Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Tyler of Enfield and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, I would like to add some of my concerns about the impact of the benefit cap in London. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, has set out very clearly and eloquently all the facts and figures and I certainly do not wish to repeat them. I shall pick out one which is particularly relevant to me.

The level of rents in London means that families with just two children will be subject to the cap in many parts of inner London and also in some parts of outer London, including Newham, Haringey, where I live, and Hounslow. I am concerned about the impact of this on mixed communities, or looking at it the other way, one might refer to social segregation as poorer families are moved out of expensive areas. This is a very particular issue in London in terms of social cohesion. It also puts pressure on public services. I think that London Boroughs is right to be worried. The migration and concentrations of workless households in some areas will potentially have significant implications for the full range of local authority services. Boroughs with an inward migration of households are likely to face significantly increased service pressures very quickly and with very little time to plan for them in relation to unemployment, poverty, housing and so on. On the other side of the coin, boroughs that experience reduced demand for such services—again very quickly and without time for planning to adjust—will certainly face challenges and costs in adapting to different, if reduced, demands.

Families, particularly larger families, will be very much affected. In London it will also affect families with two children. I share the concerns that have already been voiced by the noble Baroness opposite. I also hope that there will be an opportunity to meet the Minister and London Councils to discuss further the sort of measures that could be put in place to mitigate some of the harsher implications that I have just set out.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I start with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. I find them confused on a number of levels. I should explain that during Second Reading—the noble Baroness referred to my comments about not wishing to hear what she said again—she said that Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities have lots of children because of the money. I objected to that and I thought I objected in about as gentle a way as one can, without being rude, and that is consistent with how we do business in this House.

The noble Baroness has just made reference to Luton and supposed problems there. I know Luton well; I live there. One of the strengths of Luton is its great diversity. We have a range of communities and—I almost called him my noble friend—the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, would attest to that as well. Having diversity brings challenges but also joy and I believe that is a great strength of Luton. I do not believe the proposition that people in any community, particularly the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, have lots of children because they believe it will be beneficial in terms of child benefit. If people had children only on the basis of a cost benefit analysis, I suppose there would be no children at all, given all the challenges that come with them. My experience of communities in Luton, particularly the Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian community, is that there is great aspiration for their children. If you sit down with people, you hear them speak with pride about their children just having qualified as a doctor, or a lawyer, or even some as an accountant, which brings particular pleasure. I honestly do not see the picture painted by the noble Baroness.

Technically, it seems to me that the amendment that she moved is flawed. As I understand it, the “relevant amount” is that which is based on estimated average earnings and effectively sets the level of the cap. It does not, therefore, specifically include amounts in respect of children. If it were based on income, rather than earnings—depending on the definitions—of course it would. It could, for example, involve child benefit, but this is not how the Government wish to proceed and it is not how they have constructed the cap.

Universal credit will be, as we have discussed, an in-and-out-of-work benefit and we still do not know what the cut-off point will be for those treated as in work. Perhaps the Minister can give us an update on that. Presumably the calculation of earnings would not include any amount of universal credit. If the noble Baroness is arguing that an award of universal credit should involve reduced amounts for third and fourth children, in terms of the cap, of course, that would clearly lessen its impact. However, the family cap of £26,000 applies regardless of the number of children in the household, so larger families are likely to be particularly affected, as we have just discussed. Estimates are that 80 per cent of the households likely to be affected by the cap will include three or more children. We know from the DWP impact assessment—certainly the original one—that children from BME groups are more likely to be disproportionately hit by the cap. It would seem that what the noble Baroness intends would drive these families further into poverty and that is not something that we could countenance or support in any way.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, introduced some interesting amendments. Certainly the issue of the impact on London, particularly of high rents, featured in our earlier discussion and that is recognised. The broader issue of whether one could have benefits constructed on a regional basis is a very wide debate—we would be unwise to tick that through tonight—although we should recognise that it is done, for example in local housing allowances done on a local basis, structured by reference to local market areas.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Tyler of Enfield and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 28th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, I would like briefly to add a few comments to those that have been made so powerfully around this Committee. We have heard some moving quotes today, but the one I want to give is not from someone who has been part of this process as an end user but from Sir David Henshaw who, back in 2006, came up with the report that is often cited as being the genesis of the idea of charging. We have heard his name referred to on a number of occasions as his policy has been explained. Sir David Henshaw himself recognised the limits to charging when he said:

“I do not want to create a disincentive to use the service for those parents who have no other option for agreeing maintenance”.

We know, because DWP estimates tell us, that about half of all eligible families have no child maintenance arrangements at all. The danger is that even more children in poorer families will go without child maintenance as a result of the proposal to charge the parent with care. This is my final point, which I want to link to the one I made on the previous group of amendments. Not only will the children be worse off—we have heard some graphic and moving accounts of the real hardship that some children could be in—but more will grow up without a role model of a father who contributes, however modestly, to the cost of raising his own children.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, like all noble Lords, I am indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for tabling the amendment. His being in tandem with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is an irresistible combination. I do not envy the Minister having to reply.

There have been some powerful and moving contributions. I should start by putting clearly on the record where we are in relation to charging. It has been suggested that what the Government are bringing forward is just based on the previous Government’s proposals, but that is not so. It is absolutely correct to say that charging is permitted under the 2008 legislation, which is supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. But that is enabling legislation like so much of this Bill. It certainly did not envisage proposals such as those advanced by the coalition Government. It should be recognised of course that there were charging arrangements under the original 1991 legislation, but I believe that that was stopped in 1995 because the CSA was not delivering.

Our position on charging is clear. It is reflected in the White Paper entitled, A New System of Child Maintenance, dated December 2006. It cites in part what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has just said and makes reference to Sir David Henshaw.  Paragraph 5.48 states:

“We recognise the importance of having a charging regime that does not dissuade vulnerable and low-income parents with care from seeking maintenance in the first place. Therefore, the future charging regime will be based on three clear principles. First, that the charging structure should incentivise non-resident parents to meet their responsibilities. Second, that the clear burden of charging should fall on the non-resident parent and not the parent with care. Third, that cost recovery for C-MEC should never be prioritised above payment of outstanding debt for the parent with care”.

Those provisions were not debated particularly extensively when we considered the Bill in 2008, although there was some discussion. At that time, we made it clear that it was for CMEC to advise and recommend to Ministers the detail of any charging regime but that such advice would be subject to CMEC’s overarching objective of maximising the number of children benefiting from effective maintenance arrangements, a point made by my noble friend Lady Sherlock a short while ago.

Although the clear focus on any charging should be on the non-resident parent, CMEC was not precluded from considering a small application fee to both non-resident parents and parents with care where voluntary arrangements might be more effective for them. We also made it clear that any charging structure should not commence until the service was fit for purpose and that this would not be before the launch of the new scheme then planned for 2010, which I think is now planned for 2012.

The Government have proposed a range of charges, including an upfront application fee of £100, which would be reduced for parents on benefits, and an ongoing collection charge on both non-resident parents and parents with care. The latter would be avoided for each if maintenance direct were used. However, whether maintenance direct is a secure and sustainable method of payment is wholly dependent on the non-resident parent. The Government’s proposals for charging fall foul of our criteria in a number of respects. An upfront fee of £100 is bound to act as a deterrent for lower-income households. It is payable not only in circumstances where a voluntary arrangement might be possible but in circumstances where it is not, for whatever reasons. That seems highly likely to increase the prospect of circumstances where no maintenance arrangements are entered into. Penalising parents with care with a collection charge, which depends on the NRP acting responsibly, is wholly unjust. The proposals allow for a reduction in the case of those on benefits but there is no exemption. Neither is any relief proposed for the collection charge.

That is why we are fully supportive of the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord. In short, it states that there will be no fees charged to parents with care where they have taken all reasonable steps to enter into a maintenance arrangement and it is not possible or appropriate to do so. There may be a multiplicity of reasons why it is not possible or appropriate to do so, some of which are particularised in later amendments. My noble friend Lady Sherlock has just spoken to one, as indeed has the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. In such circumstances, the only prospect of obtaining arrangements is the statutory system. There should be no charge which precludes this, which is what the noble and learned Lord’s amendment seeks to secure.

Amendment 113E, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, seeks to introduce a reduction or waiver of fees where the income of a parent falls below prescribed levels. We have already indicated why we consider an exemption to be appropriate, although we acknowledge that the scope of Clause 6 is already wide enough to accomplish this.

Amendment 113EA has been spoken to powerfully by my noble friend and sets down circumstances where voluntary arrangements would clearly be inappropriate. The Government, I am sure, will be sympathetic to this given that they already acknowledge that individuals experiencing domestic violence will by-pass their new gateway.

Government Amendment 114 prompts me to raise questions relating to issues of enforcement. Can the Minister give an update on the various measures contained in the 2008 Act, including the use of deduction-from-earnings orders; regular deductions from accounts; lump-sum deduction orders; orders preventing avoidance; administrative liability orders; disqualification for holding or obtaining travel authorisation; curfew orders; and disqualification from driving? Can he say which of these are in force? If it is about getting sensible arrangements, it is also about making sure that those people who are responsible non-resident parents meet their commitments. We put in place a raft of enforcement measures which should have facilitated that and I would be grateful for an update on their progress.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Tyler of Enfield and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 21st November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, I should like to explain why I decided to add my name to the excellent amendments that have just been put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds. I, too, was indebted to the work of the Children’s Society, which did an excellent analysis in this area. I understand the rationale for a benefit cap. I am not trying to say that I am against it; I understand the arguments about promoting fairness between those in work and those receiving benefits, and indeed the need to reduce the cost of the rapidly growing benefits bill as part of the overall deficit reduction strategy. My concern, though, as I looked at the numbers, at who would be affected and at the types of families that would be affected, was the implications for some of the most vulnerable families, particularly families with children. I shall say a few more words about that.

I was very taken by the analysis of the Children’s Society that showed that children would be disproportionately affected by how the benefit cap is currently constructed. While it is estimated that some 50,000 households will have their benefits reduced at the moment by this policy, it has also been estimated that over 200,000 children will be affected and up to 80,000 of those could be made homeless.

The composition of the households that are likely to be affected is interesting. The figures are one-third couples, two-thirds single women—generally single mothers—and about half will also be disabled. Indeed, 60 per cent of the households likely to be affected live in London, where housing is more expensive, particularly people living in private rented accommodation. Various ethnic groups will also be particularly affected, when they have larger families.

The first consequences of the benefit cap, unless it is possible to look at constructing it in a different way—perhaps using one of the approaches suggested in these excellent amendments—will be families having to move very abruptly to cheaper areas. This risks children moving school in the middle of a year, thereby disrupting their education and their social networks. It also risks families splitting up, and I shall come back to that point. It could have adverse consequences on kinship carers—family and friends—which is why in the next grouping I am moving an amendment on that point. I also feel that families who will be able to continue to pay the rent will have less money left for other essentials such as food and clothes, which will therefore contribute to child poverty. For families who are not able to pay the rent, are evicted and become homeless, this will be a parlous situation. Children are a priority group for council housing so this is likely to lead to additional pressure on temporary accommodation costs, adding to the cost pressures on local authority budgets. We have heard quite a bit about this in recent months.

There is then a very real danger, which has had virtually no attention, that children at risk will simply disappear from view. This raises real child protection and safeguarding concerns for me. We all know the very tragic stories of children who have disappeared from view and what happens to them in the very worst circumstances. We must ensure that the benefit cap does not, however inadvertently, have that consequence.

Then there is the reduction in what I call mixed communities, as poorer families are forced to move out of an expensive area. As I said earlier, this is particularly the case in London. Not only will it create very undesirable ghettoisation but there will be pressure on public services in ways that different bits of different boroughs will find difficult to deal with. For example, the concentration of workless households in some areas has significant potential implications for a wide range of local authority services. Boroughs that have an inward migration of households are likely to face severely increased service pressures such as demand for school places, the impact of unemployment, poverty and poor housing conditions, whereas in contrast other boroughs will experience reduced demand for such services but will themselves face challenges and costs in adapting very quickly to these different demands.

The point that I should like to finish on, which I feel particularly passionate about—perhaps because I am chief executive of the country’s largest relationships support organisation Relate, which is a declared interest—is the inherent couple penalty currently built into the benefit cap. This has had very little attention so far, but it will affect couples substantially more than lone parents. Indeed, it has been suggested by experts in the field that the cap will introduce one of the most substantial couple penalties ever seen in the benefits system, so it could have the perverse consequence of breaking up families as well as deterring people from entering new relationships and forming new households. Surely this couple penalty is completely at odds with the Government’s, and indeed the Prime Minister’s, very clear stance on wishing to support strong and stable family relationships. I am sure that this is an unintended consequence and has not been thought through, but we need to look at this.

Finally, the impact would be particularly keen where two lone parents decide to move in together, particularly if they both had children from the previous relationship. Such couples could then find that they would be far worse off by moving in and forming one household rather than living as two separate households. I will not detain the Committee’s time any longer, but I just wanted to explain why I feel that having some in-depth discussion of an alternative way of constructing the benefit cap is so vital.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Best, wishes to speak.