Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I will explore just some of the concerns about this new wave of welfare cuts. We need to consider these cuts in the context of the £21 billion of cuts implemented in the last Parliament. Under this Government, we are witnessing the most dramatic rolling back of the role of the state and the deepest reductions in the security floor for our most vulnerable citizens ever seen, in my view, in the UK.

The Minister said, I think, three times that the Government will protect the most vulnerable. My Lords, I have to say that is not my perception. What, for example, will this Bill mean for disabled people? The Government’s justification for the cuts is, of course, that they want to make sure that work pays and to end benefits dependency as far as possible. This is certainly a fine theoretical position—no one could disagree with it—but it does not work for people with a disability or long-term sickness who cannot find an employer willing to take them on. This is the bit of the jigsaw that is missing in this Bill: the probably perfectly realistic position of employers. Whom will they employ? They will not employ some of the people who are going to be affected, and the results could be catastrophic.

Can the Minister inform the House whether his department has assessed the likely impact of the benefit cuts on the demand from disabled people for mental health services—for example, a bed in a psychiatric hospital or social services? The Royal College of Psychiatrists has expressed some concern about what that effect could be. In my view, it could be very worrying. The key issue is that if the DWP succeeds in cutting its budget, all that happens is an increase in the budget for the NHS and social services. Then, the Government’s objective of a smaller state will not be achieved. I really would be grateful if the Minister addressed that point in his wind-up speech.

There are many, many causes for concern, but the cut I find most cruel—other noble Lords have mentioned this—is the cut of nearly £30 per week for sick and disabled people placed in what is commonly known as the WRAG: the ESA work related activity group. These people—as, again, other noble Lords have pointed out—have been assessed by an independent assessor as unfit for work. The Government argue that the extra £30 disincentivises sick and disabled people from working. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, mentioned those on the autistic spectrum. I have worked with people with a variety of mental health problems and people with learning difficulties. In my experience, all these people desperately want, more than anything else, is to be regarded as normal. What does that mean? It means being able to go to work. They really do not need this sort of incentive or disincentive.

About half those in WRAG are entitled to DLA or PIP. These are people with serious disabilities who will find it very hard to find work or to keep a job if they get one. Does the Minister not find it appalling that people with Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis—progressive illnesses, of course—are included in the WRAG because they are unfit to work now, and they will be subject to this £30 a week cut? If they are not fit for work now, the chances of an employer’s taking them on in the future, as their symptoms get worse, are surely remote. Will the Minister ensure that such groups with worsening symptoms, assessed as not fit for work, are in future placed in the support group, whatever happens to the WRAG group?

Further, over 50% of people affected by this cut will suffer from mental and behavioural disorders. These people long to be accepted. Their families, who themselves may be on benefits, will have to pay for their food and heating. Is the Minister aware that 70% of respondents to the Disability Benefits Consortium survey said that the cut would in fact mean a return to work later, rather than sooner? Obviously, that is a judgment, and it may be wrong—but job hunting costs money, including money for transport and clothes, since you cannot go to work or an interview without appropriate clothes. That is probably particularly true for disabled people. If a claimant cannot afford the fare to attend an interview, how will that promote his employment prospects? Does the Minister have any evidence of the likely consequence of this cut on the employment prospects of sick and disabled people?

The Disability Benefits Consortium welcomes the commitment in the Conservative manifesto to halve the disability employment gap. Again, we are all behind such an objective, but depriving disabled people of essential resources will simply not achieve it. A specialist employment support programme has been mooted, which really could make a significant difference. Again, it would be good if the Minister advised the House about progress in developing that proposal.

The exemption from the benefit cap for claimants of DLA, PIP and the support group level of ESA is very welcome. However, many sick and disabled people will be subject to the cap, along with a small but significant number of carers of those defined as non-dependants in the benefits system, such as carers of adult disabled sons or daughters. The four-year freeze of benefits, including JSA, ESA, WRAG, housing benefit and universal credit, will also severely affect many disabled people, so there are multiple cuts coming along for particular families.

Perhaps the most extraordinary fact, if I am right about it, is that the most drastically affected claimants are families with disabled children. As a result of a cluster of cuts to child tax credit, the disability component and the introduction of the two child limit, a new universal credit claimant would have a maximum annual entitlement of just one-quarter of their current entitlement in the tax credit system. Will the Minister inform the House whether that is correct? Do the Government really want to penalise such families with a disabled child more than anybody else? I find that quite difficult to believe. What action are the Government taking to assess the impact of these cuts on those people? I would be grateful to know about the evidence behind that.

There are many other serious concerns, including the impact of the reduction in social housing rents on the provision of supported housing for a number of vulnerable groups, as explained by the National Housing Federation. On housing, it seems that there is one real opportunity for the Government to save billions without hurting anybody, which I have mentioned before: by releasing 10% of the greenbelt around the major urban areas. That would transform the cost of land, housing and housing benefit. Yes, we love our greenbelt, but we go walking in the greenbelt regularly, and there is never anybody there.

In conclusion, the level of anxiety among sick and disabled people and others about this onslaught on their modest standard of living is unimaginable. The future for them is truly frightening. I hope that, through debating this Bill, we can truly mitigate the effects of the Government’s plans.

Benefits: Sanctions

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Let me clarify this. The sanctions level runs at around 5% on a monthly basis. That level is the running rate of sanctions and other figures are simply wrong. On the first point that the noble Baroness made, we do use illustrative examples where they are real, and we make it clear where they are not. In this case, it was wrong—and we have said it was wrong—to have made illustrative examples look as if they were real.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I was involved in an inquiry earlier this year on behalf of the Fawcett Society into the effects of the welfare reforms. One of the greatest problems for clients seems to be the errors on the part of staff, as a result of which a woman can go to a post office for some money at the end of the week and be told, “Sorry, you are sanctioned”, because the message had not been passed on that her child was ill so she could not attend an interview—that sort of thing. Can the Minister tell the House what action his staff are taking to stamp out these errors in communications with clients?

[Lord Freud]

Clearly, one error is one error too many. We work to try to eliminate the error rate, and we have layers of safeguards, for both JSA and ESA, to make sure that we review these cases at each level so that we get it right. Some, of course, will creep through.

Pensions Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I join my noble friend Lady Hollis in reviewing why this clause should stand part of the Bill. This debate gives us an opportunity to review its rationale, as my noble friend has done, and particularly to scrutinise what alternative support mechanisms are to be put in place for those newly required to notify the DWP of changes to retirement provision. As we know, the assessed income period removes the requirement to notify changes to capital and retirement pension for the purposes of pension credit. It will run for five years but is set indefinitely for somebody who has reached the age of 75.

As the Minister himself has said, the concept was based on the assumption that the capital and retirement income of pensioners would not vary significantly, that administratively it was appropriate to have a light touch for claims maintenance, and that it was also less intrusive for a claimant whose reporting of changes of circumstances obligations was significantly reduced. It is now asserted that the administrative burdens will not be forthcoming, in part because a huge volume of cases come up for review at the same time, and there is not the stability in levels of capital and retirement income originally envisaged. So far as the administration issues are concerned, it would presumably be possible to spread the load by modest extensions of the end dates of existing AIPs to even out their reconsideration. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why such an option was not considered.

We learn from the impact assessment that just under 2 million of 2.5 million people on pension credit have an AIP split roughly half and half between those with a specified end date and those of an indefinite period. Given that those with an indefinite period AIP are not to be preserved, it looks as though these provisions will potentially affect some 1 million pensioners. Do we have figures for those within this cohort who are in receipt of savings credit only, guarantee credit only or both? Obviously, savings credit would have no application for those who reach state pension age after 5 April 2016, and to a certain extent these provisions wither on the vine because those who reach state pension age post-April 2016 will get STP generally which will be above the guarantee credit level, so they get floated off and savings credit does not apply to them in any event.

As for changes to income and capital, as my noble friend has made clear, the numbers have been predicated on scaling up and are now, I think, upwards of 99,400 cases. We know that of those cases, 36,000 will see a reduction in their award—13,000 will lose all pension credit—18,000 will see an increase and nearly half will see no change. However, over a five-year period, the impact assessment suggests that 540,000 people will be affected by the change in policy, with one-third gaining and two-thirds losing. It would seem that the reasons for a reduction in award are attributable to increases in non-pension income as well as increases in capital—the former cases, I think, being more numerous.

We know that in a steady state the Government will benefit to the tune of £82 million a year and will gain further savings from housing benefit and rent support. I do not know whether we have an updated assessment for that figure. Incidentally, will the Minister remind us what is happening because we went through a period when an application for pension credit, council tax benefit or housing benefit was going to involve one process of application, and that was then going to be shared? I do not know what has happened to that process. Clearly, the council tax part of it has had to go because of the localisation of that but it would be helpful to have an update on that process.

Ensuring that pension credit assessments of means-tested benefit are accurate is not an unreasonable ambition, but an equally important ambition should be to improve the take-up of pension credit, as my noble friend made clear. We know that about one in three of those eligible for pension credit are currently not claiming it, although take-up of the guaranteed credit is higher. The greater the required engagement with the system, the greater the risk will be that pensioners will fall out of the system or not engage with it in the first place.

As my noble friend asked, what are the Government’s plans to improve take-up of pension credit? This issue must not be underestimated, especially in an environment in which people are living longer, and living at least semi-independently, with support from formal and informal carers. I have seen this in my family: whereas bank statements and pension slips were once neatly filed in date order, they are now tucked away down the side of a chair, scattered randomly in a drawer or thrown out with the rubbish. When you cannot always remember whether you have had breakfast, it is not always easy to remember to pass on a piece of correspondence to a family carer. These are real issues, particularly as people get older.

Of course, there are penalties for failure to report changes of circumstances, and we know that this Government are hot on sanctions. So can the Minister please say, given the changes to the AIP policy, what additional cost is to be incurred in supporting pensioners, both at the point of the change and routinely thereafter? What special protections will be in the system if someone is at risk of being sanctioned?

Finally, on the matter raised by my noble friend Lady Hollis concerning the effect of this change on equity release and capital more widely, it is with a degree of trepidation that I am bound to say that I cannot fully support the position of my noble friend. I know that that is dangerous territory. I agree that AIPs facilitate the accumulation of substantial sums from equity release without impact on pension credit, but that, of itself, is not a reason why it should be retained. It is common ground that AIPs were designed as an administrative easement, not as a route to allow certain types of capital to be outside the pension credit rules. I see great merit in equity release but I am not sure why capital raised just in that way should have more favourable treatment under the benefit system than capital raised in any other way. There is already a series of provisions under which capital is disregarded for the purposes of pension credit and, indeed, other benefits. They include amounts held to buy a home or to carry out essential repairs. There may well be an argument—and my noble friend has advanced these—to extend these capital disregards in effect to cover costs of caring. However, this should be done explicitly, not under the guise of hanging on to something via an administrative easement.

The Government are going down a dangerous path. Thousands of pensioners could be disadvantaged by this provision administratively, and we certainly want to know, if the Government are going to press ahead with it, what support is going to be given. I do not see anything in the figures about extra costs and more frequent reviews. What is in the analysis that states that the Government are going to support pensioners, particularly older pensioners, effectively to make sure that they take up pension credit when they are entitled to it, and that that they are able to comply with the new, more onerous reporting rules that flow from these provisions?

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends. I have just worked out that it was about 40 years ago when I undertook and produced the first research report of the Child Poverty Action Group. The subject of that study was the non-take-up of means-tested benefits. At that time, when I was a young person, I assumed that the important issue was stigma. Of course stigma is a major feature, but what took me by complete surprise was the level of ignorance and complete unawareness on the part of, most particularly, the poorest potential claimants—ignorance that they might even conceivably be entitled to any benefit at all. It just had not crossed their mind. If you do not ask any questions, you do not get the answers to those questions. If he really wants to extend means-tested benefits, I urge the Minister to undertake some research into the levels of knowledge and understanding of potential pension credit recipients, because if the level of ignorance remains today as it was then, the social consequences of these reforms will be very alarming indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, there should be an extended period, coterminous with financial support for bereavement, in which both widows and widowers are not subject to work conditionality, as I doubt whether a widow will be fit or able to work if she is not already employed at the point of bereavement. I doubt whether there is little or any cost to this amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 62ZA, but before doing so I must apologise to your Lordships—I have already apologised to the Minister—because I am running against a very tight deadline. I tabled this amendment assuming it would come up on Monday. Before addressing the amendment, I give my very strong support to Amendment 59, moved brilliantly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I have no doubt at all that the replacement of the widowed parent’s allowance by the bereavement support payment has positive features, but the limitation of that benefit to one year is absolutely cruel. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, really got across the point that bereavement is not just a short-term problem. It brings several years of very considerable distress and discomfort for the children, as well as for the parent left behind.

The aim of Amendment 62ZA is to remove the widowed parent’s allowance and its predecessor, WMA, from the list of benefits treated as income other than earnings for the purposes of universal credit entitlement. I realise that that would be a very big step for the Government, but the result would be that claimants with no other income or earnings would keep the value of the WPA in full. Those with earnings in excess of the personal allowance would of course pay tax on it, but they would at least receive the majority of the benefit.

This is a probing amendment. The Children’s Society has calculated that, without the amendment, those entitled to widowed parent’s allowance could find themselves worse off by about £400 per year compared to those with no entitlement and no national insurance contributions. An important point is that WPA is a contributory benefit. It is only payable when the deceased parent has paid sufficient national insurance contributions. The clear assumption behind the benefit is that a surviving parent with all those contributions should surely benefit over and above surviving parents with no contributions. We regard it as an anomaly that under the universal credit rules this advantage from having national insurance contributions would be stripped away. Do the Government really intend that outcome? I do not think so. The proposed bereavement support payment, which will of course replace a number of benefits including the WPA, clearly identifies bereaved parents with national insurance contributions as being entitled to benefits which are not available to others. There is therefore a real discrepancy between the two basic assumptions behind the two benefits.

Although the bereavement support payment will be limited in time—hopefully it will be provided for at least three years, which seems to be an absolutely basic requirement—nevertheless it will be of greater value to most of those entitled to it than the widowed parent’s benefit. The contributory principle is well and truly recognised by this new benefit. At the same time, as I understand it, those receiving the widowed parent’s allowance will continue to do so when bereavement support payment takes over for new claimants. The WPA will continue to be treated as income other than earnings, which again is a different principle. This means that the benefit will continue to be deducted pound for pound from the claimant’s universal credit entitlement. The result is that a widowed parent with no other income will experience zero benefit from his or her national insurance contributions, thereby entitling them to the WPA.

The situation is, of course, even worse for widowed parents who continue to work. The gross sum of the widowed parent’s benefit will be subject to income tax. I find that absolutely extraordinary. Working claimants may have their WPA deducted in full from their universal credit entitlement, but will also pay tax on the gross income that they have not received. Those are the parents who could end up £400 per year worse off. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is a correct reading of the situation.

Can the Minister confirm whether the Government really intend that those bereaved parents with a national insurance contribution record should be no better off than those with no such record and that those in work should really find themselves even worse off? Will the Minister confirm that many current recipients of the widowed parent’s allowance will continue to be disadvantaged in this way even after the introduction of the bereavement support payment? Finally, does the Minister accept that only relatively well-off bereaved parents, whose earnings take them above the ceiling for universal credit, will actually benefit from having a national insurance contribution record? Can that be right?

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments very strongly. The points about bereavement have been made most eloquently. However, I would like to add the scenario where one parent dies suddenly rather than as a result of a protracted illness, where the shock of the death may be absolutely overwhelming. That could be suicide, murder or a sudden death. There is another scenario, too, which is where the surviving parent was involved in a road accident and does not even start to grieve until much later. The children who are bereaved know that one parent is already dead and, for many months, they may not know whether the other parent will survive or not. The shortening of time is quite cruel, and I use that word advisedly. A year is a very short time in the life of anyone bereaved, and the anniversary of the death often marks a major step change in the way that they live their lives. That applies to children as well as the bereaved parent.

The government proposal to increase the lump sum is most welcome because the current lump sum gets nowhere near the immediate expenses incurred. However, it is essential that the Government consider this proposed three-year period, or until the child is seven, if that would be longer than three years, because pre-school children certainly need that security and will become very clingy when they realise that one parent has gone. A scenario might arise with an accident where not only has the parent died but another sibling. It is not uncommon, sadly, for a family of five or six to be suddenly left as a family of two—multiple losses all in one go in a horrendous road accident.

We know that the outcomes for children who are not well supported in bereavement are much worse. When we think about the cost of bereavement support, it must be put in context of the cost to society of young people who have been bereaved who have not had adequate support and have experienced excessive strain and mental health problems. That increases their risk of suffering from depression, attempting suicide and experiencing drug addiction, alcoholism, underage sex, unplanned pregnancies and so on. That cost must be offset against what appears, at face value, to be a demand for an increase in the amount that the Government will put there for bereaved parents. The long-term continuity becomes really important.

The only other point I will make, which was made to me by a young lady doing work experience with me, is that these days not that many parents are married. The issues highlighted in Amendment 62ZB are therefore really pertinent to the way that youngsters live today. I can see that administratively, if the parents are not married, it can become more complicated for government, but I do not believe that that is beyond the scope of being worked out. It is important to realise that the person who the child has lost and needs support to grieve over may not be their biological parent.

Mental Health: Cost of Living Support

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.

Atheists and Humanists: Contribution to Society

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for giving us the opportunity to consider this increasingly important subject. I make clear at the outset that I am not against religion, so long as religious believers adhere to the basic ethical principles of empathy and compassion. In my view, any Church of England member today would adhere to those principles. My other request is that people of religion should be open to the scientific method when they come to understand how the universe works, even if this requires them to adjust their belief in the supernatural. Where a religion departs from these principles—if, for example, adherence to a religious belief requires female genital mutilation—I part company with it, and I am sure that every noble Lord would agree with that view. That is the issue. Many religions have gone wildly off course over the ages.

To put my cards on the table, I would probably describe myself as a humanist Quaker. Yes, there are Quakers who do not believe in a supernatural God. I wonder how many people who call themselves Christian would also reject the idea of a supernatural God and would interpret the resurrection simply as symbolic of the human capacity for renewal—nothing more. I remember asking a very dear verger who worked with me on mental health many years ago, “Do you really believe the words of the Creed?”. He said, “I don’t really think I believe any of it, but I find it helpful to be in a spiritual place and to ponder on things other than the material, and other than the worries of today”. Was he really a Christian? If he was, perhaps for many Christians the term “Christianity” is synonymous with humanism.

One reason to promote humanism is the need to distinguish religious sects that subscribe to the basic ethical principles of humanity and those that do not. We cannot just assume that because somebody is religious, they have to be good, and if they are not religious they have to be bad. Another reason is the rapidly growing proportion of the population who are not religious at all. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, referred to the figures. It is staggering that about half the population today do not have a religion. Religion is dying fast. Only one-third of 18 to 24 year-olds belong to a religion, compared with 72% of those over 65. Humanist values are thus absolutely vital to our society if we are not to decline into the amoral, brutish existence of which people speak.

The Dalai Lama has shown the way in his book, Beyond Religion. He argues that compassion is the most central instinct which enables human beings to survive and thrive. Compassion leads us to treat others as we would wish them to treat us—a central tenet of Christianity—that is, with concern, affection and warm-heartedness. The Dalai Lama—a lifelong Buddhist, of course—advocates,

“an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion”.

I find that very interesting and powerful. He argues for a secular ethics and sees no contradiction between that and his religious beliefs. Secular ethics, or humanism, is beyond religion, as the Dalai Lama suggests, not beneath or above it.

We now know from evolutionary biology and neuroscience that these values are innate in our biological nature. Humans survive and thrive only if they espouse these values. We need to promote these values within ourselves and in others. Many will say that they pursue ethical and humanist principles because of their religion. That seems fine to me; perhaps I part company with some of my colleagues in the Chamber today. Others work towards achieving compassion through mindfulness or meditation. That for me is good. I am not myself very good at it, but I believe that others are and greatly benefit from it. The important point is that we all agree on the humanist values by which the world should strive to live. It would be helpful if everyone also accepted the scientific method as the means to understand the universe, but I understand that not everybody takes that view. Humanists have campaigned for many of the great reforms of the past century, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, has already said.

I want to spend a minute to focus on another great humanist and, in my view, religious challenge over the next year—the Assisted Dying Bill. The principle of autonomy—the right of every human being to have control over decisions affecting their health and, indeed, their life and death—is perhaps the most fundamental ethical principle of all. I was chair of a clinical ethics committee for a health trust for some years and we had to consider some very complex issues for clinicians. The only way to be sure that our guidance would be in the patient’s best interests and satisfy the ultimate humanist principle of compassion was to put the autonomy of the patient at the centre of our debates.

The same applies to how we die. If patients who are terminally ill can make their own decisions about how and when to die, society cannot go wrong. Of course we need safeguards to ensure that callous and greedy relatives cannot in some way lead a patient to say something that they do not want to say, but those safeguards are in the Bill and will be in place if it passes. Last November, Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain established Inter-Faith Leaders for Dignity in Dying, an inter-faith group of clergy who favour the aims of Dignity in Dying, including the Falconer Bill. This proposed legislation is not contrary to religion, and I hope that those on the Bishops’ Benches may be able to support us. A YouGov survey commissioned by Inter-Faith Leaders for Dignity in Dying found that 62% of people who identified themselves as belonging to a religion support the legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill people with mental capacity. Only 18% were opposed. Most of us would lead more contented lives safe in the knowledge that we would not have to suffer beyond our endurance at the end of our lives.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

7: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Regulations
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the Registrar General to approve and permit organisations that are registered charities principally concerned with advancing or practising a non-religious belief to solemnise marriages according to their usages on the authority of a superintendent registrar’s certificate, and for related purposes.
(2) The regulations shall specify that such marriages may not take place in register offices, but may in particular—
(a) define minimum requirements any such organisation must meet before it may be considered for such approval;(b) define the procedures for the appointment of registering officers by such organisations, for the issue and custody of marriage register books, for the solemnisation and registering of marriages, and for related matters, and in these matters the regulations shall follow where convenient the several precedents to be found in the Marriage Act 1949;(c) create criminal offences of a kind similar to, and with the same maximum penalties as, offences under Part IV of the Marriage Act 1949;(d) include incidental or consequential provisions (which may include provisions amending an enactment);(e) include transitional provision.(3) The regulations under subsection (2)(a) must include provisions concerning whether an organisation—
(a) is a registered charity principally concerned with advancing or practising a non-religious belief;(b) has been in continuous existence for at least 10 years;(c) has been performing celebrations of marriage and other ceremonies for its members for at least five years, such ceremonies being rooted in its belief system;(d) has in place written procedures for the selection, training and accreditation of persons to conduct solemnisations of marriages; and(e) appears to the Registrar General to be of good repute.(4) The regulations shall extend to England and Wales.
(5) The regulations—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.(6) The Secretary of State must lay these regulations before Parliament within six months of this Act coming into force.”

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide for humanist and other belief-based marriages to have legal recognition in England and Wales, which they have had in Scotland since 2005. I apologise to the Minister and your Lordships for the fact that I have been in five different countries over the past few weeks and have been unable to attend any of the previous sessions on the Bill. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who tabled a similar amendment in Committee. I also convey the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, who is in hospital, I am sad to say. We were very keen to have his name on the amendment in view of the powerful speech he made in Committee.

It is gratifying that the humanist amendments have been supported on all sides of both Houses by people of religion and of no religion. Indeed, I hope the Minister will not mind if I quote her. She said that,

“of course everybody would support humanist marriages”.—[Official Report, 19/6/2013; col. 311.]

That, for me, is a tremendously valuable endorsement.

I applaud the Minister for tabling the government amendment, which takes a historic step towards eliminating the inequity in our system regarding humanist and other non-religious belief organisations. I offer the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, my personal thanks for having worked very hard to ensure that belief-based marriages are given legal status. It is appropriate and helpful that the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Alli, have included their names on the government amendment, illustrating the strong support from all sides of the House for the key principle of our amendment, while acknowledging, probably very fairly, the Government’s commitment to a consultation on the issue.

Noble Lords may ask why I am moving this amendment, bearing in mind the fact that we have the government amendment. The answer is that the government amendment does not actually guarantee that humanist marriages will have legal status in England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, said that,

“we in the humanist movement ‘will not cease from mental fight’ until we have achieved full recognition in the law for humanist marriage”.—[Official Report, 19/6/2013; col. 298.]

I feel a great duty to carry the torch for our dear colleague while he lies in hospital. It is very much in that context that I need to put some points on the record and seek some assurances from the Minister. In so doing, I seek to avoid a rerun of the Committee stage, albeit I was not here to listen to it, although noble Lords will be glad to hear that I have read it.

Religious marriages reflect the deepest beliefs and values of religious couples, but humanist beliefs and values are of equal importance to humanist couples. In an increasingly secular society, it is important that we do all we can to promote and recognise good values. Registry office marriages now account for two-thirds of marriages in this country. Those marriages may not involve the couple committing themselves in a ceremony to the all-important beliefs and associated values that they will need in times of trouble. If we want marriages to survive, we must nurture beliefs and values which will help couples to sort out their problems. There is also the equity issue. In the case of humanists, despite the cost and inconvenience, some have two marriage ceremonies to achieve the things they want: a meaningful wedding and one that has legal status. I hope that the Government accept that the inequity cannot continue beyond a short period to allow for a review and consultation.

Humanist marriage is well tried and tested. Scotland gave legal status to humanist marriages eight years ago and has some 3,000 such marriages each year. Humanist marriages account for 58% of the increase in marriages in Scotland in the last three years. All of them, of course, are belief and value-based marriages, and I am sure that noble Lords value that fact. Every year in England, the number of humanist marriages exceeds the number of Quaker or Unitarian marriages. Yet humanist marriages have no legal recognition, while these smaller minorities do have it. Legally recognised humanist marriages have strong support from the public, according to a YouGov poll—this is another important issue for the Government—with 53% in favour and only 12% opposed. Few policies, I suggest, have such a ringing public endorsement.

No one has any reason to fear the legal recognition of humanist and other belief-based marriages, again another important point. In particular, I do not believe that churches have anything to fear. Religious ceremonies already have the intrinsic characteristic of what, for me, is a good ceremony: a focus on important beliefs and values. I understand that the Church of England is relaxed about this amendment and I welcome that fact. I hope this also applies to the other great religions.

The professionalism of celebrants of humanist marriages and funerals is to be congratulated. Anyone who has attended a humanist marriage or funeral will attest that they are of the highest quality of ceremony that one could have. I have attended only two humanist funerals. They were professionally conducted, moving and memorable. Those who have been to other ceremonies have said the same to me.

Registrars suggest that this amendment represents a fundamental legislative change, but it is absolutely not. It builds organically on the existing law of the Marriage Act 1949. It is based upon the provisions that allow the Society of Friends to solemnise marriages, but adds some tighter controls which I would think the Government—and certainly I—welcome.

Let me refer to the Government’s objections to the earlier amendment. All these concerns have been fully addressed in this amendment. I believe that the Government accept that fact. The draft has been vetted and cleared by a number of marriage law experts, and we know from the opinion of Matrix Chambers that the amendment is compatible with the European convention. So there is no reason to reject the content of this amendment. We hope that regulations will reflect the essential points so carefully drafted for our Amendment 7. However, we understand the Government’s wish to undertake a consultation before introducing regulations to give legal status to humanist and other belief-based marriages.

I now turn to the Government’s amendment and hope the Minister can give us just four assurances. First, will she repeat in this House her officials’ assurances that they expect to complete the review, consultation and report well ahead of the end of 2014, which of course is the date given in the government amendment? Most importantly, can the Minister assure the House that regulations will be laid before the next general election? With eight years of experience of such marriages in Scotland and many decades of experience of analogous Quaker and Jewish marriages, I trust that this is not too much to ask. The important point here is that the amendment should not be kicked into touch. Can the Minister assure the House that the considerable and unique experience and expertise of the British Humanist Association will be fully taken on board in the review and consultation, and that the criteria set out in the amendment will be considered as a basic guide for the future regulations when the review is being undertaken? No one has criticised those principles and points in our amendment, and they would provide a good basis for future regulations. Finally, can the Minister confirm that it is not her intention that commercial organisations will be able to profit from the regulations on belief-based marriages?

In conclusion, I express my sincere thanks to the Minister for her support for humanist marriages and for ensuring that the Government take this matter forward. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for reminding the House that I am part of a team. While I am very taken by the kind tributes made by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, in particular, and the noble Lord, Lord Alli, it is important to stress that we have worked as a team in Government to be able to come forward with this amendment. We are very pleased to do so. I echo all the tributes just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. If it were possible in Lords-speak, I would say “Right back atcha”, as they might say somewhere else.

If I may, I will respond to some of the serious points that have been made. My noble friend, Lord Lester, is right that we are amending the Long Title of the Bill to ensure that this amendment is properly reflected in what will become an Act. I note his points about that. I also note his point about there being belief organisations and belief organisations, and the need for safeguards. I note the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about what people call, in shorthand, sham marriages. I also note what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester said about various points of detail. All of these contributions have emphasised why this is important, and why we think it is the right approach to have this review and consultation and make sure that all of these matters are properly considered. That is what we will do. As I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, it is in the Bill that we have to do that before 1 January 2015, so we will certainly make sure that it happens.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I must apologise to the House. I should have welcomed the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for having their names on the Government amendment. I am very grateful to all those who have spoken in this short debate. They have been very coherent and succinct, and quite excellent. I am perhaps particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for clarifying the position of the Church of England, and also giving his personal support to the principle behind this amendment. That is very valuable to all of us. I am very grateful to the Minister for her helpful remarks and the assurances that she was able to give us.

I was obviously disappointed that the Minister could not reassure us about the timing of the laying of regulations. I am not at all surprised, but of course it is a disappointment. The Minister will know that all of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, will be on her tail to ensure that the strength of feeling in this House and the other place is followed through to regulations after the consultation, to ensure that in future humanist marriages will have legal recognition. I say a last thank you to the British Humanist Association, without which I could not have done this. I arrived back from elsewhere and its support for me has been fantastic. I am very willing and happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to which I have added my name, but I rise principally to speak to Amendment 3, which is in my name alone and provides that the 1% uprating should not apply to benefits paid to claimants in the work-related activity group.

The amendment is essential if the Government are to fulfil their pledge to protect disabled people from the 1% uprating cap. Only disabled people are in the work-related activity group. The assessment process ensures that non-disabled people do not qualify. A recent DWP study tracking those receiving ESA over 18 months revealed that three-quarters of recipients were undergoing regular treatment for a health condition, including a stay in hospital for some. ESA for those in the work-related activity group is paid in two parts—the main component, which is equivalent to jobseeker’s allowance and worth about two-thirds of the total benefit, and the work-related activity group component, which is worth the other third. Many disabled people are being placed in the work-related activity group. Capping increases in their benefit at 1% will mean that households receiving ESA in the work-related activity group will be £87.65 a year worse off. The Government’s proposals to exempt from the 1% cap the support group component for those placed in the support group mean that less than a third of ESA payments for less than half of disabled people receiving ESA will be protected. That is what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would achieve, but it would address the shortfall only for the quarter of a million disabled people in the support group.

The most recent DWP figures show that there are 360,000 disabled people in the work-related activity group who also need protection. This amendment would achieve that. One third of disabled people in the UK were found to be living in poverty before the global economic crisis. Disabled people routinely experience higher living costs associated with their disability on things such as equipment, personal assistants and special diets. Disabled people experience the same increases in general living costs as everyone else: food inflation is running at 4.5% and travel inflation at 7%. Unfortunately, disabled people were not able to catch up financially during better economic times. We should not allow them to slip further behind as a result of this Bill; rather, we should ensure that the Government’s objective of protecting disabled people is fully delivered.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I support Amendment 2, moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to which I added my name, and Amendment 3, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Low. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, consistently argued during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill that there were two fundamental principles to the Government’s welfare reform provisions. One was to make sure that people in work had an incentive to remain in work and that those out of work had an incentive to move into work. The second principle was that the money available, however much there was available, should be focused as far as possible on those in greatest need. Throughout the debates on the previous Bill, I found myself very much in agreement with those two principles. It seemed to me that if money is short, at least one should abide by those two principles. That seemed very reasonable.

I find myself therefore confused that in this Bill those two principles appear to be breached. It does not seem that you are focusing on those in greatest need if there is an impact that reduces in real terms the living standards of people who are severely disabled. You are certainly not increasing the incentive to work if you reduce the benefit of people who have not a chance in hell of returning to work. We know that a lot of people who in any normal view of things would not really be able to work have been put into benefit categories such as jobseeker’s allowance, where they are expected to work, although they would regard this as being beyond their wildest dreams, much as they might like to. That is not the point that I wanted to make; I simply want to ask the Minister how she squares the provisions of this Bill with the principles so eloquently and consistently laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Freud.

[Lord German]

My Lords, at Second Reading I said that this Bill had some rough edges, and the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is directed at one of those rough edges. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether a deliberate step was taken to exclude the personal allowance part of the support group to meet the budgetary requirements? Was this matter overlooked in the discussion that may have taken place on the principle espoused both in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and by the Secretary of State in the other place that those who are unable to do something to help themselves should not be penalised in this way? That is why the example of DLA and PIP has been given.

It may be, though, that in the words of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, people are generally not able to access the labour market. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what the actual cost would be of reinstating the non-1% cap on the personal allowance part of the support group, given that people are in the support group because they obviously need support and cannot do things for themselves? That is the nature of the word. Has the department given any thought whatever to finding ways of ensuring that what is clearly not in the spirit of the statements made about providing for people who cannot help themselves will be carried through, if perhaps in some other way than by the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie? In other words, is there another way of dealing with this apart from using the methodology provided in the noble Lord’s amendment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The point I am making, which the noble Lord is clear about, is that the Bill still provides annual increases in benefits, but at a reduced rate for some elements of those benefits. We are doing this in the way that we propose because it adds to the certainty. As I told the noble Lord when we were outside the Chamber, the IMF was very clear that to anchor market expectations, policymakers need to specify adequately detailed medium-term plans for lowering debt ratios, which must be backed by binding legislation or fiscal frameworks. This is part of what we are doing, and why it is important.

As I have said, despite the economic situation, which we have already discussed today at some length, we have found the resources to fund a 1% increase in working-age benefits and, in doing so, protected the incomes of disabled people as far as we can—especially those elements which are provided to cover the additional costs of disabled people.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said that it would not be hugely expensive to accept these amendments and to make this change. It is important that I make it clear to the Committee that accepting these amendments would mean a loss of £340 million in savings, which we would have to find elsewhere. Those in the work-related activity group are deemed able to prepare for work and, as such, are better placed to be able to improve their income levels. Therefore, we believe it right that the component is also within the scope of the Bill.

Personal allowance rates are common across the working-age benefit system, as I have already said, reflecting the fact that they perform the same function: to provide basic support for everyday needs. Accepting these amendments would therefore break away from that model and would create additional complexity in the benefits system. Our proposals are proportionate. Although I understand the concerns and points that have been raised in the debate—please believe me, I do—what is being proposed here is fair. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Meacher]

Are the Government more concerned about certainty for the Government or certainty for the claimant? If the Government are concerned about certainty for the claimant, would it not be better to say that benefits would be uprated to the extent of 1% or 2% less than inflation, for example? That way, the claimant would know that they would not have a cut in their income of more than 1% or 2% a year. That would provide a level of certainty for the claimant, whereas it seems that the Bill is after certainty for the Government. Is that correct?

Mental Health: Access to Work Support Service

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I, too, applaud my noble friend Lady Thomas for tabling this important debate and for her rather pertinent quote from Shakespeare.

The Department for Work and Pensions indeed has an enormous challenge if it is to condense the vast numbers of claimants of employment support allowance. The objective at one stage was to reduce those numbers by 1 million over 10 years; I do not know whether that remains true today. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if that is not right these days. We know that nearly one half of all claimants have some form of mental health problem. If the department is to achieve any sort of target, it clearly has to make a major impact on the number of people who are not in work because of mental health difficulties.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, referred to my excellent husband. Perhaps I am allowed to refer to the excellent LSE report issued today, entitled, How Mental Illness Loses out in the NHS. It underlines the challenge for Access to Work as regards mental health. For example, the report points out that among under 65s, nearly as much ill-health is mental illness as all physical illness put together. That is a striking fact. We think of one single physical illness, but mental illness equals pretty much the whole of physical illness, and mental illnesses are, in general, more debilitating than long-term, chronic physical disabilities. I do not think that people fully appreciate that.

As others have mentioned, only one quarter of people with mental illness are in treatment, while pretty much everyone with any kind of serious physical problem is in treatment. It is a completely different landscape. To prepare those sick and untreated benefit claimants requires the DWP to work closely with the providers of improved access to psychological therapy services, because those services are evidence-based. At last, we have evidence-based mental health services; we have never before had effective evaluations. The commission has been given £400 million to roll out increased access to psychological therapy and, by next year, 900,000 people should be receiving those services.

In my view, DWP clients should be at the front of the queue for those services if the Government are to achieve what they hope to. May I be so bold as to challenge the Minister to contact his colleagues in the Department of Health to persuade them of the importance of ensuring that that £400 million is in fact devoted to increase access to psychological therapies and is not diverted to other parts of the system, because the money is not ring-fenced? If the DWP is to succeed, it must have that money spent where it is supposed to be. Otherwise Access to Work as regards mental health will have to pick up the pieces.

Of course, effective treatment is only the beginning for many such clients. The people we deal with need volunteering opportunities, help to improve skills, skilled employment support and all sorts of things which, in the secondary sector, we provide, but there are people not in the secondary sector mental health services who will need some of those services—probably not all of them. Many with mental health problems, unlike physical health problems, will need help once they have gone into a job. That is crucial, and employers and bosses will need some help as well as they do not understand these things. The need for special Access to Work as regards mental health is clear. That certainly came out of the Institute for Employment Studies’ evaluation of the main Access to Work programme. I have to say that its results are dismal. Others have mentioned the figure of 580 people receiving help through the Access to Work programme, compared to 27,000 altogether. One of our colleagues referred to 0.2%, I calculated it as 2%; but anyway it is a very small percentage compared with nearly 50% of all people who suffer from mental health problems.

Access to Work as regards mental health is therefore, as I said, so important, but we have only three offices for the entire country—one office for the whole of south-east London, I read in a document circulated by the Library. The only way to get these services is by a postal system so you have to write. Oh dear. As another colleague mentioned, it is the best kept secret. I talked to some employment specialists in east London who work with these issues all the time. They had never heard of Access to Work mental health. They had just about heard of the main programme, but, as they said, it does not deal with our people; they do not understand our clients at all.

So we have a long way to go. Clearly, the three offices will not touch the problem, if that is still the case today and that was the only briefing that we were given. I put one plea to the Minister. If the DWP really wants to achieve something, it needs one really good mental health specialist in each DWP office and a budget that they can allocate specifically to the personal needs of each individual with mental health problems. Many years ago when I went to Stockholm, Sweden had the lowest unemployment levels of any western European country and they had that budget. That was the key, alongside the skills of the individual.

I know the Minister well understands these issues and I respect his ability to come up with practical solutions, so I hope that he will respond positively to the practical proposal that I have just offered.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 14th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

As an amendment to Motion A, at end insert “but do propose Amendment 1B as an amendment in lieu”

1B: Page 4, line 34, at end insert “, and such additional amount to be paid at a higher rate, a middle rate or a lower rate; and the middle rate shall be no less than two-thirds of the higher rate as may be prescribed; and the lower rate shall be no less than one-third of the higher rate”

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, before I say anything else, I will say two things. First, I was somewhat surprised that this particular amendment was dismissed in the other place on grounds of financial privilege, because I presented this as a revenue-neutral amendment. We were looking at ratios of benefits. As the Minister agreed in discussion, one could of course shift the higher rate in relation to the lower rate without spending any more money. We were not arguing in favour of spending more money, but about the cliff edge between the higher rate and the lower rate. I challenge the other place, if I am permitted to do that from this vantage point. Secondly, I express my personal gratitude to the Minister for the concessions and changes he has driven through as a result of the wonderful work done across all sides of this House. It is a credit to the House—we can feel proud of the work of the House—but also a great credit to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Gosh, that is a good question. I had better hold my counsel on that.

The amendment inserts a third rate for disabled children. It sets fixed relationships between those rates. With our primary structure, we are trying to have two elements—for disabled children and adults—aligned at the same rates, which are principled changes so that we have some consistency and make the system simple and fairer. I am trying to take out complexity from a system that, if your Lordships remember, is falling down because it is so complex. So simplicity has a value in itself. If the amendment went through, we would have different rates and a mismatch within the structure of universal credit.

I have been asked a lot of questions about the amount of money. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will be pleased to know that I did not include this figure in the £2.1 billion that I cited earlier. To maintain the level of £77, under the original amendment, would have cost £200 million, which is why the Commons attached financial privilege to it, in answer to the question of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. To answer the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the reason why it is conditional is that there is not much point in having all the paraphernalia and trauma of a review if we have an amendment of this nature where we are locked anyway. That is why I made it conditional.

To answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about how it would work, we start the universal credit timeline in late 2013, collecting information up to 2015, so we will have the information to undertake the review in 2015. The changes that the review will presumably recommend can be incorporated from then on.

[Baroness Meacher]

This is an important point. Can the noble Lord make clear that, having undertaken the review, the Government could adjust the rates for disabled children with different disabilities within the current legislation so that we would not have to wait for new legislation? If we had to do that we would be talking not about 2015 but an uncertain date in the future.

[Lord Freud]

It will depend on what comes out of the review. If it concerns child PIP, which it may very well be, which is a recasting of the whole structure, we may need primary legislation; but if it is an adjustment of DLA, I think we may not. It will depend on the outcome of the review, which will be serious and substantial. One issue that noble Lords are raising is that there is dissatisfaction with the way that we are applying these rates. There is general dissatisfaction about whether we are using the right criteria. We have one rather simple criterion at the moment. Building that review of how we do it will be a substantial exercise. The interesting thing about this debate is the general level of dissatisfaction about whether we are using the right definitions to get to the right children and the right families. Funnily enough, that has been one of the main things driving us to make this commitment.

We have here a commitment that either we are going with a major review of the child PIP or, if not, a fallback where there will be a review anyway, albeit within the context of the DLA. That is the commitment, and I can tell your Lordships that it has been somewhat hard fought.

[Lord Freud]

I think that we will be discussing this a lot in the years to come—it is not a dead issue. When you set up such a review, it generates its own momentum. Noble Lords know how powerful a review in this kind of area is. Once you have a review like this and the momentum that follows from it, something happens reasonably rapidly. I do not think that you have set it in absolute terms because it becomes an irresistible force. Therefore, I do not think that that is a concern. The exact nature of what we then do begs a lot of questions that we simply do not need to ask. However, with regard to how we carry out the review, the involvement of this House will be taken very much into account.

[Baroness Meacher]

I really do not want to hold up the House at this stage but this is such an important point. My understanding is that the details are going to be in regulations. If that is the case, a review will be undertaken and I have no doubt that it will show that these rates are unfair. Why cannot regulations be changed within current legislation to achieve a fairer distribution of additions? That is my only question.

[Lord Freud]

I am saying that that may be one outcome but there may be a much more radical outcome in the introduction of PIP for children. The question is: are you better off doing that or adjusting DLA with the passporting arrangement? That is very difficult to prejudge when we have not done the review. Therefore, there is method in the, or perhaps I should say there is some method behind—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords. I am sorry; I forgot to answer that. At this stage, I am not in a position to lay out transitional protection because we are currently looking at how it will work. However, it will be a bundled up protection. The work in progress effectively involves taking someone’s existing entitlement, comparing it with their universal credit entitlement and paying the difference as a lump sum, which is then maintained. However, in the context of what we are talking about, the migration process is rather more important than the transitional protection. In the vast bulk of cases, it is when those families move on to universal credit that will matter more than transitional protection, which will be towards the tail end of this period, if at all.

[Baroness Meacher]

I thank the Minister for his response. I accept what he says about the simplification of the system. That is absolutely right. However, I do not accept the suggestion that this system—certainly in this part of the Bill—is fairer. The fact is that it is not; it is deeply, deeply unfair. I find myself in a situation where we are either going to have the Minister’s acceptance—I think we do have that—that this is unfair and needs a full-scale review, or we have nothing. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, indicated, maybe we are being bullied. My sense is that there are perhaps some rather large, old, hefty powers from another place leaning on us. Therefore, I would not wish to allege that the Minister is bullying us. I accept that if one has a full-scale review, there is a momentum and we will be there to see what happens and to try and make sure that the right thing does happen.

Disabled people and the disabled organisations who will be involved in the review will be on the case. Therefore, I feel reasonably confident that we will get there. My biggest worry concerns the timeframe and the need for further legislation. I still hope that if the Government get to the right answer in terms of the allocation of benefits to families with disabled children they could make adjustments to regulations while we await new legislation. That matters a great deal. We should not leave families newly coming on to these benefits severely damaged and, I think, cruelly treated. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Motion A1, as an amendment to Motion A, withdrawn.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

1: Clause 10, page 4, line 36, at end insert—
“such additional amount to be paid at either a higher rate, or a lower rate, which shall be no less than two-thirds of the higher rate as may be prescribed”

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, Amendment 1 seeks to ensure that the gap between the higher and normal-rate additions for disabled children is not too great. The Government’s proposals for these additions, according to the Minister, are designed to be revenue neutral. The money saved is to be used to raise the level of income for adults in the support group.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, but might I just suggest that people leave the Chamber quietly, because it is very difficult to hear what she is saying?

[Baroness Meacher]

The amendment proposes that Ministers revisit the relationship between the new levels of disability addition for children and allocate resources to adults in the support group when new money allows. I know that we must move on from arguments made on Report, but I must make just a few points to help my argument here to be coherent.

Very briefly, under the new provision for a disability addition and a higher addition, families who have a child who is eligible for the higher addition will receive £1.50 per week more than current claimants do, but families with disabled children who do not meet the stiff criteria for the higher addition will receive £27 per week less. Most families with a disabled child will therefore lose about £1,400 a year.

This amendment would peg the normal addition for disabled children at two-thirds the level of the higher disability addition for children. The House voted on a more radical amendment on this issue on Report and the Division was lost by two votes. We are seeking to eliminate the cliff-edge between the two levels of disability addition for children because all such families are far less likely, for example, to be able to rely on relatives or other informal carers. Their childcare costs will be far higher than those with a non-disabled child. Of course, families will have to pay 30 per cent of their childcare costs whereas today they pay, I think, 5 per cent. There really is an issue of work incentives for those parents, although I understand that the Minister will have a go at me on that issue.

On another terribly important matter, the need for high childcare costs will continue until the child is very much older, if not indefinitely. That applies to children who would not qualify for the higher rate addition yet who may be very severely disabled. That is the point. This amendment would go a long way to creating a much fairer system, which is what we are all about.

One might ask whether it really matters. It does matter because 100,000 or so disabled children affected by this loss of benefit are very likely to live in poverty. Recent research by the Children’s Society indicates that once the additional costs of disability are accounted for, four in every 10 disabled children are living in poverty and a loss of income would really matter. Therefore, disabled children would not only live in poverty but would have vastly greater costs.

The Government argue that their new additions align the levels of support for disabled children with those for disabled adults, but the levels of support are based on completely different tests. For children the test is based on eligibility for DLA, and for adults it is based on their fitness for work. So I am not quite sure how the Government are arguing that these have been aligned.

The Government argue that the changes will ease the transition to adulthood for disabled children. On Report, the Minister said:

“We want to smooth the transition from childhood to adulthood by removing that artificial divide”.—[Official Report, 12/12/11; col. 1054.]

In fact, the restructuring will reduce the support for most disabled children. It will not reduce the support for the very most disabled children who require night-time care, but it will reduce it for others. Therefore, I do not accept the argument.

There are good reasons for proposing a disability addition at two-thirds of the higher rate for children. This addition is needed to contribute to the costs of special clothing, repairing damage, safety measures and special food, and to contribute to the costs of giving disabled children access to the opportunities that other children have. We know that simple things like swimming lessons cost something like £270 for 12 lessons for a disabled child as opposed to £80 for a normal child. Where will that money come from? A summer club costs £450 per week for a disabled child compared with £100 a week for a non-disabled child. Yet these are the things that would give a parent a break and really help a child to socialise and benefit from development opportunities.

The Government’s proposed child additions go nowhere near covering these extra costs. I fear that their proposed reforms to disability additions are short-term fixes. I understand the position of the Minister, who is under huge pressure from the Treasury. One of the troubles for this House and noble Lords is that this reform, much of which we support in principle, is being tangled up with swingeing cuts to benefits which are having unacceptable impacts. Therefore, we are trying at the edge to ameliorate some of those unacceptable impacts. That is what we are about. The Government’s proposed reforms to disability additions therefore need another look by Ministers.

I turn to the particular problems of single parents with a disabled child. Many years ago I ran a group for parents of severely disabled children. I expected lots of mums and dads to turn up, and I was faced with what I thought was an absolute tragedy: the room was full of mothers who told me that the fathers had gone. Many of them had left home within months of the birth of the disabled child. It is these mothers and a great deal of others whom we need to have in our minds today.

Many parents of disabled children will be doing something very valuable for society by staying at home to develop their children’s full potential. They should not be under pressure, even in these stringent times, to go out and stack shelves. By devoting themselves full-time to therapy, play exercises and other learning activities, they are reducing the dependency levels of their children that, with luck, will last throughout their lives—some cannot make progress, of course, but many can—and increasing the possibility that their children can develop a degree of independence, and maybe even financial independence, in adulthood. It would be wise for the Government to take this issue very seriously.

I would ask the Minister to revisit the two levels of disability additions to consider whether the balance is right. Is there not merit in leaving the higher rate at £76 and retaining the basic level at two-thirds of that sum, which is something like £50? That really would make an enormous difference to these families. I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to take this matter away for further consideration, even at this very late stage, in the light of what I think are very powerful arguments for some change in their approach. Finally, will he agree to review the impact of the disability benefits changes in the universal credit system one year after its introduction—although I know that the system is to be introduced over time, so a year may not be terribly realistic? While doing that, will the Minister consider taking a look at reviewing the entire welfare reform package? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I think that I have to take up the challenge of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and try not to read anything at all in order to convince her that I actually believe in what I am going to say.

I preface my remarks by reminding noble Lords that the amendment is in the same territory as the one we discussed on Report that was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and on which there was a Division. I confess to feeling slight surprise when I saw it come back in such a similar guise. If my arguments sound somewhat familiar to noble Lords, it will be because they have heard many of them before. I need to go through them in the context of this skilfully drawn-up amendment.

I start by making it absolutely clear to all noble Lords—in particular, to my noble friend Lady Browning—that this is not about deficit reduction. Every penny of the money will be recycled to increase support for severely disabled children and adults. None of the money that we are talking about will go to Her Majesty's Treasury, with which I have absolutely cordial relations at all times. The principle that was picked up by my noble friends Lord German, Lord Newton and Lady Thomas concerns the cliff edge that exists at 16 when youngsters transition from childhood to adulthood. As my noble friend Lady Browning pointed out, many of these youngsters are in practice dependent on their families for a long time. The cliff edge is something that we wanted to smooth out. This will be essential to protect work incentives in adulthood.

I said many times in the debate that we are overhauling the whole support system for people who rely on benefits. It simply does not make sense to concentrate on any one element. The universal credit will provide a package of support for families to meet a range of their needs. That is why we need to look at the overall impact of universal credit on families rather than look at individual components. If some families get a bit less on one component, it does not mean that they will get less overall. I will pick up on the point raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Wilkins, about some of the social activities that are required to have a good quality of life. The intention is for DLA to pay for those facilities. The purpose of universal credit is income replacement. The two benefits do different things.

I also remind noble Lords that, contrary to some estimates that have gone around this afternoon on the impact of universal credit, clearly the impact will be that families will be much better off. I remind noble Lords that I and my friends in the Treasury are managing on a steady-state basis to put £4 billion a year into the pockets of the poorest people through universal credit. That is the context in which we are making these changes. Noble Lords should not underestimate what it took to get that out through a government process: a steady-state £4 billion a year in universal credit for the poorest.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that about £18 billion has been taken out in cuts. We are not getting extra benefit payments, but I applaud the Minister for having retrieved £4 billion; that is wonderful, and great news.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are talking about severely disabled children receiving the full rate of £77. That is the point: we are trying to direct the money towards the people with the greatest need regardless of their age. That is what we are trying to do here.

[Baroness Meacher]

We have to be very clear about this. One of the main reasons for this amendment is the fact that it is so difficult to divide those who are eligible for the higher rate from those who are not. There is often a very narrow—and fairly arbitrary—margin. They just happen not to need to be disturbed at night, but during the day the costs may be even higher—the disruption to the family, the impossibility of working—all those issues are possibly just as great for those who will not qualify for the higher rates. It is really important to hang on to that.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this is a really important point. It may very well be that the concern of the House actually boils down to a discomfort with the dividing line between severely disabled and disabled. If that is the case, the way to do it—and I pick up what my noble friend Lord Newton was saying—is not to look at aspect or concrete ratios but at the precise issue that noble Lords are actually worrying about, which is the relationship. I will commit to having a very close look at this. It is clearly tied up with DLA definitions, which are under constant review and are being reviewed.

If we move the children from DLA to PIP, we need to look at this and there will be a real consultation process. I will review this dividing line and look at that very closely, and when we come to the regulations on this, I will report back to noble Lords on exactly what we find. My sense is that this is the real issue underneath all this. I know noble Lords had to find an amendment that had to weave through, to express this concern, so we all know what is happening on a technical basis. Let us go to the real issue. The real issue is: are we getting the dividing line right? People ask me if I am listening—I hear what noble Lords are saying; this is what I think noble Lords are saying, and I will go and do something about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I thank my noble friend Lord Trimble for that. That is the position. I have heard strong arguments here and very great concern. I will talk to noble Lords before we get the regulations out to make sure that they find the regulations acceptable. I give that undertaking now. I beg the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I feel a huge weight of responsibility here. The Minister does not want me to test the opinion of the House, and I understand that, but hundreds of thousands of families all over the country with disabled and severely disabled children are desperate about this issue; I repeat, they are desperate. The pressure of that is difficult to bear. But I do want to say that I respect very strongly the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for the huge amount of work that I know he does all the time on working towards a simpler welfare system. He has done a fantastic job on this. But, as he knows, the job of this House is to try to ameliorate the worst effects of legislation, and that is what we have done consistently throughout this process. The Minister has generously agreed to take back and think about these issues following the moving speeches that have been made by many noble Lords, but the fact is that we in this House do not have an assurance that anything will happen.

The Minister is under huge pressure from a Secretary of State who is an awfully long way from this. I think that he has little real understanding of what it is to be a poor family with a very disabled child and not able to afford to give to that child what they know it needs. I have concerns about that because we need the Government to understand the enormity of the pressure on these families. I have often said to my own children that I do not think I could have managed it at all because these things are so tough. That is the situation here.

The Minister referred to a cliff edge at the age of 16. The noble Lord in his place beside me referred to a cliff edge at the age of three. The worry is that what the Government are doing is introducing a cliff edge at birth and then at one, two and three, when severe disability hits. Do we want these families to fall off a cliff—and that must be how it feels—when they realise that they have made a lifelong commitment to care for a child but the state withdraws some of its support? That is a big issue for us.

The Minister referred to DLA funding swimming lessons, school holiday clubs and so on. The reality is that DLA does not cover adequately those expenditures, and that is the issue. Families do not have enough money, and it is why 40 per cent of them are in poverty. They need more money if they are to help their children fulfil their potential, whatever that potential may be. The Minister also referred to families being better off in work. I accept that, but the difficulty is that that is being achieved by impoverishing an awful lot of people, some of whom can work—speaking for myself, I support the Government’s quest to get more and more people back into work. But when we consider families with disabled children, particularly single parents with disabled children, as others have said, they cannot do this and it is terrible to impoverish them.

That is the dilemma we are facing. I know that the Minister is going to be deeply unhappy with me and I do not like making him deeply unhappy, but I owe it to the families out there to test the opinion of this House. We have to do it.