Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Lords Chamber

Despite the welcome concessions that the Minister has made, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, who has worked so hard to protect disabled people from the worst effects of this Bill.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support briefly but most strongly the amendment to the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lord Low. I thank the Minister very sincerely for meeting us last week, and more particularly for his very real attempt to respond to the concerns expressed by noble Lords on Report. However, it is perfectly clear from the very restricted nature of the amendments that the Minister has been working within the tightest possible straitjacket. I accept that the Minister has done his very best, but I hope that he will understand that those sick and disabled people who genuinely cannot find an employer willing to take them on—which in my view is the very big problem they face—will face the most incredible hardship if Clauses 13 and 14 are implemented.

I shall address my next remarks directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr Osborne, when it was our greedy and unscrupulous bankers, not disabled people, who generated the budget deficit, is it not immoral to reduce the meagre incomes of sick and disabled people by £1,500 a year to raise some half a billion pounds to deal with the deficit? Most bankers would regard £1,500 a year as literally peanuts—they would hardly notice it—but for these people, that sum is very considerable indeed. For me, the purpose of pressing this amendment today is to provide another chance for MPs in the other place to challenge the Chancellor directly about the scandal of such a policy.

The Minister said that the amendment would delay implementation until 2020-21. I am sure that he is right, but if I am right, Clauses 13 and 14 will not incentivise sick and disabled people to get into work—quite the opposite. They will find it ever more difficult to do so. So what are three or four years to find that out and prevent the hardship that these clauses will cause?

The Minister has agreed that if people with a lifelong progressive illness suffer a step down in their condition, it should be made easier for them to be assessed quickly. I thank him profusely for that concession, but it is very difficult to have confidence in the process. Even if DWP staff are able to deliver that commitment, the assessment process itself is deeply flawed—we all know that—and often very distressing indeed.

I should be really grateful if the Minister could assure the House that, whatever happens to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Low, today, for these groups— people with terminal, progressive, lifelong illnesses—the assessment process will be very straightforward and paper-based, simply involving a letter from the doctor to confirm that the individual indeed has a lifelong progressive health issue, has suffered a downward step and is unlikely ever to work again. It should be unnecessary—and, in my view, it would be cruel—to demand anything more than that.

My only other point is that the Minister’s concessions will do little or nothing for the 50% or so of ESA WRAG claimants who have mental health problems. Yes, as others have said, until universal credit is introduced the 52-week rule will end—and again I am grateful to the Minister for that. But there are two main problems for these groups. First, the chances of being referred to high-quality therapy services and receiving those services remain small. I know that cross-departmental work is always extremely difficult, but we can go to the moon, so I expect we can do this, too. We need from the DWP some way for these people to get the therapy that they need, just as somebody with a broken leg gets something done about it.

The second major issue is that it is extremely difficult for these people even to get an interview, let alone to find an employer willing to take them on and keep them. So the loss of income for these people is simply a punishment for something that is no fault of their own. That is my problem with all this. The Minister’s concessions, I am afraid, do very little to set right this injustice. It is despite my respect for and thanks to the Minister that I will vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low, today. My vote will signify my disbelief that disabled and sick people are being asked to pay the price for the bankers’ greed and appalling behaviour—which, according to a former Governor of the Bank of England, continues pretty much unchecked today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I start by thanking noble Lords for their contributions. Clearly, many of them feel very strongly on this issue and they have expressed that.

I was struck by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, saying that this was merely an amendment to ask for extra time. However, the point that I tried to make was that the time being asked for was very substantial—as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, accepted, we are talking about the way this is constructed—pushing this measure out to 2021. The noble Lord, Lord Low, rather gave it away when he said that the concessions—the practical concessions I am trying to deliver to the House, and to the people who need them to help with their particular circumstances—were not enough, and that he would therefore bring forward this amendment to drive at the whole structure of the Government’s proposal. The noble Lord said that this amendment is a compromise, but in practice it is not, because it would mean that these measures could not go forward. Research has to happen, which we could not therefore do to any reasonable timescale.

There may be compromises—I have found three—but this is not a compromise. Although I am sure that this is not the noble Lord’s intention, his amendments effectively wreck this policy, for those reasons. I argue that that is not something this House is here to do, given the very clear message that was sent. This House sent this measure back to the other place, and it has come back with financial privilege. If the noble Lord’s amendment is carried, we will be sending this measure back with just as many costs—I gave an illustration of those—as were involved the first time. I know that a lot of noble Lords will feel pretty uncomfortable with that process. I accept that many noble Lords do not like this measure, but we are beyond that position now: we are into the question of the appropriate position of this House, in the context of a very substantial vote for the measure’s coming back.

Let me deal with some of the points that noble Lords have made. I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, that there is evidence that financial incentives do work in this area, and I have quoted those in the past.

[Baroness Meacher]

My understanding is that the evidence is all about able-bodied people, not disabled people, and that is a crucial difference. Disabled people are a different issue.

[Lord Freud]

Disability benefits was dealt with in a paper by Barr et al, published by the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health in 2010, and there are some others.

People in the WRAG are not incapable of working: they have limited capability to work. That is the distinction—the tier down—from those in the support group. The noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell, and Lady Grey-Thompson, made the point about the barriers that exist. I accept that people face barriers to work in this category. One of the things we are focusing on in the White Paper, and which we will spend a lot of time on in future, is dealing with these barriers, because this Government are committed to halving the gap.

Meanwhile, the flexible support fund is designed to go to the work coaches. However, to pick up on the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, this depends on whether it is in relation to ESA or UC. Within UC the work coach maintains the relationship right the way through regardless of the health status or employment status of the person. That is where we will focus our attention and, clearly, because there is a relationship with a work coach, the money will be available directly to support such people.

As to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, on progressive conditions and reassessment, I thought that this was a legislative issue and I was considering how to sort it out. However, it is not a legislative issue but a communications and operational issue. That is why the approach I have taken is to work with some Members of this House and stakeholders to get the system working. It is important. Sometimes people who have Parkinson’s are fine at the beginning and go about their lives, but then it gets worse. So being labelled with a particular illness does not mean that you should be at the top rate but, if you take a downward move, it is vital that you are straight in. We need to look at the processes for that and I have committed to doing so.

As to mental health conditions, which many people have talked about, the most frightening single statistic about our system of welfare support is that 42%, I think the figure is—I am speaking without a note—of people go into ESA with mental health reasons as the primary indicator. Once they have been on ESA for a year, that figure has moved up to 68%. We have turned the system round. Work is part of the solution. Leaving people sitting at home is the worst possible thing we can do for them. The whole of our welfare system has been wrongly directed at that kind of projection and we are moving the system round to stop that—

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

82A: After Clause 31, insert the following new Clause—
“Housing costs: payments to landlordsHousing costs: payments to landlords
(1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (claims and payments regulations) must provide for the payment of the housing costs element of an award of universal credit to the landlord where the claimant requests such payment to be made to the landlord.
(2) In this section—
“landlord” means the person who is entitled to payment of rent for the occupation of the accommodation occupied by the claimant as his or her home;“rent” includes the license or similar payment for the use and occupation of the accommodation.”

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 82A I hope not to take up much of the House’s time. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to make regulations that would enable tenants receiving universal credit to choose to have the housing element of universal credit paid directly to their landlord.

We debated this matter in relation to an earlier welfare reform Bill and I am aware of the Government’s resistance to the measure. As benefit levels fall drastically under successive rounds of cuts, the need for this provision has grown over time. Until the introduction of local housing allowances, private tenants were able to choose to have rent payments paid direct to their landlord. Currently, social tenants can still request that housing benefit be paid direct to their landlord. However, under universal credit, tenants, whether social or private, will lose this flexibility and thus the opportunity to ensure that their rent is paid regularly so that they can at least be guaranteed a roof over their heads even if they cannot feed their children.

The Government argue that to include housing benefit payments within the universal credit payment promotes financial responsibility and helps prepare claimants for the world of work, when they will need to manage their entire budget without help from the state. Of course, in a perfect world this is a reasonable argument. However, it fails to take account of government policy to ensure that work pays. But this is being done by reducing out-of-work benefits substantially. The result is that it is highly doubtful that any of us in this House could manage to live on out-of-work benefits—pay the bills, feed the family and pay the rent. If we could not do it, why should we expect others far less privileged to be able to do so?

The Government’s attitude to this matter suggests to me, I fear, little understanding of the incredible challenges faced by out-of-work claimants under the regime which has been unfolding since 2010.

I wish to put on record in your Lordships’ House that tenant choice, as set out in the amendment, was supported by the Work and Pensions Select Committee in its report Support for Housing Costs in the Reformed Welfare System published in April 2014. The Select Committee suggests that such arrangements could be available at least for the first few years of a UC claim as a transitional measure. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to that proposal.

There is considerable support for direct rent payments to landlords if claimants request it. In February 2015, for example, the Northern Ireland Executive confirmed that landlords will be paid benefit directly to cover tenants’ rent. The Scottish Government have also indicated their wish to introduce such a provision. Both Shelter and Crisis support it, for obvious reasons.

An important point raised by the Residential Landlords Association is that direct payments will prevent an abusive partner using the rent money for their own purposes, an issue I had not thought of. Partners with a gambling or drink problem too often reduce their families to destitution. In fact, I was very familiar with such problems years ago, although they had rather gone out of my mind. This amendment would provide some protection for such families.

Finally, the Minister will be well aware that this is a big issue for landlords and hence for the adequacy of housing supply for benefit claimants. It seems that this is as powerful an argument for the amendment as the concerns about tenants. Quite simply, if landlords cannot be sure that the claimant will be able to pay the rent on time every time, they would be sensible not to rent their properties out to universal credit claimants. We already have an excess of demand for housing over supply. Does the Minister have an estimate of the expected fall in the supply of properties for rent for claimants in the coming years? Is the Minister concerned that research by the RLA earlier this year showed that 63% of private landlords with tenants on universal credit said that their tenants were in arrears with the rent? How many of those landlords will be willing to risk renting to benefit claimants again? In my opinion, only very few.

I very much hope that the Minister will be able to persuade the Secretary of State to take this amendment seriously in order to avoid a likely catastrophe in housing provision for universal credit claimants, and serious consequences for the children of the many parents who will be unable to cope. I beg to move.

[Earl Cathcart (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has just said, under the old housing benefit scheme the tenant had the choice of the payment going to him or directly to the landlord. The Minister said that, under the new scheme, the,

“position is for universal credit to be paid as a single monthly sum direct to the claimant; that is designed to mirror what would happen if the claimant was in full-time employment, when they would be responsible for managing their own funds and paying their own rent”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2438.]

In an ideal world that is an excellent idea, but in the real world it invariably does not happen. As a landlord, I can foresee that when the tenant receives the universal credit, the temptation will be to buy the weekly shopping, petrol, clothes and so on, and by the time the rent becomes due there will not be enough money left, so the spiral of debt takes hold. But the Government are adamant that paying universal credit only to the claimant not only will work but does work. Is this experiment working as the Government say it is?

According to a survey conducted by the Residential Landlords Association, it is not. It found that of those private sector landlords who had tenants on universal credit, some 63% had tenants in arrears on their rent—a point just made by the noble Baroness. Of that group of landlords, 85% had contacted the Department for Work and Pensions to have the housing element of the universal credit paid direct to them after eight weeks of arrears, as is their entitlement. More than 57% of that group said that it had taken the department more than five weeks to respond to the request, which means that the landlord is already more than three months out of pocket. I understand that the problem is even worse for social housing, with nearly 90% of tenants in arrears. It is heartening that the Minister said in Committee that,

“we are doing a lot of work now with social landlords to get the problem under control”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2437.]

At least my noble friend admits that there is a problem and that the new system is not working quite as planned. Much of this could have been avoided if the rent had been paid direct to the landlord.

In October 2012, a survey of more than 1,000 landlords carried out by the Residential Landlords Association and the Scottish Association of Landlords found that more than 91% of landlords were less likely to rent to tenants on benefits as a direct result of the decision not to allow payment of the benefits direct to the landlord. Not making the payment direct to the landlord is not helping the landlords and it is certainly not helping the tenants. All the evidence, backed by Shelter, Crisis and the Money Advice Trust, has been that paying it direct to the landlord was popular with tenants, as they were assured that their rent was covered before they decided how else to spend their money.

If the Government really want to make tenants,

“responsible for managing their own funds and paying their own rent”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2438.],

what better way than the tenant asking for the rent to be paid direct to the landlord? To my mind, that is the height of responsibility for the tenant: to ensure that the roof over their heads is paid for before deciding how to spend any remaining money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Perhaps I should not have personalised it.

The reason this idea of choice does not work is that it is too attractive for a landlord to have an AAA income stream. That is why the solution of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, cannot work. It is a retrograde step away from claimants being job-ready. We know that we need to give an enormous amount of help to people with budgeting, and we are doing so. We are looking to social landlords to help us with that, and many are doing a great job. But I am afraid that I must ask, with some passion, that the noble Baroness withdraws this amendment.

[Baroness Meacher]

It is extremely late but I would like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord McKenzie, for their very helpful and powerful contributions. The Minister and I will have to disagree passionately about this issue: I do not think we are going to agree. The Minister is right that landlords have a lot of power. They will walk away. Why should they let out their properties and not have their rent paid? They will not do it. That is my big worry—I say that seriously to the Minister: they will not do it. One can talk about budgeting help and all sorts of things but this is very difficult. As benefits reduce, people are going to find it incredibly difficult to manage at all. They simply will not be able to leave any money in the pot until the end of the month to pay their rent because of the pressures they will be under. I profoundly and passionately disagree with the Minister, as much as I respect and like him. But what am I supposed to do but withdraw my amendment?

Amendment 82A withdrawn.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 41 and 44. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said and will try to give some answer to the question that I think he is putting forward, which I fundamentally disagree with.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others for the very good report they undertook. I read it with great interest. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for making a very comprehensive statement regarding these two amendments.

I do not want to spend too much time on this because we have, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, already discussed it for over two hours in Committee. However, I want to say a number of things. I was very disappointed to see the BBC news over the weekend state that government sources had said that people who were concerned about the cuts to ESA and the WRAG were “scaremongering”. This really is not the case. The facts speak for themselves. As I said, we had an extensive debate in Committee, which highlighted the research that has been done and the impact that these cuts would have. I do not want to repeat that research, but it is there. This is not scaremongering.

We on these Benches are opposed to the ESA and WRAG cuts, which will affect people when they are at their most vulnerable—when they are sick. These are people who have been independently assessed by government-appointed assessors—not by their own GPs who they have perhaps had a lifetime relationship with, but by independent assessors—as having limited capacity for work or as being able to return to some form of work in the future. As has already been outlined, over 50% of people in this group have mental health problems and it includes people with disabilities, people with progressive diseases, such as MS and Parkinson’s, and people who may be undergoing cancer treatments.

It is interesting to note that the Government have enshrined in law that there is to be parity between acute services and mental health services in the Department of Health, which is laudable. However, another department—the DWP—is penalising people with mental health problems on ESA and WRAG by cutting their benefit as though this will improve their health and will make them better sooner. That is not true, and there is no research which demonstrates it. The Department of Health and the DWP should at least try to have a dialogue to complement respective government policies. If there was more joined-up thinking between departments the taxpayer could save significant sums of money. There is no evidence that cutting £30 a week from the benefit to that of a jobseeker’s allowance will improve these claimants’ ability and fitness to work. Indeed, it may have the opposite effect.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, it is unthinkable that we should put it in the Bill that these benefits should be cut from ESA and WRAG without reviews and without putting into place some of the things that noble Lords have suggested. We and the Government could do those reviews first and then implement a policy. To implement a policy that will have such dire effects first, and then consider that, whatever falls out of it, something will happen, is not right or fair. The Government have to undertake research, think about the policy, consider its impact and then implement it in a fair and considered way.

The Government should strengthen the support that is given to ESA and WRAG claimants by ensuring that specialist advice and support is available to these people. Work coaches should also be given the appropriate training to understand and meet the needs of these claimants.

I look at this issue through the prism of work. The Government must also tackle the thorny issue of employer discrimination—which, although against the law, still exists, sadly, in places—and identify exactly what kind of support they will give to employers to enable them to employ more people with disabilities.

Clauses 13 and 14 should be removed from the Bill. They have no place in a caring and compassionate society.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support the proposal to leave out Clauses 13 and 14. I was disappointed in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Of course, we all want people to be able to return to work, and employment is incredibly helpful if people are well enough to take it on. On the idea that, somehow, if we are not in favour of cutting these benefits we are content that people should remain out of work for an indefinite period unnecessarily, the crucial point is: can these people return to work, is it reasonable, and will these cuts facilitate that return to work or drive people further from the labour market? That is issue and we have all the evidence we need to raise serious questions about it.

I want to avoid repeating the arguments so ably put by my noble friend Lord Low but to endorse the view that these clauses will not achieve the Government’s objective of increasing the numbers of sick and disabled people moving into and remaining in jobs. It is remaining in a job which is absolutely crucial, because there is no point in getting a job for two weeks and then finding that you are so ill you have to drop out. Then, you will spend months trying to restore the benefits you have been receiving. In fact, it is a very dangerous thing for most people on benefits to take a job, which is one of the big issues the Government need to tackle. Until people feel freer to move in and out of work, we will not achieve the results we want. I know that that is the aim of universal credit and I applaud the objective. The reduction of £30 a week in the incomes of these vulnerable groups will undoubtedly cause the most incredible misery and hardship for a lot of already very vulnerable people.

I want to avoid duplicating the comments of other speakers and rather to draw the Minister’s attention to the four key points made by the Royal College of Psychiatrists about Clauses 13 and 14 and the cuts. First, as others have mentioned, more than 50% of people affected by this cut will be suffering from mental and behavioural disorders. These people find it particularly hard to get into work and, indeed, to maintain a job for reasons that have nothing to do with their benefits but more to do with fears about employers, health problems, travel problems and so on. Secondly, a survey by the Disability Rights Coalition found that almost seven in 10 disabled people say that the cuts to ESA will cause their health to suffer. To judge by my experience of some 25 years in mental health services, mentally ill people’s health will suffer most severely—if I dare say that in front of colleagues who know about other disabilities far better than I do. When faced with severe financial hardship, people with psychiatric and psychological problems will find it extremely difficult to function at all. Common sense tells us that someone with an anxiety disorder or depression will find rising debts and the prospect of eviction from their home impossible to cope with. Are these people really going to be able to search for jobs effectively? Of course not.

The third point made by the Royal College of Psychiatrists reinforces this. It points out that there is no evidence that cutting the amount of benefit someone with mental health problems receives will make it more likely for them to find work. This point has been made in respect of disabled people in general, but given the sizeable number of ESA/WRAG clients with mental health problems, the view of the psychiatrists should not be ignored. Finally, and most important from the point of view of the Government, these cuts could lead to an increase in demand for NHS mental health services. According to a Rethink Mental Illness survey, 78% of respondents said they will need more support from their GP, community services or in-patient mental health services if their benefits are cut. I do not believe that these services have the capacity to deal with an influx of demand from these groups.

Macmillan Cancer Support has made the point that success in finding a job and moving off ESA is related to the quality of back-to-work support offered, the availability of jobs, and the health of the individual rather than impoverishment. Surely these realities should drive the Government’s policy. Macmillan argues that its own research proves the correlation between financial deprivation and poorer health outcomes. In the case of cancer patients, too early a return to work can be dangerous and may drive people into the support group. That is detrimental to them and, of course, to the taxpayer.

The third group I want to mention briefly is the 8,000 ESA/WRAG claimants with progressive and incurable conditions including Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease, as already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. Does the Minister believe that anyone currently unfit for work due to Parkinson’s or motor neurone disease will become fit for work in the near future—or ever? These illnesses are relentlessly, tragically and depressingly progressive. Does not the Minister regard it as quite immoral—I do not often use that word but I feel I need to in this context—to treat such clients in the same way as young, fit people looking for work? I would be grateful for his views on this point.

In conclusion, I find Clauses 13 and 14 immoral in certain respects, as well as counterproductive even in achieving the Government’s own objectives of cutting the costs of sick and disabled people to the taxpayer through driving them back into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I will briefly support this amendment. Before doing so, however, I have not had an opportunity to thank the noble Lord, the Minister’s colleague, for the assurance and commitment that adoptive parents, kinship carers and others will be kept out of the two-parent limit. I was very grateful to hear that from him.

The amendment, which I support, brings to mind two questions. If a child has had, for instance, pneumonia, and subsequently gets ill on a regular basis, what mechanism is in place to allow for the fact that the child has been and continues to be unwell on a periodic basis, which will allow the parent to give the child the care they need to recover fully from this issue?

The other question—perhaps I am stretching a little—is with regard to dealing with mental health. There has been a great deal of concern about perinatal mental health, and clearly this is an opportunity to spot perinatal mental ill health, including post-natal depression, and to do something about it. I may have missed other debates during the course of the Bill—perhaps the Minister can refer me to them or just drop me a line—but I know that information about the health of welfare claimants cannot be shared with the health service directly. Are the Government thinking of doing what they do in police stations, which is to station a mental health professional in the jobcentre itself so that they can help spot any issues of this kind and ensure that the parent and child get the support they need to deal with that?

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I will contribute briefly to this debate in support of the amendment. The issue here is that we are in a very different benefits culture from the one we had maybe until 2010—I am not sure when exactly. The point is that the claimant commitment is the basis for sanctioning. If a parent fails to comply with a claimant commitment, that is when they will be sanctioned. If the claimant commitment is completely unrealistic and the parent cannot comply with it—for example, if it requires the parent to travel 90 minutes each way and they manage to have childcare for only five or six hours a day, or whatever it is—it will be physically impossible for them to satisfy that claimant commitment.

We know, certainly from the Fawcett Society inquiry I was involved with, that there is quite a need for training for these staff. That of course goes back for as long as I have ever been involved with welfare matters, which is probably some 40 years. Staff are very poorly paid, they tend to be rather inadequately trained and there is always a rapid turnover of staff, so you always have new staff who are trying to learn the rules, and so on. So this claimant commitment takes on a far greater significance in this day and age than it would have done 30 or 40 years ago.

That is why I ask the Government to take this very seriously. They need to accept that they have low-paid staff, a rapid turnover, poor training, and therefore that sanctions happen utterly inappropriately. The claimant commitments are wildly unrealistic in the experience of the inquiry I was involved with, which is very dangerous for the children. The parent goes along on a Friday to pick up their benefit and is told, “Oh, sorry”—or probably not even “sorry”—“your benefit has been stopped”. Is there any supper for the children? No, sorry, no food in the house—and so on. It is very serious for children affected by sanctions following the claimant commitment. That is why, although this sounds like a fairly innocuous amendment, believe me, it is very important.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with this amendment. It would be difficult to do otherwise because, as my noble friend reminded us, I moved a parallel amendment to what became the Welfare Reform Act 2009 when we were in government. When one looks back at legislation one has been responsible for there is always a moment of trepidation, but we are on safe ground in this case. Those were the days when the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Northbourne, were heavily involved in our debates. Having said that—and I underline the importance that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has placed on this amendment—it is slightly disconcerting to understand that one’s labours at the Dispatch Box all those years ago have lain dormant and fallow, so I press the Minister to say why it has not been introduced.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly to say a word about Amendment 42 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and Amendment 43 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard. In Committee, we discussed this briefly. While I have previously made it clear that I would seek to minimise those occasions on which we seek in statute to specify the circumstances in which people should access NHS treatment, that principally should be determined on a clinical basis. Past experience has demonstrated the value of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme in providing assistance to people with mental health and behavioural disorders, especially anxiety and depression. Your Lordships will know that the numbers who are in receipt of benefit and who are out of work by reason of those conditions has significantly increased over the last two decades. We need to respond to that.

The IAPT programme, which begun under the Labour Government before 2010, was continued and rolled out during the coalition Government after 2010. I stress that the importance of this will, I hope, give the Minister the opportunity to say that, while not accepting the letter of Amendment 43, the Government are sympathetic to the spirit of it. After 2012-14, there has been a 25% increase in the number of therapists providing psychological therapies through the National Health Service. That rollout is continuing. Health Education England anticipates that the increasing supply resulting from its commissions for training places for psychological therapists should arrive at the point whereby at 2017-18 the demand for such therapy is able to be matched by the supply of trained therapists. We have an opportunity, in the timeframe anticipated for the measures in the Bill, to make it more certain that somebody with anxiety and depression requiring access to therapies while signing on for benefits should be able to access that therapy. I hope that the Minister can give that positive response to these amendments.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I really was not expecting to speak today on this. We had asked that Amendment 43, on IAPT, be shifted and taken separately on Wednesday. The IAPT programme has now been going for 10 years: we had the first pilot in the mental health trust in east London 10 years ago. The point of that pilot, and of the whole programme, was to help the large numbers of people with mental health problems back into work. I remember talking to jobcentre staff and having great difficulty persuading them to refer people to the programme. Ten years on, we have so much evidence that if people with depression or anxiety receive good therapy quickly, they achieve remarkable results—far better results than any other that I am aware of in the psychological therapies. I stand here completely unprepared, save only to say to the Minister: please make use of what is an excellent programme on the whole—nothing is perfect everywhere, of course not—to help the 50% or so of unemployed people who desperately need precisely such help so that they can quickly get back to work. I make that big appeal to the Minister.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I add my support to the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. She said that she was somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s response to these amendments in Committee. She is right. He founded his response on a defence that these statistics are already available if you know where to find them and that they will continue to be published. That is only half the story. There is a case to be made for looking at more qualitatively based, specific disability-related data that are not available. It would not cost a great deal of money. The DWP has a capable resource department. Over a period of years, a lot of small but very important disability employment issues could be explored and the trends chased down and studied.

I give the example of the change as we move to universal credit, using work coaches rather than disability advisers. I understand that and I am very supportive of that new environment, but the work coaches are not dedicated specialists. They will have access to people, but I would love to watch how that works—if it does—as universal credit is rolled out. If it does not, we will need to change the setup, as I am sure the Minister will agree. I would like to see that kind of thing in gremio of the other suggestions for the reporting requirement from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. I support her in observing the need for what does not currently exist. With a bit of good will, working with the disability communities, we could have better sight of some of these problems.

My second point is that a contract of employment takes two people: you need an employer as well. We must not forget the employers. They try to do the best they can. As was said, physical disability is in some ways easier to address because the solutions are more obvious. Potential employees who suffer from any kind of intermittent condition—it is mainly, but not just, mental illness—are in a different category altogether. I remember feeling sympathy for the Minister when he got into trouble for saying that people with disabilities were not worth the money, or something—I am sure he never said it and that he did not mean it even if he did. However, he is right, in that the one risk that a potential employer fears—if I can put it that way—with regard to a very good candidate with intermittent conditions is that they cannot control their ability to turn up at key moments. Therefore, we need flexible working and to compensate for or take account of that, to reassure employers. You could do it by mitigating NI contributions, for example. We are not yet engaging in sufficient outreach with employers who might otherwise be willing to address this gap.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendments cover a lot of ground and touch on some very important issues. I hope that I have been able to assure noble Lords of the Government’s commitment and determination in this area and that the noble Baroness will feel able, on the back of those commitments, to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he would help us by explaining what the technical problems are in a simple referral to NHS by IAPT of people who have a diagnosis of a mental health problem.

[Lord Freud]

Yes. The Secretary of State for the DWP has no power to make referrals into the health system. That is just the way that these things are kept separate, and there is enormous sensitivity in the medical area about data and information flowing around the systems. In practical terms, that makes it impossible to join them up; it must be done in a much more subtle and clever way.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 3 I shall speak also to Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14, which are all to Clause 4 of the Bill. Indeed, they are all amendments in effect to the Child Poverty Act 2010. They represent a repetition of amendments that I tabled in Committee about the annual reporting on health and well-being and on children aged five, as opposed to at key stage 4. For very logical reasons, the Public Bill Office has put Amendment 3 before my old amendment, which is now Amendment 5, because maternal nutrition obviously comes before children who have already been born. Therefore, I shall speak first to Amendments 5 and 6 to amplify what I said in Committee, on which I had a discussion with the Minister before Christmas following the rather inconclusive conclusion to our debate that evening, following timing problems in the House. I particularly want to talk about the link between extreme poverty and mental health, particularly of children, which was highlighted in the previous amendment.

In any situation, it is grossly inefficient to tax people who cannot pay. Local government has been quite right to draw the Government’s attention to the inability of councils in England and Wales to collect the £1 billion in three years that they were instructed to start taxing in April 2013. Of course, as has been said many times during the passage of the Bill, there is a cumulative impact on the health and well-being of residents when the benefits provided by central government for survival are being reduced in value as the rents that they have to pay rise. Therefore, in fact, we are talking about the cumulative effects of a great number of issues that are not in themselves all the responsibility of the Department of Health, or, indeed, the Department for Communities and Local Government, which have to deal with the outcomes.

The economic and social costs of mental health provision, which is the subject of this amendment, have been calculated by the Centre for Mental Health, in which I declare an interest as a vice president, as being £105 billion in 2009-10, which is reckoned to be an underestimate. That is a huge amount of money and a great deal of that is caused by the conditions that we have been discussing in this Bill. It is of interest that Dr Angela Donkin, who is a deputy director at the Institute of Health Equity, has said that the national audit in 2010 found that 82% of homeless people had at least one physical health problem, and 72% had at least one mental health problem. So there is a huge cost to all this poverty.

Some 10.4% of those in fuel poverty, living therefore in extremely cold houses, showed higher levels of respiratory conditions, cardiovascular disease and poor mental health as the result of the conditions in which they lived. You then add food poverty, which has been mentioned—and, again, the lack of proteins, iron and the correct vitamins, minerals and fatty acids leave a higher susceptibility to illness and infection and heart and lung complications. It is said that preventing low birth weight should be an absolute must for all public health officials, but all their efforts will be hampered by inefficient incomes, which mean that people cannot buy what is required to produce that high birth weight. Finally, there are many mental disorders, particularly evident in women who, in addition to handling the family budget, suffer from maternal depression, which is bound to impact on the children and their social development.

As I mentioned before, we have a situation here where the Chancellor is apparently directing, without ever taking evidence from such as the Barrow Cadbury Trust, whose evidence was used by the Mayor of London to calculate the London living wage—and also, I fear, there is a lack of tie-up between the Treasury, the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions as well as the Department for Communities and Local Government. There is too much silo working. My amendments aim collectively to ensure that the collection of evidence by one ministry or another should be made available to all the others so that they have an aggregated picture on which to make their judgments.

Amendment 3 would introduce reporting on maternal nutrition—an addition to what I tabled in Committee. Also, it has been taken forward considerably since we debated it in December, particularly in a speech by the Prime Minister on 11 January, when he announced his life chances strategy. In addition to maternal nutrition, he also endorsed what was in my previous Amendment 4: the suggestion that reporting on children should not be left until key stage 4, at the end of schooling, but should be done at the age of five, because we would then have some chance of taking remedial action based on something that we had found early, thus increasing life chances. It is interesting that in his speech on 11 January, the Prime Minister said that,

“we must think much more radically about improving family life and the early years”.

He called that a “life cycle approach”—one that takes people from their earliest years through schooling and through adolescent and adult life.

This strategy clearly points to the importance of early child development and getting children ready for school, thus endorsing the assessment currently done of every child by the age of two, which I mentioned in Committee. Without measuring a child’s progress at the age of five, the Government cannot know how successful or otherwise any remedial treatment initiated following the health visitor assessment at two has actually been in preparing children for school.

I also mentioned in Committee that the All-Party Group on Speech and Language Difficulties, which I co-chair, in a report on the links between disadvantage and speech, language and communication needs, found that children with a low IQ from advantaged families overtook children with a higher IQ from disadvantaged families by the age of five. That is a terrible factor to consider: that overtaking will happen unless remedial action is taken. Therefore, I strongly believe that tackling child poverty and improving children’s life chances—the right reverend Prelate has just spoken about this, and we have just voted on it—is a national endeavour and responsibility. My amendment is designed to present the Government with the opportunity, through the evidence produced every year, to learn about what is actually happening to our children, and then to enable all the departments involved, not just the Department for Work and Pensions, to use the information to improve life chances, and thus to invest the nation’s money in its future—our children—more wisely.

My other amendments—Amendments 7, 9, 10 and 12 to 14—are textual adjustments to reflect the content of Amendments 3 to 6. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham. The main amendments in this group are of fundamental importance if the Government are to make a success of their own DWP policy. The Government want to focus upon the life chances of children rather than upon poverty alone—but I do not believe we should lose sight of the significance of poverty, particularly when the levels of poverty will worsen so severely in the coming years. I was relieved to hear the Minister assure the House that the Government will continue monitoring poverty as before, whatever becomes of the amendment on which the House has just voted when it gets to the other place.

Of course, there is a lot more to successful parenting and the life chances of children than income alone. As we all know, sufficient income is a necessary but certainly not a sufficient condition for a successful childhood. Parents’ mental and physical health and well-being are essential to successful parenting. If a mother is malnourished, she is most unlikely to provide for her child’s mental and physical needs. If she is depressed, she may not be able to look after her child at all until her mental health improves.

As my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham reminded us, the Prime Minister himself has highlighted the early years as one of four areas in which to anchor the Government's approach to life chances. The Government’s life chances strategy can, in my view, set a course for improving school readiness for the poorest and most disadvantaged children—but only, of course, if it is introduced across the country and is adequately funded. But only by monitoring progress in improving the health and well-being of children in workless households, particularly during the early years, is there any hope that policies will be developed and adjusted over time to ensure that they help rather than hinder the life chances of those children. Any Government will need to learn from their mistakes over time—and as we all know, Governments certainly make mistakes.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

We have run a well-being survey since 2012, published by the ONS. I am pleased to report that, on all four key measures of well-being, there has been an improvement every year since the survey started almost four years ago; that is, in life satisfaction, finding activity worthwhile, happiness, and reduction of anxiety.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I understand what the Government are attempting to achieve through the underoccupancy charge, but does the Minister have an estimate of the number of people who are subject to that charge for whom there is no appropriately sized accommodation available? Does he have any plans to relieve those particular households from the charge, when it is no fault of their own that they cannot move out?

[Lord Freud]

We saw in the report that came out just before Christmas—which we were able to discuss in this Chamber—that nearly 100,000 people have moved and are no longer affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy. More than half of them have been able to downsize—mainly within the social sector, but some in the private sector. More want to do so and the process is continuing.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 21st December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 72 and 92 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which I support. As I said at Second Reading, although we on these Benches agree on the need for a cap, we do not see the logic in reducing it to £23,000 a year for households in Greater London and to £20,000 for those in the rest of the country. Nor do we see the logic behind breaking the link between average earnings and the cap, as has already been said. I agree with the Child Poverty Action Group, which states that:

“The reduction in the level of the benefit cap severs the link with median earnings, and instead is based on an arbitrary figure, leaving it unclear what the fairness test is now”.

The Government’s rationale is that the benefit cap will deliver strong work incentives. However, the real concern here is that the requirement to find housing at an affordable level may force families away from areas where there are high levels of work opportunities, such as in London, to places of high unemployment. This would undermine the ultimate aim of getting people off benefits.

Although the Government demonstrate that the existing benefit cap successfully strengthens work incentives, as evidenced by the greater proportion of those capped moving into employment as compared to those under the cap, in-depth interviews conducted by DWP itself in 2014 show that many households responded to the cap by,

“being willing to accept low-skilled, low-paid jobs, rather than pursuing further qualifications which they hoped would help them get a better job in the future”.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has already said, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which undertook a peer review of the DWP research, concluded that its analysis told us:

“that the large majority of affected claimants responded neither by moving into work nor by moving house”.

Forfeiting further education and training for low-skilled, low-paid jobs limits an individual’s long-term human capital and earning prospects, which lowers potential tax revenues paid to the Government and, on an aggregated level, hinders economic productivity and potential output.

Long-term reductions in welfare spending will be realised only by increasing people’s income through employment and by reducing their outgoings, primarily through improving access to affordable housing. I urge the Minister to maintain the benefit cap as currently set.

At Second Reading, I asked whether the Government intended to undertake a distribution analysis of the levels of housing benefit that the average person hit by the benefit cap would receive and where they might be able to secure suitable housing. I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to answer this question more fully on this occasion. Will he also say what impact the further lowering of the benefit cap will have on single parents and how the rights of children will be protected? This has been very clearly highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Gingerbread quite rightly is concerned. Lowering the benefit cap will continue disproportionately to affect single parents, of which as many as 70%—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, quoted 69%—will have a child under the age of five. That cannot be acceptable.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 94—I emphasise that it is a probing amendment. I do so in the hope that we can highlight the need for a comprehensive and regular review of the impact of the totality of the benefit cuts on specific groups—who are the most vulnerable—applied during the past few years, including those in the Welfare Reform Act 2012, in more recent legislation and in this Bill. The amendment requires that in carrying out a review of the benefit cap, the Secretary of State must include an assessment of the impact of the benefit cap on disabled people, their families and carers. I for one have not fully grasped the full impact of the multitude of cuts. At the very least, I believe that the Government have a moral obligation to understand the implications of their policies for the most vulnerable citizens in this country and to make public that information. That is what this amendment is about.

The benefit cap applies even to benefits designed to compensate for the extra costs of disability or caring for disabled people, including ESA WRAG, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and carer’s allowance. We know that one-third of disabled people—fully 3.7 million—live below the poverty line already. The benefit cap combined with the freezes and cuts to employment and support allowance for those in the WRAG group will see disabled people’s incomes reduced significantly again. This significant reduction is from a level which is already below the poverty line.

The Government argue that the new lower, tiered cap has been designed to strengthen the work incentives for those on benefits. When I met the Minister from the other place, he said, “The whole point of this is to encourage people to work for more hours”. I find that so cynical, when most of these people simply cannot work more hours for a range of reasons. However, as we have argued previously in Committee, the Government have provided no evidence to back up the claim that cutting benefits that disabled people receive will incentivise them to work. As I have already indicated, the Government’s reference to an OECD study failed to point out that the study did not even refer to disability throughout, and rightly so—of course, people who are disabled are in an entirely different position from those who are healthy and able bodied. We have evidence that reducing disabled people’s incomes will make it harder and not easier for them to move into work.

In addition, the impact assessment provides no detail on the impact of lowering the cap on disabled people who are in receipt of DLA/PIP—those who are severely disabled and cannot do much about their situation. This amendment has no financial consequences. I hope that the Minister will take this matter away with a view to bringing back a government amendment on Report.

I support Amendment 93 tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The case for the amendment has been eloquently spelt out and, fortunately, I do not need to add to that. I hope that the Minister will assure the Committee that this crucial issue will be dealt with on Report.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

I add support to the amendment just spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, to which my name is added. While an exemption for households including a DLA or personal independence payment claimant exists, this does not protect all families affected by disability or all carers from the cap. That is because of the way in which “household” is defined in the benefits system. For the purposes of the benefits system, a household is considered to be an adult, their partner if they have one and any children they have under the age of 18. If any other adult relatives—for example, older parents, brothers or sisters, or even adult children—live in the same house, they are considered to be part of a different benefits household even though they all live together. This means that while carers looking after disabled partners and disabled children aged under 18 are exempt from the cap, those caring for adult disabled children, siblings or elderly parents are subject to it.

The Government’s impact assessment for the introduction of the benefit cap estimates that 5,000 households containing carers would be affected by it. That seems to be completely contrary to the Government’s policy on supporting carers. In its 2015 manifesto, the Conservative Party committed to provide more support for full-time carers. The fact that the benefit cap continues to apply to carers and the further lowering of the cap are entirely contrary to that commitment. The inclusion of the carer’s allowance in the list of capped benefits also goes against the commitment to protect vulnerable families that are coping with the extra costs of disability and ill-health. I will have more to say about the inclusion of carer’s allowance and the recent judgment in a later set of amendments.

Carers struggle every day with the extra costs of caring and it is clear, as the noble Baroness said, that many carers are absolutely unable to work as a result of heavy caring responsibilities. Therefore they cannot afford any reduction in their income at all, and yet the Government continue to cap their benefits, with those carers who fall within the scope of the cap losing up to an estimated £169 a week under the new cap compared with the position before the introduction of the policy. The benefit cap places an increasing financial and emotion strain on families, pushing carers to breaking point and ultimately threatening the sustainability of those caring relationships. Surely the Government must be prepared, at the very minimum, to assess the impact of these changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley]

I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making, but I am afraid that I do not agree with it, for two reasons. The first is by virtue of the other measures that this Government are taking in relation to availability of childcare, the further extension of personal tax allowances and the increase in the national minimum wage, leading to a national living wage. All of these enable people who are in work to achieve more of a living income through being in work. The second and most important reason is that work in itself changes the character of a household; it changes the character of people’s lives. Frankly, in the long run, it changes people’s employability.

[Baroness Meacher]

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is making an incentives argument, which I accept completely. Does he accept that, when people are unable to work more or at all because they are carers or severely disabled, the incentive argument really falls down?

[Lord Lansley]

The point I was answering was in relation to people in work, so that is a slightly different point. In relation to that point, too, as the noble Baroness has brought it up, the structure of the benefit cap is designed to ensure that people who are in a support group under the employment and support allowance, those in receipt of personal independence payments, and so on—there are number of exceptions—are not covered by the benefit cap. Those households are not covered by the benefit cap. We are focused, to a large extent, on those who have a capability for work even if that capability may be restricted in some ways.

I did not complete the point I was making in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Many years ago I was deputy director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce— and I do not think it has changed in the slightest—and I know that what matters to employers is that people have been in work and have all the attributes of somebody who has been in work. The longer one is out of work the less likely one is, as we know, to have those attributes. Therefore, the entry into work, even if it might not necessarily be the right job or be regarded as suitable or appropriate, will by its very nature make someone more likely to have those attributes necessary for work.

That is just one of the reasons why the benefit cap is needed. It is also needed because of a sense of the fairness between those who are in work and those who are not. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said there was a relationship with average earnings. That was true when the benefit cap was introduced, but to assert that it is some kind of mechanistic or scientific relationship is misleading. It is a judgment. A judgment was made, when there was previously no benefit cap to try and establish a benefit cap at a level that was regarded as fair.

I have to tell noble Lords—again coming from recent experience of fighting elections and being in the other place—that the public support the benefit cap. They regard it as still generous—too generous in many respects. When one looks at the relationship with those who are in work—the four in 10 households, broadly speaking, as was mentioned—who are not earning any more from their work than would be available through the benefit cap by the accumulation of benefits, they do not regard it as fair or reasonable for people to accumulate more by way of benefits than they are able to access by work.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

75: Clause 7, page 9, leave out lines 1 and 2

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 75 I shall speak also to Amendments 78, 80, 81 and 83. The amendments seek to exempt those in receipt of carer’s allowance or disability benefits from the cap. I shall talk about the two groups, carers and disabled claimants.

As Carers UK has pointed out, unpaid carers save the state an estimated £132 billion per year. Clause 7 includes just one of a number of measures which will have a damaging impact on the finances of the 6.5 million carers in the UK. The lives of carers are already extremely hard. A Carers UK survey of 4,500 unpaid carers, mostly caring for 50 or more hours a week, shows that almost half of them, some 41%, are cutting back on essentials such as food and heating—one wonders what else they could cut back—while 45% said that financial worries are affecting their health. I want to draw to noble Lords’ attention the fact that Clause 7 breaches a Government election manifesto commitment to increase support for full-time unpaid carers. The cuts set out in Clause 7 and elsewhere in the Bill come on top of previous changes which Carers UK estimates will result in a cut to carers’ incomes of more than £1 billion between 2011 and 2018. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to this point.

The Government’s impact assessment identifies that 6% of carer’s allowance recipients will be subject to the cap. Those who have had their benefits capped at £26,000 will lose an average of a further £64 per week. The figure of 6% may seem small, but for every one of those families it will be devastating. The cumulative impact of the cuts, together with the cut to WRAG benefits and further reductions in local government funding, will inevitably undermine the capacity of many carers to continue their invaluable caring work. I know that carers looking after disabled partners and disabled children aged under 18 are exempt from the cap, but why are those who care for adult disabled children, siblings or elderly relatives not also exempt? I would be grateful if the Minister explained this. Why should one group of carers be given preference over another group? Surely that is an anomaly.

The Minister will be aware that on 26 November 2015 the High Court ruled that carers in receipt of carer’s allowance should be exempt from the benefit cap following a judicial review challenge to the policy and its impact on carers and the disabled, seriously ill or older loved ones they support. The judge’s comments will be known to the Minister, but I want to quote one short passage in which he concluded that, “With carers being unable to mitigate the cap, this endangers the sustainability of the caring role and indirectly discriminates against the disabled person, who will no longer be able to receive care”. What do the Government plan to do in response to this ruling? I hope the Minister will clarify the position for noble Lords.

Recent DWP research shows that households containing carer’s allowance claimants subjected to the cap are more likely to move into work than those not capped. To what extent has the cap already led claimants to abandon their caring responsibilities in order to return to work? How many disabled people have moved into residential accommodation as a result? The implications for social care services and costs to the public purse may be considerable. Does the Minister have information on this point? In fact, will the cap save money as far as it affects carers, or will it cost the Exchequer a great deal?

I will say a brief word about the amendments aimed at excluding disabled people’s benefits from the calculation of the cap for any household. We have already discussed the severe consequences of this Bill for disabled people, particularly if all the cuts go through unmodified. I want to say in the context of Clause 7 only that disability benefits were introduced to compensate disabled people for the additional expenditure they incur because of their disability. If these benefits are included in calculating the cap, families with a disabled member will be poorer than able-bodied families. They do not benefit in material terms from their disability benefits, because all those benefits do is compensate for the higher costs of travel, heating and so on than able-bodied families incur. Is it the Government’s intention to hit disabled people particularly hard with this legislation? If they wish to treat disabled people on an equal basis with others, disability benefits should indeed be excluded from the cap calculations. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on this point. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

My Lords, I rise to strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. We have said already that the cap is applied unequally to carers. While I welcome the exemption for households in receipt of PIP or DLA, it means that carers who are considered to be not in the same household as the person they care for will be penalised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

I rise briefly to oppose the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, because her amendment would remove the ESA part in Clause 7(4)(e). I do not think that removing it will serve people with disabilities well. To be fair, when the Labour Government introduced the ESA back in 2008, they had a noble aim: to help support many people with disabilities into work. I commend them on that. The work-related activity group—WRAG—within ESA was originally intended to act as an incentive to encourage people to participate in work-related activity and therefore return to work quicker.

Previously in Committee, noble Lords suggested that people in the WRAG have been declared not fit for work, but that is not the case. They have been declared to have “limited capacity for work”, which is not the same thing, as most noble Lords will understand. That is an important distinction, for the purpose of this group is to encourage people into work. Indeed, when the Labour Government introduced the benefit White Paper, Raising Expectations and Increasing Support: Reforming Welfare for the Future, published in 2008, they stated that they aimed to reduce the number of people on incapacity benefits by 1 million by 2015. I am making no criticism or political comment. It was a wise and noble aim, yet the reality is that we have failed and only 1% of people in the WRAG leave the benefits system each month.

It is good that the Department for Work and Pensions is currently looking to reform this area and I look forward to seeing my noble friend’s White Paper in the new year. It would be a backward step to remove the ESA. We have already discussed this, and my noble friend has already stated today the tremendous success that the cap has in getting people into work. Removing the ESA would be slightly counterproductive.

[Baroness Meacher]

Very quickly, I just want to raise the question of whether the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, thinks that there is a problem with the work capability assessment or with the ESA WRAG. I am aware that people with Parkinson’s are already assessed as having limited capacity for work. The idea that their capacity will grow is frankly inconceivable.

[Lord Blencathra]

The noble Baroness makes an interesting point. We addressed the capacity for work test at an earlier stage. There are concerns and it may not be perfect. It is very difficult to assess. We can have 100,000 people with MS and every single one is different, so it is very difficult to come to a firm conclusion. I know that the Government are continually improving it. Labour improved it. The coalition improved it and the current Government are trying to improve that test. I hope that my noble friend will continue with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken very powerfully in support of these incredibly reasonable amendments. My understanding is that what we are all about is seeking that the cap does not apply where it is completely inappropriate and unfair to expect that person to work. In the case of kinship carers as well as other carers, the impact on the disabled child or relatives is likely to be extremely serious. The impact on the Exchequer or the taxpayer is also likely to be extremely costly.

I thank the Minister for informing the House that Ministers will be returning to the issue of carers, but surely the arguments of the High Court and the judge in relation to carers in general apply equally to kinship carers. I cannot see any possible argument that they do not—they just have to—so I ask the Minister to take away that point and consider the relevance of the High Court judgment and comments on kinship carers, and the need for some consistency. I also ask him to think further about the importance of people who cannot work for whatever reason, whether they have a one year-old child or are disabled to such an extent that they simply will not get better. Those people should be exempt from the cap and I ask the Minister not just to put that issue away and think “Job done”, but to think seriously and say, “Now hang on—surely we should be doing something about this”.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I gave notice that I wish to oppose Clause 13 standing part of the Bill and I now wish to do that in support of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. Clause 13 would cut ESA by just under £30 a week, or £1,500 a year, for new claimants in the WRAG group from 2017. The Government’s reasoning is that the £30 a week uplift from the JSA level constitutes a disincentive for those in the WRAG group to seek work and that cutting this premium would remove that disincentive.

As I hope many noble Lords will by now know, with my noble friends Lady Meacher and Lady Grey-Thompson I have just carried out a review of this policy approach and its impact on the Government’s objective of halving the disability employment gap. The review was published yesterday; copies have been distributed and I hope that many noble Lords will have had a chance to look at it. I place on record my thanks to the disability charities which supported the review, including Leonard Cheshire Disability, Mind, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the National Autistic Society, the Royal Mencap Society, Scope and RNIB, of which I am a vice-president and I declare my interest. I also thank the 30 or so organisations which responded to our call for evidence and the nearly 200 disabled people who gave us eloquent and often very personal accounts of their lives and aspirations, and the hardships that they face.

Our review found no evidence to support the Government’s approach. The Government’s impact assessment contains no detail on how disabled people might be affected and seems to be concerned only with savings to the Government, which would amount to £640 million by the end of the Parliament—not a massive amount as these things go. The Government rely principally, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, on a 2005 OECD study which deals only with unemployment generally and not the unemployment of disabled people at all, which is generally reckoned to be very different, as evidenced by the intractability of the disability employment gap. Officials have referred us to a 2010 study by Barr and others in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, which suggests that there is a significant negative association between benefit levels and employment. But the authors commented that:

“While there was some evidence indicating that benefit level was negatively associated with employment, there was insufficient evidence of a high enough quality to determine the extent of that effect. Policy makers and researchers need to address the lack of a robust empirical basis for assessing the employment impact of”,

the 2010 welfare reforms.

The central recommendation of our review is therefore that the proposal to reduce payment to claimants in the WRAG group to JSA level should be put on hold in order to carry out a thorough assessment of ESA and the impact that any reductions might have, not only on disabled people, their families and carers but on other services that might be affected, such as social care and the National Health Service, as well as knock-on effects on other benefits. As we conducted our review, I was hugely impressed by the wealth of expertise possessed by the organisations which came and gave evidence to us. If the Minister were to establish a working group to tap into this expertise, I am sure that these organisations would be only too happy to help him get this matter right.

ESA is an income replacement benefit for those assessed as not fit for work. It is important to stress this point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, has done. They are assessed as not fit for work; they may have been assessed as capable of undertaking activities potentially leading to work but the essential point to grasp is that they are in the WRAG group because they are not currently fit for work. Moreover, the extra £30 a week is there in recognition of the fact that it takes much longer and costs more for disabled people to take steps towards work, during which time savings run down. It is important to remember that this is a group in which many are already in or close to poverty.

According to the Office for National Statistics, 31% of disabled working-age adults live in poverty compared with 20% of non-disabled adults. Currently, roughly 60% of people spend approximately two years in the WRAG group. This may be even higher for some groups. For example, blind and partially sighted people are five times more likely than the general population to have had no paid work for five years. This compares with 60% of people spending roughly six months on JSA. As I have said, the extra payment is there to reflect that but also to recognise the additional costs that disabled people face when looking for work or undertaking work-related activities. Respondents told us about increased travel costs, as well as the cost of assistive technology. Of course, DLA and the personal independence payment are designed to cover additional costs associated with disability. However, respondents reported that DLA and PIP are not enough to cover all their costs—it is only a contribution to them—and we know that only around 50% of individuals in the WRAG group also receive DLA or PIP in any case. Individuals would really struggle to cover those additional costs if the ESA WRAG component is removed.

Our review took place in the context of the Government’s welcome aim to halve the disability employment gap. It concluded, however, that the proposed cut to ESA would hinder rather than promote this aim. One respondent said that they would need to cancel their phone and broadband contracts, with the result that,

“I would not be able to make calls regarding workplace volunteering that I want to do”,

in order to help them get back to work,

“or make job applications when I am ready. I would also no longer be able to afford smart clothes which you need for work”.

An important contribution came from the Disability Benefits Consortium, which surveyed 500 disabled people in the ESA WRAG group. Almost half of these—49%—said that such a cut would mean that they were not able to return to work so quickly. The disability employment gap is a long-standing structural one, exacerbated by failed back-to-work schemes—the Work Programme in particular—as well as societal and employer attitudes. It is not generous benefits that are holding people back.

Our review identified a very close connection between the proposed cuts and people’s mental health, which, in addition to the human cost, would lead to people being pushed further from the labour market. As one respondent commented:

“Losing this money would make me more worried and stressed which would impact my mental health considerably turning the whole thing into a vicious circle”.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, stressed this point very eloquently. It is important because the current ESA WRAG group consists of close to quarter of a million people with mental health problems as well as learning disabilities.

In summary, our review concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that disabled people can be incentivised into work by cutting their benefits. Instead, the Government should look to improving support by making it more tailored to people’s individual needs as well as working with employers to tackle attitudinal barriers. If the Government could only do this effectively, and halve the disability employment gap, that would really make dramatic inroads into the size of the ESA bill.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 50, moved by my noble friend Lord Patel. I also support the call of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for Clause 13 not to stand part of the Bill. I put on record my thanks to the charities that worked tirelessly to produce what I think was an excellent report for the review, and in particular Rob Holland of Mencap. I also express my gratitude to the hundreds of disabled people who took time to share with us their stories, experiences and concerns. I thank the Minister for a very helpful meeting yesterday focusing on our review.

We need to be conscious of the fact that the cut in the income of WRAG claimants is just one of many cuts to the benefits of sick and disabled people, as has become apparent through these debates. The OBR report shows that there will be a steady fall in the percentage of GDP spent on benefits for sick and disabled people between now and 2020, which I would have thought is something the Government should be rather ashamed of. This is being achieved of course through freezing a number of benefits, tighter criteria for eligibility for PIP—which will lead to 500,000 disabled people no longer qualifying for the benefit by 2018—cuts in the level of disability benefits and, of course, the cut in WRAG benefits by £30 per week, the subject of Clause 13.

Amendment 50, if agreed, would in my view ensure that Clause 13 would never be implemented. There is no doubt in my mind that the implications of this clause for the mental and physical well-being, the financial situation and, more particularly, the ability to return to work of WRAG claimants will be devastating. The first problem concerns the inadequacies of the WCA—the work capability assessment. Many people in the WRAG should very obviously not be there, and should be in the support group instead. One of the problems, but a very important one, is that the WCA is a functional assessment that does not take any account of the real world, in which employers simply will not employ someone with a progressive disease who is already assessed as unfit for work—someone with Parkinson’s disease, for example. The early stages are fine, but then they would be assessed as fit for work. In addition, over half of WRAG claimants have mental and behavioural disorders, including learning disabilities, autism and mental illnesses, which generally fluctuate in their severity.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists reported new research by the universities of Liverpool and Oxford which estimates that the increase in WCA assessments may have led to 590 additional suicides, as well as an increase in mental health problems and in the number of prescriptions for anti-depressants. One has to think about the cost of all these downsides. While some WRAG claimants are, no doubt, quite properly preparing to return to work, many are being inappropriately required to jump through all sorts of work-preparation hoops and, no doubt, being required to make dozens of fruitless job applications, even if they are aware of the electronic screening of such applications, which I learned about from the Minister, most helpfully, yesterday.

Many of these claimants are having to try and come to terms, at the same time, with the fact that they have long-term mental or physical illnesses, terminal health problems or unpleasant symptoms which in many cases will only get worse, as well as with the misery of thinking that no employer may ever take them on again—quite a lot for someone to cope with.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

3: Clause 11, page 13, line 12, at end insert—
“( ) The limit on the number of children or qualifying young persons for whom an individual element of child tax credit can be claimed, as set out in subsection (3B), shall not apply to households where one or more of the children or qualifying young persons are disabled (including, but not limited to, those persons in receipt of the disability element of child tax credit).”

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 3 seeks to exclude all families with a disabled child from the two-child limit on receipt of the child element of child tax credit and the child addition within universal credit.

I have also tabled Amendment 8, which is more limited in the protection it affords. Amendment 8 would exclude any disabled child from the number of children considered in relation to the child element of universal credit. Thus, if Amendment 8 were accepted by the Government, a family with four children, one of whom is disabled, would still lose the child element for the third non-disabled child. I argue very strongly for Amendment 3, but Amendment 8 would be a great improvement on the Bill as it stands. At this point, I pay tribute to Rob Holland from Mencap for his considerable help with the Bill.

Families with disabled children face financial and other stresses which are not faced where all the children are healthy and able-bodied. These families have extra costs for special aids, adaptations to their homes, and additional clothing and travel costs. The travel costs of medical appointments alone can be very considerable. One family, for example, reported regularly having to get to three appointments a week, and this can rise to as many as seven. The appointments are at four different hospitals, involving additional petrol costs, depreciation of the car and, most particularly, parking fees. Another family talked of their child often breaking bedroom furniture and other items due to the frustration of their disability, which then had to be replaced.

The enormity of the cuts envisaged for families with disabled children is quite extraordinary. While I know that the Government are committed to a much smaller role for the state in future, can it be right to hit the most disadvantaged the hardest? Without these amendments, the two-child limit for claims of child tax credit means that if a two-child family has a third child who is disabled, the family will be £2,780 per year, or an average of £50 or so per week, worse off than they would be under the current provision. This loss must be considered alongside the substantial fall in the level of the disability element of child credit under universal credit. The current value of that benefit is £57 per week, whereas the disability addition in a family’s universal credit entitlement will be worth only £28 a week—a loss of £29 per week. I understand that, in all, a new claimant family with three children, one of whom is disabled, will be about £79 per week worse off when these two changes come into effect than a family currently claiming equivalent benefits. Will the Minister confirm whether or not he agrees with these figures?

Research conducted by the Children’s Society and Citizens Advice in 2012 into the two-child limit for child tax credit found that the impact could be disastrous for the health and well-being of the children. Two-thirds said that they would have to cut back on food, more than half said that it would lead them into debt and more than one in 10 feared that they would have to give up their home.

Have the Government assessed the impact of these cuts on the number of children placed in residential care? There seems little doubt that all parents will be less able to cope with a disabled child at home if money is as tight as highlighted by the Children’s Society and Citizens Advice. What would be the net savings to the Exchequer, having taken into account residential care costs of a proportion of the children involved, as well as other costs of health and social care? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether work has been done to clarify the net savings from the two-child limit in the context of the other planned benefit cuts, and taking account of increased government spending on other services. If this analysis has not been done, does the Minister agree that these changes should not go ahead until the Government have a clear understanding of these points? As one parent put it, “We would face the choice of increased debt or the eventual institutionalisation of our child”.

The Government may be assuming that local authorities will take over the burden of these family costs. I understand that this simply will not happen. In fact, among the families already receiving additional support from local authorities, about 60% said that that support had been cut over the past year, and there will be more cuts to local authority services in the coming years.

A big concern is lone parents with disabled children. Many years ago when I was training to be a social worker, which I did for a few years, I spent six months working in a school for severely handicapped and disabled children. I found myself running a group for the parents of those children. The group comprised about 14 parents, every single one of whom was a single mother. The fathers had apparently walked out some time after the disabled child was born. If these mothers had also abandoned their disabled children, the state would have had to take care of the children and pay the bill. The impact of the two-child limit will be greatest for these parents.

In a meeting with Ministers about tax credits, I was told that the Government expected claimants to work extra hours to make up for their losses. However, these lone parents with disabled children are not able to make up the shortfall by working extra hours. The simple fact is that the disabled children and their healthy siblings will suffer if this measure goes ahead. I understand that the Government recognise that some groups—I think it is two groups—should be exempted from the two-child limit for the child elements of child tax credit and universal credit. I hope very much that the Minister will today assure the Committee that he will give serious consideration to exempting families with disabled children from this particularly savage cut. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. It is very important to remember that being the parent of a disabled child is not the same as being a parent. It is sometimes very difficult to get that point over. I remember that when we discussed the Children and Families Bill, officials and even Ministers said, “I am a parent and I do not need any extra support”. However, this is not the same as being a parent of a normal child, if I can put it that way. We all expect to care for our children until they are 18, and many of us for much longer than that but, for a parent who is caring for a disabled child, that caring is likely to be a lifelong commitment— your life or their life. That is the point we have to remember. That lifetime commitment means that these parents face huge problems. They face practical problems, particularly when services are being cut and there is not enough support. They also face very severe emotional problems. As the noble Baroness reminded us, marriage breakdown is very common where there is a child, or more than one, with disabilities. These parents also face financial problems, which is what we are concerned with here. I suggest that most households with a disabled child already face financial hardship, even without these changes. More than half—53%—of parent carers answering the State of Caring survey in 2015 said that they were struggling to make ends meet.

Research shows that it is three times more costly to bring up a disabled child than a non-disabled child, as we have been reminded. Some 34% of sick or disabled children live in households where there is no adult in paid work compared with 18% of children who are not sick or disabled. Four in 10 disabled children live in relative income poverty once the additional cost of their disability is accounted for. Last year, the Carers UK Caring & Family Finances Inquiry found that parent carers of disabled children were one of the groups least likely to be in employment. As one carer said: “I gave up work thinking I would be able to return within a year or two once I got my daughter the support she needed. Little did I know how poor local services were and I am still caring years later”. That carer will probably be caring all her life and certainly for all the life of that disabled child. Surely we are not thinking of making hard lives even harder by these pernicious changes. I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

We are getting way off but our evidence is that the vast bulk of households share financial resources, so although someone in a household may receive a particular amount of money it does not necessarily mean that they do not share the burdens evenly. One can make a lot of false assumptions out of some of these data if one is not careful. I urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I thank the many noble Lords who have spoken in this relatively short but very powerful debate. The Minister certainly got a clear message that this is a matter of considerable concern to Members in most parts of the House. Perhaps I can say again that one-nation Tories of the past have always supported families with disabled children. I still hope that this Government too can show that they will follow the traditions of their party and not leave these families bereft and in severe straits. That is what these provisions will do in the absence of any amendments to them. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful responses as always. I think he always gives us a pretty good innings, but I hope that before Report he will feel able to clarify the relative costs of these various amendments, and then we can perhaps sit down and really think where the need is the greatest. If we are all in the dark it really is quite difficult to make sense out of things, unless the Government have implacably decided they will not change anything in this Bill at all. I hope that is not the view of the Government and of the Minister. I thank all noble Lords and the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

My Lords, I crave three minutes to support the spirit of the amendments in this group, which recognise that progress and life chances for children depend on their physical, social, emotional and cognitive development and on other influences too. I support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that a government strategy for children should be drawn up, tracking development from birth to adulthood. As he said, we have the means to do that through government departments such as education, health and welfare working together, with help from the voluntary sector and local authorities. I remember that many years ago the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—possibly when she was Secretary of State for Education—spoke about having level playing fields for children. She said that some children begin the race with both feet tied together. Sadly, this is still the case. Feet are tied together through poverty, deprivation, low expectation and lack of care and stimulation in the early years. We know that the gap in attainment between poor children and more affluent ones is large by the age of five and continues to grow. We have recently had strong evidence from research that a holistic approach is necessary and I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in his concerns.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 34, tabled so comprehensively by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham. This amendment is of particular importance in view of the enormity of the cuts to welfare spending since the passing of the Child Poverty Act 2010. The Institute for Fiscal Studies reports that this will amount to £123 billion taken from our poorest citizens by 2016-17. The second feature of government policy the effects of which need to be monitored effectively—and would be under Amendment 34—is the conditionality and sanctions regime which undoubtedly increases the stress level of claimants very considerably.

As a panel member, along with Sir Keir Starmer and others, for an inquiry by the Fawcett Society into the impact of the Government’s welfare measures upon women, and by association their children, I found quite appalling the sheer level of errors and abuse in some Jobcentre Plus offices, affecting innocent women who only wanted, if at all possible, to gain their independence from the state. Our inquiry concluded that sanctions applied through no fault of the claimant were affecting claimants’ mental and physical health and the health and well-being of their children to a considerable degree. The Government have a duty to be aware of the consequences of their policies and to respond to the adverse effects.

I am aware that the Minister believes that injustices are limited in number, and that his department is doing its best to lessen them further. However, the inquiry made it clear to us that in fact the quality of service across the country varies very considerably. In some offices the staff were helpful and professional, and claimants certainly reported that. However, in others they were inadequately trained and could be callous and careless, with the most appalling consequences for the families affected. A typical example were mothers who, contrary to the guidelines, were required to travel three hours a day in total to and from work. They could not afford this and believed—rightly, in my opinion—that it was entirely wrong for their very young children to be in childcare for 10, 11 or more hours per day. Despite this entirely unreasonable requirement, such parents were sanctioned and then could not even feed their children. This was not an isolated problem but rather a regular occurrence in offices up and down the country.

Another often repeated story was that of a mother phoning the office to say that she could not attend an interview or required activity due to the sickness of a child, and was told that this information would, indeed, be passed on to the appropriate official. Of course, nothing was done. The mother would arrive at the post office to pick up her benefit only to find that there was nothing there. A sanction had been imposed with no information given to her. I cannot imagine the shock and utter distress of a mother in that situation. I believe that the Government may have adjusted the sanctions regime to ameliorate that problem and to make sure there is a gap between the imposition of a sanction and it taking place. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the position this evening.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation produced a comprehensive review of international evidence on sanctions within systems in which benefits are conditional on claimant behaviour. It confirmed that sanctions strongly reduce benefit use and increase exit from benefits. However, Rowntree also finds that sanctions are generally less favourable in terms of longer-term outcomes, the well-being of children and crime rates, for example.

Every sanction which is unfairly imposed will cause extreme stress to parents, who suddenly find that they have no food for the children and no money even for the bus fare to reach a food bank, and have more debt and so forth. It should be a matter of great concern to the Government that 28% of sanctions are overturned on appeal and a higher percentage—39%—in the case of lone parents. Successful appeals soar for high-level sanctions. Fully 64% of single parents have high-level sanctions overturned on appeal. These must be just numbers to many of us but the Government have a responsibility in my view to report on the mental and physical health effects of the extraordinary hardship behind those numbers. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend’s Amendment 34 and focus on the impact of benefit sanctions on people with mental health problems. Mental health professionals are extremely worried about the impact of this, which is why this amendment asks for a report containing data to be published.

The latest statistics around the number of people with mental health problems being supported into work though the back to work scheme are astonishingly low. Just 9% have been supported into employment since the scheme began. There are two key areas where better evidence is needed. We know that more than half of people receiving ESA in the WRAG have a mental or behavioural disorder as their primary health condition, and many more people in the WRAG will have comorbid physical and mental health problems.

We also know that people with mental health problems are being disproportionately sanctioned. Recent Freedom of Information requests to the department revealed that in 2014, on average 58% of sanctions for people in the ESA WRAG were given to people with mental health problems—20,000 in all.

The mistaken assumption is that people do not want to work, and that the best incentive is to threaten benefit withdrawal. Research shows that people with mental-health problems have a high want-to-work rate. I could say a lot more about that, but in view of the time I will not. What are the barriers? We need much more information—hence the request for a report.

I would like to share an example given to me by Mind, the mental health charity. It told me the story of a man who has been out of work for most of his adult life due to his mental health problems and who is currently in the support group. Under conditionality in the work-related activity group, this man felt so fearful and anxious of the threat of sanctions that he forced himself to attend his appointment a couple of days after being hospitalised following an overdose. This is just one shocking example of the pressure claimants are under, the health conditions that people face and, crucially, the level of anxiety and stress reportedly caused by fear of sanctions.

I urge the Minister to take these concerns and this amendment very seriously.