Social Security Coordination (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I too have some questions. In May 2018, the Commons European Scrutiny Committee raised very strong concerns about providing legally binding arrangements to protect existing rights. We have already heard mention of non-emergency healthcare; these regulations apparently do not provide that. There are also issues about EU-wide dealings or the need for bilateral arrangements with EU and third countries.
The noble Baroness spoke about data and information sharing. Again, this is a vexed area of negotiation. Certain laws govern the ability to share information and, unless we have some form of legally binding agreement, I cannot really see how this can happen, having looked at the evidence of various people who have looked into data sharing with the EU after Brexit.
We are talking about removing inoperable clauses, under the withdrawal Bill, in relation to the administrative commission. We have mention of disputes; who will settle disputes? There will be a need for medical assessments if they are not provided by individual countries.
It is not clear what is meant by “evidence”. I know that, in my own city, EU citizens have had a very hard time providing evidence of residence in this country, even though some of them have lived here for 40 years. I would like to know what sort of guidance will be given on the quality of the evidence, and how that will be provided to people.
On disputes and the removal of provisional payments, again it is not clear how and under what authority disputes are to be resolved. What is the final authority? This is left fairly open, and could be open to legal action. How will rulings be managed if we come out without a deal and are not proposing to recognise the European Court of Justice?
I am sure it is important that the Government look ahead to the possibility of no deal, but it seems to me that there are lots of very open areas in these regulations that need to be fleshed out. We are talking about the rights of individuals and how they can manage without benefits—where there are disputes, for example.
I very much echo the calls made by other Members here for an impact assessment. It seems to me that there is a fundamental need, given the potential impact of these systems not working after Brexit day, for an impact assessment to be carried out.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and all noble Lords for their contributions. I start with an apology, because I will not be brief. I do not often make lengthy speeches in this House, but I have been through these regulations as best as I can—and there are a lot of them—read the Explanatory Memorandum and listened carefully to the Minister’s introduction, and all that I have read in the Memorandum and the introduction implies that these are simply technical amendments which will not make much difference or have much impact. I must therefore have misunderstood them, so I apologise because I will ask quite a lot of questions, since I can only conclude that my understanding of their impact is in some way erroneous. I look forward to having that corrected.
First, my understanding is that the current rules about social security co-ordination within the EU are based on four principles: the single state principle, which means that at any point in time I am covered only by the social security system of one country and pay contributions only in one country; equal treatment, which means that if I am in another member state then I am treated by it the same way as one of its nationals; aggregation, by which periods of insurance, employment or residence in another member state count when determining my eligibility for benefits; and exportability, which means I can receive benefits from one member state even when I am living in another one.
If we have a deal, the withdrawal agreement will cover the transition period during which EU social security co-ordination will continue to include the UK and our citizens, and the political declaration says that the UK and the EU agree to consider future social security co-ordination in the light of future movement of persons. I guess that the presumption, therefore, is that the UK will seek to strike a single deal with the EU rather than bilateral agreements with member states.
However, if there is no deal, there are no provisional transitions, and in the absence of comprehensive alternative arrangements, problems could arise on all those fronts, including whether you can aggregate contributions, export benefits to other member states, the risk of having to pay double national insurance contributions, a lack of clarity about which country is responsible for paying someone’s benefits, and no mechanism for resolving disputes.
The scale is significant. The House of Commons Library briefing on the immigration Bill said:
“In 2017-18, UK benefits totalling around £2 billion were exported to around 500,000 claimants living in EEA countries. Over 90% … was on State Pensions, and over 90% of the recipients … were UK or Irish nationals.”.
In addition, more than 1 million people will be affected by the aggregation issues, according to evidence given to the Commons committee on the immigration Bill by British in Europe.
My first question for the Minister is this. There were some bilateral agreements between the UK and some EU member states, which predate either their or our entry into the EU. Would any of those still be applicable in a no-deal scenario? Would we seek to update them, would we want to negotiate additional unilateral arrangements with other member states, or is it our intention to seek a whole EU deal in the event of there being no deal?
If we end up with no deal, we could see UK citizens returning to the UK, perhaps in significant numbers, and needing help. DExEU published a policy paper on 6 December called Citizens’ Rights—EU Citizens in the UK and UK Nationals in the EU, which accepted the importance of returning UK nationals being able quickly to access benefits and housing. Paragraph 24 stated:
“Arrangements will be made to ensure continuity of payments for those who return and are already in receipt of UK state pension or other UK benefits while living in the EU. We are considering how support could be offered to returning UK nationals where new claims are made and will set out further details in due course”.
Given that “in due course” is running out, can the Minister tell the House what continuity arrangements have been put in place for those whose benefits are already in payment, and what support will be offered to new claimants?
The European Commission has called on member states to protect citizens by taking account of periods of work or insurance in the UK before Brexit for both EU 27 and UK nationals, by ensuring the aggregation benefits for those who carry on living in the UK, and more crucially, by encouraging member states to carry on exporting pensions to the UK even though it will then be a third country. But we do not know what will happen in practice. The Government’s website has a page entitled “UK nationals in the EU: benefits and pensions in a ‘no deal’ scenario”. However, it tells you very little at all, except that if someone is already getting UK benefits for a state pension transferred to another member state, that can carry on being paid there, and that their entitlement to any in-country benefits will depend on what the EU decides. So we are very much in the dark.
As my noble friend Lord McKenzie said, the whole system of social security co-ordination relies on reciprocity, which cannot be assumed in a no-deal world, so we cannot make other states give us information or co-operate, or require them to apply the current rules to us. The Explanatory Memorandum said—and the Minister has said—
“These regulations aim to address deficiencies in retained law caused by the UK withdrawing from the EU and ensure citizens’ rights are protected as far as possible in a no deal scenario”.
In other words, they are designed to maintain the status quo. I have never liked this language of “deficiencies”, because these are not accidental deficiencies but a direct consequence of the Government refusing to rule out no deal. Those deficiencies are a loss of all kinds of rights, acquired in some cases over decades, which people may experience. This is entirely avoidable—it is simply because we could be in a no-deal situation.
These regulations are intended to maintain the status quo, so I want to try to test the veracity of that claim in a no-deal scenario. The current rules allow you to use periods of insurance contributions elsewhere which can be aggregated together. So someone who has worked in other member states can make one application to the relevant agency in the country in which they live. In the UK, this is the International Pension Centre in Newcastle.
The Commons brief on the immigration Bill gives a really good example, if noble Lords will allow me to describe it. Someone called Jo worked in France, after leaving university, before returning to the UK in 2008. He carried on working here, paying UK national insurance contributions until he reached state pension age in November 2018. As things then stood, Jo did not have to make separate claims to get his French and UK pensions. He had to submit a single claim to the international pension authority, and the centre in Newcastle contacted the French pension authorities. They calculated his entitlement to a French pension and put it into payment. The centre also calculated that Jo was entitled to 9/35ths of a full UK state pension because he had paid nine years of contributions here. That was put into payment as well. The only reason he got it was because his period of insurance in France meant that this tipped him over the minimum of 10 years of national insurance contributions that you have to have to get into the British state system in the first place.
My primary question is: do these regulations preserve the right of UK and EU nationals to aggregate periods working in other EU member states when determining entitlement to UK benefits and the state pension? Where is this spelled out? Is it in domestic legislation? Is it remaining unchanged? Does it include EEA states? Where is it laid out unequivocally?
Secondly, the regulations allow the DWP to ask claimants to provide the relevant evidence where the EU member state cannot or will not. The Explanatory Memorandum says, at paragraph 7.2:
“in the event that the information provided by the claimant is insufficient, the UK will no longer be required to fulfil any obligation under the Coordination Regulations”.
This sounds quite harsh. What would happen to Jo if he retired after a no-deal Brexit? He would have to do two things. First, he would have to access his French pension. Would this be done through the International Pension Centre, as it is at the moment? Or would he have to apply directly to the French authorities? Crucially, would he definitely be able to have that French pension paid to him in the UK? In other words, would France export the pension, as requested by the Commission? If not, Jo could be in an impossible position. He might need to return to the UK to care for elderly parents, but if he could not get the bulk of his pension here, what would he do? What if some of our citizens found that they had no residence rights anywhere else, so were forced back to the UK and yet could not access the benefits or pensions they needed because they had entitlement in other member states? What would happen to them?
Then Jo would need to access his UK pension. To get that, he would need evidence that he had paid national insurance contributions in France, as he would need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get into the UK system. This would raise other questions. Would the International Pension Centre in Newcastle contact the French pension authorities to get this evidence for Jo, or would he have to get it himself? Either way, if the French did not oblige, what would Jo have to produce? If he did not have documents that the DWP liked, he would get no pension at all in the UK, even though he was legally entitled to it. Would he have to pay to get documents translated and notarised? How long would this all take?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said, it is crucial to know what would count as evidence. I could not produce payslips from 20 years ago, and I think a lot of noble Lords could not either. So, if the authorities in another EU state refuse to co-operate, what should people do? They could go back to their employer, but firms go out of business or merge. In most countries, they would not be required to keep records dating back decades. So, would other forms of evidence be accepted—for example, witness statements from co-workers, neighbours or doctors? Has the evidential basis been published? If not, will the Minister guarantee to conduct a consultation on it at once, so that we can see what would happen?
If a UK firm posted a worker abroad, could the firm be compelled to provide the necessary information to the DWP? If Jo were legally entitled to a state pension here, but could not prove it because the French Government would not co-operate, who would decide that he would not get that to which he was entitled? How could he appeal a refusal?
I have a few more short questions. The Commons brief points out that these regulations remove entirely article 4 of EU regulation 883/2004 which contains the equal treatment provisions to which I referred at the outset. The Explanatory Memorandum does not explain why this provision has been removed. Can the Minister tell us why it was? UK nationals working in the EU and EU residents working in the UK could be required to pay national contributions here as well as paying contributions in another EU member state, so a worker posted to Germany by her British company could end up paying double national insurance contributions. Did the Government consider waiving NICs for someone in this country, which would of course replicate the status quo rather more precisely that what seems to be in here? If not, as my noble friend asked, how could they then say that there are no costs attached to these regulations?
The regulations abolish provisional payments while a dispute is being resolved with an EU member state. The memorandum says that these provisions are hardly ever used, but since there will not be any resolution mechanisms in the future and there will not be a common rulebook, it is entirely possible that the situations which might require them to be used could be far more numerous. What assessment was made of the likelihood of disputes arising in no deal which would trigger payments of this sort? While these regulations are operational, if they ever come to be, what is the status of post-Brexit contributions in other EU states? Will UK state pensions be uprated when paid in other EU member states after no deal? Ministers have said that they will be for 2019-20, but what happens after that?
I want to say a brief word on the point raised by my noble friend Lady Lister about the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, which has been debated in another place and which in its territory overlaps very much with this instrument. As we have heard, that Bill contains eye-watering Henry VIII powers that basically would allow Ministers to rewrite the social security co-ordination rules at will. I am not a Brexit specialist, so can the Minister can explain this to me? If there is no deal, does that Bill fall? If it does not, how do the Government intend to honour the commitments spelt out by the Minister herself and spelt out in the memorandum when they have the power to rewrite them entirely? Will they commit to use those Henry VIII powers only to replicate the provisions of these regulations?
Finally, if there is a deal, what is the status of these regulations?
I apologise for asking so many questions, but they are all important for the great many people who could be affected. I gave the Minister notice of my technical questions, albeit only yesterday, but my priority is to get things answered on the record. The date of 29 March is only three weeks away. If the Government allow a no-deal scenario, these problems will become a reality for many UK citizens living in the EU and vice versa. They and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2019
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this order and both noble Baronesses who have spoken. As we have heard, the purpose of the order is to make changes to the rates of those benefits which have been fortunate enough to escape the Government’s freeze, which is causing so much damage, as we have heard from the noble Baronesses. We now have a series of different categories of benefit which get treated in different ways when it comes to uprating time.
We have a category which is going to be uprated by at least the increase in earnings: the state pension because of the triple lock; the standard minimum guarantee of pension credit; and some aspects of widows’ and widowers’ pensions in industrial death benefit. They all get to go up by 2.6%, which is the increase in earnings.
Then we have a category which will have to be increased by at least the increase in prices. This includes attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, DLA, PIP, severe disablement allowance, other aspects of widows’ benefits, the additional state pension, graduated retirement benefit and increments to the state pension. They all get to go up by CPI—inflation.
Then there is a category over which the Secretary of State has discretion. She has decided to use that discretion by uprating some benefits by CPI—by inflation—including statutory sick pay, maternity and paternity pay, adoption and parental leave pay, the support group components of ESA, disability and carer premiums, the carer element of universal credit and the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit. They go up by 2.4%.
Then there are the benefits which are not being uprated at all. These include all the main means-tested working-age benefits, including: the personal allowance elements of income support; jobseeker’s allowance; the personal allowances and work-related activity components of ESA and housing benefit; and the standard allowance, limited capacity for work element and the lower disabled child addition of universal credit. Those are the main things on which most of our poorest fellow citizens depend. However, they have been frozen at the 2015-16 cash levels, having previously been increased by only 1%. Now, as we have heard, we have to add to the list bereavement support payment. It will be paid at the same cash rate as it was last year, which means that, like all those benefits, its value is being cut yet again. There is no triple lock for anybody except pensioners.
Baroness Buscombe
Yes, I noted somewhere in my papers and will say now that of course it is right that we look at every way to incentivise the second earner to go back into the workplace; that is very much our thinking at the moment. We are looking to find different ways to help and incentivise people. We also have to think about affordability. We touched on that when we debated these uprating measures a year ago; it has to be taken into account as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, talked about how much was spent at the last Budget, but actually quite a large proportion of that—£4.5 billion—went towards the work that we are doing at the Department for Work and Pensions in supporting people, so we have to ensure—
Baroness Sherlock
On the affordability question, will the Minister address the point that I and another noble Lord made: the Government are likely to save half a billion pounds more on this freeze than they did from the 2014-15 Budget, so why could that money not be put to this purpose? While she is at it, her comments about work are very interesting, but if I could bring her back to the order under discussion, if the aim of this freeze is to incentivise work, why are the Government freezing payments made to some of the people on employment and support allowance whom they have deemed not fit to work? Why does the freeze include benefits paid to mothers of very young children, whom the Government do not require to work? Why does it apply to in-work benefits designed to make work pay?
Baroness Buscombe
Because of the issue of affordability, we have to make some difficult choices. I will not pretend that we are not constantly looking at this; indeed, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made a speech only today amplifying the fact that we are looking at different ways of supporting people with disabilities. They may not attract a price tag, if I may put it that way, but they are going to help transform the lives particularly of people with severe disabilities, because the reality is that we cannot simply take that difficult leap and say that we are going to lift the benefit freeze. As my noble friend said last night in another place, we have to face the fact that under the previous Labour Government, welfare spending increased by £84 billion—the equivalent of £3,000 additional cost for every working household in this country. We have to strike a fair balance between those who are funding the welfare system and those who are in receipt of it. It is always a difficult balance, but again, I thank noble Lords who are making suggestions and encouraging me to amplify the fact that we have a particular interest in supporting those who may not have been in work for a number of years, or who may never have worked, to have the confidence to do so.
Employment and Support Allowance Payments
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. When, as part of their reforms, the Government moved people across from incapacity benefit to contributory-based ESA, they failed to consider whether or not those people might have been entitled to an income-related ESA, which would have brought with it a potential entitlement to enhanced or severe disability premiums or to housing benefit, council tax benefit and passported benefits. As the Minister has explained, the number of people estimated to have missed out has now gone up from the original 70,000 to 210,000, with a potential bill of £920 million. It took the DWP six years to even begin to sort this out. Even by recent DWP standards, I think we could reasonably say that this is a right mess.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, the department estimates that around 20,000 people have or will have died before payments reach them, so what steps is it taking to identify the families of people in those circumstances? Secondly, the Treasury guidance is very clear that in cases of maladministration or service failure it should seek to,
“restore the wronged party to the position that they would be in had things been done correctly”.
When the Minister spoke in October, I asked her about what was happening to people who had missed out on passported benefits. She said the department was in discussion with other departments about that. Could she please update the House and assure us that no one will miss out or fail to be compensated because they should have got housing benefit, council tax benefit, free prescriptions or free eye tests?
Baroness Buscombe
First, my Lords, I repeat that these errors should never have happened, and the department is working extremely hard to make sure that the wrongs that have been done are put right at pace. I want to make it clear that we did not do nothing, as it were, for six years; we started work on this back in 2013. We are working hard with increased support to make sure that we get this right but we want to do it with care. It is very unfortunate that an estimated 20,000 people have deceased since this work began but we are working extremely hard to identify the families.
On passported benefits, I am able to say to the noble Baroness that we are engaging with a number of authorities that are responsible for passported benefits to raise awareness of the ESA underpayment exercise and the potential issues arising from it. This will enable departments across government to understand the impacts on the passported benefits they administer. However, the department does not hold information on what people may or may not have claimed.
Benefit Reforms
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
It is not to use up time, it is to set out our case. A working couple on universal credit with three children aged four, six and eight, for example, could be eligible for childcare support alone of up to £18,000 per annum from this Government. That is a long way from where we were when, under the last Labour Government, nearly 20% of all households were entirely workless: one-fifth of the entire household population of the United Kingdom. That is down to 13.9%. We are not complacent. We are making real progress to support families.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I have spent time in food banks. I have seen working parents embarrassed and ashamed at having to go there to bring home food for their children. I do not think that anyone goes to a food bank unless they are desperate.
The Minister mentioned working parents getting childcare support. Parents of very young children are now required to take a job when their youngest child is three. They can be sanctioned if they do not. Yet the way in which universal credit pays out childcare help is that the parent has to pay the money up front and then claim it back. A lot of parents just cannot afford to do this. How can it be right for parents to risk being sanctioned when they are faced with a choice between taking a job and getting into debt, or not taking it and being sanctioned?
Baroness Buscombe
The noble Baroness will have heard that we are doing a lot through cash injection for childcare support, but I accept that it is important to look at the process of how and when it is paid. We are doing this at the moment. We know that 30 hours is already making a real difference to families. The independent evaluations of our early delivery found that 78% of parents reported greater flexibility in their working lives. Nearly a quarter of mothers reported being able to increase their working hours as a result. In particular, we want women in households to be liberated and empowered, just like every noble Baroness sitting in this House. I note that the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, is in his place. One of the things in which I am particularly interested is flexibility of spousal employment for those women in the Armed Forces who support their husbands or partners. We are doing everything we can, working holistically across government, to achieve more to enable both parties to work and support their family.
Universal Credit
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat as a Statement an Answer given to an Urgent Question in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, universal credit is a vital reform that overhauls a legacy system that trapped people out of work. With six different benefits administered by three different government departments, it was utterly confusing for claimants. All new claimants now receive universal credit. In the future, we will move claimants who have not changed circumstances from legacy benefits to universal credit in an approach known as managed migration.
It is right that the Government should seek to align provision for all, in order to eventually operate one welfare system. The department has long planned to initially support 10,000 people through this process, in a test phase, before increasing the number of those migrated. This first phase will give us an opportunity to learn how to provide the best support, while keeping Parliament fully informed of our approach.
Universal credit is proceeding as planned, with no change to the timetable of completing managed migration by December 2023”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. I woke on Sunday to news suggesting that universal credit rollout was being delayed. Joy, I confess, was unconfined in Sherlock Towers and doubtless all around the land. But it was not so. It seems that the Government are pressing ahead with the 1.4 million people currently getting universal credit, and another 1.5 million people will join them in the next year. So any delay seems to relate only to the regulations on managed migration, which Ministers had told us were incredibly urgent. These are very controversial because, rather than transferring people across to universal credit, in practice the DWP will simply end legacy benefit claims and invite people to apply for the new benefit. The DWP was to pilot it this summer and roll it out to some 3 million people from next year.
Our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee urged Ministers to take only the powers and regulations to run the pilots and then come back to the House before going for the full rollout—so I hope that maybe that is what the Government are doing. But Ministers down the other end could not confirm this at all.
I do not want a general bit of debate or flannel: I just want to know what is being delayed and until when. So will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are delaying consideration of the managed migration regulations until after the pilots have been evaluated? If so, how will they get the powers to run the pilots and introduce the concession they have made on the severe disability premium? If they are not doing that, what on earth is going on?
Baroness Buscombe
I will respond by saying first that perhaps we should ask the press what on earth is going on. The news that there is a delay is wrong. The Government previously committed to hold a debate on the affirmative regulations in relation to managed migration, and that will happen in due course on the Floor of the House. We will debate them as and when parliamentary time allows, but we will also make sure that we meet our commitment to severe disability premium recipients. To ensure a start date from July 2019 for those 10,000 people, we have long said that we will work with a test-and-learn process.
The noble Baroness talked about a pilot. We have always called it a test. It is perhaps just different terminology. In my response to a debate put to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, on 1 November, I made it very clear that we were always going to have the test-and-learn phase starting at the end of July 2019, whereby we would manage-migrate only 10,000 people through the following 12 months. A debate will be held on the regulations to allow for the managed migration.
Universal Credit
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to split payments in Universal Credit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
Split payments are already available on request for universal credit claimants. We have processes in place to record complex needs for individual claimants and have introduced a new IT function so that these claimants are instantly visible to the staff helping them. We are also examining how claimants tell us about their complex needs, how we record those needs and how we can extract data which can help us monitor and improve support.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the Minister. To mark White Ribbon Day yesterday, I want to ask specifically about the impact of universal credit split payments on people suffering domestic abuse. At present money for children is paid in tax credits to the main carer once a fortnight, and that supporting low-paid work to the main earner once a fortnight. Universal credit rolls up all those payments with housing, childcare and disability payments, and is paid once a month into the bank account of one member of a couple. There is widespread concern that this may exacerbate economic abuse. Domestic abuse survivors can request a split payment, but charities such as Women’s Aid are concerned that simply asking for it can put them at risk because of course it triggers the evidence that they have done so concerning the abusive partner. My noble friend Lady Lister raised this in a Question in July and presumably the Minister has been thinking about it. But the latest statistics show that only 20 households have split the payments, even though 40% of awards are to couples. Can the Minister please tell the House what action the Government are going to take?
Baroness Buscombe
The Government support White Ribbon Day—the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women—and will be making a number of announcements over the 16 days of action, which I am sure all noble Lords will welcome. The Government are committed to doing everything we can to end domestic abuse. It is important to stress that it is the responsibility of government across Whitehall to support victims of domestic abuse. The single payment of universal credit usually allows both people in the household to make the money management choices that are best for them in considering how their decisions about work affect their household income. The reality is that I and my honourable friend in another place, the Minister for Family Support, Housing and Child Maintenance, Justin Tomlinson, are working hard with stakeholders to see what improvements could be made.
Universal Credit
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.
This is a very large pile of sticking plaster. I am glad that some of it is there—it is better than not having it—but in fact it highlights just what a problem lies underneath that which the Government are addressing. For years, Ministers have told the House that all is well with universal credit, and whenever concerns were raised on these or other Benches, they said that we were scaremongering. Whenever charities or churches raised it, they were scaremongering. Even the NAO joined in last June, publishing a damning report about the impact of universal credit. But I am glad that Ministers are beginning to acknowledge that some issues need tackling, and some steps have been taken today which are welcome.
I welcome the increase in work allowances in universal credit. Noble Lords will recall, I am sure, the time in 2015 when my late and sorely missed friend Lady Hollis of Heigham led your Lordships in demanding that the Government think again about those cuts in work allowances. Ministers agreed to do it in tax credits, but they did not for universal credit. But today they have restored £1,000 of that cut, which feels like a good tribute to my noble friend. However, a bit of me feels that it is still only half of what was taken off in that Budget. I am aware that that sounds a bit grudging. I do not like looking a gift horse in the mouth, but if someone gives me two horses then takes them away, then comes back a long time afterwards and gives me one horse, I will still hanker slightly after the two horses that I had in the first place. Your Lordships will forgive me if I am being a bit disgruntled but two horses are better than one. None the less, one horse is better than none. I will stop the metaphor now.
Other things in the Statement are welcome. The decision to roll on other means-tested benefits for two weeks for those moving across to universal credit is good, but the Red Book seems to suggest that that will kick in only from July 2020. Can the Minister clarify whether, if people move across from other benefits any time between now and 2020—for example, because they move into a universal credit area or they have a change of circumstance—they will get no help at all? Will they still be stuck, having to wait five weeks for all this money? What will happen there? I also welcome the minor change to the self-employed rules, but I still think that UC for low-income self-employed people is an absolute mess that will unravel before very long.
The real new announcements today are about managed migration. This really matters because, as the IFS said in its Budget commentary, this is,
“a huge change quite deliberately creating millions of winners and millions of losers. Something like a third … will be at least £1,000 a year worse off under UC than under the legacy system while about a quarter will be at least £1,000 a year better off”.
Ministers keep saying that no one will lose money as a result of moving on to UC. That is not because of generosity; it is because people have transitional protection which says they will not lose out at the point where they move across. However, Ministers do not often tell us that this applies only to some people. There are two ways you can get on to universal credit: through natural migration, where you move to a new area and have a change in circumstances—with this you get no transitional protection; or, at some point between now and three or four years down the road, the Government will move across anyone who is left, in a process that is called managed migration.
As this process is called managed migration, everyone assumed people would be managed. It now turns out they will not be managed at all. They will get a letter saying, “Your benefits are going to be cut off on this date”—I am glad it could be three months rather than one—“and if you don’t make a fresh claim, you will get no money”. If you make a claim after that deadline but within a month, you will get transitional protection; if it is after a month plus a week you will get no transitional protection even if you got your claim in.
Let us bear in mind that this is a complicated process. Around 30% of people who start an online claim give up before it is finished and put into payment. This could be really serious, especially for vulnerable people. The process essentially shifts the burden of responsibility from the state on to the individual, to deal with the consequences of the state moving almost 3 million people from their current benefits; of these, over one-third are either too sick or disabled to work. This is potentially very serious indeed.
The Social Security Advisory Committee had a number of concerns, most of which have been accepted, often in principle. Anyone who has read one of these reports knows that there can be a big difference between accepting something in principle and doing what the committee recommended. One classic example is that the committee suggested that the DWP—rather than making everybody make a fresh claim—could carefully analyse, segment by segment, and look for ways in which certain groups could be carved out and moved across automatically. The DWP simply said no. It said it needed clean data for everybody or that some people such as tax credit recipients may not be eligible. That is not trying. Why will the Government not take up that recommendation and try very hard to see whether some people might not need to make an application?
The Budget announced a further delay to the rollout, which was scored, by my reading, as a net saving to the Government amounting to around £1.2 billion over five years. Can the Minister explain that? I might be completely wrong, but it seems to me that one of the effects of delaying managed migration is that more people will end up moving across to UC on their own—because they move house, have a baby, or their kid leaves home, or whatever. That leaves fewer people at the end. It also means that all those people will not get transitional protection because they were not there at the end, which costs them money but saves the Government money. Does this change make any difference to the number of people who will eventually be in managed migration? The SSAC also raised some real concerns about deliverability. I do not have time today to go through all my outstanding concerns about universal credit. The Minister is shaking her head. Perhaps I can refer her to the questions the committee was asking about operational deliverability; I certainly had a different take from her on that.
I am deeply concerned that this is a sticking plaster while the underlying body is in serious trouble. I believe this could go badly wrong. There is a reason why the Opposition finally ended up calling for the rollout to stop. I am deeply worried that this is not going to work in the way the Government imagine. For 3 million people, as well as all those on the legacy system who will move across sooner, the benefits system is the only thing that stands between many of them and destitution. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on her analysis of the changes that have been made. Some are very welcome, but we are still facing a major, dramatic piece of administrative change. It will severely affect vulnerable families who are on low legacy benefits at the moment. I do not think it is safe to do this without somehow making an attempt to get an impact assessment of what the long-term effects will be. This legislation was originally put in place in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. We now have some very detailed and complicated regulations. Before we start the process, it would be good to know what the department expects the outcome to be. If we cannot get that, we will to a large extent be flying in the dark.
I welcome the three-month grace period for the minimum statutory notice period for the benefit, but we still have a hard stop at the end of that. Three months is better than one month, but can the Minister explain the sentence in the Secretary of State’s Statement which deals with the one-month period becoming three months? It says that,
“we have unlimited flexibility to extend claim periods for people who need it”.
Can she say what the circumstances are in which someone could claim to need that? Unlimited flexibility could mean that people were not facing a hard stop for legacy benefits, so it would be very useful to understand better what that sentence actually means.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and with the Social Security Advisory Committee, that it would be much safer to try to segment some of the clients we are approaching in managed migration to identify vulnerable people. I do not mean vulnerable only in terms of disability and so on, but also in terms of heavy indebtedness, which means that they are unlikely to be able to withstand a long—or indeed any—gap in benefit provision during transition. We know that data is available, because organisations such as Policy in Practice are already stitching together local authority housing benefit data with Treasury, HMRC and DWP data. There is enough material there to anticipate the households that will have real difficulty facing this. I understand the department is saying that the systems do not talk to one another. During the managed migration period, which admittedly does not start for some time yet, we will not, as I understand it, have the advantage of an ability to mash that data and identify vulnerable groups. It can be done by think tanks and research groups; I think it should be done by the department. Proposals to differentiate the impact on different groups of people is, I believe, very important.
Another thing, from a logistics point of view, is that I understand we have to get these regulations done and dusted by the end of the calendar year. The Minister is very good at offering briefing sessions before these regulations hit the Floor; they are affirmative regulations and will need to come to the Floor of the House. I understand the urgency of getting the legality put in place to cover the department for the trial period—the test and learn period—early next year. I plead with the Minister to give us enough time collectively in this House to understand the full significance of all these changes. Some are beneficial, but we are still facing an enormous difficulty that could have a dramatic impact on low-income families in future.
Baroness Buscombe
I begin by welcoming the comments of both noble Lords opposite, who have welcomed at least in part what we have achieved, both through the Budget announcements and the laying of the regulations today.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I say straightaway, up front, that unlike honourable Members in another place who did not seem to realise that we would be debating these regulations, we have—and want—to debate them. They are affirmative measures and we will debate them before the end of the year. Otherwise, if we do not get these regulations through, the transitional protection support for people will be lost; we have to make that very clear. I have pretty much put a date in the diary for my first session. I was going to alert noble Lords after our upcoming recess but, in fact, I will make sure that is sent out to all Peers tomorrow. I want to make sure that any Peer who would like a conversation has one with myself and the Minister of State for Employment—he wants to join me in engaging with all noble Lords. It is really important. We want the opportunity to spell out the detail of these regulations. We are excited about it, not least because we have listened and learned.
I have listened to the noble Baroness opposite; I know, for example, that she had a particular concern—as did the noble Lord—when we met to talk very briefly in private two months ago about what we were trying to do with the one-month minimum term to migrate claimants to UC. We have now moved that to three months. We decided on three months, rather than longer, because in talking to experts and stakeholders we decided that any longer might in fact be a disincentive and unhelpful to claimants. It felt as though it was too long a burden in front of them.
We want to do all we can to work with claimants, working with stakeholders—hence having this period now, after the full rollout of universal credit at the end of this year. We will be spending until July next year going through a test and learn process. Our process will be co-designed with stakeholders to ensure that we have listened and understood claimants’ experiences. We want a process that works well for everyone. We are focusing on building safeguards for vulnerable claimants and ensuring that we have all the necessary information to enjoy a smooth transition, with uninterrupted support.
I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that we have decided that we do not want to do anything in terms of migrating claimants without face-to-face or online support because, when we did that, we actually got wrong what we thought would be a smooth, automatic transition from incapacity benefits to ESA—I am going back now to 2011. We got it wrong because we did not always have up-to-date information on people’s circumstances. We did what we call “pre-populate”, and we have decided as a department that that is too dangerous, in case we get it wrong again. We are talking about a huge number of people and we want to get it right.
Therefore, the test and learn process that we are going to go through before beginning the transition will be actually working with claimants who come forward to work with us, testing and trialling how we can make the process better. We have not yet developed the system for managed migration, for the very reason that we want to spend time with everybody: lab sessions, where we use researchers who have recruited claimants; pop-up testing, where researchers have visited job centres, and all the support organisations, homeless shelters and parent and child organisations, to talk to claimants and staff to get this right.
When we do start the managed migration process, we are going to migrate a maximum of only 10,000 people in the first year, which sounds slow, but we think that is the right thing to do. We want to spend all that time checking and making sure that we are right. I will be very happy to come back to your Lordships’ House to keep noble Lords informed of how that process is going, because it is absolutely important that we get it right. We are never going to get 100% of the cases right, but we will do our best.
The important thing is to explain that the two-week support is an additional payment. There will be no gap. That will help people to adjust from being paid two-weekly to four-weekly, but it does not represent any form of gap in transition in terms of payments. It is an additional payment, in addition to the two-week additional housing benefit—which, again, is a one-off cash payment to support people through the process.
I was asked what was meant by my right honourable friend in another place talking about what happens if claimants cannot migrate. We are of the opinion that we should keep the system entirely flexible, so that where a claimant has complex needs or is vulnerable, the work coach can have the option to suggest an extension of the deadline of migration, arrange a home visit or, to be entirely flexible, remove the claimant from the managed migration process entirely. We have to be careful that we do not allow people to fall through the cracks. Let us be clear that this one to three month minimum period is the minimum period for people to manage migrate, but we will be flexible, particularly with those vulnerable claimants who are having difficulty in migrating to the new system.
Baroness Sherlock
Before the Minister sits down, I think she may have inadvertently omitted to answer a couple of my questions. Could I invite her to check the record and write to me?
Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her explanation of the regulations. I also wish that she is back to full ambulatory health soon. I was glad to have the opportunity to give her advance notice of the questions I will raise because some of them are quite technical. It would be great if she could answer them but if not, she should feel free to write to me.
Before I start, I want to pick on where the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, stopped. Most of the people in the House of Lords who have a passionate interest in this are in this room, apart from one or two who could not be here. We have been discussing these issues for a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, saying that he has moved on to a different perspective makes me want to rehearse briefly the fact that having an administrative system of child maintenance is incredibly important. Before it existed, the only way for single parents to get the money they needed to raise their kids was to go to court. It was expensive to get an order, to get it updated and to get it enforced, so the creation of an administrative system of child support really matters. It matters for those kids, the families and the country. It is a statement that you may separate from your partner but you do not cease to be responsible for your children, and the state will enforce that if necessary if the parents cannot afford to do so. I want to lay that on the record.
We should also note that, although the legacy schemes have had a range of problems, billions of pounds have changed hands and gone towards raising children. We should mark that. We should not say simply assume that the problems mean that we do not want to get this right going forward. The obligation to support your children is there, so I share the view that it would be good to have an opportunity to discuss more broadly the issues around child support policy. However, since Parliament has determined the amounts that should be paid by non-resident parents to parents with care, getting that enforced really matters and the regulations address that. In the light of that, I should flag up a historic and now rather distant remunerated interest as I was a non-executive director of CMEC for a time.
In essence, these regulations do two things. They allow the Government to write off significant debts arising from historic schemes and they introduce some new compliance measures to help with collecting future child maintenance. I want to look at each of those in turn to see whether it feels like a balanced package.
First, on the debt proposals, the Explanatory Memorandum says that there are uncollected arrears of £3.7 billion, with £2.5 billion owed to parents and £1.2 billion owed to the Government. DWP thinks that it would be too expensive to try to collect all this, so it proposes to separate the debt into two parts: that which it will make one last attempt to collect and that which it will simply write off. Where there has not been a payment in the last three months and, as the Minister explained, a CSA case started on or before 1 November 2008 and the debt is more than £1,000, or the case started after that date and the debt is more than £500, it will ask clients if they want it to try to collect the debt. If no representations are received, or collection of the debt is not possible, it may be written off. Can the Minister tell us how those representations will be sought? Will each parent to whom money is owed be written to individually?
Secondly, where there has been no payment in the last three months and the case started on or before 1 November 2008 and the debt is less than £1,000, or the case started after 1 November 2008 and the debt is less than £500, or the debt is less than £65, then the debt can be written off without asking the parents at all. Can the Minister tell us, if there had been a payment of some sort in the last three months, irrespective of how much was involved or when it started, would attempts carry on being made to collect the debt, even if it did not meet these criteria? If so, is there not a risk of what is known in the trade as moral hazard? In other words, does it not risk sending out a message to parents who have not paid to support their kids that if they simply do not pay for long enough, the Government will give up and they will benefit from having the debt written off?
To justify writing off historic debt while avoiding the moral hazard charge, it is incumbent on the Government to show that current child maintenance liabilities are being effectively enforced—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. So is that the case? As the noble Lord mentioned, the current rate of compliance is 57% and it has been static for the last two years. Ministers are partly arguing that these regulations would add to the range of collection and enforcement powers the department has to drive up that statistic. Let us see whether we think they would.
There are basically three measures. First, the deductions from joint and unlimited partnership accounts, which is a welcome measure designed to prevent non-resident parents from evading their financial obligations by moving all their money into joint or unlimited partnership accounts. However, I would like to raise a point made in paragraph 11 of the 39th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It reports a concern—raised in a submission to the committee, on which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood sits—that the proposal to notify the other account holders of the intention to make regular or lump sum deductions and give them a set period to make representations could give the non-resident parent time to move the cash somewhere else.
The committee noted that the regulations provide that the interim order must include an instruction to the deposit-taker not to do anything that would reduce the amount standing to the credit of the account below the amount specified in the order. However, the Explanatory Memorandum also goes on to say that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary—the Minister reinforced this today—it will be assumed that the NRP has a share of the funds equal to that of any other account holder. So, if the deposit-taker is required only to keep in the account an amount equivalent to that specified in the order, is there not a risk that, in some cases, only a portion of that retained balance can be attributed to the non-resident parent, and therefore, when it comes to the attempt to reclaim it, there will not be enough left to meet the debt? What are the Government doing about that? I did say this was technical.
Secondly, I want to look at the effect of this measure. The self-certified impact assessment says that DWP expects that the use of this measure will result in 350 requested deduction orders from joint personal accounts in England and Wales per year and 170 from unlimited partnership business accounts. Based on the pattern of their use for sole accounts, DWP assumed 34% will be lump sum deduction orders and 66% regular deduction orders, and it expects a 60% success rate. When you crunch these numbers down—which I did because I am very sad—it means that, adding together personal joint accounts and unlimited partnership business joint accounts, you get a total of basically not very much. My sums suggested this meant that the department expected to issue only 100 successful lump-sum DOs and 200 successful regular DOs, which would have brought in about £350,000 a year in extra child maintenance.
However, about half an hour before I came into the Committee, I saw a letter—just published—from Justin Tomlinson to Frank Field, chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee, in which he said that DWP analysis after the consultation estimated that these new powers would actually enable an extra 400 to 500 actions per year, yielding around £840,000 in additional maintenance. The letter said that the department thought the figure might be even higher still. Can the Minister tell the Grand Committee the current estimate of the number of cases in which these powers are likely to be used, and how much extra maintenance the department expects to collect?
Another question is on the confiscation of passports. The instrument also commences a power, set out in Sections 39B to 39G of the Child Support Act 1991, enabling the Secretary of State to apply to the court for an order to disqualify a non-resident parent who is wilfully refusing to pay from holding or obtaining a UK passport. This is again welcome but I wonder how well it would be used. The 39th report of the scrutiny committee quoted the department as saying:
“This measure will be used as a last resort, where all other enforcement actions have been found to be inappropriate or ineffective”.
When I went back to the methodology document that accompanied the consultation, it said that DWP expected approximately 20 cases per year where a court sanction would be applied. But then it became clear that that would be not 20 passports a year but 20 cases where court sanctions could be applied. Those sanctions might be passport removal but might be losing a driving licence or going to prison. That could mean this new power on passports might be in single-figure usage.
Again, the letter to Frank Field from Justin Tomlinson suggested that this power could be used in around 20 cases a year. Can the Minister explain whether that is 20 cases of passport confiscation a year or whether we are still talking about 20 cases of court sanctions a year, of which some may or may not be on passports? Either way, it is a very small number. Clearly, I realise that it is intended to be a deterrent as well but that was said of driving licences, yet we are still stuck at 57% enforcement. We have to ask: how effective is this likely to be?
The third and final category is on including major assets in the calculation of child maintenance liabilities. There has been lots of pressure on DWP for a long time to reinstate the lifestyle variation available under the previous regime, by which parents could request a variation to the calculation based on a disparity between the lifestyle of a non-resident parent and the income which they reported. Charities such as Gingerbread, along with the Work and Pensions Select Committee, have pressed DWP on this but to no avail. One of the presenting problems has been parents complaining that the NRP claims to have a low income, yet possesses considerable assets and a lifestyle that should be impossible on the income that he or she is declaring.
However, DWP decided not to do that. This is one of its proposals to deal with it instead by including major assets in the calculation of child maintenance liabilities. That is welcome but the scrutiny committee remains concerned about how it is to be done—a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, who mentioned yachts. I do not often get to talk about yachts in my brief but it is the case that a specific submission was made to the committee of a parent who said that her former spouse had bought a yacht, yet nobody could make him pay over the amount of cash he was meant to do as support for the children.
It would seem from that case that there is a real situation out there. Yet in its 41st report, the committee managed to establish from DWP that the definition of asset does not include high-value items such as a yacht or a Rolls-Royce, because it is too hard to value them. In fact, the report said:
“This would seem to confirm our concern that the Non-Resident Parent can find ways of avoiding payment by buying goods with their cash assets and reinforces our view that the new formula for calculating income may make little actual difference”.
Given that that is the whole point of this power, can the Minister explain how the Government plan to deal with this issue and, again, how often DWP anticipates using these provisions?
In conclusion, we are in a position where compliance rates are stuck at 57%. I am doubtful that the package of powers we are discussing are likely to make all that much difference given that the biggest of them will, in the original calculations, affect only 450 children and bring in £350,000 a year. Alongside that, the Government are planning to write off debts of £3.7 billion, so basically we are talking about 0.01% of the amount that has been written off. Even if it is the higher £840,000 figure, my back-of-an-envelope calculations say that we are still talking about 0.02%. There is quite an imbalance.
I remain concerned about those who are slipping through the net—the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, raised this. In 2012, DWP estimated that 56% of CSA clients who chose not to apply to the statutory service would make a family-based arrangement. A survey by NatCen conducted between June 2015 and September 2016 found that three months after the CSA cases had been closed, only 18% had a family-based arrangement in place. A similar number had gone to the CMS but 56% had nothing in place.
Employment and Support Allowance
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. This week we learned that 180,000 sick and disabled people have been underpaid vital social security. The problem goes back to 2011 when the Government began migrating people on to ESA from incapacity benefit, but did it wrongly. In many cases, they migrated them across to contribution-based benefit when they would have been entitled to income-based benefit, which means that they could have got other payments, such as severe disability payment premiums and the like.
Initially Ministers said that they were allowed to pay claimants back money only until 2014, until CPAG went to court—at which point, they changed their minds. At the time of that migration an independent expert working for the DWP, Professor Malcolm Harrington, urged Ministers not to proceed until he was certain that the system was robust. But they did. Last July, the Public Accounts Committee published a scathing report about this error, in which it suggested that some people had lost out by as much as £20,000. It described the DWP as being defensive and unwilling to listen to warnings, which is very worrying. Claimants are now getting money, but in some cases it seems they have no idea how the sums were arrived at. The DWP now estimates that it is going to pay £1 billion as a result of this very serious error.
Will the Minister tell us, first, what steps are being taken to ensure that all claimants will be compensated for the lost value of passported benefits such as free school meals, NHS prescriptions or dentistry treatment? Secondly, what compensation will be paid to claimants on top of the arrears? Many of those will have found themselves forced into rent arrears, some into destitution. All of this costs money. How much compensation will they get for it? Thirdly, the DWP has identified those whom it knows to be terminally ill. How is it going to go about maintaining that, to include people who become terminally ill while the review carries on until the end of next year? What systems are in place to identify those people and prioritise their cases? Finally, and most importantly, what lessons has the DWP learned from this to ensure that it listens to the many warnings about universal credit migration and does not make the same mistakes?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, first, I will respond to the noble Baroness by referencing passported benefits, which are of course the responsibility of each government department. It would be impractical for the DWP to undertake an exercise to uncover who might have been entitled to those other passported benefits. However, we are talking to other departments to make them aware of the issue. In terms of compensation, it is important to make it very clear that no one saw a cash reduction when they were transferred to ESA. This is about extra money that they might have been entitled to. Also, it is really important to explain that we are learning lessons from this. The key lesson is that it is a mistake to try to prepopulate information without being in touch with claimants. It is very important for us to make sure, when we are changing benefits or introducing new benefits, that we do so in a way that involves working with claimants so that, rather than trying to be clever with a seamless process, we actually engage. That is what we are doing now, with what will be 800 people working with claimants to get this right.
Personal Independence Payment
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, there has been a very strong focus, particularly in recent months, on mental health conditions. PIP has a much better understanding of non-physical conditions such as mental health conditions than existed under DLA. Indeed, overall, 65% of PIP recipients whose main disabling condition is a mental health one are getting the enhanced rate of the daily living component, compared to only 22% of mental health recipients under DLA; and 33% of PIP recipients whose main disabling condition is a mental health one are getting the enhanced rate of the mobility component, compared to only 10% of mental health recipients receiving the higher rate of the DLA mobility component. PIP is showing a greater and more generous focus regarding delivery for those with mental health conditions.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister seems to think that tribunal decision rates do not reflect quality. If 71% of cases are overturned at tribunal—for example, the figure for JSA is only 36%—something has gone badly wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, mentioned the case of the chairman of Scope, who has Parkinson’s and incurable prostate cancer. At two subsequent assessments he was awarded 11 points; you need eight to get PIP. At last March’s assessment, he got only two. His Parkinson’s is progressive and now very severe, and his prostate cancer is incurable. He has described the experience of navigating this as Kafkaesque, complex and unprofessional. I think any noble Lord who has ever spoken to a single person who has navigated this will recognise that. What are the Government going to do about this?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I absolutely hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is saying. But I think it is really important to stress that we genuinely believe the PIP system is working, and it is a vast improvement on the DLA system. It is not perfect and we are constantly looking to improve it, but it is only right that support is targeted at those disabled people who require the most assistance to lead independent lives, and personal independence payment will achieve that. But key to the benefit is a more objective assessment which allows us accurately and consistently to assess individual needs. We are focusing more on training the assessors and working with champions to support them, to improve the outcomes right from the start.