Product Safety: Freezers and Refrigerators

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am of course aware of the Which? report. It made it quite clear that most or all of the fridge freezers it referred to did meet existing standards. The Which? report was looking at enhanced standards. The Government will certainly look at that and are working with Which? and other parties. This is why I stressed in my opening Answer that seeing whether even more stringent standards can be set has to be done internationally. But those products certainly meet existing standards—which, as I said in my original Answer, are among the safest in the world.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, this worries me. I declare an interest in that a close friend of mine escaped with her life when she woke up in the night to find that her fridge was on fire. Although the brilliant London Fire Brigade was there within minutes, her entire flat was gutted. The firefighters who got her out and put her safely in the back of the ambulance guessed what make her fridge was and said, “Tell your friends never to buy one of those”. The firefighters know this; that is why the London Fire Brigade has been campaigning for the last five years for a ban on those kinds of fridges. If they know that, do the Government not know that, and will they not protect us?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, all fires are potentially disastrous and it is right that the noble Baroness should highlight that point. The number of fires that have been caused by fridge freezers is very small indeed—something like 2% of all domestic fires—and the number is declining. We are aware of the concerns, which she rightly highlights, about products with plastic rather than metal backing. That is why we are looking at strengthening standards in that area. As I made clear, I think that our standards are already very high, and all the fridges meet those standards. The Which? report, rightly highlighted by the noble Baroness and her noble friend, said that we should possibly look at strengthening those standards. That is what we are doing.

Parental Leave: Statutory Pay

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am sure that staff in all the embassies in London will take note of what my noble friend has said. This is good legislation. We want it to succeed and to have its effect, but we also want to evaluate how it works and to see how it can be improved. That is what we will do later this year, and I am sure that our colleagues in the European Union will take note of any changes that we make.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister does want it to succeed. What would success look like?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I think that success would look like fathers and mothers being able to take the appropriate leave with the appropriate support so that they could manage those early weeks and months with a newborn child and properly adapt their lives. That is what we are trying to do with the original proposals for shared parental pay and leave, and that is why we want to improve them.

Bereavement Benefits

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Thursday 6th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am aware of the letter that my noble friend refers to. My right honourable friend will answer it in due course. I can give an assurance that we have consulted on these matters—my noble friend will be aware of this because she was a part of it—legislated on them and consulted on them again. We made changes to the regulations before we introduced them and we have made a commitment in the impact assessment that there will be a further review. Nevertheless, I will convey my noble friend’s concerns to my right honourable friend, and I am sure that, his door always being open, he will be more than happy to see her.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I also signed the letter and was pleased to do so. There is genuine feeling around the House that the Government have made a mistake on this. What will happen in practice is that a six year-old who lost her father last year will be supported until she leaves school; if her father dies next year, that support will stop after 18 months. That cannot be right. I know that I gave the Minister a hard time a few weeks ago when the regulations were in Grand Committee, but I do not blame him; I know that he did not make the decision. I think that we are now at the point where the whole House recognises that the Government have made a mistake. These cuts were simply part of an attempt to cut £12 billion off social security. The House does not believe that the Government should be taking money away from bereaved children. Will he please tell his Secretary of State that?

[Lord Henley]

My right honourable friend will obviously listen to what the noble Baroness has had to say, but I reject her allegation that these are cuts. There will be no savings to the taxpayer in the first two years; thereafter, as was made clear in the impact assessment, there will be some savings. The important point to get over is that we have increased the initial payment, which was frozen by the previous Government in 2001 and remained frozen for many years, from £2,000 to £2,500. We then make payments for 18 months to those with children. Obviously, no element of money will resolve the problems that individuals who have lost one or other parent will have. This is designed to help with the immediate costs of that bereavement. That is why we think that, by increasing the initial payment, we have made a very real change and provided some support for those with children.

Local Authorities: Relationship Support Services

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Wednesday 5th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that question and I can give her an assurance that we will be evaluating phase one of the programme, which has been completed, and then phase two, about which I have just given details. We aim to publish an evaluation of phase one later in the summer, whenever that might be, and in due course we will consider an evaluation of phase two.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I should like to return to the answer given by the Minister to my noble friend Lady Lister. Perhaps he should go back to his own paper entitled Improving Lives: Helping Workless Families, which came out yesterday. Paragraph 33 cites evidence that problem debt and financial burdens can put pressure on relationships. It attributes those issues to persistent low income and income shocks. Will he think again not only about the damage that has been done by cutting £12 billion off social security for those out of work? Also, given that this is aimed at workless families, if the DWP wants to get them back into work, why is the department persisting in cutting in-work benefits, the very things that make work pay? Before the Minister tells us more about the living wage, perhaps I may remind him of what he knows already. Most of the living wage for the poorest people goes straight back to the Treasury in taxes and lower benefits. Will the department look again at its strategy and make work pay?

[Lord Henley]

There is no need for the noble Baroness to try to answer my question because I will answer it in my own way.

Disabled People: Independent Living

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I understand the problems to which the right reverend Prelate refers. The department is looking at these matters. My honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work is well aware of them. As the right reverend Prelate will know, schemes are available for one-off cash payments to help those who are losing their cars. We shall certainly look at speeding up the whole appeals process to make sure that the problems to which the right reverend Prelate referred do not get any worse.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, to pursue this a little further, I appreciate that the Minister may be thinking about this but the point made by the right reverend Prelate is that people cannot wait. Between October and December last year, 800 people a week were having to hand back their Motability cars because they did not have the money to pay for them any more as a result of PIP reassessment. The Motability website says clearly that you get only six weeks from that decision to hand back your car. Frankly, the DWP is a long way off speeding up assessment to the point where appeals are concluded within six weeks. Will the Minister please look at this a little more urgently?

Child Support: Unpaid Maintenance

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as I said, this goes back a long way. It covers Conservative Governments, Labour Governments and the coalition Government. We have all tried to sort this out. I am afraid that a lot of this money is lost for ever. We are looking at a new arrears scheme and will consult on that to try to get what we can, but I am sure the House would agree that the first priority should be to get money that can still benefit the children of today rather than trying to get the money that was owed yesterday, or the money that is owed to the department. The bulk of the money is very historic.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am happy to take the Minister at his word. Let us look at today, but in doing so I declare an historic interest as a member of the board of CMEC before I came into the House. The Government are closing the CSA and if you have an active case on the CSA, instead of transferring it to the new system, it is shut down and you are invited to apply to the new system. The Government estimated that two-thirds of parents would apply to the new system. The NAO has found that only one in five is doing so. The Government have said that most of the rest would make private, family-based arrangements. More than half of families have no arrangement at all in place. This matters because it is not just important for tackling child poverty: a decent child support system sends out a message to the world at large that you might divorce your spouse or separate from your partner but you do not stop being responsible for your kids. Will the Government sort this out?

GovCoin

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Monday 27th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I wondered whether the noble Baroness would want to get in to highlight the fact that she produced the report that came out on Saturday. I think the report was embargoed until midnight on Friday and I have not yet had the opportunity to read it. I glanced at it but assure the noble Baroness that the Government will give it due consideration.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am tempted to invite the Minister to explain how bitcoin and blockchain technology work, but I will take pity on him. For people like me, it is much simpler. I understand that volunteers were given an app through which, essentially, electronic, digital money was paid to them and they could spend it only in certain ways which were tracked and recovered. Obviously, that raises significant issues about privacy and data. My understanding is that the Government’s own report on what is called distributed ledger technology said that it clearly needs a regulatory, ethical and data framework. In the absence of that, when the DWP started this, how did its Ministers assure themselves that benefit claimants were genuinely giving free, informed consent to be able to use this? If it is now to be a much larger-scale project, what kind of parliamentary oversight and scrutiny will there be?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as I said, we have not yet decided to move on to a fuller and larger trial, but if we did, no doubt that would have the appropriate checks and balances and be examined by the noble Baroness and others in due course. This is a simple, small-scale trial involving some 20 or 30 people. I am assured that they all gave full and proper consent to it, and that some of them found it very useful indeed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for not asking me to explain the more technical matters, which are probably beyond her—and me. As she knows, it is a very simple app designed in the form of jam jars into which one can put one’s money and then take it out for specific tasks. As I said earlier—and the assurance I gave on this would apply to any further trials—the department and the Government will have no access to that information; that is, what has come out of the jam jars and gone into housing or whatever.

Universal Credit

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Thursday 9th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on claimants of the time taken between applying for Universal Credit and receiving payments.

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

My Lords, the universal credit assessment period and payment structure is a fundamental part of its design, reducing welfare dependency by mirroring the world of work. Safeguards are in place to help the minority of claimants who are in genuine need to transition to universal credit. This includes advances and budgeting support. We continue to work closely with landlords, local authorities and other organisations to ensure claimants are supported.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, if only it were that simple. In 2013 the Government introduced a rule that when you first claim benefit you are not entitled to any money for the first seven days. The problem is that universal credit is paid monthly in arrears so it means you get no money at all for six weeks. That does not sound very long, but the typical family in social housing has only £200 in savings and some people are in debt. Social landlords are now saying that tenants are getting into big arrears and people are turning to payday lenders and even loan sharks. Even the noble Lord, Lord Freud, recently told the Work and Pensions Select Committee that the seven-day waiting period should be dropped. Please can the Minister not be complacent about this. Will he go back to his department, look again at the evidence and please take action before anyone else is pushed into debt?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I repeat what I said in my original Answer. It is a fundamental part of the design. That argument was put forward by my noble friend Lord Freud during the passage of the Bill and was debated at great length. We recognise that this does not necessarily suit everyone. That is why I again made clear in the second part of my Answer that there are safeguards in place. We introduced universal credit advances for new claimants. Claimants can apply for an advance immediately if they are in need and can receive up to 50% of their indicative award soon afterwards. To go back to the original point, it is important to make sure that we mirror the world of work where 75% of employees are paid monthly.

Homelessness: Housing Benefit

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Thursday 9th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I fully accept the noble Lord’s point. That is why he will find a list in the regulations—I do not want to delay the House by reading it out in full—of some 25 different exemptions for 18 to 21 year-olds. That will be operated in the most sympathetic manner, and I do not think that anyone with a genuine reason to leave home is likely to suffer at all. I am more than happy to show the list to the noble Lord and to others—but reading it out in full would waste the House’s time.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, there are so many reasons why young people choose not to live at home, but remarkably few of them do. If somebody is out there on their own aged 18, something else is going on. The Minister can give all the lists he wants, but people out there who have suffered from repeated bad decisions when they have applied for disability benefit or all kinds of other benefits will not trust them. Is it not the case that all the homeless charities have pointed out that the proposal is likely to increase homelessness? Even though there are young people who want to go out and rent independently, the National Landlords Association said:

“Never mind the nuances, all landlords will hear is that 18-21 year olds are no longer entitled to housing benefit … they just won’t consider them as a tenant”.


Have the Government thought about that?

[Lord Henley]

Of course the Government have thought about it. That is why we are bringing forward this measure and why we will be working with stakeholders such as the National Landlords Association and others to develop appropriate engagement for landlords to make them understand how the new rules will operate. As I said, protections have been built into this that mean that no one who has to move away from home will suffer. We think it is right that there should not be a perverse incentive that encourages people to move away from home and live on benefits at the expense of the taxpayer.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement to the House. I want to concentrate on the judgment on the mobility component of PIP. Despite what the newspapers may have reported, the tribunal ruling does not mean that anyone with mental health problems can get the higher rate of PIP. What it does mean is that assessors cannot arbitrarily ignore all mental health problems when working out whether someone is entitled to the higher rate of PIP to deal with the higher costs that they face. Despite the Minister’s comments, MIND has pointed out that the Explanatory Memorandum for the original Act said that the higher rate was right if someone’s mobility was,

“severely limited by the person’s physical or mental condition”.

If these regulations go through, it seems that someone who is blind and needs help to plan or navigate a journey could get the higher rate of PIP but someone who, for example, has autism or early-onset dementia and could not manage to plan or navigate a journey without help would not be able to get the higher rate of PIP. My question is very simple: how does that sit with the Government’s commitment to parity of esteem between physical and mental health and to the Prime Minister’s promise to tackle the stigma associated with mental health problems?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, what the tribunal said was that there was some uncertainty in our regulations, despite the fact—I am sure the noble Baroness will remember this far better than I can, because I was not in this position at the time—that these matters were extensively debated during the passage of the Bill a year or so ago and agreed in Parliament. The tribunal said that there was uncertainty and we are trying to put that right.

The noble Baroness specifically referred to the example of people who are blind in comparison to those with psychological distress. That was a matter considered in one of the two cases that we are dealing with. Mental health conditions are more likely to fluctuate than conditions such as visual impairment or blindness, and people who cannot navigate due to a visual or cognitive impairment are more likely to have a higher level of need and therefore face higher costs. What we are seeking to do, quite simply, is amend the criteria to reinstate the distinction between those two groups, as was originally intended in the order. It is no more than that.

Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Henley]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for saying that it has been rejected. By that, I take him to mean that it is still not possible for those of the opposite sex to have a civil partnership. Civil partnerships will therefore apply to those of the same sex, and marriages to those of the same sex and those of the opposite sex. We took the view that it was better and simpler to confine it to those groups, rather than to extend it to cohabitees. Cohabitees, as we have always known, have the ability to take steps to rectify their position and become married or, in certain cases, to become civil partners. To add the complexities, which I accept already face cohabitees regarding, for example, income-related benefits, such as UC, to a payment of this sort would not be appropriate. It can be dealt with by people themselves if they wish to regularise their position, which is always important to know.

I can remember some of the debates on various Private Members’ Bills, particularly one which I think was promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. He said that there was gross ignorance about this matter and that people thought being a common-law wife or husband gave them the same rights. I think that by now, most people should know that it does not give them the same rights; their rights are distinctly different if they are cohabitees. As I said, it would add excessive complications to a benefit of this sort, and I do not see the reason for extending it.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked about the numbers of those who are likely to be affected. In the past, it has been something of the order of 40,000 a year and we have no reason to believe that it will be any different. I can add to that one other figure, which will be of interest to him and the Committee: of those 40,000, some 8,000 also have dependent children. That figure might or might not surprise the noble Lord. I was slightly surprised, since we are talking about claimants of working age, that it should be as low as that. But that is the figure, and I have no reason to believe that it will change.

Finally, I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that bereavement support payment will be disregarded for universal credit and for income-related benefits. I think I made that clear in my speech. If even Homer nods, perhaps even the noble Baroness occasionally nods.

[Baroness Sherlock]

In a different way.

[Lord Henley]

She was nodding in a different way but anyway, I can confirm that it will be disregarded, as it will be for the benefit cap.

Finally, the noble Baroness talked about the time for claiming the benefit and the fact that the monthly payments must be claimed within three months but that in terms of the basic amount, they had a full year. The simple answer is that for monthly payments it is appropriate to have a cut off that is shorter than for the lump sum. I do not believe—this is the important thing—that there is much ignorance, once people are bereaved, about benefits of this sort. Certainly the evidence we have and the evidence we have had in the past, which implies a very high take up of this benefit, seems to suggest that most people get to know about it very quickly. It is one of those things that, for example, I am sure undertakers know about and will advise on, as will others.

I hope that, with the assurance that I may find that there are one or two points I have not answered, the Committee will accept the regulations.

Motion agreed.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2017

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of this order and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and I gather around this time every year—sometimes to decreasing effect, it feels—and we miss my noble friend Lady Lister, who is usually with us on these occasions. In the absence of her enormous knowledge, I will do my best to fight the good fight for these Benches.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that he is not out of order because the order increases the disability premium and some elements of working-age benefits. Therefore his area of comment is wholly in order for addressing these questions today. It was a comment in which I have an interest because I am about to do the same thing.

While obviously not objecting to the 1% uprating of the benefits that are covered, the triple lock or in-line-with-earnings increases as described by the Minister, we have serious concern about the increasing impact of the Government’s approach to benefit uprating on the millions of people who rely on benefits to look after themselves and their families. The real action here, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, pointed out, is happening offstage. It applies to the many benefits that should be on this list and are not.

The summer Budget 2015 listed a series of working-age benefits that would be frozen for four years from 2016-17 to 2019-20. We should remember that they had had only 1% uprating from 2013 and that there was the massive effect, described by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, of the shift from RPI to CPI as the measure for increasing benefits. That list includes child benefit, JSA, ESA, income support, housing benefit under women’s state pension age, LHA rates, child tax credit, working tax credit, universal credit and bereavement support payment. Many of these benefits affect working people and working families, but they all affect people who are dependent on benefits to survive. It is good that the disability and other premiums paid with these benefits are being increased by 1%, and I am glad to see that.

The freeze to the other levels of social security payments are having a detrimental impact on those who depend upon them. Between 2008 and 2014, the prices of essentials rose three times faster than wages. Combined with the period of 1% uprating and then the freeze, low-income households have seen a significant deterioration in their income. Now that inflation is starting to pick up, we need to be reassured by the Government about how they are going to ensure that Parliament can understand the degree to which households are protected from the consequences of those changes in ways that we could reasonably expect them to do.

The 1% uprating is based on the rate of CPI prevailing in the year to September 2016, which was reported at 1%. However, since then, inflation is clearly on the rise. Last week, we saw the release of the latest figures which showed that the consumer prices index rose by 1.8% in the year to January 2017. Last week we also saw the Bank of England inflation report which said:

“In the central projection, conditioned on market yields that are somewhat higher than in November, inflation is expected to increase to 2.8% in the first half of 2018, before falling back gradually to 2.4% in three years’ time”.


As the Resolution Foundation pointed out in a report entitled Under New Management in November 2016, the effect of rising inflation is that this policy is saving the Treasury rather more money than it expected. The report estimates that rather than the £3.6 billion the policy was due to save the Exchequer by 2020-21, the savings would rise to £4.6 billion. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether that £4.6 billion figure is accurate and, if not, what is the value of the savings now estimated to be according to his department or the Treasury?

On the other hand, the effect of these changes on households in receipt of benefits is also far greater than Parliament expected at the time when the decision was made to freeze benefits, and people on the lowest incomes are least able to withstand the effects of inflation because they have the least disposable income and in most cases they have little or no savings to depend on as a cushion. That is why Parliament has traditionally protected them from these risks by inflation-proofing benefits. As the IFS puts it:

“This policy represented a significant takeaway from a large number of working age households. But it also represented a shifting of risk from the Government to benefit recipients. Previously, higher inflation was a risk to the public finances, increasing cash spending on benefits. Now the risk is borne by low-income households: unless policy changes higher inflation will reduce their real incomes”.


That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. The IFS also points out that, as of last March,

“the freeze represented a 4% cut in the value of those benefits … relative to previous plans”.

Last October, the IFS, based on its inflation forecasts at that point, produced some other observations on the impact on claimants, saying:

“As a result, 11.5 million families were expected to lose an average of £260 a year, saving the government £3.0 billion in 2019-20. Given the latest inflation forecasts from the IMF, the policy now represents a 6% cut to affected benefits. The same 11.5 million families are now expected to lose an average of £360 a year (£100 a year more than expected in March), saving the government £4.2 billion in 2019-20 (i.e. an additional £1.2 billion on top of what was expected back in March). Greater losses are found among families—typically those on lower incomes—who receive more in benefits”,


so,

“8.3 million families affected now expected to lose an average of £470 a year”.

The Minister might claim, truthfully, that his party had a manifesto commitment that the working-age benefit system should be made less generous over this Parliament, but as the IFS pointed out,

“it is hard to see why the appropriate size of cut should be arbitrarily determined by the impact of movements in sterling on prices”.

Quite, but if the Minister does not want to listen to the Resolution Foundation or the IFS, or the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, or the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, or, unaccountably, even me, perhaps he might be persuaded by the following comments, reported in the Independent from another parliamentarian:

“When the original benefit freeze was set it was set against an estimate of a much lower rise in inflation … Therefore I’m sure the Treasury will want to look at to keep that under review because the purpose was not to have such a dramatic effect on incomes against a forecast of rising inflation … I’m sure the Treasury will want to look at that and keep that under review so that doesn’t actually happen and make it adverse in a way that it was not completely intended”.


That was Iain Duncan Smith, speaking to an event in Westminster, reported in the Independent on 8 November last, and that was before inflation hit the heights that we saw last week.

My questions for the Minister are simple. First, can he tell the Committee the latest estimate of the savings to the Exchequer of this four-year benefit freeze, as against CPI uprating, over and above the amount originally scored? Secondly, how big would the gap have to be between projected and actual impact on claimants of this freeze before the Government would revisit it? Finally, to echo the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, whom I commend for his determination to come back to this matter on behalf of all parliamentarians every time we discuss it, what is the mechanism for Parliament to revisit the issue and be assured of the adequacy of social security benefits in the absence of any appropriate annual mechanism?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, spoke about his experience of uprating statements going back to, I think he said, 1983. I feel a mere child in these matters going back only to the 1989 uprating statement. I did a few after that, but I do not think that I have quite the assiduous record that the noble Lord has in these matters.

The noble Lord also talked about the process by which we go through these matters, and asked whether it is still the case that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State sits down and considers what uprating is necessary. I assure him that, within the confines of current legislation, he does and that he takes note of comments received in both Houses. I assure the noble Lord that I shall report back to my right honourable friend and others about the course of this debate.

Obviously, we have to make very difficult decisions on welfare spending. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is aware of that, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. We also know very well that work, not welfare, is the best route out of poverty and that anything that can encourage people into work will be good for them in all possible ways. That is why our welfare reforms are designed to incentivise work for those who can and go wider than just the benefit system. They include such things as the national living wage, which will be up to £9 an hour by 2020, cutting income tax for more than 30 million people and the rollout of universal credit. At the same time, we remain committed to protecting all those who need support. That is why we made the reforms we did. As someone coming back to this world after some years out of it and having had some experience of seeing benefit offices, it is gratifying to see the rollout as it begins and to hear the comments of those making use of it. I am sure it is going to be a success. Anyway, I can give an assurance that my right honourable friend sits down and considers these matters.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, talked about the change from using CPI as opposed to RPI, an issue also touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I appreciate that there is no ideal measure of inflation, and there never will be, but we certainly think that CPI is a better measure than the old RPI. I understand that the ONS is making changes to RPI, and it may be that some improvements can come forward in due course. However, at the moment, we are committed to CPI, which we think is a better measure and is the target rate used by the Bank of England. It also takes better account of how behaviour changes in response to price changes, using a methodology in line with international standards, and better reflects benefit recipients’ and pensioners’ experience of inflation by excluding mortgage payments. Again, we have to recognise that all the measures of inflation affect different people in different ways. I think all would agree that there is no ideal measure that we can use. CPI is the best and using the September-to-September measure is the only practical way in which to introduce the change in April the following year. I am sure that the noble Baroness would accept the difficulties of having to use a figure some months ahead, but any subsequent inflation will be taken into account in following years, so there is a catch-up designed into the system for future years.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is not happy about the whole subject of freezing benefits, which goes wider than the uprating statement we are debating today. As she is aware, we have by statute frozen working-age benefits for a number of years—until the end of this Parliament, if I remember the dates correctly. It is not a matter for discussion today, but I repeat what I have said: we are dealing not merely with benefits but with work, which is the best route to get people out of poverty. As I said in response to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, we want to incentivise work for those who can work, while supporting those who cannot. The noble Baroness then asked a number of detailed questions about our estimate of the savings and cited estimates made by this or that group and ending up with the comments made by my right honourable friend Mr Duncan Smith. I shall not comment on any of those estimates at the moment; this is not necessarily the right and proper place to have that debate. If we have some appropriate figures that I think the noble Baroness will find useful, I am more than happy to make them available to her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I will have to write to the noble Baroness to assure her on that point.

I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, would prefer a greater and longer debate on freezing benefits. As I said, I do not think that this is either the time or the place.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I confess to being disappointed by both the content and the tone of the Minister’s response to the questions put not just by me but by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. I wonder whether he could tell me two things. First, does he accept that a number of the benefits being frozen are in-work benefits? Secondly, if this is not the occasion on which Parliament can expect to hold the Government to account to find out what in fact will be the impact of a measure which now looks to be much more expensive to benefit- claiming families than they were assured in the first place, what is?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, this is the occasion to deal with the uprating of those benefits which are being uprated. Parliament debated on another occasion, during the passage of the 2014 Bill, the freezing of benefits. The noble Baroness will not find it hard to find other occasions to raise the subject. When we are debating those benefits which we are uprating, it is not the time to pursue the question of the freezing of benefits.

Child Poverty Unit

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am very grateful to see the right reverend Prelate; in fact I am very grateful to see quite so many most reverend Primates and right reverend Prelates on this occasion. May I assure the right reverend Prelate that we are committed to tackling poverty? We accept that no child has a choice in this matter, but we also say that we have joined-up government on this matter. We have the Social Mobility Commission secretariat based in the Department for Education, which looks at these issues cross-party. We have a social reform Cabinet Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, that includes all the other crucial members of the Cabinet. As the right reverend Prelate and the whole House will know, the Prime Minister herself has made clear her commitment to dealing with such matters.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have one very quick question. The Minister said that when the Government abolished our child poverty targets, they were going to replace them, the Prime Minister then said, with a life chances strategy. We finally discovered in December that it had died before it was even born, the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, notwithstanding. Now the Minister mentions a social justice Green Paper in the new year. Can he tell me two things: when will we get it and what is he going to do in the meantime about the scandal of child poverty in Britain?

Asylum Seekers: Children

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am aware of the report from the Children’s Society, and my honourable friend Damian Green and officials have met the society to discuss it. The noble Baroness asked for an explanation of the disparity between income support levels and the rates of support that we offer asylum seekers. The simple reason is that asylum seekers get all their accommodation and utility bills paid, and therefore it is not necessary to pay their support at 100%. The noble Baroness will also be aware—I think this is important—of how this disparity occurred. Until 2008 asylum rates were set at 70% of income support, and a decision was then taken by the Government of the time—who, as the noble Baroness will be aware, happened to be a Labour Government—to break that link. Since then, the levels have been set annually each year in accordance with what has been felt to be appropriate.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I think that the Minister may have slightly misheard my noble friend Lady Lister. She asked specifically whether the Government can tell us whether they are satisfied that they are meeting their human rights obligations. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a simpler question. Have the Government made any formal assessment of whether the levels of support they supply under Section 55 of the Act meet the requirements of that section? In other words, have they done an assessment and can they be satisfied that children’s health and well-being are being protected?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we are obliged to look at those matters each year and we do so. We do not believe that the levels of support should be at 100% of income support because we are paying for other things, such as rent, rates and utility bills, which amount to a very large proportion of what would otherwise be accounted for in income support. We are satisfied that the rates are right and we are continuing to look at them. I repeat that the link in rates, which was originally set at 70% of income support, was broken by the party opposite when it was in government. It can explain that if it wishes.

Immigration: Detention of Children at Heathrow

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the IMB’s report makes it clear that it thinks the officials dealing with these matters are doing so in a professional manner. What it was complaining about was the actual facilities in which these people were kept for up to 24 hours at the maximum. If people with children are going to be kept longer, at Heathrow there are other facilities such as Tinsley House that can be used and where those children can be sent with their parents. The idea that the children should be sent off somewhere else, therefore bringing in social services, would create even greater problems and trauma for the children. It is far better that they should stay with their parents for what we hope will be a relatively short amount of time while a decision is being made on whether they can stay in the country or not; and, after that, while they wait for a plane to take them back to where they came from.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, will the Minister clarify the Government’s position as regards the board’s report? The BBC website said that the UK Border Agency had reported that it had raised the issue with BAA on numerous occasions in the past and would continue to do so. However, the BBC website says that a BAA spokeswoman said that BAA was,

“somewhat surprised by UK Border Force's response, since we have had many meetings with them recently and it has not been raised”.

Who is correct?

[Lord Henley]

All I know is that the UK Border Agency and BAA have had considerable discussions about these matters over the years. Obviously I cannot give evidence about the precise detail of those discussions, but we know that they are aware of the problems because we have also discussed the matter with BAA. The important point to remember is that we will do what we can to improve things. We have only just received this report, which came in two days ago. We will be responding to it within the appropriate period of six weeks. We know that things are not entirely satisfactory but we are talking about holding people only in the very short term while a decision is made. We hope that that will not be longer than 24 hours. If it is, as I made clear, we have other facilities, such as Tinsley House, available.

Public Disorder: Compensation

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, my noble friend has asked quite a number of questions. Although I can assure him that we have urged the police authorities to ensure that compensation is paid as swiftly as possible to all those who are entitled, we want to make sure that it is paid only to those who are entitled. He is right to address the point that the 1886 Act—which, obviously, was passed some time ago—does not cover business interruption. That is why we think that there should be a review of the Act, and we will consider all options in due course. As I stressed earlier, we believe that some 90 per cent of those who suffered, whether businesses or otherwise, had insurance, and as likely as not that insurance would have included business interruption. The 1886 Act comes from another era when these matters were not considered. As for the planning point, I will take that on board and consult colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Riots Communities and Victims Panel. The Minister has just told the House that 90 per cent of individuals making claims to insurance companies have been paid, and the Association of British Insurers has a similar figure—85 per cent—for small businesses, and yet only half of those claiming under the RDA have been paid. Can the Minister account for the difference? Does he think there is any truth in the rumour that the reason there is such a big difference is that police authorities are setting such a high standard for the evidential basis and the paperwork, which is way in excess of that required by commercial insurance companies? Does he think that that is causing the delay?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a valid point, and I pay tribute to the work that she did earlier on these matters. However, it is also important to look at the fact that those who were not insured were the sort of people who probably did not have adequate records about what they had in their shops—and I am thinking particularly of shops—and one therefore needs to conduct the loss-adjustment process very carefully. As she will know, people often make what one might describe as overgenerous claims when they do not have the appropriate records of what they had in their particular shop or business, and those things need to be looked at carefully. However, as I made clear in my response to my noble friend, it is important that we make sure that the police deal with these matters as quickly as possible. That is what we have been urging them to do and that is why we have set in motion a number of measures to speed up the process.

Public Disorder: Uninsured Claimants

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Monday 19th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I accept what my noble friend says, that things have not been as speedy as they should have been. We estimate that some 5,000 claims have been received, totalling in excess of £250 million, but we must remember that a lot of those claims will include claims for loss that are not covered by the Act. We have to ensure that we do not pay out for things that the Government are not responsible for. We will try to deal with—as the noble Lord implied in his original Question—the uninsured claimants first of all, but obviously we want to deal with the insured claimants as well. That is why I stress that we are working with both the police authorities and the insurance companies to ensure that that is the case.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I am grateful to hear that the Minister has offered a figure. I put down a Written Question to ask him how many payments had been made under the Riot (Damages) Act, and the Answer was three sentences long. It told me that applications for compensation were made directly to police authorities, and:

“There is no requirement for them to provide this information to the Home Office. Therefore, the precise figures of payments that have already been made to claimants will be held locally by each police authority”.—[Official Report, 8/12/11; col. WA198.]

In other words, go and ask them. Does the Minister accept that the Government in fact bear responsibility for sorting this problem out? If so, will he be willing to report to the House what progress is being made?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I gave an estimate of the number of claims but I cannot give an absolute figure. That is why I stress that it is only an estimate that 5,000 have been made. One has to accept that a lot of those claims will not be valid; in certain areas there have been many more claims than one would expect. I make no further comment on that.

I will certainly keep the House fully informed about how we are getting on with these matters. We want to ensure that all claims are settled as quickly and fairly as possible, and that when we are dealing with public money it is handed out in the appropriate manner.

Riots Communities and Victims Panel

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Lord Henley

Thursday 1st December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comment in particular. As a member of the Riots Communities and Victims Panel, I had the privilege of meeting a great number of people and was very moved and shocked by stories of loss and trauma, so I welcome the fact that the Government will look at the Act.

Two things were raised most often with us. First, we did not meet a single person who had received a payout under the Riot (Damages) Act. Has anyone had such a payment and, if not, will the Government move to overhaul the Act in some detail? Secondly, there was a sense that people in areas hit by riots felt that they had been abandoned by the police. I met some hugely brave police and PCSOs who had gone out there and risked their lives. Will the Minister comment on what the Government will do in response to make sure that police tactics are appropriate for the kind of disorder we now see? That means smart policing, not just tough policing.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her contribution to this report as one of the four members of the panel. We are very grateful to her for all her work. We will review the Riot (Damages) Act. It is a fairly ancient bit of legislation and obviously needs looking at. We will also review police tactics and how they worked and we will look at the reports from the Met and other police authorities. We should also look at the areas where we had no riots because there are possibly lessons to be learnt from why there were riots in some places and not in others. There will be a great deal to consider and no doubt the noble Baroness and her panel will produce yet more for us as this was only an interim report. I look forward to that, and the Government will respond in due course.