Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Boswell of Aynho and Baroness Wilkins

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment and urge all noble Lords to do so. Are we really becoming such a mean-spirited nation that we are willing to take away funding from less disabled children as the only means by which more severely disabled children can benefit? That is what the Government are proposing to do with this clause, although we know from a recent Children’s Society report that 40 per cent of disabled children live in poverty, and that if there is more than one disabled child in a family the poverty rate increases to 50 per cent. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, suggested, might there not be some people with broader shoulders who could contribute and endeavour to raise all disabled children out of poverty?

In order to be eligible for the higher rate, a child must require care both day and night. Many disabled children with significant needs will not qualify. Think what the loss of that money means for a family on a very low income—that £1,400 a year would amount to £22,000 over the life of a disabled child. It can mean not buying another box of incontinence pads when your allocation runs out, so that the mother spends exhausting hours changing and washing bed sheets, day after day. It can mean not being able to replace a sibling’s toy that the disabled child has broken, perhaps in a temper tantrum or frustration or because he or she cannot control their movements. It means intolerable strains on families that too often lead to family break-up.

Much of the Bill is about changing behaviour by the imposition of penalties. However, having a disabled child is not a lifestyle choice. Parents desperately need financial help in order to give their disabled child an equal chance in life, or are we really willing to let this legislation increase the shameful number of thousands of disabled children already living in poverty?

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, it would be impossible to have served, as I have for a number of years, as party spokesperson on disability issues and maintain a continuing interest in my party’s disability group without a degree of sensitivity to the problems of disabled children and, of course, to those of their families. The noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have spoken about this issue are clearly right in drawing the House’s attention to it. All that I would say is that we need to pause for a moment in looking at the overall implications of these proposals, because my understanding of the position is that relatively—broadly over the past decade, and it may properly be attributed to the previous Administration—there has been significant acceleration in the support given to disabled children, reflecting the pressures to which we have referred that have caused their benefit rates to increase faster than those of adults.

The Government’s proposal is not, and indeed was not presented as being, simply a matter of cutting back the support for disabled children. The other aspect of the Government’s proposals is the alignment of rates, reflecting the position of adults and including some with more severe disabilities. All I would say, with respect, to those who have moved this amendment is that if we are going to make proposals that will increase or maintain the public cost in relation to children, it will be very difficult to provide the equivalent or additional increases for adults. Given the economic state of the country, we cannot proceed through the Welfare Reform Bill with what I might call the “highest common factor” approach to benefits of all kinds. We need the most appropriate and targeted system. I say that not in derogation of the case that has been made but simply with reservation about its sustainability.

There may be a glimmer of hope—indeed, there is already a chink of precedence—in relation to the arrangements for transition and run-on to the new system. I know that the Government have already indicated that they will maintain DLA with its three levels in relation to children rather than transfer them all to the personal independence payments. That is a start. The key to this—and this will not be the only case in the matters that we will hear tonight—is that there should be appropriate and sensitive transition arrangements so that people do not lose significant or very large sums in years one or two, but that nevertheless the overall objective—rebalancing the system and maintaining some coherence in public revenues and expenditure—is maintained.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Boswell of Aynho and Baroness Wilkins

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I rise briefly and somewhat diffidently because I did not have the privilege of hearing some of the earlier exchanges, as I had other obligations at that time. However, I have been listening to the later stages of the debate and before I add one comment to it I want to make it clear that in no sense am I derogatory of the very real problems that disabled people face—and those faced by other people of particular categories, including foster carers and others. Indeed, a good deal of my trade, time, interest and passion in my previous vocation as a Member of the other place was directed towards these issues. Of course they matter, and the people who are experiencing them matter. They have complex and difficult needs.

At the same time, it is worth putting down a marker. My remarks are prompted by those of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about the cumulative effect. Of course, in a sense, I entirely agree with her point about the cumulative effect of changes, but I am afraid that the argument runs both ways. If the effect is cumulative and poses difficulties for the individual, a cumulative set of concessions or changes to the package that the Minister is presenting to us also has implications for public expenditure. In our debates last week on disabled children, I made the point that I regarded their overall position as being one of particular pressure that required the Minister’s attention and the maximum degree of flexibility. While I do not for a moment resile from the arguments that have been put with great passion by noble Lords on the range of difficulties, we will not be able to meet all those requirements within the equal requirement that the Minister and the Government have for economies in public expenditure—and with the commitments that have been undertaken to secure the prize of universal credit.

What we must do—and I will certainly want to listen to the Minister’s answer on this—is ensure that we understand the implications, and that is why debate is so important. We should be prepared to make changes where the shoe pinch is particularly hard or where the interaction that the noble Baroness referred to may have taken place. However, we will not be able to solve all the problems of all the client groups, however good our intentions are, without making it impossible for the Bill to survive and be sustainable. The Minister has to answer in that vein, and I hope that he does so.

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, further to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, I ask him whether it is fair that this group of people should be asked to pay for the country’s deficit. It seems to fall particularly hard on this vulnerable group of people.

I support the solution of noble Lord, Lord Best, in these amendments and, if not, I support all the exemptions that have been spoken about, particularly those in relation to disabled people. It is very hard for non-disabled people to recognise how important our homes are to us, particularly when you can get into few others. The way that our homes are configured and designed means that they either enable us to live independent, contributing lives or completely disable us. The two steps that were in my house, as they are in every other house in my street, would completely have disabled me had they not been removed. They would have meant that I needed help from someone else to wash or to provide my food. I would not even have been able to answer my front door to take in a parcel from a neighbour. They would have removed any ability for me to contribute to my community.