Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. I also do so with some humility because I have become mildly disabled in recent years and I can understand how many disabled people feel that the life-changing effect of disability is not always fully appreciated. Your life changes completely in all sorts of ways. You wonder whether you can accept an invitation. How will I get there? Will I be able to get back? What will it be like when I get there? Will I have to stand up?

This is with relatively mild disability—for people who have greater suffering it is much worse. I suppose it is one of the reasons I have received more articles and letters on this bit of the Bill than any other section. I recently had a letter from Scope, which is in support of these amendments, of course; it urges that they should be fully supported. It points out that a social-model-based assessment is required and a great deal more attention needs to be paid to the life-changing aspect of disability.

I thank the noble Lords who have brought this before us because it is quite important. If one is able-bodied, one does not realise exactly what it means to have no real mobility. It really is totally life-changing and I do not really think in setting the new arrangements in relation to the PIP this is entirely appreciated by the Government.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly in view of the fact that I arrived at exactly the moment the noble Lord, Lord Low, was making kindly references to me in his speech, although he will probably not have recognised it until a bit later. I was told subsequently by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, that she has also referred to me in reasonably friendly terms and I am duly grateful for that and also for what I understand were friendly references made towards the back end of last week by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and possibly also again by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

If you wonder why I have not been here it is not just because I am so busy but because I was frightened off by the phalanx of female Peers that fell on me the last time I was here for some entirely innocent remark. It has taken me a long while—believe it if you will—to regain my self-confidence. However, I am here and since I have not heard all the debate I am not going to attempt to comment in detail. Also, it would look a bit odd for me to defend the name or the precise detail of it or anything else that I and the late Nick Scott—who played a seminal part in all this and should be remembered in this context—put in place 22 years or so ago.

It is important to recognise from what has been said, even while I have been here, that it has captured the support of disabled people as a phrase, a concept and a purpose, and it would be a huge shame if—I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has used this phrase—we landed up throwing the baby out with the bathwater and losing some of what was gained with DLA, even if it is obviously right that at this stage, 20-plus years on, it should be reviewed and refreshed.

All my instinctive sympathy says that if this nomenclature is what disabled people themselves would like, are comfortable with and feel reflects their needs, I cannot see why we should die in a ditch to change it. That is my position, and I will leave it there with the Minister. I am looking forward to his usual—what was the word used about the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in the papers yesterday: silky?—silky and constructive reply.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

I, too, oppose Clause 57. I have not got a great deal to say on it. I agree very much with what the noble Baroness has just said. We have had debates about this on various Bills in the past, but you cannot discuss this without also considering what arrangements are made for child support. It is all very well to get women back into the workforce, and many women would like to go back into the workforce as soon as they feel that their children are able to be looked after, but you cannot look at one thing without also looking at child support, and I am not certain that this Bill in any way makes sufficient arrangements with regard to child support. Leaving out Clause 57 will give us time to think again. There is quite obviously a difference between seven and five. It gives a little more time to think about it in the way that the noble Baroness has just indicated.

[The Earl of Listowel]

I am reminded of an article recently published on the BBC website reporting on a survey about children reading with their parents. It reported that:

“For the majority (71%) reading with their child is one of the highlights of their day. But the poll of over 1,000 parents found 18% felt too stressed to do so. Two-fifths (41%) said that a child's tiredness stopped reading together being fun, while 30% cited their own tiredness as a problem. More than a third (36%) of the 1,011 survey participants said they were too tired to spend longer reading”.

Teachers were also surveyed:

“Nearly three-quarters of those surveyed (72%) attributed developed language skills and more advanced reading levels to those children who regularly enjoyed a shared book time with parents at home”.

The evidence is very clear that the home environment is the key experience for children in getting the best outcomes for their education, so we need to think about parents not having the energy after a long day’s work to spend that important time, particularly, perhaps, at the ages of five, six and seven, reading with their child.

I refer to an e-mail sent to me today by a primary school teacher. She wrote:

“Commuting up to ninety minutes a day would mean that I would have to leave my son in childcare and school from 7.30 am to 6.30 pm everyday … I am a primary school teacher in London and I see the affects of long term childcare on children. Some only see their parents for an hour each day or only at weekends!”.

The last time I worked with children—in a summer play scheme five years ago—what was particularly striking was that there were children who arrived early at the play scheme for breakfast and there were those who stayed until the end. These children in particular seemed a bit tired, a bit down and flat, so I can understand the concern that as the Government are implementing this, the adviser should very much keep in mind not only whether the parent is working but whether the parent will have a long commute there and back and the child will have a very long day at school, starting early and finishing late. Advisers should keep this in mind when they are considering whether a person has to take a job.

I am sorry to take so long, but to round up, I share the concerns. If there is anything that can be done to mitigate the impact on lone parents with children of this age, I would welcome it. There is a real question about the quality of childcare available. Research has shown that parents have traded quality off against affordability. They have understandably been so desperate to find childcare that the pressure to raise standards has not been as high as it might have been. In the current economic climate, with the great need for childcare, the Government have understandably been lowering the requirements for the education and training of managers of children’s centres, for instance. There is this constant pressure: we need more childcare places, so there is pressure to lower standards. One should listen very carefully to parents who say to their adviser, “I don’t have faith in the childcare in my locality”. One needs to give that weight, particularly in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, where the Childcare Act 2006 does not apply and they have not necessarily got the push on greater provision that we would want. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance on these points, and I look forward to his reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the call by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, to introduce ring-fencing or at least to allow ring-fencing for some time while we go through this huge transition with the introduction of this Bill. I do so for a number of reasons. Listening to the debate I am again reminded of the speech made by the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith at the Conservative Party Conference this year. He highlighted the great amount of debt that this country carries and, in particular, the debt of unsecured loans that people have taken upon themselves. Will the Minister say whether he is concerned that individuals who currently benefit from the Social Fund might turn to loan sharks or take out unsecured loans and expose themselves and their families to risk and threat because there is nowhere else where they can get the support they need?

I have been meeting chief executives, and indeed I recently met a deputy chief executive of a metropolitan authority. After spending the evening with him, what really struck me was the immense burden that he carried. He had to make choices with limited resources. I asked him whether he found himself having to cut back in the areas of child protection and child and family social workers. He said that he and his colleagues were definitely not taking money out of those pots. Then, on meeting a group of chief executives and directors of children’s services in the Palace of Westminster to discuss children’s centres, again we heard that the money was definitely not being taken out of children’s centres and they were really trying to support those as far as possible.

My point is that there are so many calls on the limited resources of chief executives and directors of children’s services in local authorities. The risk is that this money, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has said, will be diverted into other very important provision, but that those families who need this ultimate safety net will lose out under the new arrangements. I look for an assurance from the Minister that this will not be the case. I should say that Barnardo’s, which has so much experience in this area has raised these concerns with me. One should also pay tribute to the Conservative Administration that set this up in the first place and the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, because from what I have heard, it has made a very positive impact on the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens and families.

The issue of accountability, of how this money is spent, has been aired and needs to be addressed. Should there be minimum standards that local authorities have to meet before they are allowed to use this money as they see fit? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

I have very little to add to what has been said by a number of speakers this afternoon because they have covered the ground extensively. I was particularly interested in Amendment 86ZZZD because it refers to,

“financial support for applicants fleeing domestic violence”.

We shall shortly be considering domestic violence in another context, that of legal aid, which has some reference to domestic violence. The important thing about this in the local government context is that domestic violence frequently takes place within a family environment. Therefore, the individual against whom it is practised has to find some way of getting out. I am interested that this amendment refers to “applicants fleeing domestic violence”. Very often these women and girls simply have nowhere to go. Therefore, this amendment places a responsibility on local authorities, if money is made available, to provide the necessary financial support for people fleeing domestic violence.

That is very important in the current situation. I have recently attended other meetings in that connection. It appears that probably about one in four women has suffered from domestic violence at one time or another. Very often, of course, it is practised in families against very young people, very young girls. It is very important that there should be some authority and resources given to enable this to be dealt with. It is dealt with quite adequately in this amendment and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, this is an unexpected, generic intervention. Although the Committee seems to be making real progress, I reassure my noble friend the Whip that I shall be brief. It relates to a period even earlier than 1986 and to a different and extreme subject, but there is a moral to what I am going to say, to which I gather Her Majesty’s Government in the Commons is responsive.

Twenty-eight years ago I became the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Higher Education. I inherited quite considerable cuts to the higher education budget and I decided that my time as Parliamentary Under-Secretary was going to be spent going round the country, available to any higher education institution that chose to invite me, and I would be St Sebastian responding to their observations about the cuts. I had two and a half years of pure joy because they made it extremely attractive to me to come and gave me a marvellous experience of seeing what they were up to. The experience of St Sebastian was cheap at the price.

Pensions Bill

Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I can see the purpose of Amendments 18 to 23, particularly the need to address the consequences of the Government’s decision to use the CPI for the statutory revaluation of pension benefits, yet not proceeding to introduce a statutory override to pension schemes whose rules explicitly provide for the revaluation additions to be calculated by reference to the RPI. I recognise that where the statutory method uses the CPI, there is an inconsistency for schemes that apply the RPI in the very infrequent event that the CPI exceeds the RPI in a particular year. In such a situation, schemes paying the RPI would, without these amendments, be faced with a statutory underpin of CPI. In effect, the rules of schemes that apply RPI would be interpreted to mean that revaluation is calculated by reference to the CPI or the RPI, whichever is the greater.

This amendment would remove that underpin requirement and allow schemes to continue to revalue by reference to the RPI, which would seem sensible and reasonable. While the Government are to be congratulated on not imposing a statutory override on pension scheme rules to apply the CPI rather than the RPI, where the rules so explicitly provide, the need for these amendments occur in part because of the open-ended decision by the Government to substitute the CPI for the RPI in the uprating of most benefits. It is with some regret that the Government did not put a time limit on that switch from RPI to CPI. There is scope for a review because I am sure that over the long term, when the economy returns to strong growth and earnings outstrip prices, and the price of key items is excluded from the indexation, the Government will need to revisit this matter.

That is particularly so for pensions, although I doubt that the Government will revisit this now. The change to the CPI from the RPI for evaluation effects a switch of assets and benefits from scheme members to scheme sponsors and does not directly impact the public deficit. None the less, it is clear that these amendments are a necessary flow-through from the Government’s decision, and I can see no reason to oppose them.

Amendments 24 to 28 are technical in nature and address matters relating to the indexing of the guaranteed minimum pension. Again, I see no reason to disagree with them.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, during our discussions on the Bill, one of the issues that raised a lot of controversy was the report that the Government intended to tell occupational pension schemes that in future they must apply the CPI rather than the retail prices index. That certainly led to a lot of opposition from people in occupational schemes. It also led to a lot of opposition from people in public sector schemes, because I gather that the Government are applying the CPI to public sector schemes instead of the retail prices index, which of course produces—currently, anyway—much larger increases than the CPI. I should therefore be grateful for confirmation from the Government that if an occupational scheme desires to continue with the RPI it will not be forced to apply the CPI, and that if it wishes to apply the retail prices index it will be able to do so, even though that is likely to produce—and will continue to be likely to produce—larger increases than the CPI.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this group of amendments cover Part 3 of the Bill. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her remark that the amendments are technical in nature and that she has no problem with them.

Perhaps I may pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on private occupational pension schemes. I can confirm that these underpin arrangements are about the ability of such schemes to maintain their own arrangements. There is no legislative pressure on them in that way.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I want to put a couple of points to the Minister on a particular aspect of the availability of suitable accommodation. I will describe the city of Glasgow because it is the biggest city I know. I stay adjacent to it and I know quite a bit about the different types of housing there. Some is council accommodation. My noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham has indicated that size is important and that people can be in a small room that is classed as a room. Glasgow has what are called three-stairs-up tenements, which are usually in red or grey sandstone tenement blocks. The rooms are smaller in the likes of Dennistoun, Townhead and some older parts of the city centre, but massive in the likes of Shawlands, King’s Park and Langside. If someone was “forced” to move from a small two-bedroom flat in Dennistoun to King’s Park or Shawlands, they would be dancing up the stairs, because it would be a vast improvement on the living space that they had had. They would soon get a sofa bed in the living room.

I am leading up to the fact that this is a very difficult situation and I really do not know how this can be done. Has any assessment been made to address the main thrust of my noble friend’s amendment, which deals with the fact that the size of rooms is just as important as the number of rooms? As I say, it would baffle me, but there are highly paid people working for the Government who should at least be able to test this. My question is therefore: has some consideration been given to assessing the size of rooms compared with the number of rooms in individual cases?

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I support the amendment, which was so comprehensively moved by my noble friend Lady Hollis. One of the concerns of the organisations that have written about the Government’s proposals relates to the plan to reduce housing benefit for working-age tenants who are allegedly underoccupying social homes. From 2013, some 670,000 social housing tenants receiving housing benefit could lose an average of £676 a year, because under the new rules their homes could be deemed too large for their needs. The cuts could force them to choose between moving away, and thus leaving any local support networks or supportive neighbours, or going into debt. This could be particularly difficult for disabled claimants, many of whom could have had their homes adapted to deal with their disability. A spare bedroom may be necessary should family members visit or if the aid of a carer is required. There may well be no similar accommodation available in the locality. Some of the amendments before the Committee attempt to deal with these problems.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend’s amendment and to catch up on one or two points. We understand the need to merge two different systems of dealing with capital: the tax credit rules and the tariff rules in the benefit system at the moment. One question to the Minister is: why did the Government opt to do it that way round rather than the reverse way round? It could lead to complexities. Someone whose income swings around that £16,000 cut-off point could be in benefit or in the universal credit one day and out the next.

My second question is: can the Minister say something about the practicalities of how this is going to work? What is going to be the process for reporting capital, and how often will that have to be updated? Will it be on a six-monthly basis? Will there be a look back if the capital has changed during an assessment period, giving rise to adjustments to universal credits? I am picking away at some of the complexities around this, because we often promulgate universal credit on the basis that it is a simplified system, and we accept that in some respects it is. However, it still has attached to it these sorts of complexities from the changes in people’s lives. It would be good to know which of the existing exemptions will be carried forward into the new system.

The £16,000 cut-off point will penalise savers, making it harder for low-income working families to save. It will particularly penalise families with high tax credit awards such as high childcare costs or indeed disabled children. Therefore, we see this as a disincentive to save. I was going to ask whether this is wise when there are rumours about auto-enrolment being deferred, but I am advised that that is not now in the Government’s mind.

I was a little surprised in the briefings that we had from the department by comments about it being right that people should, over a period in some circumstances, disinvest their assets before wholly relying upon state support. However, the briefing note quotes in aid,

“earlier means-tested benefits including National Assistance required applicants to exhaust all or most of their savings (and to sell personal possessions regarded as unnecessary)”.

That has a resonance for many people, particularly on the left, and it is why, for a period, reference to means-tested benefits was a derogatory and hated term because it took you back to circumstances in which people knocked on the door, entered the front room and told you to sell every stick of furniture you had before you could rely on benefits. Reverting to references to national assistance and those practices is probably not going to be the most helpful way for the Government to sell this policy.

I support my noble friend on the one-year rule in relation to disposals of properties because the current market is extremely difficult, and even if individuals have the cash to make the purchase, people get caught up in chains and it is difficult for them to complete and sell on so that a satisfactory result can ensue. It is therefore very reasonable to request simply extending that period and that disposals from the sale of property are excluded from the calculation.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. I understand that this is a rather difficult question, but one can hardly pick up a magazine directed at older people without encountering articles urging people to save so that when they are older enough money will be available for them to be provided with social care. We do not yet know what the Government intend to do with the report that we have had on social care, but it could very well involve people having to have a lump sum available at a particular time. Quite obviously, it is in everybody’s interests to ensure that people have cover for when they are ill and require social care, particularly as the report includes a general recommendation that people are best off being looked after in their own home. You have to take account of these sorts of possibilities when assessing what is a reasonable amount of money to be regarded as suitable to be retained by the individual concerned when assessing the requirement for benefit.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts

Thursday 6th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

Let me just make it absolutely clear what the Prime Minister was saying in the slightly more technical language that we understand in this Committee. The Prime Minister was making the point that we had created a series of inactive benefits onto which people were put and then left without any route back into the workplace. That was a dereliction of duty by Government. Our understanding has now transformed. We know that work is part of the solution for people with disabilities, not part of the problem. A key thing that we are trying to do in this Bill is to integrate the work process for people, whether they have disabilities—whoever they are. That is what the Prime Minister was saying. We are making an enormous effort to get people back into the workforce, and we are spending a lot of money—up to £14,000—on the people who are hardest to help, many of whom will have a disability. Underneath the political rhetoric, I think all noble Lords would agree with that sentiment.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

Was the Prime Minister not speaking in support of the continuation of Remploy?

[Lord Freud]

I think we had the discussion about Remploy yesterday, and I will not go on about it again today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in what seems to me a very complex and quite difficult discussion, but are we talking about a discount or a benefit? I remember some time ago I was approached by a number of organisations that told me that people were not applying for something called a council tax benefit because they did not want to look as if they were appealing for a benefit. I therefore tabled an amendment to the legislation at the time not to call it benefit at all, but instead to call it discount. Discount suits the description rather well. I myself get a discount from the council, not a benefit, because I am a widow and I live on my own. I do not call it a benefit. When we discussed this and I got acceptance for the idea to call it a discount, the organisations concerned were very pleased because they thought that a number of veterans who did not apply for the benefit would now apply for the discount. Whether or not that happened I do not know, but that is what we went ahead with. I think there is a difference between a benefit and a discount. Which are we talking about here?

[Lord German]

My Lords, I would support this amendment regardless of whether it was related to a cash change in Government. It is the policy issue that is most important here. I favour a national scheme, locally delivered, and I worry very greatly about the proposals before us for reasons which I will outline. Largely, the Bill will not be able to meet the principles on which it is set. I have one disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis: I found that all four principles—not five in my copy—in Paragraph 5.2 can be criticised equally, because they cannot be delivered through a national scheme.

Earlier this afternoon we heard a passionate plea from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about the need concentrate on the United Kingdom. In his reply, the Minister talked about our benefits structure being a system reserved to the United Kingdom. I want to point out to noble Lords that we try to be consistent in what we do in Government. We ought to recognise that the Scotland Bill is proceeding through Parliament at present. The origin of that Scotland Bill was a commission chaired by Sir Kenneth Calman which looked at which aspects of our society make it worth having a United Kingdom and at what holds the United Kingdom together. Apart from foreign affairs and defence, the one key thing which he said was holding this country together was our social security system. As a reflection on what we have heard this afternoon, I ask why it is that we want to damage that system of reserved powers which works for the United Kingdom as a whole. We have heard how it works in Northern Ireland, but it works in the same way and with the same outcome, so it is therefore a United Kingdom system.

We are going to take £5.8 billion, whether it is cash-reduced or not, out of this system for the United Kingdom, and put it into a system which, quite frankly, will not work according to the principles laid out in the document which is being pursued by DCLG. I am reading from paragraph 5.2, just so we can get some consistency; we may be on a different page, but I am on page 13. It says, “We therefore propose,” that is, the DCLG,

“the following principles to underpin local schemes:

Local authorities to have a duty to run a scheme to provide support for council tax in their area”.

This Parliament and this Government can deliver that in England, nowhere else. It then says:

“For pensioners there should be no change in the current level of awards, as a result of this reform”.

This Parliament and this Government can deliver that only in England, not in the rest of the United Kingdom. It says further:

“Local authorities should also consider ensuring support for other vulnerable groups”.

This Parliament and this Government can deliver that for England alone, not the United Kingdom. Finally, it says:

“Local schemes should support work incentives, and in particular avoid disincentives to move into work”.

This Parliament and this Government can make sure that that works in England alone. Therefore, the principle upon which I believe the United Kingdom is based is being breached by this Bill and the change that we have before us.

Remploy

Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts

Wednesday 5th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take regarding the future of the Remploy factories.

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

My Lords, no decision has been made on the future strategy for Remploy. The Government are currently consulting on the recommendations of the Sayce report. This consultation closes on 17 October 2011.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

I thank the Minister for that response, but is he aware that hundreds of disabled people who rely on Remploy to provide them with employment are very worried about the continuation of their employment prospects? Remploy has a reputation for, and experience of, providing supportive work for people who want to work but who otherwise have difficulty in doing so. Would the Government please give support to this worthwhile enterprise?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are aiming to support disabled people in employment, and we have to do that in the most cost-effective way that we can find. There is a remarkable difference emerging between the support to get disabled people into mainstream employment, which, when Remploy Employment Services does it, costs £3,600 a time on a one-off basis—the company is now getting 20,000 people in a year—and the cost of more than £25,000, year on year on year, to keep them employed in the factory services.

Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, this is a very complicated Bill. It is not very easy to understand since so much detail is left to regulations or to decisions by the Minister. What is clear, however, is that the Government are intent upon utilising the so-called reforms to get people into work rather than living on benefits. It is therefore not possible to consider welfare reform without reference to the economic environment in which it has to operate.

Ministers seem to find it surprising that some people find it more lucrative to live off benefits—which are not exactly large—than to take one of the jobs on offer. That indicates to me that we have a low-wage economy in this country. Small employers—and often larger ones—will often complain about employment law, but these employers are benefiting from low wages, and the taxpayer is subsidising employers who do not pay a living wage. I would make employers pay higher wages—after all, better-paid employees would spend more money and thus stimulate the economy, and there would be less reliance on benefits. I speak as a former trade union official of course, and I do not expect this Government to agree with that.

A civilised society does its best to provide support for vulnerable citizens and for those who from time to time in a working life require some form of assistance. Our present system originated with the Beveridge report following the Second World War, and subsequent Governments have generally supported that system. It does, however, need simplifying. Far too many people do not claim benefits to which they are entitled: there are said to be unclaimed benefits of around £16 billion a year. Nevertheless, the present Government claim that there is too much fraud, saying that only 7 per cent of people claiming ESA are too sick to work—therefore, they say, the welfare system is broken. This is hotly disputed by the Disability Benefits Consortium, and it points to the very large number of appeals which have been successful.

The Government seek to replace a range of benefits, as we know, with a universal credit, and there will be additions for disability. The work capability assessment will be used to assess eligibility for disability additions. Disability organisations have expressed concern at the proposed use of the WCA to assess disability additions. They say it is a blunt tool with which to measure barriers to work; it often inaccurately assesses disabled people as fit to work when they are not able to do so.

There is however a particular issue here, which requires a response from the Government. As we know, the Government clearly want people to work if they are capable of undertaking it. However, I have recently been informed that the Remploy factories which exist to provide work for hundreds of disabled people are being threatened with closure. There was a crisis meeting about this in Scotland last week, but this does not only apply in Scotland: Remploy factories throughout the UK are apparently threatened with closure. These factories provide a supportive environment in which disabled people are able to cope and to earn a living. So on the one hand we have this Bill, with the clearly expressed intention of getting disabled people into suitable work, and at the same time there is the closure of the main and highly respected employers in an era of low employment. These employers offer precisely what one would expect the Government would want to maintain. It is therefore hardly surprising that the unions—including my own, because we organise the Remploy staff—are very angry. Can we have a statement from the Minister about the Government’s intentions here?

I return to the issue of universal credit. I understand that it will be accompanied by new conditionality regulations and stricter sanctions. Claimants will have to comply with these in order to receive benefits. The fear on the part of many of the people who are disabled and have written to me is that this will result in a worsening of their conditions. The Government also intend to replace the disability living allowance with the personal independence payment. Again, there appears to be provision for a six-month qualifying period, which could leave many struggling to survive financially until accepted, and again, much of the detail is apparently to be in regulations.

A part of the Bill which has led to much correspondence is that related to housing costs. The Bill gives the Government a new power to introduce cuts to the amount of benefit people can receive if they are deemed to have additional space in their council or housing association home. For many, a spare room is a necessity. Moving to a smaller flat or house may simply not be possible. It will do nothing to cope with overcrowding—a particular problem in London—and this could hit many disabled people, some of whom have had adaptations made because of their disability. It is badly targeted, and in my opinion it should be dropped from this Bill.

It is similar to the other policy to which the Government are attracted, under which housing benefit is related to the market rate for the area concerned. This would result in large areas of London becoming places where only the very well-off could live. In my area, for example, the rent in a housing association home or a council flat is in the region of £150 a month. Similar sized accommodation in the private sector will cost £500 a week—clearly beyond most low-paid working families. This section of the Bill must be thoroughly examined.

There are many other aspects of the Bill to which we must pay attention—benefits for single and separated mothers; child benefits; benefits for the young—but I am sure that there will be the opportunity in Committee and at Report to deal with the issues about which many of us will have received detailed briefings from many organisations.

Health and Safety at Work

Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend has introduced a debate on this subject and I thank him for doing so. Some time ago, we had a debate on a report undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Young. He is of course no longer the PM’s chief adviser but the Government are apparently still committed to introducing legislation arising from that report. Presumably, this paper from the DWP is part of that policy. I recall saying at the time that if legislation emerged designed to make it more difficult for employees to make claims because of illness or injuries at work, I would do everything I could to oppose it, and that is still my position.

There is apparently a notion that health and safety provision in the UK is the best in the world and that very few people are hurt at work. Unfortunately, that is not true. There are many hazardous occupations, some of which have been referred to by my noble friend Lord McKenzie in his introduction today. Up to 1,500 people are killed every year in work-related accidents and millions are made ill by work-related illnesses. Furthermore, arising from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Young—although this was not maintained in the report itself—the Government, including the Prime Minister, claim that in this country we are suffering from a compensation culture. They say that health and safety costs too much and that there is too much regulation which prevents a growth in jobs, particularly in the private sector. Much of that is not accurate. Less than 10 per cent of workers made ill or injured at work get any sort of compensation at all.

There is actually less regulation now than there was 40 years ago. There are also fewer spot inspections of workplaces, fewer prosecutions and in 98 per cent of major injuries there is no enforcement action taken later by the employers concerned. The Health and Safety Executive has done a very good job over the years on improving health and safety at work, but that is all changing as a result of government cuts. There is a 35 per cent cut in government funds to the HSE which is to take full effect by 2015. As a result, the HSE is now finalising plans to turn into a slim-line, pay-as-you-go enforcement agency that charges for everything, from enforcement notices to routine advice and accident investigations. There is now a voluntary exit scheme which has apparently been oversubscribed, with 250 applicants for redundancy among HSE staff. Enforcement is already in crisis. The number of inspections is to fall and proactive inspections may be abandoned altogether.

In the mean time, the Government are also planning to change the way in which European directives on health and safety eventually become part of UK law. Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, who chairs the Cabinet's Reducing Regulation Committee made it clear that the Government intend to end much regulation so that British business is not put at a disadvantage. It is clear that the Government intend to move to weaker laws and, of course, less protection for British workers. That is dangerous and quite unwarranted. If the Prime Minister is genuinely concerned about the big society and encouraging voluntary organisations, he should be aware that the families of workers who have been killed and injured in work-related incidents have formed themselves into an organisation called Families Against Corporate Killers and are campaigning for tougher laws against what they believe to be preventable illnesses and deaths and for the HSE to have more powers rather than fewer.

The TUC also supports the campaign for improved enforcement. In confidential interviews, many managers and staff have said that they fear reprisals if they raise safety concerns at work, despite the fact that the Labour Government introduced legislation designed to protect whistleblowers. Unions have exposed the scandal of the under-reporting of safety concerns. From the information provided to me, it seems that far from having a compensation culture, there is actually too little reporting of hazards in employment. The TUC is taking that very seriously. There is no doubt that workplaces are safer where unions are recognised and safety representatives are able to do their work. Moreover, union members are more likely to get help if they need to take a case to court because the unions will support cases in order to assist their members.

There is a Workers' Memorial Day, with a rally in Manchester, on 28 April, in memory of those who have died from work-related accidents and to press for a strengthening of enforcement and opposition to the Government’s cuts drive, which will put more employees at risk, and which will involve the NHS and taxpayers in the expense of dealing with the problems that workers encounter because they need attention, benefits and assistance from the NHS. Sometimes employers manage to escape altogether because they do not always carry insurance. I remember that this was another issue that we raised some time ago; the previous Government had undertaken to deal with it, but it does not seem to bother the existing Government very much.

In a number of ways, the Government seem intent on changing the balance between employers and employees to the disadvantage of employees. The Government may very well live to regret that. I have recently had some correspondence from a lady who is very active in the voluntary organisation to which I referred. She is the mother of a son who died in a rather appalling accident at work. She has drawn my attention to the fact that the Prime Minister said, prior to the election:

“So let me make it clear: yes, the Conservatives will reduce the burden and impact of health and safety legislation in our country”,

to which she responds:

“David Cameron’s government intends removing the ‘burden’ on employers of safeguarding their employees, but the real emotional and financial burden is borne by the families of up to 1,500 killed every year by preventable accidents at work”.

That is a very important statement from somebody who has really suffered as a result of inadequate protection in the past. We certainly do not want to make it any worse than it is at present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

The noble Lord has not mentioned trade unions once and yet this is a major part of all unions’ work. For many years it was one of my responsibilities within my union to run a scheme that provided assistance to people who had accidents at work. The TUC is very much involved with the prevention of accidents and so on and it is a major part of unions’ work. The Minister did not mention that. Although he referred to the register of people who are giving professional advice and so on, he did not mention unions at all.

[Lord Freud]

I apologise. That was an inadvertent miss-out. Clearly where there is a more responsive, not so proactive system, the unions would have a role in alerting the HSE where there were concerns. Clearly, the role of education and training in reducing health problems in many of these areas will be important.

One area in which I am most interested is what we will find from the sickness absence review. This has now been launched and will be looking at periods of sickness absence of 28 weeks. Stress-related and mental health-related issues account for around 40 per cent of such absence, and it will be very interesting to see whether we can use the new arrangements for managing sickness absence to ratchet up how employers look after their staff. I know that the sickness absence review team is actively looking at that. Therefore, there is a health and not just a safety angle here.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

9: Clause 1, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
“( ) After sub-paragraph (10) insert—
“(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations vary the provisions of this Schedule to provide for an earlier pensionable age in individual cases without loss of benefit in the event of—
(a) prolonged ill health, or(b) arduous or dangerous employment,or both.””

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I return to a notion that I raised previously in Committee, although I realise that I did not then formulate my amendment very well and I have made a change to the wording. I still hope, however, to persuade the Government that there is a serious issue here.

I agree, as I think we all do, that longevity, although very welcome, means that we have to look again at retirement ages. There must be some revision. Last year, I spoke to a briefing supplied by Age Concern about the default retirement age. Many people were holding jobs that meant a great deal to them, they did not want to retire and felt they had a great deal to contribute. That argument has largely been won.

However, I have always held the view that jobs are not all the same, and neither are people. Many are not particularly committed to their work, which is sometimes arduous and dangerous, and may not be suitable for older people who may simply be longing for the time when they no longer have to do it. It would be good to think that there would be lighter work to which such people could be transferred. Often, however, such work will not be available, and the people concerned may have manual skills but not the kind of educational background that would make it easy for them to do other work. After a lifetime in their original jobs, it may be better for them to retire and to receive the benefit that they had anticipated.

I recently received a nice letter from a lady who thanked me for what I had said in another debate on health and safety at work. It did not involve pensions, but it has some relevance here. She and her family had been trying for some time to obtain compensation following the death of her husband in a work accident. She sent me a copy of a magazine called Hazards, which campaigns for compensation for people injured in accidents at work, some of which lead to deaths. It does, however, serve to remind us that a great deal of the work that all of us depend on in our daily lives has hazards. We should not insist that the people who do it should simply go on and on. There is a case for treating them very differently from those who are committed to their jobs and want to work.

In the year from April 2009 to March 2010, 1.3 million workers reported that they were suffering from illness caused or made worse by work. It is often alleged that our health and safety at work system is the best in the world and that very few people are hurt at work. Unfortunately this is not completely accurate, although the Health and Safety Executive performs an excellent function in reducing work hazards. However, its resources are apparently being reduced, and that does not look so good. In any event, the HSE says that employers should be aware that there may be some reduction in physical and mental capacities with age and that suitable accommodation should be put in place. However, as I have indicated, this may not be easy. “Work till you drop” is not a good idea and may have dangers for other members of the workforce. I hope that the Government appreciate that there are real problems here. We are not all middle class, despite what the media tell us, and we often require people who have manual skills to work very hard on our behalf. We have a duty to ensure that they do not have to work beyond their capacity to perform their tasks, and that is the reason for my amendment. I wait with interest to hear what the Government have to say about it.

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 11 and 14 in this group. In doing so, I have some sympathy with the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Turner. These amendments address the position of the poorest men and women in the population who are disproportionately impacted by the acceleration of the timetable to achieve the equalisation of the state pension age. Under this Bill the age of eligibility for receipt of pension credit, which is targeted on the poorest pensioners, increases at the same accelerated rate. This is because, under current legislation, the age of eligibility for pension credit is aligned with women’s state pension age. This means that a particular group of the poorest men and women, who would have been eligible to receive pension credit on certain dates between 2016 and 2020 under the Pensions Act 1995, will now have to wait up to two years longer to receive their pension credit income but with little time, certainly with little capacity, to adjust.

Pension credit in 2011 is £137.35 per week for a single person, so a deferment of up to two years can result in a loss of £15,000 for those affected. Even on a deferral of one year, the loss of income is still substantial to those concerned. Amendments 11 and 14 would ensure that both men and women who are presently in their late 50s and who are likely to be the beneficiaries of pension credit do not experience the markedly higher loss of lifetime pension income that would otherwise occur. This would be done by allowing the age of eligibility for pension credit to track the original equalisation timetable set out in the Pensions Act 1995. That would mean that those eligible to receive pension credit, both men and women and their birth cohorts, would do so on the same date between 2016 and 2020 as they would have done under the original timetable. I believe that these amendments may provide a more focused mechanism than that proposed by my noble friend Lady Turner in her amendment.

There has been much debate on fiscal sustainability when assessing timetable options for accelerating or mitigating the acceleration of the increase in the state pension age, but this amendment in no way undermines long-term fiscal sustainability. The savings from accelerating the age of eligibility for receipt of pension credit do not start to flow until 2016.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

Let me accept that that is the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment—although when we costed it, we had to make an assumption about how we then bring it back up to pension age. We need not be technical. It is important when we debate these matters that we debate the underlying intention and not worry about precise things.

I reinforce my point: if we divorce the minimum qualifying age for pension credit from the state pension age, with the exception that the noble Baroness pointed out, the minimum age for pension credit becomes arbitrary, and people would well ask why it is at that age, not one year sooner or one year later. As life expectancy increases, more and more people will want to improve their incomes by working for longer. We should celebrate and encourage that. The amendment goes completely against that principle. We are clear that we want people below state pension age to work if they possibly can. The point of the proposals is not to take money away from people, as some noble Lords have said, but to encourage people to go on working longer, which should leave them with more income. We cannot give up on those people. They deserve our help and support in their endeavours to support themselves.

The other misapprehension is that there is inadequate provision in the universal credit for those who cannot work—people in ill health or people who have worked in manual jobs, who may not be able to continue working as state pension age increases. Again, that is simply not the case. Universal credit is intended to provide appropriate levels of support for those of working age, including those who, for whatever reason, are unable to work or have limited capacity for work.

The amendment will give no comfort to those who want to make entitlements much clearer and more transparent in an effort to ensure that they reach those who need them. It would mean providing complex and confusing information to customers. Unfortunately, it would come into place just when we are introducing universal credit, which is designed to have a pure, simple messaging to people to convince them of how they need to interact with the state. By producing this new, complicated system, we would undermine that simple messaging.

Quite apart from the messages, it would also add significantly to the complexity of the benefits system, confusing the people it is designed to help and the organisation delivering it. In order to deliver that confusion, which would obscure entitlements and potentially discourage people from working in the years before they get their state pension, the amendment would present the taxpayer with an unaffordable bill. For the financial years 2016-25, we estimate that it would be around £1.9 billion, and there would be further costs in the years to follow, depending on when it is withdrawn.

The amendment would add complexity to the system and have the effect of withdrawing valuable in-work support for people below state pension age. It would obscure entitlements for those who need them most and incur a very substantial increase in expenditure. I think I have clearly set out the rationale for the Government’s position. It is simply impractical to assume that the system will be improved by adding further complications to an already complex beast. For these reasons, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I think he agrees that there is a problem here, but what he is telling me is that it is too complicated to resolve in the way that I have suggested. I will read very carefully what he said about it because I got the impression that he understands that there are problems about people who do dangerous and difficult work—people on whom we all depend in a modern environment. We do not notice that they are doing it until they cease to be there to do it, and we are not expecting that to happen very soon.

I thank my noble friend Lady Drake for what she said about pension credit. It is quite clear that her amendment on pension credit is intended to deal with the less well off. In that respect, it has to do with my amendment, which is concerned with poorer people. I therefore support what she said.

On my amendment, as time goes on, we may well see, although I hope it does not happen, that if you have accidents or incidents at work, there will be pressure for changes in that respect. I do not think we have finished with the argument about dangerous and difficult work. People do not expect to have to go on working in that kind of environment without any reasonable prospect of an earlier retirement. I shall read with interest what has been said about my amendment. What my noble friend does about her amendment is, of course, entirely up to her. I think it should be supported. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.