People with Disabilities: Access to Services

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome this debate and declare that I receive DLA.

The Government have made no secret about wanting to cut the benefit PIP—personal independence payment—which is paid to disabled people of working age, in work or out of work, who qualify, saying that it is now unsustainable. Last month, they published a Green Paper, with a consultation period of three months, but said that any change could not be attempted before a general election.

I have always been concerned that the PIP assessment does not officially involve any healthcare professionals because it has been characterised as a functionality test only, not a medical test. The assessment process has been outsourced, and claimants are often turned down initially for eligibility for PIP, even if they have a condition such as muscular dystrophy. The next stage is for the claimant to ask for mandatory reconsideration, but all too often the original decision is rubber-stamped. Finally, a claimant can ask for a tribunal to examine their claim. Tribunals very often overturn the initial decision, probably because the tribunal consists of a lawyer, a doctor and a disability specialist. The whole appeals process in itself is long-winded and stressful for a disabled person to go through, let alone being very expensive for the Government.

I think the time has come for a report from a healthcare professional to be mandatory, perhaps at the very latest at the first appeal stage, which is reconsideration by the DWP. I am told that problems with PIP assessments are the number one issue on MDUK’s helpline, particularly the change in the walking test from 50 metres to 20 metres. In general, more PIP claimants than ever have psychiatric disorders, so having a report from a healthcare professional would surely be welcome. Even better, of course, would be faster treatment for mental health problems.

Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) (Claimants previously entitled to a severe disability premium) Amendment Regulations 2021

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare that I receive DLA. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for tabling this Regret Motion and speaking so lucidly about the issues that we are concerned with.

The interaction of universal credit with the severe disability premium is not for the fainthearted, as noble Lords will understand. It is a fiendishly difficult subject. What is clear and absolutely shocking is that disabled people on the legacy benefits, including SDP, have received no £20-a-week uplift in response to the pandemic, unlike those on universal credit, as we heard. Unless this particular cohort of claimants gets good advice on whether to migrate to UC, they are likely to lose out over time, as we know that there is no SDP in universal credit. It is very much thanks to our committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, that the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear what is happening over time.

Some people would argue that it does not matter because of the disability benefits of PIP and DLA, which are regularly uprated. But we are talking about working-age severely disabled people who will have a great deal of expenditure in their lives, such as installing and regularly servicing appliances, paying for care, extra heating, transport, food and all kinds of things. Being disabled is extremely expensive and we are hearing from many people that they are really struggling. As for the jobs market, it was difficult for disabled people before the pandemic and will be even harder now, with so many people unemployed. People will therefore need all the help that they can get. The Regret Motion should be supported.

Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 27 January 2020. This statutory instrument, together with the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, will increase the value of lump-sum awards payable under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the diffuse mesothelioma scheme, which was set up by the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. As many noble Lords will know, these schemes stand apart from the main social security benefits uprating procedure. While there is no statutory requirement to increase rates, I am happy to maintain the position taken by my predecessors and increase the amounts payable from 1 April 2020 in line with the September consumer price index figure of 1.7%. This is the same rate of increase that will be applied to many other social security benefits, including those payable under the industrial injuries scheme.

This Government recognise the great suffering of individuals and their families caused by the serious and often fatal diseases resulting from exposure to asbestos or other listed agents. The individuals affected and their families may be unable to bring a successful claim for civil damages, often due to the long latency period of their condition. Some may not show signs of disease until many years after exposure, by which time their employer may have ceased trading. For those people, the lump sum schemes exist to provide compensation. As well as compensating people who cannot make civil claims, the schemes aim to ensure that people with those diseases receive compensation in their lifetime, while they can still benefit from it, without having to await the outcome of civil litigation.

I will briefly summarise the specific purpose of the two compensation schemes. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 scheme—to which, for simplicity, I shall refer as the 1979 Act scheme—provides a lump sum compensation payment to individuals who have one of five dust-related respiratory diseases covered by the scheme, are unable to claim damages from employers because they have gone out of business and who have not brought any action against others for damages. The five diseases covered by the 1979 Act scheme are: diffuse mesothelioma, bilateral diffuse pleural thickening, pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, and primary carcinoma of the lung, if accompanied by asbestosis or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening.

The 2008 mesothelioma lump sum payments scheme widens the criteria for compensation to those who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but are unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act scheme—for example, those who were self-employed or those whose exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The payments made under the 1979 Act scheme are based on the age of the person with the disease and the level of their disablement at the time of their diagnosis, measured on a percentage scale.

All payments for diffuse mesothelioma are made at the 100% rate. All payments under the 2008 scheme are also made at the 100% disablement rate and based on the age of the sufferer, with the highest payments going to the youngest people with the disease. In the full year from April 2018 to March 2019, 3,920 people received payments under both schemes, totalling £52.8 million.

I am aware that in past debates, Members have raised the subject of equalising the level of payments made to dependants with those made to people who have the disease and claim in their lifetime. It is, of course, clear that whole families can be devastated by the diseases covered by the lump sum scheme, which is why dependents are able to claim some compensation, albeit not at the same level.

When we have to make decisions about how we use our limited resources, it is only right that we target that money by giving it to the people to whom it can make the biggest difference. So, while we have listened carefully to concerns raised, the Government remain of the view that available funding should be prioritised to those people who are currently living with the disease.

I will now address some of the broader aspects of mesothelioma in more detail. The prevalence of diffuse mesothelioma in Great Britain remains at historically high levels. I know that this is a particular concern of Members. The disease has a strong association with exposure to asbestos, and current evidence suggests that about 85% of all mesotheliomas diagnosed in men are attributable to asbestos exposure that occurred through work. The life expectancy of those diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma is very poor, and many people die within 12 months of diagnosis. Data published by the Health and Safety Executive shows that the number of mesothelioma deaths is projected to be around 2,500 in 2020 before being in decline in the following years, reflecting a reduction in asbestos exposure after 1980.

I will now briefly discuss lung health improvement more broadly. Although we expect the number of people diagnosed with diffused mesothelioma to start to fall in the coming years, we also know that many people will continue to develop it, and other respiratory diseases to which the regulations relate, for many years to come. That is why the Government are committed to working in partnership with our arm’s-length bodies and agencies to improve the lives of those with respiratory diseases. The Government have made improving outcomes for people with respiratory disease a priority; this is reflected in the NHS long-term plan.

During last year’s debate on the uprating of these schemes, my predecessor referred to the pioneering lung health checks trialled in Manchester and Liverpool. So far, this trial has shown an almost fivefold reduction in stage 4 disease in Greater Manchester, with 80% of cancers diagnosed at an earlier stage. We anticipate this scheme being rolled out across the country and I am pleased to report that a mobile site in Hull was launched only last month.

Returning to these important regulations, I am sure we all agree that while no amount of money can ever adequately compensate individuals or their families for the suffering and loss caused by diffuse mesothelioma and the other dust-related diseases covered by these two schemes, those who have these diseases rightly deserve some form of monetary compensation. I am happy to confirm to the Committee that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights and I beg to move.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these regulations, which uprate payments to sufferers of mesothelioma and other dust-related diseases and their dependants. As she explained the scheme and the reason for it thoroughly, I will not add to that. It is right that by debating these orders, we draw them to the attention of those who follow parliamentary proceedings, to show that we take this matter extremely seriously.

It cannot be emphasised enough that mesothelioma has a very long latency period and often manifests in an affected person decades after exposure to asbestos. It can also affect a person who has had no known exposure to asbestos and therefore no idea where the disease came from. I have anecdotal evidence from the family of a recent, now sadly deceased, sufferer of this terrible, pernicious disease. They stress the urgent need for more research into where the disease could have come from. In this case, it was not from any of the well-documented workplaces, so it is particularly worrying that there must be another source that has not so far been identified, or perhaps asbestos posing a danger in unexpected places. Another possibility is a combination of environmental conditions. More research in this area is vital: people with impaired lung function and their GPs must not be put off looking for mesothelioma because there was no known exposure to asbestos in the past. The earlier it is detected, the better. Will the Minister look into this particular problem to see what, if any, research is going on into unexplained cases of mesothelioma?

Although asbestos is now well-known to cause lung disease, it is perhaps not so well-known that it still lies undisturbed in thousands of buildings—such as schools, hospitals and, of course, Parliament—where there are now fears that it may be beginning to degrade. I wonder how much is known about this. This will be squarely in the remit of the Health and Safety Executive, which does a fine job but has recently had its budget cut. Surely, it must be given enough resources to carry out such vital work.

As the Minister said, the number of deaths from mesothelioma is about 2,500 a year, and I do not think it is likely to drop for several years. Last year, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, told us that the UK has the highest incidence of this disease in the world, which I find truly shocking. More research must surely be undertaken as a matter of urgency.

As the Minister said, every year when these regulations are debated, the most contentious issue is whether the Government will equalise payments to sufferers and their dependants. This surely is only fair, and I believe it was originally the plan. Although the Government say that they will keep the matter under review, they obviously have no intention of doing anything about it. I ask the Minister again whether they will look at this. Finally, I join with what other noble Lords will probably say, in making the annual plea for the uprating to be automatic each year.

Disability Employment Gap

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

The noble Lord makes very accurate and real points. I spoke to the National Autistic Society this morning. Some 16% of autistic adults are in work and 32% of them are in some kind of paid work, but the real statistic is that 77% of unemployed autistic adults want to work. The noble Lord rightly pointed out that we must get to that figure. The disability hub is a great idea. I will go back to the department with yet another idea—their eyes roll now when I walk in, but I will do it. I will not be put off by that. I can confirm that the Government are also working with the Supported Business Alliance and the British Association for Supported Employment to help them develop a new quality mark for supportive businesses and develop a long-term element of access to work to continue the support. However, there is no doubt that we have a lot more to do and I will take both those ideas back to the department.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, we do not have any flesh on the bones of the national disability strategy yet. There are many issues involved in closing the disability employment gap: suitable housing, adequate care and better education opportunities, to name but a few. Will the Minister consider hosting a round table with Members of this House who have expertise in this subject, so that we have as much consensus as possible going forward?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

How can I say no to the noble Baroness? That is another great idea. It fits very well with the national disability strategy, which will, I am pleased to say, be developed with disabled people and disability charities and organisations, and will cover the areas outlined by the noble Baroness—housing, education, transport and jobs—so that people can improve their lives. I will be delighted to go back to the department, not to suggest a round table but to say that we are having one.

Personal Independence Payments

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, is it not clear, in the light of this and other judgments, that the PIP descriptors in the field of mental health need substantial amendment? It sounds as if that is what the Government have in mind, and I am very pleased that the department is upholding the judgment as much as the rest of us. We really need a cool, hard look at all the descriptors, and for the Government to consult on them fully and come back with detailed amendments. We also need better-trained assessors and a genuine stage of mandatory reconsideration, instead of the rubber stamp that we all too often get now. There is a huge number of successful appeals and consequently an unacceptably long wait for a tribunal hearing.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I shall do my best to respond to the noble Baroness, who of course knows so much about this area. On waiting times, we are committed to processing PIP claims as quickly as possible while ensuring that we have all the evidence we need to make the right decisions. A key issue has been not having sufficient medical information in the first instance. We are working with the NHS to see what we can do to rectify that. In the last quarter, February to April 2019, 55,097 claims on average were processed each month. The average new claim or reassessment claim waits just six weeks for assessment. However, PIP is needs based and not condition based, and reviews are a key part of the benefit to ensure that the right support continues to be delivered.

In a nutshell, we believe that PIP is working so much better. There were originally some quite difficult issues around it. We are constantly working to improve the situation. That is why now have a mental health champion in each PIP assessment centre. We are making sure that there are experts behind each assessor. We have videos to help people understand what the process is so that they can feel comfortable about that engagement at the assessment centre. We also encourage people to come with a trusted third-party individual to support them through that often quite emotional process.

Yes, it is a complex process. We are committed to doing all we can. We will report back to the House with further information in relation to the Supreme Court’s decision, but we continue to spend more on supporting those with mental health issues—quite rightly.

Universal Credit Fraud

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

It is entirely correct: 1% of all claims referred by staff are fraud claims. It is important to make it clear that we have trained our staff properly to investigate those claims when they are received, to make sure that the work coach can assess the claims and transfer them on to our fraud and investigation service.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, is it not very sad that certain claimants say that they are being penalised in cases of fraud? Can the Minister guarantee that this does not happen? Is it not the answer that, until the fraud is sorted out, loans must be made face to face with a JCP official? This matter would not then arise. Until it is sorted out, is that not the safest thing to do?

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, where that is possibly the case, as the noble Baroness rightly said, it is important that we approach each and every case carefully on a case-by-case basis. Each case appears to be different. We do not intend to penalise people who have been duped by others; that is, those who have honestly received benefits incorrectly. We do all we can to support those people throughout the process, working closely with the CPS.

Benefit Changes: Vulnerable People

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased that this debate enables us to have a calm, rational look at recent changes to benefits. I think the whole House appreciates that powerful contribution from the right reverend Prelate.

I will concentrate on two benefits—universal credit and PIP—to see how they are working in practice for vulnerable claimants, but I will leave the bigger picture to others. As this is a debate, we do not need the shorthand of catch-all, critical phrases that do not always help with the here and now, such as, “Universal credit plainly isn’t working”. However, if we have a rational debate, I believe it is up to the Government to take heed of practical, suggested solutions to problems identified by bodies such as the National Audit Office and the IFS, organisations such as Citizens Advice, and many charities, some of which are being quoted today. What we really do not want is for the Government to close their ears and say there is not a problem right now that needs sorting out.

We know that there is no prospect of any radical change in legislation in this area at the moment, but there must be scope for changes in the way in which benefits are administered. The phrase “test and learn” applied to UC before managed migration sounds sensible, but do we not know already what is and is not working for vulnerable claimants?

I have recently been in touch with two Citizens Advice offices and been told about their experience in helping clients claim UC and PIP. With UC so much can go wrong very quickly, they say, leaving individuals and families without the necessary funds to pay their way. This is why food banks have never been busier. In 2013 there were 400 food banks; there are now 2,000.

The most obvious reason for this is the five-week delay in payment of UC. I know that this was deliberately brought in to mimic a monthly pay packet and to encourage benefit claimants to take more responsibility for their own financial circumstances. However, it is quickly leading many claimants into debt from which they really struggle to recover. We have heard from the Secretary of State that this is being looked at again. Many vulnerable claimants who are or have been in work are used to a weekly pay packet, even nowadays. However, politics is in such a volatile state at the moment that I really hope that a change to the long waiting time is in prospect. I know that advance loans are available, but the strict repayments regime can make matters worse.

I now turn to some of the other problems faced by these claimants. Perhaps the most predictable problem is that many, if not most, claimants are not familiar with digital systems. They may not have a home computer, so the whole digital world is foreign to them. Even with their hands held by support staff, passwords will be forgotten and simple ID checks, which may involve another appointment at a JCP office, will often hold up a claim. The remedy to this surely must be for enough staff to help claimants in person. The DWP may not have budgeted for this but it will just have to find the funding.

Then there are messages from work coaches to which some claimants do not respond. This risks the closure of a claim, with all the problems that that brings. I can see how frustrating this is to a busy work coach, but we are talking about claimants who may find the whole unfamiliar process terrifying. A bit of flexibility may be all that is required. I would like the Minister to say a word about whether a vulnerable claimant will always be sanctioned if an appointment with a work coach is missed, in spite of a claimant commitment having been signed. One adviser said:

“The DWP so frequently demonstrate zero flexibility when a little common sense could make the world of difference”.


Next is the long wait for work capability assessments, with appellants found fit for work being forced on to UC before managed migration because there is nothing else to claim between mandatory reconsideration and appeal.

Finally, there are slightly less common but nevertheless important problems such as the way in which the form deals with migrant workers and the right to reside, and the complicated rules around specified housing.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether there is any sense of urgency to try to deal with these issues which are causing such problems. Surely it is important to get these matters sorted out before even the pilot managed migration next month.

Turning now to PIP, it is certainly good news that those who have mental health problems are now being helped much more than under DLA. However, there are still problems with PIP, which is now far more expensive than the Government budgeted for when it was first brought in to save money. I believe it still tops the list of issues in MPs’ mailbags. It is certainly the most common benefits problem that people recently went to Citizens Advice about in Surrey, for example— quite a rich county, I always thought. The chair of Citizens Advice Surrey Research and Campaigns Group said:

“There have been several weeks where we have struggled to cope with the demand from people for help with Mandatory Reconsideration and appeals, we felt like that was all we were doing in our office”.


The reason for this would appear to be the poor quality of many of the assessments, the rubber-stamping of mandatory reconsiderations and the long wait for tribunals.

Tribunal judges have also been very critical of the number of appeals, saying that certain claimants’ entitlement to the higher rate of PIP was so apparent that there should have been no need for an appeal of any kind. Judges have even been heard to apologise to appellants. After all, appeals are expensive and stressful, and many of those seeking appeals are disabled. Nationally, for 81% of people making new PIP claims and 76% of reassessments, the initial DWP decision is unchanged at mandatory reconsideration, while 73% of those who go on to appeal have their decisions overturned by a tribunal judge.

One of the recommendations of Citizens Advice Surrey Research and Campaigns Group was for clarification from the Government about the provision of medical evidence. I have always thought that the purpose of medical evidence was not clear. On the one hand, the Government say that PIP is not a medical assessment but a functional assessment but, on the other hand, they call for supporting evidence from doctors or other healthcare professionals from the outset, although they commission reports themselves only for tribunals. Do assessors always read the medical evidence? Claimants often say that they do not. Obviously, the most difficult assessments to judge are those relating to fluctuating conditions, but the statutory reliability criteria are supposed to address this question.

What would make a difference? First would be a properly trained workforce of assessors who use their common sense. Surely it is time the assessments were brought in-house. Second would be a much more robust procedure for mandatory reconsideration by decision-makers. Third would be for all assessments to be recorded. At least that would be a start. The Government are now thinking of amalgamating the work capability assessment and the assessment for PIP. The first is called a medical assessment, while the second is called a functioning assessment. A rethink of the whole nature and purpose of these assessments needs to be decided.

Housing: Pensions and Deposits

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we must think carefully about how we encourage and support people to save for the long term and their retirement. That is why we are so pleased about the success of auto-enrolment. Our priority remains establishing long-term savings behaviour, so that people are enabled to save for greater security. Automatic enrolment has already reversed the decline in workplace pension savings seen in the decade prior to its introduction, and the number of first-time home buyers is at its highest level for 11 years.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, could the Minister clarify whether the average 35 year-old has put £35,000 into a pension pot, or whether the figure is much lower, as statistics showed a few years ago? It is very good news that we are not going to risk young people completely emptying their pension pots in a desperate attempt to get on to the housing ladder. Of course, this is another reason why more affordable housing is desperately needed.

Severe Disability Premium: Transfer to Universal Credit

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, as I have already said, Ministers are considering the judgment in detail and will make a decision about their response in due course. When designing universal credit, it was important to provide a simpler system, and a conscious choice was made not to replicate every aspect of disability provision in the legacy system, which contains seven different disability payments. These are difficult to deliver and prone to error, and they can be confusing for claimants. Therefore, we are replacing those seven complex and overlapping disability benefits.

Under the legacy benefit system, 500,000 disabled people did not claim what they were entitled to. Therefore, in terms of families losing out, about £2.4 billion of benefits went unclaimed in the legacy system as a whole. We have now moved to a much fairer system. For example, the rate per month under UC for claimants determined as having limited capability for work and work-related activity is more than twice the amount payable through the equivalent support group component of ESA. Under universal credit, it is now £336.20 per month per household, compared with £167.05 per month through the equivalent ESA support group. This means that around 1 million disabled households will gain an average of £100 more per month on universal credit than on legacy benefits.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer. She said that the Government are considering their options and whether the regulations will have to be rewritten. What about the 10,000 people who are still waiting for the lump-sum payments that they were promised? They will have to wait much longer unless the Government separate the payment regulations from the rest of the managed migration pilot regulations so that the lump-sum payment can be made as soon as possible. Being disabled is very expensive and I expect that people have racked up quite a lot of debt because of this problem. Will the Government undertake a thorough process of evaluation of the effect of universal credit on disabled people?

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I make it clear that current severe disability premium claimants will receive transitional protection as part of the managed migration process. We now have transitional payments in place for severe disability premium claimants who have moved on to universal credit. As the noble Baroness well knows, we are now spending over £50 billion a year on benefits to support disabled people and those with health conditions, which is over £4 billion more than in 2010. We continue to evaluate the impact of our policies on this system. As the lead Minister for research at the Department for Work and Pensions, I am very clear that we make it our business to evaluate all the policies that we put in place.

Households Below Average Incomes Statistics

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement and for advance sight of it, but, not for the first time, I rather wish Lords Ministers were allowed to make their own Statements. I do not blame the Minister for the rather partisan nature of that; I suspect it may be aimed more at the Secretary of State’s Back-Benchers than at this House. None the less, since she has had to put that on the record, I am now obliged to repudiate it before we can get on to talking about poverty figures. Bear with me while I do that briefly, then we can talk about what was actually in the Statement.

Since the Secretary of State chose to attack what she called “Labour’s welfare splurge” and what we called lifting children out of poverty, I have to put to rest once and for all that old canard that the Government were forced to cut spending on the poor because of Labour’s record. A detailed study, by Ruth Lupton et al, of the coalition Government found that,

“the poor bore the brunt of its changes to direct taxes, tax credits and benefits”.

Meanwhile, with the exception of the richest 5%, those in the top half of the distribution were net gainers from the changes.

“Perhaps surprisingly, overall the ‘welfare’ cuts and more generous tax allowances balanced each other out, contributing nothing to deficit reduction”.


Those coalition austerity cuts were not needed to reduce the deficit or to do anything about Labour’s spending in the past; they were to pay for tax cuts. The benefits of those tax cuts are felt primarily by higher earners. If you increase the personal allowance, someone earning £80,000 a year benefits from all of it. A single mum working 35 hours a week during term time at the minimum wage does not earn enough to benefit at all.

I have now taken a deep breath and will move on to today’s Statement. One thing that the HBAI—households by average income—does is to give us an interesting sense of perspective, and I want to remind us of that today. It tells us that, to lie in the top half of the income distribution, a single individual last year needed a net income over £17,700. A single individual with an annual net household income of over £34,900 would be in the top decile. In other words, he or she would have an income higher than 90% of the population. We all tend to assume that other people earn similar amounts to us and that is a really good reminder that, if that is what the average is, think what the poor are living on.

The Minister mentioned relative poverty today. Normally, Ministers in this Government end up talking about absolute poverty because it is the only figure they can find that does not appear to be rising. Under these figures, they have not looked at the international measure, which is relative poverty, but even today’s figures show that the number of children living in absolute poverty before housing costs increased by 300,000 and after housing costs by 200,000. It is staggering to see absolute poverty rising in our country.

But that is inevitable. Ministers may not wish to come into politics to make people poorer, but I am afraid that if one wills the ends one must will the means. It is inevitable that, if you keep cutting benefits to children, families with children will get poorer. The benefit freeze alone will now save the Government some £4.4 billion a year. That is £4.4 billion that has gone into the Treasury and come from the pockets of some of the poorest families in our country. That means that the Government have cut the value of all the main means-tested working age benefits—all the classic ways in which people keep body and soul together, including personal allowance, income support, jobseeker’s allowance, ESA, housing benefit, universal credit, lower disabled child addition—I could go on. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the effect of the benefit freeze carrying on for yet another year next year means that families will lose another £560 a year on average.

Perhaps even more surprising is that these figures show that the number of pensioners living in poverty actually rose by 100,000 last year, which means that it has increased by 400,000 since 2010. What are the Government planning to do about that?

I have three questions for the Minister. The last Labour Government set out to reduce and eventually eliminate child poverty. They had a clear strategy. What is now the Government’s strategy? Do they aim to reduce child poverty? If so, by how much, by when and on what measure? Or do they think it acceptable that 30% of British children are growing up below the poverty line, half of whom are under five?

Secondly, given that the Government repeatedly stress the importance of people being in work, what will they do about the fact that the proportion of poor children who are in working families has risen again, to 70%?

Finally, will the Government please rethink the benefit freeze? If they would invest just enough to stop it now and not continue it for another year, that could make a real difference to some of the poorest families. These families have suffered enough. When food bank use is at record levels and we keep reading about teachers having to bring in food and clothes to schools simply to help children be well enough, clothed enough and fed enough to learn, surely something has to be done. Please will the Government act?

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I am a very inadequate substitute for my noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, who is unavoidably absent today. I am a very poor stand-in—or rather, sit-in.

Today’s figures come as a result of a deadly combination of high inflation, weak pay growth and big cuts in benefit support for working-age households, as we have heard. The most shocking figure is that there are 200,000 more children in absolute poverty. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, in asking the Government to use the upcoming spending review to restore the remaining £1.3 billion taken out of universal credit work allowances in 2015 and consider introducing a work allowance for second earners to help get both parents into work.

As for getting more disabled people into work, which was mentioned in the Statement, the National Audit Office report which is out today is pretty critical of the department, saying that it cannot assess, for example, whether disabled people receive a consistent service between jobcentres or over time. It also says that the department underspends its budgets by overestimating the take-up rate of some of its programmes. Will the Minister say whether the department will undertake to look seriously at the recommendations from the National Audit Office?

Finally, disabled people themselves are very keen to help the Government to get this right. There are a lot of brilliant disabled people who would be very keen to engage with the department on employment.