Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, we are talking still about benefit caps. We left the debate on Monday, I think, accepting that families hit the cap, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, explained so straightforwardly for us, through the interplay of both high rents and large families, a problem particularly in London and the south-east, with 70 per cent of those affected in social housing. Amendments tabled during our previous day’s debate sought, first, a more appropriate comparator by excluding child benefit in particular from benefit cap calculations—this was an argument by my noble friend Lady Lister—so that we could compare like with like and not apples with oranges. A second group of amendments suggested, wisely, a transitional period of grace before the cap was imposed. This is a theme to which I think we will all want to return, because we need a period of grace for quite a lot of the measures being introduced in order for them to settle down before the whole weight of penalties comes into play. We ran a similar amendment on housing benefit earlier. A third group of amendments sought to exclude subgroups from the caps—for example, those in supported housing, carers and kinship carers.

I want to focus on two aspects of all the debates that we have had so far, plus on the issue of carers, which was raised so effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and issues of housing benefit raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I support the thrust of all the amendments. There was one golden rule of public finance that I learnt from my time in the department: amendments abating or removing cuts always cost more than the cuts originally saved, even if the situation is not restored to the pre-existing status quo. That may be the case here again.

I wish to raise some wider questions on Amendment 99A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. She argued powerfully that just as PIP will remain outside of UC and the cap, so, equally, should carer’s benefit not be included in the cap, because they mirror each other, as they do in real life. The financial pressures, the fatigue and exhaustion, the using-up of savings and the social isolation apply just as much to many carers as they do to so many disabled people. We know that the Minister is sympathetic to carers, as is the whole House. So far, however, we do not yet know how many carers face a reduced earnings disregard. We do not know how many carers will lose carers allowance, because of the possible uneven mapping of the existing DLA passported benefit to the new PIP. We also do not know whether CA will come within the cap.

Given that the Bill is going through Committee stage here I feel that we are entitled to require the Minister to give us this information before we start Report stage and that we should not have to wait until we get to the clauses specifically about carers. If a single carer—it could be no carers, or it could be 100,000 carers—loses their entitlement to a passported benefit they will come into the framework of in-work conditionality which we have to deal with before we get to the carers clauses, at which point the Minister tells us he will be able to give us the information we want. We cannot do it that way round. It is not fair to the carers and it is not fair to Committee Members, who have been trying to do our best to get from the Minister—I am sure that he wants to be helpful on this—this information on the situation in which carers will find themselves. We must know everything about this situation before Report; otherwise some of us will be demanding that we go back into Committee, in the middle of Report stage, in order to take on board information that should have been available to inform earlier debates. It is not a proposal I would wish to argue. It is annoying for everybody concerned, but I feel quite strongly that it is not reasonable to ask us to proceed in this way.

The second area is housing benefit. Again, I strongly support the amendments moved so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Best. However, perhaps I may widen the point to remind the Minister of where we are so far and what we so far know, and then to ask him what advice he would give to a housing association such as mine—I declare an interest as chair of Broadland Housing Association. First, there is under-occupying. So far we have learnt that many of our poorest tenants would be required to move to smaller accommodation—except that we do not have it; it does not exist and it will not be built in the next few years. So the tenants will stay put and be fined on average about £20 a week. They have no savings, so they will run up arrears. However, we will be asked to avoid evicting them on grounds of decency as well as cost savings. Although such tenants would not be intentionally homeless through arrears generated by benefit cuts—as the Minister has helpfully agreed on the record—we would in any event have to rehouse them, probably in the house next door, if we evicted them. We will get substantial arrears from—although not pensioners—perhaps one-fifth of our tenants. I do not know.

We will perhaps also be faced, as we found from the discussion last week, with some tenants who are up against the housing benefit or UC cap. They too will face arrears, and again we will be expected as social landlords to avoid evicting them for what is not their fault. Again, arrears for us will mount.

We may also face cuts in housing benefit for those with supported housing in its various forms, although obviously this is a much smaller group. Again their arrears may mount, and again those will pass to the housing association.

Finally—an issue which we have not yet debated—we will certainly face substantial arrears in the move to direct payments to tenants rather than to the landlord.

Each of these four changes in housing benefit from DWP will plunge social housing landlords into mounting arrears. What is my housing association to do? We cannot raise rents to compensate for those arrears because we are at our fixed-target rent and DCLG does not allow us to go above it. We cannot get extra revenues from HCA or DCLG—indeed, they have cut our capital revenues by some 60 per cent. Housing associations could well find their accounts qualified, at which point the banks may threaten to reprice their capital loans because of infringement of a covenant, at which point our building programme falls.

I suppose that we could cut staff but the Tenant Services Authority within the HCA requires us to improve services. A 95 per cent satisfaction rate on any of the criteria it produces is required, which means that there must be staff on the ground, and quite rightly so. The driving-up of standards equals staff, which means that you cannot cut in that field either.

Put those four cuts together and they could send many housing associations into the red. Any one or two of these proposed benefit changes would be difficult to manage, but to face all four would be unbelievably difficult. I warn the Minister that he could be jeopardising the financial stability of a swathe of housing associations across the country. How then will the Prime Minister’s newly voiced concern for affordable housing be met? Given that 95 per cent of all housing stock that will exist in 10 years’ time has already been built, we cannot adjust the stock to meet what I believe is very wrong-headed, and in some places downright indecent, changes to HB. Some of us feel very strongly about this and it would seriously jeopardise our support for UC. DWP’s cuts in housing benefit will be offloaded to housing associations as arrears.

Goodness knows that local authorities are strapped for cash with 30 per cent cuts, but at least they have other financial resources. Housing associations do not. I repeat to the Minister that his savings will be our debt. DWP and DCLG have to get their act together. As I suggested at Second Reading, not entirely jocularly, if we could persuade DCLG to give up its batty scheme of localising council tax benefit with all the savings that accompany it and trade it for protecting the housing benefit, which would finance the homes we need and keep people in the homes that they want, UC would be welcomed widely across the country. I warn the Minister to take this issue very seriously. It will be very difficult for those in the field of social housing to cope when his cuts become our arrears with no capacity to meet them.

[Baroness Meacher]

I support Amendment 99A, which would exempt from the benefit cap, as others have mentioned, claimants with entitlement to carer’s allowance or additional allowances within universal credit for claimants with regular and substantial caring responsibilities. I am sure that this amendment was moved extremely ably by my noble friend Lady Hollins.

Perhaps I may make a couple of comments about the cap more generally. As Cross-Benchers, we do not normally refer to any political activities that we might have undertaken even in the distant past. Over a quarter of a century, however, I have spent rather a lot of time knocking on doors. One incredibly powerful recollection that I have is that the perception of the so-called scrounger was always the biggest single issue on the doorstep, even bigger than immigration. We cannot get away from the fact that low-income earners bitterly resent neighbours who they regard as being on benefits and, apparently, seeming to do rather better than they themselves. It is important that low-income earners feel that they are benefiting from going to work, which was the objective of the tax credit system. I strongly support the principle of that, albeit that there were a few problems with complexity.

As for the political motivation behind the benefits cap, I understand that people must have that incentive to work and that those in work should not resent those who are out of work. I have concerns, however, which I believe others have expressed, about the cap as a mechanism for achieving that sense of fairness. My understanding is that the design of the universal benefit should achieve this objective if only, as others have said, the council tax benefit were incorporated within it—at least except for a small number of very large families and some people living in very high cost areas.

I suggest to the Minister that the Government give some thought to finding a formulation in the legislation to achieve their fairness objective as between claimants and low-paid earners without resort to the notion of the cap. I know that the Secretary of State is extremely committed to this cap because it is a beautifully simple little message about being tough on claimants, if one is really honest about it. However, the Secretary of State should think carefully about whether this is acceptable within the traditions of democracy in this country. The aim, of course, would be to avoid relinquishing parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. That is important because the levels and structure of benefits should not be open to change by the Executive without reference to Parliament. I understand that that is possible with the Bill as drafted. I know that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but that is my understanding.

As regards this amendment, if the Government are determined to have the benefit—and I still hope that they are not—one group of claimants who clearly should be exempt are carers. About 200,000 children in the UK are being raised by grandparents, older siblings or other family members and friends. These carers step in to bring up a child or children as a result of very difficult family circumstances which often involve drug or alcohol misuse, abuse or neglect, death or serious illness, domestic violence or imprisonment. These carers are saving the taxpayer very large sums. These households are often large, simply because they have children of their own and then bring in others, perhaps five or more; so they will be disproportionately affected by the cap. I am sure that others have already mentioned this issue but I hope that the Minister will address it directly.

The idea of imposing a cap or some form of benefit control on large families is presumably to discourage parents from having more children than they can readily cope with, but that argument does not apply at all to carers who take on other people’s children. I do not know what the Minister feels about that point. Is that actually the main incentive behind the cap in relation to these households? Have I misunderstood? I would welcome his clarification. I know that he will want to support carers and hope that he is in a position to hold out some hope of concession on this issue. I hope that, at the very least, he will take this matter away for consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, this amendment has its genesis as long ago as 1996. As Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, I found that, at the end of their sentence, prisoners were released with a discharge grant of £46 or, if they had no address to go to, £92. The numbers claiming £92 went down when home detention curfew or tagging was introduced because, in order to qualify, they had to give an address. They were then required to go to their local jobcentre and sign on for whatever benefits they were entitled to, so having to live on their discharge grant until those came through, which could take up to three weeks and sometimes longer. I ask Members of the Grand Committee how they would cope if they were a single parent with dependent children having to live on £46 for three weeks, probably having lost their accommodation thanks to the rule brought in by Mr Peter Lilley in 1995 whereby council accommodation would be forfeited after 13 weeks of absence and their possessions removed. That is not to excuse those who break the law, but it offers an explanation for the appalling high reoffending rate among recently released offenders.

When I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, and on several occasions since then, including in your Lordships’ House, I have asked why benefit claims could not be processed while someone is in prison so that on release they do not receive a grant but the first of future regular payments. As very many prisoners are receiving some form of benefit before they go into prison, it should not be beyond the wit of man to suspend those payments during the period of imprisonment and resume them on release. However, every sort of reason has been put forward about why that is impossible, which I put down to lack of will power: the prisons from which they are released may not be in the same geographical area where they live and, therefore, not in the area where their nearest jobcentre is; there are no Jobcentre Plus employees in prisons who could process the claims; or the prison into which they were received and which suspended their payment may not be the same one from which they are released. I think all this is baloney and that the Government, by not grasping the nettle, are contributing to the reoffending rate.

My amendment is designed to put an end to that nonsense by regulating that individual benefit claims are processed during a person’s imprisonment so that the discharge grant becomes a thing of the past, except for those who do not qualify for benefit. There are other spin-offs to this process that can only help the conduct of imprisonment, because an individual’s national insurance number is a unique identification weapon armed with which there is no reason why one cannot pass information regarding individual claims around the system. Unique national insurance numbers, without which benefit claims cannot be made, will also help to prevent identity fraud, because pretending to be someone else will deny provision.

My amendment specifically mentions those who were in receipt of benefits at the time of their reception into custody, but I shall amend it at a later stage to include the assessment of all people inside and the initial assessment of those whose entitlement is discovered only when they are in custody. What I am proposing is in fact in line with something that has already been set in train regarding the work programme. The Deputy Prime Minister announced on 16 August that the Government intended to mandate prison leavers to the programme immediately on release from prison, with national implementation for jobseeker’s allowance claimants from March 2012, and to work with the Ministry of Justice on a pilot integration of reoffending outcomes into work programmes.

To enable that to happen, Jobcentre Plus advisers will process jobseeker’s allowance claims in prison—although for some extraordinary reason it is said that discussions with claimants will be voluntary and not mandatory. They will then make a record of all prison leavers that will be retained for 13 weeks from the date on which they leave custody. If a claim for jobseeker’s allowance is made during that time, the prison leaver will be referred to the work programme at the point of claim. To a layman, this all seems convoluted and bureaucratic. If the Department for Work and Pensions really is fully committed to supporting the rehabilitation of offenders, why can officials not sit down with those from the Ministry of Justice and work out a system that applies to every single prison leaver, not just those who are in the market for the work programme or jobseeker’s allowance?

The reason for proposed subsection (3) in my amendment is that, all too often, resettlement essentials in prison are left until the very end of a sentence, in which case it may be too late to process benefit claims. However, if processing is started immediately so that a prisoner’s status on release is well known in advance, that will be avoided. This applies to the work programme as much as to the universal benefit. Of course there will be problems with those serving short sentences but, as I have suggested, suspension and resumption rather than initiation may well be the required process.

Bearing in mind the unnecessary reoffending and misery that present procedures have caused for too long, I have corresponded with both the Ministry of Justice and the Minister over this amendment, being amazed that successive Governments should not have done something to rectify this over the years—particularly this Government, in view of what they currently have in hand at both the MoJ and the DWP. I am very grateful to the Minister for his response to my letters but, with respect, I suggest that in drafting his answer his officials may not have made the connections that I have tried to describe. I therefore ask him to reconsider his written refusal to support my amendment, dated 26 October, and meet me to discuss further action before Report. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I have not prepared any comments on this amendment, but it seems to me to be of enormous importance. I cannot imagine that the Minister would not wish to support it.

One very obvious proposal would be for every prison to work out the release rate of their prisoners and to determine how many hours per week of a Jobcentre Plus person they need in the prison to process all these prisoners in order that they are paid their full benefit entitlement before, I suggest, they go out of the door or within the first week.

It is a fact that a very large number of prisoners reoffend within that very early period following release, which seems almost inevitable. What else are these people supposed to do? I therefore hope that the Minister will indeed meet my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham to consider how to do it. It has surely to be done; it is a matter of how best to do it—whether to have people in the prison doing this work to overcome the problems of people moving from one area to another and even while they are in prison. I can see that that is a problem for individual jobcentres, but, one way or another, I hope that this can be resolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher]

I think I slightly missed my cue. I apologise. I rise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who gives her apologies to the Committee. My noble friend is unable to be with us due to a commitment in Birmingham today and she asked me to speak. I rise to give notice of our intention to oppose the question that Clause 99 stand part of the Bill. I must express my gratitude to Sue Royston of the CAB service for her help with this contribution.

The purpose of this amendment is to remove Clause 99, which requires claimants to apply for a revision before they can appeal. This clause would mean a mandatory extra step in the system, which complicates the process for claimants. The extra step has a strict legal time limit within which the application must be made. This inevitably means that some vulnerable people will lose their right to appeal, having failed to submit their application in good time. It will create extra work and extra expense. The reconsideration process is already in place anyway when someone appeals; the DWP just needs to use it more effectively.

What does the proposal mean for the process of challenging a decision? At present someone who receives a decision they disagree with has a month to challenge it. They can either ask the decision-maker to reconsider the decision or they can put in for an appeal. If they appeal, the DWP still has a duty to reconsider the decision. If, after reconsideration, the decision is unchanged, the appeal is passed on to the Tribunals Service automatically. This means that at the start of the process claimants have only one legal time limit to meet if they appeal. If the new proposal set out in Clause 99 is passed, someone who receives a decision they disagree with will have a month from the date of the decision to ask for a reconsideration. Then, when the claimant receives the result of that, they will have only a month from the date of the new decision to submit their appeal. Both of these deadlines will be strict legal time limits and a late reconsideration or appeal will be accepted only if good cause is proven. We all know that good cause is a very tough hurdle and very much a matter of discretion. One can never be sure that the decision is fair.

Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Government regard this change as necessary. In the equality impact assessment published in October, one reason given by the DWP for this proposal is:

“We wish to ensure that as far as is reasonably possible, disputes between claimants and the relevant decision making body regarding social security, child support and certain other decisions are resolved through internal processes”.

It makes no sense to suggest that this proposal is to ensure that decisions are resolved through internal processes. The process for doing this is already in place. If a claimant wants to challenge a DLA decision and appeals, time is given to collect evidence and a proper reconsideration of the evidence is made. Where a good cause is presented, the decision is frequently overturned. The taxpayer is saved the cost of an appeal and the claimant the stress of that appeal.

However, in ESA cases, until recently it was very common to send in an appeal one day and get back the reconsideration by return of post refusing to change the decision—the appeal had been forwarded to the Tribunals Service before any evidence could be collected. The reconsideration process has recently improved. However, the improvements are patchy. One CAB in the south-west reported that it had started to see an improvement in the reconsideration process, but ever since the reassessment process started in earnest, it appears that the decision-makers have been overwhelmed and in not a single case where the CAB has helped claimants appeal has the decision been overturned on reconsideration, and yet at tribunal the CAB service has a success rate of 90 per cent. Clearly something is going rather badly wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has eloquently explained her concerns and those of her noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson, who cannot be with us today, about Clause 99. Let me try to address them.

I assure your Lordships that the time limits for claimants wishing to request a revision, or make an appeal, in relation to most social security benefits are not changing. What is changing is that claimants will need to ask for the decision to be looked at again before they can appeal. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is in everyone’s interests for disputed decisions to be resolved at the pre-appeal stage wherever possible. Previous figures have indicated that approximately 65 per cent of cases overturned historically were a result of additional evidence being provided that was not available to the decision-maker.

While the claimant will be required to apply for reconsideration within one month of being notified of a decision, the process for making the request is informal. It does not require the claimant to supply a substantial submission and can be done by telephone, face to face or in writing, so claimants should not be subject to additional expense.

The purpose of Clause 99 is to allow DWP to focus on revision rather than responding to appeals, enabling more disputes to be resolved at an earlier stage. Claimants will still be able to ask for a written explanation of the decision and, where they do, the one-month time limit for applying for reconsideration will be extended. In the event that a claimant fails to request a reconsideration on time, the deadline can be extended where there are special circumstances—for example, a hospital admission —which make it impracticable for the claimant to meet the deadline. I assure the noble Baroness that when a request for reconsideration is made beyond the one-month deadline, no formal submission of reasons will be required. They can be supplied by telephone, allowing a decision-maker to consider whether they meet the criteria for an extension of the deadline.

This clause does not change which decisions carry appeal rights; it will simply require claimants to go through the internal reconsideration process first. The purpose of this is to ensure that the decision-making and appeal process is both fair and proportionate.

Although reconsideration is already practised in DWP, there is no legislative requirement for it to be carried out when an appeal is made. Clause 99 will introduce this requirement. Currently, decisions are routinely reconsidered on appeal, so the reconsideration process takes place after the claimant has already decided to appeal to the tribunal.

Under the new arrangements, DWP will use direct contact with the claimant to gather additional evidence relevant to the decision and will provide an explanation of the outcome of the reconsideration. The process will allow a claimant’s decision to appeal to be informed by whether reconsideration had provided them with a clear justification for the original decision, and a clear explanation of it.

Some parts of DWP have already introduced a more robust and independent reconsideration process. However, claimants may often have already made a formal appeal before this process begins. As the noble Baroness has rightly pointed out, under Clause 99, where a decision is overturned upon reconsideration, this will save the taxpayer the cost of an appeal and the claimant the stress of appealing.

The noble Baroness makes the point that, under the current process, no one can get to a tribunal without confirming their intent to carry on. However, if a claimant does not respond to the TAS1, the appeal does not simply stop. The tribunal will still be required to make a decision to strike out the appeal.

Currently, the claimant has 14 days to respond to a TAS1, which is sent along with the DWP response to the appeal and often the reconsideration outcome. Unless the claimant appeals early, which is the issue that we are trying to resolve, this gives the claimant only a short time to consider this information and make an informed decision on whether to proceed with their appeal or to withdraw.

Clause 99 will allow the claimant to make an informed decision about whether to appeal, having passed through a less formal process. There is currently no time limit for the DWP to complete the reconsideration process, nor is one proposed, but it is important to the DWP that each stage of the decision-making and appeals process is carried out within acceptable timescales and does not result in unreasonable delays for claimants. The department is considering carefully how best to monitor and evaluate this in future.

The noble Baroness expressed a concern that claimants will not qualify for payment of ESA pending reconsideration. No appellants should be left without support, since other benefits such as JSA may be available. No decisions have yet been made to change ESA. The main focus of the DWP is to make the correct decision, based on all the available evidence, at the earliest point. Clause 99 will also help claimants distinguish between revision and appeal. The process will be clearly explained via decision letters, leaflets and through direct contact with claimants.

The noble Baroness referred to costs. There will, of course, be costs, particularly relating to IT changes, to implement this clause. The DWP expects to meet these within its spending review settlement. Furthermore, savings are expected to be made in both the DWP and the Ministry of Justice via a reduction in appeals.

I do not think that I have responded in detail—

[Baroness Meacher]

It seems to me that this is a tricky subject area. I am struggling as regards what benefit there might be in introducing Clause 99. It seems to me that one is shifting the responsibility from the DWP to get on and undertake one of these reconsiderations to the claimant requesting that this happens. I am sure that the Minister will accept that these claimants have a pretty difficult life to manage anyway. To add on another process that they have to go through is going to cause all sorts of problems. Why cannot the DWP improve its processes as regards the reconsiderations so that they can happen automatically if a claimant is concerned about a decision? The DWP should get on and undertake a reconsideration, asking for any further evidence or whatever it wants. If it comes out with the same decision, it then informs the claimant and asks him or her whether they wish to pursue their appeal. I am not clear about that process. Can the Minister help me with that?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we are not trying to introduce a new stage—reconsideration and appeal have existed before; we are trying to get a better process of reconsideration before we get to appeal so that we can avoid a large number of appeals that occur. We are introducing an element of flexibility and informality so that claimants are not held quite so rigidly to deadlines, information and the form in which it comes. We plan to make the process more streamlined for them as well as for the department. We require Clause 99 to effect that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

It will not be an independent process but it will be monitored closely in the department.

[Baroness Meacher]

I thank the Minister for that full response and the detailed explanations about a number of these tricky issues. I have no doubt that my noble friend who is unable to be with us today will read Hansard carefully and may want to come back to it later.

Clause 99 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am delighted to hear such full-hearted support for monthly payments. First, I would like to speak to Amendment 103ZZA in my name. This amendment is technical in nature and seeks to restore the policy intent and simple premise that where a claimant has a debt, the debt should be recoverable from them. In the majority of cases, overpayments of benefit, penalties, payments on account and certain hardship payments will be recoverable from the claimant and will be recovered by deduction from the benefit that is paid to them. As the Bill is drafted, however, the Secretary of State is prevented from recovering such payments where the claimant’s benefit is paid directly to a third party, for example a landlord. This means that recovery from a claimant is limited to deduction from those benefits paid directly to them. This is unintended and so this amendment seeks to ensure that where a claimant’s benefit that is subject to recovery is paid to a third party, recovery may be made from that benefit.

This ensures that the DWP maintains the same powers of recovery as it does presently for recovery by deduction from housing benefit where it is paid directly to a landlord. Although the claimant may have other benefits from which deductions could be made, to do so adds both cost and complexity to the recovery process. In such cases, where no benefit is payable other than that paid to the third party, the DWP would be reliant on negotiating repayment from non-benefit income or potentially using direct earnings attachments to recover from debtors who are in pay-as-you-earn employment.

The situation becomes even more difficult where the debtor will not negotiate repayment, has no benefits paid directly to them and is not in pay-as-you-earn employment. Without the amendment, this would result in a situation where the DWP or local authorities have no effective way to recover the overpayment or penalty. I am sure noble Lords will agree with me that where there is an obligation to repay benefit debt, the fullest possible powers should be available to the relevant authorities to make recovery by the most efficient means.

I shall now address Amendments 103ZZB, 103ZZC, 103ZZD, 103ZZE, 103ZA and 103ZZZA. These opposition amendments seek to achieve a number of objectives, but are primarily concerned with protecting debtors. I am sure that there is no disagreement over the need for safeguards for vulnerable claimants and those in financial difficulty. We recognise, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that protection needs to extend to the calculation of overpayments as well as their recovery. In common with the noble Baroness, we recognise that such a provision has value in ensuring that an overpayment reflects the true loss of public funds and for this very reason, such a provision already exists in secondary legislation relating to the recovery of overpayments of current benefits.

Like the noble Baroness, we believe that similar provisions should apply here, but feel that such a provision sits more happily in secondary legislation. For that reason, I am happy to offer my assurances that it is our intention to make provision for such a calculation in the regulations to be made under Clause 102, new Section 71ZB(4), which allows regulations to provide that recoverable amounts,

“are to be calculated or estimated in a prescribed manner”.

Placing the provision in secondary legislation allows for both flexibility and review.

Concerning the other issues raised within these amendments, I believe that future overpayment recovery from working-age claimants will be more streamlined and efficient than it is presently. Recovery will thus provide both greater returns and better value for money for taxpayers. For example, under the previous Administration, it was believed that there was a right under common law to recover overpayments occurring due to official error, and the DWP thus requested repayment of those overpayments on that basis. I see that noble Lords who may have been responsible for those requests are in agreement. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that there was no such right and that is why we are legislating to bring the law for working-age benefits back in line with the policy of the previous administration—a policy that we support.

Prescribing that an overpayment caused by official error would not be recoverable if the claimant could not reasonably be expected to know that they were being overpaid brings forward a need to make subjective assessment of the debtor’s capacity to understand entitlement before the overpayment is determined. Although I sympathise with the lack of understanding of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about all the incredible overpayments that she gets and the £1 million that goes into her bank account on a regular basis, I have to say that that is not workable in this context. The DWP will not be prescribing those circumstances for the discretionary write-off or non-recovery of an overpayment. Cases will be considered carefully on their individual merits because each case is different.

As mentioned earlier, the code of practice will outline the policy as to whether recovery should be pursued, and lead to considered, consistent decision making. in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I am happy to confirm that that will be published in the form of a leaflet.

Considering whether an overpayment can, or should be recovered, the DWP will look at a number of factors, not solely whether the claimant received the money in good faith. It will have regard to ensuring that deductions from benefit or earnings—

[Baroness Meacher]

Will the code of practice be available to us before Report so that we know whether we have a reasonable situation?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, I am pleased to confirm that it will be available in draft. I want to avoid the cost of printing up a leaflet.

We will ensure that deductions from benefit or earnings to repay an overpayment should not lead a debtor to suffer undue hardship. That remains a cornerstone of our overpayment recovery policy. As presently, future benefit recovery will be subject to regulations that provide for a maximum rate of recovery. In many instances, however, this maximum rate of recovery may still prove unaffordable for some claimants. In such cases, the DWP will discuss an alternative repayment rate.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I was just quoting from a letter I received from a 50 year-old woman with complex mental health problems. She wrote that,

“my life revolves around trying to be as well as possible. I cannot stress enough how frightening it is to feel that you are not able to work, will not be put into the support group”,

she fears,

“and will be left to use up everything you have until eligible for means-tested benefits … My medicine prescription has been increased 4-fold and been supplemented with extra medication since the time limit was announced”.

As someone who has campaigned and argued for a more inclusive social security system for 40 years, I feel that I have to use the luxury of being a Back-Bencher to oppose this clause on principle. My noble friends on the Front Bench know and understand my position. However, if time-limiting goes ahead, it must be done on the fairest possible basis. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the proposed amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which would aim to achieve that in three main ways.

First, I hope that action will be taken so as not to penalise people with fluctuating conditions who go on to the support group after the contributory ESA has expired. I know that that is a particular concern of Macmillan Cancer Support. Secondly, I could not believe at first that the rule would be applied retrospectively. The case against that has been made extremely eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester. As a result of this, the letter has gone out to existing recipients. According to one who wrote to me, far from providing the reassurance mentioned by the Minister in his opening remarks at Second Reading, that will, she warns, “strike fear” into the hearts of those affected. Could the Minister state whether there is a precedent for such a letter to go out before Parliament has agreed such a controversial change?

Thirdly, I was also dismayed when I realised that the 13-week assessment phase is included in the one-year time limit, which in effect means that full contributory ESA will last for a year minus 13 weeks. In Committee in the other place, the Minister of State agreed to look again at this issue in response to concerns expressed by a Liberal Democrat MP. What was the outcome of this further look? According to a Written Answer that I received, if the assessment phase were excluded it would reduce the savings by £100 million in 2012-13, rising to £120 million by 2014-15, but falling to only £40 million by 2016-17. Here is the nub: this clause is not about making social security fairer; it is about saving money, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie has already stated.

I have some sympathy with the Minister. He is extolling the virtues of universal credit at every opportunity, yet universal credit is in danger of being contaminated by sharing a Bill with unfair, cost-cutting measures such as this one. I hope, therefore, at the very least, that the Minister will think very hard about how to mitigate this unfairness through the kind of amendments before us.

[Baroness Meacher]

I rise to speak to Amendments 71M, 71N, 71P, 72A and 73. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for kindly allowing me to speak a little earlier than I had planned because I have to leave the Committee briefly at 5 pm. I apologise to the Minister and the Bill team that I have not been able to attend the briefing sessions. They are a wonderful idea and I had hoped and assumed that I would attend every one, but life has not been quite like that.

I also apologise for not having had quite the time I would have wished to prepare for this debate. Having said that, I have major concerns about the plan to limit entitlement to contributory ESA to one year. I understand from the CAB service that the DWP has estimated that, of those on contributory ESA and in the work-related activity group, 94 per cent will remain on the benefit from more than a year, so it is estimated that by 2015-16 700,000 people will be affected by limiting contributory ESA. Some will lose their entire benefit payment, currently worth £94.25 a week. I know that the Minister will correct me if that is wrong. It sounds astonishing. The rationale for this change is, I suppose, twofold. First, it is to give maximum incentive to people to return to work and, secondly, it is to save taxpayers’ money. I will refer to those two points briefly.

It is particularly difficult to support the employment incentive argument at present, when even able-bodied people and remarkably highly skilled people are finding it very difficult to find work. As we said, we think that about 94 per cent of those with disabilities will remain on this benefit beyond their contributory entitlement. I would welcome the Minister’s views on the fairness of this provision in relation to an individual with—obviously in terms of my own concerns—ongoing and fluctuating symptoms. He is very keen to work and does not need any incentive, but no doubt he will be given lots of incentives through the mechanics of the work-related activity group. But the fact is that he cannot persuade an employer to take him on. I know that the Minister is aware that there are very large numbers of people on ESA who want to work and cannot persuade an employer to take them. In other words, these people are very much the deserving unemployed. They used to be called the deserving poor. I happen to know hundreds of people personally who fall into that category. I would be grateful for the Minister's views on that.

If we consider for a moment the need to protect taxpayers’ money, I happen to believe that taxpayers would recognise that this group—people who are disabled and sick on benefits—should be entitled to their benefit, having contributed, many of them, for decades. Politically, I do not believe that this is something that one can possibly justify. It is very hard to argue that savings to taxpayers’ money should be made with this particular group—sick and disabled people—rather than at the expense of other groups in society with much broader shoulders. There are all sorts of cuts that a Government could make that would seem much fairer than this one.

Amendment 71M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would at least be a great deal fairer. In a sense you could say that it is all rather arbitrary— 365 days or some other number of days. Really, it is just not justified to cut contributory benefit at any stage for many of these people, but I suppose that that would be better than the alternative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Moving swiftly on—Amendments 72A and 73 exclude from time-limiting any days contributory ESA claimants in the WRAG have received ESA for before this clause comes into effect. We expect that around 100,000 people will have been in receipt of contributory ESA in the WRAG for more than 12 months by April 2012, plus an additional 100,000 who will reach 12 months’ duration in the WRAG during the rest of 2012-13.

On the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Thomas on retrospection, a benefit claimant has no right to receive ESA indefinitely if the conditions of entitlement change or their circumstances change and they no longer meet the conditions of entitlement. Through the amendments made by the Bill, we are changing the conditions of entitlement for the future so that entitlement will not end until Clauses 51 and 52 is commenced. This will not affect any entitlement that has already arisen. I assure noble Lords that we are not seeking to recover past ESA payments that claimants have received correctly, but merely defining their future entitlement to ESA on the basis of whether at the time the clause is commenced they have had ESA already and if so for how long, and whether they are in the WRAG. We took the decision to issue 115,000 notification letters to all claimants potentially affected by this change to ensure that they were given sufficient notice. This generated around 4,200 inquiries from claimants in response.

We wish to strike a balance between fairness of treatment for all those affected and complexity. We do not think that it is reasonable that people in the WRAG who have already received contributory ESA before Clause 51 comes into force should continue to do so for an additional year after the clause is commenced. This would be unfair to new claimants; we want as many people as possible to receive benefit for the same period of time. Given the very difficult financial position that we inherited from the previous Administration, this is another difficult decision that we have had to make to ensure that the economic well-being of our country is protected.

[Baroness Meacher]

Can I just raise a question? The Minister talks about the unfairness about those in the future and those in the past, but that issue exists anyway. People who started claiming 18 months or two years ago, or whatever, clearly had a different length of contributory ESA to those people who claimed any time from 1 April last year in the Government’s terms. What I was suggesting was that the conditions are changing as of 1 April next year, and it is retrospective to suggest that the conditions change from 12 months previously. That is what is retrospective. Of course, you will always have unfairnesses between the past and the future when you change laws. It is not logical to suggest that there is some sort of inequity between past and future and, therefore, there is no retrospection. I think that the Minister has to accept that there is retrospection here.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, perhaps I may add to the Minister’s woes. He will no doubt be aware that previous Administrations faced this difficulty when we moved from IVB—invalidity benefit—to incapacity benefit. What happened was that people on invalidity benefit remained on that benefit and only new entrants went onto incapacity benefit. That is one path. I can quite see that allowing long-term claimants to have two or three different paths is technically complicated and administratively undesirable, but it is what is most supportive and decent to the individuals concerned. Their expectations are not suddenly changed part-way through their later years.

The second path that the noble Lord could adopt would be to say that from now on, at a certain date, this will be a common rule for all new and existing applicants. That would be the middle path. What would clearly be wrong would be to say that this will apply only to new applicants and that we will knock off existing claimants who have come up to the time barrier. I have never known that in social security before—ever.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the accepted convention on retrospection is that it applies from the announcement of a measure. When the price of petrol goes up in the Budget, it goes up that night or the next night and then the Finance Bill becomes an Act four or five months later. That is the convention—you go from the date of announcement. We announced this move from October 2010.

[Baroness Meacher]

Perhaps I may suggest that the Budget is a completely different kettle of fish, because you absolutely have to implement financial changes on the day of the announcement—otherwise all sorts of people will play games and use the delay to do all sorts of things. However, social security is completely different. You are talking about vulnerable people dependent on benefits, and that is why the convention in the social security field is totally different from the convention regarding the Budget.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

Can I just make a point? As to the Minister’s explanation of when things start from, this announcement was made in 2010. If logic is to stay on his side, implementation should have started in 2010.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Meacher]

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

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

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

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

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the thrust of the amendment. It raises issues about the right age at which full conditionality should apply, and perhaps takes us back to debates we had on another Bill. Perhaps today is not the occasion to revisit them. However, I am not sure that we have debated thus far in the Bill the basic conditions for accessing universal credit. This is predicated on the fact that somebody is within the system and subject to full conditionality. This is what the amendment seeks to ameliorate. One basic condition for accessing universal credit is that somebody should not be receiving education. I presume that that is meant to cover broadly the same arrangements as exist under JSA. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher]

May I interrupt the Minister for a second? He says that this will enable these people to get into work. Let us suppose that someone could take a job at a check-out in a Tesco store but was actually interested in trying to do better than that. Would that be acceptable or would they be expected to take the check-out job at Tesco? That is one of the issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

There is a lot of change going on in this area, as noble Lords will know. We are committed to picking up the recommendations of Professor Wolf, who wrote a stunningly important report—one of the best reports in this area that I have ever read. There are some principles in there about funding following the individual which have not been fully worked out. I am not discussing a static situation here. On the question of the check-out counter and fitting it around A-levels, as things currently stand the position is that the person would have to take the check-out job and fit the A-level around that. However—I hope that noble Lords can read between the lines—this situation has movement in it in the years to come, given what the Department for Education is determining to do around the Wolf report. I do not think that this is the last word on the matter but it is the last word as far as this Bill is concerned at this particular time.

[Baroness Meacher]

Would the Minister take this away and think about how to word the legislation here and at DWP in order to allow for flexibility in, one hopes, not too many years’ time in response to the education ministry?

[Lord Freud]

I will take that on board. This is a very important point. It is not one that I would cavalierly dismiss at all. How we raise human capital among people who have perhaps not had as good a start in life as we would want them to have is a central point. I will think about it and try to make sure that the way we design the structure will allow the flexibility to incorporate future developments. I am grateful for this particular amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I am trying hard to say nothing from this end of the table because it is important to make progress. However, I too am very worried about the press reports that have coming since the summer. I said at the beginning of our first session in Committee that some of the language that was being used in relation to these issues and to benefit deductions was extremely worrying. It is getting more acute and more refined. I do not think the Minister can hide behind the defence that he tried to use, although it is absolutely accurate. Changes of this kind would come under the powers given to the courts because these things will be decided in court. But the latest BBC newswire I have seen on this issue described the Prime Minister, David Cameron, talking about benefit reductions for fines up to a maximum of £25 under universal credit. That came from a BBC report. If the Prime Minister has it in his heart and head that universal credit is going to be subject to what I calculate to be a 37 per cent reduction in the standard allowance, I do not think it is fair for this Committee, or indeed the House, to go through all these legislative proceedings, pass this Bill and give it Royal Assent, without some consideration of exactly what that means.

Now I have two complaints. First, as I said in the first day in Committee, a particular language is being used. The Prime Minister talked about the current maximum deduction of £5 as “much too soft”. Indeed, the Secretary of State is not absolved from some of these phrases which really target people on benefits. Of course, we are talking about people in the courts and who have committed crimes. We may even be talking about people who took part in riots—I am not sure about that. That has to be borne in mind and taken into consideration, but to remove up to 25 per cent of £67.50—the level that I understand is being set for the introduction of universal credit in 2013—is a massive reduction for anyone to contemplate. It will simply push people to the margins.

Secondly, what kind of benefits are we talking about? Are claimants to include state retirement pensioners who may find themselves in the courts? Are they contributory benefit claimants who may well have been paying in for all their lives to get that access? Under this new regime, are they likely to be subjected to a £25 benefit deduction? It is not sensible for the Committee or House to contemplate going into universal credit against the background of this being possible without serious consideration of what it is, in detail, that is in the mind of the Prime Minister or Secretary of State. I completely absolve the Minister of any of this stuff, but he must understand that it causes serious concern to people. I guess that this could be introduced by a change in regulations, late at night on a wet Thursday. Unless I get some pretty compelling, better evidence about the provenance of this idea, I will be there, wet on a Thursday, waiting for him. It is unimaginable that we should just pass these things willy-nilly because these benefit claimants riot and need 37 per cent of their entitlement reduced. It is unconscionable and we need a better explanation than the one we have at the moment.

[Baroness Meacher]

I rise very briefly to add my support to this. Many years ago, I wrote a book about the withdrawal of benefits after four weeks from people who had been in difficulty. The book clearly showed that 90 per cent of them or more went straight into more crime. This is just another obvious, simple situation where that is all that the Government will do. I know that the Minister will not wish that to happen. I plead for him to take this away and think about it.

[Lord Freud]

We are looking carefully at the system of hardship payments we want to put in place under universal credit. We want to ensure that there remains a financial safety net for claimants who have been sanctioned—that is what hardship payments are about. However, we want to avoid the existence of such a safety net undermining the deterrent effect of sanctions. It is clearly a rather delicate balancing act. I should make the point that, under universal credit, hardship is only available following a sanction, not at the start of a claim. It will no longer be necessary within the structure of universal credit. We are looking at a payment for people who have been sanctioned.

We are still considering how best to achieve this but believe that the ability to make some payments recoverable is one way of continuing to support those most in need while ensuring hardship payments are not seen as a simple replacement for sanctioned benefit. In other words, we want to make sure that sanctions continue to keep having an impact. We are still considering our approach to recovery that will ensure adequate safeguards are in place. This includes the arrangements in more complex situations of the kind the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, pointed out, such as when a couple has separated. Regrettably, I can not give hard answers to his, as usual, specific and beautifully placed questions. Those are issues that we need to address and are addressing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 52BD in this group, about disabled claimants. If the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, thought that her brief was complex, this is pretty complex too. At the moment, if a disabled person is in work they can claim the disability element of working tax credit if they fulfil two tests: a work disadvantage test and the benefit test. The work disadvantage test includes many criteria, but one of the most common ways to qualify is if you are unable to work full-time because of a health condition or impairment. You also have to fulfil the benefit test if you receive DLA or attendance allowance or you have been receiving sickness benefit for at least the previous six months.

There are other qualifying criteria that would take all afternoon to go through for both the work disadvantage test and the benefit test. An example of the work disadvantage test criteria is that you cannot extend your arm sufficiently to shake hands with another person without difficulty, which sounded rather French to me. Suffice to say that the criteria for qualifying for the disability element can be complex but probably covers a lot of disabled working people.

Under the universal credit, many disabled people will not receive extra help because the gateway to extra support is through the work capability assessment. So someone will not qualify for the disability disregard if they have been found fit for work. For disabled people who are already in work, a new test will be designed and we are hoping that that new test will have some lower criteria in it.

Some of the criteria for the work disadvantage test look similar to the criteria for the WCA, but it is unclear what the qualifying criteria will be for this test for disablement under the universal credit, as I have said. If everyone else is giving examples, I might give the example of someone who might benefit now from extra help but might not qualify in future. I am afraid I have not given her a name but she is a person with MS who can walk up to 100 metres but gets tired very quickly and is unable to cook a meal for herself. She may now qualify for DLA lower-rate care and might also receive the disability element of working tax credit, if she were able to work only part-time because of fatigue levels. This person probably will not qualify for the personal independence payment, although until we see the new criteria, which we were told would be available at the end of October, we cannot tell. This person probably will not qualify for any more help under the universal credit than a person who is not disabled.

Another of the worrying things about the loss of this extra help for many disabled people under universal credit is the passporting factor used by local authorities for travel passes, leisure passes and so on, so disabled people may lose out on a much wider scale than may at first seem apparent. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to tell us about that.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I support some of the concerns that have already been raised by other noble Lords. I am not clear about the logic of ending the provision for adding disregards if a claimant falls within two categories, both of which qualify for a disregard. As I have always understood disregards, the idea is that they compensate for the costs that a claimant faces, whether those costs arise from being a lone parent, being disabled or whatever. I am sure that the Minister has a rationale for the measure but it is difficult to think what it could be. Is he going to provide a disregard for the disability side, the lone parent side or some other side? Why provide it for this bit rather than that bit? Why not provide the disregard for both sets of additional costs? It would be interesting to hear his rationale for this measure.

Given that the Government want to make swingeing cuts to the welfare bill, I completely understand that two-earner households are not a priority from that perspective. However, going back to the Government’s commitment to having incentives to work, this is another example of a part of this legislation running completely counter to that aim. I know that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it the second earner will have almost no incentive to work, particularly if they have children, as they will not have the earnings disregard but they will have to pay the 30 per cent or so costs of childcare. This will almost certainly be the case if they have children. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister agreed with me that this is a bit of a problem in terms of incentives to work or explained the rationale behind the measure.

Regarding people with mental health problems, I envisage—I think that the Minister agrees with this—that this group will lose overwhelmingly from the shift to the new system and the reassessments for ESA. Rafts of these people will come off ESA and on to JSA with the result that, even with a disability, they will not receive any disability support because they will be on JSA. Yet people with mental health problems can have additional costs in order to go to work that others might not have. For example, somebody with severe anxiety might have to have someone accompany them on their journey to and from work, although they may be able to sit there and do the job when they get there. However, if they get no financial support at all for their disability—I understand that that is what the system sets out—how will these people have an incentive to work? They will have to pay for this support out of their tiny pockets.

The other point about people with mental health problems is that many of them can manage only a limited number of hours of work and need to build up their hours slowly. I do not know how this will work. The structure of the universal benefit is very good in this regard and should make life easier for people—at least in theory, if the two computer systems of the DWP and HMRC manage to bond together as they are supposed to do. However, the loss of disability support will cause problems in terms of incentives to work.

Sue Royston of Citizens Advice also provided me with the facts that were read out by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I will certainly not repeat them but I would find it helpful if the Minister could confirm for me how the two tapers of the universal credit on the one hand and the council tax benefit on the other will work together. Perhaps he has already done that when I was not here, as I have not always been here due to other commitments. I still hope that he will ultimately find a way to bring council tax benefit within universal credit, as it is such an important issue.

I am sorry to be a bore and raise this again, but it would make such a difference for so many people. If not, it seems to me that claimants working a few hours and building their employment up slowly will be dogged by a terrible complexity and lack of clarity not that dissimilar to what they have suffered in the past. That would be a great pity.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, the explanation that I am most looking forward to from the Minister, having taught us the difference between soon and very soon and that spring comes between winter and summer, is where on earth is the end of October if not yesterday, on Halloween night. We await that answer.

Under universal credit, the support currently obtained by a tax credit will be obtained via disregards, hence their importance. The disregards will allow some groups to earn higher amounts before benefit starts to be withdrawn, thus household income will be held to similar levels as now via tax credits. However, as has been mentioned, at present there seems to be no mention of disability in such disregards. Amendment 52B would provide an additional disregard for one aspect—carers who are currently not set to receive any disregard. We support that amendment and I shall speak to Amendment 52DB, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie. It would include a disregard for a second earner, but we will cover that issue in Amendment 52C. It is also intended to ensure that there are earnings disregards for claimants who are disabled, lone parents or the second earner—often a woman. Further to the comments just made, as each disregard recognises the impact of the particular circumstance on the earning potential of the individual, and as such impacts are cumulative, it is proposed in the amendment that the disregards should also be cumulative, as each circumstance—whether being disabled or being a lone parent—makes earning that much harder to achieve and, perhaps, more costly, with extra travel times or other expenses.

At least initially, it is foreseen that under universal credit we will have a 65 per cent taper for earned income, so a disregard improves the incentives to move into work by not applying the taper for the amount earned for the first disregard. That means that the value of the disregard for the claimant is 65 per cent of the actual amount written on paper, if you like. Someone with a £40 disregard who earns £40 can keep all their universal credit and will thus be better off by £40. Without the disregard, they would keep only 35 per cent of the £40 and so be only £14 better off. The figure of £40 that we use as the disregard is actually worth £26 in hard cash, which is the only way that I can think about these things.

There is a little complication, of course. There will be a maximum disregard for each group. Those not receiving support for housing costs will receive the maximum disregard and those getting support for their housing costs will see the maximum level of their disregard reduced by one and a half times the amount of their housing support. I trust that noble Lords are all with me. Good. Most claimants in rented accommodation will receive the minimum disregard. We know that universal credit aims to,

“allow people in work to see clearly how much support they can get”.

I just hope that they are better at doing that than I am.

The 14 October briefing note referred to by my noble friend Lady Lister on disregards set out the new higher disregard levels to try to deal with the localisation of council tax benefit. It aims to ensure that income support for council tax is effectively disregarded. Whereas single people previously would not receive any disregard, they will now get the amount mentioned, £13.50, as a disregard. Similarly, the disregards for lone parents and couples have been increased. However, as has been mentioned, Citizens Advice points out two problems. The first, elaborated by my noble friend Baroness Lister, is that those earning more than the amount will still be subject to two earnings tapers until no longer eligible for help with council tax. What plans does the Minister have to deal with this two-taper issue caused by the localisation of council tax benefit? Secondly, although the level of disregard has been increased to reflect council tax changes for single parents and couples, no such addition has been given to disabled people. Perhaps the Minister could also explain in his answer why they have been overlooked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

You do not when there are caring responsibilities. We have discussed this. There is a responsive set of conditionalities for people who have other obligations. If you exclude people with very few hours—many will do those few hours for rather more than the minimum wage—they are actually much better off than under the current circumstances because we have done it through addition rather than as an extra disregard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that an estimated 50,000 carers will be worse off under the universal credit. That is not correct. That figure was an estimate of the number of single and non-disabled benefit claimants who are carers. Only those whose earnings fall within the very narrow band of two to five hours at the national minimum wage could experience a very slightly lower income under universal credit.

I turn to Amendment 52DB. The universal credit is designed to help improve work incentives to break cycles of worklessness. A couple will jointly benefit from a single earnings disregard set at the highest amount to which either person is entitled. In practice, this may mean that only the earnings of the first earner are disregarded. Given the financial constraints within which we are delivering universal credit, it is best to focus on the clear aim of reducing worklessness for the household as a whole rather than spreading the available resources among different earners in one household.

To revert back to an earlier amendment on piloting, this is clearly something that we can test. If that gets a better result, it can be changed when a Government have adequate money. This is not a matter of principle but of affordability. We estimate that if couples who were both in work were entitled to—

[Baroness Meacher]

Again, will there be flexibility within the legislation? As the Minister said, if the Government pilot this and find that the taxpayer is losing more money because fewer of these second earners go out to work, he will want to introduce a second disregard. Will there be the flexibility within the legislation to enable the Government to do that?

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, as I was saying, these amendments relate to Clauses 13, 14 and 22, the introduction of work-related requirements and the claimant commitment. The drivers of some of the work-related requirements, or indeed no work-related requirements, depend on whether the claimant has limited capability for work and/or work-related activities. These concepts are, of course, familiar to us from ESA deliberations, and are to be imported into universal credit under Clause 38. We will debate that in due course when we reach those clauses. The definitions are aligned to the provisions of Clause 12, and the additional amounts payable under that clause.

Amendment 51CAC seeks to ensure that the claimant commitment provided for by Clause 14 should be not only a record of a claimant’s responsibilities but a statement of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State with regard to the claimant. Amendment 51CCA is in similar vein and requires the claimant commitment to include a statement of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities and details of how the claimant can appeal the contents of the commitment. A similar proposition was advanced in the other place and received short shrift, but given the Minister’s clear commitment to transparency and to the universal credit actually changing attitudes, we are interested directly on these issues.

We had understood that there was a consensus around the proposition that welfare benefits systems should involve both rights and responsibilities for claimants. Those responsibilities clearly encompass compliance with work and work-related activity requirements and the rights obviously include, but are surely not limited to, receipt of relevant benefits. Much of the support for claimants will come via the work programme in which the Government are investing heavily and seem committed to providing personalised support to individuals. A black-box approach gives a framework for that flexibility, but not of itself individualised assurance to claimants. What contractual obligations will providers have to spell out for individual programmes and communicate this to the claimants? Although we accept that the incentivised payments structure will provide encouragement not to abandon the hardest to help—a point that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, focused on—the obligation to be clear on what support would be provided should surely reinforce this. Of course, not all claimants will enter the work programme, or at least for a while, so there should be an obligation on Jobcentre Plus staff to particularise their side of the bargain.

It is fine having general customer charters, but they are no substitute for setting out what the Secretary of State will commit to in respect of individual claimants. Incidentally, could the Minister take this opportunity to take us briefly through the claimant journey, as it is now envisaged—those who will or will not enter the work programme and the related timescales for the claimant commitment? It is understood that the intent is that the claimant commitment would result from dialogue, although that does not necessarily mean total agreement in every case.

Amendment 51CCA would also have the claimant commitment set out information on how to challenge the contents of that commitment. The Minister in the other place indicated that appeals could arise only following sanctions for failure to comply and we will obviously be discussing those in due course. In respect of work search and availability requirements, the briefing note provided by the department indicated a right to object to what is proposed and an ability to have the position reviewed by another employment officer. However, that is stated not to apply to other requirements recorded in the claimant commitment. Why not?

The amendments yet to be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, are concerned in an important way with those involved in drawing up the claimant commitment to make sure that they are appropriately trained. That must involve access to specialists to cover the multiplicity of situations that will be encountered, such as dealing with those with mental health conditions, fluctuating conditions and hidden disabilities, to name just some. Will the Minister remind us what information from the WCA or indeed the work-focused health-related assessment—he might update us on that because it was suspended for a while—will be before those who have responsibility for inputting into the claimant commitment? So far as the work programme is concerned, what contractual commitments do providers have in respect of training and how is that to be monitored?

These issues of claimant commitment are very important, but in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, who is not with us today, we believe that co-production is an important issue. If there is to be real commitment for individuals, it should not be something that is imposed: the Secretary of State should have some ownership of it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher]

I rise to speak to Amendments 51CB, 51CC, 71C and 71D on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who sends his apologies to the Committee because he cannot be in his place today. It is a little unusual for me to speak to amendments on behalf of a Conservative Peer, but it is a pleasure to do so.

Before I refer to the comments of the noble Lord on these amendments, I would like to support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in relation to the claimant commitment and the importance of that containing the responsibilities of the Secretary of State as well as the responsibilities of the claimants themselves, and the importance of specialist Jobcentre Plus staff. I will also speak about those two points in the next group. The groups were together but now they are apart.

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has given me his notes on these amendments, which I will try to reflect in my remarks. He says that we heard a lot on the Health and Social Care Bill about the myth that the Secretary of State for Health is in total control of the National Health Service. The situation is not very different in the DWP, is it, he asks. I emphasise the fact that the noble Lord said that because it is more interesting that he makes these comments than if I were to make them. We all know that, although technically it is the Secretary of State who is occasionally involved in tribunal and court cases, it is really one of his officers who does the work and occasionally is found to be at fault—or, says the noble Lord, in the case of the employment and support allowance, not so occasionally.

The noble Lord was alarmed to discover that for ESA alone, there have been around 518,000 fit-for-work decisions between October 2008, when it started, and November 2010. The rate of appeal was around 40 per cent and, in that percentage, 40 per cent were successful in their appeals. The reason for all those successful appeals is not solely the Atos computer; the desk officers and DWP staff generally share the blame, although perhaps not to the same extent. The noble Lord has, with difficulty, discovered the success rate of appeals against decisions relating to other benefits from April to August this year. They are 15 per cent for JSA and 27 per cent for income support. Those are probably the nearest thing we have to the universal credit arrangements in the Bill and they give us a guide to what we might expect, not least because the fault, if fault there is, will be with DWP staff rather than computers. This all brings us to the noble Lord’s amendments: it must be vitally important that staff are not only trained, which to some extent they are, but monitored as well. The 24th report of the Merits Committee also raises these issues.

I share those concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, but perhaps I might add a few remarks of my own. I am aware that the Minister has been determined to reduce the appeals success rate and that he has in fact had some considerable success. If I understand it correctly, this has been in part as a result of introducing a review process, prior to appeal hearings, which has enabled errors to be picked up earlier. Perhaps the Minister can explain the average length of time between the initial decision and the review decision following an appeal, and how that average time gap compares with that between a benefit entitlement decision and an appeal hearing, as we had them before the reviews came into play—we still have them, of course. In other words, has the introduction of the review process significantly improved the position for claimants by providing a significantly earlier opportunity to have wrong decisions righted or overturned? Also, does the Minister know what proportion of successful appeals, whether at review or ultimate appeal hearing, apply to claimants with mental health problems?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the form and content of the claimant commitment is of the utmost importance and we are working hard to get it right. I hope that the illustrative claimant commitments provided to noble Lords have proved helpful in this regard. We are introducing the claimant commitment to improve compliance, bringing together in one place a clear statement of the requirements a claimant is expected to meet. What we need to bear in mind is that the claimant commitment is for every recipient of universal credit, many of whom will not be subject to work-related requirements. For these individuals the contents of the claimant commitment will be minimal, including the duty only to report relevant change of circumstances. In this case, the amendments we are discussing would not be relevant.

Even for claimants who have work-related requirements placed on them, certain requirements are simply not open to negotiation. A claimant in the “all work-related requirements” group must look and be available for work. A claimant in the “work-focused interviews only” group must attend work-focused interviews. These very basic requirements are not open to negotiation. When establishing the detail of requirements, for example, and the type of work that someone has to look for, I agree completely that there should be dialogue and consultation between the adviser and the claimant. This is not to say that we will not be tough on some jobseekers but, for the majority, we expect this to be done in co-operation. If a claimant is unhappy with specific requirements, they will be able to ask for another adviser to review them. This happens now under jobseeker’s allowance; there will be an appropriate review procedure under universal credit as well.

The basic work requirements, which are not negotiable—such as that the jobseeker must look for work—clearly would not and could not be the subject of such a review requested by a claimant. Similarly, in terms of the support we provide, we envisage there being a wide range of support available to help claimants prepare for and move into work. It is intended to meet the needs of individuals and target the right support at the right time. The issue raised by both the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, of what we are doing for the hardest to help and on creaming and parking is one that we have endeavoured to answer in the structure of the work programme, where we are trying to deal with it by price differentiation.

We have minimum standards for prime providers. If they breach those it is treated as a breach of contract, so we do have some powerful tools. At the same time, we have much more active management provider performance than ever before, and to the extent that providers are under-performing, we will shift market share by claimant group to the best performing providers in each area. This means that claimants will be moved to where they are most likely to get the best support to help them deal with their particular barriers to work. These are systems that we have created within an overall black-box approach, which would clearly break down entirely if we then imported a series of regulations and requirements such as were implied by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher]

I very strongly support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, because it seems to me that we are talking about oiling the wheels and enabling the system to work. It seems to me that part of that is transparency to the claimant, which is the noble Lord's previous point, but also transparency for the provider. If I understood this right, the assessment and the clinical report on the claimants will not be provided to the provider, who then has to prepare all this activity to enable the person to return to work. If that is really so, I appeal to the Minister to take that back and think about it because I cannot see the system working.

[Lord Freud]

Let me clarify what information goes over. The former WCA is confidential and does not go over. How does the adviser build the revised requirements with the claimant? The evidence that he uses includes the claimant’s fit note, advice from Atos—not the former WCA, but some advice can go over—and other medical evidence. Those things come together to form the basis on which agreement is reached.

--- Later in debate ---

Claimants with long-term mental health problems are often assessed without due consideration being given to the effect their condition has on their ability to perform in assessment. This not only sometimes leads to an inaccurate assessment, but might affect the morale of the claimant and damage their enthusiasm about the entire returning-to-work process. I do not think it is appreciated how difficult it can be for some people even to attend an interview at a job centre. I am aware of a case of a young woman suffering from agoraphobia and depression who was on the waiting list for therapy. Her condition left her unable to leave her home to see friends, work or even get out. On the day of her appointment her mother, who would normally accompany her, had to go out. The young woman was too anxious to call the job centre to let them know she could not come and, despite her mother’s later explanation, the adviser refused to accept that it was good cause and insisted that the young woman should have attended the interview alone. I think the Secretary of State must specifically address and demonstrate that he has addressed whether a health condition was in part responsible for a failure to comply, such as in the case of the young woman I have just mentioned, before applying sanctions. I trust that the Minister will see the wisdom behind these amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendments 51CD, 51CE and 51FA and the related amendments concerning Clauses 44, 46, 49 and 56, which were all tabled by my noble friend Lady Hollins. As she said, they concern claimant commitment and sanctions. The objective of these amendments, as I understand them, is to ensure that claimants’ long-term conditions or impairments are understood by Jobcentre Plus. The claimant commitment ensures that the claimant’s problems are recognised and that the necessary adjustments are made and that when sanctions are being considered the likely impact of the health condition or impairment on the claimant’s failure to comply with some condition is fully taken into account.

I shall take these three points in turn. The first is the need for Jobcentre Plus to understand the long-term conditions and impairments of claimants. Here the training of staff is paramount. In view of the incredible range of disabilities to be dealt with and the precision of the assessments required, can the Minister confirm that people with mental health or learning difficulties will be dealt with by specialist Jobcentre Plus staff in those particular fields?

That has not been the case in the past, and the consequences have been absolutely appalling, yet the need for specialist knowledge will be even greater when this Bill comes into effect. I have referred in previous discussions around these issues to a conversation that I had with a Jobcentre Plus manager about people’s mental health problems. When I asked that manager what happened to those people, he said, “Oh, my staff don’t understand mental health problems”. I said, “Well, so what happens when someone with a mental health problem comes in seeking help?”. He said, “We can’t really help them, so what happens is that they become homeless and then they go back into hospital, and so then they get some help, and the process starts again”. That is such a statement about the failures of the past, and the reasons why I fear that with all this precision about what everybody has to do things will be very much worse for this group in future. We know that an awful lot of these people will fall into jobseeker’s allowance—and we know what happens then.

Many case histories have been sent to me, and no doubt to many other noble Lords, which illustrate the impossibility of the task and the consequences of mistakes being made. I want to quote one case to illustrate the point. Just as my noble friend referred to a case where a person had been given nul points—no points—I am also aware of somebody with a mental health condition assessed with no points a year ago. This person was placed on JSA and failed to cope with the conditions; her health deteriorated and she was reassessed and given 33 points. There is something terribly wrong about that. This lady, who was solely concerned to get back into work, complained that she had lost a year of her life. When she could have been getting the support that she needed and getting back into work, she has been sitting there deteriorating. This error, as I see it anyway, probably cost the taxpayer a year of benefits. That is one of my concerns. I have absolute respect for the intentions, and certainly the intentions of the Minister, but the fine-tuning on all these things will not work. I cannot see it working.

In that context, I support the comment of my noble friend Lady Hollins in asking for a medical opinion in relation to these complex cases. We are all aware that psychiatrists and their teams spend weeks and weeks assessing a person and their needs and what the problems really are—and even then they get it wrong sometimes. So how somebody in a single interview who does not have the experience or skill can do that job is really pushing it, I would suggest. That is not quite the language for this House, but I could say much more on that issue—and no doubt we will come back to it on Report.

I move on to the importance of the claimant commitment and recognising the claimant’s problems. The first step is for the Jobcentre Plus to understand—we have dealt with that. The next step is for something to be done about those problems. Here it seems to me that for claimants with mental health problems who are not under a secondary mental health trust—they are a different group altogether and I shall not talk about them here—but the million or so who are under a GP or not receiving any help at all, who are assessed as appropriate for RAG due to a mental health disorder, usually caused by anxiety or depression, it is surely vital that the claimant commitment includes very clearly the requirement that the person should be referred to a professional therapy or health service. IAPT is an obvious choice for many of these people, but not all of them. But my point is that it should be very clear in the claimant commitment—and this takes us back to the responsibility of the Secretary of State—that there is that responsibility there for the referral to be made. My concern is that this very substantial group will finish up with these providers, who probably will not have any real understanding of these kinds of issues.

They will quite likely refer these people to a rather cheap option. I know that they will have £14,000, which is wonderful, but you wonder what they might want to spend that money on. If these people are referred to a cheap or inappropriate option, they will not get back into work. Something relatively simple like a requirement that a therapy or health service that a person requires should be specified in the claimant commitment could transform a system from an incredibly ineffective one to one that would effectively get people back into work.

I know that the Minister has high hopes for Professor Harrington's work, and I share his optimism to some extent, having played a very peripheral role in that work. However, I do not believe that Professor Harrington's work will address the issue that I am raising here. His work should improve the quality of the assessments, particularly of mentally ill people and those with fluctuating disorders, but as I understand it, it will not at all ensure that the right help is available to this very large group of claimants. The whole edifice will fail if this crucial link is missing.

Another issue that I want to touch on is the need to take full account of the claimant's condition in considering sanctions following a failure to fulfil one of the benefit conditions, such as a failure to attend an interview, work-related activity and so forth. I was going to mention the agoraphobic claimant to whom my noble friend Lady Hollins referred. The crucial point is something that the Minister said a little earlier: everybody must attend interviews. They must do this and must do that. In my view, an agoraphobic claimant could not do anything realistically except, with help, get along to get their treatment—professional treatment, not a cheap option. If that happened, and their symptoms were brought under control, you could then start talking about other things that that person should do.

I understand the Minister's point about needing eight processes or whatever, but for some claimants it is vital to stick with the first one until that is done. Otherwise, sanctions will be applied completely inappropriately and destructively. It will not help. In fact, it would make things a lot worse. The extent of errors is well illustrated by the fact that 29 per cent of those in the work-related activity group are placed there only after reconsideration on appeal having originally been found fit for work. For 29 per cent of people, they get it wrong in the first place. The suffering those people go through is appalling.

I was struck by the level of fear in the voice of the carer who is herself a service user at a recent meeting of our service users and carers in east London. She had just attended a reassessment and said that it was terrifying. She said, “He had no idea about my disability”, and had no idea about her responsibilities to her mentally ill son. Under the new system, a claimant can obtain a report from a healthcare professional of their choice. That is great progress. However, there are major concerns, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Best, especially on his amendment regarding the CLG criteria of one-plus-one bedroom. One thing that struck me is that we have not referred in this debate to people with fluctuating impairment who require overnight care but not on a regular basis. People with mental health problems, when they go into crisis, may need somebody to sleep in the bedroom next door for a month or two, and that is not necessarily counted as an overnight carer in considering criteria for an extra bedroom.

We should celebrate that 15,000 disabled people need overnight care in this country—that figure is given to us by the DWP. Has the Minister had discussions with the Department of Health about the implications of the changes to the housing and benefits extra bedroom situation for people with fluctuating impairments? Increasing numbers of disabled people are living at home in the community now, and that is to be celebrated, but many disabled people require the help of another human being in order for them to do that. Otherwise it is back to residential care and the old days of warehousing. This is another good reason to support the one-plus-one bedroom and if we cannot do that, then I certainly support all the exemptions that are called for in all the amendments.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, but I congratulate my noble friend Lord Best on his incredibly commonsense approach to this problem. It seems that allowing an extra bedroom would probably deal with most of the tragic exceptions that people have talked about—what a straightforward way to deal with those exceptions and normal life. I cannot think of any family that at some point does not badly need an extra room, and the case was so well put.

We talk about all the amendments individually, but what is so painfully obvious is that it is the combined impact of the changes in the Bill that are going to have such a devastating effect on so many people. It feels irrelevant to talk about ESA and people being reassessed and placed on to JSA, and therefore losing a section or part of their benefits, but the individuals at the front line are going to be hit by that, then they find their housing allowances upgraded in line with CPI, then they find that their housing allowances are pegged to the 30th percentile, then find that they have an extra room. Oh my God, their housing benefit will not cover the accommodation they are in and they are going to have to think about moving.

It is the impact of so many hits that feels petrifying, and perhaps the change that frightens me more than any is the pegging of housing allowances to CPI. If that goes on longer than two years—perhaps we do not pay too much attention to it because we assume that it will not—we are talking about families and households finding every few years that they have a growing gap between their rent and the allowances they are paid for housing. They will have to move, and move, and move—is that not correct?—over a period of time, into ever more distant areas, ever meaner properties, ever smaller properties. It is difficult to imagine the psychological impact on households of all these changes.

I do not know who devised this law, but I wonder whether whoever it was stood back and thought about all that. I know, and the Minister has mentioned many times, that the driving motivation behind the reforms is to provide an incentive for people to move into work. From where I come from, dealing with people with mental health problems, one thing that stands between them and work is their level of stress and distress and anxiety.

It strikes me that if all the legislative changes go through, we will create an even bigger gap between very large numbers of people who are prone to anxiety and depression—if not psychosis and other things that are even more problematic to deal with—and the labour market. That troubles me, because I respect the Minister’s commitment to providing an incentive for people to go back into work. I also know that he is very sympathetic and understanding about mental health problems. I would be interested to know what he has to say about the apparent contradiction in what the Government are trying to do.

Another aspect of this for people with mental health problems is that to force them to move away from wherever they are—probably away from the carers who might just about prop them up and allow them to survive and carry on—is the last thing we want. The underoccupation rule impacts even more, given the other provisions of the Bill. As I understand it, young people are going to be expected, in some circumstances, to share accommodation. There are an awful lot of people with mental health problems for whom this might be quite helpful. There are others for whom it might be a complete disaster. Indeed, let us not forget to mention the potential sharer. It might be quite difficult to share with some of our folk. We have to be sensitive to the impact, and the combined and compound impact.

I sympathise with the amendments that noble Lords have tabled about disabled people who have had adjustments to their homes, and those about looked-after children. Those are obvious and glaring problems. I would like to think that the Minister will think seriously about that, in the context that I know he very well understands.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I speak very briefly in support of Amendment 35, to which I have my name, to endorse entirely the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in introducing this bank of amendments, and to support the other amendments that deal with disability particularly. In doing so I should declare my interest as vice-president of Mencap Wales. In fact, at the Mencap annual conference in Warwick on Saturday, there were people who asked specifically about these matters. They said, “They have taken away from us home ownership for people with long-term disabilities, and now they are going to start clobbering us on housing benefit, where people with disabilities may be in a particularly vulnerable position”. I should therefore like to ask the Minister, so that I can respond to people who raise these questions with me: do the Government still believe in home ownership for everybody, and if so, does that include people with long-term disabilities? If the Government, having taken away the previous scheme, are not going to put something in its place, surely that is a straight contradiction of what the party opposite has always put itself forward as believing in?

Secondly, with regard to people with disabilities and housing benefit—the amendments before us would make exceptions for them—I hope that the Minister will be able to spell out how he will ensure that they do not suffer. If the amendments are not acceptable, I hope that amendments will come forward from the Government on Report. If not, I hope that there will be an opportunity to vote on these matters to show exactly where each of us in each of our parties, including the coalition partners, stand on such a basic issue.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 6th October 2011 Grand Committee

Another thing is that the better-off calculation is going to be much harder to work out in each local authority area. How will that help claimants? I see no advantage in the Government’s suggestion, other than their claim that local people in the big society will all get together and it will all be fine. I say to the Minister that, if it was me, I would be resisting this tooth and nail, because it may diminish his very important work, which the rest of the Committee are well prepared to support him on. This just seems to be taking a step in completely the wrong direction.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, it is difficult to follow the fantastic contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. Most of the points have been made, but there are a few things that I want to add. I have a cynical mind because I fear that the real rationale behind this proposal is to somehow split council tax benefit away from housing benefit because this is one of the proposals which will open a gap between the costs faced by the individual or householder and the benefit payable. If you add that gap to the housing benefit or housing allowances gap, it becomes very embarrassing because there is no way that people on JSA or reduced levels of ESA and all the rest of it as time goes on will be able to cover their costs. That perhaps makes it easier for the Government—I know this sounds cynical and a bit unreasonable, but I fear that it is true—to devolve some of that responsibility on local authorities rather than have the lot at government level. That is the only possible rationale I can think of for demolishing one of the great pluses of this whole reform—the 65 per cent take-up.

What we are going to see, undoubtedly, is a growing level of debt across the land. Council tax debt is already the largest type of debt dealt with by citizens advice bureaux. There were 170,000 cases last year, before we even start on this new reform, and the level will surely soar. That is one of my big concerns and the Minister will not be surprised that I mention it. Of course, the big group most likely to be in debt is people with learning difficulties and mental health problems. I can envisage many of these people coming to our door in need of in-patient care because they will be under such stress that they cannot deal with it. They will have bailiffs at their door and they will not be able to handle it. The CAB cites the example of someone with mental health problems coming along with a £518 bill in debt for council tax and a £183 bailiff charge. I would be very distressed in that situation and, clearly, our particular group cannot cope.

That is one of my issues. Another one is the work incentive, which I understand, respect and support, but you have to have a situation where the people who are given that incentive can actually work. The state has a special responsibility for those groups who, however much they may want to work, will find it extremely difficult to find an employer to take them on. All the talk about the importance of incentives to work, which we all subscribe to, has to be balanced by that recognition. The state cannot just abandon responsibility for people who simply will not be able to get into work; they will be on JSA because they will have been excluded from disability benefits. They will then have these gaps opening up and they will have incredibly little money to live on.

My last point is a question for the Minister. What will it cost local authorities to set up these administrative systems to run council tax benefits? How much of the apparent saving of £490 million will be lost in the cost of the administration of all these systems, plus the costs of bailiffs, debt collection and so on? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—not perhaps with quite the same vehemence, but I definitely support it. In fact, I am getting into the habit of supporting the noble Baroness; that may not continue, but for the moment it seems to be well established on my part.

Those of us who strongly support the introduction of the universal credit recognise that the clause we are discussing is the most important one of the whole operation. That is because there can be nothing more important than deciding and making clear what it is by reference to which the award is to be calculated. This is the part of the Bill that says what the award is to be calculated by reference to. At the moment, the current text is “housing”. That is open to quite a bit of discussion and dispute until we are absolutely clear about what is going to happen on council tax.

This is the clause in the Bill that beneficiaries may actually read; they will want to know how their award is calculated, and council tax is an essential element. If they are told, as appears to be the case, that the level of benefit and the calculation of council tax is to be based on everyone else in their locality, whether they are pensioners, disability sufferers and so on, that will give rise to quite a lot of concern about the complexity of the arrangements that are apparently being proposed. I am concerned about that.

Those like me who have a child with a disability know that it is extremely important that, as far as possible, we should find some form of independent living for them. It is extremely important on the social plane. These people are considerably affected by how the universal credit is going to relate to housing and council tax costs. The standard rate will not prove so difficult, but this element of housing and council tax will be controversial. They will feel worried about it—I think that some are worrying about it already—and that is liable to reflect on the universal credit, which I strongly support.

I hope that the Minister will look favourably at the battery of comments on the issue of council tax which, if we follow what is set out in the consultation paper, seems to be complicated to an amazing degree. That is why I support the clarity of the amendment brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 4th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness O'Loan]

I have a brief point in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. As we later consider the disability living allowance and the PIP which will replace it, we need to bear in mind that our understanding of the consequences of living with disability is limited. We demonstrate that by the way in which we conduct our business. People will judge the extent of our understanding in the discussion we have about social security arrangements for them. It is a hugely important issue.

[Baroness Meacher]

I support that strongly. If one of our Members is actually at risk, maybe the usual channels need to reconsider whether this Committee can be held in this Room. I do not believe that any work can be done by this House if a Member is at risk and feels that they may not be able to breathe. I urge the usual channels to revisit that issue.

Could I ask the Minister three quick questions. One is strongly in support of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that risk is more important than the idea of getting an additional 24p in the pound—or whatever it is—for every pound one might earn in employment. I know the Minister is as conscious as I am about the special needs of people with mental health problems in relation to risk.

This is a group who may desperately want to work, but who are locked out of employment because of the understandable concerns of employers about taking them on. I know this is much in the Minister’s mind. Has a real assessment been made about the impact of this Bill, geared to economic incentives, on that large group of claimants, particularly on ESA, in terms of the risk that they face? I have been talking about this Bill to a lot of service users, patients, in east London and they all refer to being terrified. Understandably, this might not have been fully taken on board by the drafters of the Bill, the Bill team and all the other people involved. Is the Minister satisfied that the depth of that issue and its importance to a very large group, something like a third or more of claimants in the employment service, on ESA, has been taken on board? That is the first question.

The second one concerns the point raised by the noble Lord behind me about the IT system. We all know about the NHS IT system: it was all going to be wonderful and we were looking forward to it. It was about integrating databases, computers and suchlike. It failed and failed and failed and cost billions. Does the Minister have an estimate of the timeframe for the integration of the Inland Revenue and DWP computer systems? I think that that is the project: obviously he will correct me if I am wrong. Also, what confidence does he have in that estimated timeframe and what is the evidence for his confidence if he has it?

My third point concerns DWP staff training. Can the Minister, again at this early stage of the Bill, give some assurance to the Committee about the level of funding going into the training of DWP and other relevant staff to ensure that they can understand the complex issues around capacity to get into employment? I have mentioned this story before. In conversation with a Jobcentre Plus manager, I asked how they dealt with people with mental health problems. The answer was: “We don’t”. I asked what happened and the answer was: “They become homeless and go back into hospital”. As somebody responsible for a mental health trust, I would be interested to know whether the Minister is satisfied that in future DWP staff and others will be adequately trained. Our trust and others will not be able to finance large numbers of people coming into hospital who at the moment do not do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

We will get a code. But even the current impact assessment shows the transformative effect of universal credit when it is fully implemented. The combined impact of take-up and entitlements may lift hundreds of thousands of individuals out of poverty, including as many as 350,000 children. The vast majority of gains from universal credit will go straight to the poorest households.

I shall pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on risk. By combining, effectively, out-of-work benefits and in-work tax credits, we effectively de-risk moving from one category to the other and that is a very powerful incentive for the poorest people to take a risk. One other aspect of it which I have been very conscious of as we develop the whole approach is that it is the best way of dealing with fluctuating conditions. You can move, take a risk and work for some months without being terrified that, if it does not work out, you have lost your benefit support structure, because you are just moving up and down the taper. So, from the aspect of risk, universal credit has huge advantages and it is one of the main drivers of our expectation to see many fewer workless households.

[Baroness Meacher]

I agree with the Minister that that is one of the great things about the universal credit—on the assumption, and this is the second point that I made, that the systems are properly integrated. As I understand it, this wonderful moving in and out of work, with your benefit going up and down as your earnings do the opposite, depends on the integration of those computer systems. My concern is that if the Bill goes through and the universal credit comes in but the IT systems are not ready, then I would have thought that the whole thing would be undermined. I would be interested to know the Minister’s response.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness. I will leave that till a little later; a number of noble Lords have raised concerns about the IT infrastructure.

To return to the structure of the universal credit itself, the single taper on earnings means that claimants will clearly see how the universal credit award decreases as income from earnings rises, making work financially rewarding for everyone. Alongside the work programme, universal credit will ensure that claimants have a route out of poverty through work rather than a lifetime on benefits—or on social security, depending on language; I will touch on language in a minute as well. I hope, and I hear from noble Lords in terms of principle, that there is general support for this approach.

The participation tax rate assesses the proportion of earnings that are effectively lost through tax and benefits on starting work. The dynamic effect of universal credit means that over 1 million fewer households will face participation tax rates over 70 per cent.

We will also tackle the issue of high marginal deduction rates, which undermine the incentive to increase earnings or hours once someone is working. Under the current welfare system, people in work can gain as little as a 4p increase in their take-home pay for every £1 increase in earnings, and people on out-of-work benefits could see a pound-for-pound reduction on their benefit.

On the questions raised in this area by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, regarding the numbers of people who face higher and lower marginal deduction rates, the impact assessment confirmed that 2.1 million individuals will have higher rates under universal credit but that the median increase will be comparatively small, at about 4 percentage points, and many of those will be households with above-average income for universal credit claimants, moving from a marginal deduction rate of 73 per cent to 76.2 per cent. Some 330,000 second earners will face higher rates, compared with 140,000 with reduced rates. The median increase is higher for this group, reflecting the fact that second earners already tend to have lower marginal deduction rates. As the Committee will know, the impact assessment also addressed the issue that some second earners might move out of work, but we are still expecting the net effect to be a large reduction in those who are workless.

On my noble friend Lord Newton’s concern about child benefit and the debate around that, the best that I can do today is to commit to taking that up with Treasury colleagues and find out what the process is. Again, I will revert.

I return to the universal credit. The way that it will tackle the problem of very high marginal deduction and participation rates is to have a consistent taper of 65 per cent. Overall, this produces substantial improvement in those marginal deduction rates. About 700,000 people who currently have rates above 80 per cent will benefit from it. I turn to IT.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

We will have a debate on this matter rather soon, but maybe not today. The only way I can respond is to point out that, depending on how we adjust the system to have what is effectively a tax rebate system outside the universal credit, we could see different effects. Rather than prejudging this, I will reserve that information for another day. We will have plenty of time to deal with it.

I have been asked about IT by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Newton, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, among a few others who have some concerns. We have gone through a huge process of external assessment by the Major Projects Authority, which is a continuous process in stages. The most recent independent review stated a high level of confidence that the expert teams that we have assembled will see us deliver the programme. The review team said that we had made an impressively strong start.

The programme is on time and on budget. It is being developed in a radically new way to government programmes. The difference is that in a traditional government programme the whole system is built, trialled for a few months and then introduced. This system is being built in layers so that we can trial each layer as it develops and test it with customer insight. That process is happening. One of the things that we can do today is take some particular claimant types through the system. I am planning a demonstration for noble Lords later this month to take them through this process, because when they start to see the different elements coming together there will be a much better basis for understanding.

In my confidence, I can quote only these external sources; my own views are perhaps less relevant. The external sources are holding the programme up as an exemplar of how the Government should develop IT. We will be getting these external reviews regularly at each of the difference gateways, so it will be monitored externally very carefully. I have no knowledge of where this is on anyone’s risk register, so I cannot answer that particular question put by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Obviously, though, any big programme is going to be looked at to ensure that it is being done to time and to budget. That is just governance.

I think there is a lot of confusion in the external world between what is an appropriate level of governance and external monitoring of an important, big programme, and the fact that there are always risks involved in developing it. I responded to the article in the Telegraph, saying that this was a programme on time and on budget. Basically, the article was misleading and I stand by that letter.

[Baroness Meacher]

I wanted to turn the question around another way. The Minister rightly says that there are always risks in these things. If, in fact, the IT system is not ready when the plan is for this Bill to be implemented, will the Minister give an assurance that there will then be a delay in the implementation of the Bill until the IT system is ready? If not, I go back to my other point about the risks, fears and so on. If there is a lot of change and reassessment, which we know are going on anyway, it would be helpful to have an assurance that, as he says, they would then have a system that would deal with a lot of the problems of the current system. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could give us that assurance.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for that. I am at a slight loss at how to respond, in case it is an “Am I beating my wife?” question. I am getting some help from the Box. The universal credit will be built on a computer system, or rather a pair of medium-sized computer systems. We have a careful introduction process. One of the options we had, if I can explain it in layman’s terms, was that we could have picked everyone up electronically out of current systems, moved them over and dropped them into the universal credit, with effectively a Big Bang approach—go for it.

That would have been the conceptual framework in which the noble Baroness asked her question. We are not doing that. We are moving people into the system over an extended period. We will start with the flow in October 2013, and then as we get the system working we will have some managed migrations over a four-year period. It is not the Big Bang approach—where you wait for the thing to go, and then you throw everyone in—that one might envisage. It is a much more considered, steady, incremental approach. Indeed, we are developing the actual IT by using elements and units of what we have much more incrementally than it might seem from outside. That is one of the things that I will try to show noble Lords when we have the presentation; indeed, it will be a wider presentation for all parliamentarians. I see that a few in the Room may be very interested.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Feldman of Elstree, on his very pertinent maiden speech. With a legal background as a commercial barrister, the noble Lord’s contributions to the House will surely be incisive and hard hitting. As the former managing director and chief executive of his family’s textile manufacturing business, he brings invaluable commercial expertise, and as the organiser of the operations and fundraising for David Cameron’s leadership campaign, he is clearly someone who expects, and achieves, success. Noble Lords, particularly Cross-Benchers, will I am sure gain great confidence if they find him on their side of an argument. Again, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Feldman of Elstree, and welcome him to the House of Lords.

I begin my remarks on the Welfare Reform Bill by applauding the Government and, most particularly, the Minister for some of the valuable reforms in this Bill, which include: the serious attempt to simplify the system—anyone who knows about welfare benefits knows the importance of that objective; the integration of the universal credit and Inland Revenue databases enabling truly automatic benefit adjustment—what could be more important?—in response to earnings changes; and the two-year window for automatic reinstatement of benefits if a job does not work out. All three are vital changes to reduce the risk of taking a job for people, in particular those with mental health and other fluctuating disorders. I will focus my attention on those groups because I believe that they are the most difficult to help. I say clearly that I have serious and considerable concerns about the Bill, albeit that I recognise its strengths.

As other noble Lords have pointed out, one of our great difficulties in debating this Bill is in distinguishing between the impact of the cuts and the impact of the structural changes. I believe that it is a combination of both that will threaten the stability of the lives of vulnerable individuals and the very fabric of communities. The housing benefit changes are among the most threatening. Many other noble Lords will address those issues and, therefore, I will not do so.

The new personal independence payment presents very severe risks for people with mental health problems. The Minister has been clear in emphasising that benefits will be focused on those in greatest need. Who can disagree with that? But we know that assessing people with mental health problems is far harder than assessing those with physical disabilities—in part, because mental health problems fluctuate from day to day and from week to week, as everyone knows. Atos and jobcentre staff have all been confounded by these problems. I understand from the Minister that the assessments for PIP will be based on, but different from, the assessments for ESA. This gives me some assurance but I remain most concerned about this issue. How many mentally ill people will be wrongly deprived of their benefits, with disastrous consequences? That is something we need to address in discussing the Bill.

I have been involved in a small way with the excellent work of Professor Harrington and a group of mental health charities to improve the descriptors used in the assessments. I am also aware of the planned improvements in the assessment process for ESA, using a report from the claimant’s preferred clinician and having the final decision on ESA entitlement made by Jobcentre Plus staff rather than Atos. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that these elements of the assessment process for ESA will apply also to personal independence payments. I think and hope that they will.

In the end, the validity of the decisions about whether a claimant with bipolar disorder or agoraphobia should be entitled to PIP will depend considerably on intelligent decision-making by well trained and highly skilled Jobcentre Plus staff. My biggest fear is that, under financial pressure, the DWP will have underpaid, underskilled and overworked staff making these key decisions affecting people's lives.

In a discussion with carers of severely mentally ill people in east London last week, they talked about their recent reassessments for benefit and described being “terrified”—their word not mine—because the interviewers had no idea or understanding about the conditions with which they were dealing. One carer referred to a report following an assessment that completely misunderstood the mental disorder of her son. Can the Minister give some assurance about staff training and pay? You cannot get decent staff unless you pay them.

The Bill significantly increases the use of conditions and sanctions for claimants of employment and support allowance. We all know that there are individuals and families for whom a life on benefits has become the norm and for whom a strong conditions and sanctions regime is essential in their own interest to try to re-establish them in an independent life. However, such a system presents huge risks for people whose minds are not clear. A severely depressed claimant may not do what a severely physically disabled claimant would take for granted: open letters, read them, understand them, realise the need to respond and so on. For someone lying in bed wanting their life to end, none of these conditionality requirements will be met—and what then?

Certainly people using secondary mental health services most undoubtedly benefit from undertaking work-related activities, so much of this Bill is common sense and we all agree with the principles. The trouble is, when you look at the application the panic starts. Inappropriate conditionality and sanctions can easily be counterproductive and fairly disastrous. For this very substantial group of ESA claimants, the regime must be supportive, skilled but not frightening.

On a different issue, for this group of claimants the option of having the rental element of universal credit paid direct to the landlord is vital. I understand the principle of encouraging independence and getting people to pay for their own rent, but we have to find a way forward for this group and maybe others that noble Lords may highlight. Failure to find a resolution to this problem for this group will lead to more homelessness and hospital admissions. How many more psychiatric hospital beds can we afford?

The plan to limit contributory ESA to 12 months for people in the work-related activity group is a further matter of concern. The issue is perhaps assessment for the support group. If employers are not going to take people on, they will not get a job within 12 months. That needs to be part of the thinking in assessment for the support group.

I am running out of time. For claimants with mild to moderate anxiety or depression, the availability of good-quality CBT is going to be essential if the Government are to reduce radically the numbers of that group on ESA in a caring way. For people addicted to drugs or alcohol, special benefit conditions need to be established. Regular interviews and job applications simply will not work. I applaud the Minister for removing the provisions in the previous Welfare Reform Act, but we need to do more work on that group.

In conclusion, I hope we can agree solutions to these problems, without resorting to votes, through discussion and greater understanding. I look forward to working with noble Lords to improve the Bill and ameliorate the hardship which will, without any question, result if the Bill goes through as it stands.

Welfare Reform

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Again, I take comfort from her general support for the universal credit. The point I would like to emphasise is that because we have two systems, an out-of-work benefit system and an in-work tax credit system, the risk of moving from one to the other is enormous. One has only to experience doing a job which does not work out, having to fall back into out-of-work benefits with perhaps a delay of three months as the bureaucracy is sorted out and thus not being able to afford the baked beans mentioned by the noble Baroness, to realise that that kind of risk is highly unattractive. We have created a very conservative group of people who should be prepared to take that risk, by which I mean conservative with a small “c”. On child benefit, we have not made a full announcement of what is going to be in the spending review on 20 October, at which point the detail will be revealed, so I am not in a position to answer.

On the second point made by the noble Baroness, noble Lords will be aware that what we are looking at in the numbers is flows. Any work programme tries to balance the disadvantage experienced by people who have been out of the job market for a period and what it takes to get them back into work against those who have only just lost their jobs. Effectively, that is what all programmes try to do. Clearly, we need to ramp up the speed with which we can get people back into work, and this is one measure that is designed to encourage and put pressure on them.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, one of the Government’s aims is to reduce the number of employment support claimants by around half a million. I respect the Minister’s expertise in this area and, indeed, his commitment to produce a more efficient system. However, can he assure the House that he will not introduce, for example, the time-limiting of benefits to six months or a year, as has been mooted, for people with severe and enduring mental health problems and other long-term disabilities? Has he made it clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the cost of long-term hospitalisation of these people if their benefits are removed will be a great deal higher than maintaining them on benefits? Finally, will he delay the introduction of the new medical tests until the evidence makes it abundantly clear that they are fit for purpose for all, including for people with fluctuating and long-term disorders, most particularly of course for those with severe and enduring mental health disorders?

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. We do not have a target for the transfer of IB claimants into JSA, but we estimate that 23 per cent will move straight over. However, it is an estimate and one point of the trials that have been launched today is to find out what the figure might be. The process by which we move people over from IB to ESA means that a substantial proportion will move on to unconditional support allowance so that they are fully supported. However, we would like to make sure that the work-related activity group within ESA moves through the process so that it does not become another place to park people. We are therefore looking at ways to ensure that those in the work-related activity group move through so that they go into JSA as fast as possible. The worst thing is for people to remain inactive for a week longer than necessary.