Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 1 and 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—who does not appear to be here—as well as in my name. These are not techie, administrative amendments; they are about people’s lives and have particular consequences for the lives of women, who are still the main managers of poverty on a day-to-day basis. At present, the out-of-work benefits, which the universal credit will replace, are paid fortnightly.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is discussing Amendment 1 in Clause 7.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I beg your Lordships’ pardon. I am speaking to Amendment 2, but also to Amendment 1, even though it has not been formally moved.
These payments used to be paid weekly and, according to Fran Bennett of the Women’s Budget Group, there is evidence from recent qualitative research carried out at Oxford University that the move to fortnightly payments has caused more problems than is sometimes claimed. “Struggle” was the word one woman used to describe what it meant. The leap from fortnightly to monthly payments will be much greater. As one claimant put it, “Very difficult to budget with two-weekly payments, impossible with monthly”. For those in-work recipients of tax credits who have opted to receive the credit weekly rather than four-weekly, who tend to be those on lower wages, the leap will be greater still.
We know from government survey evidence that nearly two in five of the lowest fifth of low-income families with children run out of money always or frequently, so we are not talking about a small number of vulnerable people in exceptional circumstances, nor are we talking in most cases about mismanagement. Again, research shows how well most people on low incomes manage their money—probably better than many of us, because they have to. However, managing money on a low income is very stressful, particularly for women who act as the shock absorbers of poverty, and it can have a damaging impact on physical and mental health.
One of the big fears is that monthly payments will lead to more families turning to high-cost credit and getting into debt. Just last week a big news story was the spread of payday loans which, according to an earlier report, have quadrupled in the past four years. In Committee, I read from an e-mail that I had received from a Conservative supporter, who described himself as a “responsible lender” to low-income households and who was enraged by the idea of monthly payments, which, he warned, would lead to an even greater reliance on such loans, which he wrote, had,
“risen up on the back of predominantly low income earners who get paid monthly”.
According to last week’s R3 report, nearly half the population sometimes or often struggles to make it to payday. In addition, there has been growing use of pawnbrokers, particularly by low-income women with children.
In Committee, we all got the impression that the Minister really listened and took on board the concerns expressed from all Benches. Indeed, he said that we had given him quite a bit of food for thought. This was very welcome. It is therefore disappointing that, having digested the overwhelming message coming from the Committee, he appears not to be willing to concede even on the point of giving claimants the right to opt for twice-monthly payments with the default remaining monthly, as provided for in Amendment 1. Instead, he appears to be looking to encourage access to budgeting products such as jam jar accounts, which would enable people to mimic jam jars in allocating their universal credit payment to different purposes through their accounts.
The Minister rightly observed in Committee that budgeting products mystified him, so, like a good academic, I have done my research. I can see the attraction in this context and I hope that the Minister is successful in developing the idea, but I am yet to be convinced that such accounts obviate the need for the amendments before your Lordships' House. Certainly, this is the view of the Personal Finance Research Centre. At present, only about 150,000 people use such accounts and typically they are charged between £12.50 and £14.50 a month for doing so. While I acknowledge that Social Finance, which provided these figures, is enthusiastic about the potential of such accounts to help people manage monthly payments, there is a long way to go to get there from here. Moreover, it has been suggested by the Personal Finance Research Centre that such accounts are more relevant to helping people who receive income weekly or fortnightly and pay monthly and quarterly bills, so they would still have a role to play in the context of the proposed amendments.
I know that the role of such budgeting tools will be explored in the planned demonstration projects, which according to the DWP will test some of the support mechanisms we will need to have in place for vulnerable groups. However, as I have already tried to explain, this is not just an issue for certain vulnerable groups. Anyone on a low income is potentially vulnerable to the problems created by monthly payments. Are they all going to be helped to access such budgeting products? I appreciate the effort that the Minister is putting in to try to develop the budgeting products solution to the problems raised in Committee, which he acknowledged were very real. However, I remain puzzled as to why he is so resistant to accepting the most obvious solution that we offered—more frequent payments.
“Is it because of cost?”, some people have asked me. It would appear not, as that was not an objection raised in Committee. The Minister himself emphasised in Committee that there is a distinction between payment period and assessment period, so that more frequent payment would not require more frequent assessment, which perhaps would have cost implications. The answer to a Written Question about cost in the House of Commons simply evaded the question. It leaves me to wonder whether the Minister’s solution is not more costly, particularly as it will also involve more frequent use of interim payments to tide people over as payments are made four-weekly in arrears. A story in the FT in September suggested as much. It said that,
“the plans had not yet been fully worked out or costed”.
In Committee, I asked that your Lordships’ House should receive a fully costed plan before monthly payments are finally agreed, but no such plan has been forthcoming. In its absence, I believe that it is only prudent that your Lordships’ House build in the kind of protection that the amendment would provide.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I support this amendment, to which my name is also attached. Because of the scheduling of business in your Lordships’ House this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on the Welfare Reform Bill, but I know that many, indeed most, in the carers’ movement owe a huge debt of gratitude to the noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have been speaking throughout Committee stage.
The amendment proposed so ably and passionately by my noble friend seeks to ensure that the universal credit does not put up a further barrier for those people who want to combine caring with work. Given that the aim of the universal credit is to support people into work, it seems wrong to reduce the work incentives for one of the groups for which that support is most needed.
I agree with the Minister’s aim to encourage carers to combine paid work with their caring. Let us think of the reasons why we want to do that. First, it would increase their income; we have already heard that caring takes place in poverty. Secondly, if carers are not in work, they build up poverty for themselves in future through the reduction in their pension contributions. Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, being in a paid job helps carers with the stress, which is often very great, of their caring role. It enables them to maintain social contact and skills and to have a bit of respite from the caring situation. So we want to help carers stay in work as long as possible.
We know, however, that carers already face significant barriers to work. According to research commissioned by Carers UK and the DWP for carers’ rights day in 2009, some 1 million carers—that is around one in six of the figure that we have heard of 6 million carers—have given up work or reduced their working hours in order to remain as carers. A major barrier is the availability of suitable replacement care. In a separate survey, over 40 per cent of carers who gave up work did so due to a lack of sufficiently reliable or flexible services. A similar number, 41 per cent, said that they would rather be in paid work but services available do not make a job possible. In addition to that, for those who are able to juggle work and care, stress and poor health are common. Nearly half of the respondents to a survey of working carers for Employers for Carers and Carers UK indicated that their work had been negatively affected by caring and that they felt tired, stressed and anxious. Employees with heavy caring responsibilities are two to three times more likely than those without caring responsibilities to be in poor health. For these reasons, carers are just the sort of claimants to be working a few hours a week in low-paid work. We estimate that 50,000 of them might be affected by this change.
I know that the Minister wants to encourage carers to start working more than a few hours, but because of the other issues I have mentioned, for many carers a small or even a tiny increase in working hours is impossible. Because the Government argue elsewhere in the Bill that increasing earnings disregards will incentivise work, it seems inconsistent here to suggest that reducing the carers disregard will encourage additional work. I hope the Minister will agree that there is no logic to discouraging carers from juggling paid work with caring as long as they can and leaving them worse off than they are. I very much support the amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I am not going to add to the very powerful case that has already been made by my noble friends Lady Bakewell and Lady Pitkeathley. I simply wanted to seek some clarification of what was said in Committee, when a number of us put the case for a carers disregard, and the Minister said in his reply:
“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”.—[Official Report, 1/11/11; col. GC 443.]
I am rather confused by this, because it seemed to me that it was muddling up carer’s allowance—a very important benefit, which some of us would like to see higher than it is at present—and the support provided to carers through means tested benefits such as income support.
Because I worry about my memory for the intricacies of social security I did not challenge the Minister at that point, but afterwards I sought guidance from Carers UK. It, too, was very confused by what the Minister said, and wondered whether or not the Minister—I hate to say this—was perhaps confusing carer’s allowance and means tested support for carers. Because the position is not changing, I do not see how the removal of a disregard can be justified on the basis of what happens with carer’s allowance. Universal credit is not replacing carer’s allowance. There is an element in means tested benefits for carers that will continue, but it is nothing to do with whether there is a disregard or not. It wondered whether the Minister is promising a higher premium for carers under universal credit. That would be excellent news if it were the case, but I rather doubt it. Could the Minister perhaps clarify what he meant in Committee, because it did not seem to me that it was answering the kind of case that has been made by my noble friends; namely, why is it that carers are the only group to lose the disregard that they currently have?
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
I hope noble Lords will forgive me; I was a few minutes late in coming in, so I missed a little bit of what the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said. As I was listening I wondered to what extent more carers would or could be encouraged to be carers if in fact such a situation as she was proposing existed. Perhaps I am looking at this in a slightly disorganised way, but if there is an answer to my question, I would like to know it.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(12 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I support my noble friend’s amendment. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, I would say that the test of fraud is normally—I think I saw a former Lord Chancellor who would know much better than I—associated with intent and ignorance of the law and is not a defence, but I think in this case it is because we are dealing with the interlocking of very vulnerable people and a new and very different system for people to understand.
There are three or four matters on which if I were asked now whether people needed to declare things, I could not guide them, and I like to think I have some nodding acquaintance with this Bill. For example, a lone parent has a boyfriend who works away. He stays with her overnight one or twice over the weekend. As a result, is she no longer a lone parent? Clearly it will not depend on their sleeping arrangements but on what contribution he makes to their financial arrangements. On a weekend basis, would that be sufficiently substantial to make her no longer a lone parent but part of a couple and therefore falsely declaring if she claims to be a lone parent? I am not clear what would happen in that situation under the Bill. Perfectly reasonably she might regard the fact that as she is getting universal credit she is not a lone parent and he is somebody who comes in as a boyfriend but not a partner.
With housing benefit, you could have a family with a student son who is living at home, going to the local university and working part-time. Should he be declared for housing benefit as a potential contributor to the rent so that non-dependent adult deductions come into play? I do not know. I think it would be quite difficult for that couple to assess.
Let me give another example that we discussed at considerable length and about which the Minister was rightly sympathetic—kinship carers. Conventionally, kinship carers are entitled to claim for child credit and so on if they have the equivalent of the child benefit book, which normally takes about eight weeks to come across. In future, given that child benefit will not necessarily be a separate benefit entitlement, if there is a rotating relationship in which the child goes back to its birth parents for a few weeks and then, because the father or the mother may be an addict of some degree, goes back to the grandparents, at what point and for how long a period of continuous care are the kinship carers entitled to claim the child elements in universal credit? I do not know.
In those three cases—and I could elaborate another six on disability benefits that are becoming clear to us—I would not be able to advise somebody on what they should declare on their forms as being relevant for the consideration of UC. It would be natural for them in those quite complicated situations not to declare things that appear to work against them. They would not be doing it with an intent to deceive. They may think it is a perfectly proper statement of their position as they see it, yet under this clause they could be caught for negligence and fined. That is completely unreasonable.
The one piece of advice I would give the Minister is that whatever he does, whether he claims that this is needed as a reserve power or not, he should not touch it for at least three years until after the Bill has come into practical effect because of the bedding-down issues that it will have. The Minister has to make only one mistake, such as his department suing somebody for penalties for negligence when the department was wrong—and there will inevitably be departmental error; there always is when you introduce new systems—and the whole of the good will behind this Bill will disappear overnight.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, my noble friend gives some very good examples of how easy it might be to make mistakes, particularly when the universal credit is quite low. I remind noble Lords that on 24 October the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, told us how easy it is to make mistakes. When he applied for his retirement pension, he got it wrong. Was he being negligent? No. It was an example of how easy it is to fill in a form wrongly. It is not necessarily negligence.
Apart from that little reminder of how any noble Lord could easily make a mistake, I also wanted to pick up a point made by my noble friend Lady Drake about the expectation that 80 per cent of claimants will be claiming online. Recently a piece of research, Increasing Digital Channel Use Amongst Digitally Excluded Jobcentre Plus Claimants, found that one group of those claimants were what the authors call the “uninterested”. The researchers said that this group will,
“require persuasion or compulsion before they will use digital services, possibly with the threat of a benefit sanction for non-use”.
I would be very grateful if the Minister could assure the Committee that there is absolutely no intention to sanction people for not using online procedures. Some people have a mental block against using computers and we do not want yet another sanction in the system. I know that it was researchers who said this, and not the department, but if he could give us that assurance now, that would be very helpful.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Drake has made some very powerful points this afternoon, which the Government need to take on board or we will get into a mess when this is finally introduced. They should be indebted, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. His point is that there is an implication that the person who makes this sort of mistake has been deliberately negligent. That would mark people out as trying to defraud the system. It puts them in the wrong to start with, when these things can happen by accident.
Noble Lords will forgive me if I remind them of a point I made in one of our earlier debates. When I sat in the other place, I had a constituent who came to see me because she had been overpaid a certain benefit, and the department was pursuing her strongly for repayment. When we got the papers, we discovered what had happened. There were some boxes she had to tick. One of the boxes asked, “Have you received income support?”. She ticked “Yes”. However, she had stopped receiving it about six months before, and so beneath her tick, she wrote, “But this stopped”, and she wrote in the date on which it stopped. When we got to the bottom of this we found that when the form was sent in to the department, its computer could not scan in anything that was not in the box, so it continued to overpay her. She was in a terrible state. A large amount of money was involved, and there was a huge problem as a result. It will go wrong.
Noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat something that I mentioned in the Chamber a little while ago. In the case of universal credit, a lot will depend on a new IT system. Every major IT system that the Government have introduced in recent years has gone wrong. I know, because I sat on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place for a number of years and we had to look at some of these issues as a result of inquiries to the National Audit Office.
My noble friend Lady Drake also made the point, as others have, about people filling in these forms online. Thirty per cent of the poorest families in this country have no access to a computer. It has been possible to claim jobseeker’s allowance online for 20 months. The take-up is 17 per cent. The idea that we are going to get to 80 per cent of people claiming benefits online will cause a huge problem for the system.
My noble friend Lady Hollis has just made the point that a lot of the good things that this Bill will seek to introduce will be damaged because of the kind of approach that this particular clause takes. The Government should really think again and take note of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Is that also the case with any other penalty, not just the civil penalty? Is it a benefits sanction?
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—
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.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I thank the Minister for his clarification about clusters. How many £50 fines would there need to be before there was a cluster? If it was then accepted in the department that the problem lay in universal credit or in the way in which the form was designed, would the department then consider paying back any £50 fine?
Lord Freud
No, I meant a cluster of mistakes. When we begin to see a cluster of mistakes around a particular set of questions, it clearly means that we have not got it right and need to do something about it. But we will know very fast.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I accept and quite understand that, but the point is that, before the department realises that there is a cluster, a number of people might have been fined.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I buy the point about the delicacy of the run-in. I have a tool with which to monitor it very carefully. However, we must have a system that tells people that they must take care with their application. This is an application on which tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds are riding. It is no good people just putting in slapdash figures and not caring; this is really important information and it must be put down carefully. That is what we are trying to ensure with this relatively modest civil penalty.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I have happily added my name to this amendment because I think it is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has moved it so ably that I wish to make only one point.
The Minister constantly evokes responsibility on the part of claimants and, similarly, everything that is written about the Bill emphasises the responsibility of claimants. The amendment would help to ensure that officials exercise their powers in a responsible manner. There needs to be a quality in the contract between claimants and officials. I am not suggesting that officials should be fined or receive a civil penalty if they get it wrong. However, the amendment would help to ensure that officials consider the impact on living standards and the knock-on effects of likely debt and exercise their power as responsibly as possible.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, there is, in my view, a principled reason for having something of this kind. However, I am not sure whether the noble Lord has necessarily got it right and obviously he wishes to discuss the detail with the Minister and his officials. For instance, I wonder whether the amendment would have caught the two examples that he gave. Subsection (1)(f) states that the Secretary of State shall consider,
“evidence of the impact that a sanction or penalty may have on the ability of the claimant to fulfil obligations to third parties including those relating to the fulfilment of benefit entitlement conditions”.
We are saying that before imposing a sanction you should ascertain whether the obligations to third parties,
“including those relating to the fulfilment of benefit entitlement conditions”,
prevented the attendance or whatever it was that is being sanctioned. It is not the sanction that does it; it is the fact that the sanction should not be imposed because of the obligations the claimant already had.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 113B. In so doing, I declare an interest. I am currently the chief executive of Relate, which provides a wide range of services to separating families. I am also part of an advisory group of people from the voluntary sector which advises DWP Ministers on what a network of integrated support services might look like. From that point of view, it is important that that is clearly stated on the record.
I want briefly to support the case that has been put forward by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood as to why it is important that we incentivise non-resident parents to engage in the gateway process, as well as parents with care. There are two points I want to make. First, the gateway and the application charge—and I know that we will come to the charge in a later grouping—bite at the moment on parents with care wishing to use the statutory child maintenance system. The aim of this is to incentivise them to try to negotiate a voluntary agreement with the other parent instead. I support that. It is right and proper, where it is practical, that incentives to do so are built in. But there is no equivalent mechanism pushing the non-resident parent actively to engage in the process of trying to reach a mutually agreeable arrangement. As the legislation is currently constructed, it is only after a parent with care has paid an application fee of £100 and a statutory calculation has been made that any incentive will be given to the non-resident parent to reach a private agreement. That is basically very unfair.
My second point is a more positive one: the gateway stage is an opportunity for meaningful conversation between both parents. It aims to explore the scope for reaching collaborative arrangements, to assess what help either or both parents might need in order to arrive at such arrangements and to signpost and refer one or both parents—and, indeed, the children involved—to suitable provision and the help that exists for separating parents and families. Non-resident parents who are responsible for paying child maintenance should, I feel, be especially involved in this process.
I conclude by saying a couple of things that come very much from my experience at Relate. It is very important to children that both parents after separation continue to be involved as co-parents of those children. The relationship between the adults may be completely and utterly at an end, and indeed new relationships may well have been formed; but for that child, the active involvement—of course, where safe—of both parents is absolutely critical, emotionally, in practical ways, financially and in a range of other ways. It is critical that these new arrangements, however they are finally constructed, put the maximum possible incentive on both parents to see how they can discharge their responsibilities to be effective co-parents after separation—a responsibility which I think that most of us think is for life.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I, too, shall speak in support of Amendment 113B, although what I have to say is also relevant to Amendment 113DA in the next group. I, too, thank Gingerbread for its help.
I want to concentrate on how Clause 131 in particular, coupled with the wider government proposals to charge parents for use of the statutory child maintenance scheme, will disproportionately impact on women who, according to the Government’s own analysis, make up around 97 per cent of parents with care who are eligible for child maintenance. It seems very surprising that, at a time when the Government are worrying about the erosion of their support among women, particularly so-called C2 women, they should be proceeding with a policy on child maintenance which will unfairly impact on this group.
The Government say that the new gateway and the proposed charges are intended to drive behavioural change—yet again—yet in the brief circulated last week, the DWP acknowledges that a significant proportion of parents will not be able to collaborate and that there are circumstances where there will be no reasonable steps that they could take. Therefore, echoing a question I asked last week in relation to the benefit cap, what behavioural change are they trying to achieve in such cases? Is it really fair to subject this group to charges, particularly in the name of behavioural change?
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I know that I have already spoken once but I want to ask a question now rather than jump up while the Minister is speaking, because I do not think that we have covered it so far. It is about free school meals. I believe it has been made clear that free school meals as an in-kind benefit will not be taken into account as a benefit received for the cap. However, the Government are currently consulting through the Social Security Advisory Committee about how such passported benefits should be treated with the universal credit. Has the Social Security Advisory Committee been advised about what would happen if it were to recommend that free school meals should become part of universal credit cash payment? Would that bit be treated as separate so that it is not taken as part of the cap, as it would be if it were still paid in kind, or would it be treated as income for the cap? That could be quite an issue in determining whether noble Lords want to support payment in kind or in cash. If the Minister will cover that in his response, I shall be very grateful.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, I shall not speak at any length because I was not able to be here for the previous day in Committee, but I am very concerned about the effect of the Government’s proposals on carers.
On paying rent to tenants rather than landlords, does the Minister know what the estimated fraud is at present? A few years ago I set down a Question in the House and it emerged that payment to landlords was causing fraud of about £2 billion a year, mainly because they put in applications for addresses that did not exist. If that is the case it slightly affects the statistics, and it must mean that paying to tenants would probably be more efficient.
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—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
The Minister seems to be moving off PIP. When we discussed PIP earlier I asked a question and the Minister said that it would be appropriate to discuss it as part of the benefit cap. I do not think that he has addressed the question. How many people does he estimate will be affected by the cap as a result of the PIP waiting period going up from three months to six months, and will he consider backdating entitlement for those who then become eligible for PIP?
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 Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, perhaps the Minister will say more about that. I do not know about other noble Lords but I am afraid that I do not find that enough. I understand the broader argument about the limits and, as the Minister knows, I disagree. There has been talk about a level playing field. Will he explain to the Committee how the Government justify the fact that child benefit is being taken into account on one side of the equation and not on the other when we know that all those families on median earnings are getting child benefit? That is what I do not understand. In the previous session, I think it was my noble friend Lady Hollis who referred to comparing apples and pears. We are not comparing like with like.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I acknowledge that we are not comparing like with like. We are looking at a sensible level at which to put the maximum benefit payment. The level that we are looking at is the equivalent of a household earning £35,000. I think that one can overelaborate the logic, which I will not attempt to do here.
Amendment 99AA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would introduce a grace period. I accept that there will be occasions when changes occur that are beyond a household’s control. We have said that we are looking at what transitional arrangements might be appropriate. The arguments that I was laying around the PIP are equally applicable here.
Lord Freud
I return to the principle. As I understand it, this is a principle with which the Opposition agree: that there should be a limit on the amount of benefit a household can obtain. We have set that limit at the equivalent of £35,000 of earnings before tax and national insurance.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—of wherever he is of—would comment, if he were here, but he spelt out a very powerful argument of principle about entitlement. I have not heard the noble Lord address that argument and, in his absence, I would be very grateful if he could do so.
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
That is one of the areas of support. If we have about one-third of families who are subject to full conditionality and others subject to partial conditionality, by which we mean moving towards work over a period, a very substantial proportion of the group can be helped into the workplace.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Is the Minister really saying that it would be supporting, say, a lone mother who has a baby to, in effect, require her to take a job as the only way she can avoid the benefit cap or to move to an area where she does not know people and has not got the support network she needs for her baby? I cannot believe that that is what the Minister is saying.
Lord Freud
There is a combination there. Those are the choices that half of the low income working families need to take, although they are not even low income families—this is pretty high income. I am not specifying any more, but we will look at hard cases. I do not want to be “loaves and fishes” about hard cases either, which I know the noble Baroness would want to accuse me of, but those are the two areas relevant to that case study.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I support the two overlapping amendments, Amendments 102ZA and 102A, as well as Amendment 102B, to which I will not speak specifically. Clause 97 is the Groundhog Day clause. Back in the 1980s I helped to lead a charge against the then Conservative Government’s attempt to pay the family credit through the wage packet. I then helped to persuade the previous Government of the error of their ways when they proposed to pay working families’ tax credit through the wage packet. I was able to do this using JRF-funded research that I had just carried out with Jacky Goode and Clare Callender into the distribution of income within families in receipt of benefits. It demonstrated the importance of paying benefits for children to the mother, who was in all those families the parent with the main responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children. Indeed, once out-of-work families had migrated to child tax credit, we would have achieved that for out-of-work families as well as those in work.
It was with a heavy heart that I realised we were back to square one and having to persuade the Government of the day why it is so important to pay money for children direct to the parent who has the main responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children and for day-to-day budgeting. But this time the stakes are that much higher because so much is being wrapped up in the universal credit, particularly because, as Amendment 102ZA refers to, payment for housing costs are also at issue. We need to bear in mind here our earlier debate about the hazards of payment of rent as part of the universal credit.
Lord Freud
However, in circumstances where a universal credit award is split, neither party will receive specific elements such as housing or childcare. They will each receive a proportion of the total award and decide for themselves how best to use the money. This adheres to one of the key principles of universal credit, which is that claimants must be responsible for their own budgeting.
In answer to the specific question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, contributory benefits will continue to be individualised entitlements, but we are looking at options for payment of benefit in cases where a household has entitlement to both contributory benefits and universal credit. It may be simpler to make a single payment of universal credit in that situation, but that is just one possible option and we have the power to cover different approaches.
We are, however, committed to ensuring that people can access support to manage their payment and help them budget effectively. This is likely to include access to nationally available advice and guidance, locally delivered targeted support and improved access to budgeting products.
Budgeting products, I know, mystify the noble Baroness. It is easy to think about universal credit and such areas in slightly Victorian terms. When we look at what universal credit is and the support mechanisms that are under it and wrap it up, we see that there are a huge number of options. I am actively looking at those and interested in encouraging access to what are popularly known as jam jar accounts. Those accounts allow partners to allocate part of their payment for specific purposes, particularly the ones that need to go to utility bills and rent. Such accounts incorporate direct debits and such things. There is a lot of work to be done in this area and I hope to be able to share that with noble Lords as we develop it.
We are talking to a lot of people about this. As well as to the banks and the financial services industry, we are talking to local authorities, housing associations and the voluntary sector about how to deliver this. I may have some more information about how this will start to work. I hope that it will break us out of what could be a 20-year debate into the opportunities offered by modern technology. I hope that I will be able to keep noble Lords updated.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Will the Minister be able to update us before we get to this on Report? I am sure that we will want to return to this on Report.
Lord Freud
I would like to. I have people working on this and we are beginning to think quite differently about how these issues can be addressed—what is universal credit, what is a banking product and where is the join. We must not forget that, at a simple level, a universal credit is a payment stream with budgeting advances. It does not take a lot of imagination to see how it could join up with a more formal banking product and we have to work out where the line is drawn.
Turning to Amendment 102B, I appreciate that the intention behind it is to demonstrate that the taper can be applied to individual elements within the overall universal credit award so that payment of—
Baroness Sherlock
Before my noble friend responds, will the Minister explain one thing to the Committee? He has explained why he wants to make clear to a claimant household exactly what income is coming to it as a result of universal credit and the different components to help them understand that. Why does he then have a problem with separating payments as opposed to assessments?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To save the Minister jumping up and down, I asked him a specific question about monitoring the impact on the distribution of income within households which I would be grateful if he would answer. I do not think he answered it, although the reply has been so fragmented because of the Divisions that we may have missed it.
Lord Freud
On the first question, I think we should look at this rather differently. It is one payment to the household. On whether we can look at how the household can do different things with that payment, I am very happy to look at all the budgeting supporting mechanisms. I am actively looking at them, and I hope I will get some more information on that.
To be honest, I have not got on the top of my head the detail on the monitoring. We will be looking at it very closely when that comes in and will be devising a structure to do that. As noble Lords know, we are planning to have a very substantial research exercise around universal credit, mainly because it is an almost unique research laboratory opportunity in that we can capture in one place all the different behaviours. I am looking very closely at how we can get world-class research behind many aspects of the universal credit.
“(8) For the purposes of this section, “entitlement” means the amount that would have been awarded to the claimant had the claim been correctly represented and all relevant material facts disclosed for the period to which the overpayment applies.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
In moving Amendment 103ZZZA I shall speak also in support of Amendment 103ZA tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to which I have added my name. In fact, Amendment 103ZZZA has been designed with the help of the Child Poverty Action Group to complement and support Amendment 103ZA, and it is just an accident of drafting that it is being taken first. I shall therefore start by speaking to Amendment 103ZA, which also has the support of Carers 2000 and a large number of charities and churches. The purpose of the two amendments is to apply to universal credit the rules on recoverability of overpayments that reflect those currently applied to most benefits in regard to official errors that a claimant could not have known about and to provide for the offset of underlying entitlement from overpayments, a concept that I shall explain in a moment.
The current rules on the recoverability of overpayments that apply to most benefits provide for recovery where overpayments have arisen because of,
“misrepresentation or failure to disclose a material fact by a claimant or by any other person”.
This is a fair and just test which has been in place for many years and has been tried and tested in case law. Its purpose is to allow the recovery of an overpayment which arises as the result of a claimant’s actions or failures, whether innocent or fraudulent, but protects the claimant in a case where the overpayment arises because of official error by the benefit authorities. In other words, it sanctions recovery in the case of negligence by the claimant but offers protection in the case of negligence by the state. I believe that this is a fair and just balance which reflects the responsibilities of claimants to correctly notify their circumstances when claiming benefit and the benefit authorities to calculate correctly and pay awards based on the information available to them.
Clause 102 proposes to allow recovery in all cases regardless of culpability. I believe that this alters the balance of responsibilities and justice unfairly in favour of the state. It would mean, for example, that a claimant could be presented with a large bill for repayment amounting to thousands of pounds many years after an overpayment occurred, even though the overpayment was due entirely to the negligence of the benefit authorities. In return for providing accurate and up-to-date information, I believe that a claimant is entitled to the accurate calculation of payment of entitlement by the benefit authorities and that the state should bear any losses caused by its own negligence.
In the other place the Minister of State accepted that there are some real issues around whether vulnerable individuals can or cannot be aware of the error that takes place when overpayments are made without them realising it, and they only discover afterwards that they have incurred a substantial debt. We have to be careful and sensitive in that situation. He went on to say:
“The real question about the clause, however, is whether it is sensible to establish safeguards in primary legislation that apply absolutes to a situation and which effectively say, ‘You can never do anything’”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Public Bill Committee, 19/5/11; col. 1018.]
That recognition of the sensitivity of this is welcome, but my answer to the Minister’s question in this instance is “yes”. The Government’s view however, is, of course, “no”. Although the Government appear to have recognised the justice of the case, they have done so only by indicating that they will provide for non-recovery in cases of official error in a code of practice on recovery. Can the Minister say whether that code of practice will be published, whether it will be made public, and exactly what it will cover?
I do not believe that a code of practice is sufficient, and I would argue that it is essential that provision is statutory so that an aggrieved claimant has the right of appeal against recoverability to an independent tribunal. The claimant should have a clear right rather than be vulnerable to discretionary decision-making. The Government have expressed their confidence that the introduction of universal credit will significantly reduce the scope for official error. If that is the case, the administrative burden of retaining protections for claimants unjustly prejudiced by official-error overpayments should be greatly reduced.
The system of automatic recoverability, perhaps supplemented by a non-statutory code of practice as proposed in Clause 102, mirrors the system which applied to tax credits. This system has blighted the administration of tax credits, caused widespread injustice and hardship and has been widely condemned in the media and in reports by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Select Committees in the other place. It has also resulted in thousands of complaints to MPs, the Revenue adjudicator and the ombudsman.
Amendment 103ZZZA provides for the offset of underlying entitlement when calculating overpayments. Underlying entitlement means the entitlement that would have been paid to the claimant had the claim been made correctly at the time. For example, an overpayment might arise if a claimant had separated from their partner and the claim continued to be paid as a couple claimed for several weeks after the date of separation. The claimant had not declared the change of circumstances immediately and had told their personal adviser that they were not aware that they needed to because they had hoped that the separation was temporary. I think that sometimes, in those circumstances, you do not really want to face up to what is happening. If the claim is cancelled from the date of the separation then the claimant must make a new claim. However, had they immediately declared the change then their claim would have been reassessed as a single claim, so it would have given rise to entitlement as a single claimant which could be offset against the overpayment as underlying entitlement. I am sorry that that is slightly complicated.
This mirrors the provision in the housing and council tax benefit regulations which ensures that only the true amount of excess entitlement is recovered. This provision is particularly needed in relation to universal credit because there is a requirement for the benefit to be claimed by either a single claimant or by both members of a couple, which, as is the case with tax credits, results in many notional overpayments when there is a change of status from single to joint claims and vice versa. The Revenue has belatedly recognised the need for the offset of underlying entitlement in such cases and introduced non-statutory provision for this from January 2010. This Bill gives the opportunity of providing for offsetting on a statutory basis, ensuring that it is applied fairly, openly and consistently.
It may be that it is intended to do this in regulations. I must apologise because I have seen the draft regulations only today. I have had a quick look at them and it seems that they are perhaps intended to do that. I am glad that the Minister is nodding but it would be even better if he put it formally on the record so that we know that that is the case. I am very happy that for once the Minister is nodding rather than shaking his head when I am speaking. There is another question that I hope the Minister will be nodding at as well. Can he assure the Committee that there will be a right of appeal to an independent tribunal in the case of a dispute as to whether an overpayment was caused by official error and should or should not be recovered; or—I do not see any nodding going on there—if there is no such right of appeal, how will a claimant be able to challenge a decision to recover an overpayment?
In conclusion, this might appear to be a rather techy amendment. However, the strong lobbying by a wide number of churches and charities signals its significance. The reason they are so concerned is in part because they believe it to be simply unfair that a claimant might have to pay for a mistake made by the state. They are also concerned because they know from their own work what this would mean in terms of hardship and possibly increased debt to moneylenders and loan sharks as claimants’ benefit was reduced below the statutory minimum. Heaven help them if they are also subject to capping. I hope the Minister will look favourably on a small but important amendment, which serves to protect the underlying rights of claimants. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, I support the case that the noble Baroness has made. I am particularly interested in the answer to the question about an independent appeal right in these circumstances. That would be very useful indeed and I hope that the Minister can confirm that that will be true.
I have four amendments in this group. They can be dealt with with reasonable dispatch but they deal with a very important issue that surrounds the whole question of amounts recoverable by deductions from earnings. During the Bill’s Commons stages the Government amended Clause 102 to add a new Section 71ZD(3)(e), which addresses the,
“level of earnings below which earnings must not be reduced”.
That is very welcome, as far as it goes, but I wonder whether the Minister could say a bit about whether any thought has been given to how that will be delivered and how that protection will be rolled out. That is important.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I will be very brief. I thank the various noble Lords who have contributed and really strengthened the case that was made. Readers of the Official Report may not be able to tell a joke when they see it—my noble friend was not supporting monthly payments, and we will be coming back to that on Report.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am very glad that the noble Lord has put on record that the question about underlying entitlement will be covered in the regulations. I am sorry that he is not prepared to put into statute the protection of claimants where it is the department that has made the mistake, not the individual. I am unhappy with so much discretion, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, made that point. I am very pleased that the code of practice will be published in the form of a leaflet and that noble Lords will be able to see it before Report. I welcome that, and I welcome what I think the Minister said that there would the general right of appeal on overpayment questions. It is good to have that on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Perhaps I may intervene. I can tell the Committee off the cuff that all of them with children will be receiving child benefit, which has a 99 per cent take-up rate. They will be receiving exactly the same amount in child benefit as people out of work, and one of the amendments in the next group will address this matter.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, as I understand it, everyone with children gets child benefit, so you can cut that out quite regularly because you know that it is going to come under subsection (4)(c)—that is inevitable. As I said at the beginning, we will find out from my noble friend what exceptions the Government are currently planning in order to change what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, calls apples and pears into apples and apples or perhaps pears and pears.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
That would certainly be satisfactory but even if that 10 per cent estimate is roughly right, it means that 90 per cent of the people who will be affected by this cap are under no obligation, under the Government's policies, to have full work conditionality. How does that square with the big thrust of this being about work incentives? I should also like to follow up on another point which the Minister did not touch upon: the profile of those, again within that 50,000, who would be tenants and paying rent of one sort or another. Is it the case that a significant proportion of that 50,000 are tenants of social landlords, RSLs or councils?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
While the noble Lord is conferring, can he perhaps explain to the Committee what behavioural effects the Government are trying to achieve in the case of those who are not required to seek work?
Lord Freud
On the figures, one reason why I am slightly betwixt and between is that we are looking at that impact assessment, which is now somewhat dated, with a view to updating it and providing fresher figures when we can. That work is in progress and we are getting some more detail. All that I can do is to offer to provide some of that extra detail as soon as we get it. I am not completely sure yet of its timetable but there is ongoing work there, which is why I am slightly hazy about exactly what some of these figures will end up being, for which I apologise.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 99AD and to oppose the questions that Clauses 93 and 94 stand part of the Bill. I want to make clear that I also support other amendments, both the more ambitious and the more limited ones. I see Amendment 99AD as something of a bottom line, particularly its exclusion of child benefit from the cap. However, first I shall say a few words about why Clause 93 should not stand part of the Bill.
Unlike some other noble Lords who have spoken, I do not support the principle of the benefit cap. Despite ministerial invocations of fairness, it is unfair. It deliberately reduces the amount of money that some families will receive to well below the amount that Parliament has determined is the minimum that is required to meet their needs—a minimum that is itself well below minimum income standards, as we discussed earlier in our proceedings. We have heard that the average loss will be £93. Nearly half the families affected will lose between £50 and £150, and 15 per cent will lose more than £150. Black and minority ethnic families will be disproportionately affected. It simply is not good enough for Ministers to say, as they have, that the state can no longer afford to pay this minimum. We are a rich society despite current economic difficulties. What the state can afford to pay is a matter of political choice.
In applying such a cap, the Government are arguably reducing income to below what constitute decency levels in a modern, industrialised society—below the level required to ensure human dignity. Therefore, it does not surprise me that legal advice received by the Equality and Human Rights Commission stated that,
“there must be a real concern … that the cap on benefits, which will disproportionately impact on larger families”,
will result in a violation of the Human Rights Act. Some of the likely consequences have already been spelt out by other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord McKenzie has already cited the Centre for Social Justice, which warned that the impact was “likely to be devastating” for some families, so how can this be justified?
The justification put forward by Ministers is another example of how the Bill is designed to try to influence behaviour and send out signals—so many signals that we should nickname this the “semaphore Bill”. Once again, the spectre of welfare dependency raises its head and people are to be incentivised to find work, although I thought that the main point of universal credit was to do just this, insofar as incentives are inadequate at present.
We have already heard how the incentives argument is not that convincing. As my noble friend Lord McKenzie has already observed, some groups affected by the cap are not expected to seek work—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds made this point—such as carers and lone parents of children aged under five. I was disappointed that the Minister could not explain to the Committee what behavioural effects the Government were trying to achieve in the case of those who are not expected to seek work. I hope that, having had more time to think about this, he might be able to do so when he speaks.
Could the Minister also address the issue that I raised at the last sitting, which the right reverend Prelate has also raised, about impact of the six-month qualifying period for PIP? How many are likely to be affected, and would it be possible to backdate the money that they lose as a result of the cap, when they then become eligible? It should also be noted that, to the extent that fewer people qualify for PIP than for DLA, so will fewer disabled people be exempt from the cap.
As has already been noted, the cap will also apply to some who are in paid work. Again, I was disappointed that the Minister could not explain at this stage how it is planned to determine at what point those in paid work will be free of the cap under universal credit. It is a very important question. As was pointed out in CPAG’s Welfare Rights Bulletin, the danger is that a threshold is created that people in low-paid work could frequently cross, resulting in wild fluctuations in their entitlement and complex better-off calculations. A small drop in earnings over which the claimant might have no control could leave to a massive drop in income if the cap is triggered.
Ferret Information Systems comments that the cap will create just the kind of cliff edge that universal credit was intended to remove. It gives an example of how a difference of 1p an hour for someone working 24 hours at the minimum wage level could generate a net income increase or loss of £98.23. This is surely nonsensical. The greater security of income promised with universal credit would be undermined if people on very low earnings are living in constant fear of the cap being triggered.
I am also unclear as to how work incentives are promoted if, as predicted, one effect of the cap is that families have to move house to find cheaper accommodation, which we have already talked about and could be difficult, given that a majority of those affected—although perhaps not quite as big a majority as originally thought—will be in social housing. Is there not a danger that in search of affordable accommodation they will end up moving to an area where job opportunities are even poorer?
At Second Reading and in response to previous amendments, the Minister argued that:
“The introduction of a benefit cap will mean that households on out-of-work benefits will have to make the same decisions as families in work with regard to the lives they lead and the areas they can live in”.—[Official Report, 13/9/11; col. 739.]
It is still unclear to me, having listened to everything that the Minister said earlier and the debate so far, what decisions people are supposed to take if they cannot find work or affordable housing. The answer is that they simply have to live below the level set by Parliament. In response to a Written Answer about the implications for homelessness, the Minister said that if they became at risk of homelessness then our old friend, the loaves and fishes of the discretionary housing payment, would come to the rescue.
For lone parents in particular, the loss of social networks that can help with childcare could serve to make it harder for them to enter into paid work if they have to move area. The loss of such networks surely goes against the aspirations of the big society. Moreover, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie have already said, the cap will create a significant new couple penalty. So it is difficult to square the cap with key elements of the Government’s own philosophy.
The Minister of State told the Public Bill Committee in the other place that the clause is not primarily a “cost-saving measure”. Instead, he claimed that,
“fundamentally it is about creating a more credible welfare system … We do not believe that it is reasonable or fair that households getting out-of-work benefits should receive a greater income from benefits than the average weekly net wage for working households. That is the core principle that we are seeking to put in place here”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Committee, 17/5/11; col. 985.]
We have heard that again from the Minister this evening. Is it not the case that the Government themselves are undermining the credibility of the so-called welfare system by sending out a signal that people on average wages are receiving significantly less money than some people on benefits, when the proposition is based on the false assumption that people on average—or, more accurately, median—wages are not themselves receiving welfare in various forms? That this is the case is demonstrated by parliamentary Answers, which show that, if the benefits and tax credits received by working families on median earnings were taken into account, hardly any of them would be worse off than out-of-work families. The Government could do much more for the credibility of the system if it sent out more accurate signals.
This brings me to Amendment 99AD, which is about protecting children, who are the main victims of the cap, as other noble Lords have underlined. They are victims who cannot respond to the Bill’s signals. I am grateful to Barnardo’s for circulating a briefing in support of the amendment. It is designed in particular to stop the cap penalising larger families—thereby failing the Prime Minister’s family test—and to create the level playing field that the Minister of State claimed for the cap in the other place. We have already heard—and I apologise for repeating it, but it seems like the message needs repeating because it has not been heard loud and clear by some members of the Committee—that one important reason why the playing field is far from level is that child credit and child tax credit received by families of median earnings are not included in the income level at which the cap is set, but are included in the out-of-work income to be taken into account. I could not believe it at first when I discovered that child benefit is being treated in this way, because it is so patently unjust. As I said earlier, take-up of child benefit is virtually 100 per cent, so there is not an issue as to whether families with median earnings are or are not getting it. They are getting exactly the same amount as families out of work: it just depends on the size of the family.
According to a Written Answer, the median level of child benefit received by families with median earnings is estimated to be £33.70 a week. If the child benefit of out-of-work families were ignored when applying the cap—and this is also the purpose of the amendment moved by the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds—it would reduce the numbers affected by 40 to 50 per cent. This would reduce the savings from £270 million to £140 million in 2014-15. Therefore, nearly half the savings from the cap are being made on the basis of a blatant piece of unfairness which drives a coach and horses through the Government’s claim to be creating a level playing field between those in and out of work. Given that the Minister of State has said that it is not primarily a cost-saving measure, I hope that the Minister will not use the cost as an argument for rejecting the amendment.
The amendment would also exclude childcare costs. If I understood the Minister correctly, he has told the Committee that those costs will not be treated as income for someone out of work. That is correct, so we have that again clearly on the record. I very much welcome that, because previously it had been suggested that they would be. That is an important step; it would have been nonsensical had it been, so perhaps we have achieved something here today.
I oppose the cap in principle, and would support more ambitious amendments than the one in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and Lord Adebowale. As I said, I particularly see the exclusion of child benefit from the income taken into account in applying the cap as a bottom line below which the Government’s claim to fairness is so patently unfounded that they should be embarrassed even to try to justify its inclusion. In the Public Bill Committee in the other place, the Minister of State had no real answer to this and kept evading the question of child benefit received by working families. I would therefore be grateful in the Minister could explain to your Lordships how in fact the Government justify the inclusion of child benefit in the cap when it is not included in the comparator incomes of working families. Better still—given that, according to the Minister of State, the cap is not primarily a cost-saving measure but purports to be about fairness, and given the strength of the opposition which we have already heard—I hope the Government will think again.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and this amendment is also in my name. It is vital to ensure that the new framework is right, and this amendment gives me some comfort in what is a very difficult time for a huge number of disabled people. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, mentioned time. That time is required.
If someone has a health condition that is likely to improve, or a newly acquired impairment to which they are likely to adapt, no one would argue that the costs might not change over time and that there should not be a reassessment. For example, the costs of someone who is a lower leg amputee will be very different in the first 18 months or two years after the amputation from what they may be 20 years later when they have adapted to it. However, when someone has a health condition or impairment that is unlikely to change and the costs are likely to remain the same, it does not make sense to keep sending them for more face-to-face assessments. For people in this situation it should be enough to confirm with the claimant’s healthcare professionals that their condition is unchanged. I feel very strongly about this because the following claimant told the MS Society how she feels about the prospect of face-to-face assessments. Many like her find this process very strange given that so much is known about the condition, including that it will only get worse and not better. When such claimants have to talk to a stranger about some very intimate details of their life it can have a devastating effect on them. The claimant said:
“I am already dreading the day when I have to sit in front of someone and explain myself to them … When I am already seeing a neurologist and a whole team of people who help me to try and live as best I can with MS … This is just not fair in my eyes. … Shame on the people who have come up with these changes which once again affect real people who have no choice but to try and live with this illness”.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of the hobby horse of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, which we should take seriously. I was struck by what she said about how a trial period in which disabled people’s organisations were involved could do a lot to restore confidence in the system. I am sure that I am not the only noble Lord who has been struck by the e-mails, letters and faxes that I have received, which demonstrate that that confidence is at rock bottom. There has been a catastrophic loss of confidence. The noble Baroness is offering the Government perhaps not an olive branch, because that suggests that a war is going on, but an opportunity—I suggest that the Government would do well to grasp it—to listen to what is being said, accept this amendment with its trial period and involve disabled people’s organisations. That could go a long way to restore confidence in this system.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee that I was unable to be here at the beginning of the proceedings. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, to Clause 78 has to be considered in the light of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I draw particularly to the Committee’s attention the fact that paragraph o of the preamble to that convention provides that,
“persons with disabilities should have the opportunity to be actively involved in decision-making processes about policies and programmes, including those directly concerning them”.
The proposal for a trial period and the involvement of disabled people’s organisations in the assessment process will undoubtedly enhance that process, but it will also put the United Kingdom in a position in which we are in compliance with our obligations under the convention. I am sure the Minister will be aware that it will be most important to have a review in terms of having confidence in the Government’s new system, and to ensure that injustice is not done and that people do not lose the right to benefit simply because of a flawed assessment process, particularly one that is not conducted by those with the necessary expertise, as was referred to by a number of noble Lords.
I refer the Committee to Articles 19 and 20 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which are particularly relevant in terms of the opportunities that disabled people need in the context of this amendment. It is also cost-effective; more importantly, it is respectful of the rights and dignity of people with disability. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, was saying, when they are unlikely to experience any change in the health impairments from which they suffer and which result in significant costs, they should not be required to be assessed more than once every five years. It is a human rights issue. The assessment process itself, as we have been told, will take a toll on such people and it would be disproportionate, unnecessary and unproductive to require more regular assessment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, in Amendment 86A, and I believe she has covered the amendment very clearly. I also find the qualifying period worrying. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, has said, the first months are often the period when extra costs are at their greatest, and just as people are trying to adjust their outgoings, they are also adjusting to the impairment or illness.
I do not believe that it is the case that they will be able to receive support elsewhere. Social care support may be available, but that is means-tested and has its own application and assessment process, which we have debated quite a lot this afternoon. Support from the NHS can be very limited and not immediate and I do not think we should assume that appropriate help is that easy to find.
In Committee in another place, the Minister for Disabled People stated that this proposal was not being driven by the need to make significant savings, so why are we making this change? It has been argued that, for example, in the case of someone who has had a stroke, it may not be clear at three months what their long-term needs may be, and that may also be true at six months. However, their costs are likely to be very high during these initial stages. While no one, me included, wants to see repeated assessments, we have heard a lot about giving help to those who most need it. In the initial months following diagnosis we should look at the qualifying period as detailed in the amendment because those are the people who will need immediate help.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I support the amendments which seek to revert to the existing qualifying period of three months. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, said that six months is a long time to wait for extra resources, and we have heard from a number of noble Lords about the significant additional costs which can be incurred during this period.
However, there is a further twist in the tale—the benefit cap—which we will be discussing next week. PIP exempts people from the benefit cap but, of course, if you cannot qualify for PIP for six months then you would not only have to wait for additional resources but could find that your own resources are being significantly depleted during this period. This is very worrying. Can the Minister say whether any estimate has been made of the number of people who may be caught in this way? I suspect that it is not a large number, but one person is one person too many. It could be potentially very frightening for people to find that they might have to face this horrible benefit cap.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. If not, and the six-month period goes ahead, a perhaps minimalist way of addressing the question—although it does not really address it—is that someone who qualifies after six months should have the money backdated to cover what they lost through the benefit cap.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
My Lords, I support the amendment. I hate the term “alignment”. I worried about it enormously when it was used by the Government in connection with the proposal that mobility allowance should be removed from people in residential care homes because they wanted to align it with hospitals. We are now back to “alignment” again.
One of the major problems that nurses and doctors in specialist units face in trying to discharge their patients with brain injury or the onset of MS, which causes vast deterioration, is getting their support sorted out so that they can leave the hospital. DLA with a time limit of three months is cited as being difficult to get into now, so raising it to six months is wrong. We forget that people do not on day one think of their long-term disability—whether that be a spinal injury, a brain injury or something that is sudden and quick—and say, “Ah, I must put in my DLA request now so that I will get it in six months’ time”. That just does not happen.
This is another delay for people who find themselves in an appalling situation, in a crisis, and having to face even further barriers to the support that can give them some independence, enable them to get back into the community and return to their families as soon as possible. The three-month eligibility period should remain. The six-month period will cause more problems. Hospitals will despair about discharging people and it could mean that disabled people will have to leave work earlier than they would have because they are not getting the support that they require quickly to keep them mobile and to enable them to stay in work. It is a lose-lose situation.
Lord Freud
Let me go on a little further and try to pull this issue back. Noble Lords have said that, in practice, DLA is being used in a slightly different way to the long-term intention, and that that is tied to three months as opposed to six months. I have said that it is not a matter of money but of coherence. I have heard many strong views expressed in Committee about noble Lords’ discomfort with the move to six months and so I will take this matter back—that might be a slight overstatement—and look very closely at what we are hearing, not only from here but from elsewhere. This is not one-way traffic; some people are more concerned that if you go to an earlier assessment it implies that you will have more reassessments, which some groups dislike rather more. So it is not all one-way traffic for people who are affected.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I am sure that the Committee is extremely pleased to hear him say that he will take this away. I hear what he says about it not being one-way traffic but, given that the Minister is writing to the Committee already on this issue, it might be helpful if he could list the organisations which are supporting the move to six months and those organisations who are against it, so that the Committee can weigh the balance of opinion for itself.
Lord Freud
I have slight jitters about that level of transparency, apparently.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I give my support to this amendment—the first in a long series that we are due to consider on this part of the Bill which deals with the personal independence payment. Like the noble Baronesses who have already spoken, I declare my interest as a recipient of disability living allowance since its inception in 1992. I hope that that can be taken as read throughout the rest of the amendments as we speak to them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has made a very full case. What has emerged is the iconic significance of DLA to disabled people. It was an enlightened measure introduced by a previous Conservative Government, when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, told us, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was Secretary of State—and, if I am not mistaken, Sir Nicholas Scott was Minister for Disabled People. It corrected many anomalies, as the quotation of Sir Bert Massie by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, reminded us.
Blind people were particularly grateful for the introduction of DLA. They had campaigned for many years for recognition of the extra costs attributable to blindness, but they were never officially acknowledged until the introduction of DLA. There were still anomalies; blind people were only eligible to apply for the mobility component at the lower rate—an anomaly that was only removed with the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2009. That reform was supported by the Conservative Party at the time. I very much hope that blind people will not find that that hard-fought gain is snatched from their grasp—just as it has been won—with the implementation of personal independence payments. That would surely leave a legacy of bitterness that the Government would find hard to overcome.
This brings us back to the iconic significance of DLA. For many people it is not only the means but the symbol of their independence. As we have heard, much apprehension has been caused among disabled people by the changes the Government are making to the benefit system. People are fearful that their independence will be undermined with the change from DLA to PIP, or personal independence payment.
As Ministers probably recognise, the Government have a gap in confidence to overcome as regards the reforms where disabled people are concerned. They may well feel, on reflection, that retaining the name, which has such significance for disabled people, would be a small price to pay for the changes that they wish to make to the benefit. As the noble Baroness has said, names are important, and many disabled people obviously feel that we would lose this one at our peril. I hope, after due consideration, the Minister will take the same view.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I would like to speak very briefly indeed in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. I apologise that I cannot be here for all of our deliberations today.
The noble Baroness made a very strong case. I was struck by one thing she said when she talked about the signal sent out by this label. The Ministers are constantly telling us about wanting to send out signals with this Bill. It is one signal after another. The noble Baroness has said very clearly that disabled people are telling us that this is sending out the wrong signal. Disabled people are the experts here and we should be listening to them.
I want to add one further point. An additional reason why personal independence payment could be very confusing and give the wrong signal is that, unfortunately, the term “independence” in government speak has come to be equivalent to being in paid work. There is a real danger that disabled people will think it is only for those of them who are able to be in paid work or who are in paid work. I do not believe that that is what “independence” means, but it has become a kind of conventional wisdom. There is an opportunity here for the Government to send out the correct signal to ensure that this benefit is taken up by those for whom it is designed. I hope that we can take note of and support what the noble Baroness has said. I am sure that the artwork has not yet been done. The amendment will therefore be completely cost-free and the Government could take the credit simply by accepting it.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to Gingerbread for a briefing on this issue. It has asked us to raise this matter, which I believe has considerable merit.
Clause 57 proposes to extend further the numbers of single parents required to seek work. From early 2012, single parents not in paid work and whose youngest child is aged five or over will no longer be entitled to claim income support. Instead, single parents will be required to claim jobseeker’s allowance or another benefit. On JSA, single parents receive the same amount of money each week as they do on income support, but face a substantial increase in conditionality and risk a payment sanction if they fail to demonstrate that they are actively seeking and available for work.
This latest proposal is estimated to affect 100,000 single parents currently receiving income support who have a youngest child aged five or over. It is understood that the Government anticipate this will save something like £50 million in 2012-13 by removing entitlement to income support from this group of single parents. However, I wonder if there is any revision to that sum, given the state of the labour market and the difficulties that are confronted by people seeking work.
We have an opportunity to introduce a delay to the proposed change and instead align it with the planned introduction of universal credit from 2013. This can be achieved by simply removing this clause from the Bill, which is what this amendment seeks to do, and would mean that single parents with a youngest child aged five would continue to receive income support until universal credit is implemented. At this point, single parents, along with responsible carers and couple families, will be subject to work search and work availability requirements, as outlined in Clause 22; that is, “all work-related requirements”.
Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 57 is an extension of the lone parent obligation policy which we brought forward when in government. The LPO restricts entitlement to income support for single parents according to the age of their youngest child. The reforms have sought to move more and more single parents from income support to JSA. Implementation began in November 2008 and first affected parents whose youngest child was aged 12 and over in October 2009; parents with children aged 10 and 11 were also transferred to JSA. In October 2010, single parents with children aged seven, eight and nine switched into JSA. In previous years, single parents have been given clear advance notice of six months in order to prepare for the switch from income support to JSA. However, we have not yet passed this piece of legislation and this will be implemented in April 2012, which is certainly in the near term.
Some 57 per cent of single parents are in paid employment and many more want work as a means of increased income and financial independence. Those are key motivators, along with personal independence, the opportunity for social interaction and to set a good example for their children. Indeed, 42 per cent of single parents say that having almost any job is better than being unemployed and on benefits. Critically, single parents require jobs that allow them to be there for their children when necessary. With only one parent to do the school run, care for children when they are ill and support them with their schoolwork, jobs with flexible working patterns are absolutely vital, as is access to affordable, high-quality childcare. We have discussed that on a number of previous occasions. Flexibility does not just mean part time but can include job share, compressed hours in term time and annualised hours. However, employment opportunities that provide the degree of flexibility that single parents need are few and far between, particularly in difficult economic times.
The particular reasons for delay are as follows. On 7 October this year the Government announced an extension of childcare support to those working under 16 hours to be implemented as part of universal credit from October 2013. Currently, through working tax credits, as we are aware, single parents working 16 hours or more a week can access support of 70 per cent of their childcare costs up to £175 per week for one child and up to £300 per week for two or more children. This provides vital support to working parents on low to middle incomes and makes all the difference as to whether they can make work pay. However, it has always been a challenge for those with caring responsibilities or those who have been out of work for some time to make the leap from no work to 16 or more hours a week. So the further investment to provide childcare support at the same level for those working under 16 hours a week from 2013 onwards is welcome. This support will be of particular benefit to single parents of five and six year-olds who move on to JSA from income support after a period of time looking after their child. That is why it makes no sense to push 100,000 single parents into this position 18 months before the new childcare support is available.
In addition to the logic of delaying the switch from income support to JSA to enable single parents to access the new childcare support that will be available under universal credit, I suggest that there is a broader rationale in aligning this change with the overall implementation of universal credit. The transition from the current benefits and tax credits system to unified universal credit will require a huge administrative change in order to transition all existing claimants on to the new system. When resources are stretched, it would therefore be both needlessly disruptive to single parents and an unnecessary cost to the state to put the same group of claimants through two substantial administrative processes within a relatively short period of time—ending entitlement to income support in early 2012 and then a migration on to universal credit for existing claimants from April 2014.
It is also important to note that the Bill we are considering introduces changes that will affect the job search requirements of lead carers in couples families which will be implemented from 2013 as part of universal credit. From this point on, nominated lead carers in joint couple claims will be required to seek work when the youngest child reaches the age of five and be subject to increased conditionality accordingly. There is therefore no clear rationale for why single parents should be subject to identical changes in advance of nominated lead carers in a joint claim.
According to the Office for National Statistics, in the three months from June to August 2011, unemployment rose to 2.57 million, an increase of 114,000. The fall in the number of people employed was 178,000 and has been particularly driven by the loss of part-time jobs, down by 175,000. Single parents rely heavily on part-time work as this allows them to juggle their caring responsibilities with work. The total number of people claiming JSA is 1.6 million, of which 124,000 are single parents. The total number of single parents claiming JSA increased by 48,000 over the 12 months from August 2010. Unemployment is at a 17-year high and job creation in the private sector has so far failed to plug the rising tide of redundancies and job losses in the public sector. Overall, the picture is bleak, with markedly fewer family-friendly jobs available and increasing numbers of single parents trapped on jobseeker’s allowance, so moving an additional 100,000 single parents from income support to JSA when their youngest child reaches five is a blunt instrument in the current economic climate.
Increased conditionality and tougher sanctions only serve to add unwarranted pressure on single parents when suitable employment opportunities remain sparse, childcare costs continue to rise faster than earnings and single parents are not able to take advantage of new childcare support that will be introduced from 2013. Single parents will struggle to find work that is sustainable and that fits around their caring responsibilities when faced with increased conditionality, limited access to support for childcare costs, limited opportunities to access training and further education, low growth and a stagnant job market. I oppose the clause standing part.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I had not planned to speak but I support the opposition to the clause standing part. It seems eminently sensible that we should postpone this provision. I am prompted to speak by a rash of e-mails that I received today from people who clearly feel strongly about it, although I shall read from only one of the e-mails. However, I am ambivalent about the issue of lone parents and paid work. On the one hand I was a member of the Commission on Social Justice which, to a lot of criticism, recommended that lone parents with children aged 12 and over, I think, should become part of the workforce. One of the reasons for that, as my noble friend said, is the importance of paid work to women as a source of independent income and so forth. On the other hand, it also worries me that much new policy underestimates the importance and value of care work and the time and energy it takes. So, as I say, I am ambivalent. However, I think that lowering the age to five is perhaps going too far. It is putting a lot of strain on lone parents in terms of the competing responsibilities that we are placing on them. That is very much reflected in the rash of e-mails that I received today. I shall read out from one. I do not necessarily agree with everything in it but it reflects what people are feeling. This e-mail is in fact not from someone directly affected but from a grandmother who would have been affected had this rule applied earlier. She says:
“I have been informed that you are discussing legislation which will force mothers who are [on] welfare to look for a ‘job’ when the youngest is five years of age. I am a grandmother now but raised three children on welfare following marriage breakdown. It was not a lot of money but I had control of it”—
an issue that I have been raising in other contexts—
“and was able to survive and care for all my children. I did try going out to work but it was almost impossible to cope first of all with having time with them. Keeping tabs on where they were every day of the week was a nightmare. When I lived on welfare they knew they could come home after school bring their friends with them home if they wanted. Much safer for everyone. The proposal that children have to be out of their home from leaving for school in the morning until I get home later in the evening”—
I myself would not put it this strongly—
“is nothing less than child abuse—adults are exhausted after doing such hours”.
I think that we should be conscious of that point on exhaustion. We are asking an awful lot of lone parents. She continues:
“How are children supposed to develop with any feelings of confidence and security if they are constantly shunted around from pillar to post, treated as if they are an encumbrance, rather than being valued by the society”.
I shall not read any more. However, there is a feeling that we are devaluing the work of caring for young children whether it is done by mothers or fathers. This opposition to the clause standing part would allow us to pause and think again about whether this is the right way to go, particularly in the current labour conditions, and whether it would not be better to wait until universal credit is introduced and the childcare changes referred to by my noble friend are made. I hope that the Minister might be willing to pause and reflect on this matter.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I cannot bring to mind a particular piece of research on that question, but I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, probably went into this in great detail when she was working on her piece of research for the CSJ. If I can find something which pinpoints that particular question, I will certainly give the noble Baroness the reference. But the general point I sought to make is that a range of research in this area shows the great benefits for families of working, and if I can give a particular answer to her question, I will.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I suspect that that was research done for the department by Millar and Ridge. It absolutely did show positives, but it also revealed some of the strains placed on mothers and on children. If I remember rightly—I have to admit that my memory for research is waning—in some cases mothers moved out of work again because of those strains. The research showed both sides of the issue.
Lord Freud
Let us not debate research none of us can remember. I will have a look at this and if I can provide anything more solid, I will do so. On the point about school holidays, under the regulations, if a lone parent had to leave a job because no appropriate childcare was available in the holidays, that would be taken into account for good reason. Technically it is good cause, but it would become good reason.
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.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am very grateful to hear that. In order to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s, could the noble Lord confirm that a dinner lady, or someone in that position, would not be subjected to in-work conditionality rules? The fact that there is a contract means that they are still in work. I may have misunderstood.
Lord Freud
Let me just try to pin down the point on transitions and whether people should be in work. There is little evidence relating to the effects of maternal employment on children's cognitive and behavioural outcomes in the UK, but what there is suggests that there are few negative effects of maternal employment once the child is aged over 18 months. If I can find some more research, I shall get it to noble Lord post-haste.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, noble Lords of a certain age and with long memories—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who unfortunately cannot be in his place this afternoon, but who has very kindly said that I can tell the Committee that he is in sympathy with what I am about to say—will appreciate the irony of me rising to defend the Social Fund.
Back in the mid-1980s, when I was at the Child Poverty Action Group, I was trying to convince your Lordships’ House to reject the introduction of the discretionary Social Fund in place of single payments made as a right to help people with one-off needs they were unable to meet out of their weekly benefit. Although I am defending the Social Fund today, I am not claiming that it does not need reform. Clearly there is a consensus that there are problems. However, nothing the Government have said has convinced me and many of those closer to the ground than I am that Clause 69 is the solution to those problems.
The clause abolishes discretionary community care grants and crisis loans. In their place, local authorities in England will have the power, but not the duty, to provide assistance using money transferred from the DWP without ring-fencing. The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales will decide their own arrangements. I will focus my remarks on England, but I hope that other noble Lords will be able to provide a perspective for the other nations. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has apologised as unfortunately he has had to return to Wales this afternoon.
The Social Fund provides vital cash assistance. It is, in effect, the ultimate safety net. CCGs are intended to help vulnerable adults establish themselves or remain in the community. As well as their emphasis on helping people live independently in the community, they are also available to people on benefit who face exceptional pressure, such as family breakdown and long-term illness. Interest-free crisis loans are normally payable when an applicant can show that they are the only way to avoid serious damage or risk to health and safety, although the qualifying conditions have been tightened up recently. According to research by Crisis, 94 per cent of housing advisers working in private rented sector access schemes which help vulnerable people into private accommodation say that crisis loans and CCGs are vital or important to their work.
Local authorities are not being asked to administer a locally provided social fund. The discretionary Social Fund is being abolished. There will be no requirement on local authorities to provide cash assistance or, indeed, any assistance. All the signs are that most local authorities will provide any help in kind, rather than in cash. This has raised fears of stigmatisation, lack of choice and the undermining of financial independence. Moreover, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Maria Miller, told the Public Bill Committee in the other place that the new service may not necessarily be an application-based service.
If I were writing the Minister’s brief, I would cite the recent Communities and Local Government Committee report, Localisation issues in welfare reform, which supports the proposal to devolve responsibility for the discretionary Social Fund, so I will get in first and point out that the report also acknowledges that there is legitimate debate about whether localisation will in itself be an adequate remedy for the long-standing problems of the Social Fund. It expresses some reservations to which I will return in relation to the amendments before us.
Having read the oral evidence and some of the written evidence to the CLG Committee, it does not seem to me that the main conclusions of the report reflect the balance of that evidence, and I have to say that I place more store on the views of, for example, Citizens Advice and the Social Fund Commissioner than those of the committee itself. The commissioner warns that:
“With over 150 local authorities in England, there is a high risk that a scheme providing unbounded discretion in each of those areas could result in geographical inequities that do not correlate with local needs … in the absence of any guidelines or criteria that set parameters for local discretion, it will be difficult to achieve some broad consistency of purpose and approach”.
In other words, localisation could aggravate rather than address one of the Social Fund’s current problems. The commissioner concluded that:
“There must continue to be a safety net for poor and vulnerable people because their needs will not disappear”.
As I will argue in a moment, without a ring-fenced budget, there can be no assurance that there will continue to be any sort of safety net.
Alan Barton, the social policy officer for Citizens Advice, in his oral evidence disputed the DWP’s characterisation of CCGs as delivering a social care package. He explained that:
“To a large extent, we are talking about items with which people furnish their properties”.
Many of those needing such items will not be in touch with local authorities. An analysis of 500 applications to the discretionary Social Fund by the Social Fund Commissioner found that:
“A significant number of vulnerable people trying to create or re-establish or remain in a secure home, who have ‘slipped through the net’ and receive no support”,
from other support services. With regard to crisis loans, Mr Barton acknowledged that,
“schemes for second-hand furniture, white goods, food banks and credit unions … are helpful to low-income people”,
but added that,
“we see considerable numbers who are in desperate need of cash to buy food and top up their electricity or gas cards when they do not have any light or heating in the house. It seems that there will be no provision for them under the new arrangements. They will have to go to charities that are already under huge pressure; credit unions, which are very patchy and charge quite high interest rates; high-cost lenders—a survey that we did with our advisers showed that 67% of them had seen people go to high-cost lenders when they had not got money from the social fund—or I suppose they might just go hungry or cold”.
That is the view of Citizens Advice.
Growing numbers are already turning to food banks. As Shelter argues, food banks should be seen as a last resort and,
“not become an established part of the welfare state. Shelter’s services staff observe that where clients have resorted to food banks many feel embarrassed and demeaned”.
Family Action, which together with a wide range of charities is supporting these amendments, warns that charities such as it will not be able to cope. It fears that in the worst case scenario, there will be greater resort to loan sharks—a fear that I have already expressed with regard to the move to monthly payments.
One of the main arguments put forward to justify this change is that local authorities are better placed to provide this kind of help. In his oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the Secretary of State painted a picture of a,
“person sitting or standing in front of a local authority”.
That is contrasted with the remote decision-making under the present scheme. However, there is no guarantee that a transfer to local authorities will necessarily mean localised face-to-face decision making. Some authorities might choose to contract out any service, and there is nothing to stop them processing claims remotely or by phone. I am advised by Family Action that Westminster council recently announced that its emergency response team, covering social services activity involving children’s and adult social services, emergency repairs, homelessness and emergency lifeline calls will be moving to Dingwall in Scotland. As Family Action observed, it is unclear how staff based 850 miles away could be expected to deliver a more local service. This clause is about the abolition of the discretionary Social Fund, not its better targeting, as has been claimed. I believe that the case for localisation has not been made convincingly, and on this basis, I oppose that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, perhaps I, too, may ask a question on the crisis loan budget. As I understand it, at present, if there were a disaster, people could get help from crisis loans. If there were a disaster, for example a flood—and more and more flooding is taking place—would local authorities get additional money to help out, or would they have to use the money that has already been transferred from the DWP, which may already have been spent on other things for that ring-fencing? Will there be provision to help people in the case of disasters?
Lord Freud
In the case of disasters, other measures would be introduced. This will not be a core methodology to deal with particular localised disasters.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
At present, people can turn to discretionary crisis loans in such cases. I would feel more reassured if the Minister could tell us what that provision would be.
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.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The noble Lord is absolutely right. That was deployed in relation to the flooding in Cumbria.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I raise this to ask not so much about housing but about people's white goods and furniture that may have been destroyed for whatever reason. My understanding is that, at present, they can turn to discretionary crisis loans in such cases.
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.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am just pausing while I think about the reflection process. Can I ask my noble friend to leave the reflective process as open as possible? I do not want to be over-circumscribed in how we reflect.
It is also worth noting that even under the current system, community care grants do not support those in the process of fleeing domestic violence. Under the current scheme, victims of domestic violence must have already fled the family home to qualify for support from the discretionary Social Fund to set up home.
I turn now to Amendment 86ZZZE which requires the Secretary of State to,
“conduct a review into the impact ”
of these reforms, and to commence,
“one year from the coming into force of this Act”,
and that there should be subsequent annual reviews which should be published. Eligibility for an award under the current scheme depends on an extensive range of factors so that identifying those who would previously have been eligible is not a simple matter. This would therefore place an almost impossible task on the Secretary of State. Comparing the recipients of support from the existing scheme with those under a wide range of new local support seems to miss the point that the driver for these reforms is better targeting. We would expect certain under-represented groups such as pensioners to be better served by a more local approach. Local authorities will want to consider ways of monitoring and reporting on their activities to provide transparency to those they serve.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, if the Government are successful in their desire to open up the scheme more to pensioners, it will mean that less money will be available for non-pensioners. What are the Government’s thoughts on that?
Lord Freud
Well, my Lords, local authorities will have to provide support for vulnerable people in their areas. They have a difficult balancing act to perform, particularly in the difficult economic circumstances we are in. Exactly how they spend the money is, in the context of the ring-fencing question, something for them.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry if I am being a little dense here. When the Minister says that local authorities will have to provide support, if there is no statutory duty to do so, what validity will this have? What power would central government have to make sure that local government provide support if they place no statutory duty to do so in the legislation?
Lord Freud
Local authorities have a number of duties under which they are bound, and those are the duties to which I am referring. Let me continue.
Lord Freud
I understand that it is fixed for two years, which takes us to the end of this spending review.
I turn now to a number of questions raised by my noble friend Lord German, who asked about the devolution aspects. The Scottish Government have consulted on the approach that they might take to deliver the new local provision. They considered local as well as Scotland-wide approaches and they now have to decide whether the local approach, in line with the English approach, or the centralised approach is best. If the Scottish Government decide to go down the centralised route, that would be an interesting test case of whether devolving down to the local level, to populations of between 12,000 in the City of London and 1.4 million in Kent, or centralised to cover 5.2 million people across Scotland, is the best way to administer this sort of discretionary support. Clearly, we have taken the view that the closer to the populations served, the better.
If the Scottish Government choose to divert funding from other sources to top up the funding they receive from the UK Government, that is their choice, but they will have to tell the Scottish people from where the money has been diverted. My noble friend asked about legislative consent motions, but those are not necessarily for Social Fund reform. On the accounting officer question, for the national payments on account provisions that will clearly be the DWP Permanent Secretary. I shall come back to him on the devolved moneys.
I hope that I have adequately explained why these amendments are necessary. I shall reflect on the points that have been made so powerfully. Meanwhile, I would urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I thank the Minister for his full response. Unless I missed it, I do not think he dealt with one amendment, but I shall come to that. I thank noble Lords for their very helpful contributions to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, gave a cautionary tale of what happened in the 1980s. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, but the Minister’s response that local authorities will set up an internal review mechanism if they think it is appropriate is not the kind of positive response that, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in his former incarnation made when similar points were being made about going from single payments to the Social Fund. Perhaps on his behalf I could say that I am disappointed with that response.
A number of noble Lords made the point about the money that would be available in the future. One thing that we have not talked about is that, at present, the crisis loans bit of it has money recycling, but money will not be recycling because there will not be any loans. Presumably, that will also mean, not just that it is not going up with inflation, but that there is no money coming back into the system. Again, that will make less money available for local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made a very powerful point when he read out the principles that the Social Fund Commissioner set out and then compared and contrasted them, in good student essay style, with what the Government produced. My noble friend Lord McKenzie made another good point when he asked where the vision was for what the Government want to achieve. I am no clearer about that vision. We have talked about the importance of local decisions. The noble Lord reiterated the point about decision-making at local level but did not address the point that it is possible that these decisions will not be made at local level. If Westminster can send its emergency decision-making up to Scotland, what guarantee do we have that decision-making on “daughter of Social Fund” will be taken locally? If that is the vision and purpose, perhaps the Government need to make it clear and set down that those decisions must be made locally—otherwise we might not have localism at all. We need more reassurance on that.
The noble Lord, Lord German, made some important points about accountability. The Minister responded but did not explain what the reporting-back mechanism will be. Accounting officers may be accountable to the Permanent Secretary at the DWP, but how will they be accountable if there are no reporting-back mechanisms and no requirement to report on how the money is being used? Again, a bottom line must be written into this.
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord said that he will reflect on some of these issues, particularly ring-fencing. He said that he would like the reflection process to be as open as possible—so no ring-fencing around that reflection process. He made a very important statement, which will be on the record. He said that the Government would have to make sure that money will go to vulnerable people and will not be diverted elsewhere. I am pleased by that because we are clearly in agreement. However, I am not clear how we can achieve it without ring-fencing. If on reflection he could come back and satisfy the Committee that this can be achieved without ring-fencing, I am sure that we would all be very happy and impressed. However, I find it very difficult to see how it can be achieved without some form of ring-fencing. I remain to be surprised and impressed.
On domestic violence, the noble Lord made the point that someone must already have left home in order to get help from the Social Fund. I understand that, but does he not accept that some women will be afraid to leave their home if they are not sure that there will be help for them when they take their children into the great unknown? At present at least they know that there is a very good chance that they will get help from the Social Fund. There is a real danger here.
Lord Freud
I will make this absolutely clear. Where one gets help from in those circumstances is the responsibility of local authorities under their homelessness obligations. The Social Fund plays a part way down the track. It was not the solution to that problem, so nothing is changing in that area. I would like noble Lords to understand that that is not an issue that arises from this change.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I thank the noble Lord for that, but that is certainly not how Women’s Aid sees it. It talks about it being a lifeline, and this lifeline is being taken away. Obviously the housing itself is the most important thing, but for a house to be a home it needs furnishings and the worry is that those furnishings will not be there for people. Perhaps in his reflections he can come back with better reassurance about that than at present.
I do not think the noble Lord has said anything about local connections. If he did, I apologise. The point was made that there should be no form of local connection test. Did the Minister say anything about that? I quoted from the other place, where the Secretary of State answered this by saying there will be a moral duty on local authorities to meet needs, but there are a lot of people who are going to be leaving institutional care. I refer not just to people fleeing domestic violence; they could be ex-prisoners or members of the Armed Forces. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might not have what is recognised as a bona fide local connection. The worry is that they could be left high and dry and we could be back into a kind of Poor Law situation where people are pushed around as they try to find somebody who will help them. Perhaps the Minister could say something about that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
In that case, I look forward to this letter. I particularly look forward to the list of statutory duties and whether it will put flesh on that moral duty to provide a safety net that the Secretary of State talked about. I am not aware that local authorities have that statutory duty, but I look forward to seeing it when the Minister’s little list appears.
I acknowledge the fact that the Minister has accepted the spirit of the amendment on ring-fencing with his very strong statement about what must not happen. I look forward to the outcome of this reflective process and I hope that it will go some way—all the way, actually—to meeting the Committee’s concerns. We have had a very strong statement from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, about his bottom line on this, which I am sure is ringing in the Minister’s ears, much more than anything I have said would ring in his ears. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have supported my amendments. There are three amendments in my name: one to ensure that any period of time-limiting contributory ESA restarts following any period a person spends in a support group, one to ensure that the assessment phase is not included in any time limit of contributory ESA, and one to ensure that time-limiting contributory ESA for those in the WRAG is not applied retrospectively.
Many groups, including Macmillan, Disability Alliance and others, oppose the introduction of a 12-month limit to the amount of time someone is able to claim contributory-based employment and support allowance for those in the work-related activity group. Macmillan, the Disability Benefits Consortium and others in the wider disability sector oppose the principle of time limiting ESA. People with a disability or illness who have paid into the system should be able to receive support for as long as they meet the eligibility criteria for ESA and are unable to work due to their condition.
Clause 51 amends the Welfare Reform Act 2007 to introduce a 12-month limit to the amount of time a person is entitled to contributory ESA for those in the WRAG. In my view, Clause 51 should be removed from the Bill. Removing this clause would ensure that disabled people would continue to receive critical financial support for as long as their disability or long-term condition limits their ability to work.
The Government’s own figures show that 94 per cent of people in the WRAG will need ESA for longer than 12 months. Those affected, including 7,000 cancer patients, will lose up to £94 a week in vital support. The Government’s proposal is based on their objective to make savings. However, they have provided no evidence to demonstrate that a 12-month time limit is reflective of the amount of time people in the WRAG need in order to be able to return to work.
The coalition agreement promised, I believe, to protect the vulnerable from spending cuts. In his first party conference speech, the Prime Minister last autumn said:
“People who are sick, who are vulnerable, the elderly—I want you to know we will always look after you. That's the sign of a civilised society, and it's what I believe”.
It cannot be right for the Government to propose such a significant policy change without providing evidence that the measure is appropriate and reasonable. Can the Government publish evidence to demonstrate that a 12-month time limit reflects the likely needs of people in the WRAG? What organisations or experts were consulted before the decision was taken to introduce a time limit for contributory ESA?
The time limit will be imposed on people who are in the WRAG. Those in the WRAG are people who, following a work capability assessment, have been found to be not fit for work due to their disability or illness. While those in the WRAG are expected to carry out some work-related activities in order to help them return to work, they are still considered to be not fit for work. If following the WCA they had been found to be fit for work they would be ineligible for ESA and placed on jobseeker’s allowance.
People in the WRAG could still be severely disabled or disabled, as is the case with people recovering from aggressive cancer treatment and other debilitating conditions. I have one example. Martin was diagnosed with primary progressive MS in February 2007. He continued to work until November 2009, albeit with difficulty. He cannot walk or stand up, has incontinence problems and suffers badly with fatigue and muscular weakness in his legs and back. Martin recently received a letter from the DWP outlining how the Government are seeking to change the rules of ESA and impose a time limit on the benefit. He said:
“The real sting in the tail is that the ‘clock’ starts ticking from the date you first ever started receiving the benefit. In my case that is since June 2009, so some 27 months, so in their eyes I am 15 months over the limit! Therefore, my payments would stop immediately once the policy comes into force next year”.
Poor old Martin. What is he going to do?
Currently, no one is placed in the WRAG indefinitely. Only those who meet the strict eligibility criteria for ESA and are unable to work will be able to continue to receive ESA. People in the WRAG can be called for an assessment at any time and will lose the benefit if they are found fit to work. The government proposals will affect only those vulnerable people who are too unwell to work. The vast majority, patients with cancers and others, want to work if they are able to and do not need an incentive. Unlike incapacity benefit, the WRAG or ESA is clearly focused on supporting people into work and receipt of the benefit is conditional on claimants taking agreed steps on activity to move towards work. That can include training, education or condition management. Claimants who take the agreed steps to return to work should not be penalised simply because they need longer than one year.
Many disabled people will simply not be fit enough to return to work after just one year. For example, people with cancer will often experience side-effects of their condition and treatment, such as severe fatigue or depression, for many months and in some cases years, even after their treatment is finished. People with cancer face a range of barriers that impact on their ability to return to work. They can experience debilitating physical and psychological effects from cancer and its treatment, including severe pain, fatigue, nausea, fever and diarrhoea. The majority, 53 per cent, are not advised by medical professionals about the impact of their cancer diagnosis on their working lives and how they can manage their condition. They are not routinely offered the range of back-to-work services they need, such as counselling, retraining and workplace advocacy. They are less successful in securing workplace adjustments to which they are legally entitled and which would help them return to work. This is likely to be linked to the fact that just 43 per cent of employers know that people with cancer have legal protection against discrimination.
Means-testing thresholds are such that thousands of people will lose all their ESA if their partner earns as little as £150 a week. The Government’s own estimates predict that 700,000 people will be affected by time-limiting by 2015-16. Of those who actually lose out, 51 per cent are in the lowest third centile for income; the average drop in income would be £52 a week, but for those in the lowest centile—the lowest third—this figure is £35 a week, a significant amount of money for people struggling to make ends meet. What estimate has the department made of the number of people who will fall into poverty as a result of time-limiting contributory ESA?
Furthermore, people who are currently covered by special rules and can reasonably be expected to die within six months are automatically placed by the support group and will not be affected by time-limiting. However, people who have a terminal diagnosis but who are expected to live for longer than six months currently can still be placed in the WRAG and will therefore be subject to time-limiting. This means someone who has a prognosis of two years and is placed in the WRAG could lose their support after one year, even though they may have only one year left to live. Many of these people will not go on to claim a pension and therefore may receive only 12 months of ESA for all their national insurance contributions. People who lose their contributory ESA due to time-limiting will not be able to claim contributory ESA if they have subsequently become terminally ill and are covered by special rules. This is despite the assurances given by the Government that people who are terminally ill will not be affected by time-limiting.
The Government have claimed that there are alternative means of support available for those who lose their ESA, such as housing benefit or tax credits. However, these are dependent on personal circumstances and many cancer patients will be ineligible. For instance, a couple without children who own their home will not be eligible for housing benefit and they will qualify for tax credits only if the working partner works more than 30 hours, which may not be possible due to caring commitments. My question, therefore, is: can the Government publish evidence to demonstrate what alternative means of support is available for people who lose ESA and give the number of people who are eligible for this support?
For cancer patients, financial worries are second only to worries about their condition and treatment. I have serious concerns about the impact that time-limiting will have on the psychological well-being of sick and disabled people who might already be experiencing depression and anxiety. This will also put pressure on mental health services funded by local authorities. What assessment have Ministers made of the impact that time-limiting will have on health and social care budgets and services, and what discussions have they had with the Department of Health?
Calls for a rethink on the time limit have not been limited to people with cancer and certain disabilities. Concerns about the impact of the proposal is widespread. I noticed that at the Liberal Democrat conference in September delegates voted unanimously to make it Lib Dem party policy to oppose an arbitrary time limit on ESA. I wonder what discussions the Minister has had with his Lib Dem colleagues about alternatives to the 12-month time limit following the Liberal Democrat vote at the party conference, about which no doubt Liberal Democrat noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong.
It is to be welcomed that the Government have recognised the need to make changes to the work capability assessment, and I commend them for at least recognising that. However, I look forward to the Government’s proposal to make more widely available the automatic entitlement to support groups which is currently available to groups such as patients receiving intravenous chemotherapy. As I said, I commend them for that. However, the necessary changes will take time to be implemented, and that will not improve the situation for cancer patients who have finished their treatment and need sufficient time to recover before they are well enough to return to work.
It is widely recognised that the WCA needs to be significantly improved before it is fit for purpose. The introduction of a 12-month time limit for ESA will compound the existing problems relating to the WCA. Instead of taking away support from sick and disabled people who are still unable to work, the Government should be working with disability organisations to design back-to-work programmes that offer personalised support appropriate to customers’ needs. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the cause and that we will have some proposals from the Government that are encouraging to them.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I am pleased to rise in support of the vital amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and in opposition to the Question that Clause 51 stand part of the Bill. I am afraid that this will be another of my rather long speeches but this is such an important issue that it is essential that we spend time on it.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, speaks from his considerable experience as a clinician, particularly with regard to cancer patients. The cause of cancer patients has also been well served by Macmillan Cancer Support, which has done so much to bring this issue to public attention and to brief noble Lords. I shall not focus on this particular group because I cannot possibly bring to the matter the same level of expertise as that of the noble Lord. Instead, I shall discuss some of the wider implications for our social security system, including the gender implications of relying on income-related ESA as an alternative to contributory ESA.
In the other place, the Minister of State told the Public Bill Committee:
“It is a long-standing principle of our contributory system and the JSA system that we allow those who have paid in to draw back out money for a period of time, but that there is a limit to the amount that they can draw out again”.
He continued:
“There has been an enormous inconsistency between JSA and ESA and its predecessors, in that somebody who manages to get themselves on to our sickness benefits is there indefinitely, whereas somebody who is on JSA is there only temporarily. That creates a perverse incentive in the system”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Committee, 3/5/11; col. 650.]
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I was just quoting from a letter I received from a 50 year-old woman with complex mental health problems. She wrote that,
“my life revolves around trying to be as well as possible. I cannot stress enough how frightening it is to feel that you are not able to work, will not be put into the support group”,
she fears,
“and will be left to use up everything you have until eligible for means-tested benefits … My medicine prescription has been increased 4-fold and been supplemented with extra medication since the time limit was announced”.
As someone who has campaigned and argued for a more inclusive social security system for 40 years, I feel that I have to use the luxury of being a Back-Bencher to oppose this clause on principle. My noble friends on the Front Bench know and understand my position. However, if time-limiting goes ahead, it must be done on the fairest possible basis. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the proposed amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which would aim to achieve that in three main ways.
First, I hope that action will be taken so as not to penalise people with fluctuating conditions who go on to the support group after the contributory ESA has expired. I know that that is a particular concern of Macmillan Cancer Support. Secondly, I could not believe at first that the rule would be applied retrospectively. The case against that has been made extremely eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester. As a result of this, the letter has gone out to existing recipients. According to one who wrote to me, far from providing the reassurance mentioned by the Minister in his opening remarks at Second Reading, that will, she warns, “strike fear” into the hearts of those affected. Could the Minister state whether there is a precedent for such a letter to go out before Parliament has agreed such a controversial change?
Thirdly, I was also dismayed when I realised that the 13-week assessment phase is included in the one-year time limit, which in effect means that full contributory ESA will last for a year minus 13 weeks. In Committee in the other place, the Minister of State agreed to look again at this issue in response to concerns expressed by a Liberal Democrat MP. What was the outcome of this further look? According to a Written Answer that I received, if the assessment phase were excluded it would reduce the savings by £100 million in 2012-13, rising to £120 million by 2014-15, but falling to only £40 million by 2016-17. Here is the nub: this clause is not about making social security fairer; it is about saving money, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie has already stated.
I have some sympathy with the Minister. He is extolling the virtues of universal credit at every opportunity, yet universal credit is in danger of being contaminated by sharing a Bill with unfair, cost-cutting measures such as this one. I hope, therefore, at the very least, that the Minister will think very hard about how to mitigate this unfairness through the kind of amendments before us.
Baroness Meacher
I rise to speak to Amendments 71M, 71N, 71P, 72A and 73. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for kindly allowing me to speak a little earlier than I had planned because I have to leave the Committee briefly at 5 pm. I apologise to the Minister and the Bill team that I have not been able to attend the briefing sessions. They are a wonderful idea and I had hoped and assumed that I would attend every one, but life has not been quite like that.
I also apologise for not having had quite the time I would have wished to prepare for this debate. Having said that, I have major concerns about the plan to limit entitlement to contributory ESA to one year. I understand from the CAB service that the DWP has estimated that, of those on contributory ESA and in the work-related activity group, 94 per cent will remain on the benefit from more than a year, so it is estimated that by 2015-16 700,000 people will be affected by limiting contributory ESA. Some will lose their entire benefit payment, currently worth £94.25 a week. I know that the Minister will correct me if that is wrong. It sounds astonishing. The rationale for this change is, I suppose, twofold. First, it is to give maximum incentive to people to return to work and, secondly, it is to save taxpayers’ money. I will refer to those two points briefly.
It is particularly difficult to support the employment incentive argument at present, when even able-bodied people and remarkably highly skilled people are finding it very difficult to find work. As we said, we think that about 94 per cent of those with disabilities will remain on this benefit beyond their contributory entitlement. I would welcome the Minister’s views on the fairness of this provision in relation to an individual with—obviously in terms of my own concerns—ongoing and fluctuating symptoms. He is very keen to work and does not need any incentive, but no doubt he will be given lots of incentives through the mechanics of the work-related activity group. But the fact is that he cannot persuade an employer to take him on. I know that the Minister is aware that there are very large numbers of people on ESA who want to work and cannot persuade an employer to take them. In other words, these people are very much the deserving unemployed. They used to be called the deserving poor. I happen to know hundreds of people personally who fall into that category. I would be grateful for the Minister's views on that.
If we consider for a moment the need to protect taxpayers’ money, I happen to believe that taxpayers would recognise that this group—people who are disabled and sick on benefits—should be entitled to their benefit, having contributed, many of them, for decades. Politically, I do not believe that this is something that one can possibly justify. It is very hard to argue that savings to taxpayers’ money should be made with this particular group—sick and disabled people—rather than at the expense of other groups in society with much broader shoulders. There are all sorts of cuts that a Government could make that would seem much fairer than this one.
Amendment 71M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would at least be a great deal fairer. In a sense you could say that it is all rather arbitrary— 365 days or some other number of days. Really, it is just not justified to cut contributory benefit at any stage for many of these people, but I suppose that that would be better than the alternative.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If the Minister has moved on from national insurance, perhaps he might just address this point of circumstances where somebody starts off in the WRAG and at the start of their claim meets the national insurance contributions, because they have been both credited in and paid sufficient in one of those years. That claim is terminated or ceases after 365 days and the person then moves into the support group. Would that be a new claim for the purposes of attachment to the national insurance contributions? If people had to look afresh at that point, they may well have been credited insufficiently, but they would not be able to pay in, because they would not have been in the labour market and would not have had earnings. They would therefore be disconnected from contributory ESA.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I shall ask the Minister another question, so that he can get his breath back. I very much welcome what he said about credits. This may reflect my ignorance of the mechanics of it, but could he explain how people get credited, if they cease to be part of the system and have no entitlement to anything?
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.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I shall come to the point about cancer, which is clearly very important. The powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on his amendment had to do with that. I shall deal with it as a whole. I am trying to make one point at a time. The point I am making is that our proposals are not out of kilter with the arrangements in many other countries. We still provide unconditional support to those in the support group and income-related benefits for the poorest.
I shall just pick up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the expectations of contributors to national insurance. National insurance contributions are used to pay for a wide range of contingencies. These include working-age benefits, the state pension and the NHS. The overwhelming proportion of expenditure—some £60 billion a year—goes on the state pension. This is in contrast to around £6 billion on ESA and incapacity benefit and around £1 billion on jobseeker’s allowance. There have been numerous changes to national insurance and the benefits system over the years to take account of changes in society and demographic factors. For example, far more women now pay national insurance than when contributory benefits were first created. As I have said, we believe that the adjustments we are making are fair and reasonable.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Will the Minister acknowledge the point that has been made by several noble Lords? Some people will not see the pension that they have paid their contributions towards. Therefore, they feel particularly aggrieved that, having paid contributions all their life, the contributory ESA is being snatched away from them just like that.
Lord Freud
My Lords, let me come back to that. It is to do with the debate about who should be in the unlimited support category for an unlimited time and who should not be in it. As I just said, we support the poorest on an income basis and those who are the most ill in the support group indefinitely.
Amendment 71N introduces another regulation-making power to the Bill. It would enable the Government, or a future Government, to exempt certain groups from the 365-day limit for those in the WRAG. This point was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. We believe that it is for the WCA to distinguish between those who are in the WRAG and those who should be placed in the support group and therefore be exempted from the time limit. As noble Lords will know, Professor Harrington has been working with Macmillan and other stakeholders to help us make sure that people are placed in the appropriate groups. Therefore, an amendment along the lines proposed by the noble Baroness is not necessary.
Amendment 71P introduces a new provision, which would mean that people whose contributory ESA exhausts after 365 days would be able to requalify for the support group if their condition deteriorates. However, this could mean benefits being reinstated 10 or more years after the claimant last worked, which is not reasonable. Moreover, we already have a series of safeguards in place that would protect people in this position. First, if the claimant leaves ESA before their contributory ESA exhausts, we have the linking rule, which enables the claimant to return to that contributory ESA within 12 weeks of leaving it.
Secondly, we already have within the ESA regulations 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 they had received a contributory ESA award in the last complete tax year before the current benefit year when they are claiming again. If it is decided that a person has limited capability for work-related activity, they will, of course, be placed in the support group. In addition, if someone qualifies for income-related ESA—as some 60 per cent of claimants will—eligibility for ESA can be reinstated automatically.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, regarding protection for those who qualify under exceptional circumstances, time-limiting will apply in the same way as in all other cases. Those in the work-related activity group will be time-limited; those in the support group will be unaffected. Consideration of exceptional circumstances applies to those who do not have limited capability for work.
For those for whom work is simply not an option, we would expect them to be in the support group and not affected by time-limiting.
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.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I thank the Minister. I am pleased to hear that. So that I am absolutely sure that I have understood, can he confirm that this would also apply to someone who does not qualify for income-related ESA? Is it simply enough that they have received contributory ESA in the past and that that is the ticket to the work programme for the future?
Lord Freud
The noble Baroness has got that absolutely right. It is both for people who are currently on income-related ESA and those who have been recipients of contributory ESA.
There will clearly be a financial cost to Amendment 71P, but I am afraid that in the short time available I have not been able to produce a robust costing.
Lord Freud
Well, my Lords, what was written in the document that my noble friend Lady Thomas referred to was posited on the notice given in it, which allowed people to prepare for this change. The notice was given in—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Can the Minister explain what this preparation is supposed to be? How do you prepare for the loss of a benefit if you are unable to take paid work? Is it preparation for your partner to give up work? I am not sure what preparation people are supposed to be making.
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 Lister of Burtersett
I thank the Minister for his answer, for I realise it is slightly off the main amendments, but I am glad that no final decision has been made. I do not know the nature of the customer insight research but on qualitative research with individuals in couples I know, having done that kind of research myself, that you need to talk to individuals separately within couples for them to be able to talk freely to a researcher. For many women, it is important to have control over a certain amount of income. As the noble Lord said, it is not simply an administrative matter. There is a matter of principle here about having paid into the system as an individual and being able to draw out from the system as an individual, rather than having that benefit paid to your partner. I just hope that the Minister will take that point away and think about it seriously before a final decision is made.
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—
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.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I apologise if I missed this because I know that the Minister has had an awful lot of ground to cover on so many different amendments, but did he explain why the assessment period is being included? The way that the policy has been put across is that if you are in the WRAG, you will get contributory ESA for only a year. But actually that is a year minus 13 weeks because you get a lower rate of benefit for that. Apart from cost, and by 2016-17 only a third minus 3 per cent of the savings would be forgone—I realise it is more up front, but it diminishes—what is the principal reason for including the assessment period?
Lord Freud
The reason is that we never intended to take it out in the first place. If someone is waiting to go into the support group it is not appropriate to have them assessed as if they are in the WRAG group.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
But this is someone who is going into the WRAG group, so they are getting only a year's contributory benefit. It will be a year minus the assessment period. What is the point in principle for cutting short what many people are already calling an arbitrary time limit on their entitlement?
Lord Freud
It is interesting that noble Lords are looking at the assessment phase as a different benefit, which it is not. It is the same benefit. It is just a phase. You go on the ESA assessment phase and then it discovers what type of support you are on—the support group or the WRAG group. That is what the assessment phase is doing.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Forgive me if I am wrong and I expose the frailness of my knowledge of social security, but I thought that claimants got a lower rate during the assessment phase. Therefore it may be called the same benefit but, in terms of the money people get, it is less. That period is not being included. That is why I am saying that it is a year minus 13 weeks. Yes, they are getting a benefit but at a lower rate.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I can support my noble friend: as I understand it, people get the basic JSA rate in the assessment period.
Lord Freud
The assessment phase would last beyond 13 weeks. It can sometimes be a long period, but claimants are always paid the full rate from week 14 of their claim.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Is the noble Lord saying that you can get backdated money for the assessment period?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My noble friend’s point is entirely valid. You are nominally, on paper, entitled to 12 months of the WRAG money, but in practice it is actually 12 months minus 13 weeks—three months—because for that period you are on a benefit that for all purposes might just as well be JSA, because it is at a lower rate and therefore should not realistically count.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
What is the principal reason for that? How does the Minister justify it?
Lord Freud
I have to admit that I am not particularly happy about the assessment phase of ESA and how it is working. It is becoming a separate benefit in practice. I would like to look at it. It is difficult to have a set of principles around something that one is somewhat unhappy about.
I shall go on with the costs. Amendment 74 would reduce savings by around £430 million in total by 2016-17. Amendment 75A would increase expenditure on ESA by approximately £500 million per year, plus up to £50 million more on other income-related benefits. I cannot accept that we should make these amendments. They would place a very high financial cost on us in the current fiscal climate. I believe our proposed changes are right in principle and fair to the taxpayer. I urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.
“Condition relating to youth
For paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Welfare Reform Act 2007 (condition relating to youth) substitute—“4 The third condition is that—
(a) the claimant has limited capability for work-related activity;(b) he was under 20 when the relevant period of limited capability for work began; and(c) he has had limited capability for work for at least 28 weeks.””
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I rise to speak relatively briefly, the Committee will be relieved to hear, to move the amendment and to support the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in opposing the Question that Clause 52 stand part of the Bill.
Currently, people who are disabled from birth or early in life may claim ESA in youth from age 16. This has, in different guises, been a feature of the social security system since 1975. When it was incorporated into ESA in the Welfare Reform Act 2007, I understand that the then Opposition did not question the inclusion of young people. Indeed, during the Lords Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, from the Front Bench, asked my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton why young people should receive a lower rate of ESA during the initial assessment phase. The implication was that the Conservatives not only supported the inclusion of young people, but thought they should be included on more generous terms. Similarly, Liberal Democrat spokespersons in both Houses, one of whom was Danny Alexander—now in the Treasury—were at that time pushing for more generous treatment of young people.
It thus seems rather strange that in the other place, the Minister commented that,
“It seems to be an oddity that a young person with a disability or a health challenge, regardless of their circumstances, should automatically be able to migrate to contributory ESA even if they have never worked”.
As the Minister acknowledged:
“This may not have been debated hotly in the past”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Committee, 3/5/2011; col. 654.]
I would suggest that this is because it has been accepted for nearly 40 years that it is fair and proper to include disabled young people in the contributory system.
The availability of contributory ESA provides those who become severely disabled in youth with a sustainable income to support their transition to independent adulthood in particularly difficult circumstances. It has long been accepted that the normal contribution conditions should not apply in order not to exclude a group whose members have not had the opportunity to build up a contribution record and may well not have that opportunity in the future through no fault of their own. For those who are hung up on the “something for something” principle, I think we can agree that it can be suspended in these circumstances. Instead, the removal of this long-standing right will undermine the goal shared by all of us of supporting disabled people to live independent lives.
In fact, the justification that we have received for ending the long-standing consensus on this matter is nothing to do with principles or even costs, unlike Clause 51. It is primarily, I understand, about administrative simplicity. It is stated that abolition of the youth concession is a simplification and will create consistency in the run-up to the introduction of universal credit. I am not sure that any policy that increases reliance on means-tested benefits, which the impact statement acknowledges will be the case, adds to the sum of simplicity in the benefits system. I do not think that tidy alignment for administrative purposes is a good enough reason to withdraw a long-standing right, not least because alignment of the rules with those for contributory ESA would be another option open to the Government.
A rather more persuasive argument on first sight is that those receiving contributory ESA are not automatically entitled to passported benefits, to which they would be entitled were they receiving income-related ESA. However, this is true of those receiving contributory ESA generally, not just young people. Therefore, it is a problem that should be resolved for all this group as part of the current review of passported benefits. Can the Minister assure us that those who would have qualified for income-related ESA under the present system will continue to receive passported benefits under the new regime? If he cannot give us this assurance now—and I understand about SSAC looking at all this—then this justification is rather weakened.
The availability of contributory ESA is of particular importance to certain groups of disabled young people. I am grateful to the Child Poverty Action Group for providing me with a number of case studies that illustrate the kind of people particularly affected.
First, there are young disabled people who have been temporarily in and out of local authority care or have moved areas, as it provides a secure, independent income. I know that there are a number of noble Lords here who have particular concerns about this group of young people generally. I do not think that the names I shall use are real but they are real examples. Sanjeet, who is in foster care, is at school and planning to go to college. He is aged 18, severely disabled and lives with foster carers. He was advised to claim ESA in youth to give him some of the extra income and independence that he needs. We should note that a severely disabled young person such as Sanjeet may have limited earnings capacity during his life and may not have parents who can provide financial support. If he has to rely on a means-tested benefit, he will never be able to build up savings beyond the £16,000 limit to help him with equipment, housing and so on for independent living.
Another example is Anna, who lives with a kinship carer. She is 16 and has been living with her grandmother since her mother died. Anna has severe problems with depression and post-traumatic stress. She is not working or in education. Her grandmother is struggling to support her out of her pension. Anna was advised to claim ESA in youth to provide her with her own independent income.
Another group is young disabled people who have built up savings to be used for an adapted car, disability equipment, a deposit on a property or future care needs. In the absence of non-means-tested support, using savings for basic daily living costs will have long-term implications for the welfare state when these people’s carers—usually elderly parents—are no longer able to provide care and accommodation.
An example of this group is Jackie, who is 19 and in full-time education. She has Down’s syndrome and gets the DLA highest-rate care component and lower-rate mobility component. When her parents stop claiming benefit for her, she can claim ESA in youth as her own independent income. Jackie’s parents think that their daughter will never work and she will not have an inheritance from them, so having a contributory benefit of her own means that she will have the option of saving from her DLA towards the cost of future disability-related needs. If her parents were able to leave her some money, she would be able to keep it to fall back on if she had contributory ESA in youth but not if she had to rely on income-related ESA with the capital limit.
Another group is young disabled people who may be vulnerable to forming unsuitable relationships or may avoid forming a suitable relationship due to fears about losing an independent income. The case study is Caitlin, who has learning difficulties and is aged 20. She gets DLA and is attending a life skills course at college. To move towards independence, she is advised to claim ESA in youth, topped up by income-related ESA. Caitlin is currently living at home with her parents. Having a contributory benefit of her own means that she could in the future choose to form a relationship without fear of losing her independent income.
Moving on to young disabled people in education, the example is Nadia, who has cystic fibrosis. She is at university and gets ESA in youth. She has tried to work but has been unsuccessful because of the effect on her health. Unlike other students, she cannot support herself through university by working during the year or in the vacations. Her ESA in youth helps to make up for this. Because it is contributory, it is not reduced because of her student loan. Had she needed to claim income-related ESA instead, she would have been entitled to little or nothing during the year because of the means test.
The CPAG is also concerned about young disabled people trying out work. It says that the removal of contributory ESA in youth would bring young disabled people into the universal credit system. The current permitted work rules for ESA provide a useful opportunity for young disabled people to try work without having an effect on their benefits, in some cases for an indefinite period. There are concerns that the transfer to the universal credit system will increase complexity and reduce the incentive to work for people whose main objective is stability and security of income. The impact assessment says that there may be a “positive employment impact” from this change, but it does not explain how and why, so perhaps the Minister could do so.
The impact assessment also says that about 15,000 people a year are likely to be affected. A fifth of these, who have no other income, will receive the same amount of benefit in income-related ESA. It is estimated that a further 70 per cent will qualify for income-related ESA, either at the same rate or at a lower rate, with an estimated average loss of £25 a week. That is not an insubstantial amount, even if it does open up eligibility to passported benefits.
Finally, one in 10, or 1,500 a year, will lose all entitlement to benefit, probably because they have a partner in full-time work. This is a small group. I hesitate to use the word vulnerable because the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, has reminded us that disabled people are not intrinsically vulnerable but made vulnerable by disabling institutions and circumstances. This clause will increase the vulnerability faced by a small group of young disabled people, particularly those in the kind of difficult circumstances I have mentioned. The savings are miniscule: an estimated £11 million net per year.
Who was consulted on the likely impact of what I am afraid I see as a mean-minded little measure? I find it difficult to believe that the Minister is comfortable justifying it. I hope that he will therefore be able to give us some indication that he is prepared to reconsider and, at the very least, that he will look favourably on this amendment, which would at least retain contributory ESA for young people in the support group. This would be consistent with the exemption of this group from the one-year time limit. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, perhaps it is the lateness of the hour but I did not think that the Minister read his brief with his customary gusto. I hope that that reflected his embarrassment at trying to justify what I called a mean-minded measure. I did not know that the previous Government had considered this, and I am very glad that they decided not to take it further, as my noble friend said, on the basis of decency. We are talking about decency here and this is an indecent clause. The amendment is purely a fall-back amendment. It would be much preferable if the Minister simply said, “We will continue with the status quo”. Therefore, the amendment would not be necessary. It is a minimalist amendment and, if it creates new problems, they could of course be considered. However, if the clause were to be withdrawn, we would not have to worry about the amendment.
I take the point about why the Minister cannot give us an assurance now about passported benefits, but I suggest that that should not therefore be used as a justification for this measure, given that we do not know who will be receiving passported benefits under universal credit. The Minister said that no other age group has this kind of concession. Of course there is no other age group because any other age group would normally be in paid work and be able to get their contributions. The whole point is that this group cannot be in paid work to get their contributions. I have to say that I am disappointed by the Minister’s response and I hope that perhaps he will reflect on what has been said and think again about this. He then came back and said that there would be a cumulative saving of £10 million. I mean, really—£10 million is absolute peanuts in public spending terms.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
A margin of error—I thank my noble friend. We are told that this is not about saving money. Therefore, it is totally inappropriate to say what the cumulative savings will be if it is not about saving money. With a heavy heart, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) In the case of joint claimants, regulations under this paragraph must specify that a particular amount of the earned income of a second earner should be disregarded.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is write into the Bill a requirement to provide an earnings disregard for second earners, the majority of whom are women. The Minister will no doubt say that this is not necessary because, as the Minister of State confirmed in the other place and the Minister here confirmed at our previous sitting, the Bill’s regulation-making powers enable this or a future Government to introduce a disregard for second earners at a future date, if they so wish. I welcome that flexibility.
Nevertheless, there are important issues of principle here that need to be debated—not all of which were covered in our initial skirmish in the previous sitting. I once again apologise for the length of my remarks but there are important points to be made. However, the Minister can relax because I will not this time quote any e-mails from Conservative supporters.
The treatment of second earners is an important question that has caused concern among anti-poverty organisations such as Save the Children and women’s organisations such as the Women’s Budget Group that thinks that this is one of the most important issues in the Bill that affect women. I am grateful to members of the group, of which I am a member, for helping me to think through some of these issues. The treatment of second earners also threatens to undermine the Government’s claims to be substantially improving work incentives. The Government have sent out rather mixed messages on incentives for second earners and we would welcome a clear statement of the position. I hope that having listened to the arguments the Minister might go a little further than what he said in our previous sitting.
It is true that second earners are now the only group whose earnings will be subject to the taper from the first pound when the disregard for the couple has been exhausted by the first earner. In a means-tested system based on the joint resources of a couple, some disincentive for second earners is inevitable, and I accept that this is a long-standing problem and is one reason why some of us would like there to be less reliance on means-testing. However, the problem is being made worse under universal credit, and the judicious use of disregards could mitigate it.
A second earner’s disregard would enhance the architecture of universal credit by addressing the increased disincentive that most—not all, I acknowledge—second earners within the universal credit system will face. This is primarily because of the higher taper rate for those whose household income disqualifies them from housing benefit and council tax benefit under the present system. On top of that, those with childcare costs who are working more than 16 hours a week or more will, as a result of the reduction in the limit from 80 per cent to 70 per cent, have to pay more towards their childcare costs than previously. The reduction is already in force, although I welcome the fact that those working fewer than 16 hours a week will benefit from the extension of help with childcare costs. Because even small changes can tilt the balance of advantage of working for second earners, the introduction of a separate disregard for them could prove to be a cost-effective innovation.
Policy briefing note 5 analyses participation tax rates—or PTRs, which measure the incentive to enter paid work—and marginal deduction rates, or MDRs, which calculate how much of a small increase in earnings is lost through a combination of benefit withdrawal and taxation, and therefore measure the incentive to increase earnings once in paid work. In both cases, the lower the rate the higher the incentive. The briefing note shows that around 900,000 or three-quarters of potential second earners whose householders qualify for means-tested support under universal credit will face a lower incentive to take employment than under the current system, with an increase in their average PTR from 35 per cent to 65 per cent.
It appears that all the nearly 1.5 million existing second earners will see an increase in their PTR from 30 per cent to 45 per cent on average. The note concedes that this may reduce some existing second earners’ incentive to work. Where this leads to a withdrawal from the labour market will presumably increase the amount paid out under universal credit. With regard to incentives to earn more when in work, approximately 300,000, or three-quarters, will face an increase in their MDR and, therefore, reduced incentives. According to a Written Answer in the other place, five out of six of these have children.
These calculations, and the worked example we have been given, take no account of childcare costs, although we are promised that these will be factored in at some future point—I trust before Report. Will the new calculations take account of the reduction from 80 per cent to 70 per cent on the debit side, as well as the extension to parents doing mini-jobs on the credit side? I suspect not, because this is one of the cuts already implemented, which can conveniently be ignored in impact statements.
Fortunately my colleague Donald Hirsch, of the Centre for Research in Social Policy, has done some calculations for the Resolution Foundation and Gingerbread which take account of the cut already made in support for childcare, as well as the policy announced recently. He has kindly allowed me to use them, even though I do not believe that they are yet in the public domain. One example illustrates well the nature of the disincentives faced by some second earners. He calls it the “hours trap”. He gives the example of a parent with a low-paid partner. She takes a job at the minimum wage of £6.08 an hour for 16 hours a week to supplement the family income. In 2010, of the £97.28 she earned, she retained £46.19 after taking account of deductions and net childcare costs of £11.20. This represented a withdrawal rate of 53 per cent. Under universal credit, the much faster withdrawal of support for second earners, together with the recent cut in childcare support, means that much more of the extra income will be lost—she will retain only £17.25 of the £97.28, i.e. an 82 per cent withdrawal rate.
Admittedly, for those working fewer than 16 hours a week, an 82 per cent withdrawal rate is an improvement on the current situation, because of the extension of help with childcare—but, as Donald Hirsch observes, it is not an improvement that is likely to get many second earners out to work.
There are three main reasons why I believe we should do what we can to maximise work incentives for second earners. The first concerns the Government’s own anti-child-poverty strategy. It is clear from the statistics that two-earner families with children are much less likely to be in poverty than single-earner families. Without a separate disregard, it will be very difficult for second earnings to fulfil their potential as a route out of poverty. The latest analysis of the official statistics by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the child poverty rate after housing costs drops from 18.9 per cent in couples with one full-time worker to only 5.1 per cent in couples where there is also a part-time earner, and 2.1 per cent where there is a second full-time earner. Moreover, if we take a dynamic perspective, as Ministers encourage us to do, it underlines the potentially protective function that second earners can play in two main ways. If the first earner—usually, still, a man—loses his job, a partner’s earnings can help the household cope while he looks for another job. When the mother is in paid work when living with a partner, she is better equipped to remain in the labour market should that relationship break down and should she then form a lone-parent family household—that family is then less likely to be in poverty. She is also better equipped to respond positively to the extension of conditionality to lone parents with young children. A second earner disregard could thus help achieve the Government’s aim of reducing so-called welfare dependency among both two-parent and lone-parent families, because ultimately it offers a potential route out of universal credit as well as out of poverty.
Secondly, there is the question of implications for shared parenting, a Government goal articulated in their consultation on modern workplaces, which I very much welcome, even if its recommendations on parental leave look to be under threat according to recent newspaper reports. The equality impact assessment acknowledges that,
“it is possible that in some families, second earners may choose to reduce or rebalance their hours or leave work”.
However, it reassures us:
“In these cases, the improved ability of the main earner to support his or her family will increase the options available for families to strike their preferred work/life balance”.
This, it suggests, could be a “dynamic result” that improves family life.
It appears that what exponents of nudge like to call the architecture of choice is being tilted towards a more traditional male-breadwinner model, which may not necessarily reflect the preferred work-life balance of both members of a couple and could weaken women’s labour market positions. According to the equality impact assessment, this traditional male-breadwinner model apparently improves family life. Indeed, at a Social Security Advisory Committee stakeholder event, held at around this time last year, I questioned the Secretary of State about this. He answered in terms that suggested he regarded a return to such a model as a good thing, although I accept that this may not be the Minister’s view.
Moreover, I question the impact assessment’s assertion, made in this context, that universal credit policy is gender-neutral. It states:
“Where men and women are in the same circumstances they are treated equally under Universal Credit”.
We should hope so but in a gender-unequal world men and women are often not in the same circumstances in either the family or the labour market, so the effects of denying second earners a disregard are not gender-neutral. Therefore, I am not convinced that the Government are fulfilling their legal duty to promote gender equality here. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what advice the department has taken on this.
Thirdly, the Government nevertheless seem quite sanguine about the position of second earners as they consider any such risk of decreased work incentives to be justified. The Government are concerned only with incentives at the level of the household, rather than the individual. Indeed, they tend to conflate the two. In an Oral Answer in the other place, the Secretary of State stated that,
“universal credit will provide much better incentives for the first earner, giving a greater choice to the household about how it wishes to spread its income”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/11; col. 2.]
This, together with the quotation that I read from the equality impact assessment is an example of what some economists called a unitary household perspective. It ignores the fact that couples are made up of two people and that the autonomy of each is important. Improving incentives for a first earner, even if on behalf of the couple, does not compensate for worsening them for a second. The choice of one partner is being enhanced at the expense of the other. In an earlier sitting, the Minister observed astutely:
“Effective choice exists only when the balance of power is equal between tenants and landlords”.—[Official Report, 20/10/11; col. GC 169.]
The same is true within those households where an imbalance of power exists, often reflecting the economic power of each partner.
A study of BME maternal poverty conducted for Oxfam found that the women interviewed were keen to take paid work as it is the best way to improve their household finances. However, in addition to the usual barriers, such as childcare, some of them faced their husbands’ attitudes. For the women who were in work, their jobs were an important source of self-esteem and independence, and they often had greater access to household resources than those without paid work. Although more traditional attitudes to gender roles might be more common in some BME households, they are not confined to them.
Consider the situation of a couple where the man is in low-paid work and receiving universal credit. He prefers his partner to be at home, looking after the house, the children and him. She would like a part-time job, perhaps to achieve a modicum of financial autonomy, to enjoy the sociality of paid work or to improve the household finances. Her bargaining position is not strong if taking paid work will reduce his universal credit and he can point out that her earnings will not bring much extra money into the household. If she could say that she and the household can keep a chunk of her earnings before they are affected by the taper, it would increase her bargaining power and make her choice to take paid work more effective, following the logic of the Minister’s own argument about choice and power imbalances.
Finally, there appears to be something of a tension between the Government’s apparent lack of concern about the reduced incentives faced by second earners and the treatment of this group in the new conditionality rules, which we have discussed. In particular, the in-work conditionality rules will require a couple to earn twice as much between them as a single person in order to escape sanctions. Yet if the first earner is unable to earn enough to do so alone, a second earner’s wages could be the most viable means of complying.
In short, whether looking at it from the point of view of the universal credit architecture, the Government’s child poverty strategy and its ambitions for shared parenting, or of financial autonomy for women and effective exercise of choice for them with regard to paid work, a second earner disregard represents a cost-effective enhancement to universal credit which, arguably, could eventually pay for itself. In a previous sitting, the Minister gave some costings for a second earner disregard. Are these gross or net costings? In other words, do they take account of the increased tax and national insurance and reduced universal credit payments that could flow from more second earners moving into paid work?
The Minister also said that this is a matter not of principle, but affordability. I hope that I have convinced him and the Committee that there are important principles at stake and that he will therefore go further than before in accepting the case that has been made in principle and assure the Committee that he would look favourably on such a disregard as and when the resources are available, taking into account the point about net and gross costs. I beg to move.
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.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have supported the amendment with some helpful additions to the argument. I do not know whether any other noble Lords spotted it, but the Minister asked the “noble Lord” to withdraw the amendment. I do not know if he was making a Freudian slip and trying to reduce the bevy of Baronesses opposite him.
I should like to make a couple of more critical points before I come to a more positive one. I can understand the Minister’s frustrations that there are other parts of government that will not allow the department to do its calculations on a dynamic basis, but I was a bit disappointed that the department’s thinking was not dynamic in relation to this matter and it was not prepared to acknowledge that there could actually be positive dynamic effects through a second-earner disregard—whether they be anti-poverty or paid work effects, and all the things that the department is in favour of. I do not know whether these are just the noble Lord’s own arguments or those that are simply in the brief that comes from the various documents we have been given, but it seemed to me that there was still the unitary-household approach and an inability to understand that while couples are couples, they are also individuals within couples. I ask the noble Lord to go away and think about that a bit more and about the importance of individual autonomy within the context of coupledom. I would have been even happier if he had been able to go one step further and commit himself on the second-earner disregard in the longer term.
We have, however, made progress today. What the Minister has said takes us beyond some of the other things which have been said. I now take it as the official departmental view that it will, in the fullness of time, consider improving incentives for second earners, either through a second disregard or through the taper, as and when resources permit. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
My Lords, the intention is that the housing credit will broadly follow the current rules that apply in housing benefit. For someone to be entitled to the housing credit element of pension credit they will need to live in Great Britain, have reached the pension credit qualifying age and be liable for housing costs that relate to the accommodation they live in. The extent to which a person is liable for the housing costs, what constitutes the accommodation, how we treat temporary absences from home and how we calculate the amount of the housing credit will also be included in regulations.
A person may be entitled to the housing credit whether or not they receive the guarantee credit or saving credit element of pension credit. This schedule also enables us to specify that rates of support may differ by area. So, for example, different housing allowance rates can apply in different parts of the country.
In introducing the new housing credit we will, however, look for opportunities to streamline the benefit and align rules wherever possible. This includes extending pension credit provisions to the housing credit wherever possible. One such area includes assessed income periods. These are specified periods during which a customer is not required to report any changes in their requirement provision—namely, their occupational pensions and capital.
The schedule provides us with the flexibility to determine in what circumstances retirement provision will not be fixed in relation to the housing credit regulations, which will be subject to the appropriate level of scrutiny. The schedule also contains the consequential amendments to other legislation needed as a result of the abolition of housing benefit and the introduction of the housing credit.
This probing amendment would remove flexibility and would work to the detriment of those who, through no fault of their own, require assistance with their housing costs while at the same time making the system vulnerable to manipulation.
The noble Lord asked a large number of detailed questions on this matter. I can deal with some of them but I will answer most by way of a letter. On direct payments to landlords, it is not our intention that pensioners would be part of that regime, which is for working-age people. We are not planning to change the SMI arrangements for pensioners. Uprating will be done by CPI, as it will be with working age. We need capital limits in the system overall, clearly, and we need to determine what the right rates should be. They should be at a level where we do not see a substantial change in practice. As the noble Lord pointed out, this is now done by a tariff income process and, as we move towards an overall position in the housing credit, we need to get the equivalence.
I think that deals with the bulk of the questions. There are one or two more, which I will answer by letter, but, given the assurances about how we intend to use these powers, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, will the Minister make sure that that letter includes the answer to a question which was asked a few sessions ago but to which the Committee never received an answer? It was not specifically about pensioners but was a more general question about whether mortgage interest will be paid as part of the universal credit or to the lender.
Lord Freud
We are looking very closely at the support for mortgage interest. I can let the Committee know that we are planning to consult on how we do that. Rather than include that point in the letter, I will make sure that noble Lords are informed when that consultation paper comes out.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of Amendment 113. I do not know whether this was another amendment cooked up in the noble Lord’s bath—I forgive him for “going forward”—but I like the idea of an office for social protection. The notion of social protection is one that we do not use enough in this country; it is very much a continental, European concept, and a very important one. I am not arguing for a new quango either but the spirit of noble Lord’s amendment is very important. I have lived through more fundamental reforms of social security than I care to remember, and not one of them has addressed the points made in this amendment about the adequacy and the sustainability of the different parts of the system. If nothing else, there should be a requirement on the Government that when they bring forward reforms of social security they should consider these fundamental questions.
We have touched on these points in Committee already. One noble Lord asked questions about the principles underlying social security. I intend to come back to them under an amendment to Clause 51, when I will to talk about a contributory principle. I am slightly reluctant to think about this as being part of the responsibility of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission because social security is not just about poverty. The whole point about social protection is that it broadens it out beyond poverty—a group “over there”. One possibility to think about is whether to broaden the remit of the Social Security Advisory Committee so that periodically it reports on the adequacy and sustainability of the different parts of the system.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I declare an interest in regulatory and professional services, having chaired the Legal Services Consumer Panel, sat on the Board for Actuarial Standards, overseen insolvency practices and sat on the Bar Standards Board, the Pension Regulator and the Property Standards Board. So I have a long involvement with non-economic regulators who oversee the professional delivery of services. These kinds of regulators have a large role to play as they are very much about what we called raising standards—although the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, when he talked about “driving up” standards may be even better. This goes beyond public services. That may be what is in front of us now but consumers are demanding this from a whole range of service providers. It has shaken some of the barristers who do not really like the fact that they have to conform to new consumer-set standards. But that is what the users of all services now want and that is what this kind of regulator provides.
I am less afraid of the idea of quangos—although I am sure that that is not a general view—but what these kinds of regulators do is to adopt codes of conduct; set good practice guidelines and minimum service standards; and then ensure that quality assurance by way of setting minimum training or entry qualifications, CPD requirements and the monitoring of services. That monitoring is not just about compliance, important though that is, but also provides a feedback loop so that lessons are learned, either for standards and the way they are defined and set, or for the way staff are trained, or, as was discussed this morning, to allow systems to continue to be developed in the light of the way the service is delivered.
This kind of standard-setting is particularly important in view of the ending of legal aid to assist complainants and users because the only other monitoring will be via this kind of organisation. This kind of regulator—for want of a better word—can identify whether particular groups are underrepresented in any category and whether all groups are being properly serviced and properly served. As the Minister has stated on a number of occasions, some decisions must be taken on a case-by-case basis—in-work conditionality is a particular example. This will involve tremendous discretion in the hands of thousands of decision-makers across the country, so clear guidance, good and consistent training and ongoing monitoring of decisions by some kind of regulator with authority will be crucial to ensure that the service is fit for purpose.
Unfortunately, the Government refused to accept our earlier amendment that the Jobcentre Plus side of the claimant commitment should be laid down. It is therefore even more important that this standard-setting will be open, transparent, raise standards and, most importantly, create confidence in the new system. This proposal has some merit. I am not sure whether or not the formula will achieve it, but we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I share the noble Lord’s concern that the benefits system must be fair, efficient and affordable, which is indeed why this Bill is before the Committee today—to ensure that benefits are well targeted and fair and the system is simple to understand and simple to administer.
The first of these amendments would introduce a claimant regulatory body for universal credit. We are committed to involving claimants throughout the development of universal credit. This involvement will ensure that issues are known, understood and mitigated as universal credit is being built. As part of this, we are already conducting a programme of research among a broad range of future claimants and are testing the design of the claimant commitment with claimants, front-line staff and stakeholders. This process will continue over the coming months to ensure that claimants have real and sustained input into the creation of the new benefit.
The other amendment in this group would create a wider office for social protection, looking at the benefits system as a whole. There are already a number of other bodies with oversight of the benefits system and any changes made, not least the Social Security Advisory Committee. As well as scrutinising regulations, the committee comments on a range of operational matters, especially in relation to claimants’ interests. While I am grateful for the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, I am not convinced that another body is needed. The coalition Government are committed to reducing the number and cost of quangos, and increasing accountability by transferring the responsibility for key decisions on public policy back to Ministers. Ministers are held to account in Parliament, including by powerful committees such as the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Select Committee, not to say the Chamber of the House itself.
I do not intend to reverse this direction of travel, and I would urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, before the Minister sits down I would like to make clear that I was not arguing for a separate body. I was arguing that Social Security Advisory Committee could perhaps be asked specifically to consider, on a regular basis, the issues contained in the noble Lord’s amendment—possibly in its annual report—namely the adequacy of the different elements of the system, the sustainability and the way the different elements of the system fit together. It would be very helpful to have that kind of annual overview. Perhaps the Minister can take that away and consider it.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I know it is not our House, but I point out that the Work and Pensions Select Committee has that remit—a very direct remit to look at the system overall. If you are looking at how individual claimants are treated, we have a process of tribunal and independent review. There are a whole number of different processes.