Universal Credit

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Freud

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Let me be absolutely clear why we are doing this. It is of course very convenient for housing associations to be paid directly by the state, but it is incredibly inconvenient for claimants to then move from being out of work to being in work. Our whole drive is to break that barrier and get rid of all those artificial barriers to people going into work. It is something that we need to work on and get right, so that the transformation is made easily. The basic, underlying philosophy is more important than the convenience of housing associations.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

When did the Minister last meet one of these claimants in person?

[Lord Freud]

Oh, last week.

Benefits: Sanctions

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Freud

Thursday 10th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

We have done surveys on this and found that people say that the sanctions regime encourages positive behaviour. According to the figures we have, which have been published, 72% of JSA claimants and 61% of ESA claimants say that it impacts on their behaviour.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords—

Jobseeker’s Allowance

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Freud

Monday 21st July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

A vigorous debate is going on among economists about what has happened to productivity. The most interesting study that I have seen lately was from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and one of his colleagues, which looked at productivity as a cyclical impact, which we should be able to get through later on.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, since this Question and Answer show all the features of very careful preparation, I am sure that the Minister will be able to answer this. What percentage of the jobs that have been created are: first, part time; secondly, minimum wage; and thirdly, zero-hours contracts?

[Lord Freud]

I did not need a huge amount of preparation for this Question because it is a slam dunk. The figures for employment are very good. If you are looking at part-timers, the number who do not want to be full time are down by 1.5 percentage points—the fastest decline on record. Depending on the figures you take, we have between 2% and 4% of people on zero-hour contracts, and the CIPD says that people on those contracts are as satisfied with their jobs as people on other contracts.

Benefit Cap

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Freud

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

The cap is doing quite a lot of things. It has an influence on the people who are capped but it also sends out a message. The total number of people who have been capped at one time or another stands at just over 42,000; the current number is just over 27,000. A substantial proportion of those who have moved out of the cap, which they might do for various reasons, have gone into work and taken working tax credit. Others will have taken advantage of the effect that I have just referred to, whereby doing even small amounts of work reduces their cap.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

Would the Minister contemplate for a while how people struggling to survive on benefits will view an aggressive Question being asked by someone who donated £2.62 million to the Conservative Party?

Universal Credit: National Rollout

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Freud

Monday 28th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the sentiment. When you are introducing a large cultural change like this, it is important to do it in a careful and controlled way, and to make sure that it is safe and secure. That is how we have been introducing our series of changes, such as child maintenance, PIP and benefit cap. I am not in a position, until we announce Howard Shiplee’s plans later this year, to give a timetable of when couples and children are brought into the migration strategy.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, this is really depressing. Why do the Government not pay attention to Sir John Major? Last week in the Press Gallery he advised the Government not to pay attention to the bean counters and cheerleaders, but to the people working with the disabled, the elderly and others who are suffering. John Major also said that this was going to fail, that all these reforms were going to fail, unless Iain Duncan Smith was a genius, and he saw no proof of that. Does the Minister have any proof? Unless he does, is it not about time that for the sake of our disabled people the Government started to think again?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the party opposite is not saying that universal credit is not the right transformation. Although it voted against various aspects, it is actually saying that it is the right way to go. The issue is how to introduce it. We are introducing it safely and securely, and we are doing that exactly for the kind of people to whom the noble Lord was referring. We are making sure that we do not produce shocks by introducing a new system on one day in the way, for instance, that tax credits were introduced and which was a failure. We are doing this slowly and securely.

Housing: Under-Occupancy Charge

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Freud

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I have talked before about the 250,000 people living in overcrowded accommodation, with 1.8 million people on the waiting list. But the economic signals going on in the social rented sector are very odd. The demand from single people and couples represents each year 61%, for the latest year we have—and it has not changed much. The number of homes provided that have single bedrooms comes to only 13%. Over the past decade, the social rented sector has built virtually no new single bedrooms, at 30,000; that compares with the private rented sector, which has produced in that period 280,000. There is a real economic mismatch going on in terms of what we are encouraging the social rented sector to build, and we need to make sure that we are building the type of accommodation that people in this country actually need.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is paying no attention to the effects on the people involved. Has he seen the report in the Daily Record, which says:

“The Tory minister in charge of the bedroom tax has told Scots with motor neurone disease to take in a lodger or have their benefits cut.”?

Will he apologise for this insensitivity and rethink this measure, that being just one of its many iniquities?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I have not, of course, made any specific recommendations to people. Let me just go through the point. We are monitoring this change very closely. It is in its early stages as people start to adjust. We have put in a lot of discretionary housing payments; the total is £180 million this year. The early returns—and I stress they are early returns—show that local authorities are either managing those well or are underspending at this particular time.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Freud

Thursday 21st March 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, this Bill will ensure that, following the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Wilson and Reilly versus the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Government will not have to repay previous benefit sanctions to claimants who have failed to participate in mandatory back to work programmes. It will also enable the Government to impose benefit sanctions where a sanction decision has been put on hold because of the Wilson and Reilly case.

I shall briefly set out the details of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, but let us first be clear on what this case was not about. The court did not cast any doubt on the policy intention behind any of the schemes. In the words of Sir Stanley Burnton, one of the judges, the case was,

“not about the social, economic, political or other merits of the Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme”,

and the court noted that the use of mandation was appropriate in such schemes.

The policy intention of our schemes has been clear to all from the outset. I have said that the Court of Appeal judgment was not about the social or other merits of the employment, skills and enterprise scheme, but the judges were not silent on the broad principle underlying mandatory employment schemes. Lord Justice Pill said:

“A policy of imposing requirements on persons receiving a substantial weekly sum, potentially payable for life, is readily understandable. Equally, the means sought to achieve that end are understandable; claimants should be required to participate in arrangements which may improve their prospects of obtaining remunerative employment”.

Again, I say that the case was not about the policy intent of the schemes, which has been clear from their inception.

So what was the judgment about? The judgment centred on the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011, which for brevity’s sake I will from now on refer to as the ESE regulations. These regulations provide for most of the mandatory back to work schemes, including the Work Programme.

First, the court rejected the claimants’ argument that the ESE regulations were contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights—specifically, Article 4.2 on forced labour. Secondly, it rejected the claimants’ argument that the ESE regulations could not be enforced in the absence of a formal published policy.

However, the court found against DWP on two grounds. It found that the ESE regulations did not describe the programmes that they underpinned in enough detail. It also upheld the High Court’s ruling that letters sent to claimants when they were mandated to an ESE scheme were insufficiently detailed to comply with Regulation 4 of the ESE regulations. We have since laid new regulations and issued revised letters so that we can continue to mandate claimants to our schemes and ensure their continued proper functioning in accordance with the principle of imposing requirements on jobseekers in return for paying them benefit.

Your Lordships will not be shocked to learn that the department fundamentally disagrees with the court’s verdict in respect of the two latter grounds, which is why it has applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court the Court of Appeal’s judgment in respect of those two grounds. The arguments that we will make before the Supreme Court, if we are granted permission—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

If the department was so upset and disagreed with the decision, why did it take it so long to bring legislation before Parliament?

[Lord Freud]

I will come on to explain that in a little.

The arguments that we will make before the Supreme Court, if we are granted permission, will not be affected by this Bill. However, we need the Bill to provide certainty that the Government are not in a position where we will have to repay previous benefit sanctions, and can impose sanctions where decisions have been stayed, in respect of claimants who have failed to take part in employment programmes without good reason. We have made it clear that we will take steps to ensure that claimants cannot expect a sanction refund as a result of this judgment, and there is a compelling public interest for taking those steps.

The Bill does not overturn previous appeals that have succeeded on the basis of good cause and it does not prevent claimants from appealing a sanction on the basis of good reason. Instead, it ensures that claimants who have failed to participate with no good reason do not obtain an undeserved windfall payment. We estimate that such a windfall could cost the public purse up to £130 million. That is money that would be better spent on people who take their responsibilities seriously, and it is in the public interest that we ensure this.

There is also an important public interest, as the Court of Appeal recognised, in getting people back to work by ensuring that jobseeker’s allowance is paid only to those who are actively seeking employment and who engage with attempts made by the state to achieve that end, and that those who do not do so face the appropriate consequences. The Bill will protect this public interest by ensuring that those who have not engaged with attempts made by the state to return them to work face the appropriate consequences, rather than receiving an undeserved windfall.

The Government respect the general principle that Parliament should not legislate to reverse the effects of the judgments of the court for past cases unless the situation is exceptional. However, it is entirely proper to enact such legislation if there is a compelling reason to do so. There is a compelling reason here on three grounds: first, the cost involved; secondly, the claimants affected do not deserve a windfall payment; and, thirdly, this is an unusual case in social security legislation where a court or tribunal decision has a retrospective effect.

The Bill will provide that any decision to reduce jobseeker’s allowance under the ESE regulations cannot be challenged on the grounds that those regulations were invalid or the notices given under them inadequate. It makes similar provision in relation to the mandatory work activity regulations in respect of notices given under those regulations.

I have said that we fundamentally disagree with the court’s verdict with respect to the lawfulness of the ESE regulations and the notices given under them. We believe that those regulations were correctly drafted. They were drafted to be flexible enough to encompass a wide range of programmes designed to support jobseekers into work. There was no clear and identified need to go further than the ESE regulations in order to lawfully mandate claimants to our schemes.

The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, as it was then called, published a report that covered the ESE regulations on 5 May 2011. The Merits Committee had a number of concerns, including the quality of the Explanatory Memorandum. To go off on a tangent, I want to acknowledge that there was a period when we were not servicing the Merits Committee adequately, and I have taken steps since then to improve that position. The Merits Committee had concerns, but the possibility that the ESE regulations were unlawful was not one of them. The committee drew attention to the fact that the regulations,

“interpret the Act very broadly so that future changes to the Scheme could be made administratively without any reference to Parliament”.

However, it did not go on to suggest that they went beyond the primary powers.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments also considered the ESE regulations at its meeting on 15 June 2011. I am sorry to report that no fewer than three instances of defective drafting were identified, which the department acknowledged. However, the committee did not raise even the possibility that the ESE regulations were unlawful. The Social Security Advisory Committee, whose independent and informed advice we value greatly and with which we have a very constructive relationship, also considered the ESE regulations. Among other issues, it made a point about the breadth of the powers, but it did not suggest that they went beyond the primary powers. Similarly, those primary powers in the Welfare Reform Act 2009 received full scrutiny. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee regarded the delegations in the relevant part of the Act and the associated scrutiny procedure as unexceptionable.

We consider that the primary powers do not require that the regulations set out the fine details of the scheme. We believe that it is undesirable to do so, as a wide variety of possible arrangements could be made, depending on the nature of the labour market conditions in particular parts of the country. We also need to be able to respond to changing conditions and challenges quickly and effectively.

We believe that the flexibility that the ESE regulations provided was rational and desirable, and it must be remembered that the High Court ruled that the regulations were lawful. We therefore cannot agree with the Court of Appeal’s judgment. We also believe that the letters issued to claimants provided sufficient information on the consequences of not participating in our schemes. In addition to the information provided in the letter, claimants would have also discussed the precise details of the scheme with their jobcentre adviser, including what was expected of them and the consequences of not upholding their side of the bargain.

Nevertheless, following the High Court judgment, we revised all referral notices to comply with the judgment and sent letters clarifying the position to the then claimants impacted by the decision. That allowed us to continue to operate the schemes as intended—an intention that has been clear to all from the scheme’s inception, based on principles which the effects of the Court of Appeal judgment undermines and which the Bill is intended to protect.

It is right that we are able to operate our schemes as intended, giving jobseekers the opportunity to improve their chances of moving into work, with appropriate consequences for those who fail to take up that opportunity. It is right that government resources are targeted on those claimants who are actively seeking employment and taking all reasonable steps to improve their chances of securing employment and that resources are not wasted on those who have not met their responsibilities.

To pick up the question asked by the noble Lord, as soon as the judgment was handed down, the department explored all the options and avenues available to it to ensure the protection of the public interest. Once the decision to pursue emergency legislation was taken, that required legal advice, the appropriate consent prior to introduction and preparing the Bill products. We also engaged the Opposition, who rightly gave the matter thorough consideration. I am sure that all noble Lords will appreciate the time that that has taken.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

As I understand it, this lay in the department without any suggestion of legislation for more than a month. If the department had been really concerned about it, the legislation could have been dealt with through the normal procedure. Instead, both the other place and your Lordships’ House are faced with emergency legislation, which is entirely unsatisfactory for examining such an important Bill in detail. All the subsequent stages will be dealt with on Monday. That is not adequate scrutiny. Does the noble Lord not feel some guilt or embarrassment at having to deal with it in this way?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, obviously, it is never desirable to have emergency legislation where one can avoid it. It would be desirable to run this through a more normal process, but we are caught by time constraints. The point that the noble Lord made about delay is accounted for by the various steps that we have had to take in that period.

In conclusion, the Bill guarantees some fundamental principles, which are about helping us to move people into employment and protecting the public purse. I commend the Bill to the House and I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

As noble Lords know, we are seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court to test that specific matter. I will shortly come on to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about why we have fast-tracked this Bill. However, we have explored all the avenues and have not taken a decision to fast-track lightly. We have looked at other measures to prevent this course of action but none provides a sufficient guarantee. People have been concerned about the four-week period. We have also spent a significant period discussing, through the usual channels, agreement to expedite this legislation.

Let me make clear why the retrospective legislation is necessary. The Government respect the general principle that Parliament should not legislate to reverse the effects of court judgments on past cases unless the situation is exceptional. However, it is entirely proper to enact such legislation if there is a compelling reason to do so. Perhaps I may spell out the three reasons which make this an exceptional case. First, there is significant money involved—£130 million—in very difficult, austere times. Secondly, the money would go to a group of people who neither expect nor deserve to obtain a windfall payment. These claimants knew exactly what was required of them. They failed to participate without good cause and were rightly sanctioned. Thirdly, this case is most unusual in terms of social security legislation.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The noble Lord is repeating word for word what he said in his introductory speech. Why does he not reply and answer the important questions that have been raised? For example, why did he not ask for his appeal to the Supreme Court to be fast-tracked? Can he not answer the debate instead of repeating what he said at the beginning?

[Lord Freud]

I am doing my best to explain the reason why this is exceptional. I did not explain it in detail at the outset, so I am really grateful for the opportunity, reinforced by the noble Lord, to explain the exception.

The third reason why this is exceptional is to do with the nature of social security legislation. In almost all cases regarding social security decisions, the decisions of a court or tribunal are only prospective in nature. That is because the most common way in which to challenge a social security decision, including the underlying regulations, is to bring an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. If that happens, the normal route is followed and the decision of the tribunal will not have a retrospective effect because of Section 27 of the Social Security Act 1998. It is only because there is an anomaly in the text of Section 27 that it does not apply to judicial review cases. That is something that I suspect that this Government will come back to, to clear up. It is clear from Section 27 that Parliament recognised that wholesale retrospective disruption of the social security system was not desirable. That is even more true in a case like this, when the beneficiaries of that disruption are not deserving of the windfall that they would otherwise receive. That is why this is exceptional.

I turn to the reason why we need to fast-track the Bill. I want to respond to the rather witty way in which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put his view that there was no urgency by explaining to him and other noble Lords that we have applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. If we are not given that permission to go ahead—and that could come out any day—we immediately become liable to pay back the sanction money of £130 million. That is why there is particular urgency and that is why we are fast-tracking this legislation. We need to provide certainty to taxpayers that we will not spend this money in this way, unnecessarily. The department will endeavour to process the stockpile cases in a robust, transparent and efficient manner. While there is clearly a trade-off between robustness and speed, we will aim to do that as practically as possible.

Benefits: EU Nationals

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Freud

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

In this particular area, the Minister still has not answered the question put by two of my colleagues. They did not ask whether benefits are going to be uprated by 5.2 per cent, as they should be, but when the Government are going to tell us. It is the time that we want to know; not a definitive statement now. Will he now answer that question?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as noble Lords will be well aware, there is an autumn Statement where these things are declared. That is the answer.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Freud

Monday 24th October 2011 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, Amendments 50A and 53 concern couples where one member is above qualifying age for pension credit, and the other below. The Bill provides that such couples will in future claim universal credit rather than pension credit. I should stress that this change will not affect couples already in receipt of pension credit. It will apply only to new cases. The effect will therefore build up slowly and existing cases will not be disturbed.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, we still need to decide how to deal with cases which move on and off pension credit in future. To pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about the impact assessment, this shows the long-term effect, and not the immediate impact.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for clarifying that she is not opposed to this change of emphasis in principle. The rationale is that while one member of the couple may be over the qualifying age for pension credit, the other member of the couple is of working age. Since all people of working age who can work should be expected to do so and there are no work-related requirements associated with pension credit, it follows that universal credit is the appropriate benefit. I should stress that the work-related requirements would apply only to the working-age partner.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for also acknowledging that in some cases the more generous earnings rules in universal credit may mean that it is a more advantageous benefit than pension credit. The disregards and earnings tapers in universal credit will mean that if one or both of the couple does work, they will keep much more of their earnings than they would in pension credit where earnings over £10 a week are deducted pound for pound from the guarantee credit.

The issue is about the rate of universal credit and how this compares with pension credit. Noble Lords will be aware that the levels of support through pension credit are significantly higher than levels of current benefits for people of working age. This is due in particular to the way in which pension-age benefits have been uprated at a faster rate than working-age benefits in recent years.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

As usual I am not up to speed on everything. Could the noble Lord say exactly what he means in this context by “working age”?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am not often baffled, but by “working age” I mean someone below the state pension age, which is moving currently. But that is a formal definition.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am grateful to the Minister. In other words, as the age of eligibility for a state pension increases, under the definition in this Bill “working age” will increase at the same time with it. Is that right?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, I can confirm to the noble Lord that that is absolutely what is happening here. Clearly, we have debated the changes in pension age. That is to do with the very welcome increase in longevity and the length of people’s healthy lives. Returning to the point, the noble Baroness’s amendment would deal with the difference between pension credit levels and universal credit levels by including an additional amount in universal credit where a claimant is over the state pension qualifying age. I understand the reasoning—and indeed there are currently pensioner premiums along these lines in income support and jobseeker’s allowance. In designing universal credit, however, we have not included any additions specifically for people over pension age. There are two main reasons for this.

First, we think that it could reduce the work incentives for the working-age partner if they are paid a higher rate of benefit simply because they have an older partner. We are already including additions for specific reasons such as caring, or limited capability for work, where people are likely to have longer durations on benefit. Clearly, we are raising some of those levels appreciably. If in a particular case these additions are not appropriate, there ought, in principle, to be as much scope for the working-age partner to work as in any other case, so it is not clear why a higher rate of benefit should be paid.

Secondly, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Hollis, rightly pointed out, there is a significant programme of change under way for people over pension age. Following the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget of 23 March, the Government published the Green Paper A State Pension for the 21st Century in April. That paper set out options for reforming the state pension system for future pensioners. In the light of the responses to the Green Paper, we are currently developing proposals for changing the state pension system and at the same time are considering how pension credit may need to change to best meet the needs of future pensioners under any reformed state pension. It would clearly be important to make sure that any arrangements for pensioners dovetail closely with universal credit to ensure a smooth interface and also to ensure that we deal fairly with couples where one person is over pension age and the other is under it. Until our thinking is further developed, we have only one side of the equation. We need both sides of the equation to consider this issue fully. I should just add that clearly once there is a migration on changing pensions the migration strategy into universal credit and the timing of how we take different groups into it will also be hugely relevant. That goes to the heart of the very perceptive question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Freud

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Could the Minister describe what he means by a bedroom?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am tempted to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, to come and save me from bullying by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I will make it easier for the Minister then, since he is finding it difficult. In my city of Edinburgh, there are a lot of houses with rooms that do not have external windows—they are box rooms. Some occasionally have a small skylight. Is that within the definition of a bedroom? Another example might be studio flats, or studio flats that may then have an extra bedroom attached to them. Is that a two-bedroom or a one-bedroom flat? Another might be my study. Is my study a bedroom or is it a study? It was used as a bedroom by the previous occupier, but now it is a study. These are just three examples of difficulties from the very start and the most simple part of the Bill: that is, the description of a bedroom.

[Lord Freud]

Certainly, the study of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would seem to me to be a bedroom. However, box rooms without opening windows normally would not count as bedrooms. There is a series of rules that we will go through as we work through the implementation planning with stakeholders.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Then you tempt tenants to board up their windows, as some owners used to do when there were window taxes.

[Lord Freud]

The coalition Government, my Lords, are not Queen Anne and we will resist any of those blocked up windows, which still blight many villages and which I know the noble Lord is very concerned about.

This is more than just a savings exercise. Housing benefit payments in both sectors will become more balanced in a way that will restore fairness, encourage better use of our existing social housing stock and encourage more people into employment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about the impact on children in particular. The impact assessment shows that claimants with children are less likely to be affected by the measure than those without children. Only around a third of the claimants potentially affected have children living with them. DWP officials have been working very closely in this area with officials from DCLG, the Department for Education and HMT.

It is reasonable to expect people living in the social rented sector to make choices about the affordability and the size of their accommodation, just as those in the private sector, and those who are not on benefit, have to.

My noble friend Lord Kirkwood spoke about transition and phasing. I should remind the Committee that these measures were announced in the summer of 2010 with a view to their taking effect, as has been observed, in April 2013. We think that this provides adequate lead-in time and we aim to have regulations in place by April 2012 to allow for a full year of implementation. If you like, you can look at that period as the transition phase, as people make appropriate arrangements.

Let me move on to Amendment 48, which comes in two parts. The first part would place a duty on social landlords to find suitable alternative accommodation for claimants who are underoccupying their property. If a smaller property cannot be offered to the claimant’s household, the size criteria measure would not apply. The second part relates to those who live in significantly adapted accommodation, and I will come on to that shortly. We are working closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government, and others, as we explore ways to best support landlords, local authorities and tenants, leading up to the implementation of this measure. That work is ongoing, and we will look at how we can work to ensure that claimants’ options are clearly set out, well in advance of the measure coming into force in April 2013.

It is important that local authorities and other providers of social housing make more effective use of their stock, and this measure, alongside the Localism Bill, will provide not only a greater incentive but a means for achieving that. This measure is about asking people on benefit to make realistic choices about the affordability of their accommodation when it is larger than they need. It is in the interests of social landlords to make the best use of their stock in order to make sure that tenants are able to pay their rent. For this reason most landlords would try to offer alternative housing options whenever they could. The specific duty on social landlords in Amendment 48 is therefore unnecessary and would raise important concerns around control, classification and enforceability. We do not want to impose regulations on to social landlords just for the sake of it.

The Government are providing funding to councils—£13 million over four years until 2015-16—to assist them in supporting underoccupying tenants who wish to move, as well as funding an action team within the Chartered Institute of Housing to work with all social landlords to help them to promote moves. The Government are investing £4.5 billion to help to deliver up to 170,000 new, affordable homes over the next four years.

This amendment would also exempt claimants from the measures where no suitable alternative accommodation is available. However, we expect that many people will decide to remain in their existing property, and make up the shortfall, even if an alternative offer of smaller accommodation is available, so it is likely that such an exemption would be an expensive waste of money in many cases. Of course, without a definition of suitable alternative accommodation, it is not easy to estimate how much this exemption would cost, but let us be clear that it would be extremely complex to deliver, and undoubtedly place a significant dent in the expected savings that would need to be found from elsewhere. I do not think this is a sensible way forward.

I understand that there are concerns about the supply of smaller properties. Claimants affected by this measure will have to decide whether to meet any shortfall themselves—from their earnings for example, or they could take in a lodger, or someone they know, to fill the extra bedrooms. If they do decide that moving to a smaller property is the only option to avoid getting into arrears, the social rented sector should not be seen as the only option. Private renting may be an appropriate alternative for some of those affected.

Changes being taken forward by the Department for Communities and Local Government through the Localism Bill will make it easier for councils and housing associations to move underoccupying tenants. However, this is not just about landlords. Some tenants can, and perhaps should, take more responsibility for arranging a move themselves. The new national homeswap scheme, Home Exchange Direct, will increase opportunities for social tenants looking to move through mutual exchange. Home Exchange Direct brings together the four internet providers of mutual exchange services to offer tenants more choice over where they live. Ultimately, landlords in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will also be able to join the new scheme.

Amendment 34A also probes the availability of suitably sized accommodation. The provisions in subsection (3) will restrict how the other powers relating to the provision of housing costs may be used. Adding a line in subsection (3) to take into account the availability of suitable accommodation will not limit the way in which those other powers can be used. I take it that this amendment is really intended to ensure that claimants are unaffected by the size criteria in circumstances where no suitable alternative accommodation is available, and I have already made my thoughts clear on that. I recognise that, for some households in certain circumstances, moving may not be appropriate or should be delayed. Local housing authorities are best placed to take into account individual households’ circumstances. Where it is appropriate, they may offer help to meet a rent shortfall through the discretionary housing payment scheme.

The question of how people might respond was raised by my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who I congratulate on her speech. She has made a series of excellent speeches. The most up-to-date evidence is the survey by the Housing Futures Network on claimants’ behaviour, which came out recently. It showed a variety of initial reactions. Twenty-five per cent of respondents said that they were quite or very likely to downsize; 50 per cent said that they were unlikely to consider moving; 29 per cent said they would be quite or very likely to move into work or increase their hours; and around 15 per cent said that they were quite or very likely to take in a lodger or offer a spare room to a family member. Therefore, around 65 per cent of the survey’s respondent group are looking to change their behaviour. In the interests of full reporting of that survey, I should add that 35 per cent said that they were quite or very likely to run into arrears. Clearly, over the next couple of years we will look at putting strategies in place to make sure that that does not happen.

The second part of the amendment would provide an exemption from the size criterion measure for those living in significantly adapted accommodation. I appreciate that within this amendment there is acknowledgment of the need to draw a line somewhere and not just exempt all claimants in any form of adapted accommodation. I have noted the different views put forward in this Committee on how we might begin to do that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised the question of disabled children. We are looking at ways to limit the impact on disabled children effectively and in an affordable way. I am sure she will understand that I do not want to comment today on the specifics of that, but I can assure her that very active consideration is going on. I should add the reminder that over this SR period we are already spending a lot of money—a total of £190 million, of which £130 million is for discretionary housing payments.

Since the measure was debated in the other House in May—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was right about that—we have looked in detail at the possibility of an exemption for a tightly drawn group living in adapted accommodation. The work that we have undertaken to look at this in detail, in conjunction with various stakeholders, has revealed that such an approach is complex and has drawbacks. The issues that have been highlighted are finely balanced, so I should like to take a little more time to deal with them. My department is working closely with officials from the DCLG. We are continuing to talk to stakeholders as we do so. I hope to return to this matter when we debate Clause 68, and certainly by the time we get to Report if that is too tight.

My response to the question of my noble friend Lord German on the evaluation of the reforms is that we intend to undertake independent monitoring and evaluation to assess the impact of this set of measures and the changes in the social rented sector, and we expect the research to be undertaken over a two-year period, 2013-14, with preparatory work starting in 2012-30.

With that in mind and the assurances I have given more generally, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Freud

Thursday 6th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

They do the same thing. It is a different arrangement. I have gone to Northern Ireland particularly on this matter. I am anyway, as you might imagine, not in a position to offer duties of this or that either way. However, I would not want to go back and try to do it under any kind of pressure because we are talking about the implementation of a very complex set of changes. Having a bureaucratic to-and-fro process is exactly the wrong way to do it. The right way to do it is the way that we are doing it, which is in intense dialogue and working it through. If noble Lords are interested in practical implementation of complicated transformative changes to our social welfare, they should allow us to do it this way because that is the best way that it will be achieved to time, to budget and to the betterment of the people in all the countries that we are talking about. I beg the noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, there seems to be some encouragement from the other side.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Freud

Thursday 15th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Welfare Reform Bill has been committed that it considers the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 31, Schedule 1 , Clause 32, Schedule 2, Clauses 33 and 34, Schedule 3, Clause 35, Schedule 4, Clause 36, Schedule 5, Clause 37, Schedule 6, Clauses 38 to 48, Schedule 7, Clauses 49 to 69, Schedule 8, Clauses 70 to 88, Schedule 9, Clauses 89 and 90, Schedule 10, Clauses 91 to 99, Schedule 11, Clause 100, Schedule 12, Clauses 101 to 136, Schedule 13, Clause 137, Schedule 14, Clauses 138 to 141.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, in the debate on this yesterday, the government Chief Whip said:

“I hope that it is noticed that I am stressing Grand Committee, not the Moses Room … I fully recognise that a number of noble Lords who use wheelchairs and have other mobility restrictions would find the Moses Room difficult, and I therefore discarded that as an option”.—[Official Report, 14/9/11; col. 753.]

She went on to describe the options that were being considered by the Director of Facilities. I know that a number of Members, particularly on the Cross Benches, supported the Government on the basis of that assurance. Just before I came into the Chamber, I was told that this information was wrong and in fact the Moses Room is going to have to be used. On the basis that the House made its decision on misinformation, I hope that this matter can now be reconsidered. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will give an assurance to the House that since we made that decision on the basis of totally incorrect information, it is now right for the House to consider the matter again.

Benefits

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Freud

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords. One of Professor Harrington’s main recommendations is to put more power back in the hands of the decision-makers in Jobcentre Plus. Clearly, we will be looking to make sure that they exercise that power effectively, particularly because we need to reduce the number of appeals to tribunals. We need to get the decision right first time.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, now that the Minister has seen the report, which shows that the number of children living in poverty will increase under the Government’s proposals, and given the good work that he did in advising the Labour Government, under whom the number of children living in poverty went down year after year, does he not feel a wee bit embarrassed explaining away the policies of this awful Tory-led coalition Government?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the noble Lord will accept that I beg to differ on part of that question. The universal credit will have a powerful effect on poverty and will at least balance some of the other effects of the reforms. One needs to see all the reforms in their entirety.