Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Lord Freud Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule 1, Clauses 11 to 25, Schedule 2, Clauses 26 to 35, Title.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.
Housing: Underoccupancy Charge
Lord Freud Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the effect of the underoccupancy charge on the health and well-being of those subject to it.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
Our reforms are designed to ensure that work always pays and the removal of the spare room subsidy has incentivised more people to enter work and increase their earnings. Evidence shows that work can keep people healthy as well as help promote recovery if someone falls ill. Those who require additional support can access discretionary housing payments and we are making more than £800 million available over the next five years.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, the Government—and indeed the Minister in previous replies—have failed absolutely to concede that there has been an adverse effect on the health and well-being of those who are subjected to the bedroom tax. The Minister talks about evidence, but has he read the reports commissioned by his own department, the academic studies that have been done by a number of universities, the information from local authorities, the information from citizens advice bureaux, or the personal testimonies on blogs such as the “My Spare Room” blog? They tell a very different story. In the light of this overwhelming evidence, what changes will he bring in to this policy?
Lord Freud
This is now a long-standing policy of this Government, to make sure that we tie in the availability of social housing to those who need it. People tend to forget the numbers who are on waiting lists or are in overcrowded accommodation and that this policy of matching available stock to people’s requirements improves their outcomes.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what is happening in health and well-being in this country?
Lord Freud
We have run a well-being survey since 2012, published by the ONS. I am pleased to report that, on all four key measures of well-being, there has been an improvement every year since the survey started almost four years ago; that is, in life satisfaction, finding activity worthwhile, happiness, and reduction of anxiety.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I understand what the Government are attempting to achieve through the underoccupancy charge, but does the Minister have an estimate of the number of people who are subject to that charge for whom there is no appropriately sized accommodation available? Does he have any plans to relieve those particular households from the charge, when it is no fault of their own that they cannot move out?
Lord Freud
We saw in the report that came out just before Christmas—which we were able to discuss in this Chamber—that nearly 100,000 people have moved and are no longer affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy. More than half of them have been able to downsize—mainly within the social sector, but some in the private sector. More want to do so and the process is continuing.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, it is really welcome that the Government have initiated the discretionary housing benefit allowance to offset the negative impacts that the spare room tax has on people’s health and well-being. Despite this extra subsidy, many people are affected. They are going to food banks and are in significant rent arrears. This will be compounded by the ESA WRAG component, under which many people with mental health problems and with a disability may be further affected and may lose their homes. Can the Minister say how this effect will be mitigated?
Lord Freud
I just want to point out to the House that some of the concerns that the House rightly had about the impact of this policy on what would be happening to arrears and so forth have actually not come to pass. We are looking now at rent collection levels in the social sector at 99%, and 92% of social housing associations are saying that they are within plan and that customers are managing their rent accounts well.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, once again the Minister has talked about the policy incentivising people, but the report to which he just referred—which, as he said, we discussed just before Christmas—found that only 5% of those affected actually found work, and about half of those were still subject to the bedroom tax. In what way does this constitute a successful outcome for either the Government or the tenants, many of whom are clearly suffering hardship as a result?
Lord Freud
Some 20% of the total number affected have looked to improve their employment outcomes; among those who are unemployed, that is up to 63%. In the overall figures you can see real changes in behaviour, with the number of workless families in social housing down to an all-time low of 39%. This in a context of dramatic changes in employment levels, with employment at its highest level since records began; record lows in inactivity; record female employment; record youth employment; the lowest number of workless households since 1996; and out-of-work benefits at their lowest level since 1982. We are seeing a transformation and this is part of it.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, in Newcastle alone, 4,720 households are affected by the charge—1,200 with children and 1,000 of them working households. The average loss per household is £748 a year, and arrears from 2,000 households amount to £639,000. How does the charge contribute to the well-being of these families and will the Government be applying equivalent financial sanctions for underoccupation to those to whom they intend to offer benefits under their starter homes policy?
Lord Freud
I understand that the noble Lord is referring to a study conducted by Newcastle University. I have to point out that that study was a qualitative survey, based on interviews with 38 people, which was a self-selecting sample.
Social Housing Sector
Lord Freud Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their plan to limit housing benefit in the social housing sector to the Local Housing Allowance rate will apply to those living in supported housing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, the introduction of local housing allowance limits to the social sector will apply to both housing benefit tenants and recipients of the housing element of universal credit from April 2018, but only where new tenancies have been taken out or renewed after April 2016. The department has jointly commissioned an evidence review with DCLG to look at the size and scope of the supported housing sector. The research results will guide our consideration for future policy development.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said, but it is really not enough. Only the inclusion of specified accommodation will solve the problem and protect the most vulnerable from an unintended consequence of the proposed legislation. I cannot stress enough the need for urgency. Supported housing providers have to decide in the next few weeks whether or not to continue to support those developments, so there is a real urgency on this issue. I remind the Minister that the LHA cap was announced in the Autumn Statement without either consultation or an impact assessment. It may be an unintended consequence but, now that it has been highlighted, can the Minister please assure the House that it will be addressed quickly and before the Report stage of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill?
Lord Freud
The measure will come in in 2018 and there will be regulations within that timescale. As I said, we have this major review—the first really substantial review—and we have been working on that for more than a year now. That will inform our whole policy approach to what is a very important sector, and I hope it will put it on a much sounder footing than it has been.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Could my noble friend tell us the terms of reference and the remit for this review?
Lord Freud
We are collecting evidence about the size of the sector, who it supports, where the funding flows are coming from and how it is supported. There are various support sources, including the Supporting People fund and RR. We look to publish this report later this year.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, the review to which the Minister refers is extremely welcome. Has he heard the news that the major housing associations providing extra care housing for older people, which saves the state an enormous amount of money in hospital and residential care fees, have put their programmes on hold awaiting the outcome of this review? If he has heard that news, could he respond to the urgency of the situation?
Lord Freud
We are talking to the relevant supported housing associations—it is a variegated sector. There are a couple of issues that are concerning them at the moment, and this is one of them. We are looking, as we develop a dialogue, to get a policy that works for this sector as soon as we possibly can.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the other issue that is probably concerning the sector is that the Welfare Reform and Work Bill is forcing all housing associations to cut their rents by 12% over this Parliament—money that will almost all go directly to the Treasury. It is a double whammy. I spoke this morning to the head of Depaul UK, a small charity that houses 700 young homeless people in the north-east and around the country, dealing with kids who have come out of prison or have escaped abuse and exploitation. It has already absorbed cuts of 30%. If this policy goes through, the support workers who teach the young people how to live, cook, pay the rent and go to work and get them ready for independent living simply cannot be paid for. If this goes ahead, Depaul will pull out of hostel provision altogether. Is that what the Government want?
Lord Freud
As my noble friend Lady Williams made clear on Monday night, this area is under active consideration within the timetable of the Bill.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of Housing & Care 21, one of the housing associations referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Can I ask the Minister whether he really understands the urgency of this issue? He talks about 2018, but the housing associations involved will have to start telling people in the next few weeks what they can expect under the current government policies. The review has to be quick. How quickly can the Minister respond in order to help housing associations that are currently delaying their decisions?
Lord Freud
We are aiming to develop our policy on the back of the information that we get in the spring, and we will be working with the whole sector to develop policy. As for the other issue that the sector is concerned about, which I discussed in the last question, that is within the timetable of the Bill.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that there is a complete difference between ordinary tenants and tenants in supported housing? These are people coming out of prison or with learning difficulties and all kinds of other handicaps. They require hand-holding and mentoring before they can reintegrate with the rest of society.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Lord for that question, because I absolutely understand the substantial distinction between standard provision of housing and supported housing, which in the context of the actual payments is now specified allowances.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
For the purposes of clarification, can the Minister confirm exactly what is supported housing and clarify that it in no way involves aids for disabled people in housing of any variety?
Lord Freud
This is a variegated sector, which is exactly what we are discovering now. Supported accommodation or specified accommodation, using the other definition, effectively looks at the services that are provided to support people. I suspect that some of them will supply aids of some kind, but the real thing is the actual service elements that are provided for people.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could ask his noble friend Lord Strathclyde to do the review. That might speed it up.
Lord Freud
I constantly consult my noble friend Lord Strathclyde about absolutely everything.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Lord Freud Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
“(2) Section 21 does not apply in relation to social housing of a registered provider if, where the registered provider’s interest in the property that consists of or includes the social housing is subject to a mortgage—
(a) the mortgagee is in possession of the interest in the property or the part of the property that includes the social housing, in the exercise of the mortgagee’s powers to enforce the mortgage,(b) a receiver has been appointed in relation to the interest in the property or the part of the property that includes the social housing by—and that appointment is in force, or(i) the mortgagee, in the exercise of the mortgagee’s powers to enforce the mortgage, or(ii) the court, in connection with enforcing the mortgage,and that appointment is in force, or(c) a person has been appointed by the mortgagee, in the exercise of the mortgagee’s powers to enforce the mortgage (including, in the case of a floating charge which relates to the interest in the property, the power under paragraph 14 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986), to exercise powers that include a power to sell or otherwise dispose of the interest in the property or the part of the property that includes the social housing and that appointment is in force.”
Lord Freud
“(2) Part 1 does not apply in relation to social housing of a registered provider if, where the registered provider’s interest in the property that consists of or includes the social housing is subject to a mortgage—
(a) the mortgagee is in possession of the interest in the property or the part of the property that includes the social housing, in the exercise of the mortgagee’s powers to enforce the mortgage,(b) a receiver has been appointed in relation to the interest in the property or the part of the property that includes the social housing by—(i) the mortgagee, in the exercise of the mortgagee’s powers to enforce the mortgage, or(ii) the court, in connection with enforcing the mortgage,and that appointment is in force, or(c) a person has been appointed by the mortgagee, in the exercise of the mortgagee’s powers to enforce the mortgage (including, in the case of a floating charge which relates to the interest in the property, the power under paragraph 14 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986), to exercise powers that include a power to sell or otherwise dispose of the interest in the property or the part of the property that includes the social housing and that appointment is in force.”
Lord Freud
“Implied terms
(1) A lease or other agreement by virtue of which a person is a tenant of a registered provider contains, by virtue of this subsection, an implied term enabling the registered provider to reduce the amount of rent payable by the tenant, without giving prior notice, where the reduction is made for the purpose of complying with a requirement imposed by or under section 21or 26 or Part 1 of Schedule 2.
(2) Subsection (1) has effect notwithstanding any express provision in a lease or other agreement.
(3) Section 102 of the Housing Act 1985 (variation of terms of a secure tenancy) has effect subject to subsection (1).”
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
“( ) section 21(3) and (4);”
Housing: Spare Room Subsidy
Lord Freud Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they propose to respond to the results of the Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy: Final Report.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
I am pleased that the final report on the removal of the spare room subsidy has now been published. As it shows, the policy is promoting more effective use of housing stock and encouraging people to enter work and increase their earnings. We will therefore be maintaining the policy and will continue to protect vulnerable claimants who require additional support through discretionary housing payments.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank the Minister. I think we read different reports. Conveniently published amid the flood of end-of-term statements, the report also shows that many tenants affected face significant barriers to downsizing, including the shortage of smaller homes. They are now paying the price as they cut back on essentials, frequently run out of money and accrue debts as they struggle to pay the rent. Will the Minister finally accept that the hated bedroom tax was misconceived and give these tenants who are suffering as a result the perfect Christmas present by announcing its abolition?
Lord Freud
We have seen a reduction in the numbers affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy. They are down by nearly 100,000—by 18% or 98,000. Half of those have downsized—45,000 within the social sector and 12,000 moving into the private sector. We have seen 20% of people looking to increase their earnings. That figure goes up to 63% for those affected who are unemployed. So, no, we will not be changing this policy.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I welcome the final report’s findings that local authorities are becoming more efficient in the allocation of direct housing payments. However, it has also revealed that there is a postcode lottery. Some local authorities are making payments to all claimants while others have imposed quite strict criteria. Does the Minister agree with me that it is important that this should be placed on an equal footing so that in whatever part of the country people live, they receive exactly the same treatment, irrespective of the locality?
Lord Freud
We have approached helping people who are hard cases through the discretionary housing payment route, which has been found sound in the courts. The reason for that is that local areas are best placed to determine how best to help people in their own areas. They are doing it in a variety of ways, but that reflects their views on how best to do it in their areas.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to admit that the policy has not worked well. The evaluation by his own department has confirmed that it is creating hardship for many and has failed to get enough smaller housing units built for those who want to downsize. In the evaluation, three-quarters of those affected are now spending less on food and half are spending less on heating. Will the Minister agree that it would have been better not to apply the policy to existing tenants?
Lord Freud
This policy is about making sure that people who are living in oversized accommodation take the decision either to downsize or find the funds to run the extra rooms. That is how this policy works, and we can see in this study that people are now making adjustments. There are substantial moves in various areas in terms of downsizing and finding work between the interim report and this final report.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, is it not in everyone’s interests that there should be a better match between household size on the one hand and the size of houses and flats on the other, to avoid overcrowding and underoccupation? Does the survey not show a fivefold increase in the number of working-age tenants seeking to downsize? Does this not show that the policy is working?
Lord Freud
Yes, we have seen a substantial number of people downsizing—45,000 people have downsized within the social rented sector and another 12,000 have moved into the private rented sector. The number of people who have registered for downsizing is now running at 16%. Noble Lords may remember that when this policy started it was estimated from the surveys that about 20% of people would want to do so. We are well on the way to people making this adjustment. Other people, however, are looking to earn more money and to work. That is one of the factors, but not a major one, in some of the record employment levels we are now seeing.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, nearly 500,000 families are affected. Two-thirds of them are disabled, just 8% have been able to downsize and just 10% have received a discretionary housing payment to help them, so, as my noble friend said, 76% have cut back on food. Does the Minister consider this a success and, if so, what would he consider a failure?
Lord Freud
As noble Lords will remember, this was a key savings measure for people who had larger accommodation than they needed. We have now saved £1 billion. As we have discussed, the number of disabled people on the highest rates of DLA who are affected is running at 17%. As I said, we are seeing real signs of people adjusting to the process, not least landlords managing the process more effectively.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Lord Freud Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, I will just ask a few questions slightly wider than the amendments tabled. The Minister will know that we have coming towards us a Housing and Planning Bill that will extend extensively the right to buy, treat starter homes as part of affordable housing and seek to both extend owner-occupation and push it further down the income scale to people who, at the moment, are not able to access it in terms of both deposit and repayments. The result of that will almost certainly be greater risk of default and problems in maintaining mortgage payments, a more precarious relationship to the world of work, and periods therefore where these people do not have reliable income.
The questions are very simple. Has the Minister talked to his colleagues in the DCLG about this? Is he aware that the demand for this sort of support will almost certainly increase substantially in years to come? What assumptions is he making about the implications of that money which must be made available, perhaps for long-term loans, to sustain people such as those who are fairly marginal to the owner-occupied market coming into it—possibly with the best of reasons, but none the less they will struggle to sustain their repayments? How much connection is there between this policy of the DWP and the work being pushed by the Minister’s colleague Greg Clark in the other place through the DCLG?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I start by responding to Amendment 103A, which would keep the waiting period at 13 weeks. The background to this is well known. Claimants receiving income-related benefits may claim help towards the cost of their mortgage interest payments. Apart from those receiving state pension credit, claimants must serve a waiting period before entitlement to help with mortgage interest begins. Before 2009, the waiting period for the majority of working-age claimants was 39 weeks. In January 2009, temporary arrangements were introduced that reduced this period to 13 weeks. This was to provide additional protection to those who lost their jobs during the recession. At the same time, the maximum value of mortgage for which support is available, known as the capital limit, was doubled to £200,000. In the summer Budget, it was announced that from April 2016 the waiting period will return to the pre-recession length of 39 weeks although the capital limit of £200,000 will be maintained.
This amendment would remove the current broad powers in the Bill that allow the waiting period for support for mortgage interest to be set out in regulations, replacing them with a narrowly defined 13-week waiting period, but I suspect it is a probing amendment. We wish to retain the ability to act quickly in different circumstances, and putting this in primary legislation would prevent that.
Let me be clear about why we help owner-occupiers with mortgage interest payments. The purpose is not to secure their asset or to reduce any outstanding payments owed to lenders. The purpose is simply to mitigate the risk of repossession. The CML now says that it believes the 39-week waiting period will drive repossessions, but it is unable to quantify the number of repossessions. We will work with the CML to assess any such impacts in terms of repossessions, but we do not believe that they will be significant, particularly at the current level of house prices. There is no evidence to suggest that lenders will do anything other than exercise the same degree of forbearance that they did prior to 2009 when the 39-week waiting period was last applied, particularly as we are maintaining the higher capital limit.
Amendment 104 seeks to change the way in which SMI loans are recovered from the equity in the claimant’s home. The intention is that a charge registered by a local authority to reclaim deferred payments for social care would always take precedence over a charge registered by the DWP to recover an SMI loan. As the Bill stands, the Government can require that a loan be secured by a charge over the claimant’s property. Under provisions in the Land Registration Act 2002, charges are recovered in the order in which they are registered. If the SMI charge was registered on the property before any deferred payment arrangement, it will have prior claim to any equity when the property is sold. The legal charge will therefore be subordinate to any existing charges on the property, including the mortgage. That answers one of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.
We envisage that advice would normally be given via a telephone conversation and would cover the following areas: the claimant’s financial position now and in future, their understanding of the terms of the loan, and encouragement for them to engage with any heirs they might have. The delivery of that financial advice will be outsourced to a third-party provider.
Section 34 of the Care Act 2014 obliges local authorities, in prescribed circumstances, to offer DPAs. The intention is that people should not be forced to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for their care. If there is no equity in the property—a subject raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock—the family would be able to apply for a funeral payment from the Social Fund.
I pick up on the question asked by my noble friend Lord Young. Local authorities are not required to make such an offer where there is a pre-existing charge on the property. Recipients of SMI loans by definition have a pre-existing charge—their mortgage—so in such cases there is no obligation to offer deferred payments. The registering of a charge in respect of an SMI loan does not, therefore, directly interfere with the policy intent of the Care Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, asked about the types of property on which it is possible to secure a loan. Charges can be secured on the claimant’s equity share in shared ownership and on leasehold properties.
I turn back to local authority provision. Local authorities are not precluded from offering DPAs where there is an existing charge so long as they are satisfied that there is adequate security. This means that they may still consider offering deferred payments if, after taking account of the outstanding mortgage, the remaining equity would be sufficient to cover an individual’s likely care costs. It is arguable that in some circumstances the existence of a charge in respect of an SMI may make authorities less inclined to agree to defer payments in such cases. However, it is important to note that deferred payments are available only where the person enters residential care. In such circumstances, payments of income-related benefits cease, including payments of SMI. As the claimant will have no means to meet their mortgage payments, it is probable that the property would have to be sold anyway. I should be clear that the position as I have just described it is not a consequence of changing SMI into a loan; it is inherent in the current system.
Amendment 104A is intended to exempt disabled claimants from the provision that introduces SMI loans and allow them to continue to receive this help in the form of a non-recoverable benefit. The purpose of providing SMI is to protect owner-occupiers from the risk of repossession and allow them to remain in their homes. In almost all cases, these payments are sent direct to lenders rather than to the claimant. When Clause 16 comes into effect, the level of support will remain the same as now—the point made by my noble friend Lord Young—and payments will continue to be sent direct to lenders. Neither lenders nor claimants will see any difference in the way the system works, so exempting any particular group would not have any impact on the level of protection they were afforded. The difference is that under the loans scheme the payments will be recoverable, but recovery will not be sought until the property is sold. So the day-to-day income of disabled people will not be affected.
SMI supports individuals in the accrual of a significant asset. Many taxpayers who are providing that support cannot afford to buy their own homes. It is only fair that this support is recouped where equity is available when the property is sold. I do not believe there is a sustainable argument that people with disabilities should be exempted from refunding some of the equity that the taxpayer helped them to accrue, while other people supported during periods of financial need should not.
The amendment is defective, in that it does not make a consequential amendment that would continue existing SMI entitlement for the group that the amendment is designed to protect—but let us leave technical issues aside.
Lastly, Amendment 104AZA would prevent the Government from changing support for mortgage interest into a loan for those on state pension credit, and allow them to continue to receive help with their mortgage interest as a benefit rather than a loan indefinitely. This would be unsustainable and unfair on the taxpayer. As I have previously said, it is not right that taxpayers, many of whom cannot afford to buy their own home, are subsidising the acquisition of a substantial asset. Pensioners will have access to the same level of support for mortgage interest payments as the current system provides, and the Government will not recover the loan until the property is sold. With pension credit claimants, it is most likely that this will be on their death and therefore will impact not them but the beneficiaries of their will.
Pensioners will have the same access to support that the current system provides, and the Government will seek to recover the debt only up to the level of available equity when the property is sold. In response to questions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Manzoor, I say that any outstanding debt at that point will be written off. Owner-occupation involves the acquisition of a potentially valuable asset that often increases in value over time. It is right and sustainable that the taxpayer reclaims their contribution to this asset.
The amendment would also introduce a waiting period for pensioners before they could receive help with their mortgage interest payments. There is currently no waiting period for help with mortgage interest for pensioner claimants, and it is not the Government’s intention to introduce one.
I cannot go into great detail on the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, but to the extent that more support will be required for people, this is a far more sustainable way for the state to provide it than through grants. We are still considering our response to the DPRRC line on whether the procedure is negative or affirmative. With these explanations, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I have genuinely been listening to the debate. I believe the Minister did not answer one point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, which struck me as important. The Minister assured us that the financial advice would be independent and outsourced to a third party, but the noble Baroness’s question was not whether it would be outsourced but whether it would be independent of those who would provide the loans, so that independent advice would be separate from the loan giver. I am not sure that the Minister assured us that they would be separate.
Baroness Sherlock
Before the Minister replies, I have a few other questions; perhaps he can answer them together. I thank the right reverend Prelate for clarifying that. Indeed, I wanted to be sure that the advice was independent of the debt recovery under the provisions. I apologise if I missed any of the Minister’s answers—I tried to tick them off as I went along, and he did pretty well, so I thank him for that.
First, can the Minister clarify that anyone in receipt of a qualifying benefit will be entitled to a loan whether they have or could be expected in the future to have any equity, or certainly enough equity to cover the loan? Secondly, if somebody loses SMI and as a result loses pension credit, will they lose access to passported benefits as well?
On the question of advice, the Minister described what subjects the advice would cover but I was not quite sure of the level of personalisation. I would put money on the fact that the pensioner will say, “These are my circumstances—should I apply for this?”. Will the adviser be able to say, “I advise you to do it—yes, you should”, or “I advise that you shouldn’t”, or will the advice be much more general, like the kind of money advice we are talking about in pension schemes? Did the Minister say that it was free to the claimant? I am sorry, I may have missed that. Finally, there was the question on redress for customers in the case of bad advice.
While the Minister is reflecting on those, I will respond to a couple of points made in the debate. I thank all noble Lords who contributed. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Young, to the debate, and thank him for what I choose to regard as the implied compliment that I had some good arguments earlier in the evening, even if I did not do so well just now. In response to the points he made, I find persuasive the research done for two different government departments that the move to 13 weeks had been effective in holding down arrears and repossessions. That was government-commissioned research. I may be wrong about that but it seemed to be one of the most compelling arguments for not going back to 39 weeks. But presumably the Minister will say that they will monitor and evaluate it, and I will be interested to hear what they say.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the Minister said that in the case of pensioners the beneficiaries are essentially not the claimants themselves but those who will benefit from their estate, but of course it is often the case that that is not strictly true. I live in Durham, and in County Durham plenty of people have houses which are, frankly, worth not very much at all by London standards, so they have very little equity in them. If this kind of debt prevents them accessing all that equity, it may mean that they will not have equity available to them which they might need to get at for care costs or other non-NHS covered support costs of different kinds. So it does potentially have an impact on the pension in their lifetime, not just on those to whom they bequeath the house.
Finally, I should have reiterated something right at the start. The Minister was kind enough to give his officials the freedom to brief us on the session, and I had a particularly helpful conversation on this area. I know it might not seem like it, since I have rewarded them by coming back with lots of questions, but in fact it has been very helpful and has meant that in this debate I have tried to focus more on how this will work than adopting a more combative style. So I appreciate that and I look forward to the answer to those questions.
Lord Freud
I do my best. On the independence of people providing the advice, it will be independent of those providing the loan.
Lord Freud
Yes, I think that it is likely to be independent of the recovery. Yes—it is now. On the point about passported benefits, we are working to ensure that individuals who are no longer entitled to an income-related benefit as a result of the introduction of the SMI loans will have access to passported benefits. We are scoping out what the advice will look like and what we expect it to cost. Until we start the contracting process, I cannot prejudge whether SMI advice will be free. So that is outstanding.
I think that I have answered most of the points. If not, I will hit the typewriter—the Kremlin uses only typewriters because computers can be hacked. On the point about the number of weeks, I think that the noble Baroness will find that the level of forbearance with 39 weeks was very high and that very limited numbers of houses were repossessed by the mortgage providers, so I think that that will provide her with some reassurance.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment requires certain financial and governance arrangements to be put in place in respect of the providers of motor vehicles under Motability arrangements. As we have heard, it is attached to Clause 20, which contains a provision enabling the Secretary of State to recover the costs of administering the scheme under which mobility components of DLA and PIP are made available, on the claimants’ request, to Motability. I understand that the annual charges will be under £1 million per annum and that Motability will absorb this so that it will not be passed on to lessees, but perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and my noble friend Lord Rooker have raised concerns before over the governance issues and in particular the level of remuneration of the chief executive of the operating company. We should acknowledge that Motability has been a major force in helping disabled people to have access to suitable vehicles. Since its creation in 1977, it has supplied more than 3.5 million vehicles and currently has some 637,000 customers—a 1.8% increase on the year.
Noble Lords will be aware—my noble friend spelled this out—that there are basically two separate entities: Motability, which is a registered charity incorporated under royal charter; and Motability Operations Ltd, an entity regulated by the FCA and owned by four major banks. The latter is contracted to carry out the acquisition and leasing operations on behalf of the charity. Each of them publishes extensive annual accounts, the former in accordance with the Charities Act 2011. The latter is financed by a combination of bonds in the capital markets and bank borrowing. Obviously, the main source of income for the scheme comes from individuals who choose to spend either their higher rate mobility component of DLA or the enhanced mobility component rate of PIP.
It will be recalled that the introduction of PIP as a replacement for DLA was discussed extensively during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, with the prospect of the revised mobility thresholds meaning that some disabled people would drop out of entitlement. Can the Minster please update us on the progress of this, which is due to be completed in 2018? How many DLA recipients have been reassessed and how many have fallen out of eligibility for Motability? One-off transitional support has been introduced for those who would lose the use of their vehicle, and perhaps we can know how many have availed themselves of this. This level of support was said to be subject to review during 2015. Has this happened and what changes are proposed? Was there any consultation with the DWP involved?
It would seem that the operating group is funding the cost of this transitional support via the charity. Does this mean that the costs are ultimately being borne by the vehicle lessees—that is, the very disabled people the scheme was meant to support?
The DWP also provides funding to the charity for the Specialised Vehicles Fund, which enables disabled people to lease a drive-from-wheelchair vehicle. Is it the case that, faced with funding being frozen on an annual basis, Motability has restricted access to the fund and apparently did this without consultation? Can the Minister say whether this restriction was discussed with the department at all and whether it agrees with the approach adopted?
As my noble friend made clear, public funding is involved in these arrangements in various ways: the application of Motability components of DLA and PIP; funding for the Specialised Vehicles Fund; and taxation benefits by way of zero VAT on the lease of vehicles and their sale at the end of the lease period. On this basis, notwithstanding the published report and financial statements, noble Lords are justified in testing matters of value for money, transparency and probity, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Freud
My Lords, that was a thoroughly enjoyable debate for this time of the evening. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is directed at Motability, which provides vehicles at discounted rates to people whose disability or long-term health condition has a significant effect on their mobility. It is run on a day-to-day basis by Motability Operations, a limited company, and is overseen by the Motability charity.
On the specific questions about Clause 20 that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I can say that the Government divert benefit payments directly to Motability but the administrative costs of the diversion have been borne by the Government, who do not have the power to recoup them. Clause 20 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to do so. Such a power would currently apply only to Motability but it is drafted broadly to enable the provision to apply to any organisation running a future scheme.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that the cost is small—less than £1 million, I think—and Motability has confirmed that it will not change its pricing or the level of service it provides. Therefore, it will have no impact on its members.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asked about information on directors’ remuneration and relevant interests. That is available in the annual and interim accounts of Motability Operations, in compliance with international financial reporting standards. These can be found on its website, which is where I found them on the occasion referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Indeed, it publishes information on its board meetings in the same place.
The department meets regularly with Motability to discuss the scheme’s performance. I know that this does not overly impress the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but as a charity, Motability is accountable to the Charity Commission. It is therefore unnecessary to require Motability to submit the annual report that is the formal subject of the amendment, because the information is there.
I will run through some of the rather surprising number of other issues. On overhead costs, Ernst & Young found that Motability was driving down its overhead costs, while satisfaction was rising. On the monopoly question, we have regular meetings and consider the value for money that Motability provides. The banks own Motability shares but they have waived all dividends and received no profit.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The Minister has moved on rather rapidly. He brushed past the quite important issue of a monopoly without going into it. What seems to arise from this situation is that we have here a government department—the Department for Work and Pensions—which has given a contract on a monopoly basis to a charity, which appears then to have given its business on a monopoly basis to a public company. One could imagine that that structure could easily be used elsewhere. It is a very attractive idea: a nice little number and a cosy arrangement for those receiving the salaries and getting the other benefits from the circulation of public money in that way. That is the basis of the concern about monopoly. Maybe the Minister would like to enlighten the House if I am wrong. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have done anything to encourage competition or to see whether any alternative providers might be interested in getting into this market.
Lord Freud
I was able to say that the department considered value for money and had drawn up this clause to allow for other providers. That is as far as I can go at this stage. Motability is a long-established and very well-loved organisation; that is the current position.
On the second charity, the Motability-run fund is used to support the objectives of Motability and is not government-run. The remuneration of Motability Operations directors, and indeed those of the charity, is a matter to be decided by Motability.
Lord Rooker
Can we just pause there on the charity? I fully accept that Motability Operations is a company and that it is up to the directors what they pay the chief exec, given what the risk is and the competition. The charity is different. This charity is 60% grant-funded by the Minister’s department—to be accurate, it is 59.6%. Does he go back to the Prime Minister occasionally and justify it by saying, “We’re paying out 60% of the money to this charity and, by the way, we are paying the chief exec a lot more than you”? There were supposed to be some rules in Whitehall about people not being paid more than the Prime Minister. I knew that when I was at the Food Standards Agency. We had charities exposed in the Times last week for paying six-figure salaries. It is no good the Minister saying that it is down to the trustees of the charity when the department is funding 60% of that charity, which is not going out collecting money from the public with tin cans. I know that it has other donors—I am not arguing with that—but if it is 60% directly funded by grant from his department, can the Minister really justify it having three people on six-figure salaries, one of them on more than £170,000 a year, and paid for by his department? Is he happy with that?
Lord Freud
There is a key issue about charities having to attract the best people when they are very substantial operations, which Motability is. I know, because I was involved for a period in a foundation in the charitable area, that to attract the kind of people who are commercially competent puts you into that bracket. I have said enough.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
One can understand the argument that the Minister has advanced in respect of the operations entity, but it seems much more difficult to justify the position he has taken in respect of the charity.
Lord Freud
The amounts in the operations are of course much greater than in the charity. Maybe I am overinfluenced by some of my personal history on what people are paid in the commercial world, but the £100,000 to £200,000 bracket in a charitable context for what is now a substantial operation does not seem completely out. You can take two views on charities: either people should work for them for nothing and any money is wrong or you have to attract the very best people. I would think that if you are in that market, those sums are reasonable. That is the best I can do on that issue.
Lord Oates (LD)
Would the Minister accept that there are people in the public sector who run very significant operations, but the Prime Minister and others in the Government have said it is not acceptable for them to be paid more than the prime ministerial salary? How does this differ, given that, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, have pointed out, 60% of the funding for this charity is provided by Her Majesty’s Government?
Lord Freud
I should have made clear before that that is not departmental money; it is users’ money that we transfer. That is the reason that the salaries are set by Motability and not by government. Government does get itself into quite a lot of problems because there are areas of commercial endeavour where salaries, bluntly, are much higher than the Prime Minister’s salary. There is a different set of rates in the outside world. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is not going to let this one go and I will watch him—from a distance—to see how far he gets on this.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked where we are. It is too early to tell the full picture. This started on a control basis only in July 2015, so I do not have a reliable figure for him. I remind noble Lords that customers who return their vehicle in good condition will get the benefit of up to £2,000-worth of support from Motability, which will in practice allow many to continue to be mobile through purchasing a used car.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Would the Minister just mind dealing with two residual points? One is about the transitional protection—how that is funded and whether it is dealt with by the charity from contributions to the operating company or otherwise. The second is that the specialised vehicle fund has been frozen for a couple of years, which has obviously had an impact in terms of the opportunity to take advantage of that in an inflationary situation. Were the Government consulted on the changed criteria that were put in place for that?
Lord Freud
I will have to write on that latter point. The funding for the £2,000 comes from Motability itself—the charity—as I understand it, based out of the reserves it has built up. It needs very substantial reserves because the risk in a leasing business is in the residuals, which can be very volatile, even though you are the biggest. You need very substantial reserves, but it took a view that it had some excess which it was prepared to spend in this way. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, the moment that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggested to me that this was something worth looking at, I noticed that Motability Operations had set up a review of its remuneration committee’s decisions for its executives. The annual report, which has just been published, shows that it has merely tinkered with this. There was a real hope that it would respond to some of the external interest in what it was doing, yet it has come back with some tiny amendments to the remuneration package and increased the co-salaries in the way that I explained earlier.
I think that the Minister should tell his friends at Motability that Parliament is interested in this. It is in Motability’s interests to respond to the need to be more transparent and to be more assiduous in explaining what it is doing and why it is doing it. This will not go away; I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, so the sooner we can get a modus vivendi whereby Parliament shows that there is an interest in engaging, the better that would be for Motability and for everyone else. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, Amendments 104BB in the names of the two noble Earls, Lord Listowel and Lord Cathcart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would address the question of direct payment. Direct payment was the subject of considerable discussion during the passage of what became the Welfare Reform Act 2012, together with deliberations on the frequency of payments and split payments, not to mention jam-jar accounts.
My noble friend Lady Hollis asked about the research mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, from the National Federation of ALMOs and ARCH. It did indeed show that 89% of universal credit claimants were in arrears and that 34% of them were eight weeks in arrears, so they were in receipt of an APA. That is a significant proportion, so there clearly is an issue that they have picked up on about the extent of arrears—hence the question of direct payments.
We know that the Government’s starting point is that in the overwhelming majority of cases they want and expect universal credit to be paid as a single monthly payment in arrears to the claimant. But they have set down criteria for considering alternative payment arrangements in limited circumstances for the payment of the housing element of universal credit, invariably the first in order of priority. The guidance states that when arrears reach one month’s rent the DWP will review the situation, following notification by the claimant or the landlord, and when they hit two months or eight weeks, either the landlord or the claimant can request an APA. There is no automatic right to one because the Government are still clinging to the concept that managing benefits should mirror the choices in managing money that they say those in work have to make.
However, if an APA is in prospect, this would normally start with personal budget support followed by a managed payment to the landlord. The guidance sets out the tier 1 and tier 2 factors which will be considered for an APA. But having theoretical opportunities to have direct payments is one thing; what matters is how the rules are being applied in practice, so perhaps the Minister can help us here. We know that through to 3 December 2015, there have been 287,310 universal credit awards. Will the Minister tell us how many of them had a housing element included and how many have had an alternative payment arrangement? How many requests for direct payment to a landlord have been made by either landlord or claimant and, of those, how many were approved and how many rejected? I accept that the Minister may need to write to me on these points, but it would help us understand the scale of the problem and whether the research that has been identified is in fact representative of the situation for universal credit claimants more broadly.
Amendment 104BA in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, seeks arrangements whereby payment of arrears in respect of a former property can be made by direct payment of a current universal credit claim. This has obvious difficulties because maintaining the current home should be the priority. There must be a risk that adopting that suggestion could lead to a round of evictions for rent arrears as arrears build up in a current tenancy in order to satisfy the arrears on a previous tenancy. There could be further complications because a universal credit award may not cover identical households for the current tenancy and the previous tenancy, so it is not clear how it might be apportioned.
Amendment 104B in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks a power for the Secretary of State or somebody else to supply information relating to any relevant social security benefit to a landlord, depending on the written authority of the tenant. Noble Lords will be aware of regulations enabling the limited supply of social security information to social landlords, which is governed by the Data Protection Act. I understand the potential benefit to landlords of this, but it raises issues of a different magnitude given the sheer number of private landlords, let alone the capacity issue, so I will be interested to know how the Minister thinks that that might be approached.
There may be an issue here with regard to arrears and universal credit, and if the Minister is not minded to accept this amendment, he needs to come back to the House to suggest how the Government are going to go about dealing with this. I look forward to hearing his reply.
Lord Freud
These amendments relate to a number of housing issues, and I will deal with them in the order in which they are listed.
Amendment 104B would enable the Secretary of State to pass information relating to a claimant’s social security benefits to their landlord as long as the claimant had given written consent. As the noble Earl and the noble Lord have stated, knowing that a tenant has claimed a social security benefit will allow a landlord to take early action to ensure that the tenant does not get into rent arrears and jeopardise their tenancy.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said, the Secretary of State already has power to supply some limited information to a social-sector landlord when one of its tenants claims universal credit. This information is shared for the specific purpose of enabling the landlord to determine whether that tenant needs advice, assistance or support in relation to their financial affairs.
The Government recognise that the need for this support might arise because, under universal credit, claimants are now responsible, in many cases for the first time, for handling a monthly budget. Claimants must also use their benefit to pay rent directly to their landlords, something that social tenants were not typically required to do under the housing benefit regime.
However, we do not recognise the need for the same level of support in relation to claimants living in the private rented sector. This is because such claimants will typically already have been responsible for paying their own rent under the housing benefit regime, so will struggle less with the changes introduced by universal credit. In any case, if these claimants require support in relation to managing their finances, it is unlikely to come from their private landlords. We therefore see no need to put additional information-sharing provisions in place.
Lord Freud
Half of those arrears were accrued in the first four-week period. We discovered in the direct payment project that there is genuinely an issue about moving people over in the first three months, and we are spending an enormous amount of energy and effort on pinpointing that. Indeed, we are doing a lot of work now with social landlords to get the problem under control.
I should point out that this proposition would be of greatest value to private landlords, as the social sector is much less volatile. It is not unrealistic to suppose that commercial landlords, like any other small business people, should make a certain amount of provision for bad debt. Rent payments can be made direct to landlords once arrears reach the equivalent of two months, which limits the degree of their exposure.
Amendment 104BB would allow universal credit claimants to request that the Secretary of State pay their housing costs element to their landlord. The Secretary of State already has powers to pay all or some of a claimant’s universal credit entitlement to a third party where it would be in the claimant’s or their family’s interests. In practice, these powers are used to protect vulnerable claimants or claimants in rent arrears by paying the universal credit housing costs element direct to the landlord. However, as I have already said, the default position is for universal credit to be paid as a single monthly sum direct to the claimant; that is designed to mirror what would happen if the claimant was in full-time employment, when they would be responsible for managing their own funds and paying their own rent. The direct payment project showed that after 18 months the rent payment rate was 99%, which was comparable to now. Where there are problems, the department can manage payments and look to use the arrears option.
The amendment would also go further than the current arrangements for housing benefit, whereby the majority of private sector tenants are paid their housing benefit direct. To allow claimants to opt out of managing their own budgets while receiving universal credit would be a step backwards for them and a step away from claimants being job-ready.
I will need to answer the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, in writing, so I will cover those later.
Finally, my noble friend asked a question about Scotland. The Scotland Bill grants powers to Ministers to decide how to make payments but this is not a straightforward thing to do, because universal credit covers people who are in work and out of work and presumably you would not want to make payments to in-work people because perhaps the payments do not cover their rental elements. Therefore, it is a much more complicated issue than people realise when they do not understand completely how universal credit works.
The Government believe that work is the best route out of poverty and that universal credit should help, not hinder, claimants on their journey into employment so that they do not fluctuate in and out of work or go up and down the taper. Paying universal credit as a single monthly payment will ensure that claimants are best prepared for the transition to work and for staying in work. I hope that, on the basis of the explanations and reasons I have provided, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, can the Minister help us? It would be very useful to have this information before we come to Report. The evaluation of the bedroom tax—obviously the Minister will be familiar with it— has just come out in the last three days or so. It shows that over 55% of tenants affected by the bedroom tax were in arrears in autumn 2014, although of course many of them had already been in arrears. Does the Minister have any figures to try to separate out the effect of the bedroom tax on the arrears issue from the move to universal credit and its payment methods? What information does the department have, and is it collecting any? It will be quite hard now, because problems in paying your rent are beginning to layer on top of each other. We will need to disentangle these, if not for this Bill then for the Bill to come.
Lord Freud
I will not resist the temptation of pointing out that there is no such thing as a bedroom tax; it is the removal of the spare room subsidy, and I will be answering a Question on that tomorrow. Interestingly, the direct payments project provided a lot of insight into this issue. It started off with direct payments and then people started taking on the removal of the spare room subsidy as well. I will try to find the precise figures for the noble Baroness, as I am speaking slightly from memory. We found that the people who had learned how to go through the direct payment process were able to handle the removal of the spare room subsidy more efficiently than others. I will aim to get the noble Baroness chapter and verse on that.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, I am disappointed by my noble friend’s response to these three amendments. He seems to have said no to all three of them and I find that very disappointing. I do not think he has said anything this evening that has given any encouragement to private landlords to take on people who are on universal credit. In fact, he has probably reinforced the idea that one should not take on people who are on benefits, but that is not what my amendments are trying to do; they are intended to get people on benefits to go into private rented accommodation. I do not think that my noble friend has helped at all this evening, but I will read what he has said more carefully tomorrow or over the holiday period. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Lord Freud Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, on a business point, perhaps I can help the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, as I noticed that other Members of the House wished to come in on the Question, but we had only 10 minutes in which to do so rather than the 20 minutes that we would have had on a Statement.
It was not a prime ministerial Statement, but I well remember making a proper ministerial Statement to this House when the other place was not sitting when the first case of foot and mouth disease was discovered in February 2001. As I say, the House of Commons was not sitting. Although the noble Baroness is not the Prime Minister, she has the respect of this House and I simply recommend to the Government Front Bench that it would be possible to have a ministerial Statement in those circumstances; there is precedent for that.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 72, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would retain the benefit cap at its current levels and have those levels apply across Great Britain. We introduced the benefit cap to increase incentives to work, to promote fairness between those in work and those on benefits and to help address the deficit, and it is clear from the evidence that the cap is working. Since it was introduced in 2013, more than 18,000 previously capped households have moved into work.
The evaluation evidence shows that capped households are 41% more likely to go into work than similar uncapped households. This is even more marked in London alone, where households were 70% more likely to go into work than similar uncapped households.
I am heartened to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that she now supports the existing benefit cap. I happen to remember that that was not necessarily the position on the Opposition Benches in 2012. Indeed, I seem to remember that the counter proposition from them was that we should have a regional cap, so I hope that the Opposition are now delighted that we are beginning to move in the direction suggested. Perhaps in another three years, in 2018, the Opposition—
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
When we debated the regional cap at that time, did the noble Lord support it?
Lord Freud
Of course I did not support it; I am on the record as not supporting it. This is not an absolute regional cap—this is a two-tier cap, London and the regions—but, the Opposition may feel that it is better late than never. I look forward, by 2018, in another three years, to the full-hearted support of the Opposition for the current proposals.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, does the Minister not also accept—I am sure that his memory stretches back this far—that the main concern of the Opposition, led by my noble friend Lady Sherlock, who will no doubt respond to this in any case, was to come in behind the Bishops’ amendment? That was to ensure that we compared like with like—not, as the Government were doing, like with unlike. They were excluding from those in work income such as child benefit and additional forms of benefit, so they were comparing income for those exclusively on benefit with earnings only, excluding benefits, for those in work. We therefore came in behind the Bishops’ amendment to try to protect children caught in that situation.
Lord Freud
I am delighted to have a trip down memory lane, but since we have changed the basis of the measure, as noble Lords have pointed out, we might just spend unnecessary time on it.
Let me go on to the present proposition, which is to align the cap with the circumstances of many working people throughout the country. The Bill reduces the cap to £20,000 a year for lone parents and couples and £13,400 for single people without children, except in Greater London, where it will be £23,000, with a lower rate of £15,410 for single people without children. These are still significant amounts: £20,000 is the equivalent of an annual pre-tax income of £25,000, while £23,000 is equivalent to an annual pre-tax income of £29,000. About four out of 10 households in London earn less than £23,000 a year, while approximately four out of 10 households outside of London earn less than £20,000.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Has the noble Lord assessed the figures for their income rather than their earnings?
Lord Freud
I do not have that to hand. As a noble Lord said, we are now reaching a judgment on how to arrive at those figures. Indeed, the debate that we had in 2012 basically looked at the same point. We are looking at the level of earnings that we feel is fair above which people should not get benefits.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the Minister is not addressing the issue. What matters is income versus income, not income versus earnings, ignoring additional income. Therefore, if the Minister is going to run this argument, which I understand is a perfectly proper argument to run—and I think it commands a lot of support—he has to include actual income and not exclusively earnings, because those families that he is talking about will almost certainly have additional payments for their children and additional payments for their housing.
Lord Freud
Yes, I am just looking here at the level of earnings and that is the figure that we are taking. These levels for the cap will reinforce our message that work pays, and that it is not fair for someone on benefits to be receiving more than many working households. Having looked at the evidence, we believe it is fair to have a higher cap in London.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
This question session has not got anywhere. Those families do not have an income that is higher than that for those at work. The point is that if you compare it only with earnings, you are possibly excluding a substantial portion of income that is available to those in work. I hope that the Minister will correct his statements as he goes through, otherwise he is comparing apples with oranges, and it does none of us any kindness to continue down that path.
Lord Freud
I have tried to make it as clear as I can that we are looking at the level of earnings here. It is not a matter of direct comparisons between earnings and income: we are looking at the level of earnings.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
May I try to make sense of this? I do not think that the Government know what the disposable income per head is of the families that are subject to the benefit cap. That is my objection, because big families obviously have a disposable income that is divided by the number of people in the house. I do not think that these metrics exist, and therefore the noble Baroness is absolutely correct: it is not safe to rely on earnings, because you are not comparing like for like. The really important question for me is: how do we know, in relation to the impact it has on children, what the disposable income per head is in those families that are subject to the cap?
Lord Freud
I accept that that is a point about which noble Lords opposite are concerned, but I can only reiterate that we have reached these levels by using the basis of earnings. That is the basis.
Lord Oates (LD)
Is the Minister not, then, concerned about disposable income and the impact on children? He said that these Benches were concerned: are he and the Government not concerned?
Lord Freud
We are very concerned about the interests of children, and I will come on to that. Let me summarise the point that I will make later. The reason for this is that it is in the interests of children to be in a household where one or two adults are in work. All of the measures that we have suggest that they do better in life when that is the case.
The tiered element of the cap means that we estimate that roughly three-quarters of capped households will live outside of London, with around 24% in London. It has been set at a level that also recognises that housing constitutes one of the biggest costs for households. For example, in London, housing benefit awards are on average £3,000 a year more than they are elsewhere in the country. Even in the south-east, the average housing costs are only around half those for London, so we think it right that the benefit cap take those differences into account. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that that might account for the difference between the regional proposal and this two-tier proposal.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on savings versus costs, the Treasury-led scoring process and the estimated savings are agreed by both the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility, which felt them to be a robust and fair estimate of the policy change. On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, about where people would go, interestingly, under the current cap—if that is an indicator—very few capped households have moved house and generally those who moved did so only a short distance, so the double hit that concerned the noble Baroness is a relatively small issue. Again in answer to her, the impact assessment sets out that 59% of capped households will be those of female lone parents. There are about 1.25 million lone parents in employment in the UK, so combining parenting with childcare is possible. Those doing 16 hours work a week and receiving working tax credits will be exempt from the cap. Later, under UC, the measure will be 16 hours at minimum wage.
We believe that introducing this tiered level will build on the success of the cap and do more to improve work incentives throughout the country while promoting greater fairness. Again in answer to a question from the noble Baroness, we set out the impact of the cap on protected groups in our impact assessment. On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I am not utterly convinced that she believes in what the Opposition Front Bench says: that work is the solution for people. However, work remains the best route out of poverty. We know that around 75% of poor people left poverty altogether where the parents moved into employment. One of the genuine points that I agree with is the danger of a cul-de-sac. The present legacy system has that wrinkle in it because it traps people at the 16-hour point. One thing we are now beginning to see in universal credit in the north-west is the freeing of benefit recipients from that particular cul-de-sac.
Amendment 74, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, provides that the application of the cap may not reduce any welfare benefit where that would result in a breach of a person’s convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998. I will not go through the sterling work of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who was utterly masterful on the legal aspects and certainly taught me a lot. However, I can say that the Government are of the view that the Bill is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, so this amendment is unnecessary.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the poverty impact, clearly we do not comment on leaked internal documents which may or may not be part of the iterative policy process. One of the real issues behind that is that any assessment of child poverty must not be purely static but should take into account the dynamic effects of the cap.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I said to the Minister that I am quite happy for any estimates of the impact on child poverty to be qualified with reference to possible dynamic effects. Has the department assessed the likely impact on child poverty, taking account of the dynamic effects it hopes to see as a result of the cap?
Lord Freud
I am clearly not in a position to comment on the work that we do, but I can say that estimating dynamic effects is extraordinarily difficult. We are working on improving how we do that. One of the reasons why we can often get into sterile debates is that getting hold of the real figures and the real behavioural impacts is very difficult. I quoted our child poverty experience. The latest Universal credit at work, in which we outlined theses new approaches, set out big behavioural changes. Many more people—13% more—are going into work, compared with the comparable JSA. That is an example of behavioural effects that is very difficult for us to pre-estimate.
Amendments 92, 93 and 94 are tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher, Lady Sherlock, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Lister, the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Kirkwood, and the Earl of Listowel. These amendments would require the Secretary of State, when reviewing the level of the benefit cap, to have regard to any impacts on disabled people, their families and carers; the relationship between the level of the cap and median household income; the promotion of the welfare of children in the United Kingdom; households affected by the cap; and public authorities, local authorities and registered social landlords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether we will go on reducing the cap. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to review the level of the cap at least once during a Parliament and provides him with the power to review it at any other time if he considers it appropriate. We believe that this provides the most effective means of ensuring that the cap stays at the appropriate level, while also providing the stability that households on benefits require. Any changes to the benefit cap level will be sensitive to its key principles of maximising work incentives, bringing fairness for working households and providing a reasonable level of support for capped households.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, spoke about carers. I emphasise that the Government recognise the contribution carers make to society. I will deal with carers when discussing the amendment that appears in a later grouping.
The power to review the level of the cap is necessarily broad and has been drafted to allow the Secretary of State to take into account any matters he sees relevant—for example, the wider impacts on families and children. I do not think it right to prescribe in legislation any particular factor which must be considered as part of this review.
Amendment 94 requires the Secretary of State when reviewing the level of the benefit cap to take into account the impact on disabled people, their families and carers. As I mentioned, there are exemptions from the cap for people who are a member of a household that includes somebody who is entitled to attendance allowance, disability living allowance and PIP.
That has been in place since the cap’s introduction and reflects the fact that these benefits are paid in recognition of the extra costs that disability can bring. There is also an exemption for those who are entitled to the support component, and the equivalent in UC, whose health conditions mean that they are unable to undertake any work-related activities. Those exemptions are not changing.
The new provisions will allow the Secretary of State the ability to consider the context of the cap and its level in a broad and balanced way. For example, he may take into account, although he is not limited to these, factors such as: earnings, housing costs and the wider impact on disabled people, families and carers.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
How does this fit into the annual uprating statement? The Minister has just said that the Secretary of State, who has this power, must do it once in every five-year period. There is an annual social security uprating where all these things are considered. Surely we are not going to have, at random in the middle of the year, the Government coming up with a judgment on the cap that is in isolation from the rest of the established procedures for uprating benefits.
Lord Freud
The established procedures, of course, are basically to go in line with CPI; this is a much broader look than that, as I have tried to describe. While we have safeguarded those with illness or disability, we do not think it right that in undertaking a review of the level of the cap the Secretary of State should have a legislative requirement to take into account any extra impacts on specific groups.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
If the Minister says—quite rightly and decently, and I am sure that the whole House will support him in this—that he will exempt people who are in the ESA support group because the Government acknowledge that they cannot be expected to work, and therefore the issue of work incentives does not apply, why does he not apply the same reasoning to lone parents with children under three or to the carers in full-time unwaged work that my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley described? The Government accept that those two groups are effectively out of the labour market in exactly the same way as the support group, yet one, decently, is exempted from the cap, while the other two, indecently, are not.
Lord Freud
There is a difference between having a specific provision that does not require people to work and having one that actually financially incentivises people to work. That is the difference. As the noble Baroness pointed out, we do not require anyone with a child under three to go to work, but people often go into work with a child much younger than that. When people look at this measure on balance, they may think that it is the appropriate thing for them. That is my best answer to this question.
This is a peculiar process and I am running incredibly late now, but I think that noble Lords would prefer me to finish. I have just had so much dialogue, and that is rather unusual.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
Will the Minister accept that he has just proved my point that children get ignored? I asked him a specific question about whether or not that happens, and he has not answered it.
Lord Freud
I apologise to the right reverend Prelate. The only reason why I have not answered by now is that I am taking an intolerably long time to get through this speech. I will come to his point. I crave noble Lords’ indulgence to let me get through and then, right at the end, if they have some outstanding questions, we will have another—
Lord Freud
Thank you.
The revised cap levels are being set to create a strong work incentive to ensure fairness for both working households and those receiving out-of-work benefits, while providing a safety net of support for the most vulnerable. Amendment 92 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the relationship between the level of the cap and median household income—a point reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Additionally, it would require that the impact on households affected by the cap was considered along with the financial impact on public authorities, local authorities and registered social landlords.
In future, when reviewing the levels of the cap, the Secretary of State must take into account the national economic situation and, where necessary, he will be able to consider any other matters that he might consider appropriate. Earnings and housing costs may be very much a part of this, but other factors also may be, such as inflation, benefit rates, the strength of the labour market and any other matters that may be crucial and relevant at the right time. Any decision when taken in the round will balance these factors with the impacts of the cap on its principal aims: to incentivise work and bring greater fairness to those in work while maintaining support for the most vulnerable.
Reinstating any direct link between future cap levels and the median household income undermines the changes we are introducing. Many working families earn less than the level of average earnings of £26,000 a year. It is important that relevant matters are looked at in the round. We want the Secretary of State to have the flexibility to consider a broad range of social and economic factors when reviewing the level of the cap in the future. Legislating for these specific factors to be considered unnecessarily reduces the scope for that.
Amendment 93, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, would require the Secretary of State to take into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when reviewing the cap. I reiterate that we consider the impacts with regard to all relevant legal obligations when formulating the provisions of the Bill.
Now I move, at last, to the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. The welfare of children is at the heart of our reforms. It is important that children grow up recognising the value of work. Work provides purpose, responsibility and role models for children. The evidence shows that, for families responding to work incentives, the cap provided clear positive impacts on children and family lives through additional income and from the long-term positive role model effect provided by parents being in employment. There is clear evidence that children in workless families suffer worse educational outcomes compared to those in working families. That is why, as we discussed earlier, we are introducing new measures of worklessness and educational attainment.
The benefit cap is a key part of our aim to reduce long-term welfare dependency. The revised cap levels are being set to create a strong work incentive, ensuring fairness for working households and those receiving out-of-work benefits. These principles will guide a review of the cap levels in the future. It means the Government will be able to review the level of the cap in the light of any significant economic events that occur. The clause as drafted provides the best approach to allow for any future review to set the cap at the most appropriate level.
Before I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, I await to be intervened upon.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I will do so on the question of the welfare of children. First, there is no difference between myself and my Front Bench on this issue—there may be on some issues but not on this one. The noble Lord has not dealt with the point I made when I referred to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, said, although I did not do so simply because she said it. Noble Lords have quoted from the IFS peer review, which showed that the great majority of those affected by the cap did not move into paid work; indeed, the House of Commons Library said:
“There is no general consensus that the … cap … is proving an effective means of moving claimants into work”.
My noble friend also made a point about those who are not expected to move into paid work anyway. The point is: what happens to the welfare of children in those households which are still out of work? It cannot be in their best interest, which is supposed to be a primary consideration, to reduce the incomes of their parents further and further below the poverty line.
I also quite accept what was said about role models and the value of work, and so forth, but I remind the Minister that in one of our earlier debates I referred to some research from the University of Bath. That showed that where a lone mother goes into work then cannot maintain that job for whatever reason in an insecure labour market and falls out of work again, it raises big questions in those children’s minds about the value of work, and that it can be totally counterproductive if you push people into paid work in a way that is not helpful to them and their families.
Lord Freud
On the last point, there are always particular cases such as those referred to by the noble Baroness, but the broad evidence shows that on balance children gain from their parents going to work. One other point is that noble Lords may not have clocked how the benefit cap works. Quite a lot of people have rather small amounts—£50 or so—capped. In many cases, if you do a small amount of work and earn £50 over a week, we cannot take the money away from you twice—we have capped you at that level—and those extra earnings are not then withdrawn, as they would be in many cases under the legacy system. We do not have data on that as they are very hard to get, but it would not surprise me if quite a lot of people earn small amounts of money which, in most cases, is 100% in their pocket.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the care with which he is responding to these concerns, particularly about children. He will be aware of a recent small study dated November 2015 from the University of Manchester on the impact of the bedroom tax. It found that children were hungry and were having difficulty in concentrating at school. The response from the Minister’s department was that this was a small study which did not fit the larger picture. I would be grateful if, before Report, he could send a letter setting out what research will be undertaken in the 12 months following the implementation of this provision. What research will be commissioned to look carefully into the impact on children? I take his point that many children will benefit from their parents going into work but I am worried about those who do not.
Lord Freud
It was a small report on, I think, 14 children, and we aim to look at things on a much safer basis. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this extensive debate. There are three more groups to come on the same subject, so we are going to do it very good justice. Given the extent of the debate, I will not try to respond to all the many points that were made. I am grateful to all those who have contributed, particularly in trying to highlight the impact of this lower benefit cap on a number of different groups: on single parents, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, said; on disabled people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said; on carers, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley pointed out; and on children.
I decline to rise to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and engage in political debates about who said what and when, but I confirm that it is the policy of the Labour Front Bench in both this House and another place that we oppose the reduction in the benefit cap to the new levels. I was hoping to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but, sadly, he is not in his place. Perhaps when he comes to read this debate he will start to reflect that it is important for us as a House to understand what the Government are trying to do here. They have always offered two arguments for this measure: one is that it is related to work incentives; the second is that it is fair.
On work incentives, the noble Lord may not be aware that significant work incentives are already built into the system. In fact, the CPAG did a report on this very recently showing how much better off families with children already are if they work. The point is that this is comparing individual wages and household income. Someone may earn a certain amount in wages but how much the household needs depends on where they live, how many children there are, whether they have a disability and whether they are carers. As my noble friend Lord Beecham said, this is primarily driven by high housing costs in the private sector. Most people do not get anything like these amounts of money in benefits. Where they do, it is almost always because they have very high rents. That is not their fault; it is the fault of the state, which has failed to get a grip on the housing market, have enough supply and make sure that people can afford to rent in places where there are jobs without driving themselves into this situation. I urge the Government to consider that very carefully.
The point about the comparator really matters. Whether or not the Government are going to set it at 50% or something else, there needs to be a way of understanding at what point the Government would do this. I can create brilliant work incentives tomorrow: I will abolish all benefits. That would be a fantastic work incentive but it would not be reasonable. The point of a social security system is to support people who cannot work—to enable them to meet their needs and feed their children—and then, where appropriate, to support them in work. We have to get an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the needs of families, and particularly of children and vulnerable people, and the ability of the state to afford it; and, on the other hand, work incentives.
It is not unreasonable for this House to want to understand how the Government reach that judgment. Once you take away any external benchmark, it can simply become an annual whim. That is not appropriate, but it is completely appropriate for this House not to get into the micropolitics but to say, “We want to understand the impact on individual families, and we press the Government to make clear their thinking so that each year we can judge what is a fair amount of money to give to families”, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, pointed out.
In this country we have a very long tradition of Parliament looking carefully at what families need to survive and building up components of a social security system to address the different sets of needs. The benefit cap overrides all that, so it matters very much how it is constructed and it matters very much that the Government are transparent and accountable in the way that they go about creating it.
I shall not go into the other areas as we have a number of different debates coming up, but on the question of work incentives I point out that 85% of those who are capped at the moment are not in categories required to work, as we will come on to look at in two of the next three groups. Given all that has gone before and given all that we have yet to come, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 86, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock. I also speak in support of Amendment 73 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and Amendment 90A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. As we have heard, regardless of whether the benefit cap has played a role, local authorities remain legally obliged to rehouse families who are demonstrably homeless through no fault of their own, are vulnerable in some way or are in priority need for rehousing.
Families will be placed in temporary accommodation while a council decides whether it owes them a rehousing duty and then until a settled home can be found. For some families, the wait for rehousing can be considerable. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has a 39-week grace period. I understand that that is likely to be sufficient in the overwhelming majority of cases but not in all cases, particularly in London. While in temporary accommodation, councils charge families rent to cover their own costs and expenses, and this is commonly paid for by housing benefit. In some cases, councils have to top up additional costs out of their own funds or, as we have heard, the limited pot of discretionary housing payments.
Temporary accommodation is generally leased by local authorities from the private sector at a premium, placing a considerable burden on them. Councils are already struggling to secure enough temporary accommodation as a result of the combined effect of limited funding and a shortage of self-contained accommodation. This is already leading to an increase in bed-and-breakfast use or people being rehoused away from their local area. The lower benefit cap will increase demand for homelessness services and exacerbate the pressure on the local authority supply of temporary accommodation. With more homeless families affected by the cap, local authorities are likely to be forced into further subsidising the cost of temporary accommodation. This will be difficult for cash-strapped councils, increasing the incentive to place families in the cheapest areas far away from their support networks.
It will also make it harder to permanently rehouse homeless families, as the benefit cap will make alternative housing options unaffordable. For larger families, even social housing will be subject to the cap. The policy therefore risks the perverse scenario in which families are made homeless because of the benefit cap and trapped in the limbo of temporary accommodation by the benefit cap at the expense of the public purse. The amount that can be reimbursed through the local housing allowance is limited to £500 a week, which means that other costs over and above that amount must be met by local authorities. In some cases, this will come from funding for discretionary housing payments, but often the necessary funds will have to come from elsewhere, given that DHP funds are in such short supply in the context of seemingly insatiable demand.
We know that the Government have declined to collect statistics which might help them measure the extent to which any purported savings from capping household benefits are simply being shifted on to local authorities in the form of additional homelessness costs. Our honourable friend Emily Thornberry MP sent freedom of information requests to every local authority in London over the summer and the findings throw doubt on the idea of the cap as a savings measure.
In the first year following the introduction of the cap, London councils spent a combined total of £19.2 million supporting households which had been hit by it. In the second year, this rose to £23.3 million altogether. Some boroughs spend more than 80% of their total DHP allocations on supporting capped households, and in most boroughs the proportion is increasing each year. To date, local authorities in the capital have spent almost £47 million in DHP funding as a direct result of the benefit cap and it is likely that this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the overall costs involved. Reliance on temporary accommodation is a significant driver of these additional costs.
As we have heard, across London more than a quarter of households currently affected by the benefit cap are living in temporary accommodation and in some boroughs it is much higher. In Waltham Forest, apparently a staggering 58% of capped households live in temporary accommodation. This compares with less than 1.5% of the overall population of people claiming housing benefit. The disproportionate presence of families in temporary accommodation among households affected by the cap is a huge issue for local authority spending. It is also a real source of human misery as, increasingly, councils are having to house homeless families in temporary accommodation outside their area, and sometimes many miles away from their support networks and their children’s schools.
Our amendment would exempt newly homeless households from the benefit cap. This would allow councils to continue to procure nearby temporary accommodation and make it easier for them to move households into affordable accommodation. It will also help councils focus their DHPs and their own budgets on homelessness prevention. If the Government are serious about cutting back on public expenditure associated with the benefit system, and in targeting the benefit cap at families in a position to make choices about where they can afford to live, it is hard to see why they should argue against exempting homeless families being housed in temporary accommodation.
Lord Freud
My Lords, these amendments seek to exempt people in temporary accommodation from the benefit cap. I cannot agree that it is appropriate to have a blanket exemption from the cap for all those living in temporary accommodation, even if it is time limited in the case of Amendment 73. Rather, I believe that the best approach is to provide support so that people may better address their barriers to work. My challenge to the noble Lord, Lord Best, is: if there were to be a 39-week exemption, how would that not have a perverse incentive on people staying in temporary accommodation longer term if it is likely that the cap will apply to them when they move? That is the reason for our approach.
Discretionary housing payments are available from local authorities for those households who need additional support in adjusting to the cap. We have made £800 million available over the next five years for all the welfare reforms. However, in particular areas, one of which is London, this will be a substantial element. In the Autumn Statement, it was announced that further DHP funding will be made available for the most vulnerable people, including those who may be in supported accommodation. In 2016-17 it will go up from the current level to £150 million, and the allocation of those funds reflects the new measures we are bringing in, as does the timing of their introduction.
We have already made provision to support the most vulnerable people who might be affected by the cap. Housing benefit paid to households in specified accommodation is disregarded from the benefit cap and we have included refuges within the definition of “specified accommodation”. The disregard applies to benefit cap cases under both housing benefit and universal credit. While this does not mean that these households are exempt, by not including housing benefit in the calculation we expect that the vast majority of these vulnerable cases will not be affected by the benefit cap.
Finally, from April 2017 the weekly management fee, currently £40 in London and £60 elsewhere, will be abolished and replaced with a grant that devolves this funding to local authorities. Unlike the existing management fee, the new grant will not count towards the benefit cap and will help local authorities tackle homelessness more effectively. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I would be grateful if the Minister provided a little detail on the research that will be coming forward after the Bill is enacted so that I and we can see its impact on children. For instance, for some time now the University of East London has been researching the issue of family homelessness. Is the Minister thinking of talking to such institutions? Going back to the previous debate, it is important to get some high quality research that goes into the detail and granularity of the impacts of these measures.
Lord Freud
The noble Earl will be aware that an enormous amount of research is conducted in this area. I will write to him with anything specific that I can on our research proposals.
Lord Best
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this mini debate, and particularly the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Kerslake, for their contributions to one of the key housing aspects of the wider debate on the benefit cap. The noble Lord has found a fundamental flaw, as he sees it, in the argument in favour of temporary accommodation being exempted: that there will be no incentive for those who are placed in such accommodation to move for the full 39 weeks, because as soon as they do they will no longer be exempt from the cap. This is a consideration I shall have to ponder in some depth, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining it. I fear that the position already is not that the vast majority of people will not be affected by this arrangement, because we know that an awful lot of families are being moved well away from the place where they are most likely to get a job, where their children go to school and where they have their family and friends close by to help them. A high proportion of families are now having to move a long way away because of the need to keep down the cost of temporary accommodation. We will have to think some more about this issue, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I rise to strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. We have said already that the cap is applied unequally to carers. While I welcome the exemption for households in receipt of PIP or DLA, it means that carers who are considered to be not in the same household as the person they care for will be penalised.
Lord Freud
In the interests of saving time, it may be worth me saying one of the key things that I will say as I close. Clearly, noble Lords will be aware of the High Court judgment in the case of Hurley and others. The Government are considering this closely. Can I ask noble Lords to allow me to come back to them on this important issue at a later date? By that I am hopeful that it will be on Report. I am hopeful but I cannot guarantee it—well, it must be at Report stage. I will come back with the Government’s decision on that, which might help to truncate some of our deliberations. That is all I can say at this stage.
Baroness Pitkeathley
I am grateful to the Minister and will happily truncate and wait with bated breath for his response on Report. Meanwhile I simply support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
Lord Freud
My Lords, Amendments 75, 78, 80, 81 and 83 seek to exempt specified benefits from the list of those that are included within the cap or to exclude those benefits in the same way that pensioner benefits are. These amendments undermine the fundamental principle we established when we introduced the cap: there has to be a clear limit to the amount of benefits that an out-of-work family can receive. This is a principle that has gained very broad support across the country.
Turning to the specific proposals, after my intervention on the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on the carer’s allowance, I re-emphasise that the Government recognise the valuable contribution that carers make, and I will come back to that issue. Amendment 78 also exempts all those claiming employment and support allowance. Those in the support group are already exempt. But the benefit cap is a work incentive. Those in the WRAG have been assessed as being able to undertake some work-related activity, with a view to moving into employment in the short to medium term, and therefore we believe it is right that the cap be applied to these people.
The same principle applies to those in receipt of IB and SDA together. The recipients of these benefits will not necessarily be unable to undertake any work-related activity, but we are reassessing them for ESA and those who are found to be entitled to the support component will become exempt from the cap. Income support is a benefit paid to claimants in an extremely wide range of circumstances. It is an income-replacement benefit and as such, it is appropriate that, like the other income-replacement benefits, it is included in the cap.
The cap increases work incentives and promotes fairness by limiting the amount that those out of work can receive in benefits. I do not think that a blanket exemption from the cap for simply everybody in receipt of income support would support either of those aims. The vast majority of capped households that have found work include parents who have managed to balance their caring responsibilities with work—as millions of working households already do up and down the country. By going out to work, parents show their children the importance of a strong work ethic and reinforce the message that work is the best route out of poverty.
Before turning to Amendments 87 to 90B, I remind noble Lords of the exemption from the cap for anyone who is a member of a household that includes somebody who is ill or disabled and is entitled to attendance allowance, DLA, PIP, industrial injuries benefits or the armed forces independence payment. Additionally, as well as war widows and widowers, those who are entitled to the support component of ESA or universal credit’s limited capability for work or work-related activity element are exempt.
In recognition of the work incentive objective of the cap, households that are entitled to working tax credit or meet the prescribed earnings threshold for universal credit are also exempt from the cap. I have already mentioned the nine-month grace period from the cap for households that have recently left sustained employment. We have committed £800 million, as I have already said, for discretionary housing payments over the next five years to provide extra support for households that may be affected by the cap, within the context of that £800 million being for all the welfare reforms. I hope that noble Lords are assured that, combined with the additional funds that we have allocated for DHPs, there are already numerous safeguards in the design of the cap which protect the most vulnerable, as well as those with a strong work history.
I have already said that I will come back on Amendment 87. Amendment 88 would exempt from the cap all those in receipt of universal credit who are not subject to all work-related requirements. There is already an exemption, as I have said, for those who have limited capability for work or work-related activity. But this amendment would extend the exemption far more widely, including to those subject to work-focused interviews and work preparation requirements, many of whom will have a relationship with their work coach focusing on what they can do to prepare positively for a return to work.
Amendment 89 also seeks to exempts all those on ESA. I will not repeat the particular arguments but will add that there is a large body of evidence showing that work is generally good for physical and mental well-being and that where their health condition permits, sick and disabled people should be encouraged and supported to remain in or re-enter work as soon as possible. I am encouraged that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was happy to acknowledge that point a couple of weeks ago.
Amendment 90 would also introduce an exemption for all those in receipt of income support. Again, that is an extremely wide range of circumstances.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I accept the point about income support covering a wide category of claimants, and I know that we will come on to this later, but is the noble Lord willing to reconsider his position on attaching a benefit cap to people from whom work is not expected by virtue of, say, the age of their child?
Lord Freud
I have already answered that question in the first of these amendment groupings. I repeat: there is a difference between having a state expectation—and conditionality attached—for people to go to work, and a financial incentive for them to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether responsible carers would be set requirements that they cannot meet. We will ensure that any work-related requirements will be tailored to individual circumstances and compatible with childcare responsibilities.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on kinship carers. The Government recognise the service that kinship carers and others provide, and the Bill continues the current provisions for foster carers, kinship carers, and family and friend carers. If they, or a child for whom they are caring, are in receipt of an exempt benefit the cap will not apply. In addition, any payments received from the local authority for providing care will be disregarded from the benefit cap. Finally, there is a nine-month grace period whereby the cap may not be applied to those who have recently left sustained employment. This will give time for kinship carers who may have had to leave employment to take on additional caring responsibilities to adapt to their new circumstances. Family and friend carers are treated in the same way as parents in the benefit system, so it is only fair to ensure that this principle applies to the application of the cap, too. The benefit cap is intended to promote fairness between those in and out of work, and to increase incentives for people to move into work—principles that I believe apply in the same way for family and friends carers as for parents.
Regrettably, I am not in a position to supply the specific data requested by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on what is happening in London. As I said, I will come back to the matter of carers at a later date but I cannot support the other amendments and I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press them.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken very powerfully in support of these incredibly reasonable amendments. My understanding is that what we are all about is seeking that the cap does not apply where it is completely inappropriate and unfair to expect that person to work. In the case of kinship carers as well as other carers, the impact on the disabled child or relatives is likely to be extremely serious. The impact on the Exchequer or the taxpayer is also likely to be extremely costly.
I thank the Minister for informing the House that Ministers will be returning to the issue of carers, but surely the arguments of the High Court and the judge in relation to carers in general apply equally to kinship carers. I cannot see any possible argument that they do not—they just have to—so I ask the Minister to take away that point and consider the relevance of the High Court judgment and comments on kinship carers, and the need for some consistency. I also ask him to think further about the importance of people who cannot work for whatever reason, whether they have a one year-old child or are disabled to such an extent that they simply will not get better. Those people should be exempt from the cap and I ask the Minister not just to put that issue away and think “Job done”, but to think seriously and say, “Now hang on—surely we should be doing something about this”.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 76 and 77, to which I have added my name. I apologise that we will be going over some of the issues raised in the first group of amendments, particularly by my noble friend Lady Hollis, but they are crucial because they go to the nub of some of the disputes among us as to what is fair and what is not.
The amendments follow on from my Amendment 93, discussed earlier, which was designed to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. In speaking to that amendment, I referred to Lord Carnwath’s judgment in the recent Supreme Court case on the cap, in which he made the point that the inclusion of child benefit and child tax credits in the cap raises,
“questions why the viability of a scheme, whose avowed purpose is directed at the parents not their children, is so disproportionately dependent on child related benefits”.
He also said:
“The cap has the effect that for the first time some children will lose these benefits, for reasons which have nothing to do with their own needs, but are related solely to the circumstances of their parents”.
This takes us to one of the “policy objectives” or “intended effects” listed in the impact assessment, namely to:
“Promote even greater fairness between those on out of work benefits and tax payers in employment (who largely support the current benefit cap), whist providing support to the most vulnerable”.
The “most vulnerable” are not defined, but in the impact assessment on the benefits freeze, the term is qualified with the phrase,
“who are least able to increase their incomes through work”.
Surely children fall into that category. Yet the justification for the way the cap is constructed and for the reduction in its level ignores this and, as Lord Carnwath observed, takes no account of children’s needs, relating instead solely to the circumstances of their parents. Moreover, it is worth repeating the observation of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale:
“The children affected suffer from a situation which is none of their making and which they themselves can do nothing about”.
My noble friend Lady Hollis made the point that it is not a level playing field here—a horrible sporting metaphor—and that we are not comparing like with like when we compare in-work earnings with out-of-work incomes, although I will not go into more detail on that. I tried to find out by way of a Written Question how much the so-called hard-working families we hear so much about were likely to be receiving in benefits. This time the response I received rehashed the latest government mantra of their commitment to,
“a higher wage, lower tax, lower welfare economy”,
and referred me to the HM Revenue & Customs website. I enlisted the help of the Library to see whether it could elicit the answer from the website, but—surprise, surprise—it could not. In effect, a government Minister—in this case, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley—was encouraging me to waste my time by sending me to a website that would not supply me with the answer to the questions I was posing. Given that the Government were able to supply similar figures in answer to a Written Question during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill in 2012, it is surely possible, and beneath the disproportionate cost threshold, to do so again now. I fear that, increasingly, government departments simply cannot be bothered to answer our completely legitimate questions, thereby ignoring their responsibility for parliamentary accountability.
Similarly, I tabled a Question to find out what the impact would be in terms of the total number of households capped, the number of children affected and the cost to the public purse, if children benefit and child tax credit were excluded from the cap. Once more, I was referred by the Minister to the impact assessment, as if that contained the answer. Yet again, such information was made available during the passage of the Bill in 2012, showing that nearly half the savings from the cap were being made as a result of the inclusion of children’s benefits: in other words, nearly half the savings were being made on the basis of a blatant piece of unfairness that drives a coach and horses through the Government’s claim to be creating that beloved level playing field between families in and out of paid work, giving rise to Lord Carnwath’s query about why the policy’s viability is so disproportionately dependent on child-related benefits when its avowed purpose is directed at the parents not the children. It is clear from the evaluation of the existing cap that one consequence is likely to be even greater arrears and debt, thereby aggravating what the Government themselves consider to be a root cause of child poverty.
On our first day, there was broad agreement among noble Lords who spoke that the two-child policy does not meet the Government’s own family test. Although it might not be quite so blatant here, I believe the same applies to the inclusion of children’s benefits in the children’s cap. Although the impact assessment for the cap is much more thorough than that for the two-child policy, I could not see any reference to the family test having been applied. Could the Minister confirm that it was applied and could he undertake to publish the documentation?
When we last discussed this issue, during the passage of what became the 2012 Act, as we have already heard, there was strong support in your Lordships’ House, under the leadership of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, for excluding children’s benefits from the cap. I very much hope that that support will be there again now, because with a reduction in the level of the cap to an arbitrary two-tiered level below median earnings, the case for exclusion is stronger than ever.
Lord Freud
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to exclude specified benefits payable for children and widowed parents from the list of those included within the cap. As I mentioned in relation to the other amendments, these amendments would undermine the fundamental principle that was established when the benefit cap was introduced: that there has to be a clear limit to the amount of benefits that a family can receive. That is a principle that has gained very broad support across the country and indeed from the Opposition.
The benefit cap is one part of our suite of welfare reforms which are restoring work incentives and fairness to the benefits system. That previous system was not fair on working taxpayers; nor was it fair on claimants, trapped in a life where it was more worth while claiming benefits than working. Our welfare reforms are about moving from dependence to independence, and the benefit cap is helping people take that important step into work.
We have always accepted that there should be some exemptions from the benefit cap. To incentivise work, the cap does not apply to those households in receipt of working tax credit, which, for lone parents, requires 16 hours of work a week. To recognise the extra costs that disability can bring, households which include a member who is in receipt of AA, DLA, PIP or Armed Forces independence payment are exempt. Those who have limited capability for work and are in receipt of the support component of ESA or the equivalent in universal credit are exempt. War widows and widowers are also exempt.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am very sorry to intervene. I may have missed it, but I do not think that the Minister addressed my argument, also made by my noble friend Lady Hollis, about the fact that the comparator families in work will be receiving child benefit and almost certainly child tax credit, so why are they being included in the cap as we are not comparing like with like? I also asked a specific question about the application of the family test, to which the noble Lord did not give an answer.
Lord Freud
We did apply the family test; I had better write to the noble Baroness with the details because I cannot recall what was in it. There was quite a lot of material going through in a short time.
I think that I have now dealt twice with the fact that we are looking at earnings and we are not making that comparison, even though I know that neither the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, like the answer. That is my answer—I do not have another answer, however much I am asked.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Forgive me, my Lords, but an assertion is not an explanation. What we are getting is an assertion from the Minister: “I am not going to compare income and income, just income with earnings, and additional income for that person on earnings which comes from benefit will not be taken into account. Why? Because I say so”.
The Government are running two arguments, over and beyond the repeated headline stuff. One is about work incentives—people are expected to move into work by virtue of this Bill. The second is the question of fairness between those currently in work and those out of work on benefit. I understand why the Minister is making these arguments, but on neither does he have a case, nor has he made one. He has simply made assertions.
On excluding people, rightly, from the support group, the Minister is still not explaining, but merely asserting: a lone parent with a child of one or two may have the choice to work; the Government do not expect them to work; most people would not necessarily want them to work; none the less, the cap will apply. When it comes to carers, a pause button has been pressed.
On the Minister’s second argument, over and beyond the work incentive whereby he is comparing those in work and those out of work, he is disregarding a chunk of people’s in-work income, which is in addition to those earnings. Why? Because he says so. The incentive into work does not apply to some of the groups we have been discussing. On the fairness between in-work and out-of-work income, the Minister has not included part of the income which would establish a reasonable basis of comparison.
What does the Minister expect us to do? He is asserting things without giving us any evidence and not engaging in the argument. His two assertions—this is why he is doing what he is doing—are not substantiated by any evidence or argument that he has offered. I am sorry, but this will not do. It is not good enough. The Committee is owed more from the noble Lord than we are getting.
Lord Freud
I have done my best to lay out that this is based on equivalent pre-tax incomes of £25,000 and, in London, £29,000. The comparable earnings figure is roughly at the level of four in 10. But I cannot produce any more information or justification—I cannot give what I have not got. I am afraid that that is what I am able to provide today.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I do not want to be discourteous to the Minister. He is much respected in the House, and many of us engaged with him in a very satisfactory way on universal credit. He took suggestions away, he listened, he argued, he produced new evidence which made some opposition Members change their mind. We have every respect for the fact that, as a Minister, the noble Lord is genuinely evidence based—except on this. He has produced no evidence.
What puzzles me is that the Minister has not asked for the evidence to substantiate his two drivers about getting people into work and having fairness between in-work and out-of-work claimants. We know from experience that the noble Lord respects evidence and offers it to us. He has come to the Committee, after Second Reading and three Committee sittings, knowing that we will be looking for evidence to sustain his position—and if he has it, we will respect it—but he has not come forward with it; he has simply repeated assertions. Either the evidence is not there, in which case the assertions have no substance, or the evidence is there but is not being shared with us, which suggests a level of bad faith that I do not in any way attribute to the Minister. So where are we?
Lord Freud
I will try one last time. If noble Lords are dissatisfied, that is the reality.
We currently have a benefit cap in operation at a single rate of £26,000, and we are taking that down. That has mainly affected London. We are now spreading it out to affect just short of 100,000 people—90,000-odd on the impact assessment, although it is interesting that, in 2012, a smaller number were involved in practice than in our original impact assessment, so let us just see.
Our experience of running that benefit cap and the reaction to it were such that the Government decided that we could safely reduce the level and put it into two tiers, so that its impact is spread through the country more evenly. We have taken it down by 12.5%. It is the experience of running it live that has led the Government to think that we could move it to these levels and get the incentive effects that we are looking for to operate. I do not have any more information to provide for the noble Baroness—much though I know that she would like more. I apologise to the extent that she is disappointed.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I thank the Minister for trying, if not succeeding, to answer the questions. He must appreciate that we had some very good discussions during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act, which brought in the cap in the first place. One reason that they were good was because a lot of evidence was around. He was asked some searching questions from Peers from all Benches, he engaged with the argument, we had some good debates and I would like to think that the system that we now have in universal credit is better than it would have been had it not been for them. In fact, I think he was kind enough to say so at the time.
One reason why I have always enjoyed participating in debates in this House in this area is precisely because we have been able not just to trade in political slogans but get into detail and understand how we might improve current policy—which is the whole purpose of this Chamber as a revising Chamber.
Lord Freud
I say only that I remember with some fondness—not entire fondness, because 17 Sittings in Committee is too much for anyone—that we had some very valuable dialogues then. One of the most important was about universal credit and led directly to the creation of universal support, which is becoming a valuable tool that we are developing. I remember equally vividly that the benefit cap area was one where at least equivalent frustration was expressed by noble Lords about what I was saying. I remember that very distinctly. There were some very punchy discussions. I will say no more than that, but it was not an area where we had the most sweetness and light on that Bill.
Baroness Sherlock
I thank the Minister for reminding me of that joyous period; I think of it often.
The Minister mentioned that a lone parent could avoid the cap by going into work for 16 hours on working tax credit. He did not pick up the point that I made on the previous amendment, which was that, on universal credit, he always said that lone parents would be expected to work only if they could find a suitable job where they could get childcare. He has not responded to the fact that a lone parent with a baby would have to go to work. The offer of childcare for three and four year-olds does not apply to babies. The offer of childcare for disadvantaged two year-olds does not apply all year round. There is a real issue. Someone might find that the only response was to take jobs which either might not be available or for which they could not find suitable childcare.
I am sorry to say that I did not find the Minister’s response on maternity allowance persuasive at all. I think this is one of these oddities, and I think the Government just got it wrong and should have just put their hands up. These are generally probing amendments, but I think that that is just genuinely bizarre. The impact assessment says that, if people do the right thing and move into work, they will not be capped. How is it possible for a woman who is about to give birth to do the right thing and move into work? That just does not work. However, I fully accept that I am not getting any more than I have.
Finally, during Committee, my noble friend Lady Lister has given two or three examples of Written Questions that she has asked, the Answers to which have been, frankly, unsatisfactory. They have mostly referred her to another document or website in which the answer was not found—as she has established with the help of the Library. That is a very bad trend in which legitimate questions are being asked for information which would help to inform deliberations in Committee on a Bill, but the department, via its Minister, is not providing them. We will keep a close watch on this and, if it comes up again, we will raise it again on the Floor of this House.
In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Employment: Job Creation
Lord Freud Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many jobs have been created in the European Union compared to the United Kingdom in the past year.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, over 2014, the UK saw the largest employment growth of any EU country. The UK continues to perform strongly, and over the past year, employment rose a further 350,000. This has gone alongside a welcome improvement in the rest of the EU, which saw an annual employment rise of 1.8 million.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response; I think that we will all be encouraged and pleased with the increase of employment levels across Europe. Can he tell us whether the recovery in employment rates across Europe will reduce inward EU migration into the UK?
Lord Freud
I think that it is a valuable development —to see improvement in the EU—because we have seen quite a large increase recently in the employment of EU nationals in the UK. Over the past year, for instance, it was 155,000, compared with 30,000 the previous year. So we would expect to see some of the pressure reduced, whereby people are pulled in because we have the jobs, as the jobs start to grow in the rest of the EU.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, is not the deeper point that the EU is in long-term economic decline? According to the IMF, the EU produced 30% of the world’s GDP in 1985, which will have fallen to 15% by 2020. So would not our employment prospects be much better if we got off the Titanic and traded freely with the markets of the future?
Lord Freud
I am not sure that the noble Lord has caught up with what has been happening in the world in the last year or so, when the developing world has fallen apart.
Lord Fink (Con)
My Lords, what has happened to the pernicious problem of structural unemployment during the time when overall employment has fallen?
Lord Freud
We have seen today a series of records on employment—but the most important part of those is how we are beginning to see real inroads among the people who have been excluded from the economic life of the country. The number of children in workless households and the number of workless households are the lowest on record, and the number of workless households in the social rented sector is the lowest on record. Lone parent employment is at a record high—and an important measure, economic inactivity, is now at the lowest rate since 1991.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
The Minister gave us the figures in raw terms as 350,000 in the UK and 1.8 million across the EU as a whole, but can he give us the figures as a percentage of the population of working age?
Lord Freud
I shall have to write to the noble Baroness, as that is quite a detailed question.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, women contribute significantly to the UK economy, both through paid and unpaid work. Yet despite 45 years of equality legislation, there remains a gender pay gap, particularly for women working in finance and the insurance sector, as well as for women aged over 40. I welcome the commitment of companies that are going to show the gender pay gap for men and women next year, but what will be done about the root causes of gender inequality? Most women are in low-paid work and there are limited levels of progression to better-quality, higher-paid work.
Lord Freud
Some of the statistics in this area are very interesting, in that among the younger generation the pay gap has disappeared. We will wait to see whether that goes on as that generation moves ahead. The most dramatic fact about female employment in this country is that the rate now stands at 69%, which is higher than the rate for the US for both men and women. That shows how far we have gone with female employment.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, is it not the case that the figures—understandably the Minister is boasting today about the high levels of employment—have taken place in the context of the UK being a member of the European Union? Is it not the case that, if the UK were unwise enough to leave that Union, these jobs would be put at jeopardy?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am being bombarded with massive books of arguments about the economic effects, as are quite a lot of noble Lords, I imagine. I do not think there is time to go into the detail here.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that in the past five years only 37% of additional jobs—I choose my words carefully: “additional” jobs, not “new” jobs—have gone to the UK-born, while 39% went to EU-born people? At the same time, the youth unemployment rate in the UK has been stuck at 13%, twice the rate of that in Germany. There is no statistical correlation between those figures, but clearly there are jobs available. Will the Government therefore take further measures to help our own unemployed get into those jobs?
Lord Freud
In the past five years, 57% of new jobs went to UK nationals compared with 50% under the previous Government. One of the most dramatic figures I want to boast about is what has happened to youth employment. I have quoted again and again in this House the figure about workless youngsters not in education: it is now a million below what it was in 1997. It went right up under the previous Labour Government and is now at a low of 14.2%.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the employment rate for disabled people is now under 48%, leaving a disability gap of 30 percentage points. The Government have committed to halving that gap, which I welcome, but in the Committee on the welfare reform Bill this week there was support from every Bench of this House to require the Government in their new statutory reporting on employment specifically to report on progress on closing the disability employment gap. The Minister resisted that. Will he think again or, if not, will he tell the House why the Government are so resistant to that?
Lord Freud
This Government are going to produce a White Paper in the new year on how to support people who are disabled and pull them back into their rightful place at the economic heart of this country.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Lord Freud Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I realise that this is a sensitive issue, but the amendment in the name of my noble friend has been tabled for some time on sanctions, time, efficaciousness and the need for a review. I would have expected in the Minister’s brief the detail of how many sanctions for how long, how long the decision-making is taking, the number of people going through as a result to appeal, and the results of the appeals. I would have expected two or three pages in her brief giving her the statistical detail which would empower her to answer many of the questions which, understandably, she is taking away today. I am surprised at that, because the amendment has been tabled for some time. The department will have the statistics, and they should have been made available to us in Committee, so that we have that material here today before we consider what we—and my noble friend in particular—may or may not do on Report.
I am in no sense criticising the Minister, but Ministers are coming to this House woefully underprepared with the information they need, which is of a detailed sort, to deal with the amendments being discussed. Members on the Opposition Benches have a right to expect Ministers to have that at their fingertips.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, that was an unnecessary intervention. Most of the information that was asked for is available on public websites—in particular, on the question about the three-year sanctions. I will ensure that noble Lords have the address of that website to check.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
It should not be a question of going to a website. If a question is asked on the Floor of the House, and it is on a website, I would expect the Minister to have that detail in the briefing from the Box. That is their function—that is their job. I do not blame or criticise the Minister in any respect, but I would have expected a higher level of appropriate technical briefing for her, with which to equip her to answer what are obviously technical questions.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Lord Freud Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, would repeal the Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2015, which were laid before Parliament on 10 September 2015 and come into force next April. The amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, would increase the standard UC allowance payable for lone parents who are also care leavers. Both amendments refer to issues recently considered by this House. The work allowance regulations were lying before the House as recently as last month and we have already discussed care leavers in debates on the Bill, most recently last Wednesday.
The Bill does not make any changes to the standard allowances in universal credit, which are set out in the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, debated in this House in February of that year.
The Government set out in the summer Budget measures to transform Britain from a low-wage, high-tax, high-welfare society to a higher-wage, low-tax and low-welfare society. This package of measures included changes to UC and tax credit allowances but also the introduction of the national living wage and further increases to the personal tax allowance. Noble Lords will be aware that the Chancellor has subsequently announced changes to the tax credit element of this plan in response to concerns raised mainly by noble Lords about the timetable for implementation. However, the overall strategy remains unchanged. The welfare system needs to be brought under control to make it fair to the taxpayer and support economic growth.
This is perhaps a reasonable time to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about all the improvements that there might be to universal credit. I acknowledge that there may well be improvements. One of the opportunities that we have, uniquely in universal credit, is to start doing randomised control trials to discover how we might improve it. Some of those suggestions may well work when we have discovered the dynamic effect of making those changes. We do not know at this moment, but we and future Governments will have the opportunity to test some of those propositions.
Doubtless noble Lords will have seen analyses published by various organisations assessing the impact of these changes on claimants and are clearly concerned about the possible impact on families. As I start trying to explain the impacts, it is important to explain why those analyses tell only part of the story. First, they fail to reflect that the summer Budget measures are a package. The comparator, which excludes work allowance changes but includes all other summer Budget measures, reflects the Government’s policies to deliver low taxes but not those to deliver low welfare. If we are to deliver our commitment to stable public finances, we cannot deliver one without the other.
Secondly, they fail to take account of all elements of government policy that will have an impact on families between now and 2020, including spending on vital public services such as the NHS and schools, on which so many families rely. If you take the sort of analysis that has been carried out by the IFS and the Resolution Foundation but instead compare the net incomes of those on tax credits in 2015 with what they would get under UC in 2020, taking into account the national living wage, increases in the personal allowance, better provision for childcare and economic growth, the cash position would look broadly similar in 2020.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the analyses fail to take account of the dynamic impact of universal credit, or indeed of any changes in behaviour as a result of the measures in the Bill. We are introducing universal credit precisely to give people more choice and opportunity to get into and progress in the labour market. The early impact is already documented, but static analyses cannot help showing claimants as passive recipients of welfare, unresponsive to the new possibilities that this Government are opening up with these reforms. This is particularly important when we consider universal credit claimants directly affected by this change when it comes into effect next April. The overall numbers are of course small, given the controlled rollout. They are also made up primarily of childless singles.
Let us be clear about the group we are talking about. They are a group with no barriers to full-time work. Indeed, many of them already move off universal credit altogether by finding full-time employment. Those with residual universal credit awards in work are normally working part-time and would therefore have got absolutely nothing under the tax credits system. The changes in April will reduce that generosity but will still leave this group better off than under the previous system.
I recognise that there are some more complex cases in the current caseloads, with higher entitlements and greater barriers to increasing earnings. To respond to the first question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I can say that the Secretary of State has announced that we will use adviser support and the flexible support fund to ensure that each of those families is supported through the change.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
Would the noble Lord expand on that answer? How many lone-parent families? How much will they be supported by in terms of their finance—is he saying that it would be as though the cuts had not affected them—and for how long?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Can he give us a feel: are we talking about 100 or 1,000?
Lord Freud
It is a small number. It is probably towards the lower end of that, but I do not have the precise number. We will use the flexible support fund—the measures the Secretary of State was talking about—to help them to make the transition, so that they manage the change.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Does that mean that they will not be worse off in cash terms during their transition by virtue of the support system?
Lord Freud
It is not the same as transitional protection, as I was indicating. It is our means of helping people adjust to the change we are seeing in universal credit for those groups.
Lord Freud
We will help them make the transition. It will vary for each of those families: it might be some more work or it might be upskilling to earn more. The numbers are very particular and specific but they are clearly a focus of our obligation to those groups to help them to manage their position. We will put the resource in to help them to do that. That is what we are talking about. Helping those on lower income towards financial independence requires a tax and welfare system that encourages and rewards work, and one which provides people with the right support to progress in the labour market and provide their families with long-lasting security.
The next question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, was about how the transitional protection works. The people who get transitional protection are only those whom we have managed migration for, which, as the noble Baroness pointed out, will start in 2018. It is not designed to provide indefinite financial protection. Over time, transitional protection will be eroded as claimant circumstances change. It will be appropriate to end it when circumstances underlying the award are no longer recognisable as those on which the legacy calculation was made. We have not yet regulated for transitional protection, but we have described its principles. We will bring forward those regulations in due course.
Baroness Manzoor
Will the Minister say what those changes will be? The changes in circumstances are really important. The Minister has not highlighted those issues.
Lord Freud
We put them out at the time of the Bill. They were reasonably large changes. There is a list of them: re-partnering would trigger one, as would a new member of the household. Other changes might be a sustained drop in earnings—an equivalent almost to moving out of work—or one or both members stopping work. As I said, those are all indicated. We will set out those changes in due course.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Can the noble Lord envisage a situation in which a couple—a family—received this, he moved out and she became poorer, but the result was a change in circumstances, so her reduced income was made worse because she no longer had transitional protection?
Lord Freud
The trouble is that one can make up particular stories and play around, but overall the position is that, as we get through to the time when the managed migrations happen and the national living wage and various other things come in, the norm will be pretty stable, as I said before.
I will move on to the next question on those people who move earlier—that is, not in the managed migration—and reconfirm that they are effectively making a new claim for universal credit. Therefore, they will not be transitionally protected. I think I have gone through those very specific questions.
Baroness Manzoor
In terms of the flexible element of the budget, can the Minister say, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, requested, how large that budget will be? It is not the transitional protection money but the other fund that may be available.
Lord Freud
I do not have the precise figures here so it is quite hard for me to know how much of that flexible support fund will need to be diverted, but it is a mixture of support and funding. It is a question of how that is combined. We do not anticipate a large amount because the numbers are not very large. We have not isolated the precise numbers. It is too difficult—we just have not done that—but our anticipation is that it is not a substantial amount.
Let me pick up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on incentives to work. There are only two ways of reducing the cost of universal credit: looking at either the taper or the work allowances. The taper is what maintains the incentives to work and to work more. Keeping it at a steady rate so that people can understand exactly where they are, so that if they change their work hours they can understand exactly what happens in a way that they cannot with the present system, was something that we saw as a priority, particularly at a time when the economy is strong and there is work available. There may be a different dynamic at different stages of the cycle, but that is the position we are in now.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, the minimum income floor will continue to be calculated by reference to the national minimum wage, which includes the national living wage.
I turn now to Amendment 62D, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. In the current system there is considerable complexity around the rates for young people, with some differences between benefits. The structure of age-related rates in universal credit is much simpler than the benefits it replaces, with just four rates of the standard allowance: two for singles, two for couples. That compares with 15 in employment and support allowance, for example.
The age-related rates are now established in universal credit and the Bill does not make changes in this area. Doing so would start to replicate some of the complexity that we are looking to remove and noble Lords have heard me grumble about “carbuncleising” enough to know what I mean. However, the Government do recognise the challenges which these young people face. We should be supporting vulnerable young people and parents to stabilise their lives and find work and we have a number of measures within the context of universal credit. We will ensure that care leavers claiming universal credit who need help managing their money and paying bills on time will have access to personal budgeting support. Care leavers are exempt from serving waiting days in universal credit to ensure a smooth financial transition, and single care leavers aged 18 to 21 are exempted from the shared accommodation rate for LHA housing costs. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am still trying to make sense of the responses which the noble Lord very helpfully gave to my noble friend Lady Sherlock. I know that the Minister does not like hypothetical questions, but if we want a dynamic—to use his word—situation, we have to look at it in those terms. A lone parent with two children is currently on tax credits. Let us say that, in 2018, she re-partners. Her partner moves in and the tax credit transitional protection ends because his income floats it off. Within a year, he leaves her: does she then have to make a new claim to universal credit? Putting aside any question of the level of the national minimum wage, would that be at a lower rate, in cash terms, than she would have received on tax credits? In other words, what sort of linking would there be? If he moved out in less than six months, would she be able to resume her previous tax credit claim or will the cuts kick in at any point when there is a change in circumstance—even if it effectively only lasts for a fortnight—that takes her on to UC?
Lord Freud
We have not yet put out the detail of the transitional regulations and that is where one would expect to see them. We will be producing some precision in how the regulations will work.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response and for the work which the Government do to support care leavers. I omitted to say why Amendment 62D was timely: today, research from the University of Lancaster highlighted a huge leap in the number of newborns being taken into care. In 2008 it was about 800, in 2013 it was over 2,000; a very considerable number. Some of that is down to better early intervention; taking children very quickly out of damaged families. However, Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State, is concerned about this and it suggests, again, that we need to be even better at supporting these vulnerable families. I hear what the noble Lord has said and I will look carefully at it.
Lord Freud
I will take that request in the helpful way that it was offered. I will write to the noble Baroness to see if I can give her any comfort.
Baroness Manzoor
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in discussing this group of amendments, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Sherlock and Lady Hollis, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I also thank the Minister for his considered response and for allowing me to intervene when he was speaking. A number of issues have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, stated very clearly what happens to an individual when there is a change of circumstances. It is important that there is some guidance before Report. I have not been reassured by the answers which have been given. I have every sympathy for the Minister in terms of what he is trying to deliver, but I passionately believe that cuts are affecting people who want to work and will want to go into work under what is being proposed. I will consider what has been said, but I am likely to bring it back on Report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, I would be grateful to receive any other information that would help us make our minds up. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, as your Lordships have heard, we have added out name to Amendment 60 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and I cannot think why we did not do likewise for Amendment 62C, which we support and which also has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
The proposition to remove access to the housing element of universal credit for 18 to 21 year-olds from April 2017 has been some time in the making. Its progression—or, more likely, regression—can be tracked from a series of references by the Prime Minister at his party conference. Its original focus was to remove housing benefit for people aged 16 to 24, but this has now been narrowed, as we have heard, to 18 to 21 year-olds for universal credit. There are of course already lower levels of housing benefit allowances for single people under 25 and couples under 18, as well as restrictions under the shared accommodation rate. Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister’s desire to have an extended denial of housing benefit or universal credit for 16 to 25 year-olds is now off the agenda? The rationale for the policy has a familiar refrain:
“This will ensure young people in the benefits system face the same choices as young people who work and who may not be able to afford to leave home”.
That is a simplistic view of the choices facing many young people and in any event ignores the fact that housing benefit can be claimed by those in work.
This policy is being introduced at the same time as the new youth obligation for 18 to 21 year-olds on universal credit—the so-called boot camp. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, points out, we are promised that there will be exemptions, and the amendment is probing what might be available. The policy starts from April 2017 for 18 to 21 year-olds who are out of work. Can the Minister confirm specifically that there will be protection for vulnerable claimants, as spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and that they will definitely include those with recent experience of work, young people living in homeless hostels or domestic violence refugees, care leavers, those with dependent children, those receiving ESA, or its equivalent, or income support and those who cannot live at home?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Low, we are grateful for the briefing provided by Crisis and its insights into the consequences of these proposals should they not be ameliorated—in particular, the consequences for those who are homeless or who have experienced or are at risk of homelessness. Its briefing reminds us that if the protections and exemptions are not sufficient, any savings from this measure will be wiped out by costs elsewhere, mostly from increased homelessness.
The policy has generated a range of criticism, as we have heard. The Chartered Institute of Housing says that it could mean young people being less willing to take risks in moving for work because of the removal of a safety net. Centrepoint says that claiming housing benefit is for many a short-term solution to a situation they find themselves in, providing them with a safety net from which they can get their lives back on track. Shelter opposes the measure because it asserts that,
“every young adult deserves somewhere safe and decent to live”—
and who could disagree with that?
House of Commons briefing paper number No. 06473 of 26 August 2015 refers to the Uncertain Futures paper published by YMCA England. This points out that, of the estimated 3.2 million 18 to 21 year-olds, just over 19,000 young people are currently claiming jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit, and that 71% of the 18 to 21 year olds who access JSA do so for less than six months. It also points out that 7,200 young care leavers between 19 and 21 years-old in England are currently out of work and would potentially be able to claim JSA and housing benefit and that nearly 1,400 18 to 21 year-olds are currently living in YMCA supported accommodation and claim JSA and housing benefit. It points out, on lifestyle choice and the assertion that people just want to live on the dole, that most young people are entitled to £57.90 a week in JSA—frankly, what we would blow on a meal at the weekend.
YMCA England concludes:
“By removing automatic entitlement to Housing Benefit for 18 to 21 year olds the Government could be in danger of inadvertently taking away support from the young people who need it most and in doing so, exposing many more vulnerable young people to the risk of becoming homeless and therefore damaging their prospects of finding work in the future. Action is needed to address youth unemployment, but without protections thousands of vulnerable young people will face uncertain futures, not knowing if they will have anywhere they can call home and leaving them less able to find work”.
Lord Freud
My Lords, the Government’s policy proposal is to remove automatic entitlement to the housing cost elements of universal credit for certain young people aged 18 to 21. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that that is the Government’s policy. It will apply only to relevant 18 to 21 year-old claimants who make new claims in the areas where UC digital has rolled out. This will ensure young people in the benefits system face the same choices as young people who work and who may not be able to afford to leave the family home.
I start with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. It is not fair that taxpayers should have to pay for young people who are not working to be able to live independently when young people in work or education may not be able to afford to do so. Having said that, the Government recognise that vulnerable people need to be protected. Work is currently being undertaken with a wide range of stakeholder groups to understand who these vulnerable young people may be. I can reassure the noble Baroness that the policy will not stop people looking for work in other areas of the country in the same way that young people not reliant on benefits can look for opportunities away from where they live.
We need to complete the consultation work in order to ensure that a robust policy is put in place. I acknowledge the remarks of a wide range of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord McKenzie, but we are doing this work. It is too soon to make decisions on the specific exemptions that will be applied, but we will bring forward detailed proposals once the work is completed—although, to anticipate the question, that will not be in time for Report. Indeed, to jog back to the previous amendment, I do not anticipate that the work on the work allowances that we discussed in UC would be done in time for Report. As I mentioned previously, the change will apply only to new universal credit claims from April 2017.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I start by addressing the amendments relating to self-employment, Amendments 61 and 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. Amendment 61 relates to self-employment and the minimum income floor, and how it works within universal credit. Universal credit is there to support those on low incomes and ensure that work always pays. It supports self-employment where it is a realistic route to financial self-sufficiency, alongside other support available to help businesses.
However, the welfare system is not there to prop up unproductive or loss-making businesses. The minimum income floor is there to incentivise individuals to increase their earnings from their self-employment. Those subject to the minimum income floor are exempt from having to search for or carry out any other work, allowing them to concentrate on making a success of their business and maximising their returns up to and beyond the level of the minimum income floor. I should just point out that the changes to the national living wage mean that the pay of the competitor to the self-employed will go up, so in relative terms they have an opportunity also to increase their pay. The other thing that the minimum income floor does is address a loop-hole in the tax credits system whereby individuals can report little or zero income but still receive full financial support, which is neither a desirable or sustainable situation to maintain.
Amendment 61 seeks to allow for flexibility in the application of the MIF. This power already exists and provides a number of significant easements on when the MIF is first applied and the level it is set at. The most significant example of this is our exemption from the MIF, for up to 12 months, of claimants who are within one year of starting out in self-employment and are taking active steps to increase their earnings. Monthly reporting allows universal credit to be adjusted on a monthly basis, which ensures that claimants whose income from self-employment falls do not have to wait several months for an increase in their universal credit. Following a report from SSAC, we have put in big disregards on the surplus earnings on a monthly basis. This approach eradicates the overpayment and underpayment issue generated by the current system, which is done on assumed average earnings.
The noble Baroness was quite right that we need to make this work for particular groups. She picked out Equity, with which we do have regular meetings, to make sure that we understand not so much its concerns as the reality of the working lives of people within Equity and adjust to them. We are testing how to provide support for the self-employed and to help them increase their earnings, employing some specialised work coaches in a trial. We will test all this out as we roll out. The noble Baroness is, of course, well ahead of the game. The number who are self-employed among universal credit claimants is currently low. We need to monitor how all this works, including the implementation of the minimum income floor, as we roll out universal credit with more self-employed in it.
Baroness Drake
The Minister is taking us through a series of reasons why he cannot give the granularity in the report that people seek. Given that the Chancellor said that it was his aspiration to have a higher-wage, low-welfare economy that benefits all, unless Parliament has some granularity in the metrics for assessing that progress, it sounds as though the Chancellor is setting his own aspiration and his own marking system. Everyone agrees that there has been a material change in the nature of employment over the last 10 years, which influences what people can earn and how they can participate in the labour force. If one aspires to a low-welfare economy that benefits all, we need to understand these trends and what is happening to people with disabilities, the self-employed, carers, people on zero-hours contracts and so on. The Minister seems to be listing why that cannot be provided.
Lord Freud
As the noble Baroness knows perfectly well, so I do not have to tell her, a lot of these issues are quite contentious and there is a lot of analysis going on, some of which takes many years to complete and to come to fruition. Our problem is that this commitment runs through the rest of this Government to 2020, and putting in some of the management information requirements that these amendments in practice look for is expensive and risks delaying universal credit, because we are on a tight timetable. I know noble Lords have a primary interest in seeing us move with as much speed as we safely can. We would probably not be provided with adequate information anyway, given the length of time it takes to get it into shape, to take us out to the 2020 deadline. I hope that has cleanly summarised why we are not objecting with horror to the prospect. We looked at it very deeply, but we have to use the information that is available and the extra information we are gathering to get this report to work.
Baroness Drake
I am not trying to put an argument for deferring universal credit, and I understand some of the difficulties, but at the very least the Government should be able to commit to giving us an interim report on the progress they are making on these issues, so we can begin to understand the likely developments and how successful the Chancellor’s aspirations are.
Lord Freud
The whole point of our clause is that we will set out our proposals on how we intend to report on employment. Clearly, a lot of the thoughts expressed here and the specific requests and reasoning are pretty valuable to us as we develop how best we can do a good report on what is happening to our progress to full employment.
Our latest figures on NEETs are rather encouraging and show that around 14% of 16 to 24 year-olds are NEETs, which is the lowest figure on record. It is a constantly changing group, and many people leave the labour market for short periods between jobs, so it does not tell us, of itself, where we stand in relation to full employment. Zero hours—which I almost thought I would not talk about, because we always have a little snip at each other about it—is only 2% of the market and we have outlawed exclusivity clauses in those contracts. Over the past year, part-time work has been driven entirely by people choosing to work part-time, which might not have been the case in the depth of the recession. Again, it is a constantly changing group.
On some of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, I sometimes feel I am living in a parallel universe. Employment growth has been dominated by full-time and permanent employment. It has risen in all regions since 2010. Underemployment is on the turn and going the right way. Wages are now growing quite a lot faster than inflation and temporary work in the UK is among the lowest, so the trends are a lot more encouraging than they have been.
Given these arguments, and given that statistics on these issues are already widely available, I do not believe that specifying them in the report is necessary. However, I understand that full employment is not just about a particular percentage of working-age adults in work, and, as I have said, we will give further consideration to how this annual report can best reflect the diversity of labour. I apologise for the length of my response. I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I seek clarification on an issue that was raised with me by a charity called Together for Short Lives, which represents parents and children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. The amendment is brief but the issue is this: I understand that children under three are not eligible for the higher-rate mobility component of DLA. I believe that the rationale is that children under three are generally not independently mobile, although anyone who has babysat a toddler might disagree. The assumption is that under-threes will have to be carried in arms, lifted into prams and buggies and from them into cars and car seats anyway, whether or not they have a disability.
For most children and their parents that is true, but Together for Short Lives points out that there are small numbers of children who need help and should have access to the mobility component of DLA. That is because there is a small group of children who depend on ventilators for survival, who may have one or more shunts and IV lines for feeding or drug administration, or other technologies that are life-sustaining. The children are in effect constantly attached to life-sustaining equipment that is often bulky or heavy. The child has to be placed in a wheelchair or medical buggy capable of carrying the equipment, monitors and so on, so that the lines and tubes can be securely attached to the child. Parents therefore need specially adapted or broad-based vehicles capable of carrying these small children, linked together with their decidedly not small equipment, securely. The children cannot easily be lifted in and out of cars like most children of their age.
I want to put to the Minister the case for why this small group of children needs the mobility allowance. Some of the children always have to be placed in a medical buggy or wheelchair when not in bed because they need postural support. These are heavy items. In addition to the life-sustaining equipment attached to them, most of these children require a variety of equipment to go with them wherever they are. This could include a spare ventilator and battery, monitors, oxygen supply, a mask, emergency tracheotomy kits and feeding kits. That is on top of the usual paraphernalia that all parents of children under three find that they need to carry with them at all times. The children cannot travel on public transport, because buses will not take oxygen bottles, and there is the inevitable risk of infection.
As well as being susceptible to infection, the children are often prone to medical crises, such as fitting, and their parents need to be able to get them to hospital immediately for life-saving treatment 24/7. If they do not have a car, the children may not be assessed as safe to live at home and will need to remain in hospital or a hospice. As well as being heart-breaking for families and their children, that could, of course, cost rather more than the higher-rate mobility allowance of £57.45 per week.
What would this all cost? As a result of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, disability living allowance has been replaced by PIP for people aged over 16, but DLA is still given to under-16s. This amendment seeks to open up access to the higher-rate mobility component of DLA for under-threes who require life-sustaining equipment as described above. I am told that there are nearly 49,000 children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions, but only a very small proportion are under-threes who require life-sustaining equipment.
To establish how many might need this component of DLA, Together for Short Lives submitted a freedom of information request to the Department for Transport in 2014 to ask how many parents of children under three had asked for a blue badge because their child was dependent on heavy medical equipment or needed to be near a vehicle in case they need emergency medical treatment. It found that 1,530 children had blue badges. The wording of this amendment is aligned to the criteria for blue badges. If those figures are correct, the cost of giving all 1,530 children access to the higher-rate mobility component of DLA of £57.45 a week would be about £4.5 million. That is a small sum for DWP but would transform the lives of families with a child with a threatening or life-limiting condition.
What I have described feels to me like an anomaly—I cannot believe that the department intended this to happen. I hope that the Minister will give it a very careful response. I am sure that there cannot be anybody listening to this debate here or outside whose hearts would not go out to the children and families in these circumstances. I hope that the Minister agrees that I have made the case that babies and children under three who depend on big and heavy life-sustaining equipment to stay alive and/or have need for immediate access to transport for medical reasons should be regarded as having an additional mobility need and become eligible for the mobility element of DLA. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment and for providing that degree of clarity over its purpose. I must express my own empathy regarding the intention of what this amendment aims to achieve. There can be no doubt about the harrowing position of families with very young, severely disabled children. However, I find myself in the unusual situation of needing to reflect a position set out by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, some six years ago when he was the government Minister for Work and Pensions.
On that occasion, what was to become the Welfare Reform Act 2009 was being debated in Grand Committee. Noble Peers may recall that that Act introduced, by way of amendment in the other place, a new provision which now gives access to the higher rate mobility component of DLA to severely visually impaired people. In Committee a further amendment, in much the same terms or at least intended as the amendment we are discussing today, was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, who is not in her place today. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was sympathetic to the situation set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, but ultimately resisted the motion. He said that,
“in this difficult financial climate, we need to consider carefully the potential cost of any such change … This amendment would, of course, result in additional costs”.
He estimated costs at that time to be around £15 million a year and went on to say:
“This would obviously be a significant increase in what is, unfortunately, a difficult economic situation, and is simply not affordable in the current context”.—[Official Report, 25/6/09; col. GC 538.]
I have never been sadder to have to agree with the noble Lord and to resist an amendment.
On the techie side, the amendment confers entitlement to neither the higher or lower rate of the mobility component. That is because the distinction between the two rates has been lost. There would also be some unintended consequences of the amendment—most notably that it would remove entitlement from the 16,500 children and adults who currently receive the higher-rate mobility component as a consequence of a severe visual impairment. However, I think that that is just a matter of drafting and I would not want to dwell on that issue—we could always sort it out.
The primary reason for there being a lower age limit for entitlement is that, while many children can walk by the age of three, not all will do so, regardless of disability, and few will be able to walk for any considerable distance. Age three therefore provides a reasonable boundary line between what may be considered developmental delay and walking difficulties arising from a disability or long-term health condition.
I think we can all agree that the majority of very young children, whether disabled or not, will need a considerable degree of support and help from parents and carers. Most parents will also be reliant on a range of bulky and possibly heavy items, such as prams or buggies, and items of equipment for feeding and changing. Nevertheless, I recognise that some young children with particular conditions may be heavily reliant on additional therapeutic equipment, some of which can be bulky and heavy. However, such technologies are improving all the time and in some instances equipment is becoming lighter, smaller or in other ways more transportable.
Despite the mobility component being unavailable to children solely on the basis of a need for such equipment, there already exists a range of provisions, financial and in kind, which can help support such children and their parents. For example, the care component of DLA places no restriction on how it can be used, and any entitlement to DLA can bring with it access to the disability premiums in the income-related benefits or tax credits. Parents may also be able to receive a blue badge for free parking if their child is reliant on heavy equipment or needs to be near a vehicle for treatment.
That, in turn, leads me to question the provision in the amendment which focuses on children who need to be near a vehicle for treatment or where a vehicle is used to transport them for such treatment. I question this for two reasons. The first is on the basis that the provision could help only those parents who already have use of a motor vehicle or who would gain access to one through the higher-rate mobility component of DLA. As I said earlier, the amendment is not clear in its intent regarding the rate at which children under three should become entitled, meaning that, by effect, it is also not clear whether such children would be given access to the Motability scheme and, in turn, a motor vehicle. Hence, the amendment as currently drafted would exclude families without access to a vehicle.
Secondly, I question this provision on a more practical basis. If a child requires emergency transportation along with bulky medical equipment, it is doubtful whether transportation by the parents would be a reasonable and practical expectation. Our emergency services, which are much better equipped in terms of medical training and suitable vehicles, are in place for exactly this kind of situation.
Finally, I must turn to the financial implications of the amendment, which are estimated to be still in the order of £15 million. Clearly, this amendment goes further than that debated previously and, in the time available, we have been unable to determine how many children could potentially be entitled on the basis of access to a nearby vehicle. However, patently that would add to what is already a significant extra cost burden and would further damage our capacity to stay within the welfare cap.
I am sympathetic to the broad intentions behind the amendment but, particularly now, the Government cannot accept it on the basis of the unfunded cost implications. Therefore, regrettably, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, before I withdraw the amendment, which I will do, can the Minister tell me how many children his costings are based on?
Lord Freud
I thought that I knew the answer to that, but I am a bit uncertain. I hope that inspiration is striking.
Sorry, it is not 1,600; 18,500 children under the age of three are in receipt of DLA and 5,500 children impacted.
Baroness Sherlock
I am grateful to the Minister for that. I am grateful also for his thoughtful reply. When he reads Hansard, and given all that he tells us of his view of the current economic situation and how it compares to when my noble friend Lord McKenzie was in office, he might like to reflect on whether his own assessment may be different from that. However, I can see that the two men are obviously of one mind. I ask the Minister to think very hard. My noble friend Lord McKenzie has put his name to this amendment and is very much supportive of it.
I wonder whether the Minister might also be willing for his department to meet somebody from Together for Short Lives, perhaps with me. I think that they would like to be able to understand the basis of the arguments that he was making, not so much in terms of the money but in terms of other things.
Lord Freud
I would appreciate meeting them with the noble Baroness. I really regret what I have had to say.
Baroness Sherlock
I thank the Minister for that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.