might qualify for exemption, it requires disclosure to a work coach, which can be problematic—just think about having to tell a work coach about that. It requires the victim not to be living with the alleged perpetrator which, according to Women’s Aid, demonstrates a “lack of understanding” of the nature of coercive control. Indeed, the Prime Minister herself said in an International Women’s Day interview with the Independent that,

“we need to remember those women who don’t make that move to leave ... and what support they need”.

What is more, the payment of UC into one account—single or joint—has, in the words of one commentator, reshaped the benefits system into a weapon for abusers. The Women’s Budget Group, of which I am a member, has long warned that,

“the routine application of a single monthly payment can give perpetrators further mechanisms of financial control, putting survivors at greater risk of abuse and limiting their access to the benefit they are entitled to”.

A discretionary split-payment exemption lays the woman open to potential further abuse when the abusive partner’s benefit is then reduced. Such concerns have also been raised by the JCHR, among others, more than once.

In Scotland, split payments are to be routine following a consultation in which some nine in 10 responses recommended this. If the DWP refuses to follow suit elsewhere, it could be accused of aiding and abetting the offence of economic abuse. Will the Minister please take this message back to the DWP? Can she and colleagues in the Home Office and Ministry of Justice do what they can to persuade the DWP that this policy risks undermining the Government’s flagship domestic abuse policy, and that the DWP should include an assessment of the impact on domestic abuse survivors in all future policy impact assessments? My focus on the DWP also points to a wider concern raised by Women’s Aid: that if the domestic abuse Bill is really to transform the response to survivors, we need action across all parts of the public sector—including, for example, health and housing, about which the document says little that is new.

In conclusion, I have identified two ways in which government policy itself might undermine the welcome proposed domestic abuse strategy. In addition, for the strategy to be successful it needs to be adequately resourced, yet it is not at all clear from the document that it will be. The document itself cites research which puts the overall cost of gender-based violence to both victims and society at £26 billion a year—and that was back in 2012. On the principle of spend to save, it makes sense to invest in this policy, but more importantly this is a matter of human rights, equality and social justice.

Yarl’s Wood: Hunger Strike

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is right that individual cases should always be treated sensitively. If the noble Lord could outline an individual case for me, I will certainly take it back. The last thing we want for people in detention is for them to be refusing food and fluid. Legal representation is available to people. There are specific rules on how we should treat sensitively those with mental health problems, vulnerable adults and traumatised people in detention.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the point about indefinite detention is not that the person is never released; it is that they do not know when they will be released. We know from the evidence given to Stephen Shaw, including from a psychologist, that this has a devastating impact on mental health. Will the Minister now ask Stephen Shaw, who is reviewing how his recommendations are working, to widen his brief to include whether indefinite detention should be ended, which is in line with what happens in other countries?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Lord, 92% of people in detention do not stay there for more than four months. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s point about people with mental health issues in detention. In addition to the implementation of the Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy in September 2016, NHS England commissioned the Centre for Mental Health to carry out research to support the Mental Health Action Plan, which is part of the Government’s commitment to review and improve the provision of mental health services in immigration removal centres and short-term holding facilities. We appreciate the stresses and strains that this can have on people’s mental health. As the noble Baroness says, it follows one of the major recommendations of Stephen Shaw’s Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons. We have now invited Stephen Shaw to carry out a short review in the autumn to assess progress against the key recommendations for action in the previous review of the welfare of vulnerable people in detention. The work will be completed in the spring and its findings laid before the House.

Women: Economic Freedom

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sorry; I missed the last part of the noble Baroness’s question but I shall certainly be happy to meet her.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government address the ways in which universal credit reduces the economic freedom of many poorer women, partly because it is paid into a single account so we cannot be sure that the money goes to them, for themselves or any children, and partly because it creates a work disincentive for second earners, many of whom are still women? It does not support those women into paid work.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think the thing here is to get women into work and undo their reliance on credit, and some of the initiatives that the Government have put into play help women in that regard. We have more people and therefore more women than ever in employment.

Women: Political and Public Office

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we want to make this Parliament one that is open and accessible to women no matter what their race, religion or background. Muslim women should be no different in that context. I hope that women, no matter what their background, will feel that Parliament is open for them. Of course, in our demographic we represent what people, particularly women, might aspire to.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, about a century ago the suffragette Hannah Mitchell said that we women fight with one hand tied behind us. We still do, because she was referring not just to childcare but to the care of older people, the responsibility for domestic housework and so forth, responsibilities that do not affect men’s ability to take part in political and public life. What are the Government doing to help make the sharing of care between men and women more equal?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that the sharing of care has become more equal, but perhaps not as equal as many would wish it to be. As I said at the beginning, the GEO is commissioning a wide-ranging evidence review that will encompass the range of approaches that will be taken, both internationally—the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, mentioned Sweden—and here at home to provide political parties with a variety of solutions that they can draw on. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is absolutely right to raise that flag of women being less likely to participate in public life, particularly in Parliament. It is more difficult to get women to stand as candidates in elections and we need to change that.

Tackling Financial Exclusion (Financial Exclusion Report)

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, as an “immigrant” contributor to the debate I congratulate the committee on its report and its recognition of the link between financial exclusion and poverty. Echoing a number of committee members, I will focus my remarks on issues raised by the chapter on so-called welfare reform, starting with universal credit. In opening the Budget Statement debate, the Minister acknowledged “genuine concerns” about UC’s “operational delivery”—but I am afraid that the problems with UC point to more fundamental design flaws that need to be solved if UC is to work for claimants, many of whom are likely to be among the sizeable minority considered by the FCA to have low financial resilience.

The abolition of the waiting days and introduction of a housing benefit run-on period is of course welcome, but it still leaves a five-week waiting period for the main UC, mitigated only partially by repayable advance payments. The version of the Budget speech circulated to the media stated that reducing the delay at the end of the first-month assessment period,

“would mean compromising the principle of payments … made on the same day of the month … which is very important for claimants in managing their budgets”.

But do we know from claimants themselves whether that is more important than, say, a shorter wait or having a more flexible payment system than the very inflexible one created by monthly payments and assessments, in which a whole month’s entitlement is based on the claimant’s non-financial circumstances on a single day each month? Damien Hinds claimed that,

“monthly is the more sensible pattern”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/17; col. 1001.]

But I am not sure how much sense it makes to claimants or how it is conducive to smooth budgeting.

In her UC debate, my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham observed that the aim is,

“to moralise some of the most marginal in society into behaving like middle-class salaried professionals resilient with savings”.—[Official Report, 16/11/17; col. 2129.]

In arguing that monthly payments mirror work, Ministers refuse to acknowledge that this is not the world of work typically experienced by claimants. Nearly three-fifths of those who moved from paid work onto UC had been paid fortnightly or weekly, according to the Resolution Foundation. The foundation criticised “unnecessarily poor policy choices”, flowing in part,

“from misguided attempts at concentrating on altering human behaviour rather than supporting people in need”.

In the past, I think Conservatives might have denounced such misguided attempts as social engineering.

As we have heard, the Northern Irish and Scottish Administrations have listened to the concerns about monthly payments. Also in Scotland, couples may opt for split payments without fuss. The payment of UC into one account could undermine the financial resilience and capability of some women, especially those subjected to domestic violence, even where payment is into a joint account, as research shows that joint accounts provide no guarantee that the money reaches individual partners. It is disappointing that the Government rejected the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I was a member at the time—that the DWP should use UC rollout to test different payment arrangements to protect women’s financial autonomy. It is also disappointing that they appear to have rejected proposals, including for a safe interim payment, submitted by Policy in Practice—run by one of UC’s architects. This would have speeded up the first payment and enabled fortnightly payments without the potential difficulties raised by Ministers. Even if the majority of claimants prove to be comfortable with monthly payments, as the Minister argued in a recent debate on debt, what about the minority who are not?

The Government’s response to the committee lays great emphasis on alternative payment arrangements, but these are at the discretion of the UC agent or work coach. I do not find very convincing the argument that this is more effective than giving claimants the right to more frequent payments because it strengthens the relationship with work coaches. As it is, those who struggle will be labelled poor budgeters even if they were previously very efficient budgeters. They will be offered help with budgeting, requiring a whole new edifice of support.

This brings me to universal support, which was mentioned in the committee’s report. In its evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, Citizens Advice listed a catalogue of problems. They included: variable delivery because of a lack of published minimum standards, often resulting in over-restrictive scope; ineffective referral mechanisms; and a lack of co-ordination. An updated framework was promised for autumn 2014 but has still not appeared. A local authority source advised me of fears that DWP is drawing conclusions about the level of support needs based largely on the experience of UC Live, which has involved the claimant cohort least likely to have such needs. In the debt debate, I asked the Minister to ask DWP to provide us with a report on how universal support was working—but answer came there none. May I now repeat the request, noting that similar questions in the UC debate also went unanswered?

Not only does universal support appear inadequate to the task but, as predicted in your Lordships’ House, the replacement of the Social Fund by discretionary local welfare assistance schemes, without any ring-fenced funding, has meant that in many areas it is no longer an alternative source of support because many authorities have closed or significantly cut back their schemes. According to the Centre for Responsible Credit, this is leaving some people facing destitution for lengthy periods of time.

While acknowledging examples of good practice, the committee rightly expressed concern about the funding outlook. Shelter and the Longleigh Foundation point out that since specific central funding for the schemes was ended last year, councils,

“have to find the necessary funding from within their existing, and shrinking, budgets”.

They warn that,

“there is absolutely no other emergency fund that is flexible enough to help people in financial crisis and prevent, or relieve, homelessness”.

Yet when I and others voiced such concerns in Oral Questions last Monday, there was an absolute refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of what was happening and to respond to requests for an evaluation of the impact of the changes. How can a Government who extol the importance of responsibility be so irresponsible as to wash their hands of all responsibility for the outcome of this reform?

Finally, the Government’s response to the committee’s call for,

“a detailed, comprehensive cumulative impact study”,

of how social security changes,

“might have adversely affected financial wellbeing and inclusion”,

is woefully inadequate. If the Women’s Budget Group and the Equality and Human Rights Commission can carry out such analyses, why cannot the Government, who have the ultimate responsibility for the impact of their legislation on the well-being of their citizens?

Perhaps the answer lies in the sobering picture painted by these independent studies, which show the negative impacts analysed by gender, disability and ethnicity as well as income. This was summed up by the EHRC, which said:

“Poorest hit hardest by tax, social security and public spending reforms”.


With a cumulative total of £27 billion or more in social security cuts due to have taken effect by the end of the decade, I fear that the outlook is an endless bleak midwinter, marked by more financial exclusion, hardship and debt.

Household Debt

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the right reverend Prelate, not least as I am unable to take part in Thursday’s debate on universal credit. It is on universal credit that I want to focus, because, as Citizens Advice and the National Federation of ALMOs have warned, UC is exacerbating household debt and rent arrears.

It is hardly news that the built-in six-week wait for the first UC payment is the source of many of the immediate problems being reported. It is therefore encouraging that there are strong hints that the Government will think again and reduce that wait to four weeks, as recommended by the Work and Pensions Committee. However, at the risk of appearing ungrateful, I fear that, while it will mitigate UC’s problems, it will not solve them.

Even a four-week wait will cause serious difficulties for many people moving on to UC. The Citizens Advice survey found that only one in six were able to rely on their own resources from savings or final wages to tide them over. This is not surprising given that the FCA found that nearly one-third of UK adults show low financial resilience for reasons such as inability to cover living expenses for even a week if they lost their main source of household income. Recent evidence from KPMG, the Living Wage Foundation and StepChange underlines the extent of debt and reliance on high-cost credit such as payday loans just to get by among those in low paid and/or insecure employment. Do the Government have any information about the number of people claiming UC who are already in debt or arrears? Even if not in debt, they are unlikely to have savings to fall back on, as was clear from the impact statement on the increase in the number of waiting days.

Despite the Government’s assurances, additional payments are not the answer; they are deductible loans and a recent Smith Institute study found reluctance to borrow from the Government, as they saw it, among some UC claimants. Beyond the six-week wait lies a more fundamental problem: the monthly assessment and payment of UC. The Government insist on this on the grounds that it will increase financial responsibility and readiness for the labour market, but the latest ONS statistics show that nearly one-quarter of those in the lowest pay quintile are still paid more frequently than monthly and according to the Resolution Foundation nearly three-fifths of new UC claimants moving from paid work in the last tax year had been paid more frequently than monthly. Those in the Citizens’ Advice survey who were struggling with monthly payments faced an increased risk of financial hardship. While the majority might be able to cope, some are clearly finding it really difficult. At the very least why can they not be given the choice to receive fortnightly payments, as in Scotland? Instead, those who struggle are offered help with budgeting, which is quite insulting to those who managed their money reasonably when it was received more frequently.

This brings me to the issue of universal support. In the recent Commons debate, the Minister responded to lain Duncan Smith’s call for,

“extra effort, focus—and money, when necessary”—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/17; col. 883]—

for the rollout of universal support alongside UC, with an assurance of the Government’s continued focus on it and recognition of its “absolute value”. However, when I talk to people working on the ground they just laugh at the mention of universal support and say that the resources are quite inadequate and its remit too restrictive. Will the Minister ask the DWP to provide us with a report on how universal support is working? Not only does universal support appear inadequate to the task but, as predicted in your Lordships’ House, the replacement of the Social Fund by discretionary local welfare assistance schemes without any ring-fenced funding has meant that in many areas this is no longer an alternative source of support in face of debt, because many authorities have closed or significantly cut back on their schemes. According to the Centre for Responsible Credit this,

“has left people facing destitution for lengthy periods of time”.

This underlines how we need to put the rollout of UC in the wider context of social security cuts since 2010, totalling a cumulative £27 billion a year by 2020-21. Analysis from a number of organisations indicates that these cuts, including and especially cuts to UC itself, will have a seriously adverse impact on child poverty. This can only mean that the problem of debt and arrears will get worse, with all the consequent human suffering and adverse effects on physical and mental health that this entails. It is in the Government’s hands to prevent such an outcome, starting in next week’s Budget.

Syria: Refugees

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

We certainly agree that there ought to be wider access from the region. That was of course exactly the outcome which came from the Immigration Act which we passed, and we have set up a scheme to broaden it to the Middle East and north Africa and to bring more children from there. People fleeing genocide are in fear and in need of protection: that is the definition by which they qualify for protection under international humanitarian law and, with the UNHCR, that is what we are working to deliver.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, given the ongoing Syrian crisis, will the Government reconsider their decision not to grant refugee status to resettled Syrian refugees so that they can enjoy the full rights and security of refugee status?

[Lord Bates]

We give them humanitarian protection, which is broadly the same thing. I know what the noble Baroness will say, but what we have is people in acute need and we want to get them here as quickly as possible. Humanitarian protection is the vehicle by which we can do so. If we first have to go all the way through the route of establishing refugee status for a lot of people who have no identification papers, it means they are at risk for longer. That is why we have chosen to take that particular route, to ensure that we can get people here and give them the help they need as quickly as possible.

Women and Girls: HIV

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, my noble friend is right: we want to see the pandemic eliminated by 2030. We know that we are a long way from achieving that but we have to do so. When I answered an earlier question, I alluded to the need to focus very much on low-income, high-burden countries that are unable to self-finance. We have to make treatment accessible to the very people who need it and who do not always know the best route to it. We are working with our partners globally, through all the various institutions, to try to eliminate HIV infections by 2030.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, turning to the Answer to the Question from my noble friend, my understanding is that public health funding is being cut. Therefore, can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that local authorities meet the duties that she spelled out?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I think I made it clear in my earlier response that local authorities have a mandatory duty to ensure that those services are accessible.