Welfare Reform Bill
Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has made a very important point about the lack of social housing. Amendments and policy changes of this kind should only really be—and can only be—safely embraced if they are taken in the context of a wholesale housing policy review for this country. That will take some time and it needs to be started. It should have been started earlier. In the context of that, it is possible to deal with some of the anomalies and contradictions that we now have in our housing benefit system. There is no doubt that it needs to be reformed, but I have serious doubts about it being reformed at this scale and at this rate because I think it will hurt people. It will hurt people for one reason more than any other: it all happens at once.
On 1 April 2013, everyone who is caught by this will be looking for smaller properties which in many cases do not exist. It is worse than that, because there is a geographical and spatial dimension to this policy which must not be underestimated. It was the noble Lord, Lord Best, who pointed out that in the north of the country underoccupation is prevalent in a way that we all understand. I come from a social background in which I was raised in a council house and someone made a point about Northern Ireland. There is an in-built residual and unavoidable underoccupancy. On 1 April 2013, people are going to be hit and they are going to be hit hard.
I understand the concessions that we have been able to suggest to the Minister. The £30 million of discretionary housing payment is welcome, although I did not know that it was being found by topping up the housing benefit cut. That is news to me, and not particularly welcome news. With the discretionary housing payment of £30 million applied even to the north of the United Kingdom—the north-east, the north-west, Scotland and Northern Ireland—I do not think we have begun to look at the difficulties that this policy will face in year one. I assume the £30 million is annually recurrent, but I do not know the answer to that. Certainly, if it is not annually recurrent, then we will have even bigger problems in year two.
There is another difficulty that lies behind the policy which concerns me greatly. It will disrupt social and family ties in a way that it is impossible for local authorities receiving or trying to downsize people or social landlords to deal with. Unless folk are moving across the street or moving around the block or moving in the same village—it is admittedly working-age populations that we are talking about here as people beyond the state retirement age are not included—they will have a different set of problems to face outside their envelope of family, friends, doctors and all the rest of it. The effect particularly on disabled people was referred to in the powerful speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She drew my attention to this; I had this as a lower priority when we started this process. In parentheses, I think the 17 sessions of Grand Committee were one of the best periods of my parliamentary experience in terms of developing the points and getting ministerial responses. To say that I enjoyed it would be a slight exaggeration , but it was valuable time because we had a Minister who knew what he was doing, who listened, who was accessible and who was able to respond. I know why he cannot respond to this today, because this is Treasury clawback. This Bill is a perfectly good Bill and it will serve the country well in the fullness of time, but the Treasury clawback that has been demanded by Ministers in another department is potentially going to cause the reputation of the incoming reforms to be tarnished by measures exactly like this.
This is a modest amendment proposed by a man who knows more about housing than anyone else in this House. Speaking for myself, I will trust his judgment, and if he thinks that he gets a ministerial response that enables him to withdraw this amendment, I will say amen to that; but equally, if he gets a ministerial response that he does not think measures up to this modest amendment, I will happily follow him into the Lobby.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I support the amendment. I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his persistence and the way in which he has dug deep into the issues concerned with the bedroom tax, and the Minister for the way in which he has listened and responded.
I want to contribute to the debate because of the danger sometimes that, amid the plethora of words, we will cease to be moved by the situation of and the fear felt by those who will suffer because of elements of the Bill, particularly those with disabilities and those who care for children with disabilities. The day before yesterday could be observed as Autism Sunday, an observance that is apparently supported by the slightly curious trio of the Prime Minister, the Pope and Sir Cliff Richard. That occasion gave me the chance to listen again to those who are fearful about the results of the Bill’s dealing with the bedroom tax. People spoke to me of the way in which their disabled children and their whole family life would be affected by the bedroom tax. They have come to contribute to our society by caring for their own disabled child, perhaps with a disability that many would not regard as being one of the most serious that people face, but nevertheless one that for people in that situation can be a very frightening experience as their young people grow up.
This modest amendment would not solve all the problems of those who came to talk to me on Sunday, those who go to their parish priests with the issues of looking after children with disabilities or those children themselves, who are often members of our congregations. I hope that we shall be able to hear their voice as we respond to need in this area. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and hope that he can find a way through this tangle. Then I, too, will be reliant upon the skill and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Best, as we consider whether and how to vote on the amendment.
Lord Wigley
I support the noble Lord, Lord Best, and thank him for the tremendous work that he did in Committee, on Report and in other contexts relating to housing matters. I shall emphasise three aspects relating to the people who will be hit unless amendments such as these are carried or other provisions are made. First, we have heard a lot about disabled people. We cannot apply the provisions of the Bill as it stands to disabled people without potentially doing enormous harm. Secondly, we should consider children in vulnerable families. Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, touched upon this aspect and I emphasise it too: rural areas.
In rural areas such as those that I am familiar with in rural Snowdonia and the Llyn peninsula, but I am sure that this is equally true in Cornwall, the Lake District and other parts of these islands, there are people living in villages in rented accommodation. If they have to move out of their accommodation—these are often three-bedroom houses, as has previously been mentioned—there are just no other rented houses available anywhere near the communities. We may be talking about them having to move 20 or 30 miles away to find somewhere. People might think that at one time there were two-bedroom council houses in some of these villages. However, they were a minority that were quickly sold off; and rapidly, with the cycle of the years, became second homes in the private sector for people who went on holiday to those areas. Rent in the private sector is prohibitive because of the rent that can be secured in the holiday season. As a result, often only winter lets are available for six months outside the holiday period. In those circumstances in such areas, it is not reasonable to apply this law in a blanket fashion to vulnerable people who may find themselves with one bedroom more than they need.
The amendment would not go all the way to meeting all the concerns that many of us raised during earlier stages of the Bill, but at least it would start to ameliorate them. Some step has to be taken. We cannot allow this to go on to the statute book with the effect that it will have on rural areas, disabled people and children. What the position of disabled children in rural areas will be, goodness only knows.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I have listened very hard to the Minister as he has sought to explain the rejection of your Lordships’ amendment on children and the benefit cap. I remain regretful at the loss of the principle of child benefit for all and especially for those in most need. It is sometimes said that, although in this House we have a good many experts in fields such as health, education and the Armed Forces, we lack experts on poverty, because so few of us are actually in a position now of poverty. Maybe some of us can throw our minds back to times when we were not as comfortably off as we are now and remember the importance of child benefit in our own lives. My own experience was certainly that it was a lifeline in bringing up our own children. I have seen this repeated time and again in my ministry—both for those in employment and for those who have the misfortune to be unemployed. The almost total take-up of child benefit demonstrates for me the value of a benefit that is available for all and can carry no possible stigma for those in need of help.
I also remain puzzled at the failure to understand that children are expensive. Bringing them up costs money. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the particular levels of the cap—and the figure of £26,000 was never a part of our amendment; it was always a government figure—it seems self-evident that the cap should be higher for a family with children than for a childless couple. I presume that we are not saying that a young couple who are not able to find work should be barred from conceiving any children. However, they—and they alone—will receive no child benefit if they have a child and their benefits are to be capped.
All of that said, I am very grateful to the Government in general, and to the Minister in particular, for listening so carefully to the concerns of this House on the effect that the cap is likely to have on those in most need. I am grateful for the transitional arrangements that the Minister for Employment has announced. The nine-month period of grace, costing some £30 million, for those who lose their jobs is extremely welcome and should reduce the numbers of households capped by some 10,000. I am not quite sure whether Motion G1 is another example of sweetness and light between the two Front Benches, but they seem to be saying exactly the same thing on this matter and so I rather take it that the Minister is likely to accept Motion G1.
Then there is the additional discretionary housing payment for local authorities of up to £80 million for 2013-14 and £50 million for 2014-15. That is also extremely welcome, as is the assurance that claimants made homeless by the cap will not be considered intentionally homeless. I am grateful for the way in which in Motion G2 we have at last in today’s debate tackled the question of homelessness. We have not actually talked about this before, but it is one of the key elements in deciding how a welfare system should work. Already in Yorkshire—no doubt in Rotherham as well as in Leeds—there is an increasing amount of homelessness on the streets. That can only get greater as a result of increased unemployment and we need to be very careful in this Bill that we are not increasing the amount of homelessness.
I look forward to more detail on the ring-fencing of the £80 million, including on how that support is going to be delivered and whether families will be able to apply directly for that support. I hope that this provision will enable there to be real support for those in most need. I am very grateful for the Government’s expression of support and the financial commitment to the poor that it involves. However, I have to say that it still seems odd that the Government were so opposed to your Lordships’ amendment on financial grounds, when the cost of their provision is apparently almost identical in 2013-14, at £110 million rather than £113 million, or whatever the figure was that we were using in relation to our earlier amendment.
I remain concerned about kin carers. I have not yet heard a satisfactory explanation of how we avoid the burden that the cap puts on those who take other people’s children into their homes. This happens time and again in our society, for a whole host of reasons, such as the death or illness of a parent, or the parents’ inability to bring up children. Carers are often grandparents. Kin carers preserve family life for children in distress and save the state a considerable amount of money—maybe some £119 million a year, according to a Children’s Society estimate that has been given to me. It would be tragic if people were discouraged from this selfless contribution to family life because there was inadequate funding for them. I look for reassurance as to how this issue is being tackled through the various provisions dealing with the cap.
Finally, but importantly, I am very grateful for the Minister’s assertion of the importance and value of the benefit system and for his rejection of any demonising of those who are on benefit. This debate about the cap on benefits has produced, in some sections of the press and maybe of society more generally, an apparent assumption that those on benefit are deliberately sponging off the state. In a few often-quoted cases, that is no doubt true, but already those who are unable to work because of disability are reporting that they are being regarded as work-shy, when they would desperately love to work if they were able. It is crucial that we affirm the importance of the benefit system in providing support for those unable to work. The numbers who cannot find work are rising and there will always be those who are not capable of paid work because of illness or disability. It is crucial that we do nothing to exacerbate suspicion between those in work—often low-paid and struggling—and those who cannot find jobs.
I hope that the Minister in his response will be able to renew the conviction that benefits for those in need are crucial in a civilised society to provide for those who have fallen into hardship as a result of illness or disability or simply not being able to find a job, which is tragically not uncommon in some of our cities now. Many of those on benefit contribute to our society—as kin carers, for example, or in encouragement of those who are disabled, or in voluntary work, which helps to create a good society. Benefits are not a drain on society but a contribution to the common good. I hope that the Minister will be able to affirm this.
I am very grateful for the substantial government response to the earlier amendment, not least for that promise of an evaluation of the cap after a year of its operation. I look forward to that report in 2014, to a serious examination of any unintended consequences and to the continued work by the Government to do all that they can to protect children from damage at a time of financial stringency. I am happy to support Motion G1.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, I would like to intervene briefly in this debate. I think that a household benefit cap is a wholly reprehensible policy device. I am absolutely and implacably opposed to it. However, I know when I am licked and I think that the Government have come a huge way in easing the path of the 67,000 families, although I still have fear and concerns for them. My purpose in intervening is to ask my noble friend to assist me by reassuring me that, with the extra spending envelope, he now has the capability—working closely with local authorities and Jobcentre Plus—to track the destinations of these families over the next few years. Colleagues who have been following debates on social security internationally know that, in America, the changes made in 1996 by President Clinton meant that people fell off the lists in droves and no one could find out where they went. The social security system then spent years trying to pick them up.
The fact is that 67,000 is 1 per cent of the case load; it is not a big number of people. I am reasonably assured now that, with the finances available to local authorities and Jobcentre Plus, it should be possible to get a report. When we get this important report—and I, too, agree that that is an important concession—the House will be able to be confident that none of these families has disappeared. I do not want any of these families to be “disappeared”. I hope that my noble friend can give me that assurance.
I do not want this benefit cap to be anything like an accepted part of the landscape in future. I think that it is a sticking plaster and that an entitlement override is wholly wrong. However, I have enough confidence in my noble friend to know that if we get universal credit up and established and running well, and if he switches his attention—as I hope he will—to housing benefit in the context of a proper housing policy, and I would support him in doing that, we can trade our way out of needing a benefit cap. That is the way forward. I accept, however, that in the short term we are stuck with this. I hate it and will be pursuing it in regulations as aggressively as I can. However, as I said at the beginning, I know when I am licked and I hope that the Government will get on and do this properly.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will not press this idea of having an independent body on the benefit cap. I want nothing to do with independent bodies or anything else of any kind that has to do with the household benefit cap. Therefore, if he presses his amendment, he will find me—unusually, perhaps, in this case—in the opposite Lobby.
Youth Unemployment
Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
First, long-term youth unemployment has not changed a lot. What changed is that youngsters were put on training programmes and, when they came off them, they were called newly unemployed. The underlying position has not changed very much in terms of long-term youth unemployment. I am not saying that that is not a real problem but I am saying that it has not grown as much as one might think, looking at the raw figures. Clearly we need to help youngsters in long-term unemployment, and one of the things that the work programme is specifically designed to do is to get support for youngsters on an individualised basis.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, what are the Government doing to improve careers advice in schools so that young people can be helped into appropriate employment?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are making it a statutory duty to ensure that schools take up their responsibility to provide careers advice, so that it is supplied at the point it should be, right where it is best received. Existing provision has been much too patchy.
Welfare Reform Bill
Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 58D for a number of reasons. The figure of 80,000 people who could be made homeless—really homeless—by the cap must be alarming to us all, not least because it comes when homelessness is, in any case, increasing across our country, partly because of the increase in unemployment at the moment. The number of homeless people in west Yorkshire is rising steadily and churches and others in the county are increasingly involved in providing night shelter accommodation for the homeless. Any arrangement which seeks to find accommodation for people is liable, in practice, to see some of them slipping through the net and finding themselves with nowhere to go at all. Just this weekend, churches in Halifax have begun to offer that particular service but those who are providing the service are frightened that an already inadequate service, as they would say, will be made hopelessly so by extensive homelessness as a result of the cap.
In addition, I support Amendment 58D because, at last, it gets children into Clause 94. I retain that major concern for children whose parents are made redundant and become unemployed. Such children are in danger of losing not only their home, but also their school, their friendship groups and their local contacts. Schools are very concerned about the possibility of children being moved from one locality to another as a result of their parents becoming unemployed and as a result of the effects of the cap. There is not only an effect on those children but also on their friends and the whole life of the school. Later, we shall debate the issue of child benefit, but this amendment will defend a significant number of children. It is those who cannot speak for themselves who are likely to suffer as a result of the cap. This amendment will go some way to preventing a spiral of homelessness and it will relieve the pressure on some of those vulnerable people who are affected by the cap. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support it.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I find it remarkable that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, says that the Labour Party in principle supports a cap, but in this particular instance thinks that somehow it should be alleviated. We face a considerable deficit in this country and the social security bill is certainly one of the largest elements of public spending. If we continue to find all sorts of ways of alleviating measures that the Government are taking, no savings whatever will be made to the social security bill.
This is also an opportunity to change attitudes completely. We are privileged in our House to have the right reverend Prelates on the Bishops’ Benches. I think it was Alastair Campbell who said of Tony Blair, “We don’t do God”, but in this House we do not have to be inhibited in that way. We can talk about the morality of a benefits system that encourages single mothers to have more children, because the more children they have the more benefit they get. Is that moral? I have my doubts. Is it moral for a Somali family to move down from the Birmingham area to Hampstead because they wanted to live in a more salubrious part of London where it was extremely expensive to house them? Is it moral to have a benefits system that pins people in their houses and prevents them going out and looking for work, given that underlying this is the Government’s intention that people should be encouraged to go and find work?
Of course people will have to move, but that is what people in the private sector do. I question the morality of having a benefits system that gives people infinitely more money than the take-home pay of people on average earnings in this country. It is the taxpayers who are paying for these very high levels of benefit. I support this cap and I hope that the House will vote against the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, Amendment 59 would allow families whose benefits have been capped to retain child benefit. It would do no more and no less than that. It does not challenge the basis of the cap. It does not challenge the amount of the cap. It is certainly no threat to the very welcome universal credit of which we have spoken a good deal this afternoon, but it would save some 80,000 children, according to government figures, from falling into poverty.
The Government’s assessment of the impact of the cap is that some 67,000 households will be affected. The Minister spoke of that earlier as not a massive number. It is pretty massive for those involved, but the fact that it is not massive in the overall terms of Welfare Reform Bill means that it ought to be possible for us to pass the amendment without seeing ourselves as fatally damaging the Bill itself. Those 67,000 families will lose on average £83 a week. Analysis from the Children’s Society shows that those households contain around 220,000 children. Three-quarters of those affected by the cap are children, yet Clause 94 says nothing about children at all.
The cap as it stands is not just, because it fails to differentiate between households with children and those without. It makes no provision for the additional cost of bringing up children, which is the purpose of our most successful and well targeted provision of family support: child benefit. The Government have decided that £500 a week should be the cap for a couple, and I have no quarrel with that; but if that is right, it cannot be right for the cap to be the same for a childless couple as for a couple with children. Child benefit is the most appropriate way in which to right that unfairness.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
Thank you very much. The answer to that question is £113 million, which is a minute proportion of the total cost of welfare benefit addressed in the Bill.
This cap is not simply targeted at wealthy families living in large houses. It will damage those who have to pay high rents, because often that rent has increased substantially in the course of occupancy of that house. An out-of-work couple with four children between five and 12 and with £250 a week rent, which is nothing out of the ordinary in many parts of the country, and £20 council tax, currently has an income under present arrangements of some £373 a week after housing costs are deducted. After the cap, that drops from £373 to £230, or £5.50 per person per day—not the £500 of the headlines that we have been seeing. That is much less than 40 per cent of median household income, and I do not understand what a family in those circumstances is meant to do. I do not believe that a child can have a good childhood in circumstances such as that.
I had a letter the other day from someone who disagreed fairly strongly with me and said that surely £500 a week should be enough to bring up a family in normal circumstances. I would not disagree if we were talking about £500 rather than £230. But those whose benefits are capped are not in normal circumstances; they have particular reasons for being in need. Often that will be a substantial rent, and sometimes there will be several children who may not be their own and who may have been taken into the family to avoid their costs falling on the state.
Child benefit is a non-means-tested benefit paid to both working and non-working families. In setting the cap, it has been ignored by the Government. It should also be ignored in calculating benefit income against the cap. Those who are suffering from the cap should be allowed to retain their child benefit. I know that, from 2013, higher taxpayers will not be entitled to child benefit—that is a different issue—but anyone taking home £26,000 will be entitled to it, as will many of those earning a good deal more than that. The intention of the benefit cap is to promote fairness between working families and those who, however hard they try, cannot find a job.
I admire and salute those who bring up families on low pay. I am very aware of poverty in working families and see it through my own working life. We need to defend the interests of those who are poorly paid, but we do not do so by refusing child benefit to those who are out of work. This amendment declares the importance of child benefit both for working families and for the unemployed. Both should receive state support in bringing up their children. Child benefit is paid for the needs not of adults but of children. It has a massively high take-up rate and is used to benefit children whatever their situation. We are rightly proud of its effect in helping the next generation.
This amendment is a compromise between the present situation and the cap as proposed in the Bill. Child benefit is paid at a rate of £20.30 for the first child and £13.40 for every subsequent child. At present, a child born into a family with benefit income of over £500 a week—that is, income over the cap—will receive £62.40 in benefit support through child benefit and child tax credits. Under the benefit cap as proposed, there is no support for that child at all. This amendment restores only £13.40 of the £62.40. In that sense it is an extremely modest amendment, but it does mean that there will be some money coming in for children in this pressurised and often suffering environment, as we discussed in the previous debate. It means that there is some help for children while maintaining the principle of the cap. All of us who have used child benefit or family allowance know just how crucial it has been in our own lives to bringing up our children. It is entirely inappropriate that the only people not allowed to receive child benefit should be those who are out of work and whose benefits are capped.
Quite a number of people have asked, especially over the past few days, why Members on this Bench have been particularly concerned about the needs of children in these welfare debates. Christianity, along with other faiths and beliefs, requires us to think most about those who have no voice of their own. Children who are in most need are one of the most evident examples of that, and the New Testament shows that Jesus had a very special concern for children. Children have no vote in our society; they probably do not answer YouGov questions.
This amendment goes some way towards protecting children by helping two groups especially. First, for children in families that are struggling to pay rent, it will mean fewer face homelessness—especially but not only in London. Secondly, it will help those in larger families. Children do not choose to be in large families and many are so because parents have taken in, and provided love for, those who would otherwise be a burden on the taxpayer. It cannot be right for someone who becomes unemployed not only to lose their job and have their assessed benefit cut but to be told that their children no longer have a right to child benefit.
This amendment declares our support for children, families and the next generation, and I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I speak in support of this amendment, to which my name is attached. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds for tabling it, and I pay tribute to both his and the Children's Society's long-standing work in support of children. My concern about this amendment is that the measure has some very poor consequences, whether intended or unintended. Perhaps the Minister can tell us which they are.
I want to suggest three ways in which this cap, as the Government have put it together, is particularly badly constructed and three problems that it will cause. First, as we have heard, this measure will seriously and disproportionately affect children. A new DWP impact assessment came out today, which significantly changed the figures that we were working with previously. I have been able only to skim read it but I see from the headlines that the official impact assessment says that 220,000 children will be affected, and the losses in income those families will face are not small amounts. Initially, 67,000 households will lose an average of £83 a week, while 17 per cent of those affected will lose more than £150 a week. Those are very significant sums, so the behavioural impacts which the Minister wants to see happen will have to be very big indeed to address losses of that size, and I wonder what we can do about them.
I am not clear what steps those parents are meant to take to be able to avert those losses. That impact assessment says that 44 per cent of households affected are already living in social housing—in other words, in the cheapest accommodation available in their area. These are not families who are living it up in Kensington mansions, sipping cocktails by the pool before dinner. Forty-four per cent of them are already in social housing and most of the rest are in the kind of private housing that the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, described earlier. As anyone who has had cause to go knocking on doors in London will know, there is housing out there which is astonishingly expensive but of astonishingly poor quality. The nature of the private sector market in London and other very high-cost areas is such that it is depressingly easy to rack up rents of £350 a week if you have two or three children.
What will happen and what are those families to do? In Committee, I put down an amendment which sought to exempt from the cap specific groups of vulnerable children who, for example, had been the subject of child protection orders, and I asked the Minister what those families could do to avoid being forced to move. He gave me three ways in which families could avoid that. The first was that they could negotiate a reduced rent with their landlord, although he had the good grace to acknowledge that may not succeed. The second way that the Minister suggested was that they could move into work, but when we look at the figures, we find that some 60 per cent of the families affected—a majority—are not required to work, either because they have small children or because they are sick or disabled and have limited capacity to work. In fact the Government's own policy of not trying to push sick people or the parents of young children out into work is now suggesting that they do that, which does not seem like a great idea either.
The final suggestion which the Minister made was that families could use their savings to pay the shortfall. I believe that one of your Lordships mentioned in the previous debate that the average family in Britain had just £300-worth of savings. That would not go very far in paying shortfalls of this nature, and one has to suspect that these families are likely to have less than the average amount of savings. We therefore have to accept that what will happen is that these families will be forced to move.
Many children's charities have made representations to me, as I am sure to many noble Lords, saying that they fear that families would be forced to move not just once but repeatedly. If they move to a cheaper area and rents rise faster than the cap, they have to move again. What are the consequences of that for the children? Again, I looked into this in Committee. The initial DWP impact assessment highlighted the possible damage to children forced to move school repeatedly, and the evidence is quite clear of the impact—the negative impact, obviously—which that has on children's academic achievement. As I also pointed out in Committee, forced moves reduce the ability of child protection professionals to keep track of families where children are at risk of abuse. I asked the Minister to write to me on how the Government would address those particular categories, and he did. I am afraid that it was with no very satisfactory encouragement and, again, I hope to give him the opportunity to be more specific when he responds to this.
In research that looks into the case reviews that follow the serious events that happen to children who have faced abuse and sometimes death, certain themes come out again and again. One of them, and I have heard this said by Members of this House, is that when everyone gathers around the table for a serious case review, someone always says, “Do you know, I wish we’d all talked before. Maybe, if we’d all talked to each other, this wouldn’t have happened”. One of the things that make it less likely that that communication will happen regularly is if the families in question move house repeatedly. Are we really going to force more families to do so? I am very concerned about what will happen in that regard, but I can see no way around it. What else can we do? We have to press on.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this debate and to the Minister for his comments. This amendment is not simply or even primarily concerned with generations of workless people. It will affect a significant number of people who have been put out of work in recent years, months and days. At times, it almost sounded as if the Minister thought that it was a bad thing to bring people out of poverty. But we are talking about children, and child benefit remains one of the great anchors, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, reminded us, of the whole way in which we work with children and families.
I do not think we have heard any real response to the basic point that the Bill means that a childless couple has the same cap as a couple with a number of children. It does not seem logical to say that we have to put a lot more pressure on families with children than on those who do not have any. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in particular, and others, for speaking about the importance of universalism in terms of child benefit. We have ranged widely during these discussions but this matter is about children. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, said, this amendment is about children and the women and carers who care for those children. It is those who will be helped if noble Lords are prepared to back this amendment.
On that basis, I appeal to noble Lords to support the amendment or, if they cannot do that, at least to abstain. It would help children and I believe that it is right to test the opinion of the House.
Welfare Reform Bill
Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I have added my name in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, because of my concern, and that of those of us on this Bench, for the needs of children as we pursue the move towards universal credit. I am fully aware that that concern is felt on the government Front Bench as well.
This is an area where a small change to the Bill will bring about help for a significant number of children who are under the most pressure in social housing. What is proposed by the noble Lord in the amendment—whether or not it is itself amended—is a definition of underoccupancy in line with that of Communities and Local Government and which simply reflects the reality of family life. Under the definitions of the Bill, a family with an eight year-old boy and a nine year-old girl in separate bedrooms would be deemed to be underoccupied. That cannot make sense.
There is every reason to discourage genuine underoccupancy. When people think about underoccupancy, on the whole, they think of where a single person or a couple are left in a larger house, probably because their children have moved away. Surely that should not apply to a disabled child, for example, who needs care during the night and therefore needs a separate room. It should not apply to a room used for access visits by children following marital breakdown. It should certainly not apply to foster carers between placements. There is real concern that the Bill, if unamended, will discourage foster caring because the carers will not be able to retain rooms in which to place foster children if the need should arise.
We—or, at least, the Members on this Bench—are going to hear a good deal over the next fortnight or so about there being no room in the inn. The amendment will provide the flexibility so that families can live the sort of lives that most of us take for granted. I hope that we will be able to enable this to happen by the pursuit of this or a similar amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of Broadland Housing Association. I am delighted to support this amended amendment. DCLG says that you are underoccupying if you have two or more spare bedrooms; DWP, in the Bill, if you have more than one spare bedroom—a very tight definition. If you then do not move to somewhere smaller, you will be fined by having your housing benefit cut by 15 per cent.
As my noble friend has said, this is not about finding homes for the 3 per cent of families who are overcrowded in this country. We could solve that tomorrow if we built bungalows or suitable flats for the pensioners who are queuing up for them—full stop. No, this is about cutting the housing benefit bill, by telling a third of our tenants in social housing, most of them disabled, that they have to find somewhere smaller to live. A middle-aged couple with health problems who therefore need that second bedroom will be entitled to only one bedroom. The family of four with two teenage daughters in a three-bedroomed home must move to a two-bedroomed home even though the girls will then have nowhere to do their homework. A disabled woman who sometimes has a carer staying overnight in her two-bedroomed flat must move to a one-bedroomed flat. A couple in their 50s, in a two-bedroomed house, who care for their grandchildren when their daughter with mental health problems cannot—in other words, they are occasional kinship carers—will have to move to a one-bedroomed flat, possibly some distance away, and the whole fragile family arrangement will collapse.
In theory, all the people in these examples are expected to move. The children are expected to change school one year before GCSEs, the middle-aged woman is expected to move away from her mother whom she is keeping out of residential care by her support, the disabled woman to move away from the friends who help her cope by doing her shopping and laundry. Six hundred and seventy thousand families—between 30 and 40 per cent of all tenants in social housing, two-thirds of them with a degree of disability—are supposed to go on the move if they can. Fine, if they can; but for most, even if they want to downsize, they cannot. Even though they may be pensioners who cannot heat their homes, they cannot downsize, and the DWP knows it. The smaller flats are simply not there to move to and all the fulminations of the tabloid press—that Ministers expect them to downsize when the same Ministers know that they cannot—are therefore cruelly irrelevant.
The National Housing Federation says that 180,000 households in two-bedroomed flats would have needed a one-bedroomed flat last year, but just 68,000 such flats—about a third of the number needed—became vacant. In future, the needs of pensioners who really want to move can never be met because, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, absolutely rightly, any smaller place that becomes available will have to be offered to much larger families who, however, do not want to move, rather than to the single pensioner who does. It is a cruel nonsense.
The department admits that, in its own words, there is a mismatch, and that the smaller properties that people are expected to move to do not exist. The department expects that 85 per cent of all of these tenants will stay put and take the cut in housing benefit because they have no alternative, as the impact assessment admits at the bottom of page 2. The Government are counting on people not moving, despite telling them that they should. So the Government’s savings are going to come not because people do what the Government tell them to do, but because people do not do what the Government tell them to do: they stay put, because they have no option, and then they are fined for doing so.
What do the Government suggest that they should do to cover the shortfall? They should find work. Well, of course, if they could they would, and we welcome the support given for finding work within the universal credit system. Alternatively, it is suggested that they could take a lodger; but with small children I do not think that that will happen. The other suggestion is that they use—actually, use up—their savings. As the noble Lord, Lord Freud, reminded us on Monday, the average savings are only £300. That will last for four or five months of shortfall. After that, what then? It will be debts, arrears and pass-the-parcel. To pay the council tax, because their council tax benefit is being cut by 20 per cent, they will raid their housing benefit. However, that now does not pay the rent, so to pay that, they will fall behind on their utility bills, which are also on the rise. Threatened with their gas and electricity being cut off in winter, they will cut back on food, until ultimately the whole Ponzi debt pyramid created by this clause of the Bill will collapse. They will then face food parcels and eviction.
However, as the eviction is not their fault, as the Minister agreed in Committee, they will not be intentionally homeless, so they will be put into highly expensive B&B at taxpayers’ expense with all its cost and all its misery, as, with a history of arrears, they will not be accepted by any private landlord. In time, they will be rehoused—quite probably, if my housing association is anything to go by, in a house that is still too large, because that is all we have—and the whole vicious spiral one year on will start all over again, taking disabled adults and children through a relentless cycle of cuts and evictions.
The alternative, of course, is that housing associations such as mine carry the arrears because we know the social and financial costs of eviction and the awful stress that it involves. Then what? Over time, the housing association goes into the red or, alternatively, we stop building and save the debt charges on erecting new homes, the money being spent instead on debts that come from cuts in housing benefit, thus guaranteeing that the shortage of social housing that is undermining the housing market continues for the next decade.
It is so unfair. Let us take JSA as an example. If people break the rules on job search, we cut their benefit to change their behaviour. However, if they observe the rules and, after a proper job search, cannot find a job given the unemployment figures, we do not cut their benefit because it is not their fault and they cannot change their behaviour. That is the social contract of social security. You sanction people when they break the rules and should change their behaviour; you do not sanction or fine them but support them when that is not possible. It is what we do with JSA. The DWP is, in this clause, breaking that social contract with these changes to housing benefit. In all my time in the social security field, I have never known that contract to be broken in this way.
Grant Shapps said that we should not bully people out of their homes. He is right. Yet in this Bill we are saying to people who have lived in their homes all their lives, done what was asked of them and behaved responsibly—two-thirds of them having some disability—that their benefit is being cut from underneath them through no fault of their own but just because we in Westminster are changing the rules. We tell them to downsize while knowing that they cannot do so, so we fine them instead for what is not their fault and for what they cannot change. It is morally wrong to punish people for something that is not their fault and to punish them when they are innocent. That is not decent, it is profoundly unfair, and we should not do it. If noble Lords agree, they will support the amendment today.
Welfare Reform Bill
Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
I wish to make it clear that I absolutely do not accept that figure. I have said that we are introducing a lot of measures in advance to make sure that that figure does not arise.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, will the Minister develop a little further the argument as regards Amendment 99C, which concerns the lone parent with a child under the age of five? It seems to me that there needs to be more discussion about the whole question of whether people in those circumstances —this would apply to kinship carers as well—are being encouraged to seek work or to move back into work. It is often argued that they should not be working and that the important thing is that they look after their child under the age of five, or, if they are kinship carers, that they give up work in order to take on that responsibility, which may have suddenly arisen. It seems to me that we ought, therefore, to take much more seriously the possibility that they ought to be exempted because we do not, as a society or a Government, want them to be working.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I hope I made clear my sympathy on the kinship carer point. I am looking at it in the round. On the lone parent point, I am afraid I am reduced to the underlying principle that there is a level of pay for people, which we have set at the equivalent of earnings of £35,000. Do not forget that, by definition, half the households in the country receive less than that amount because it is the median amount, and that is why we have fixed on that figure.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I will not make any promises on this but I will have another look at it. That is the weakest of possible promises. In fact, I am trying to say that it is not a promise at all. The signal I am giving is that I will have another look at it, but that is no guarantee of anything happening.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this long and detailed debate on this group of amendments. I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has engaged with the discussions. I take a certain amount of hope from some of the things that he has said about taking account of the arguments, which we have shared, and about some specifics, such as references to attendance allowance, to childcare costs, repeatedly, and to free school meals, that there will be exemptions which we can see in those areas. I am also encouraged by the beginnings of a discussion on the issue of carers, in particular kinship carers. I very much hope that that can be taken further in our debates. I am rather less encouraged by the comments on housing benefit, but I hope that there can be ways in which, at least in terms of transitional arrangements, we can move forward on those as well.
The area in which I am least encouraged relates to the amendment on child benefit. We still have not got a real answer to the question of why child benefit counts on one side of the scales and not on the other, a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has made several times in this debate. We can only use the figure £35,000 on the basis that we are not comparing like with like, otherwise it does not make sense as a figure to be used. That seems to me to be regrettable and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to have another look at this and to discuss just what the place of child benefit—perhaps the key benefit—is within the whole of our society, over many years, in terms of the cap. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Welfare Reform Bill
Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, as we come to the consideration of the cap on welfare benefits, the amendments in my name in the next two groupings concentrate on the needs of children. They are concerned not with the existence of the cap but with the way in which it operates for families with children.
Amendment 99ZA in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, makes families with children a specific category within Clause 93. The clause currently has no reference at all to children. The distinction that it makes is between single people and couples, yet children are most deeply affected by any restriction of benefits. My amendments are an attempt to find ways in which families with children can be helped to care for them where there is unemployment or circumstances which make the parents dependent on benefits.
I am particularly indebted to the Children’s Society for its Good Childhood report on the condition of children and the pressures on them in this country. I am also indebted to it for its work to ensure that children in deprived families are protected from the effect of capping and that the capping arrangements do not damage the needs of children and the way in which they grow up in our society. As the Bill stands, children are disproportionately affected by the cap. The Children’s Society estimates that some 210,000 children will be affected by it compared with some 70,000 adults.
The amendment promotes fairness because it compares like with like. If we are to set a cap for families with children, that should be compared with working families with children—probably those with someone working more than 16 hours a week, as suggested in Amendment 99ABB. That fits with, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s remarks at the 2010 Conservative Party conference that the cap should be at the level of the earnings of the average working family. I believe that most of us would see an average working family as meaning a family with children, whereas household earnings include those of childless single people, for example. This simple alteration in Amendment 99ZA could remove something like 25,000 children from the cap.
Linked in this group of amendments are those seeking to produce a fair definition of income. Amendment 99ABB aims to relate the cap to the income of working families rather than simply to their earnings. The principle behind the cap is that households should not be better off living on benefits than they would be in work. Income, for a family that is in work, includes, for example, child benefit or council tax benefit. If we are looking for an equitable comparison, then it is the amount that comes in to the household which is relevant, and not simply that which is on the payslip. To replace earnings by income, as Amendment 99ABB suggests, could remove some 38,000 children from the effects of the cap. Again, the concern is with provision for the growth, development and support of children as they grow up within our culture, and those who need the support of a welfare system as they grow up.
The last of the amendments in my name in this group concerns the maths by which “average” is calculated. The word “average” contains a studied ambiguity and I hope the Minister will be able to enlighten us as we look at this. At present, Clause 93(8) gives freedom to the Secretary of State to choose what he means by an average. That seems to me to be a slightly Humpty Dumpty-ish way of looking at the whole issue. It is unsatisfactory because it causes uncertainty. The mean, which is what is proposed by this amendment, is what, in my experience, is normally meant by an average. The figures are added up and then divided by the number of people concerned. It is like a cricket batting average, where the number of runs is divided by the number of dismissals to get the average. The other common so-called average is the median—the middle number. If you have a cohort of 1,000, it is number 500 in that 1,000. That is a remarkably arbitrary figure because it takes no account of the way in which there may be clustering at one end or the other of the total number of 1,000 in that particular example. However, it might well tempt future Secretaries of State, since at least, as figures are at the moment, it would be lower than the mean under current calculations. It may be that exploration could pursue a trimmed mean, which omits the highest paid 5 per cent and the lowest paid 5 per cent of working households when calculating the mean. We need some definition of average if this clause is going to make sense.
These are simple amendments, which do not challenge the basis of the benefits cap. They acknowledge the cost of bringing up children, which is at the heart of the need for family income. They recognise the struggle of parents unable to find work as they seek to care for their families. They could be crucial in helping to avoid plunging children back into poverty. I hope that the Government and the Minister will be able to explore some of these possibilities. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
I should like to engage in a detailed debate on this, but all I can tell noble Lords at this stage is that we are looking at how we ease the transition for families, and we are looking at providing assistance in hard cases.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
I have two points. First, do I understand that now, in contrast to the research done some months ago, a far lower proportion of those affected by the cap are in social housing? If so, where have they gone—the people who were in social housing a few months ago but who no longer are?
Going back to the original amendment that we are, in a way, discussing, my second, unconnected, question is that I have still not quite understood why it is inappropriate, when looking at the cap, to look at families with children separately from couples. We have the distinction between singles and couples. Surely, in any discussion of how a cap should operate, children are fundamental and families with children are fundamentally different from those who do not have children. Should that not somewhere come into the way in which the cap, and therefore this clause, are established?
Lord Freud
It is for local authorities to make decisions on individual homelessness applications, as they do now. Under homelessness legislation, if the only reason for the person’s homelessness is a reduction in benefit that is outside their control, they should not be considered intentionally homeless by their local authority.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
Perhaps I may just thank everyone for all the contributions that have been made. I also thank the Minister for his engagement with the collection of questions that have been asked of him over the past half-hour or so. I retain considerable disappointment in terms of moving forward in this area. There is clearly considerable disquiet among your Lordships over how this is developing. We have not yet pursued far enough issues such as the couple penalty, which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, spoke about. We have been exploring homelessness but have not got all that far. It might grow as a result of the cap. The noble Lord, Lord German, and others made points about children. I do not detect any likelihood that the amendment will be accepted unanimously by this Committee but it is with considerable reluctance that I withdraw it. I know that a number of these debates will need to go on behind the scenes if we are not to have the debate all over again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, the amendment seeks to remove child benefit from the calculation of benefit income when determining the cap. We had a bit of discussion about that in the previous grouping. The argument for this is really quite straightforward: child benefit is a non-means-tested benefit paid to all families, working or non-working. It is not at all an employment benefit and has no effect on whether a person would be better off in work than out of work. It is far better to regard it as a grant to children. It represents the most effective way in which we as a society invest in the next generation, or the next but one.
It is manifestly unfair if child benefit is to be counted as income for non-working families but not counted as income for working families, because there we have talked about earnings. I hope that we can simply remove it from the calculations. If we do, that will release perhaps another 20,000 children from poverty. That discussion has taken place already. We have heard that 99 per cent of families with children claim this benefit, but I do not see what that has to do with the present discussions or with any of the Government’s purposes in establishing the cap. If I am wrong about that, no doubt the Minister will tell me, as well as telling me what effect it can have.
The group also includes Amendment 99C, a compendium amendment to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, have added their names. It seeks to put a number of exemptions in the Bill so that they are not subject to the whims of future Secretaries of State. As I understand it, there has been movement by the Government to exempt people in three groups: those in work, those with disability living allowance and widows. What I seek here is simply to get those exemptions into the Bill, and others will speak about them in particular.
Those who have recently left employment—one of the other groups mentioned—are vulnerable, particularly if their leaving employment is the result of developing a disability, and earlier we had a discussion about just how the transitional arrangements work. They are still going to have to wait for six months before qualifying for personal independence payments. To go back to something that the noble Lord, Lord German, was saying, giving people time to find another job is likely to help to keep them in touch with the labour market. Much the same goes for those who are unable to make work pay, which is particularly the case where childcare costs are very high. A small but very vulnerable group of families will be unable to escape poverty by moving into work but they will face poverty through the cuts if they remain unemployed.
The exemption of lone parents with children under five is particularly important. The current system and all our arguments and discussions recognise that those additional commitments make it hard for them to move into work and, indeed, recognise that they are not expected to seek work, which also goes back to the Government’s purpose in having the cap. If they are not expected to seek work—and I absolutely agree with the argument that lone parents with children aged under five should not be expected to seek work—it seems unreasonable to place a cap on the benefits that they should receive when we acknowledge that they should not be put under pressure to seek work.
Pensions Bill [HL]
Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Boswell of Aynho
The noble Lord is entirely right to correct me. I had added the words “per annum”, which are not in the calculations. However, it is still a very substantial sum, and I do not think that Governments at the present juncture can forgo that. To put it another way, they would have to find an alternative means of financing even proposals that I put forward in Committee, which we may touch on later. Those were alleged to be likely to cost £7 billion, which, frankly, is rather more than I had anticipated or indeed would be sustainable. We are into a difficult calculation, but we cannot, in the circumstances of longevity, responsibly countenance the noble Lord’s amendment as it is at the moment. However, if for some reason the figures are not as pessimistic as we thought, I would very much like to hear my noble friend’s response when the time comes.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I have put my name to these amendments because I want to talk about the speed with which the goalposts are being moved and the unfairness between individuals that that represents. I speak as the Bishop who has had major responsibility for changes to the Church of England clergy pensions scheme and the reduction in benefits that is involved in that. I have had to present those to the General Synod and I bear some of the scars for doing so. I am under no illusions as to the difficulty of this task for the Government.
I fully accept the arguments for equalisations and those based on longevity to which the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has just been speaking. Change is needed, but I cannot accept that this speed of change is necessary. From my own experience, from my clergy postbag, and from my postbag about the Bill, I know that the two things that potential pensioners most resent are changes to their expectations with comparatively little notice and perceived unfairness. These proposals fail under both those headings, and the amendments put forward by the noble Lord do much to mitigate that unfairness and failure.
Individuals find changes in pension planning extremely complex and difficult to implement on a personal level. Many of the women who are affected here have taken time out to care for elderly parents, having worked long enough to qualify for the full pension. They have done that deliberately and they have responsibly assessed the way in which they are approaching retirement. Now they are simply being told, with only five to seven years’ notice, that they will have to cope on existing resources for one or two more years than they had anticipated—and than they had been told to anticipate as recently as the last changes in 2007. That is actually draconian for a group of individuals, notably the women, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who were born in that month of March to April 1954. They face an immediate two-year increase in their state retirement age. Some 33,000 women are unfortunate enough to have been born in a particular month. It is not a tiny number, although it may be a small proportion of those who in one way or another will see a reduction in their pension expectation through the timetable of the Bill. We are often exhorted to plan carefully for retirement. It is understandable that people see little point in doing so if, for some, the goalposts are then moved to the other end of the pitch. This may not technically be retrospective legislation, but in practice that is exactly what it is for a significant number of women.
It causes changes to expectations at short notice and, secondly, unfairness. The proposals as they stand create a situation in which a woman born in 1950 obtained her pension in 2010 whereas her sister, born in 1954 and four years younger, has to wait until 2020 for hers—a six-year increase in the pension age, the best part of a decade between the times these sisters receive their pensions. When we look at the figures, it is easy to see the need for change, but we must also take account of the unfairness that that creates between neighbours, family groups and work colleagues, and the tension and pressure on friendships and relationships. That is why we need to think again on the timetable. The changes in the Bill bring no additional savings until 2016. The savings do not contribute to tackling the present economic crisis. It is a matter of justice for a significant number of women that we change that timetable today.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I, like others, very much support these amendments. I have here the coalition programme for government, drawn up 10 months ago. On page 26, it makes seven promises on pensions relating to the earnings link, the Hutton review, a review on early access and so on. I agree with almost all of them and the coalition Government are honouring almost all of them—which is great—except for one. The coalition programme states:
“We will phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women”.
I agree with the coalition programme on that too: it is a clear and reasonable promise that was made just 10 months ago. We need to equalise, in a steady way, and that coalition commitment would have delivered that. Now in this Bill, just a few months later, that key coalition agreement promise—the one that most directly affects women, and poorer women at that—has been torn up and junked.
Whereas women before 2016 are seeing their pension age rise gradually, in steps of one year for every two years, suddenly from 2016 the rate at which their pension age is deferred extends, so that they have to wait three years instead of two and four years instead of three. From then on, half a million women will have to wait more than one year for their pension, 300,000 for more than a year and a half and 33,000—as the right reverend Prelate emphasised—for two years. It means that Susan, born in March 1953, will reach pension age at 63 in 2016. Her cousin Barbara, born a year later in March 1954, will reach pension age in March 2020, when she will be 66—one year younger, and she waits a further four years for her pension. Is that fair? Of course not. Is it necessary? The Government ran two arguments in their impact analysis and in Committee: first, given the deficit, that we need to find savings even from the pensions of the poorest women to sustain fiscal futures; and secondly, given increasing life expectancy, that we need to raise the pension age faster than anticipated.
Neither of these arguments, in my view, is valid. Given the deficit and the need to find savings—as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord McKenzie and others today—and given that this acceleration starts in only 2016, we are already beyond the deficit period. Anticipated savings of £30 billion—virtually all from women—are not part of the four-year plan. Is it necessary, however, for longer-term fiscal stability? In the longer term, yes; it is the speed that we are objecting to and the unfairness for women dependent on the month in which they are born as to whether they get a reasonable or a very bad deal from the state. It is a lottery, my Lords. The Government, unlike the markets, should not engage in lotteries with people’s pensions.
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970: 40th Anniversary
Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, for sponsoring this debate and to all those who have spoken so far and who will be speaking. I feel humbled to speak in the company of those who have played such a major part in the development of the contribution to our life and society of those who are disabled. I hope that noble Lords are aware of the pride that this House has in all that they have given and achieved for us.
I also want to affirm the major progress made in the years since 1970 and the way in which the “Alf” Act has made it possible for disabled people to enjoy a much greater dignity and quality of life, and to contribute so much to the quality of the lives of those with whom they are involved. Nevertheless, there is a real fear among those who are disabled, their representative organisations and those of us who are in contact with them that the principles of the 1970 Act and the Equality Act, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has just referred, will be undermined by the financial pressures of the present situation.
I want to concentrate on the needs of young people—first, those with learning disabilities. Since 1970, there has been a massive improvement in the educational achievement of those with learning disabilities. This perhaps is particularly dramatic in the case of those with autism who are now enabled to contribute so much more massively to our society and our thinking than they were when I was first involved in schools for the autistic in the 1970s.
At the same time, there is increasing concern about the mental health of children and young people with learning disabilities. The 2002 report, Count Us In, demonstrated that young people with learning disabilities are six times more likely to have mental health problems than the rest of the school and college population. Low self-esteem, social isolation and a sense of insecurity continue to lead to severe mental stress. Those findings were confirmed by the 2008 study, What About Us?, also from the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities working with the Faculty of Education at Cambridge University. The welcome inclusion in mainstream education has not always led to the valuing of disabled children and young people, to their inclusion in student representative groups, in decision-making in their own lives, or the life of the school or college.
In my experience, the pressure for academic achievement can mean a failure to respond to the needs of those with learning disabilities. I hope that there will be a new encouragement to schools, not least through the Ofsted process, to provide better space and opportunities for these students. It is surprising how little is made in many Ofsted reports, and in the reports that develop from them, of the valuing of the contribution made by disabled students in schools. I am aware of a Leeds school, for example, where there has been much debate about its quiet space. Pupils, whether disabled or not, can find respite there from the pressures of their lives. It is a space that is particularly valued by students who are disabled as well as those who are under pressure for whatever reason. There is, however, continuous pressure to requisition the space for what are called “more economically productive purposes”, and the debate is ongoing.
Helping young people to make decisions about their lives and to feel a part of the decision-making structures of their institutions are well developed and welcome parts of school life now, but much still needs to be done for those with disabilities to feel similarly appreciated and supported.
Secondly, I want to highlight the needs of those with multiple disabilities and their families. Again, real progress has been made since 1970, not least in enabling such young people to remain with their parents and siblings in the family home. Nevertheless, I know from pastoral experience in our parishes just how much of a fight there needs to be to achieve proper support for the young disabled and their carers. I can think of a teenager who has, three times in his very short life, gone through the multiple testing process to determine his need for one-to-one support—testing that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, just described as “obscenely tough”. He has had to go through it three times because his family moved, and each local authority to which they moved would not accept the assessment of the previous authority. The provision of proper support, demonstrably effective for this young person as for many, takes years to provide—during which he becomes increasingly frustrated and both his educational achievement and health decline. The lack of co-ordination between health and education, the absence, in this case for example, of physiotherapy for years on end, means that we are failing that young person, and that is despite agreement between professionals and parents as to what ought to be done. Continual well intentioned meetings mean that these parents have less time to be with their non-disabled son, and there is no effective provision of respite for them as carers. And this is an articulate, middle-class family, well able to argue its case and with substantial spiritual resources helping them to cope. Life is much harder for many who find that the complexities of our systems simply defeat them.
Into this difficult mix comes the threat of cuts. We are told that everyone, including, maybe, this young person, needs to bear their share of cuts. I hope the Government can make it clear today that those already in pain and under pressure such as I have described will not be required to receive even less opportunity to live fulfilled lives contributing to the community. We remain amongst the richest countries of the world and in our present financial issues we need to remember that. It is immoral for us to fail young people such as this. Many of us are well able to bear a significant share of the cuts rightly pursued by the Government. I am one of them. I do not have detailed knowledge of your Lordships’ financial circumstances, but there are many in the House who, in an economic downturn, can shoulder additional burdens. What we must not do is to increase the pressure on those least able to bear it. I hope the Government will be able to assure us that in the field of disability this simply will not happen.