Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
“( ) Subsection (1A) does not apply in respect of persons who are either children or qualifying young persons born before 6 April 2017.”
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I rise—albeit a little slowly—to move Amendment 11 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. This is a very simple amendment which would ensure that the two-child limit applies only to children born after 6 April 2017. The impact assessment for this measure states:
“Entitlement will remain at the level for two children for households who make the choice to have more children in the knowledge of the policy”.
That simply is not true. If someone has more than two children and needs to make a claim for universal credit after 6 April 2017, and if they are not getting tax credits or UC and they have not in the past six months, this measure will apply to them. Entitlement will remain at the level of two children for those households, even though they quite clearly have not made the choice to have more children in the knowledge of the policy.
I suppose that it is just about possible that there will be those who manage to conceive and deliver a child between the passing of the Bill and April 2017, though they would have to get a move on, but most of the children affected by this will be living, breathing, existing children, conceived and born when this policy was just a glint in the eye of a cost-cutting Chancellor.
I know that various attempts have been made to get the Government to explain their rationale for this. I understand that it was indicated to Peers during a briefing session that the reason was that, if someone had not needed to claim benefit or tax credits during the past six months, they clearly have enough money to protect themselves against unforeseen events, so should not have access to the full support of the welfare state. I may be mistaken, but if I am the Minister can correct me. If that is right, however, surely that is precisely what the welfare state is for—to protect all of us against unforeseen circumstances.
Let us suppose that a couple have two primary-school children, and then they have two year-old twins. One day the husband dies or disappears or is paralysed in an accident and cannot work, and they turn to the welfare state. Those twins will be invisible for the purposes of universal credit, so you can see that the dream scheme that Ministers have boasted would swing seamlessly into action as soon as someone’s circumstances changed will not help that family feed, clothe and house the twins.
The family will potentially lose £5,560 a year every year until the twins are adults. We are talking about the best part of £90,000. How should the family have provided for that when they did not know they had to? What should they have done? Saved that much when they are raising toddlers? Maybe they should have bought a PPI policy, the cause of the biggest mis-selling scandal in modern financial history—and I should know, since I am the senior independent director of the Financial Ombudsman Service. But even if that were a good idea, why would they do it? They thought the welfare state was there to help them at such times. That was what they had been led to believe when they had those children.
As I indicated in the previous debate, I think that this whole measure is a terrible idea. But perhaps I can pass on some advice to the Minister from the greatest Cabinet Secretary of modern times, the legendary Sir Humphrey Appleby. Sir Humphrey once said to his Minister: “If you’re going to do this damn silly thing, don’t do it in this damn silly way”. If the Minister is going to reduce support for larger families on the grounds that families on universal credit will have to make the same choices as those who are not, he should at least not apply it to people who have already made their choices because their children are already here. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend, who made a very powerful case. The joint briefing from the churches and faith groups that was circulated to all Peers made a very good point. It said:
“A policy designed to incentivise families to make responsible choices, becomes an unavoidable financial penalty for anyone confronted by relatively common life events”.
This amendment in particular puts that quotation into relief. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner has raised similar concerns.
I made the point at Second Reading that this provision sits oddly with the Government’s own emphasis in this and earlier legislation on the importance of a dynamic perspective on family behaviour. Indeed, in a letter of 13 October to the EHRC about impact assessments for the current Bill, the Secretary of State made as his main point the need,
“to take fully into account the dynamic nature of people’s lives”.
So why are the Government refusing to do so now, especially, as my noble friend said, in relation to existing third or subsequent children where there is a new universal credit claim? What is the justification?
As my noble friend said, when this was explained to us I think the way it was put was that there would be an unfair advantage to richer families if they were able to claim universal credit for third and subsequent children. Perhaps these families were not claiming tax credits or universal credit before, but they could still be on a low income and simply not have claimed. We know that take-up is far from perfect. I know that the Government expect take-up to be higher for universal credit, but that remains to be seen. I have been around this game for quite a long time with the expectation that take-up would be improved by various benefits and so forth. However, it remains stubbornly at less than 100% for means-tested benefits. Even if they were better off—my noble friend made a powerful point here—financial circumstances can change very quickly in the event of life events or shocks. So where is the fairness in refusing support to, say, an early teenage child who is the third in the family and who was born many years ago?
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on being able to cost one of tonight’s amendments. I find his defence genuinely impossible to understand. I think he actually said that there is no stronger justification for exempting existing children than children who have yet to be born. I simply cannot understand how he can say that with a straight face because he has spent much of this evening telling us that this was all about choice and that parents who are on tax credits should make the same choices before having additional children as parents who are not. These are parents who already have children. These children already exist. They are not making a choice at all. The only reason they are making a claim for tax credits, or universal credit in this case, is because something has happened which means they have then had to fall back on the support of the welfare state. I do not understand how that is a justification and I invite him to think about it and maybe come back before I sit down and give me a choice.
The Government need to think very carefully. They keep giving justifications about choice until they do not hold, in which case they suddenly go, “Oh, look over there. Look at fairness”. This is either about choice or it is not. It cannot be about choice and when that breaks down a different defence is pulled out. It surely has to be one or the other. If it is about choice, how can it apply to people who have not made a choice? If it is not about choice, will the Minister please stop telling us that it is. Can I tempt the Minister to explain to me again why there is not a stronger justification for existing children than new claimants because I think I may have misheard? Is that what he meant?
Baroness Sherlock
At least my hearing is better than my understanding. I find that a profoundly disappointing response, even by the standards of tonight. But given that we are in Committee, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, in speaking in support of this amendment, I will pick up what the right reverend Prelate said about the inadequacy of the impact assessment. This point was also made by the Equality and Human Rights Commission from the perspective of equality and human rights. It argued that it does not “enable proper scrutiny” or meet the requirements of the public sector equality duty; nor is there an assessment of the “aggregate effect” of the changes on people.
In fact, the impact assessment is inadequate from any perspective. In particular, there is no assessment of the impact on child poverty, despite the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommending that the Government should assess the impact on child poverty of any new law, as child poverty is a human rights issue—I declare an interest as I was a member of the committee at that point. I asked a Written Question about the impact, only to be told to look at the impact assessment—the implication being that I had not read it, which I found rather insulting.
Not only is there no assessment of the impact on child poverty, but this is the quality of distribution analysis:
“The policy has the impact of redistributing income from Universal Credit/tax credit recipients to the Exchequer (i.e. society as a whole)”.
Actually it is not society as a whole, because when I last thought about it, universal and tax credit recipients were themselves members of society. The assessment continues:
“The policy therefore has distributional impacts”.
That is the distribution analysis—and the impact assessment on life chances is similarly risible.
I remind the Minister of what it says in the Companion—that Ministers should be as open as possible in answering questions, because this is inherent in ministerial accountability to Parliament. I therefore ask him again now: what is the department’s assessment of the impact of these clauses on the number of children living in poverty? I simply do not accept that it is not possible to make an assessment. I accept that there might have to be a fairly wide margin of error—we cannot just say that it will be exactly x thousand—but I do not accept that there is no assessment. It is not possible.
The right reverend Prelate also mentioned the family test. That is drawn up by the Department for Work and Pensions itself. It is supposed to be equivalent to the public sector equality duty. According to the DWP, its application should be documented and the relevant department should consider publishing it. Given that this clearly has a family impact, why did the department decide not to publish the family test? As part of its equality statement for reforming asylum support, the Home Office set out very clearly each of the questions that the family test is supposed to answer and gave its answer. I might not agree with those answers, but that was a model of how a department should deal with it.
Will the Minister undertake to provide noble Lords with the documentation of the application of the family test before Report? There must be documentation, according to the DWP’s own guidance. Given that the measure has a clear family focus, can he tell us what additional analysis was undertaken involving stakeholders, as is recommended in the DWP’s own guidance on the test? Finally, will the Minister tell us which other countries restrict payment of benefits for children to smaller families in this way? I am reliably informed that there is no other country, but I accept that I may be wrong. When I last looked at this, I found that countries that cared about family policy and child poverty tended to pay more to larger families, rather than less, but I would welcome elucidation on that.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 21 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I fully support the requirement in the amendment to report on the impact on family relationships and functioning, for the reasons that have been articulated in the debates we have been having this evening. Until now we have not discussed in any detail the impact on faith communities, so I am going to concentrate on that.
As we have heard, larger families are strongly prevalent within some faith traditions and cultures, which leads to legitimate concerns about the differential ways this policy will be felt throughout society. There is an issue of equality for children born into families of faith. This measure will disproportionately affect families where, perhaps because of the parents’ faith, there is a devout desire to avoid contraception and abortion. As we have heard and discussed this evening, family planning is not infallible and many people of faith and other like-minded people are concerned that unexpected pregnancies could lead to a rise in the number of abortions. This point was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth earlier.
As my noble friend Lady Lister pointed out, the most damning evidence about the differential impact of this measure on equality grounds comes from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I declare an interest, in that I am a former commissioner of EHRC. It says:
“The proposed changes may have a disproportionate negative impact on people from particular ethnic or religious groups … The impact assessments and human rights memorandum which accompany the Bill do not assess the effect of the Bill on equality and human rights in sufficient detail to enable proper scrutiny of the legislation”.
It is not kidding.
Disgracefully, the Government have resisted all pressures to conduct cumulative impact assessments of these measures, giving impact assessments only for individual measures. Even within that, however, I was staggered to find that there had been no attempt to conduct an equality impact assessment on the two-child policy. The short section in the IA on the impact on protected groups mentions gender and disability in passing, acknowledges that ethnic minority households may be more likely to be impacted, though offers no detail, but makes no reference at all to the protected characteristic of religion and belief. Can the Minister explain why there is no such reference, when even a cursory glance at the data suggests the possibility for significantly differential impacts on the grounds of some protected characteristics, particularly religion and belief?
Lord Freud
As I said, the documentation that we have published is the documentation that we need to publish to comply with our public sector equality duties. We have done that, even though the noble Baroness may feel that it is inadequate.
Baroness Sherlock
I do not presume to know any more than others about this subject—no one knows more than my noble friend Lady Lister. But on a number of occasions this evening, Peers from different Benches have asked the Minister very specific questions and he has simply got up and said, “What we have published, we have published”. The question he was asked just now was: “The Government must have conducted this test, because they are required to do it, so why won’t they publish it?”. “We have published what we have published” is not an answer. I am getting increasingly anxious about the quality of the responses this evening.
Take the example of dynamic benefits. Could the Minister explain that to me again? If he does not think that static analysis is good then he needs to find another way of analysing it. He simply cannot come to this House and say, “I cannot tell you the impacts of this because it is all dynamic”, because otherwise we will never be able to assess anything that the Government are going to do before they do it. That cannot be reasonable, surely.
Lord Freud
This amendment is asking us to do an analysis over the next six months. In practice, that is what will be happening on a dynamic basis, because we have introduced as part of universal credit a test-and-learn approach in which we are able to assess what happens to families and learn the lessons in order to roll out universal credit. That is a pretty public process and we publish what we learn. So, in practice, we have a process that incorporates the dynamic effect of these changes in its overall impact, rather than taking individual bits and pieces of the policy. That is the best answer that I can give to the question. On that basis, I urge the right reverend Prelate to withdraw this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Amendment 24. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I understood that it had been agreed between the usual channels that this was the point at which we would finish. If that has changed then perhaps somebody might have told the Chief Whip before he left.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
I do apologise, but I came into the Chamber expecting that we would be going on to the next group. We have fallen short of the target today by three groups. It is up to noble Lords to decide how they deal with this Bill but I do advise that, if we adjourn the Committee at this stage, it will put us under pressure on successive days. The matter is in the hands of the Committee. If the Opposition do not wish to continue, I will note that point and adjourn the Committee.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I think that that is deeply unfair. I am well aware of the discussions that were held in the usual channels. I am well aware that representations were made that today was likely to be tight. Things always move slowly on the first day and there were a very large number of amendments with a very large number of Peers attached to them. I think we fully expected to be at this point. I thought that we might make the next group, but since we have not, I presumed that we would go on to the next day. I am sorry to say it, but I am disappointed. I think we should stick to the agreement that has been made.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
In that case, I suggest that the Committee adjourn.
Disabled People: Independent Living
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, the Government believe that local authorities are best placed to decide what intervention and support disabled people require. I should add that all Independent Living Fund users had one-to-one visits, and reports were sent to local authorities before the scheme was closed.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I can see that the Minister has a brief that requires her to tell us how committed the Government are, but I wonder whether she can listen to some of the stories she has heard today. From the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell, Lady Hollins and Lady Brinton, and from the two reports that have been mentioned, it is quite clear that there is very serious disquiet that people who used to get help from the ILF are not now getting it. Therefore, I ask her again: what plans do the Government have specifically to ensure that disabled people are able to get the care that they used to get and can expect to get in the future?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, as I have said, we are monitoring the impact of the Independent Living Fund: 94% of users were already receiving local authority support. Local authorities have an obligation under the Care Act to meet the minimum standards required for all those who need care and support, including taking account of their requirement to live independently. I assure the House that the Government are committed to supporting those who need care and support. As I said, the spending will be higher each year between now and 2020 than it was in 2010. This will rely on local authorities carrying out their duties, which we will monitor.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that introduction to the Bill and I look forward to the debate, especially to the four maiden speakers.
In his speech to the last Conservative Party conference, the Prime Minister talked of the need to tackle social problems, including entrenched poverty, in our country. Why? He said this:
“So when the new mum looks at her new-born baby—the most precious thing she’s ever seen—and she vows to provide for it, she knows she actually can”.
This Bill makes a mockery of that pledge. It is a sustained assault on low-income families. It will increase poverty, penalise working households and push more families out of their homes and into temporary accommodation, homelessness or on to housing benefit, and the evidence base for it is poor. So often, I am sorry to say, this Government’s cuts to social security end up being counterproductive, adding more to the benefit bill by undermining work incentives or raising spending elsewhere.
A good example is the proposal to cut social sector rents by 1% a year. This sounds great, but, as the IFS points out, it does little for the 93% of tenants who will lose housing benefit pound-for-pound as their rents falls. As the IFS points out:
“The policy largely represents a transfer from social landlords … to the exchequer, rather than to social tenants”.
As the OBR has pointed out, it will mean fewer social sector properties being built. Social landlords risk having their credit ratings downgraded, planned investments are being cancelled and if specified or all supported housing becomes unviable, costs are simply transferred to the NHS and local government.
As the Minister mentioned, the Bill abolishes the scheme that gives help to some people on benefits to pay the interest on their mortgages so that they do not lose their homes and end up on housing benefit. In future, they will be offered a nine-month wait then the option of a loan secured by a charge on the property. Almost half of recipients are of pensionable age, despite the Government’s pledge to protect pensioner benefits. We will seek, as the Bill goes through, to retain support for low-income pensioners, who may never be able to pay off a loan.
The Bill also takes £30 a week, one-third of their employment and support allowance, from the 500,000 sick and disabled people in the work-related activity group. The impact assessment reassures us that if they worked for just five hours a week at the new higher minimum wage rate, they could recoup the money, but these are people an independent assessor has decided are unfit for work. They include people with learning difficulties, mental health issues, Parkinson’s disease or MS. Only 5% of that group will get back to work within a year. We can see no justification for making people poorer to incentivise them back to work they have been deemed unfit to do. How can the Minister justify this, especially in the light of the manifesto commitment not to cut disability benefits?
The other measures in the Bill all hit low-income families with children. Child poverty has already risen by 400,000 since 2010 and is predicted to rise by another 300,000 by 2020. Two-thirds of poor children will have a parent in work. Those figures could explain why the Bill decides to remove the requirement to measure child poverty or to do anything to reduce it. It abandons the internationally recognised benchmark for poverty because the Government have decided poverty is no longer about money. The Bill expunges the word “poverty” from the legislation. We all accept that deprivation is multifaceted. By all means measure other things as well, but the idea that poverty is not really about money is risible. I fear that what is really happening is that the Government are trying to hide the trail of devastation their reforms are leaving in their wake.
Successive government welfare reforms are hitting the same groups of people, yet Ministers consistently refuse to do a cumulative impact assessment, and now they will not even count child poverty. This will not do. The first rule of power surely means that if you will the ends, you must will the means and you must know and take responsibility for the consequences of your decisions. I hope this House will see fit to challenge that proposal as the Bill goes through.
Then there is the benefit cap. When the Government introduced it, their whole argument was that it was set at the level of average earnings. We had a long debate in this House on whether the test was fair. I remember marching into the Lobby behind the much-missed Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, who proposed an amendment to remove child benefit from the cap on the grounds that people would get child benefit as well. We voted for it. Now Ministers have ditched the entire standard and simply plucked figures out of the air. They have simply decided that they are going to cut the cap by £3,000 for families in London and by £6,000 for families elsewhere. In future, Ministers can change the cap at whim by regulation without reference to any external benchmark and with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. The evidence is nowhere near as strong as even the impact assessment has suggested. Housing providers are worried that rent arrears will rise, as will evictions and homelessness. We have heard that £800 million has already been set aside for discretionary housing provision to deal with it. In Committee, we will want to see a great deal more evidence about the cost-benefit analysis of this policy, as well as about the impact on families.
The Minister mentioned that DWP is changing conditionality in universal credit. At the moment, parents are expected to work when their youngest child turns five. The Bill will mean that parents on universal credit will be expected to work when their youngest turns three. They will have to do work-related activity when their youngest is two and when the youngest reaches one, they will be out doing work preparation interviews. If the Government are going to push mothers of very young children and babies into work preparation activity, they need to be a lot more convincing about the availability and affordability of suitable childcare than they have been in this House in recent months when the Childcare Bill was going through.
Then there is the benefit freeze. Previously, the retail prices index was used to uprate benefits. Then the Government came along and decided that CPI was the measure—the only thing that would do—so they changed it to CPI. Then in 2013, they decided it would be reduced to just 1%, as a temporary measure, rather than CPI. Now it will be 0%, whatever happens to inflation during this Parliament. If inflation carries on flatlining, the Government may not get the savings they have been hoping for. There is a real process issue here. This is undermining the long-standing convention by which Ministers are meant to make an assessment annually of what poor households need to live on, come to the House and propose an alternative, and take responsibility for what should happen to benefits. This is moving away from that, which is deeply regrettable.
Finally, there is the proposal the Minister outlined to change universal credit and tax credits to abolish the family premium for all families with children and to limit the amount paid per child to the first two children in a household. This means that 3.7 million households will lose money. The two-child limit will cut payments by up to £2,780 per child per year, affecting 640,000 families by 2021 and 150,000 families with disabled children.
The Government repeatedly stress that the aim of their welfare reforms is to get people into work but child tax credit and universal credit are paid to working families as well as those who are out of work. If the aim is not to get families into work, what is it? The impact assessment said that,
“people may respond to the incentives that this policy provides and may have fewer children”.
I should like to ask the Minister some questions. First, is the objective that people in low-paid work should have fewer children, or is it just to give them less money? What does the Minister expect to happen in the 16% of pregnancies in the UK that are unplanned? What assessment has he made of the impact on adoption and kinship care, especially of sibling groups? Will there not be a disincentive to remarry if a stepfamily would then have more than two children in the household? The equality impact assessment is silent on religion and belief; can the Minister tell the House what work his department has done in assessing whether this policy will be likely to affect people of some religions more than those of others or of none. We are also told in the impact assessment that the Government will exempt women who have a third child as a result of rape. I wonder if the Minister has really thought through the implications of a woman having to prove to the Department for Work and Pensions that her pregnancy was the result of rape.
Even if the Minister could answer all those questions robustly, this policy spectacularly fails the Government’s own family test. There are reasons the state has traditionally helped with the cost of raising children. First, it is to avoid British children growing up in poverty, since child poverty is significantly higher in larger families. The real losers of this policy will be children born into larger families, especially as younger siblings, through no choice of their own. Secondly, it is because children are good for society. Maybe if I use the language of economics the Minister will work with me on this. In economic terms, children are a public as well as a private good. Parents bear the bulk of the costs of raising their children but we all contribute through our taxes because we want to see the next generation thrive and, being practical, as our population ages, we need to ensure that there are enough people around of working age to pay for our pensions, our health service and our social care. Most of all, it is because children are not a luxury. We give child tax credit to families to ensure they can afford to raise their children healthily.
Let us be clear: this is not about the small number of people with lots of children who are not in work. They would be caught by the benefit cap anyway. Shelter pointed out that the benefit cap would kick in for a couple with two children renting a house not in Mayfair but in Leeds or Plymouth. It is not about them. It is about a family with three children who, despite working very hard, are struggling to make ends meet. It is about the mum I met who never thought she would need state help until her husband disappeared and left her with three children. It is about all those people who had children confident they could provide for them, until something happened—perhaps a parent died or became sick or disabled and could not work; perhaps they had their hours cut or got made redundant. These are all things our welfare state is meant to protect us against. When the Minister says it affects only people making new claims, anybody making a fresh claim for universal credit next year will get no help for their third child already in existence.
When Mr Cameron spoke about that mum looking down at her new baby and knowing she could provide for it, the reason she knows that is that she lives in a country that offers the safety net of the welfare state alongside the National Health Service and state education. Our welfare state was never about workers helping workless or rich helping poor. It is about pooling risk across our life cycles and across our population. There are times, such as when children are young, when it is hard to make ends meet even if you are working. The best laid plans can go also astray. Anyone can get cancer, lose their job, lose their spouse or have a disabled child. We will all get old—we hope—and draw a pension. When things go well we pay in, and when things go badly we take out. The Government’s reforms undermine that. They change the way our welfare state works, by undermining work incentives, breaking the link between need and support and refusing to protect the next generation from growing up in poverty. If the Bill goes through unchanged, when that mum described by the Prime Minister looks down at her newborn baby, especially if it is her third child, she can no longer know that she can provide for it because that safety net will have a child-sized hole in it.
Employment
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, we understand that the position in Redcar is terribly distressing for all the families involved, and the Government are already addressing this issue. There are measures already in place to help the workers affected to retrain. The Government are committed to full employment, and there are record numbers of people in work. We have had tremendous success in helping people back into work and we will continue to do that for Redcar and around the country
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister did not mention that over a third of the new jobs created between 2010 and 2014 were people becoming self-employed, and that those jobs tend to be less secure and lower paid. Will the Minister therefore confirm that self-employed people will not benefit from what the Government call the new living wage—the higher minimum rate for the over-25s—and yet will still lose through the changes to tax credits? What are the Government doing to compensate them?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, self-employment is a very important route into work for many people, particularly many women, and we have set up, under Julie Dean, an independent review of any barriers to self-employment that may exist. We will also continue to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, in supporting start-ups for disadvantaged communities.
Housing: Underoccupancy Charge
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Eaton
Could my noble friend the Minister say what Her Majesty’s Government have done to support local authorities in mitigating the effects of this policy?
Families: Work Incentives
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress is being made on work incentives for families with children.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
Universal credit improves incentives to enter into and progress in work. Early results show that current UC claimants do more to look for work, enter work quicker and earn more than current JSA claimants. Childcare costs are a key issue for working families, which is why we are increasing support and provision.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. I appear to be inadvertently topical, for which I apologise.
As well as the tax credit cuts of recent celebrity, the Government have announced that they are reducing the work allowances in universal credit. The Work and Pensions Select Committee in the Commons heard yesterday that when the minimum wage is fully rolled out in 2020 a single parent, who is now able to work 22 hours a week before losing universal credit, because of these changes will be able to work only 10 hours a week before losing universal credit.
Increasingly, commentators are worried that the Government’s vision that universal credit would make work pay is getting eroded by a series of changes, so I shall ask the Minister’s for reassurance on two points. First, can he assure the House that when universal credit comes in fully the gains to work will be as strong as the Government promised us when the Welfare Reform Bill went through? Secondly, would he consider running a briefing session—perhaps after the CSR—to unpick some of the detail about how work incentives work in practice with all the changes that are going on? I am aware of the complexity with which many noble Lords have wrestled in recent debates, and that might be a useful way forward.
Lord Freud
Universal credit is a wide-ranging transformation of the welfare system, so it is difficult to pick isolated elements. It is now rolling out rapidly. At the same time, we are building a support network incorporating, among other things, universal support delivered locally. One of the key factors is that it delivers a gross value to this society of £7 billion every year. One reason it does that is that it directs its support far more efficiently at the people who need it most. The other thing it does is to make sure that it is always worth working and it is always worth working more. Finally, I try to keep the House up to date with universal credit developments because it is a really important transformation. I commit again to do that. I would like to find a way to do that in the Chamber, as I did a couple of months ago.
Benefits: Sanctions
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(8 years, 10 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 review the operation of sanctions on benefits.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
We have made a number of improvements to the sanctions systems and are implementing further changes following recommendations made by the Oakley review. We are now focusing on embedding those changes and improvements. We will keep the operation of the sanctions system under review to ensure that it continues to function effectively and fairly.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I wonder if the Minister has read the leaflet that his department published for disabled people, which featured Zac and Sarah. Sarah had been sanctioned for failing to produce a CV, but it ended happily. Sarah said:
“My benefit is back to normal now and I’m really pleased with how my CV looks. It’s going to help me when I’m ready to go back to work”.
An FOI request established that Sarah does not exist. The picture was a model and DWP invented the quotes. Real people’s experience of sanctions is very different. Food banks repeatedly see desperate people sanctioned for trivial or, frankly, mystifying reasons, and the scale of sanctions is now such that a fifth—no, almost a quarter—of all JSA claimants were sanctioned in the last five years. Will the Minister please now do what the DWP Select Committee asked: respond to its report and conduct a major review of sanctions before the whole system is discredited?
Lord Freud
Let me clarify this. The sanctions level runs at around 5% on a monthly basis. That level is the running rate of sanctions and other figures are simply wrong. On the first point that the noble Baroness made, we do use illustrative examples where they are real, and we make it clear where they are not. In this case, it was wrong—and we have said it was wrong—to have made illustrative examples look as if they were real.
Universal Credit (Waiting Days) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for moving his Motion and for explaining to the House the effects of this measure. I will not detain the House by repeating that explanation. I also understand his desire to mitigate some of the effects of these provisions by seeking to exclude the housing element of universal credit from the regulations, but I think that there is a better way to approach this so I have taken a different direction in my Motion and I will explain why I think the House should agree. I am also being ever-optimistic, hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, will find this a more persuasive case and that by the end he will rise up and cheer in agreement and obviate the need for a vote at all. I shall do my best.
The starting point for Labour is that we support universal credit. We think it is a good idea. Bringing together separate working-age benefits can potentially make the system simpler and should make it easier to work out whether and by how much you would be better off in work. But because we support it, we want it to work, and we understand that to work it needs to get off to the best possible start. Sadly, that has not happened.
When the Welfare Reform Act was going through Parliament, noble Lords from across the House, from all Benches, pointed out to the Government at different stages some of the risks inherent in the approach they were taking and made various suggestions for how the Bill could be improved. Sadly—as we all think—had these been listened to, we might not be in the position we are in now; none the less, things are not looking brilliant. Unfortunately, once the legislation was in, things did not improve. Delivery has been disastrous from the outset, starting with an implementation plan which the Opposition pointed out to Ministers right at the beginning was hopelessly overoptimistic.
The July 2010 Green Paper on universal credit even included the claim that the IT changes necessary to deliver it,
“would not constitute a major IT project”.
In retrospect, the naivety of Ministers in signing off the plan is extraordinary. Since 2011, £130 million of taxpayers’ money has been written off because of failed universal credit IT. The Government still have not published any of the details of how they are going to spend this £12.8 billion budget, having repeatedly claimed that universal credit was on time and on budget when patently it was neither.
What of the impact on claimants? In November 2011, Ministers announced that 1 million people would be claiming universal credit by April 2014 and the project would be fully rolled out to 7 million people within six years, by 2017. But now there are only 65,380 people claiming universal credit and full rollout is still some way off. It is in this context that these regulations have been laid.
The noble Lord, Lord German, cited the damning report from the Government’s Social Security Advisory Committee, as well as the concerns expressed by our own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As he explained, the provisions will extend the waiting time to seven days. They are already in place for jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance but those are normally paid fortnightly and, as the noble Lord, Lord German, explained, the universal credit system is paid monthly and people could find themselves waiting six weeks for money, and at that point getting an amount of money equivalent to only a month minus seven days’ allowance.
When the Social Security Advisory Committee looked at the regulations and recommended, unusually, that they should not be made, the Government’s only response was that they did not accept the SSAC’s recommendation because the risks were outweighed by the benefits that could accrue from reinvesting the savings in measures to help claimants get into work. When the scrutiny committee pressed them on this and said in that case could they explain how they were going to spend this money, all the Government would say was that during 2015-16 they would commit only to spend the money in this way but they would not give any plans for subsequent years or any detail about how the money might be spent. Since that appeared to be the Government’s only defence to the SSAC’s report, it is, frankly, unreasonable for them not to have offered more information when asked to do so by the scrutiny committee.
Can the Minister give the House the kind of detailed breakdown of costs and savings that he was specifically asked for by the scrutiny committee—repeatedly—and which he simply failed to give? The change is described as a “save to spend” measure, which will save £150 million a year once universal credit has been rolled out. The savings will fund measures to get people off benefit and into work. Those savings are predicated on the full rollout to 7 million people. We have 65,000 people so £150 million does not seem a reasonable assumption for the savings at the moment. Will the Minister please tell us? If the figure is proportionate, the back of my envelope suggests that it would cost £1.4 million. I presume it is not proportionate but I invite the Minister therefore to give us an up-to-date estimate of savings in this and the next financial year. The scrutiny committee asked for this but he simply failed to do it.
The only other bit of financial information I could glean was in the Budget costings, which said that the Government would have to spend an extra £5 million if the start of these regulations was delayed by a month. Is that a good way to extrapolate the cost and, if so, will the Minister explain it to us? As the noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out, the Social Security Advisory Committee said that the DWP should give claimants more information about how to get an advance. The Government said they would look at that in the digital process, where nothing is mentioned, so will the Minister tell us what is going on?
Universal Credit (Waiting Days) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That this House calls on Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Social Security Advisory Committee’s Report of June 2015, to delay the enactment of the Universal Credit (Waiting Days) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 until Universal Credit is fully rolled out (SI 2015/1362).
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, in the absence of suitable reassurances from the Minister, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Sherlock
Before we move on to the next business, and in the light of that result, will the Minister make a statement on how the Government propose to handle this issue?
Child Poverty
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
The number of children in workless households has been coming down rapidly. It has come down by 390,000 and is now at a record low. We are looking to encourage more families back into the workplace through the financial incentives around universal credit, the new national living wage—clearly, a very direct incentive—and free childcare, and we are working to boost the number of apprenticeships from 2 million under the last Government to 3 million under this one.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the devil for today clearly is in the detail. It is working parents who depend most on tax credits to make work pay and lift their children out of poverty but, while a single parent with two children who is working 16 hours a week will gain £400 from the new national minimum wage, which is very welcome, sadly she will lose more than twice as much in cuts to tax credits. How can this be right? How can the Minister tell the House that working families are better off when it is those very elements of tax credits and universal credit which make work pay that have been cut today? How can that be the security for families of which the Chancellor boasts?