Local Authorities: Relationship Support Services
Debate between Lord Bishop of St Albans and Lord Henley(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, I agree with most of what the noble Earl says. How much the Government can do to solve all these problems is another matter. However, there are things that we can do and that is why I was grateful for the opportunity to respond to this Question and just deal with this one small scheme. As I say, other things can be done—that is why we published our policy paper, Improving lives: Helping Workless Families, yesterday—and we will continue to see where we can help in all areas.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, perhaps I may build on the response just given by the Minister. The Government can only do so much and we certainly need to see joined-up thinking and action if we are going to help these families. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that when local authorities bid for funding for the local family offers, they are working collaboratively with grass-roots organisations—charities, churches and so on—which are already seeking to build up relationship capacity in families?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I cannot give precise details of what consideration was taken when assessing the bids, but I am fairly sure that the degree of co-operation that local authorities want to build with such organisations is a factor which would be taken into account.
Disabled People: Independent Living
Debate between Lord Bishop of St Albans and Lord Henley(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the problems of people with spinal injuries. The same is true for people with any of a host of other conditions, be they mental or physical. That is why we offer the help that we can and why we are committed to trying to reduce the employment gap between those who are disabled and those who are not by seeking greater working opportunities for those with health problems.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the Motability scheme is a crucial element for getting people back into work, yet about 50,000 people have lost out on it. What is particularly worrying is that the vast majority of appeals are upheld, by which time those concerned have lost the vehicle and then have to get it again. It is costing a lot of time and money. Would Her Majesty’s Government consider having a scheme whereby people do not lose the vehicle until the end of the appeal process? This would make much more sense where the appeal is upheld.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I understand the problems to which the right reverend Prelate refers. The department is looking at these matters. My honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work is well aware of them. As the right reverend Prelate will know, schemes are available for one-off cash payments to help those who are losing their cars. We shall certainly look at speeding up the whole appeals process to make sure that the problems to which the right reverend Prelate referred do not get any worse.
Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017
Debate between Lord Bishop of St Albans and Lord Henley(7 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for their contributions. I hope to deal with their concerns in the course of my speech.
On the first point raised by the right reverend Prelate about the length of time—this was also alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock—as noble Lords will remember, the original idea was that it should be for 12 months. This was extended as a result of the consultation, the comments from SSAC and the Select Committee to 18 months. One of the reasons for this is that it was considered that 12 months was not the optimum period, particularly in the light of its ending more or less on the anniversary of the death. Eighteen months fits in slightly better with that. The same could be said about three years because it also would fall on an anniversary. However, I do not use that to argue against a period that might be longer or shorter. We came to the view that 18 months rather than three years was about right and that thereafter, if necessary, income-related benefits would be more appropriate. The idea is to provide support at the time of bereavement and in the months afterwards, but there has to be a cut off at some point.
The noble Baroness accused us of bad faith when we extended the period from 12 to 18 months and said that the global amount would be a slightly smaller figure. If we extended to three years the same would apply—it would be a smaller figure—and it is better to get it in 18 monthly instalments than over a period of three years. Others may disagree, but judgments have to be made on this issue and we feel that 18 months is about right.
The right reverend Prelate also objected to the fact that there was no automatic top-up in line with inflation. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also wished to address the point. She will know that bereavement benefits of all sorts have been uprated in the annual Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2017, which we will get to later on. She will also know that the basic component of bereavement allowance and widowed parent’s allowance have to be uprated annually, at least in line with price inflation. There has been no requirement to uprate the bereavement payment, which has been frozen since 2001.
Bereavement support payment is a grant paid in instalments, rather than as an income replacement benefit, so it is treated in a similar way to the current bereavement payment. That is what is behind our views on that matter. It will be reviewed annually on a discretionary basis but without expectation that the payment should automatically be increased annually. Again, I imagine that we will want to come on to that later on, when we debate the general uprating order.
The third point touched on by both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness was about extending the payment to cohabitees, as opposed to just those who are married and in civil partnerships. I do not actually know the result of the civil partnerships case that was in the Court of Appeal today.
Lord Henley
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for saying that it has been rejected. By that, I take him to mean that it is still not possible for those of the opposite sex to have a civil partnership. Civil partnerships will therefore apply to those of the same sex, and marriages to those of the same sex and those of the opposite sex. We took the view that it was better and simpler to confine it to those groups, rather than to extend it to cohabitees. Cohabitees, as we have always known, have the ability to take steps to rectify their position and become married or, in certain cases, to become civil partners. To add the complexities, which I accept already face cohabitees regarding, for example, income-related benefits, such as UC, to a payment of this sort would not be appropriate. It can be dealt with by people themselves if they wish to regularise their position, which is always important to know.
I can remember some of the debates on various Private Members’ Bills, particularly one which I think was promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. He said that there was gross ignorance about this matter and that people thought being a common-law wife or husband gave them the same rights. I think that by now, most people should know that it does not give them the same rights; their rights are distinctly different if they are cohabitees. As I said, it would add excessive complications to a benefit of this sort, and I do not see the reason for extending it.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked about the numbers of those who are likely to be affected. In the past, it has been something of the order of 40,000 a year and we have no reason to believe that it will be any different. I can add to that one other figure, which will be of interest to him and the Committee: of those 40,000, some 8,000 also have dependent children. That figure might or might not surprise the noble Lord. I was slightly surprised, since we are talking about claimants of working age, that it should be as low as that. But that is the figure, and I have no reason to believe that it will change.
Finally, I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that bereavement support payment will be disregarded for universal credit and for income-related benefits. I think I made that clear in my speech. If even Homer nods, perhaps even the noble Baroness occasionally nods.
Corporate Governance
Debate between Lord Bishop of St Albans and Lord Henley
Lord Henley
My Lords, I think that I can give that assurance to the noble Baroness. I can also say that, as far as I am aware, my right honourable friend has had discussions with the head of the TUC and others, and certainly those discussions will continue over the period of the consultation relating to this Green Paper.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement and the Green Paper because we urgently need some fresh thinking in this area. Those of us who have been following the issues concerning banking standards can see that it is really quite complex. There is a delicate and difficult relationship between legal regulation on the one hand and values and social responsibility on the other. We face a number of problems. We have a disconnect between shareholders and corporations that has become ever more complex and further apart. How can we encourage shareholder engagement in long-term, sustainable business rather than short-term gains? How are we going to align more closely the remuneration of senior management to reward long-term growth and sustainability, and how can we reboot some of the social responsibility which is fundamental to this long-term success? The Statement mentions our legal system, our framework of company law and so on, and of course many of the multinationals rely on our social structures, including our education and health services. They take advantage of them but do not necessarily respond by taking their full responsibilities. I hope that the Green Paper will spark a wider debate about values as well as about law and regulation.