Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

The Liberal Democrats are willing as a constructive Opposition to work with the new Government on the many problems they undoubtedly face. We will therefore not support the fatal Motion today but have outlined different approaches in our Motions. But we will expect the new Government to listen to the voices of others and show that they have done so. The arrogance of a large majority is not helpful to constructive working. The noble Baroness must assure us today that the Government will listen to the strong views expressed here and by pensioners and the public, objecting to this damaging attack on vulnerable pensioners, and we call on them to think again. I will be supporting the Liberal Democrat Motion.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Minister on her appointment and I declare an interest as a beneficiary myself hitherto of the winter fuel payment—but only in very recent years. Indeed, I wonder whether your Lordships’ House should not pass a resolution declaring a corporate interest. Members of this House are unlikely to be seriously affected by the measure. That is not the point. For many pensioners in my diocese and for considerably larger numbers, possibly extending to millions, across the country, this will be a significant financial hit, with adverse repercussions this coming winter.

As has been alluded to, the origin of the Chancellor’s decision to cut winter fuel payments lies in her view of the state of public finances. It is not a manifesto commitment. The Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, has appealed to the House to neither annul the regulations nor express regret, but I suspect that there are those on the Government Benches who are internalising their regret at this very moment. I fear, and I think this feeling is shared across the House, that the Government’s decision on this matter will define them in the public mind for years to come. It is a signal gesture on their part and one that I believe should be resisted, notwithstanding the Minister’s careful appeal.

First, all Governments should take scrupulous care with our public finances, and it is true that the national debt is now at a level not seen since the early 1960s. But a third of our national debt is owned by the Government themselves through the exercise known as quantitative easing. Secondly, deficit financing, investment, growth and reductions in debt went hand in hand in the decades following the Second World War. Thirdly, the principle of universality in public benefits, as here, is one that is being steadily eroded.

The advantage of a universal benefit is simplicity in administration, the certainty of application and the absence of a social stigma. Means-tested benefits attract doubtless unintended stigmatisation, with a burden to both applicant and state in terms of administration and, inevitably, a failure by those eligible to take up the benefit. Despite the sharp increase in those applying for pension credit, it remains the case that a significant number of people eligible for the credit have not applied for it and would not wish to seek special treatment, as they see it, by so doing.

The Beveridge report in 1942, at a time of desperate stress, identified five giants that needed to be slain on the road to reconstruction: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. The prescription for their demise was universal, as had been all the great reforms of the previous century, from public parks to museums and galleries, free lending libraries, open-air concerts, healthcare, pensions and unemployment benefit. Those principles were extended after 1945.

The prescriptions in more recent years have been of restricted access, increased commodification and means testing. Of these, means testing is always the costliest option. They have accompanied low growth, increased inequality and an atrophy of positive outcomes. After a wide consultation, the proposal suggested by other Members to make the payment a taxable benefit clearly has much to commend it.

I shall listen to your Lordships with care, but I am minded to vote for the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, if not for that of the noble Baroness, Lady Altman.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I entirely understand why the Government want to get rid of a fuel payment to many people who can afford to deal with even the heightened cost of fuel for heating, but I make no apology for repeating what others have said, because it seems to me that it has to come from right across the House in order for—just possibly—the Minister and therefore the Government to listen to what we are saying. I do not think, from what I heard happened in the Commons yesterday—although I was not in this country—that there is more than a faint hope of that, but it is so important that we should be saying this from across the House.

We know that those eligible for universal credit do not always take it; we have been told that. But we also know of a large number of people who have an income just above universal credit and that is the group about whom I am most concerned when it comes to an increase in heating costs. The triple-lock pension increase does not come until April, but the heating cost is coming now. These people are going to suffer this year and I find it inconceivable that a Labour Government who have done so much for this country in so many ways should put themselves behind depriving ordinary, elderly people—and I speak as a very elderly person—of the opportunity to not have to choose between eating or heating. This seems to me the saddest thing I could possibly think of.

It may be a short-term problem in the sense that the triple-lock payment may help for next year, but, having heard what other speakers have said today in your Lordships’ House, that seems to me unlikely and it does seem that we will need a fuel payment for those on universal credit and those not on universal credit but earning very little more. I absolutely beg the Government to think again.

Benefit Cap

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I totally reject what the noble Lord had to say. As he knows perfectly well, because he will have seen it, our evaluation that appeared in 2014 showed just what I said in my original Answer—they were some 41% more likely to go back into work than similar uncapped households. It also showed that 38% of those capped said they were doing more to find work, one-third were submitting more applications and one-fifth went on to make more interviews. That is why my right honourable friend made the announcement in last year’s Budget of further changes to the benefit cap. In due course we will look for a further evaluation, which I look forward to showing to the noble Lord when it comes through.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, according to the Government’s own impact assessment nearly a quarter of a million children are affected by the reduced benefit cap, more than two and a half times the number of affected adults. This includes many preschool children in lone-parent families at greater risk of poverty. Given that the prime aim here is to encourage more people into work, will the Minister consider exempting single parents with young children, who would not otherwise be expected to work under the current benefit rules and who rely on familiar social networks and services?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I accept one part of the right reverend Prelate’s question: it is valuable for all concerned, particularly children, to live in households where all those who are likely to earn are in full-time employment. It is work that is the benefit to children. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that the number of children living in workless households is now at a record low. We have seen falls there; the number is down by more than 80,000 in the past year and well over half a million since 2010. We need to wait to see the evaluation of our further changes to the benefit cap before we make any further promises of the sort that the right reverend Prelate is seeking from me.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 21st December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 87 to 90 in our name, and to comment briefly on the other amendments in the group. Ours are probing amendments designed to encourage the Minister to talk to the Committee a bit more openly than he has been able to do so far. What behavioural responses are being sought from some of the groups of people affected by the cap?

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for talking about kinship carers so powerfully. I shall be listening very carefully to what the Minister says at the end, and I hope to hear him engage rather more substantially with the issue than I feel he did when this came up in earlier stages, particularly in relation to the two-child policy.

Amendment 87 would exclude from the cap anyone claiming carer’s allowance. I am very happy to press pause on that and come back to it on Report. The Minister should be aware that expectations are now running exceedingly high in this House. I am sure that what he has to say when he comes back will be a delight to all of us, and I very much look forward to that.

There are two things from the judgment that he might still take, even if the Government decide to accede to the very small number of people who were there. The first goes to a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. At the opening part of the judgment Mr Justice Collins said that,

“to describe a household where care was being provided for at least 35 hours a week as ‘workless’ was somewhat offensive”.

That was a very good point and one we could all do well to remember.

The other point that Mr Justice Collins made, which is of wider relevance, was that what often seemed small capped sums for the DWP could be such a loss to these families as to “tip them into destitution”. One of the cases he gave as an example was of somebody who was losing £11 a week. These may seem small sums to the department but they can make the difference in Dickensian terms between happiness and misery to individual families. I hope that we will all bear that in mind.

Amendment 88 would exempt from the cap those who are claiming universal credit and are not subject to all work-related requirements. Amendment 89 would exempt people in receipt of ESA in the WRAG group, which was just addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. Amendment 90 would exempt claimants of income support. In the impact assessment, the Government talk about reducing the levels of the cap for those not making a “behavioural response” by an average of £63 a week. That is a lot of money.

These amendments require the Government to explain what behavioural responses are being sought. The Minister says that this is hugely successful in getting people into work. In fact, as we have already heard from the IFS, the majority of people affected are not responding by either moving house or moving into work because 85% of them are not required to work as a condition of receiving benefits. Therefore, the cap will try to push into work certain people who would otherwise not be required to do so because they are on ESA, or they are the parents of very young children, or they are carers—a point made very strongly by my noble friend Lady Hollis on an earlier amendment.

The only ways to escape the cap are to move into work of at least 16 hours a week—to open a working tax credit claim, or be on the minimum wage while on UC—or move home. In the case of people on ESA—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, notwithstanding—does the Minister accept that some people in the ESA WRAG group will either not be capable of working at the moment, or will not be able to sustain 16 hours’ work a week, or will not be able to work consistently because of the nature or their illness or disability? If that is the case, can he explain to the Committee what behavioural responses he wants from them and, if they are not capable of making any of the available responses—working or moving house—does he think it fair that they should simply have their income cut because they are incapable of doing the thing he wants them to do?

In the case of parents who are capped, the normal work requirements do not apply, so a single parent or main carer could have two children, including a very young baby, and be expected to work if the cap means that they could not otherwise afford to pay their rent. Whenever we talk about single parents or parents working, the Minister tells the House that the Government are putting lots of extra money into childcare and that parents of three and four year-olds will have extra childcare, as will disadvantaged parents of two year-olds, but here we are talking about children who could be one or two years old. There is no free entitlement to childcare when a child is under two. Even the provision of childcare for disadvantaged two year-olds is for only 15 hours in term time, which would not match the requirements of someone moving into a job for 16 hours a week throughout the year to escape the benefit cap.

Research undertaken by the Family and Childcare Trust found significant gaps in provision for young children in 136 local authorities surveyed in England and Wales. The evidence bears this out. It shows that single parents with younger children are already less likely to move off the cap than other groups, presumably because they are struggling to find suitable flexible jobs and suitable childcare while combining them with minding very young children.

The impact assessment also talks about the aim being to improve work incentives, but I wonder whether the Minister has read the report from the Child Poverty Action Group, which showed just how strong work incentives were, even for families who might be getting significant amounts of benefit. It gives the example of a very rare occurrence of a lone parent with four children, who would be better off by £105 a week working just 16 hours a week on the minimum wage. Therefore, work incentives already exist so, if parents are not working, something else may be going on.

When the Minister responds, I hope that he will address these probing amendments by talking about individual cases. He has talked a lot about how he wants to move to a much more personalised situation so that advisers can engage with individuals and understand that their circumstances differ, yet this measure feels like a very blunt tool, indeed. Therefore, could he tell us a little more about what it might mean in practice?

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I rise to express my support for the intention behind the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, which makes sound social and economic sense. If a child can be cared for within the family network, and that is not to be parents or step-parents, that is in most cases preferable for the emotional, physical and spiritual well-being of the child. Churches have watched and participated for centuries in the patterns of such relationships and know that while they can hide dangers, they provide in the main the best setting for the formation of life. Better that than the anxiety, grief and hardship imposed by benefit rules not designed for such scenarios, and that a proportion of such children be an economic charge on local authorities and reap the emotional deficit that will all too often occur.

We have heard that there are an estimated 200,000 children raised by kinship carers across the UK. Some 50% are grandparents and a little under a quarter are siblings bringing up younger brothers and sisters. If 95% of children living in kinship care arrangements are not looked after by the local authority, can we imagine what the cost would be if there were any sort of shift in that figure—yet we expect the carer to bear that cost? It is a cost often undertaken at short notice and in an emergency. Kinship carers face significant additional costs in terms of both equipment needed and maintenance costs. Their family size increases and can even double overnight. Unlike adopters, they are not entitled to a period of paid leave for the children to settle in. The largest survey of kinship carers in the UK, conducted by the Kinship Care Alliance, found that 49% of respondents had to give up work permanently as a result of taking on the kin children, a further 18% had to give up work temporarily, and 23% had to reduce their hours temporarily or permanently. In many cases, this plunged the household into poverty and debt. One grandmother carer responding to the survey said:

“We are struggling to buy food and pay our bills. We have to get food vouchers every three months”.

The Kinship Care Alliance survey found that 30% of kinship carers’ households were currently receiving housing benefit. The figure rose to 36% among larger kinship care households with three or more children—kinship care households such as that headed by Rachel, a grandmother in her 50s who lives near my diocese in south London. She took on the care of her three young grandchildren when her daughter died in a car accident last year. The children’s father is in prison. She has had to give up work to raise the oldest grandson, who is six years old and her two youngest granddaughters, who are three and one years old. She is also grieving the loss of her daughter, just as the children are grieving the loss of their mother.

I would be grateful to the Minister if he could tell me whether the Department for Work and Pensions has undertaken an assessment of the likely impact of this measure on kinship care households and, if so, whether he could provide the detailed figures. Furthermore, if the Government do not favour this amendment, will they bring forward their own amendment to address the points I have raised? Is the Minister not concerned—as I am—that the numbers in care may rise if action is not taken?

Many of the children arrive to live with kinship carers following a crisis and are deeply traumatised. Many have severe needs and some have suffered prior abuse. The survey to which I have referred found that kinship carers reported that a staggering 43% of the children had emotional and behavioural problems. Forcing carers into work cannot always be a just and appropriate response.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who spoke earlier in these debates, dearly wished that he could have spoken today, and I pay tribute to his endeavours in this regard. I welcome the focus of the Government’s own family test on stable and strong family relationships and the explicit reference to kinship carers in the test. This amendment is entirely consistent with the application of the family test and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support Amendment 90B, which seeks to exclude kinship carers from the benefit cap. The amendment is, indeed, a logical extension of our discussion on the first day of Committee on kinship carers and their exemption from the two-child limit. To reiterate, care proceedings cost an average of £25,000 and foster care £40,000 a year, yet most kinship care arrangements can be fixed without recourse to the courts, with dramatic savings to the public purse as well as significantly improving outcomes for the children. However, much of the financial cost of raising the child typically falls directly on the carers themselves.

When we discussed this issue on 7 December, I found the Minister’s response on kinship care profoundly worrying. He was pressed on his failure to acknowledge that a family taking in other people’s children is not doing so through some concept of voluntary freedom of choice, as normally understood, but is choosing to take on the responsibility of vulnerable children rather than abandon them. The Minister responded:

“Clearly there is a difference between the voluntary and involuntary taking on of children, whether they are your own or anyone else’s. That is what our exemptions are for. We are seeking to try to draw the line between where it is involuntary, as in the case of rape, and where it is not”.—[Official Report, 7/12/15; col. 1332.]

That statement shocked many in this House because in effect the Minister was saying that if a kinship carer takes on responsibility for vulnerable and distressed children, that decision is voluntary and therefore not worthy of state support if it means that there are more than two children in the household. I find that reasoning quite extraordinary and, indeed, quite dreadful.