Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords, I am happy to put my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Losing 50 per cent of the support currently provided by the disability element of child tax credit will be extremely difficult for many families who face considerable extra costs as a result of having a disabled child who may not meet the severe disability threshold.

The severity of one’s disability should not be the overall defining factor for eligibility to this financial entitlement. The impairment severity is a highly unreliable measure for financial support needed by families to offset the extra costs of raising these children. All manner of disabled children face the extra costs associated with overcoming socioeconomic and environmental barriers. Medical textbook impairment measures are only part of the picture. For example, according to the textbooks, as a child I was considered to be at the most severe end of the scale—very severe. This is still the case today. A person with moderate autism or cystic fibrosis, however, is deemed much less severe. But if you ask my mother who, in my school class, needed financial support the greatest, she would say without a doubt, “Lorna, Mark and Peter”. All would be deemed to have moderate impairments today. We all came from similar economic backgrounds; working class and money was extremely tight. So why were their needs greater than mine?

My mother explains much better than me—as always. Lorna, because she had a hole in the heart and needed expensive extra warmth, good nutrition and babysitting, as both parents needed to work to survive and no family friend or family members felt confident enough to care for her. They were scared: she had a hole in the heart; she was going to die at any moment. Actually she was not, but that was the assumption. Mark, because he had moderate autism, whose particular behaviours could not be financially accommodated by his disabled mother, who herself needed support financially to raise his other two brothers as well. Finally, Peter, whose asthma meant several emergency admissions to hospital per month making it almost impossible for his single parent mother, with two other young siblings, financially to bear the cost of transportation to the hospital and childminders for the other siblings. None of these children is considered to be textbook severe, yet compared to my family their disability-related financial need was much greater.

I believe the Government’s obsession with aligning certain benefits to be really hazardous—unintentional, of course. Such assumptions are not based on practical evidence, as we realised when the Government attempted to align hospitals with residential care homes when looking for areas to cut the significant DLA budget. Please do not let us make the same mistake again.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has given reams of evidence from various notable NGOs and charities which I do not need to repeat. Before finishing, I did contact the eminent Dame Philippa Russell for advice as to what to highlight today. Noble Lords will know of Dame Philippa. She is famous for advising successive Governments for nearly 40 years on disabled children, and she ran the Council for Disabled Children for 30 of those years. She is currently the chair of the Prime Minister's Standing Commission on Carers. She said to me:

“I am very keen (with my two sector hat on) to stress the need to move away from this categorisation of people as having severe, moderate, low needs. None of those categories make sense without screeds of explanation that tax credit assessors simply will not have. They completely negate the idea of prevention and support”.

Let us listen to the experts and accept the amendment, which I feel makes sense.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I spoke to a similar amendment to this in Grand Committee, but it was grouped with various other amendments and the debate was therefore not as clearly focused on disabled children as it might have been. In this amendment, the focus is simply on ensuring that disabled children do not receive less support in universal credit than they did under the benefit and tax credit system. The two noble Baronesses from whom we have just heard said it all and I shall not repeat what they said. However, it may be worth reinforcing how this works.

The disability elements of child tax credit will be replaced under universal credit with either a disability addition if the child is on the lower rate of the care component of DLA, or a higher addition if the child is in the middle or top rate of the care component. Children who are registered as blind will now qualify for the higher addition. The difference in rates is significant. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, the lower addition will be worth about £27 instead of the current £54. We know that children will still receive DLA, even after other disabled people have transferred to the personal independence payment, and there are three rates of care component within DLA—lower, middle and higher. In the benefits system, the middle and higher rates usually go together, but under universal credit the middle rate will be aligned with the lower rate. This means, as we have heard, that children with significant impairments, such as those with Down’s syndrome or who are profoundly deaf and who now receive the middle rate, will in future be entitled to only the lower rate. Thus, their families will lose out.

The bar is set pretty high for children to qualify for the highest rate of the care component. They either have to be visually impaired or need not only frequent care or continual supervision by day but prolonged or repeated care during the night. This means that children who are, say, registered as blind will be entitled to £77 a week, while children with Down’s syndrome or who are profoundly deaf will receive about £26 a week.

The rationale for the change is, as we have heard, supposedly to align the rates of support for adults and children and to simplify the additions—as well as to target those in greatest need. However, the gateways for children and adults are so different that the alignment is not really relevant. As for targeting those in greatest need, it is a matter of judgment as to whether it is better to help a greater number of families with disabled children or to give fewer families greater help. What worries me most is that families with disabled children are disproportionately more likely to live in poverty, as many studies have demonstrated, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, said. Parents of disabled children are less likely to be in work, so the so-called tidying-up and aligning exercise is likely to push already poor families deeper into poverty.

I would very much welcome some help regarding the transitional arrangements, which I failed to grasp when my noble friend described them in Committee. Perhaps he can tell us about them in his reply. We are having to cope with a difficult question.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, this amendment is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester. I think I can dispatch this with as much speed as possible. It is an important probing amendment to try to persuade the Government to clarify the position of the Social Security Advisory Committee beyond doubt in the context of this Bill.

As we all know, the Social Security Advisory Committee sheds light on some of the more obscure regulations and regulatory powers that flow from primary legislation and has an important additional duty to give advice and assistance to the Secretary of State. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who I think is the responsible Minister, is very careful in his duty to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is welcome. It is welcome as far as the committee is concerned as well.

After Royal Assent, there is a process that has been going on for some time. Members of the Social Security Advisory Committee—they are technical experts, in the main—can self-refer pieces of secondary legislation where they feel there is an important point to make, to explore or to advise Parliament of. They sift every statutory instrument, and they use their discretion to self-refer. It all works rather well. As far as I can recall, until the Social Security Administration Act 1992 primary social security statutes were much more expansive and descriptive and most had their own time limit at which the Social Security Advisory Committee could take charge of regulations and self-refer. It was usually after a period of something like six months, but sometimes different statutes made different arrangements.

After 1992, there was an understanding that six months was the most appropriate period because Parliament could in theory be considered to have introduced all the salient facts, discussed them and come to conclusions that would not change much in six months. I think things have changed since then, because we are now dealing with skeletal primary statutes. This Bill is no exception. There must be up to 200 regulations in here. In the past we have seen some regulations being scrutinised by the Social Security Advisory Committee only after six months of the implementation of the provisions in the individual clauses.

This is a probing amendment. I hope that the Government will go away and think carefully about this. In this Bill in particular, because it is a significant change of direction, regulations will start pouring out of the department, so we will have many hours of happy discussions downstairs in secondary instrument debates almost as soon as this Bill gets Royal Assent. I want to be clear about exactly where the SSAC fits into the future of that. The implementation of the Bill and the rollout of provisions will, in any case, take a long while, so circumstances could change quite dramatically not just financially but socially, culturally and in others ways as well. I for one would feel safer if we had an assurance—even if it was in the Bill—that there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that, six months after Royal Assent and when the ink was dry after Her Majesty’s pen had scraped the official signature— if that is what happens these days—across the goatskin, the Social Security Advisory Committee would immediately thereafter have access to the regulation-making power that flowed from the universal credit and all the other provisions in this particular legislation.

Obvious questions flow from that. Does the SSAC have the discretion, authority or interest in picking what regulations to concentrate on? Speaking for myself, I trust its judgment in doing that. If, for every 10 secondary instruments that it looked at, it said that Parliament should look at two, I would be absolutely content to leave it to make that decision and use its discretion in that way. That is based on years of working with the committee and being confident that its members know what they are doing and have regard to the public interest, as well as having the depth and knowledge of experience that they have arrived at over many years. I can give colleagues comfort that they could do that properly.

I am not even going to ask for more resources. I would like to, but in these straitened times it would be hard to say that as we could double the workload we need to double the staff. I am not saying that. I am asking for clarity about when its remit commences. I think that we will all need help in trying to understand. I know that the Minister has done his best to provide the Committee with draft regulations as soon as they become available, but there are still huge gaps. We are taking a lot on trust. As legislators, we could feel more confident that we were on top of what was being done in Parliament if the Social Security Advisory Committee had unfettered access to discretionary self-referral of statutory instruments after six months after Royal Assent. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, my name is also on this amendment. My noble friend has explained the six-month rule. I would say that the DWP has recently interpreted it creatively. The rule was originally brought in partly to allow for the quick implementation of regulations and partly to stop the wasteful duplication of the same evidence being produced for the statutory consultation undertaken by the SSAC as for the parliamentary debate on the Bill. It dates back to 1973 and the predecessor committee, the National Insurance Advisory Committee, but that reasonable rule has been stretched beyond reason when a year, say, after Royal Assent, whole sections of Acts can be activated, at which point the DWP starts the clock to begin the six-month exclusion period.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I particularly support the idea of a trial period before incurring huge public expenditure in reassessing 2 million disabled people, many of whom really do not need it, for example, if their circumstances are unlikely to change. Where there is written evidence of severe impairments, it is simply common sense to accept that evidence and avoid putting people through costly and potentially distressing face-to-face interviews. Setting out criteria that would signal eligibility for PIP without an interview is an administratively simple way to indentify those who have severe impairments that have already been assessed through written evidence as giving rise to a higher level care or mobility need.

The Government have said that they do not think it is right that we should judge people purely on the type of health condition or impairment they have, making blanket decisions about benefit entitlement. One can understand their desire to personalise the assessment process when the impact of an impairment may not be clear. However, it is obvious that in some cases the impact is clear from written evidence and beyond dispute in terms of its implications for the rate of PIP that should be awarded. For some groups of people it is perfectly clear from the severity of their impairment that they should be eligible for enhanced rates of PIP without further assessment. For example, if someone is deafblind, a face-to-face interview to establish that they have mobility needs of the highest level is barmy. If someone has no sight at all or no legs, no further assessment is needed to confirm that they have a high level of mobility need. In cases such as these, a face-to-face interview is simply a waste of money. In addition to avoiding unnecessary stress for severely disabled people, this amendment would save money for the taxpayer. It feels pretty much like a no-brainer to me.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment and perhaps I might read it out, because it is a long time since we first started talking about it. It would insert:

“including a requirement for the decision maker to collect evidence from the claimant’s own health care professionals as a part of the decision making process”.

There is a strong suspicion that this is not always done. The only thing that I would quibble with in that amendment is that not only does the decision-maker have to collect evidence, it has to be taken into account when the decision-making process is gone into.

My question for my noble friend is about a sentence that I found in one of the documents we were given—I cannot now remember which one it is. It says:

“Decision Makers will change erroneous decisions rather than send them to a Tribunal”.

The next sentence says:

“If a claimant’s points at issue are not resolved, they can still appeal to the HM Courts & Tribunals Service”.

I had to go to a tribunal having had my papers re-examined, presumably by a decision- maker. What will change about the process now with PIP? I am not quite sure, reading between the lines, what the two sentences that I have read out mean. Are things going to change from now, or not?

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I have already spoken in this debate but I ask the Committee’s indulgence to make one other brief comment. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has tabled Amendment 86ZAA in this group. Yesterday, she was mortified when she realised that she has a commitment today which it is impossible to break and she cannot be here. I know that she has apologised to the Minister. She has asked me to extend that apology to the whole Committee and asked that I make one brief comment on her behalf. If she had been here, she would have said that if a person has a clearly diagnosed and irreversible condition, they should not be required to have continuing assessments as it causes them concern and adds unnecessary cost to the system. I think that point has been made by other noble Lords in the debate, but the noble Baroness was really keen to get that point on the record and, again, she apologises for not being here today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Low of Dalston]

Before the Minister concludes, I am sorry if I was not paying attention, but I did not hear him respond to the points made about our amendment about cases where the written evidence was clear and unambiguous, where there were very high levels of need which, the nature of the impairment made clear, were unlikely to change. I heard the Minister say that the assessment process would be implemented with flexibility, but my impression was that the avoidance of a reassessment would be a pretty exceptional situation. Those of us who support Amendment 86ZB believe that cases where people's circumstances are unlikely to change and their high levels of need have been unambiguously and unequivocally evidenced are not isolated exceptions. That is a widespread and general circumstance. Can the Minister respond a bit more positively on that?

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

Will the Minister also respond to my question, when I asked whether the sentence:

“Decision Makers will change erroneous decisions rather than send them to a Tribunal”

is a change from the present system?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, taking those questions in the order that I fancy, let me start with the noble Lord, Lord Low. If I did not make it unequivocally clear, let me do so: where the written evidence is unequivocal, we will take decisions on the written evidence and continue to do so. I hope that that is absolutely clear, and I am sorry that I did not say that with enough emphasis.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, the National Autistic Society is undertaking some extremely good initiatives. I was just considering one in Northern Ireland with Jobcentre Plus. To be honest, I was not aware of that particular one mentioned by the noble Lord, but that is exactly the kind of initiative that we will want to incorporate as we build the programme. We understand that the issue of autism is important.

My noble friend Lady Thomas refers to how the WCA works, rather than how the PIP might work, because we have not completely developed it. The best I can do on that issue is to write to her setting out the position precisely. I hope that that is satisfactory for her.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

That will be helpful.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this group of amendments and the Minister for his comments. I feel that I am not knocking at a completely shut door. However, I still believe that those who should be allowed to be consulted should be made more explicit in the Bill. I also accept that, in some cases, collecting additional evidence from the claimant’s medical practitioner may be unnecessary as the decision may be clear-cut. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, for highlighting the fact that information should be used, not just collected. That has given me plenty of food for thought on my future wording.

There has been strong support for the use of the best evidence possible so that we can arrive at the right decision for the disabled people concerned and be effective in the use of public money. To not take medical evidence into account or use appropriate support advocacy, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord German, would be a false economy. However, we are still missing something.

As regards the financial cost and the cost in time of an appeals process—not to mention the stress that that will cause to the great number of people who will have to go through it and the fact that it could block up the system—I would much rather the money go into people’s pockets than into the process. On the testing process, it does not matter whether you ask 20 or 200 questions, if the claimant is not able to give the best answer or the right answer, or the answers are not correctly linked together in the process, you will not get to the right decision and will be left in a situation where there is a huge number of appeals. I am not asking for more money to be spent; only that it is spent in the right place.

The Minister referred to the correct training for assessors to ensure that they reach the right standard. That is incredibly important. However, I am not convinced that we are yet in the right place; there is still much work to be done. I shall return to this issue at a later stage. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

86ZZZW: Clause 78, page 57, line 2, at end insert—
“(d) must disregard aids and adaptations used by a person in assessing their mobility”

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, as we all know, at last we have the second draft of the PIP criteria, with the responses to the consultation analysed and with the Government's response. We now have to call aids and adaptations “aids and appliances”, although aids and adaptations was the phrase in the consultation. I declare an interest in that I use a huge number of aids and adaptations, as I expect my fellow Peers along this Bench do too. The confusion about the name reflects a bit of confusion about the whole issue in the DWP. I must say that I am not much the wiser having read both “The approach to aids and appliances” on page 32 of the explanatory note and “How aids and appliances should be considered”, on page 17, but I start on page 6. Under the heading, “Refining the draft criteria to produce a second draft”, the sixth bullet point states:

“To ensure that the assessment does not unfairly penalise individuals who choose to use aids and appliances to improve their independence, the assessment now also considers cheap, widely available aids and appliances which can ‘reasonably be expected’ to be used, in a similar way to Disability Living Allowance. We also recognise that aids and appliances do not necessarily remove barriers and may attract costs; therefore descriptors which refer to these normally attract a scoring descriptor”.

The last thing we need is for those who make the most of every aid and appliance they can find to be unfairly penalised; or for those who do not even try to find suitable aids and appliances which might help them to be rewarded. Aids and appliances should be complementary to benefit entitlements, not in competition with them.

Many respondents to the consultation, we are told, argued that the use of an aid or an appliance does not necessarily remove a barrier to participation, and they are quite right. We cannot be certain that the Government believe that. They state at paragraph 4.25:

“Some respondents felt that we should not take the use of aids and appliances into account in the assessment. We do not feel that this approach is appropriate as we want entitlement to Personal Independence Payment to be based on an individual’s level of participation in society. As such, if individuals are participating well with the help of aids or appliances, we believe that this should be reflected”.

What does this mean? There is no useful “for instance”. However the next paragraph goes on to say that it is recognised that,

“barriers and costs may not be removed by the use of support aids and so descriptors describing the use of an aid or appliance to carry out activities will usually attract a score in the assessment”.

These two sentences must be read together so that the first is at all times qualified by the second, although we do not know what score might be given in the assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Clearly, one has to be absolutely sympathetic to this point. As we all know, levels of equipment can vary hugely. However, the point on this particular issue is that we will look at only readily available, cheap aids and appliances, which can be reasonably used. That will be the definition and it is the definition used today in DLA, so we are effectively porting that approach over. I think I have already asked for the amendment to be withdrawn.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I think that proves my point about the confusion over this issue. This has been an extremely illuminating debate. I am very grateful to my fellow Peers along this Bench. We have heard about special shoes, small chair-lifts for small chairs, stair lifts, carpets, lifts in the House of Lords, cushions and so on. I fear that the confusion in my mind over how aids and appliances will be taken into consideration has not been entirely removed. I shall read what the Minister said with care. If I were younger, I would go to my assessment having borrowed the electric wheelchair of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. That would be the answer. I could cross my fingers behind my back and say that it was mine, and I would then get all the points that I needed. There are some real problems.

However, I end on a note that the Minister might enjoy. The prize for the best disabled lavatory that I have ever come across goes to one in the Department for Work and Pensions in Caxton House. It should be open to the public for general inspection. I hope my noble friend will pay it an official visit at his convenience. It has an electric control that you press, which means that it goes up and down without any effort on the part of the user. As an example of a brilliant adaptation, it takes the top prize. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 86ZZZW withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I support the amendment that was powerfully moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I shall also speak to my Amendment 86A, which enables an eligible person to receive PIP after three months rather than six. The balancing corollary of that amendment is my next amendment, Amendment 86B, which changes the length of time that a person's condition is estimated to last from six to nine months, so the envelope of time in these amendments is not being stretched beyond a year. It is just being differently configured, which fulfils the Government’s desire to align PIP with the definition of long-term disability in the Equality Act.

I gather that another simplification which the Government want is to align the waiting time for PIP with attendance allowance. They have cited the approval of several organisations for this change, but is my noble friend really telling us that these organisations would rather people waited for six months for PIP just for the sake of this alignment? This is certainly not my experience.

The reason my amendment seeks to keep the qualifying period to three months is very simple: some conditions of a long-term nature may have a sudden onset; some may not have such a sudden onset but might be able to be diagnosed only several weeks after the onset of symptoms. People with rheumatoid arthritis, for example, which affects about 400,000 people in the UK, are often only given an official diagnosis after six weeks of certain specified symptoms. I mention that disease specifically because arthritis in general forms 18 per cent of the DLA case load; it is at the very top of the list.

Next on the list are mental health conditions at 17 per cent. For anyone suffering from a severe mental health condition, applying for DLA would not be the first thing they think of, and waiting for six months, when PIP comes in, to help with care is a very long time.

There are then those diseases which may have a devastating impact on people immediately, such as a severe stroke or heart attack, a serious accident, amputation or an unexpected diagnosis of cancer which demands challenging treatment straightaway. We may hear a little more about that from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. People with any of these conditions may need the extra help which PIP could give comparatively quickly to stop them from falling into debt as they manage their condition with all its ramifications.

This is even more important in these days when local authorities are so overstretched financially that they are becoming reluctant to carry out more than minimal adaptations to people’s homes, let alone provide adequate help with caring. Those affected may need to buy for themselves various mobility aids, safety devices and other equipment, or perhaps set up a home alarm system. Their homes may need extra heating; they may have increased laundry requirements; they may need special diets; and they may have to rely on expensive taxis to get to hospital appointments and for other purposes. If the social model of disability means anything at all, then a disabled person is likely to have to rely on taxis if they want to go out and about, particularly during the winter.

Turning to those conditions which are not sudden onset such as my own—adult onset muscular dystrophy—it would be foolish for someone to try to get PIP too early while they are still able to manage their impairments relatively easily because they will almost certainly fail the assessment. On the other hand, if they know that they will have to wait, whatever happens, for six months before receiving any extra resources, they may decide they should at least start the process, particularly if they are beginning to fall into debt with managing their condition.

So when should they start the claim? I understand from what the Minister for Disabled People said in the Public Bill Committee in the Commons that the qualifying period for PIP starts at the point where someone is first entitled to it regardless of whether a claim has been received, and that even a lengthy spell in hospital can be part of the waiting period. That may be a helpful message for someone who has had a stroke or a bad fall, but it is not always possible to know exactly when a person might qualify.

At present, the waiting time for DLA is three months. By changing it to six months, the Government have said that this is not about saving money but about the right benefit going to the right people, or words to that effect. Presumably, by doubling the waiting time, they believe that three months is too short a time to be able to assess someone’s condition. They are possibly thinking that someone who has suffered, for example, quite a severe stroke might apply straightaway for PIP but, after six months, might be much better and able to manage the impairments they still have. However, looking at the case load for DLA, only 3 per cent of claimants have stroke-related conditions. This is presumably because the majority of stroke patients are past retirement age and thus past qualifying for the first time for DLA.

If PIP is to be an in-work as well as an out-of-work benefit, which it is, surely it is better to allow a person to claim the benefit after three months, not six, as it is likely to help them get back to work and to participate once again in society more quickly, for example by travelling to work by taxi or by taking a cab to the station.

The table of conditions that people who claim DLA are diagnosed with is very illuminating. People with both osteo- and rheumatoid arthritis, which as I said come top of the list, are very unlikely to get better after three months. Those with stroke-related conditions and malignant diseases are each just 3 per cent of the total. It is not as though a large number of DLA claimants with these conditions are trying to claim after their condition has improved. In fact, the table shows that the Government’s argument about a person’s condition not being stable after three months does not really stack up. I read from the table that most people almost certainly do not apply for DLA at present until they really feel they have to.

To sum up, six months is a long time to wait for extra resources if a person has had a diagnosis of a long-term severe condition. The Minister in another place talked about a person’s condition settling down. However, for many of us our conditions never settle down—they go on progressing. If the Government are implacably opposed to retaining the three-month waiting time for PIP, maybe they would agree to, say, an assessment on the papers after a year so that a person’s entitlement can be looked at properly again. I think this will come up later on.

If the Government insist on the six-month waiting time for all applicants, I fear it will be understood to be about saving money in the short term in the hope that people will be put off from applying. I am encouraged to hear that my noble friend and his fellow Ministers are still listening and I hope this means they are hearing all the arguments for changing the qualifying period back from six months to three.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, this is a very important debate. I support the idea of keeping the qualifying period for PIP at three months. I also hope this debate will look at the idea of the prospective period moving from six to nine months if the Minister sees that as an appropriate practical way of dealing with the Government’s intention to align the qualification period for PIP with the Equality Act, as I understand it.

I, like many, am extremely concerned that the proposals here will have a devastating impact on disabled people, especially those with sudden-onset conditions such as cancer. Cancer patients often see sudden changes in their household income combined with significant cost escalation on diagnosis. This can make cancer patients particularly vulnerable to financial difficulties and in need of immediate financial support.

Why do people with sudden-onset conditions need support immediately? We know that cancer treatment and its debilitating effects can often begin very quickly after diagnosis, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has already explained. The associated support needs arising from that treatment are often immediate and, importantly, the first six months can be the period when extra costs are at their greatest as people try to adjust their outgoings to their reduced income. Research by Macmillan found that 80 per cent of cancer patients who experienced increased costs reported that they were greatest in the first six months.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Touhig]

What’s in a name? I come from south-east Wales where these things are important. We all call the Department for Work and Pensions the DWP, but in my part of Wales “dwp” is a word; it means “stupid”. It seems to me that if we are creating a new benefit, it ought to have some relation to the people it is supposed to support.

I am president of a group at home called Access. It campaigns on behalf of people with disabilities. Our members are middle-aged and militant. If they see cars parked on pavements, they stick stickers on them saying, “Pavements are for people. Shift it”, and they go back to check whether the cars have been moved. When the town centre was being redesigned, they persuaded two council officials to sit in wheelchairs and said, “You try to get into town and see the problems”. I talked to some members recently about this because they were asking about the new benefit and what a personal independence payment is. One, who I have known for many years, said to me, “I am not independent. I am wheelchair-bound and dependent on my husband, my family and my friends. Surely the benefit ought to reflect the fact that it is support for me as a disabled person”. So I have every sympathy with those who have tabled this amendment. It is important that the name reflects the people that it is to support and aid. It is quite reasonable to propose that “disability” should be in the name of this new benefit.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment. I shall get my interest out of the way at the outset of this Committee stage as I, too, receive DLA. I shall be very brief. It is almost as though the Government want to airbrush the word “disability” out of the picture. I cannot think why, except that they want to signal a change of approach. It is this very fact that is making disabled people so worried that they may not qualify for the new benefit. Can my noble friend say why the words “personal independence payments” were used and whether it is too late to change things? This is not something I would die in a ditch over because there are so many other things in the Bill that may be in that category, but not having the word “disability” in the name is a terrible mistake, so I support this amendment.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I, too, have an interest to declare because, as a family carer, I have two adult disabled children who are both in receipt of disability living allowance. I have spent many unhappy hours trying to get my mind around what the various benefits they receive are and how to complete the various assessments they have been sent.

The purpose has to be reflected in the name in order to help people like me when I am trying to help my son or daughter make sense of what benefits they might be entitled to. I wonder whether there is an element of misguided political correctness in the change of the name. Terminology can be a barrier.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I have the second amendment in this group, Amendment 71N. It is a big and complicated group. I have also put my name to Amendments 73, 74 and 75. I am not going to say too much about those because the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is going to introduce them in some detail. I support his opposition to clause stand part, and I am sure that we will come to discuss that more generally.

Many people who are placed in the work-related activity group have a deteriorating condition—say, Parkinson’s disease. Some people with motor neurone disease or some forms of cancer have been told that they have only two or three years to live, so it is possible to be in the work-related activity group and still have a very limited prognosis. The purpose of this amendment is to allow certain groups to be exempt from time-limiting of contributory employment and support allowance. This is a probing amendment in many ways, but I would prefer there to be no time-limiting at all, to be clear. If we do have time-limiting, this amendment is intended to safeguard support for people who have had to give up work due to a degenerative condition or terminal illness—for example, Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease or cancer. This measure will affect people with a degenerative condition who qualify for the work-related activity group but whose benefit expires before their condition deteriorates, to the extent that they would be eligible for the support group. It will also affect people with a terminal prognosis of over six months who will qualify for ESA under exceptional circumstances.

The Government had originally promised those whose contributory ESA claim had ended at 365 days as their condition deteriorated that, if they qualified for the support group on either functional or terminal illness grounds, they would become eligible again for ESA. This commitment was made in response to a question from Dame Anne Begg MP by Chris Grayling MP. However, there are currently no provisions in the Bill that will allow for someone to restart a contributory claim after their 365 days have expired. Many people with degenerative conditions or a terminal prognosis of more than six months will find themselves without support in the final stages of their illness if they have savings or a partner in work, and therefore cannot seek support from means-tested benefits. People with a degenerative condition will face the impossible predicament of trying to remain in work for as long as possible in order to ensure that they enter the support group within a year of beginning their claim, or having to stop work and focus on managing their condition and thus risk seeing their benefit run out after one year. What a position that we contemplate these people being in.

I use the example of a person with Parkinson’s disease that was lent to me by the Parkinson’s UK charity. It described the following client. He had worked until the symptoms of his condition became too severe for him to continue. He explained that although he had good days, he had bad days. He would only have good days if he carefully conserved his energy. He said,

“but I’m better when I’m not doing anything. It sounds like a skiver’s charter but what it means is that the energy or concentration reserves needed to do simple physical or mental tasks are quite low so any difficulty encountered quickly drains those reserves and I get into a sort of ‘closing down state’. My thoughts slow down. My movements slow down. My breathing gets laboured. I want to sleep. I find it hard to swallow properly. I get headaches and experience a feeling of desperation”.

This proposal promises to create a two-tier system. The rules around national insurance contributions are extremely complicated. I do not claim to be an expert in any way, so it is hard to present a hard-and-fast case, but one scenario that might occur is that someone whose condition deteriorates to the extent that they are eligible for the support group on day 365 of their claim receives indefinite support, while someone who becomes eligible on day 366 gets nothing. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that the Government honour their commitment that those who become eligible for the support group after their 365 days’ claim has expired can receive support through contributory ESA?

I understand that there are exceptional circumstances which are catered for in legislation, in the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008. Someone with a life-threatening condition who would not meet the normal criteria for ESA can qualify under exceptional circumstances and be placed in the work-related activity group. The example given in the guidance for healthcare professionals carrying out the assessment is someone with motor neurone disease. As I have said, we know that the average life expectancy post-diagnosis for someone with motor neurone disease is one to four years. A 62 year-old client of a citizens advice bureau in the south-east had worked all his life, until he became too ill to carry on. He was diagnosed with motor neurone disease and experienced chronic fatigue and reduced mobility. He applied for ESA and was placed in the work-related activity group. What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that people in that situation, who qualify for ESA under these exceptional circumstances, do not lose out as time-limiting is introduced?

The equality impact assessment accompanying the proposal to limit payment of employment and support allowance to people in the work-related activity group partly justifies that measure on the basis that ESA is a “temporary benefit”. This ignores the reality that it is impractical to expect someone with a terminal prognosis to return to work. We are seeing people with a terminal prognosis being put in a work-related activity group, which is being classified as a temporary benefit. If ESA is a temporary benefit, what action is the Minister planning to take to support those for whom a return to work is not an option?

I, like many here, find these clauses desperately unfair to some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I oppose time-limiting for 12 months for ESA, which appears to me to be completely arbitrary. It is not appropriate that we should be looking at this implementation retrospectively. The assessment period should not count towards any time-limiting and it is not appropriate that people coming out of the support group, if they only have a month left of their time-limiting, should be expected to find work in a month. This is an extremely important debate and I hope very much that the Minister will be able to come back fully with answers to my questions.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, at this stage, I am not going to go into all the arguments about the time-limiting of ESA to one year. My noble friend Lord German will address the main issues in a short while. I shall speak to my Amendment 72A to my noble friend the Minister’s Amendment 72, the purpose of which is to question the whole business of the retrospective nature of this provision. Under this part of the new clause, the clock has already started ticking for existing claimants, regarding their entitlement to contribution-based ESA in the work-related activity group rather than in the support group, who have been receiving the benefit for 12 months or more. For them, their claim will stop as soon as the Bill becomes law, which is estimated to be April of next year. By starting the clock well before Parliament has made its decision on the Bill, the Government seem to be acting like a private insurance company that changes the rules of someone’s policy after they have made the claim.

However, this does not seem to have been the plan in October last year. If one looks at the Spending Review 2010’s policy costings, published in October last year, on page 6—it is repeated in the Library briefing pack on the Bill—it is stated at the first bullet point that,

“for existing contributory ESA customers, the time limit will apply at the point they reach one year including the assessment phase. Those with a claim duration of one year or more when legislation comes into effect will have their benefit time-limited immediately and will have at least 12 months to prepare for the change”.

Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on why and when the Government changed their minds and decided to make this provision retrospective—thus allowing hardly any time at all for some claimants to prepare for change. Just to be clear, someone whose claim started in April this year may find by the time the Bill becomes law in April next year that their claim will cease immediately.

Parliament has always deplored retrospective legislation. In 2009, the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House, in its report on the Banking Bill, drew attention to the need for there to be,

“a compelling reason in the public interest for a departure from the general principle that retrospective legislation is undesirable”.

At least the letter to claimants that was sent out recently by the DWP is headed:

“Possible changes to your ESA”,

and states that the changes the Government want to make have not yet been approved by Parliament. The letter continues by providing the ramifications of the change. I gather that many claimants who have received such a letter are telling citizens advice bureaux up and down the country that they do not know what this letter means for them, and that they are very worried by it. They have good cause to be worried. Not only are the Government breaking the understanding that national insurance contributions—perhaps paid for years and years—protected a person against the loss of employment on health grounds, but many claimants, as we have heard, are likely to be left with only their partner’s extremely modest income, which may push them out of eligibility under the means-tested ESA.

I turn back to the policy costings document of October 2010. Under the heading, “Uncertainty”, we read that the migration from IB to ESA was the cause of particular uncertainty. We now know that a high proportion of IB claimants are being found to be fit for work as a result of the migration to ESA, in spite of appeals. I therefore ask my noble friend whether the Government can now start to quantify savings that might be made on the ESA bill, in spite of an increasing JSA bill—given high unemployment—and whether they will consider reverting to their original plan and drop the retrospective nature of this clause.

We all know of the need for the Government to cut public spending by an eye-watering amount as soon as possible. The Government’s argument may be that JSA is time-limited, so why not ESA? However, in my view, a claimant’s health is a much more emotive subject for their employment—or lack of it—and being ill can be a very expensive business. Using retrospection in this way, when it directly affects someone’s income in an unforeseeable way, seems to be thoroughly bad practice. Is it really good governance to cut massive corners by bringing in this policy in such haste?

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

52DA: Schedule 1, page 107, line 26, at end insert—
“( ) For the purposes of introducing Regulations under this section —
(a) earnings shall not include any payment in respect of expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties of the employment.(b) notional income shall not apply in respect of any amount of income other than earnings, or earnings derived from employment as an employed earner, arising out of the claimant’s participation in a service user group;(c) “service user group” means a group of individuals that is consulted by or on behalf of—(i) a Health Board, Special Health Board or the Agency in consequence of a function under section 2B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;(ii) a landlord authority in consequence of a function under section 105 of the Housing Act 1985;(iii) a public authority in consequence of a function under section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995;(iv) a best value authority in consequence of a function under section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999; (v) a local authority landlord or registered social landlord in consequence of a function under section 53 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001;(vi) a relevant English body or a relevant Welsh body in consequence of a function under section 242 of the National Health Service Act 2006;(vii) a Local Health Board in consequence of a function under section 183 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(viii) the Commission or the Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator in consequence of a function under sections 4, 5 or 108 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008;(ix) the regulator or a registered provider in consequence of a function under sections 98, 193 or 196 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008;(x) the National Institute for Health Research and Department of Health commissioning programmes;(xi) the National Institute for Health infrastructure organisations including research networks, Research Design Services, Collaborations for Leadership and Applied Health Research and Care, University Research Institutes and groups and other higher education institutions, individual research studies, social care bodies, charities and other not for profit organisations; or(xii) a public or local authority in Great Britain in consequence of a function conferred under any other enactment for the purposes of monitoring and advising on a policy of that body or authority which affects or may affect persons in the group or monitoring or advising on services provided by that body or authority which are used (or may potentially be used) by those persons.”

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, the wording of my amendment is taken straight from Statutory Instrument 2678, the Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 2009, with the additions of subsections 10 and 11. The reason I have copied the wording of this SI will become clear in a moment.

Old welfare reform hands may find my speech strangely familiar because I have been on this particular soap box since 2006. The amendment is about the way benefits are treated for service user involvement, specifically the unresolved problem of those disabled people on benefits who help with NHS research, public health research and social care research. The unresolved problem is the impact on their benefits of out-of-pocket expenses and, possibly, a small emolument paid by the organising body. Disabled people are asked to take part in research studies in these fields not just as subjects but as active partners in the research process. For many severely disabled people, this activity is the most important thing that they do, as they are uniquely placed to take part and they know that their participation may lead to better outcomes, both in the immediate future and for future generations.

Plans set out in the health Bill require clinical commissioning groups to base decision-making on evidence-based research. However, unless the universal credit rule on the treatment of certain reimbursed expenses as earnings is amended and the application of the notional earnings rule is removed, disabled people on benefits will continue to be prevented from offering their assistance. Research in health and social care will be used to commission our future healthcare but, as matters stand, two nonsensical bits of red tape in the benefits system will prevent the involvement of many patients. The two obstructive benefit rules were designed for employment and are entirely inappropriate for involvement. The first is the treatment of reimbursed expenses for involvement in research.

At this point, I should define what I mean by research. I am not talking about patients who are entered into clinical trials as part of their treatment. I am talking about those who, in the words of the relevant HMRC circular, are,

“invited to attend meetings to give their views on various matters to inform the research process and direction”.

Where people are paid a small fee for their help with this research and their expenses are reimbursed by the organising body, both amounts are totalled and treated as earnings. Where the total is above the benefit-earnings disregard, the excess is deducted from their benefits. This is because, as I said, the reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses is treated as earnings. People may end up with less money the following week or with no money at all for living costs for several weeks. If this happens, they promptly and understandably withdraw their help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will look at it, but I am not sure I need to study it very hard. As I understand it, the fear of that individual is that if they earn too much money they get taken off their benefit structure entirely. Because they are earning too much, they are outside the disability benefit structure and they must therefore get on another one and they then have a terrible problem. That does not apply under the universal credit. The worst that could happen is that the universal credit goes down in the period, reflecting the emolument, but they are better off overall. That acute fear of being left stranded goes. In that particular case, and many others like it, the desperate cliff-edge position which currently exists is not there under universal credit.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his support, as does my noble friend Lady Wilkins. I would like to take up my noble friend’s offer of a meeting before the Bill reaches the next stage, because we were told specifically by the officials of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, when he was Minister, that they could not extend this to bona fide NHS research—nothing to do with commercial interests—unless there was a peg in legislation on which to hang the regulations. I therefore do not accept my noble friend’s statement that everything can be done by regulations, because we found that this particular matter could not be done. We are not talking about people who can get a job; we are talking about severely disabled people, who are a million miles from the job market, but they have specific conditions which are needed for vital research. I hope this can be sorted out before the Bill goes any further. We need this peg, and it is not too late to put it in this Bill. I will take up the offer of a meeting, which I have done on many occasions when I have withdrawn this sort of amendment—and, of course, it finally bore fruit.

[Lord Freud]

We do not need a legislative peg in primary legislation to make changes here. That was a reference to NHS legislation. How we define and work through the different types of income is something which we are going to do in regulation. I can assure my noble friend that, although this is something which is slightly complicated to do, it does not have the desperate urgency that requires it to be done in the next couple of weeks.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

I am caught between two pieces of advice: one is that we do need legislation and one is that we do not. I am somewhat conflicted, and I would like to get this sorted out before Third Reading. We have been told that for the rules that I read out from the statutory instrument, there was a peg on which to hang it, and that is why they were there. We were told that because there is nothing for NHS research we could not extend it. I shall withdraw the amendment now, but hope that we can resolve this before Third Reading, if not Report.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Could the noble Lord arrange to send us copies of the earlier advice, because there is some confusion and I am not clear in my mind?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will have an early meeting with my noble friend on this, and we will take it from there. Subject to that meeting, I will provide that particular advice, otherwise we may go round the houses on this very technical matter. I hope it is one we can resolve pretty fast, with a letter.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 52DA withdrawn.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

I want to speak briefly to the amendments in the order in which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised them. First, I enter a note of reservation about Amendment 51FZB. I do so not out of a lack of concern for disable people but out of a concern not to red-line, identify them, or subject them to special treatment unless that is appropriate. We all understand that many jobseekers who are put on to the work search programmes may find life more difficult because they are disabled—that is not in question. The issue is whether the sanction, or the potential for one, in the event of misconduct—I refer to the high-level sanctions in Clause 26 rather than those in Clause 27—should ever be neglected. If a disabled participant on this programme were to reply to the department, “You can think again Charlie if you think I’m going to take that … job”, I am not sure that they should be treated differently from anyone in that position who happened not to have a disability.

On the other hand, if the disability were germane or material to explanations offered as to his inability to comply with the requirements in the section, it would be entirely unreasonable of the Minister or his decision-maker not to have regard to that. It might well be sensible to take the advice of a disability employment adviser, but I do not believe that we should create an artificial distinction about disabled people if the nature of their conduct is not related, or could be said not to be related, to their disability.

As regards Amendments 51ZC and 51FZD, I will rest on the Minister’s explanation for the periods he has chosen. As regards Amendment 51FB, I shall share with the Committee my view, expressed not for the first time, that I am not a particular fan of sanctions regimes. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for admitting that there is a case for them and that they are necessary to support a conditionality regime, particularly where people are disinclined to undertake work, work experience or work preparation. We should not put too much by it and it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response on how much this should be conditioned or targeted. At the back of my mind is the awful memory of the press reports in the first days of the Child Support Agency, alleging that the staff cheered when some delinquent absent parent had been identified. I am not sure that that is the right way to approach this issue; I believe that sanctions are better conducted more in sorrow than in anger, if I may put it that way.

I have one further question for the Minister. Before I ask it, though, perhaps I should say that, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, there might be a slight technical defect in the way that he has presented his Amendment 51FB; it bears on Clause 27 but it should bear also on Clause 26, unless there is some distinction in principle, and I shall comment on that. It would be helpful, for the benefit of those of us who have not been quite as assiduous as we should have been in attending the Committee, if the Minister could explain the difference between the two sanctions regimes in Clauses 26 and 27.

One further point is prompted by the fact that I know that, as I speak, our right honourable friend the Home Secretary is making a Statement and answering questions in another place on gangs and youth violence. We have recently had some press reports that there are to be further sanctions by way of withdrawing benefit from people who are behaving delinquently, whether by rioting or otherwise. I do not want to raise the question on that matter; I just seek this in clarification. I take it from my reading of these sanctions that these are specifically about the work programme and the conditionality thereon, and any such sanctions that the Government may decide upon would have to be delivered through another vehicle and either by additions to the Bill at some stage or by a separate piece of legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.

Essentially I am seeking clarification on some of the issues, expressing concern—as we feel our way through this Committee, which is our duty—about exactly how they would operate and a wish that we should at least not be unaware of any bigger and more major initiatives that may be coming down the track, although perhaps not on this particular set of clauses.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

Is there a disability employment adviser in every Jobcentre Plus office? What training do disability employment advisers have? If the Minister does not know the answer now, which I am sure he does not—it is rather a detailed question—could he possibly write to me? A lot of us are concerned that disability employment advisers may not be quite as boned up as we think they should be on all sorts of conditions. I say that having been at a Jobcentre Plus office where I had to tell a disability employment adviser that the person in front of him had rheumatoid arthritis, when they were not an English speaker and they were describing their symptoms, and he had never heard of the condition. That rather shocked me, so I would be grateful for that information.

[The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells]

My Lords, I enter the debate with a little trepidation. Like other Members of this Committee, I am sure, a number of letters have been sent to me and various cases put. I have had a particularly heart-rending one, running to several pages as so often these letters do, from someone who has fairly severe mental disabilities, according to the letter, and who has responsibilities at the same time, it seems, for a disabled mother. My understanding of the principle of conditionality at the moment in relation to unemployment benefit is that she could be penalised under this process. I would like some assurance that where severe disability is in place, as it were, we will be sure to safeguard the well-being of such people and that they should not be penalised in these circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I would like to add to the questions that we will be showering the Minister with on this issue. We are dealing with the issues of caring and what recognition there is in the benefits system for that, of work conditionality—which, from what I have heard, worries me very much, so we will certainly be returning to that—and of disregard.

As the Minister will be more aware than all of us, at the moment if you do not care for one single person for more than 36 hours a week you do not get carer’s allowance. This could mean that you are caring for two people, each for 25 hours a week—his mum and your dad, for example—making 50 hours a week, but you are not entitled to carer’s allowance. At the moment, therefore, if you do not have a husband’s income to float you off it, you are probably on income support and you will indeed get the £20 disregard. As I understand it, and perhaps the Minister can confirm my worst fears, that person, who might be in their 50s and caring for 50 hours a week as a single person, would have full conditionality applied to them because they were not getting the carer’s allowance so they would be expected to work 30 hours plus, on top of the 50 hours’ care. On top of that, they would not get any earnings disregard. Will the Minister confirm that that scenario is possible?

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Meacher]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Perhaps I may ask a couple more questions. I think that the Minister said that the figure I used of 50,000 was wrong because the only people who would lose out are those working between two and five hours at the national minimum wage. However, it is exactly those sorts of people who are carers and who will be doing quite small numbers of hours: the six-to-eight shift, if you like. Even though it is a small number of people, it would be interesting to know whether there was an impact assessment of the effect on carers and whether it showed how they would be affected.

I have two other points. One is about the figure of £4 billion, which gets used a lot. The disregards will not necessarily cost the Government money; if they are encouraging people into work, those people will quite quickly start paying tax and NI—not immediately but fairly quickly—and they will quickly pay for themselves. I realise that that will not happen at the moment as there is rather a lot of unemployment because of the Government’s policies, but we will not go there. Normally, though, the incentive is to get people into work, so that will soon begin to pay itself off.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

May I interrupt the noble Baroness at this point? I would like to ask my noble friend about the new test that is going to be devised for those disabled people in work. I do not think that he answered that. I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but before she withdraws the amendment I would like to know whether he has any news or wants to write to me afterwards.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My second point is that the question that was not asked is why there is no additional amount of disregard for disabled people to take account of the council tax issues. I presume that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, will speak, but if those extra points could be referred to it would be helpful.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, having been wonderfully rude about the first probing amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I am going to do exactly the opposite now because I regret that he announced that this was a probing amendment. This is the widest power that I have seen for many years in any potential Act of Parliament. Paragraph (d) of Clause 19(2) states that,

“the claimant is of a prescribed description”.

Subsections (3) and (4), which relate to the subsequent amendments as the noble Lord has explained, include the word “may”. However, if “may” is included, “may not” would also be included. The phrase that sprang to mind was, “How wide is the ocean; how deep is the sea?”. I actually think that for once the Merits Committee has not gone far enough; nor, as I said, has the noble Lord.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, just to correct my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, it was the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, not the Merits Committee.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

Yes, my Lords, I am sure it was.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I have a quick point to make in support of the very strong case made by my noble friends Lady Sherlock and Lord Knight, even if he does not want to be thought of as an expert. If the money for free school meals is paid through universal credit, could the Minister explain how families will know what part of the universal credit is supposed to be for school meals? We know from research that money that is clearly labelled for a particular use is more likely to be spent on that use, but if it is swallowed up in the universal credit, that credit may not be paid to the person responsible for ensuring that the child has money for a school meal or a packed lunch. The danger is that the money will not be spent on the school meal, with all the consequences that my noble friend Lady Sherlock has pointed out.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

A long time ago, during the last welfare reform Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was the Minister, I moved an amendment in favour of free school meals full stop. I think it was the highest kite I have ever flown. I was very much in favour of the benefits that it had. One of them is the startling fact that research has borne out that children concentrate far more in the afternoon if they have a good hot meal inside them, which may be the only meal of the day. This is an extremely important issue.

The other day I discovered that some boroughs are giving children free school meals in primary schools and I think that Suffolk is one of them, so good for it. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.

[Lord Freud]

These amendments would provide a cash amount for school meals and health costs within the universal credit award as opposed to the current system of passported benefits, which are often given as a benefit in kind. Clearly, I understand that to be by way of a probe rather than a specific direction. This is a very complex area and I think all of us in this Committee Room have agreed today what these problems are. Defining entitlement to passported benefits is the responsibility of several government departments and the devolved Administrations. Entitlement and the value of benefits can vary by county or by area. My department is taking a keen interest in the work under way to consider passported benefits across the piece.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, it is very difficult to add anything to the most eloquent remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and I do not intend to do so. As I have already mentioned to the Committee, I have some experience of the Conservative Disability Group, but the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, prompt me to add two more thoughts to the pot. I should declare that I am not a professional in this area. I am fairly familiar with disability law, and of course the Minister is absolutely right that reasonable adjustments are an obligation and, indeed, an equality duty within the Equality Act for the public sector.

There are two other considerations the Minister needs to remind his officials to make sure are properly considered. One is the need at all times for public officials to act reasonably in administrative law and the second is for people, who are in a sense, when they go into an assessment, undergoing some kind of trial process, to be treated according to the laws of natural justice. The Minister has to take this trio and convince the Committee not only of his sincerity, but of his ability to effect the means by which they are delivered.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Meacher, spoke most movingly about people with mental health problems and fluctuating conditions. What they said was extremely important. I want to add that people in manual wheelchairs are no longer automatically going to be on ESA after their work capability assessment. They may be on jobseeker’s allowance. That concerns me because we all want people in manual wheelchairs looking for a job and if they are otherwise healthy, of course they want to get a job. They may not be impaired in any other way, but they just cannot walk. However, if ever there was a group of people who needed reasonable adjustments made, this is it because around the country a lot of jobs will not be physically accessible for people in manual wheelchairs. With the Disability Discrimination Act, Jobcentre Plus officials will have to take that into account. However, if it were reinforced by the words “reasonable adjustments” in the claimant commitment, that would remind officials that it is an important thing that they have to have regard to because there must be an awful lot of jobs that are not open to people in manual wheelchairs, simply because of the difficulty of getting into a place of work. This amendment is an extremely good one for that reason, so there is another group of people who might need this reinforcement in Amendment 51CD.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I am prompted to ask the Minister a couple of questions as a result of what has been said. Are the needs of care leavers being particularly taken into account? The Office for National Statistics reviewed the mental disorders and level of mental health of young people in care in 2004. The results were really shocking. It found that, on average, 40 per cent had mental disorders. The most vulnerable group, the 10 per cent in children’s homes, had 68-plus per cent levels of mental disorder. This is not surprising given the histories of these young people but when they leave care, and one hopes that some of those issues have been addressed while they have been in care, I am concerned that they might have difficulties with these meetings. I wonder whether some of them might even have difficulty turning up to a meeting and whether there needs to be somebody going out to them and making a relationship or whether they need to be worked with through some organisation, such as Action for Children, which knows them well and has built a relationship of trust with them.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Thomas of Winchester Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Grand Committee

Therefore, we must look carefully at this section of the Bill. It is possible to come to agreement if people living on their own are happy to move and live somewhere smaller that is easier to manage. However, this must be by agreement. It is quite wrong to proceed by means of enforcement. Agreement rather than enforcement must be the way forward here. I hope that, in view of the comprehensive statement that we have heard this afternoon from my noble friend Lady Hollis, the Minister will agree that the amendment is well worth supporting.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

At this point I should like to make a point on the second new subsection proposed by Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Many disabled people will have had their homes adapted with help from the mandatory disabled facilities grant, which local authorities have to pay to eligible people. This may be as much as £30,000, depending on their circumstances, and is means-tested. Do the Government really expect families or couples who include a disabled person, or even a single disabled person, to move from an adapted property if they are considered to be overoccupying, with all the upheaval that that will mean? Such disabled people may not even be receiving DLA. A couple including a disabled person may have a two-bedroom house or flat which they need to house equipment. This equipment may include bulky and heavy items, such as oxygen tanks, mobility aids, hoists and so on. It might be a vital room for the disabled person or their partner or carer to be able to use in exceptional circumstances, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Turner, have both said. If there is no flexibility, will there have to be another pot of money to enable a couple to adapt a new, smaller home? I cannot believe that this is a sensible use of public money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I have still not had the answer to my question. I do not want him to repeat it, just to clarify it. It was the pronunciation of hwyl I had problems with, not the spelling.

For all his bluster and eloquence, I think the noble Lord has confirmed that he still supports the coalition Government’s dreadful proposals in the Bill. All his questions to the Minister are really just to cover up that fact.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is bullying my noble friend, which is outrageous. My noble friend is exploring the issues around this question, which is perfectly valid in Committee.

[Lord German]

If the noble Lord wants me to answer the question, I can answer it, and will answer it in this way; I believe that the three underpinning policies behind this section of this measure are correct, but in order to achieve those we have to answer some of the fundamental questions, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, raised earlier on today. I have also tried to seek answers to those questions, because I have not found them. That is what we are here to do, and that is what the Committee stage of a Bill is about, it seems to me, but I am new to this particular Parliament. In the one I have come from, that is what we would do: explore these issues.