Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

51EA: Clause 22, page 10, line 32, at end insert—
“(4) Prescribed circumstances should include a claimant who is—
(a) a responsible carer for a youngest child aged 5 and 6, and(b) is undertaking further education and training up to and including level 3 until—(i) their youngest child reaches the age of 7, or(ii) their further education or training course ends.”

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 71JA. These amendments have been tabled with the assistance of Gingerbread. The aim is to protect the opportunity for responsible carers to access further education and training up to and including level 3 when their children start school without facing the risk of sanctions. This means that responsible carers would be deemed to be fulfilling work search and availability requirements while studying until their youngest child reached the age of seven or the course ended. These amendments strike me as eminently reasonable, and indeed should be seen as totally consistent with the Government’s own anti-child poverty and social mobility strategy which emphasises the importance of education and training and the contribution they can make to ensuring that paid work represents a genuine path out of poverty.

The level to which a person is educated has a significant influence on how much they can earn and their ability to move up the earnings ladder. As Gingerbread points out, it is well established that holding a level 3 qualification can provide substantial economic value, particularly in relation to marginal wage returns. For example, only 25 per cent of people aged 25 to 29 holding a level 3 qualification are earning less than £7 per hour compared with 55 per cent of those with a level 1 qualification, and 37 per cent of those at level 2. Level 3 qualifications include access courses to HE as well as vocational courses. It makes long-term sense to enable lone parents in particular to improve their educational qualifications so as to maximise their labour market opportunities.

Until recently, lone parents on income support could complete a full-time further education course up to and including level 3 in preparation for entering the labour market or higher education. This meant that lone parents on income support had a two-year window of opportunity to access training with a fee remission when their children started school and before moving on to jobseeker’s allowance when their youngest child turned seven. As of September 2011, lone parents claiming income support are no longer eligible for fee remissions when accessing further education. Lone parents on income support will now have to self-fund as well as pay for any necessary childcare if they want to improve their chances of employment by undertaking training. Instead, fee remissions are available for individuals in receipt of JSA, but claimants will be required to continue actively seeking work while training, and if offered a job, be prepared to drop out of a training course or face a payment sanction. JSA work search and work availability requirements severely limit lone parents’ ability to train and gain skills that could help them find higher paid employment that is sustainable, and to make the most of opportunities to progress once working.

This modest amendment raises larger questions about some inconsistencies in government policy. On the one hand, as I have said, education and training are key elements in their child poverty and social mobility strategies. On the other hand, they are pursuing what in the jargon is called a “work first” rather than a “human capital development” approach to moving people from benefits into paid work. One of the risks of such an approach, identified by, for example, Dr Sharon Wright of the University of Stirling in a recent article, is that it can mean that large numbers of benefit recipients end up cycling or churning between unemployment and temporary low-paid jobs without advancement. Without the opportunity to train, lone parents face just such a future of low paid, insecure employment, cycling between in-work poverty and out-of-work benefits with little prospect of their financial or social circumstances improving. In our last session, we heard how they might then face in-work conditionality if they do not manage to improve their position to get themselves above the threshold which applies to them.

This amendment would go a small way to addressing the issue by ensuring that responsible parents, in particular lone parents, are better placed to advance in the jobs market and thereby lift themselves and their families out of poverty. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I support Amendment 51EA moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I was impressed when the Minister mentioned in an earlier debate that providers of support to claimants will be rewarded financially if their clients find a job and remain in it for two years. That claimants should achieve long-term employment is clearly the objective of the Minister and the Government. I have no doubt that it is a fine objective. Certainly it is supported by me and, I am sure, by other noble Lords around the table. However, this clause seems to run absolutely in the opposite direction. It encourages claimants with young children to rush into a low-paid and probably insecure job rather than taking the opportunity to train and prepare themselves for long-term work.

Will the Minister explain the rationale behind the lack of protection for carers responsible for very young children aged five or six while they complete a training course up to level 3? Does he see the apparent inconsistency between the aim of placing people in long-term employment, which we all support, and incentivising them to take low-paid work rather than educate and train themselves in order to better their future? I will be interested to hear what he says about that.

My second point is about the unreliability as an employee of a primary carer of children who are in the first two years of school. Having had four children, I have strong recollections of the childhood illnesses they pick up in the early years: for example, a cold, an infection or German measles. If you have four children, it is not one lot of German measles but four, one after the other. Employment? Forget it. This is a serious point. The strain of working when your young children are starting school and picking up all those bugs has to be experienced to be fully understood. In education and training, one can catch up when life settles down and the kids go back to school. I know because I did it. I did an economics degree when I had three children under seven.

We know that the Minister is under enormous pressure to deliver cuts through Parliament, but perhaps this issue is worth fighting for in terms of the Government's own admirable priorities of encouraging claimants to undertake training in order to improve their long-term employment prospects for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are getting into philosophy here. I accept the point and have always been uncomfortable with the “work first” philosophy. It worked in the short term, as the noble Baroness has said, but the evidence is that, in relative terms, we have a poor workforce because we have too many people with no skills and too few with intermediate skills by comparison with our main competitors. We have to think about the balance between “work first”—which does get people a job—and the risk that training is sometimes used as an excuse to do nothing. There is a difficult balance here. We have not got it right. We had a welfare-to-work system that got it completely wrong. We are trying to pull it together. I do not think that this is going to be a rapid process but everyone in this room knows that it is very important to get this right. It will take some years to get it right but we are beginning to travel in the right direction.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment and who have helped to push the Minister slightly further than he had intended to go when originally reading from his brief. I am pleased to know the Minister is not a “work first” devotee. I was going to say, “You could have fooled me”, but his response to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has confirmed that is the case and I welcome the spirit in which the Minister has responded. Even I am beginning to pick up the ministerial nuances to understand that was a helpful response.

My noble friend Lady Hollis helpfully reminded the Committee of some of the exemptions that exist and it is helpful to have on record that those exemptions will continue. The noble Lord said that it is always possible to do training in the evening. If you are a lone mother, trying to bring up children, trying to do your job and support them in their education, and to keep them off the streets, is it realistic to think that you are also going to do training as well? It is asking too much of lone mothers when we already ask too much of them. We expect them to be responsible, in paid work, in education, keeping their kids off the street and so forth. I hope the noble Lord will come back at Report with some response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggested in terms of opening up the potential for the future in the flexibility of this clause.

The noble Baroness also raised a question about the context of government expenditure cuts. It is not clear that this is going to cost very much to extend beyond the exemptions that already exist for this group. It would be helpful to know what the cost would be of doing it now rather than at some future date. Perhaps the noble Lord could let the Committee know. I suspect it would not be very much at all. In the spirit of the human capital approach, I am not sure what the stumbling block is to doing it sooner rather than later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 51EA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, it is important that the coalface does not do the sanctioning. It is important that there are really well trained people doing this. This is a complicated area that needs to be got right. These are some of the most highly skilled people in Jobcentre Plus aiming to do that with all these supports.

In response to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on Amendment 51FB, I want to make it absolutely clear that there are no benchmarks and no targets for sanctions referrals. Jobcentre Plus gathers a range of management information to support its work, as you would expect us to do. On the issue of numbers, over the last year, the number of sanctions and disentitlements rose by around 270,000 from approximately 490,000 in 2009-10 to around 760,000 in 2010-11. There are a complex range of reasons for this increase, including the introduction of new requirements, a slight increase in the average claim duration and a refreshed approach to monitoring compliance with requirements designed to maximise claimants’ chances of finding work. A particular reason is due to the 2010 rule change that led to a sanction rather than disentitlement for failing to attend an employment interview. The number of sanction referrals to decision-makers is a key piece of management information. It helps local mangers assess how consistently JSA conditionality and sanctions are being administered in their area. Managers may compare rates of referrals across different areas when analysing the data, but there is no benchmark and certainly no right or wrong level of referrals. The collection of management information also allows the department to monitor and evaluate the impact of sanctions. I urge the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to withdraw the amendments.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, my attention may have strayed, but did the Minister answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, about the reports over the weekend that fines deducted from benefits are going up to £25, which seems to be a draconian response in the context of the riots in which we read about it? Is this something that can be done by regulation, or will it be an amendment to this piece of legislation? It is an issue about which some of us are very concerned.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the press reports were about the level of deductions to pay fines and whether the current limit was right for people who had committed a crime and been fined. Although this is breaking news, this is not an area I am confident we will consider in this particular Bill because it is about fines. It is not a matter today that we will need to consider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock]

This is the last time that I shall intervene; I shall stop. I want to come back to a point raised initially by the right reverend Prelate: one of the problems, as I know the Minister understands, is that in areas of mental health a lot of problems are not diagnosed and are not necessarily known to be such problems. They can present as behavioural problems but in fact these have underlying causes that may, complete rationally, be wholly unknown to decision-makers and the person themselves may not be willing to disclose them. I am not expecting decision-makers to be able to know that in advance; I am more interested in how the system can deal with that if at some point this information surfaces. It may be that I have simply misunderstood the explanation that the Minister has given. I would be grateful if he could clarify it for me.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Is my noble friend’s point not that it is at the point where someone has said they will engage with the regime that you are more likely to achieve that outcome if you then withdraw the sanction? You have achieved your end but there is still a sanction. I do not think that the Minister has addressed that point.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

I am sorry for the Minister being put under, I think, unreasonable sanctions or pressure himself, but I suggest that it might be unwise to get into a situation either where we were softies and were not prepared to take these things seriously or where, in circumstances where someone had been sanctioned, if they were to get into the frame of mind of saying, “There is nothing to be lost; I shall carry on because it’s going to happen to me anyway”. There ought to be at least an opportunity for at least a negotiation on a restart of compliance.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 52A not moved.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I will just stay standing until my noble friend Lady Howe is here to move her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps we can ask the Deputy Chairman of Committees to inform the usual channels that it is not possible for us to get down to vote and back up again given the queues of people voting, as well as make oneself comfortable, in 10 minutes. I wonder whether we could ask, through the usual channels, whether 15 minutes might be more acceptable.

Amendment 52B

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I am delighted to have actually made it. With regard to the previous amendment and the proposal for pilots, it may well be that pilots are relevant here, too.

This amendment would introduce a specific earnings disregard within the universal credit to ensure that carers juggling work and care are not left worse off as a result of the new system of disregards. Approximately 250,000 carers currently in receipt of the carer premium to means-tested benefits such as income support, will be moved to universal credit. Under that, the earnings taper will be more generous than the withdrawal rate of existing benefits. Many claimants who are in work, including many carers able to juggle work and care, will be able to keep more of their benefits as they earn. However, this will depend on which earnings disregard they have access to and their level of earning.

Under existing plans, it appears that certain groups of carers would see the size of their earnings disregard in universal credit reduced, compared to their existing income support disregard. Currently, individuals in receipt of income support are eligible for a £20 a week earnings disregard, that is £1,040 a year, which allows them to earn £20 a week before their benefits start to be withdrawn. The Government have announced the following disregard groups for universal credit claimants, with approximate disregard levels: for a single person without children it is £700, about £13.50 a week; for a couple it is £1,920; for a lone parent £2,260 plus £520 for the first child and £260 for the second and third children; and for single disabled people or a couple where at least one person is disabled it is £2,080.

The Government have said that, taken together with the taper, this would leave couples, singles, lone parents and disabled people significantly better off in low-paying jobs. That is good as far as it goes. However, it does not apply to single carers, who currently have access to £20 income support through receipt of the carer premium, but who would be able to access only a basic single person disregard of about £13.50 a week under universal credit. Although £13.50 would be an improvement for unemployed single people being moved onto universal credit from jobseeker’s allowance, where they currently receive only £5 a week disregard, it would see the earnings disregard for single carers on income support drop from £20 a week, that is £1,040 a year, to £13.50 a week, or £700 a year.

Those carers who would see their disregard reduced would be those unable to access the higher disregards for couples, lone parents and those with children or covered by a disability disregard. Carers losing out would be those living on their own, who do not have children and who are caring for a disabled person who does not fall within their universal credit household. This latter group includes carers looking after a disabled or elderly friend or relative living elsewhere and carers looking after an adult disabled child, a parent or other elderly relative living with them but who is not considered to be within the same household for the purpose of universal credit.

The Government have estimated that around 20 per cent of households that receive means-tested benefits and include a carer would not have access to any of the higher disregards for couples, lone parents or households that include a disabled person. With approximately 250,000 carers on means-tested benefits, this would leave approximately 50,000 carers able to access only the lowest earnings disregard if they were able to juggle work and care.

I end with a case study to put this in perspective. Sheila is on income support and cares for her mother, who is 58, has early-onset dementia and receives disability living allowance. Sheila is single and has reduced her working hours as a librarian to just two hours a week. She currently earns £20 a week and, because of the existing £20 disregard, her benefits are unaffected. Under universal credit she would be eligible only for a single person's earnings disregard of £700 a year—around £13.50 a week. Sheila's earnings above £13.50 would be subject to the universal credit taper, which would mean that she would be £15.75 better off from her £20 earnings. She would be £4.25 a week—£221 a year—worse off than under the current system even though she would be earning the same amount.

I will not go on to outline the full impact because I have given an impression of what it would be. I look forward to hearing how this unfairness can be tackled. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. I am glad that she was able to get to her place in time. I welcome the fact that a single person's disregard was included in the latest round of announcements about universal credit. I also welcome the more generous disregards being made available for most recipients.

I have banged on for many years about the importance of disregards. For me, this is one of the plus signs of universal credit. However, the interaction with housing costs and the complexities that will be created have qualified my enthusiasm for the new disregard regime. It sullies the supposed simplicity of universal credit. I came across some of my noble friends one evening last week wandering around in a state of utter confusion, trying to understand various calculations that we had been given on disregards. I should add that these noble friends are extremely expert.

Just how complex the calculations are was brought home to me by Sue Royston of Citizens Advice, who kindly e-mailed me to point out the implications for carers. I will read out what she said because if I try to paraphrase it I could get in a hopeless mess and get it all wrong. She wrote:

“The proposed levels of disregards have added a whole new area of complexity ... The new disregards have given single adults a disregard floor of £13.50. I have assumed in the calculations that CTB will pay council tax in full for those on JSA or ESA levels and that any excess earnings will be clawed back at a 65% taper as I would be very surprised if any Local Authorities were more generous than this. For the first £13.50 a single claimant will not be subject to a taper of UC but will be subject to a CTB taper so will gain 35% of their earnings. However, every £10 they earn beyond that will be subject to a taper of 35 per cent from universal credit and will then be subject to a further taper in council tax benefit, leaving them with a gain of £1.22 for every £10 they earn … a single carer who at the moment can simply earn £20 and keep all £20 as well as their benefits in full will now have to earn over £55 even to get a £10 gain if they pay council tax at £18. When someone is no longer subject to the combined taper will depend on the amount of council tax they are responsible for paying”.

She goes on to observe that:

“People will have to go through complex calculations to work out given extra costs of working, what level of hours they can afford to work and how much they will gain at different levels of income”.

I hope that I have not lost noble Lords in that, but if I have, it makes the point that this is extremely complicated. If we cannot understand it, how do we expect recipients and carers who are trying to juggle work and care to do so?

Juggling work and care is no easy matter. I have not had to do it myself, but anyone who has done so or with relatives who have knows that it is difficult and stressful. According to Ipsos MORI research commissioned by Carers UK and the DWP for Carers Rights Day 2009, about one in six carers had given up work or reduced their working hours in order to care. A major barrier is the availability of suitable replacement care. In a separate survey and research by Carers UK and the University of Leeds, over 40 per cent of carers who gave up work did so due to a lack of sufficiently reliable or flexible services. A similar percentage, 41 per cent of those surveyed, said that they would rather be in paid work, but that the services available do not make a job possible. I am not saying that a disregard will magically create these services, but it would certainly help to pay for the things needed to support the combining of paid work and care. We know the arguments around childcare, but we seem to forget them when we talk about other forms of care.

There is evidence about the stress and ill-health suffered by carers who do this juggling act, and of course we are talking about more women than men here. That is because while,

“women represent 58% of all carers, they make up 73% of carers on benefits. They are substantially less likely to be in work. One third of heavy-end male carers are in full-time work, but only 13% of heavy-end female carers are working full time”.

I, too, will end with a case study which I have been given by Carers UK, and I have a couple of questions.

“Cheryl is 45 and lives in Stoke on Trent—she has been her elderly father’s full time carer since her mother died in 2008. Spinal problems, a heart condition and arthritis mean her father needs full time care so he has come to live with Cheryl, her husband and their 5 year old son. Alongside providing childcare and supporting her father with everything including eating and personal care, Cheryl works for an hour on three evenings each week as an NHS cleaner, once her husband is home from work and can support her Dad and son. The only social care support she gets is six hours of respite care each Monday—time she uses to do food shopping and spend some time with her son who she hardly sees in the evenings. She wants to work more”—

clearly she has the same philosophy as the Government in that she believes in paid work—

“but has no one else to look after her Dad, can’t afford replacement childcare and would have to find a different or second job as her current employer is not able to give her more hours. Any work has to fit around her son’s school hours, school holidays, her husband’s working hours and his ability to provide childcare and her father frequent doctors, physio and hospital appointments during the day”.

That gives a flavour of how difficult life can be for carers. As I have said, a more generous disregard is not a magic wand, but it could ease that life and it is a way for the Government to say, “We recognise that the position of carers is different from that of other single adults”. It has been recognised in the past that there is a case for a higher disregard for carers.

Can the Minister explain why carers appear to be the only group whose earnings disregard will be reduced as they move on to universal credit? Not surprisingly, there is a feeling that that is discriminating against carers. Secondly, what assessment has been made of the impact on carers and particularly on their work incentives?

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I support the amendment and come back to its detail; my noble friend indicated that it was a probing amendment. This is an opportunity to raise significant issues about in-work conditionality. Where a welfare system has to balance rights and responsibilities, under universal credit those in work will be embraced by an in-work conditionality of some complexity which neither they nor their employers will previously have experienced. From the emerging details of in-work conditionality it is clear that it will give the Government significant discretion over a sizeable section of the workforce, and powers to follow through with sanctions that will affect people's lives very significantly.

This is a novel discretion for three reasons. It will impact on a much greater volume of people; it will impact on existing in-work relationships; and it will require Jobcentre Plus people or any outside providers to engage with large numbers of companies with which they have previously had no engagement.

Setting and enforcing what is a reasonable condition, particularly in terms of increasing hours or requiring people to seek and change their jobs, must be sensitive to a range of factors: for example, local and regional labour markets, and different sectors and their employment practices. If an employer puts their employees on short-term working rather than making them redundant, is that a good thing or will it attract conditionality requirements? How will it be handled? What will happen when people have atypical or variable hours work contracts? Over what period and in what manner will earnings be averaged to assess compliance with income thresholds on conditionality?

In requiring people to work more hours or seek a higher-paid job, it is important to ensure that childcare and conditionality interact fairly. Parental need for confidence in the care of their children needs to be respected. My noble friend Lady Hollis moved in on some detailed concerns in this area. Any casual observation of female labour market statistics will show two peaks of part-time working by women. They coincide with key caring periods. Part-time working in the UK is part of the systemic solution to childcare, particularly for single parents. One cannot look at conditionality on the one hand without looking at the nature and characteristics of childcare in the nation as a whole. How will the sanctions regime be applied? How will it impact on the children of those who are subject to sanctions? How long will people and families be given to adjust to any new requirements and conditions, particularly if they come on top of a period of compulsory redundancy?

What we see from the details coming forward is the micromanagement of the work patterns of potentially millions of people, and the application of wide discretion that will need a considerable set of guidance notes and competences to apply the conditionality. The staff making these in-work conditionality assessments will have no previous experience of doing this. It is a novel area in its scale and complexity. No doubt in answer to my questions the Minister will say what is intended or that the matter is work in progress. It is pretty clear that an awful lot of work is still in progress. I say that not to appear negative but to say that the Bill has the effect of giving the Government considerable discretionary power over people in work.

Parliament needs to be satisfied on three issues: that the capacity and capability to implement the proposed in-work conditionality is there; that there is confidence that the discretion will be applied consistently, fairly and proportionately; and that there is a high level of confidence that there will be no inequalities of treatment or impact in the outcomes of applying that discretion. Because conditionality is now going to be applied to people who believe that they are already making a contribution, they will have to experience a different perception of the contribution they should make in terms of being in work.

I want to pose two questions for the Minister. First, do the Government intend to pilot in-work conditionality before they introduce it nationally? Secondly, would any introduction consequent on those pilots be both gradual and incremental so that experience, knowledge and skill can be built up by those assessing claimants? Thirdly, what will be the reporting to Parliament about the level of confidence that this complex system of in-work conditionality can be applied fairly and proportionately?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I would like briefly to follow up on that because this takes us into largely uncharted waters, so we have to be sure of what it is that we are doing. I was struck by the research report, Perceptions of Welfare Reform and Universal Credit, which states that:

“Many part-time workers were surprised that the Universal Credit proposition addresses them as they tended to perceive that they were already doing their bit and felt a strong sense of entitlement to tax credits”.

I think that they found the idea that conditionality was going to apply to them quite disturbing. There is a real danger here. The Government talk a lot about not wanting an overly oppressive state, but I fear that many workers will experience this as just that.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, my noble friend Lord McKenzie mentioned the equality impact assessment. I understand why the Government are using earnings rather than hours as the threshold—because they want to get away from the in-work/out-of-work distinction—but in doing that, as my noble friend said, someone who can earn more will find it much easier to meet the threshold. We know from all the evidence that men are more likely to be able to do this than women, non-disabled people are more likely to do it than disabled people, and white people are more likely to do it than minority-ethnic people.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

People without children.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Yes. Is there not an issue here in terms of the equality implications? How does the department see those implications?

Secondly, I know that the Minister likes evidence-based policy-making and of course will be very aware of the research report UK Employment Retention and Advancement Demonstration, which has found that gains are made by providing support for people to advance in work through this programme. It states that,

“the evaluation found that for specific populations, gains can be achieved, even for some of the most disadvantaged job seekers, and that those gains can be sustained over a five-year period. These results suggest that the core elements of ERA offer something to build on in future post-employment interventions”.

In what way is the department building on this? To me, it seems that it is going down the in-work conditionality route instead of developing the support provided in this programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, without wishing to go against normal procedure, it might be valuable if I came in straightaway to say where I stand on this, because it might enable us to move the debate on if noble Lords know what I am saying before rather than afterwards.

I recognise the valuable job that families and friends, kinship carers, do and I recognise the difficult circumstances that they face. I had a recent meeting with kinship care organisations to understand their priorities. I am absolutely convinced that this is a key area and am currently looking closely at ensuring that this group is treated appropriately under the universal credit. There is ongoing work, in which I am deeply involved, on how they should be treated for conditionality purposes; and, indeed, there are other areas where we can talk to other departments. What the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said resonates with me.

Formally, there are safeguards and flexibilities for this group, and, as a minimum, family-and-friends carers are covered by the same safeguards as any other parent under universal credit; with the normal limitations against imposing full-time search and availability requirements on the carers of younger children and so on. Where the work-related requirements apply, the work-related advisers have broad discretion. However, there are circumstances where it is not reasonable to expect a person to meet even a limited work search or availability requirement. Among other things, advisers will have the scope to temporarily lift the requirements for any period when a child’s needs are such that the claimant must be able to provide full-time care. The point where the older child first moves into a household can often be a very difficult period of adjustment. There is a problem, which is not directly in the hands of DWP, with holding on to a job. That is a matter of concern, especially where you have advice, often from social workers, that the job must go. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, gave one such example. The least that will happen is that we will look at easements on a case-by-case basis, given the difficulty of having blanket rules. However, we recognise that clarity of treatment and a clear legislative exemption could be of value. As I said, I am actively considering this area, and if further legislation is required, we already have scope to make regulations, as necessary.

Given the ongoing thought that we are giving to this area, I will ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I have jumped in early so that any other noble Lords who want to discuss this area know where I am coming from, rather than trying to convince me where I should be coming from. I suspect that I will just say, “Yes, yes, yes”, to a lot of what people are going to say, so other things would be useful.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I very much welcome the positive response of the Minister and the fact that he has clearly been talking with kinship carers and thinking about how to address the issues raised by the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Drake.

I just press him on his final point about doing this on a case-by-case basis. One of the recurrent themes of our discussions is the extension of discretion. I understand the value of discretion, but as the noble Lord himself has acknowledged, it does not provide the clarity of treatment that something in legislation would do. I get the sense that there may be something in future in regulations. I cannot speak on behalf of my noble friend but it would be valuable if there could be a firm commitment before the Bill leaves this House, even if it is not in the Bill, that it will be in regulation. I will not say all that I was going to say because the noble Lord clearly does not need convincing of the importance of this issue. It is one that I have become aware of only fairly recently, partly at the all-Peers meeting where a member of a kinship carers’ association spoke to us. I was very struck by their case in the way that the Minister has clearly been.

I also want to mention, if only to get it on the record, that I was at a conference at the Law Society at the weekend on economic and social human rights. A presentation was made there by the Poverty Truth Commission from Scotland. Some of its members are people with experience of poverty, some of whom are kinship carers. I was struck that it said one of the key issues was kinship care. I will not quote as much as I was going to, but the commission states:

“Kinship carers have been supporting each other and struggling for recognition and justice for many years”.

Recognition is very important for people living in poverty. This is something I have become aware of through my work on the Commission on Poverty, Participation and Power, which also involved people with experience of poverty. The kind of amendment that my noble friend proposes would have both symbolic and practical significance. It would provide that recognition that simply saying, “We will look at it on a case-by-case basis”, would not do. Having said that, for once I can hear the ministerial nuances and I know when to say thank you very much.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I have two brief points to make. I was delighted to hear the warmth of the Minister’s response. If he is thinking about this area, perhaps I could punt two thoughts at him. First, I can see that he will be concerned that there may be a range of other circumstances that may appear similar on the face of it, where there is a disruption to the circumstance of an older child, perhaps moving house, and therefore there might be some wish to have that taken into account; for example, a family break-up where the children are suddenly moving to a different house and although the children are of school age, the disruption to the household might make the parent feel that they should stay at home; or the formation of a step-family where there is some significant upheaval in the household which might put a parent who might normally want to go out to work in that situation. If the Minister is thinking, perhaps he can think about those issues as well.

The reason he might want to think that this is a different case is that the grandparents or the other kinship carers have a choice: they do not have to take these children on.

The danger must be that they have to do so unless they have absolute assurances. That is the distinction, which is why I think there is a particularly compelling case for a legislative requirement.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

I want to comment briefly on this. I say “briefly” because I have the next amendment, there is more I want to say and I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time today. I got a bit of billing from my noble friend Lady Hayter as someone who might know something about this, which daunts me somewhat as I had intended to make a contribution more in keeping with my noble friend Lord Foulkes than my noble friend Lady Hollis in terms of knowing something about it or being something of an expert. My noble friend Lord Foulkes is, of course, the master of the probing question, rather than the probing answer.

My noble friend Lady Hayter and others have set out the quandary that the Minister and the Social Security Advisory Committee are clearly in as regards issues around whether it will be included within the cap, for example. If it is going to be part of a tapering rather than a cliff edge, I hope that extra money is added so that you are not taking money away from those who currently get free school meals. I particularly want to focus on free school meals because if I know anything about any of these things, it is about free school meals, given the time I served as a Schools Minister.

Very much in keeping with what my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, I think there is great importance in ensuring that free school meals continue to reach the child. It is a finely grained argument, but I encourage the Minister to look at whether it is possible to get the money straight to schools rather than including this in universal credit. It is important to note that free school meals are used as a proxy within the education system for all sorts of things, and I am sure in other areas as well. In particular, the level of the pupil premium in England is set by the numbers on free school meals. That presents an opportunity to the Government, if they choose to follow the side of the argument that I would advocate in terms of giving the money to schools, and, through them, to children, rather than having it within the universal credit. If the pupil premium is set on the basis of knowing how many children are eligible for free school meals within a school, it ought to be possible to passport the money for those meals to the school directly, given that most schools now operate a cashless payment system. It will then be possible to passport that money through to children's fingertips, if they use fingerprint technology, in respect of paying for their school meals, or on to their cards, if they use a card system. Either way, if they do not operate that, it is possible to get the money into schools so that we can be confident that children are getting a nutritious meal every day, which is hugely important.

I represented a parliamentary seat in Dorset for some time where I found that the health inequalities were such that a child born in my constituency had a life expectancy 10 years longer than one born in Manchester. A lot of that was to do with issues like whether or not they were getting a decent start to the day as regards food and nutrition and the quality of the nutrition that they were receiving during the day. I know that school meals are a crucial part of that. That is why, in the end, my contribution on this is to encourage the Minister to think about that aspect in terms of the needs of children to get a decent meal every day, rather than how things work within the universal credit.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I have a quick point to make in support of the very strong case made by my noble friends Lady Sherlock and Lord Knight, even if he does not want to be thought of as an expert. If the money for free school meals is paid through universal credit, could the Minister explain how families will know what part of the universal credit is supposed to be for school meals? We know from research that money that is clearly labelled for a particular use is more likely to be spent on that use, but if it is swallowed up in the universal credit, that credit may not be paid to the person responsible for ensuring that the child has money for a school meal or a packed lunch. The danger is that the money will not be spent on the school meal, with all the consequences that my noble friend Lady Sherlock has pointed out.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

A long time ago, during the last welfare reform Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was the Minister, I moved an amendment in favour of free school meals full stop. I think it was the highest kite I have ever flown. I was very much in favour of the benefits that it had. One of them is the startling fact that research has borne out that children concentrate far more in the afternoon if they have a good hot meal inside them, which may be the only meal of the day. This is an extremely important issue.

The other day I discovered that some boroughs are giving children free school meals in primary schools and I think that Suffolk is one of them, so good for it. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hollis has made a devastating case. I simply want to read out an e-mail that I received from someone who stands to be affected. She says:

“We have two children. Both girls are currently living in a two bedroom flat. We have been assessed by Social Services and GP as needing a three bedroom property due to our eldest daughter’s medical and welfare needs. She suffers from frequent, severe UTI infections which can leave her very poorly and in a lot of pain. She also suffers frequently from incontinence. This is having a very serious effect on her emotional well being and indeed is having a knock on effect on the whole family as we have to go in several times a night to see to our daughter to change her bedding, give her pain relief, clean nightwear, etc”.

This family had been told that they could move to a three-bedroom flat but have now been told that they cannot because of the incipient welfare reform legislation. The e-mail goes on to say:

“The new welfare legislation means that we are no longer entitled to a three bedroom even though they have written proof that we need one. This is now putting serious strain on my family and is affecting my eldest’s welfare. I cannot fight the law, I wish I was able to. I just want people to be made aware that families like mine suffer needlessly when these legislations are made. I would love nothing more than to be told my eldest can have her own room as I know her welfare would improve dramatically. But this is not going to happen”.

When I read this I thought that it surely could not be the case. However, presumably a family in this situation will not be allowed the bedroom that they need for their welfare. I feel dreadful reading such an e-mail and I hope that the Minister feels dreadful hearing it.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, the case made in the excellent opening speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, did not concentrate so much on the disability side, which we will come to in another bank of amendments, but was very strong indeed. Yes, the second part of Amendment 48 applies to disability, but her main thrust was on the adequacy of supply of houses.

The noble Baroness referred in particular to the situation in rural Norfolk. I can certainly vouch for the circumstances in the areas that I know in rural Wales, where this is an enormous problem because so much social and council housing in rural areas, particularly in beautiful rural areas, was bought under the right to buy legislation of the 1980s. Many of those properties that used to be social housing are now second homes. If anyone is expected to move in order to match the circumstances of the housing benefit permitted under this legislation, such people just will not find accommodation to meet those needs. It is suggested that they will find it in the private sector, but in rural areas, particularly where tourism is a major industry, the private housing sector is dominated by the rent that can be attained in the summer months from the tourism industry. Therefore, the likelihood of finding a suitable place is remote indeed.

My fear is that so many exceptions to the proposed legislation will arise that it will not be workable. We heard about the circumstances in Glasgow and the problems of disabled people who will be caught in this. With regard to the rural dimension, the one aspect that I would like to see is the building particularly of bungalows in the proximity of villages to provide the housing need, albeit that that would be a longer-term solution, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned. One knows that the one category of house in overwhelming demand everywhere is the bungalow. A programme that bought land on the borders of villages that was currently outside the development boundaries and towns into those boundaries, and that was therefore possible to acquire at an intermediate price between the market price for building land and the much lower value of agricultural land, should help to provide a stimulus for the building industry and an answer, over a period of time, for some of the imbalances in the housing stock.

I realise that this does not come under the purview of the Minister, but perhaps the Government could, in the seamless web that they create, think about that possibility as a longer-term solution.

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Grand Committee

In the consideration and gestation of these important regulations, we need to be careful about all these subjects. If the Minister can provide some reassurance, the Committee would feel a little easier about allowing these regulations to be introduced in January. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, and I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to discuss these regulations. I shall speak briefly, which I am sure will be of great relief to the Minister.

I am very concerned about the potential implications for homelessness and rough sleeping that the noble Lord referred to, and also about the wider poverty implications, including food poverty. I have been catching up on my press cuttings while I have been away and there is information that more and more people are having to turn to charities for food. I fear that regulations such as this could exacerbate that situation. It is horrifying that in a welfare state we now have so many people turning to charity for their food needs.

Like the noble Lord, I welcome the fact that the Government have responded to some of what the Social Security Advisory Committee said with regard to exemptions, but I agree with the noble Lord that that does not go far enough. What he said about complex needs is worth exploring further. I want to draw attention particularly to some of the gender implications of the regulations, some of which the noble Lord touched on. The equality impact assessment shows that women are a minority of those affected. However, the SSAC makes it clear that there are issues here for women. It states:

“Women are specifically affected in two important ways. Pregnant single women”—

to whom the noble Lord referred—

“are restricted to the shared accommodation rate until they give birth, and face one of three undesirable situations. They can move home twice at a time when they may be financially, emotionally and physically ill-equipped to do so”—

we will be talking about the needs of pregnant women in the Welfare Reform Bill Committee tomorrow—

“into shared accommodation and back to self-contained accommodation when the baby is born. They can decide to move into shared accommodation and remain there after the birth of their child. Or they can try to make up the shortfall in their rent. The second group of women who are likely to be disadvantaged by the proposals are those escaping domestic violence, who may well find themselves having to live in insecure accommodation, putting them at risk of further abuse by their estranged partner”.

With regard to that, earlier research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation showed the real concerns that younger women have about the prospect of having to share accommodation with strangers. Clearly, that is particularly the case where there has been domestic violence. It said that the prospect of having to share with older people was noted to be particularly daunting, especially for female claimants.

The Merits Committee had a subheading in its report entitled “Evidence-based Policy?”. The question mark says everything. I do not think that this is evidence-based policy-making. The Social Security Advisory Committee report, which is such a bible on these occasions, stated:

“The proposals that have been presented to us are essentially cuts to the Housing Benefit budget and we do not find the rationale for the change to be either convincing or compelling when set against the potential negative impacts. There is no evidence that these measures will improve work incentives or that those under the age of 35 have similar patterns of housing to those under the age of 25. The evidence from private landlords is that the market for private rented accommodation is buoyant, that few landlords will reduce rents as a result of these proposed measures and that many are increasingly excluding Housing Benefit claimants”.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Merits Committee states:

“DWP has offered surprisingly little evidence to demonstrate the feasibility of its proposal, in particular whether the rental sector has capacity to accommodate the change”.

Given what the Merits Committee and the Social Security Advisory Committee have said, I agree with the noble Lord that we should think very hard before introducing such regulations. I remind the Committee that the Merits Committee suggested to us that it may want to press the DWP for further information on how the policy will work in practice and on its wider consequences. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide us with that information before the regulations go ahead.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkwood for tabling the take note Motion. On the face of it, the proposal to extend the age range for single people who receive local housing allowance from 25 to 34 seems entirely reasonable. I, myself, lived in shared flats or houses at that age, as I could not possibly afford a flat or house in London on my salary from the Liberal Party. However, although my fellow housemates and I tried to be careful when interviewing potential new sharers, we did not expect them to belong to particularly vulnerable groups or be on housing benefit. The only tension came when boys wanted to get girlfriends in, or vice versa.

The Government, to their credit, have, as we have heard, made two exemptions. I shall mention the exemption for homeless people who have spent more than three months in a hostel, which is particularly welcome because of the difficulty of moving those in hostel accommodation on. Here I declare an interest as patron of the Winchester Churches Nightshelter, which has an especially impressive record of moving clients on to suitable accommodation.

However, even with those two exemptions, there is a great deal of concern among all the stakeholders who were consulted about the policy. In fact, we see from the consultation outcome that none of the respondents supported the proposed changes and the majority questioned the rationale for them. The $64,000 question is whether the proposals will save the taxpayer money or cause even more to be spent by local authorities having to find extra emergency accommodation. The SSAC report answers that in clear terms. Thank goodness, I have a different sentence to cite from that quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. The report states:

“The evidence we have seen points to this being a high risk approach to cutting costs that does not take account of potentially negative impacts on other areas of public policy and potential increases in other areas of public expenditure”.

The Government’s solution is to increase discretionary housing payments to local authorities to support those in the most vulnerable situations who do not fit the exempted categories, but the discretionary housing payments will be spread extremely thinly across a lot of housing hotspots because of the changes to the 30th percentile. Such payments can be regarded only as a temporary sticking plaster. An awful lot is being asked of this particular pot of money, which will not go very far when spread across the poorer boroughs of London, not to mention those of all the other large conurbations. In Winchester, homelessness is increasing dramatically, with evidence from letting agents suggesting that fewer than 10 per cent of properties are affordable. As I have said before, Winchester is a very expensive place in which to be poor.

As my noble friend said, are there really enough houses and flats available for multi-occupation in areas where there are likely to be jobs, particularly low-paid jobs? In a buoyant market, will landlords really be willing to reduce their rents to let properties to what could be a potentially unstable cohort of people, when landlords will have no difficulty finding tenants who will pay the market rent?

In my view, this is a worrying experiment. The Social Security Advisory Committee report states that,

“the Department knows very little about either the shared accommodation market”,

or those who live in that sector. As we have heard, that committee recommends that the Government should gather evidence as a matter of urgency with the proposals introduced gradually and evaluated. That sounds like a very good idea to me.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

25: Clause 7, page 3, line 35, leave out from “payable” to end of line 36 and insert “twice per month”

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, this is the first time I have moved an amendment, so I hope your Lordships will be gentle with me if I make any mistakes.. First, I shall make a couple of apologies. I am sorry that I was not here last week. I was one of those caught out by the change in recess dates. I apologise, too, for the length of my opening remarks, but this is an issue on which I feel strongly, as do a number of organisations, such as the Women’s Budget Group and the Child Poverty Action Group, both of which I am very involved with.

The amendments are variations on a theme. The aim is not to get frequency of payment written into primary legislation, as that clearly is not appropriate, but to try to persuade the Minister to think again about the decision to make payments of universal credit monthly. In the other place, the Minister said that the Government are sufficiently open-minded to recognise the issues that monthly payments generate and that they are not ruling any option in or out.

Given that presumably this decision is being made on the balance of the argument and does not affect the fundamental architecture of universal credit, I hope that the spirit of open-mindedness will prevail today. I believe that the balance of evidence does not support monthly payments and will argue that they could undermine the universal credit architecture, the importance of which the Minister has emphasised.

The rationale for monthly payments has been set out helpfully in the second universal credit policy briefing note. There appear to be two main elements to this rationale. The first is that universal credit should mimic work and receipt of a salary so that families are able to manage their financial affairs in the manner that best reflects the demands of modern life, whether they are in or out of work, so that they will be better prepared for the reality of working life. The second is that it fits well with the overarching universal credit narrative of simplicity and preserving work incentives.

Let us consider the realities of working life. The departmental briefing note states that 75 per cent of all those in employment are paid monthly. Of course, the obverse of that is that one-quarter are not. Estimates given to me suggest that at least one in five are still paid weekly or fortnightly. According to the briefing note, as many as half those earning less than £10,000 per year are not paid monthly. I think we can safely assume that they are paid more frequently. So for many, the reality of working life is still weekly or fortnightly wages.

Moreover, where universal credit is paid on top of a monthly wage, it is not clear why it has to mimic it, nor why it has to do so for those who are not expected to seek paid work. At present, in-work tax credit recipients are able to choose between weekly and four-weekly payments—or perhaps it is two-weekly. Those who receive child tax credit above the family element—those on lower incomes—are more likely to receive it weekly.

Another reality of modern working life—I am very grateful to Richard Greenwood, who wrote to me after Second Reading, for drawing this to my attention—is payday loans. Mr Greenwood points out that a whole credit industry called payday loans has risen up on the back of predominantly low-income earners who get paid monthly. They find it hard to budget properly, so often obtain expensive, short-term credit on the pseudo-security of their next monthly income day. Mr Greenwood informs me that in 2010, Consumer Focus published a report that suggested that payday lending in the UK had quadrupled in the preceding four years, with an estimated 4.1 million loans being made in 2009-10. The report was called, Keeping the Plates Spinning. I fear that monthly payments will mean either many more plates being smashed to smithereens or—as Mr Greenwood warns—many more low-income families taking out expensive, short-term credit. Even worse, they could turn to loan sharks.

The point was made in a committee of the other place that similar concerns were raised when benefit payments were changed from weekly to fortnightly, but that the expressed fears did not materialise. In response, I point out that moving from fortnightly to monthly payments is a much greater leap. Also, according to Fran Bennett of the Women’s Budget Group, recent findings from qualitative research with low-income families carried out by Oxford University and funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Department for International Development suggest that we should not be too complacent about the impact of the earlier move to fortnightly payments. One respondent, a woman with a partner and four children, said:

“Before the switch to fortnightly payments I didn't have to struggle with anything … with all these changes I’m just struggling … before I never struggled … like, never”.

Another respondent, a lone mother, said that,

“two weeks is a long time … now they have put that fortnightly and all … it’s just wrong”.

More generally, the Women's Budget Group cites the 2008 Families and Children Study that states that one in four families with children runs out of money always, most often or more often than not before the end of the week or month. Among the lowest-income one-fifth, the figure is 37 per cent—nearly two in five.

This is not an exceptional problem affecting only a small minority of supposedly inadequate budgeters. Research evidence points to how well most people on low incomes manage their budgets. However, numerous studies also reveal the stress caused by budgeting on a low income, particularly for women, who still tend to have responsibility for day-to-day budgeting in low-income families and who thus act as the shock absorbers of poverty. Even if most people eventually adapt to monthly budgeting, the long-term consequences of the difficulties created in the shorter term could be immense and could undermine work incentives if people are saddled with debt. The Minister has already told us that the typical family in receipt of universal credit will have virtually no savings on which to fall back.

I am afraid that it is not good enough to make vague promises of appropriate budgeting support for those who cannot manage monthly repayments. This, we are told, might be financial advice—will the Minister please explain who will provide this advice about budgeting?—or it might be interim and bridging loans or possibly more frequent payments in exceptional circumstances. Does this panoply of special assistance, which implies that the problem lies with the claimant rather than the system, not strike noble Lords as rather sullying the narrative of simplicity that monthly payments are supposed to exemplify? Indeed, according to the Financial Times, officials have admitted that this special assistance could cost extra money but that the plans have not yet been fully worked out or costed. I ask that a fully costed plan is presented to your Lordships’ House before monthly payments are finally agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thought I had delicately hinted that there could be some flexibility around that. In future, I will be less delicate in making my points.

We have discussed the other elements. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, directed a bit of abuse at the Warrington call centre. We are developing the system in Warrington, but that does not mean that the call centre in Warrington will do it all. We will have a much more sophisticated system. Indeed, the noble Baroness’s thoughts on using ATLAS, and the experience of housing benefit staff around the country in that regard, are very good. We are talking to local authorities to get the detail of this right. It would not make sense to lose the expertise of housing benefit staff, so we are involving them as we develop the process. It is too early to describe the system because it is not yet developed. However, the noble Baroness’s advice chimes with the way we are going about this, and we are grateful for it.

Amendment 28 would require the Secretary of State to conduct an annual review into the impact on claimants of monthly payments. I have already set out our firm commitment to safeguards, such as providing budgeting support and the facility to make more frequent payments where necessary or appropriate. I can assure noble Lords that in addition to this we will continue to monitor the impact of these policies after they are introduced. I urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friends and noble Lords for their support. I am struck by the extent to which noble Lords throughout the Committee share my concerns and have made important points in support of these amendments. There is perhaps a slight disagreement over whether we should be pushing for fortnightly payments or for choice. My preference would be for fortnightly payments, as argued for by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. However, I tabled a menu of amendments thinking that choice would probably be more acceptable to the department than what I prefer, which is the status quo. Perhaps that is the one way in which I am a conservative. But as I have argued, and according to the Financial Times, the panoply of flexibility and special assistance which the Minister talked about will bring in complexity if we go down the route of monthly payments, and we have not heard what the costs will be. I am very disappointed with the Minister's response because he has not really engaged with the arguments that I put. Therefore, my supposed flirtation with conservatism has been very short-lived indeed.

The Minister made great play of the distinction between the assessment period and the payment period, and I understand that. However, the argument seems to support my position rather than his because paying a benefit more frequently does not affect proposals to assess it on a monthly basis. One could have a monthly payment that is paid in two tranches, which would make it easier for people to manage. The only hope that I got from the Minister was the statement that we had given him food for thought. I hope that it will not be too indigestible for him—actually, I hope that it will be indigestible, because he will then think seriously about it.

He has not answered some of the most basic questions. I know that the special assistance will not only be budgeting advice. The papers have said that it will “include” budgeting advice. However, it is still not clear who is going to provide this. Will it be officials? If I were a claimant, I am not sure that I would want officials advising me on how to budget. Or will it be the poor old voluntary sector/big society, which will be on its knees anyway because of cuts, the effects of the legal aid Bill and so forth? I am not at all reassured by vague talk about flexibility and budgeting support.

The Minister said that the Government would look at areas of flexibility after the next year or so. I am sorry, but I want to know what the position is by the Report stage. While I have made clear that I realise it is not appropriate to write into the Bill itself the frequency of payments, given the strength of feeling that has been expressed on all sides, it is not good enough that we should have to wait a year; the Bill will be an Act by then. We want to know before the Bill goes back to the other place what is going to be done to ensure that the kind of problems that I and other noble Lords have raised will be adequately addressed. One of these amendments must be the way to do it.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I apologise for intervening: I probably should not, as I was not here earlier. However, if the House authorities schedule at the same time on one day on the Floor of the House and in this Committee three Bills in all of which I have an interest, it presents a difficulty. The Minister should know that had I been here, I would have been rebellious. I endorse in particular the noble Baroness’s point about needing to know, not at some vague time in the future but before the Report stage, what the Government have in mind. Perhaps I might also say to the noble Baroness—craving the indulgence of the Committee—that I thought the Minister went as far as Ministers can go under these circumstances towards saying that he would think again, and that this is not the last word. I think that she should be pleased with that.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who perhaps I could call a noble friend from the past. Being new to this House, I perhaps do not understand the nuances of ministerial speech as well as some of my noble friends. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is correct, but it does not change the point that people outside who are watching our proceedings also do not understand these nuances, so we need to have something much firmer before Report if we are to accept the Minister’s assurances. That said, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 25 withdrawn.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, as a member of the night shift, I will inevitably cover issues already eloquently discussed by other noble Lords, but I shall do so by focusing on some of the Bill’s gender implications and drawing on the work of the Women’s Budget Group, of which I am a member.

First, simplification is one of the main aims of the Bill and has long been the holy grail of social security reform. The Bill bears out an earlier warning from the Social Security Advisory Committee that there is a limit to the simplification that is possible with means-tested benefits. The closer we study it, the more we see how new complexities spring up, hydra-like. While the Minister may be a self-styled revolutionary, in the words of my noble friend Lady Sherlock, I fear that he is no Heracles. Where universal credit represents a welcome breakthrough is in the integration of in-work and out-of-work support, thereby potentially reducing the insecurities associated with the transition into and out of paid work. That is very important. That is about the only positive thing I am going to say, I am afraid.

Means-testing will be extended as a result of the arbitrary time-limiting of employment and support allowance for those in the work-related activity group. A disabled woman who has written to me—one of many—voicing her fears about the Bill’s overall impact on sick and disabled people, asks, “What do we do then?”. The Government’s answer is: claim income-related ESA. However, 34 per cent of men and 46 per cent of women affected will not be eligible. Where they have to depend on a working partner instead, their financial autonomy will be eroded. This matters to people. Indeed, Professor Roy Sainsbury told the Public Bill Committee in the other place that in research with claimants,

“individual assessment spontaneously arose as a thing that people were very keen on”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Committee, 23/3/11; col. 16.]

Women’s financial autonomy is also likely to be eroded as a result of measures that reduce incentives for some second earners, as my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham has already talked about. A new separate earnings disregard for second earners would go some way towards addressing this and I would welcome the Minister’s views on that possibility.

We should also note Carers UK’s concerns about the loss of a bespoke disregard for carers. Furthermore, we still do not know what is proposed for childcare costs, which is one of many gaping holes in the Bill that must be filled before Committee. The attempt to fit a childcare quart into a funding pint pot will aggravate the work disincentive for second earners and lone parents, as we have already heard. The disincentives faced by many second earners will encourage what we academics call a male breadwinner model. This sits uneasily with the Government’s very welcome goal of encouraging shared parenting. It is also very short-sighted from a dynamic perspective. If a woman is in paid work while living with a partner, she is better equipped to remain in the labour market should that relationship break down.

Research demonstrates the extent to which women remain the main managers of poverty. This means that women are likely to bear much of the burden of measures such as the abolition of part of the Social Fund and the introduction of a benefits cap. I am concerned about both, but will focus for now on the cap. I have been struck by the number of noble Lords from across the House who have raised very serious concerns about this cap. I hope that the Minister is getting the message. The 50,000 or so households that stand to be affected will receive less than Parliament has decided is necessary to meet their basic needs, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, has eloquently explained. The Secretary of State has justified the cap in the name of fairness, claiming that it is about those who we believe should be able to go to work but are not doing so. However, it will apply to some groups that are not even expected to work.

In the other place the Minister claimed that the cap is about ensuring that there is a level playing field for everyone, but this is not a level playing field. The benefits and tax credits received by working families are being ignored. If they were all taken into account, official figures show hardly anybody would be affected by the cap. As a number of noble Lords have said, it is particularly unfair that child benefit is not added to the comparator earnings but is treated as income for the purposes of the cap. Could the Minister please explain to the House how this can possibly be justified?

The Minister also assured the committee in the other place that the cap is not about creating hardship, but hardship will be created, as the Centre for Social Justice has pointed out. Hardship could also result from the proposal to pay benefit monthly rather than fortnightly on the grounds that this is in line with the demands of modern life, and we have to prepare people for paid work. However, over a fifth of workers—and a higher proportion of low-paid workers—are still paid weekly or fortnightly, according to the department’s own figures. While the earlier switch from weekly to fortnightly payments may have caused few difficulties, the leap from fortnightly to monthly is much greater.

Nearly two in five families with children—the lowest income fifth—already run out of money regularly. So this is not a problem for a small minority to be solved as proposed by appropriate budgeting support and more frequent payments in exceptional circumstances. Again, it is women, as the managers of poverty, who will bear the main brunt. I hope that the Minister will be open to persuasion on an administrative matter that has significant consequences.

Another payment issue of great concern to many organisations is that the whole of the universal credit will be paid to one partner with, in particular, no routine provision for payments for children to be paid to the main carer, usually still the mother. Not only will this in many cases represent a further erosion of women’s financial autonomy, but also research that I and others have carried out shows that income is not always shared fairly within families and that money labelled for children and paid to the main carer is more likely to be spent on the children. As Fran Bennett of Oxford University warns, payment into a joint account—a so-called “nudge”, as the Minister has said—is not necessarily the answer, because research shows that joint accounts do not guarantee both partners equal access.

We see here an inconsistent approach to public and private dependency which could undermine some of the Government’s own objectives. A driving motivation behind the Bill, as we heard from a number of noble Lords, is to address what in my view is a damagingly inflated problem of public welfare dependency without any regard for the consequences of private economic dependency within the family. This could create a new couple penalty as the fear of a loss of financial autonomy and security could discourage women from committing to a new relationship.

In conclusion, while I was focused on the Bill’s potentially damaging impact on women, this also has implications for children, given the link between women’s and children’s poverty. I hope that in this House we will be able to deliver the concessions necessary to protect women, children and disabled people and achieve the fairness that the Minister assures us this legislation is supposed to be about, but at present signally fails to deliver.

Child Poverty

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to build on the reduction in child poverty in 2009–10 reported in Households Below Average Income, published on 12 May.

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

My Lords, I welcome the reduction in child poverty from 2.8 million to 2.6 million children, but despite £150 billion spent on tax credits since 2003-04, largely aimed at families, that figure is a long way off the previous Government’s aim of halving child poverty by 2010. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government published their child poverty strategy on 5 April, showing how our radical reform programme will help to transform people’s lives and break cycles of disadvantage.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and I welcome the Government’s commitment to the eradication of child poverty. However, given that improved financial support for children played a key role in the previous Government’s achievement in reducing child poverty to its lowest level since 1985, will he comment on the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ prediction that cuts in such support could contribute to an increase in child poverty? Will he also explain why the child poverty strategy contains no specific, quantified targets for the period that it covers?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, that is a complicated question. As noble Lords know, fundamentally, child poverty has been stuck at the same level since around 2004-05. We have seen a statistically significant reduction this year, but it is very much the same figure as it was five years ago. The IFS, as the noble Baroness pointed out, predicts an increase of 200,000 in the number of children in poverty in two or three years’ time. That may or may not be true, but our fundamental reforms, particularly of the universal credit, will start to drive that figure down. We are predicting, as has already been announced, 350,000 fewer children in poverty as a result of the universal credit when it is introduced and 300,000 fewer workless families.

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, being new to the House, I am no connoisseur of Merits Committee reports, but on reading its 27th Report over Easter, it struck me as being damning in its conclusion that the lack of information attached to the regulations was unacceptable. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester has confirmed that view.

I am rather more familiar with the reports of the Social Security Advisory Committee, having read many of them over the years. Its report on these regulations, to which the Merits Committee refers, is at the more critical end of the spectrum of SSAC statements. Its key recommendation was that mandatory work activity should not proceed. Nevertheless, it is proceeding on the basis of regulations deemed inadequate by the Merits Committee for their lack of clarity of purpose. As the committee underlines, these are important regulations, the effects of which could have serious implications for the livelihood of thousands of unemployed people. As we have heard, where sanctions are imposed, JSA will be withdrawn for 13 or 26 weeks and, if further primary legislation is passed, we could be talking about loss of benefits for 156 weeks for a third so-called offence from April 2012.

The evidence suggests that it is often the most vulnerable who are subjected to sanctions. Both the Merits Committee and SSAC comment on the ambiguities surrounding the scheme's purpose. The department denies any punitive intent, emphasising how the scheme is supposed to help customers develop behaviours and attitudes required to get and keep work, yet it is adamant that sanctions must be applied to those who do not comply. I do not find the department's response to SSAC’s concerns very convincing. The velvet glove and warm words about support surrounding the iron fist of sanctions look rather threadbare.

I am reinforced in that view by my reading of a recent systematic review of international evidence on the impact of benefit sanctions published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The review questions the efficacy of sanctions in changing claimants’ motivation or attitude towards work. It suggests that although sanctions may have a short-term effect in shortening unemployment spells, the longer-term effects can be counterproductive in jobs and earnings progression. It is worth citing the report's conclusion:

“this report brings into focus the gulf between the rhetoric of welfare reform and the evidence of the effects of sanctions … policy-makers continue to justify the extension of sanctions (and sanction-backed conditionality) on moral philosophy grounds while taking an ambivalent attitude to the evidence … with evidence being marginalised by discussion of principles and what can be expected of claimants in return for benefits”.

I fear that, in a moral crusade against the supposed welfare dependency, Ministers read the evidence through a distorting lens. As the TUC warned in its submission to SSAC, these regulations seem to move employment policy further away from an evidence-based approach. The SSAC report comments:

“The evidence on the efficacy of ‘workfare’ schemes is, at best, mixed”,

as the noble Countess has already pointed out.

Personally, I was unhappy about the previous Government's work-for-your-benefit proposal, but at least, as the Merits Committee notes and my noble friend pointed out, it was to be a pilot scheme with a clear evaluation plan aimed at examining whether mandatory work activity had demonstrable benefits. These regulations introduce mandatory work activity nationwide without any such evidence.

That makes all the more important the monitoring of placements to ensure that, among other things, participants are treated properly and are not used to replace waged workers. I am pleased that the department has accepted SSAC’s recommendation on that point, and I would welcome more information from the Minister about the placement monitoring system. However, as the Child Poverty Action Group points out—I declare an interest as its honorary president— there are no guarantees of minimum standards that can be expected from employers. I regret that the department has rejected SSAC’s recommendation that detailed guidance should be given to employers about placements.

My other main concern, which was also picked up by the Merits Committee and SSAC and was commented on by the noble Countess, is the question of discretion. The Merits Committee questioned how the scheme can be delivered with any degree of consistency given the degree of flexibility and discretion built into it. In its 28th report, drawing attention to oral evidence provided by the Minister for Employment, the committee observed that,

“The targeting of the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme is to be left almost entirely to the discretion of Jobcentre Advisers, and the Minister is sanguine that there will be local variation and a lack of consistency in the way that the Advisers apply their judgment”.

That is just one example of how discretion is being extended in the social security system, and I find it worrying.

Flexibility sounds very positive, but its flip side is a lack of clear rights and the danger of arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making and lack of transparency. Moreover, the JRF review suggests that the administration of sanctions is not rational or equitable and can lead to bias, including racial bias. Important decisions with implications for a claimant's livelihood will be taken on the basis of what SSAC refers to as the

“views and opinions of the personal adviser”—

views and opinions about attitudes and motivations that will require considerable skill to interpret correctly. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us about the kind of training that advisers will receive to make these decisions, and whether all advisers will have received this training by later this month when the scheme is introduced.

Will the Minister also clarify the department's response to SSAC's recommendation that,

“detailed information is provided to potential participants about the criteria for selection”?

In its response to SSAC’s report, the department says that it accepts the recommendation, but in explaining how it accepts it the department does not state explicitly that potential participants will be told the criteria for selection. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether they will be told.

Another extension of discretion lies in the refusal to prescribe in regulations factors to be taken into account when deciding whether someone has good cause for failing to take part in the scheme when required to do so. This point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester. The department's response to SSAC, namely that doing so risks limiting the circumstances in which good cause could be applied, again is unconvincing. Clear good-cause provisions in the regulations would provide a safeguard for claimants, without necessarily limiting the circumstances to those listed.

In conclusion, the Merits Committee complains about the vague and insubstantial basis on which we are expected to assess whether the regulations will achieve their objective. On the basis of research evidence, I fear that the regulations will do more harm than good. I support my noble friend's prayer that they be annulled, and the Motion of Regret tabled by the noble Countess.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, the House owes a debt to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for raising these regulations this evening. As always, it also owes a debt to the Merits Committee and the Social Security Advisory Committee for their excellent work. The debate highlights very important points, many of which have already been made.

The first thing that I will say relates to the initial observations about procedures made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I would support him in pursuing the clarity that we need to enable the House to demonstrate and exhibit displeasure to the department without necessarily seeking to completely torpedo and annul regulations. The Motion in front of us in the name of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is well judged. It is not always a Minister's fault—indeed, I completely absolve my noble friend from some of the worst excesses of this order. However, we should have the ability to make it clear that if there is insufficient detail, and if we do not feel that it is safe to endorse proposals that are brought to the House by the department via Ministers, we should have a method of expressing that in a grown-up way, and we should be able also to test opinion in the Division Lobbies. I encourage the noble Lord to pursue that line of thought.

Secondly, my noble friend must have bigger fish to fry. I have spies everywhere and they tell me that this is an £8 million scheme. That does not mean that it is not important—there are important principles here—but he has much more important things to worry about, such as universal credit and the work programme, which are both crucial. I also understand that we have managed to get such a keen price out of the contractors that we have been able to double the number of places for the mandatory work activity scheme and are now thinking about 19,000. That raises questions about the quality of the schemes that will be provided. I have a calculator, and I can divide 19,000 into £8 million and see that it works out at something like £430 per four-week placement. These figures need to be confirmed; otherwise, we will all be confused. The point I am making is that, if we have four-week schemes that are costing £430 to provide, one wonders about the disproportionate sanctions referred to by colleagues earlier in this debate of £1,800 or thereabouts, being equivalent to 26 weeks’ benefit at £67.50. There is a disproportionality about some of this, as well as the question of whether the quality can be delivered on a four-week scheme for £430. We need to keep this in context, but there are some really important questions that worry me about these regulations that are creating potential precedents. These deserve attention.

First, if I understand it right, contributory JSA benefit claimants are covered by these regulations. Contributory benefit claimants are different from means-tested JSA benefit claimants. They have been paying national insurance contributions to enable them to be entitled to this benefit, at least in the first year, before they go into the work programme, as I understand this scheme as it is going to be rolled out. They are going to be tapped on the shoulder by some Jobcentre Plus personal adviser and be told that they are going to be subject to the mandatory work activity scheme. People who make contributions through the national insurance system should be in a different place from those on a means-tested JSA regime. I would like the Minister to comment on whether that is correct.

I also worry greatly about the way we are potentially interfering with the well-established legal definition of “actively seeking work”. The way I read this—and again, I would like to be corrected if I am wrong—being able to do just enough to satisfy JSA legal entitlement requirements is not going to be enough anymore under this scheme, because if you are only undertaking activity that is just enough to satisfy your personal adviser, you can still be mandated to be put on this mandatory work activity scheme. So I think we are stretching some of the well-established concepts. What people really clearly understand about “actively seeking work” has been built up over years in case law. We interfere with that at our peril, and I hope the department is thinking carefully about that.

I also concur with the comments made about adviser discretion, which is unappealable, to nominate candidates for this scheme. Obviously, the decision about a sanction is appealable and that is understood, but the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was right to draw attention to giving discretion to advisers, as other colleagues have done in terms of local flexibility to contractors.

Part 6 of these regulations causes me some concern because I do not know that I have ever seen anything like this, but I may be wrong. Part 6 talks about “contracting out certain functions in relation to the scheme”. If we are starting to contract out certain functions of the scheme—I understand that does not include sanctions—that is new territory as far as I am concerned. We have to be very careful about what Jobcentre Plus staff and personal advisers can do, as well as some of the providers of these schemes.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2011

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Tonight’s debate has focused mostly on the two issues of the basic state pension and of CPI/RPI or any other form of index-linking. Contained within this order is a raft of changes to benefit levels that will have a significant effect on the lives of many. We are not able to support the order in its totality because of the long-term commitment that it presages to the switch to the CPI. On that, we must remain apart.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I wish to speak particularly on the shift from the RPI to the CPI. The Minister in the other place acknowledged that no single index is perfect, and the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said something similar this evening. Given that, I argue that the criterion that we should use is which index best protects the living standards of some of the poorest members of our society. That is not the CPI. Typically, the CPI rises more slowly than the RPI—15 times in the past 20 years, according to the Minister in the other place—and, of course, that is why it represents a spending cut. We should not underestimate the significance of this shift, which is easy to do when we get caught up in technical jargon about geometric means and so forth. A 2008 Joseph Rowntree Foundation study concluded that uprating policies have big effects over time. This change will have a very damaging effect over time on the living standards of some of the poorest members of our society. As my noble friend Lord McKenzie has said, these are people for whom substitution is rather difficult because they have already substituted a lot in adapting to living on such low incomes.