Housing: Discretionary Housing Payment

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord McAvoy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of discretionary housing payment available to local authorities.

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

My Lords, the department has asked local authorities to provide details regarding their use of discretionary housing payments twice yearly. Details of how local authorities are using discretionary housing payments in the first half of the year were published on 20 December. Despite some people’s predictions, the vast majority of local authorities were managing within their budgets. In 2014-15, local authorities will receive a share of £165 million, which will ensure that they can offer ongoing support where appropriate.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, despite assurances from the Minister, 47 councils spent 90% of their DHP budget by February. A third of the councils reported that a third of the applications were refused. Can the Minister tell the House whether he is aware of how many evictions there have been due to bedroom tax arrears? Does he know? Does he care?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the noble Lord used those figures as if they were his; I am sure that he would want to attribute them to another group called False Economy. They show that 85% of councils surveyed had spent less than 90% of their money with one month to go. However, in that particular report, which found that 11 councils had overspent, there were a lot of mistakes. The figures for four of them—Swindon, Haringey, Leeds and Middlesbrough—were simply wrong.

Disabled People: Independent Living Fund

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations and thanks to those of colleagues who thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, for her integrity in bringing us here and for the quality of her presentation. The quality of presentations from other colleagues has also been first class.

The closure of the Independent Living Fund is a truly reprehensible decision, which is already causing recipients of the fund immeasurable hardship. The fund has served disabled people well. For those in receipt of the fund there is now a continual anxiety and fear about what comes next.

Like other colleagues, I press the Government to say what arrangements they are making to communicate with recipients of the fund and with local authorities. Responsibility will be devolved to local authorities from June 2015, but there remains no comprehensive strategy for implementation. Is it really the case that local authorities have no information on how the fund is to be devolved, divided, or maintained? What discussions are the Government having with local authorities?

Even more importantly, what is being done to inform recipients of the changes being made and to guide them through them? The closure of the ILF is already adversely impacting upon recipients lives; many feel ignored and marginalised. Worryingly, the Government’s equalities analysis, which the courts forced them to carry out, is full of imprecision. The Government seem unsure of the actual effects their policy will have. Some £262 million will be available to local authorities and devolved Administrations in place of the ILF in 2015-16, but what will happen after that date? The money being given to local authorities, as I think every Member of the Committee has mentioned, is not ring-fenced. Local authorities’ social care budgets were cut by £893 million in 2012-13 and will be cut by a further 28% in 2013-14. It would be unsurprising if cash-strapped local authorities used this money to mitigate the effect of these cuts. What protections are the Government putting in place to ensure that this money is used appropriately? Why is the money not being ring-fenced?

It is clear that local authorities will have to apply their own assessment and eligibility criteria unless the Government build in some form of protection on transfer. Why have the Government not done this and what assessment has been made of this likely postcode lottery? That concern was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

It has been suggested that existing social care support assessments provide a means for determining support. However, in submissions to the Government’s consultation, several local authorities reported that group 1 users may not meet social care criteria. The equalities assessment noted:

“For those Group 1 users not in receipt of any support from their local authority, the loss of ILF funding will most likely have a significant effect”.

This represents 40% of group 1 users. There is a clear identification of risk to these people. What is being done to address this?

There is a disturbing lack of information on what is going to happen after June 2015. It is essential that recipients and local authorities have more information and are kept informed. What guarantees are the Government planning to ensure that former ILF funds are spent correctly? What protections will there be for group 1 recipients who are not in receipt of local authority support? These issues are already causing immense distress to disabled people and, if they go unaddressed, will cause serious hardship. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, I fully support the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, for a reference group. If there is no one there to fight the corner of people who are less able than the majority around them, they will in my opinion inevitably suffer. I call on the Government to respond to the noble Baroness’s call for a reference group.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords, the payment will of course go through as housing payment in the normal way.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, what a catalogue of disasters: the bedroom tax applied illegally to thousands of people; refunds that will be demanded and quite rightly paid; thousands paid a discretionary housing allowance by mistake and not obliged to repay the cash; and people forced to move house from areas they have lived in all of their lives. The Minister boasted of his role in introducing this tax. Will he now admit his personal responsibility in this disaster, and admit that it is a financial and a social disaster?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will not. The department is engaged in a massive programme of reform. We have successfully brought in a benefit cap, and we have launched PIP, the universal credit and housing benefit reform, to name just a few.

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s point. There is a bit of confusion around about sub-tenancies as opposed to lodgers. My understanding is that most housing associations and local authorities will accept lodgers. We have been carrying out an exercise in communication to ensure that people are thoroughly aware of that option.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has repeatedly said in the past that the implementation of the bedroom tax was only “what the last Labour Government did”. However, my noble friend Lady Hollis has exposed that, because there was no retrospection when we brought out those regulations. The Minister has also complained that the last Labour Government did not build enough one-bedroomed houses or other suitable houses. In that case, why impose hardship, pain and suffering on thousands of disabled people as a result of the bedroom tax?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, let me make absolutely clear that this is not a retrospective measure. It was brought in in this April and it capped the amount of benefit that we would pay people, reflecting whether they had spare bedrooms.

Scotland: Underoccupancy Charge

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord McAvoy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report published by the Scottish Parliament about the effects of the under-occupancy charge in Scotland.

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

My Lords, the Scottish Parliament’s report is an interesting and reasoned discussion of the early months of this policy. It suggests that it is difficult to assess impact at this stage, a view that we share. That is why we are undertaking a two-year evaluation on the effects of the policy. Initial findings will be available in 2014, the final report published in late 2015.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, the report indicates that 82,000 households in Scotland are affected by the bedroom tax, with an average cost to those households of £50 a month. Some 80% of those households include a disabled adult. Does the Minister still stand by his advice, as published in the Daily Record, that in order to cope with that cost, disabled people should take in a lodger?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, there is a range of things that people can do, as I have said to the House on previous occasions. The best option will depend on the circumstances. The group of disabled people on higher-rate DLA is 17% of the total. We have provided a lot of discretionary housing payments—we topped them up—and it is interesting to read in the report that many councils are saying that they are managing with that figure at this stage but that it is too early to tell.

Health: Atos

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord McAvoy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what instructions they have given to Atos regarding its employment of outside personnel to carry out medical assessments.

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

My Lords, the department has clear contractual requirements for contractors in relation to the recruitment and training of health professionals involved in carrying out assessments related to benefit entitlement. Any professional not meeting these requirements will not be given approval to carry out assessments.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will recall, as many of us on both sides of the House do, the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, when, quite frankly, the Minister promised that everything would be all right on the night. However, at one point Atos had 900 doctors performing the work capability assessments and now it has only 231. Does this mean a reduction in the standard of how the tests are conducted? In addition, these tests are being conducted with computer-based systems using descriptors in the assessment and they are failing a large number of people, leading to an even larger increase in the number of appeals. Does the Minister not realise the devastation caused when people get word of these things? When will the Government undertake a fundamental reform of the work capability assessment to make sure that the poorest and most vulnerable people in this country are not reduced to even lower levels of poverty?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, over the past month Atos has been running at about 200,000 assessments; its average is about 100,000. There are 962 full-time-equivalent healthcare professionals working on them. We inherited this review and have now had four subsequent reviews: one internal and three from Professor Harrington. We have basically accepted and largely implemented 40 of the recommendations from Professor Harrington, who said in his latest review, last week, that significant and lasting improvements are coming.

Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, so much wisdom has already been shared with the Committee that I am not going to try to tread over the ground so impressively covered. I would like, however, to ask the Minister to focus on two particular categories of people. I am particularly concerned about families with children, especially vulnerable families with children. The Minister may recall that, among the many amendments that he faced during Committee stage, I moved an amendment that specifically asked that families be exempted from the cap if their household contained a child who was the subject of a child protection plan, a children-in-need assessment or a common assessment framework team. The Minister sadly did not smile on that amendment, but I hope that he has had the opportunity in the mean time to think some more about what happens to particularly vulnerable children. Since the Government now have data about the families who will be affected by the cap, will he tell the Committee today how many of the households that will be affected contain a child who was the subject of any of those protection plans or assessments or a common assessment framework team? If he cannot do so today, would he commit to write before his regulations are considered or, if time does not permit it, to place that in the Library as soon as possible?

I briefly remind the Committee why this matters. I raised this on Report and I am not going to revisit the principle, but I was concerned at that stage because of discussions that we had had in Grand Committee, where I had heard a noble Lord—I shall not name him, because he is not here, but he was someone with great experience—describe having sat in a serious case review of a very serious incident with a child. He described what I have heard over and over again from social workers, which is that when you get to a serious case review, people gather around the table from all the different agencies and, about an hour in, somebody always says: “If only we had talked to each other sooner; if only we had all shared information previously, maybe it would not have come to this”. Reports from one London safeguarding board showed that, in a significantly high proportion of families affected by serious case reviews, rent arrears or impending eviction had been an issue; of them, a significant number were known to more than one authority.

A number of noble Lords from all sides raised throughout our consideration of the Bill the question of what happens to families who are forced to move repeatedly—in particular, what happens if households containing vulnerable children of the kinds that I have described are forced to move some considerable distance. There must be a real danger that these children disappear from the system. Could the noble Lord tell me whether he has considered my proposal to exempt those families from the cap? If he has not, what assurance can he give the Committee as to precisely how those families will be protected and how those children in particular will be protected?

Picking up the point made by various noble Lords about families in temporary accommodation, I am very concerned about the considerable distances that they and other families with children may end up moving. Like other noble Lords, I have been reading the newspapers this week—but I do not read those left-wing communist rags. I shall quote a headline to the noble Lord:

“Homeless families to be kicked out of London and sent as far away as WALES as councils buy up cheap properties to house them”.

The article goes on to state:

“Local authorities say sky-high rental costs in the capital, combined with the incoming benefits cap has forced them to send people miles away from home. Areas as far away as Manchester, Merthyr Tydfil and Hull … ‘It is going to be practically impossible to provide affordable accommodation to meet our homelessness duties in London,’ Dagenham Council say”.

I am sure that the noble Lord recognises that that is from the Daily Mail.

Will the noble Lord tell the Committee whether that is true? Is he expecting significant numbers of homeless or potentially homeless families to be rehoused hundreds of miles away? If not, why are so many of our grand newspapers labouring under such a misapprehension? Perhaps the Minister could put their minds at rest. He might want to write to the editors with a copy of his speech when he has reassured us today.

I would be interested to know whether there is any danger that families could be forced to move, as has just been described by the noble Lord, Lord Best, more than once, either because accommodation for the homeless has become too expensive or simply because, as was raised in Committee, the median rents have gone up over the area. Rents may rise in an area as a result of an influx of families and then they could hit a cap again. Is there any danger that that could happen? I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the evidence showing the impact of repeated house moves on a child’s achievement in school. If that is the case, will he say how the Government will protect vulnerable children in particular from the damage that could happen to them not only in childhood but in later life as a result of their schooling being impaired?

Finally, turning to the report from the Child Poverty Action Group, to which my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, referred earlier, I should like to draw the noble Lord’s attention to a paragraph on page 40. It states:

“Authorities are also concerned about the impact of the cuts on their ability to meet other government priorities, in particular around the ‘troubled families’ agenda”.

Will the Minister tell the Committee what discussions he has had with the DCLG and other departments about the extent to which this policy may impact on their ability to deal with troubled families? If so, what steps are being taken to address that?

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly because my noble friend Lady Sherlock has spoken with wisdom and analysis, as have my noble friend Lord McKenzie, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others. I do not think that I could hope to match that. I prefer to speak about the effects of what this Government are doing on families and people. First, I should make it plain that I am not a social liberal or a bleeding-heart liberal with a small “l” or even with a large “L”. As a genuine member still of the honest working class, I am totally opposed to people fiddling the public purse and the benefits system.

I do not think that the Government care so much about that. I am not trying to paint a picture of an uncaring Government, although the effects of what they are doing here are exactly that. Some of the stuff that has come from the Government for dealing with the people who will be affected by this is in the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations. Paragraph 7.7 states:

“The Government expects different households to have different behavioural responses to the cap but those affected will have a number of options to consider”.

What are the options to consider? The options include,

“reducing their non-rent expenditure”.

I should like to ask the Minister some questions. Under what budget heading should that come? Does he have any suggestions about which item of household expenditure in these poor households should be cut to make up the shortfall in rent? Paragraph 7.7 suggests that they should make up the shortfall,

“using a proportion of their other income or moving to cheaper accommodation or area”.

We will come to that later, because to me that has the biggest impact on families who are being treated in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as I would have expected, we have had a very knowledgeable debate, and a lot of very learned views, which I always listen to very closely, have been put forward. Clearly, I am also aware of the concerns that have been voiced in expressing the anxieties of a number of external organisations and stakeholders, some of which were referred to today. I will try to deal with as many of the questions as I possibly can, although there were a lot of them.

Let me start with support and exempt accommodation. That needs to be looked at in two periods. As I said, once universal credit comes in we are looking to keep the housing costs outside universal credit. I am looking to make some long-term arrangements for people in exempt accommodation. I am particularly concerned about people in refuges and, clearly, in hostels. I acknowledge absolutely the issue of support and exempt accommodation, which needs some quite sophisticated work. Meanwhile, we are writing very specific guidance, as these are the people for whom DHPs really are designed to prevent some effects that we do not want to see.

On temporary accommodation, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that is again an area where we will use DHP. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Best, did some sums, but clearly this will be a huge incentive to move people very quickly to something much more permanent rather than staying for the full year in temporary accommodation, which, as he rightly said, is very expensive. Under universal credit, there are likely to be changes. We are looking at how we deal with temporary accommodation—especially the division between the management costs to which he referred and the actual housing payment element. We are out to consultation on that area and there will be more developments.

On the mental health issue that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised, those who have been assessed as being in the support group under ESA will be exempt, as will those receiving DLA and, later, PIP, so they will not be affected. The reason that PIP is not specifically mentioned in the regulations is that the PIP regulations have not yet been laid, so they will be consequential.

We do not have any information about other types of income that those households have—to answer a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Where they do not have any other income, a claim for DHP can be made. I have already detailed the funds available.

Several noble Lords asked about stories of local authorities sending people all over the country. I remind noble Lords that it has always been the case that London boroughs have sent people out of borough and, in some cases, many miles away. The reason is that people come from all over the country to London boroughs; it is not always appropriate to house them in those boroughs and they are sent out. There is an important distinction to be made between local people and those who arrive with a homeless obligation in a particular borough. It is important because new regulations come into force later this week, on 9 November.

[Lord McAvoy]

Sorry, but will the noble Lord let me intervene at this stage? So if there are two families, a recently arrived family and a longer staying family in a borough, somebody would decide that the newer family, for want of a better description, should go and the older residential family should stay?

[Lord Freud]

I am referring to people who arrive in Euston and turn up homeless in Camden. They do not have the local links. There is a homelessness duty on Camden to do something, but there are not the local links. That has always been the position.

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 8th October 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says:

“This instrument is drawn to the special attention of the House on the grounds that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.

In addition, part of that public policy focus would take into account the threat made by the Chancellor at today’s Conservative Party conference: that he intends to further reduce the welfare budget by £10 billion, added to the already £15 billion taken from some of the poorest people in this country. I join those who welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, to the Dispatch Box but for slightly different reasons from those of my more diplomatic noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. I welcome her appearance on this—it is not personal—because I, along with others, intend to highlight the consequences of the Welfare Reform Act. We are now down to the nitty-gritty from the Labour Front Bench and from some very knowledgeable people in other parts of the House as to what is happening here.

I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness and when she was speaking, it seemed like an appeal to the average Sun reader, with phrases such as “not tough enough”, “we require” and “there will be fewer claimants in the whole structure”. There was very little about the consequences on the people affected.

Perhaps the noble Baroness can take a note of this and answer it. Nothing was mentioned about the administration costs of implementing the policy—the extra staff who will presumably be required—or about the monitoring of the implementation of this draconian policy and attitude towards poorer people. I do not know whether that language is a bit robust for this place, but there we go. Millions of people outside need to be heard here today. I wonder how many people here or elsewhere on the Conservative Benches should declare an interest, as the millionaires among them gain a £40,000 tax cut every year for the next few years which goes to the wealthiest people in this country. That is coming straight from the people who will be suffering from these cuts. The Liberal Democrats should look at themselves as well. I am not sure how many millionaires they have, but they certainly marched through the Lobby in support of the Act—with a few honourable exceptions.

I do not think that those in the government ranks realise how draconian the three-year policy is. What research is there to justify it? Those affected are imperfect people who will make mistakes and will not be mentally fit to deal with the situation. I echo what my noble friend on the Front Bench said: I am no sort of social liberal when it comes to benefit fraudsters and anyone fiddling their benefit. Please do not paint me as a softie or as someone who wears rose-tinted glasses. It is said that only a few claimants will be caught by the policy. I do not see any research; I see justification for a hard-nosed policy which is politically desirable to the sort of people who think that everybody on benefits is a fraudster, when they are not.

To their credit, the Government have a policy of trying to get people with mental illness of various kinds to come forward to get help but, at the same time, how many people who are suffering from undeclared mental disorders will be caught up in this draconian policy? It is a horrible fact of life that some people may die because they are deprived of money for three years. They will sink into the gutter, homeless, and will be driven there through the policies of this Government. There is a strategy here of stigmatising benefit claimants. Again, I refer to the fact that I am not a social liberal on such issues.

There was a lively debate in the other place on this. I compliment my honourable friend Mrs Anne McGuire for the salient and powerful points that she made. I am glad that we opposed there, as we do now, the three-year sanction. It is a disgrace and should be reconsidered. There are things in the regulations that we support, but the price of that support in getting consensus to tackle reform of the welfare system should surely be some recognition of those draconian aspects.

Going back to what I said about people with a mental disorder, it was stated that plenty of people within the department were trained to spot that and deal with it. How many people are employed specifically for that task? Are any of them employed by private, outside agencies, such as the department’s pride and joy, Atos, making mistakes and penalising people all along the line? We need to clarify how many people are professionally trained to spot people who, bearing in mind the background of this country, are naturally reluctant to demonstrate or admit to—and even then they are not using that word—some kind of mental disorder.

Therefore, there is a whole series of questions about how the department is going to handle that. I should like to hear some answers and I may come back on this issue, depending on the content of the answers.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, who has been a good friend and colleague over many years. I plead guilty to being a softie but I am not a millionaire. I just want to make that clear. I do not mind being characterised as soft but I am not rich.

I should declare an interest. Noble Lords probably know this but I continue to be a non-executive, non-remunerated director of the Wise Group in Glasgow. The Wise Group is an intermediate labour market provider and has been in that business for 25 years. It is a privilege for me to work with the group and it gives me an insight into some of the implications of the important regulations that we are debating this afternoon.

As I said during the main body of the debate on the Welfare Reform Bill, as it then was, language is very important in all this. If anyone doubts that, they have only to look at the headline in the tabloid press today—I think it is the Express—which declares that the Government are declaring war on the workshy. I do not think that that is helpful language for anyone. I do not necessarily accuse Ministers of doing it but I think that the Government could do more to stop that kind of stigmatisation. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, talked about people who are workless. I understand that the public have a perception that it is right to crack down on benefits but I believe that it is a wholly mistaken view based on very little background information and detail. If the real facts were known to the wider general public, I think that public opinion would be different.

In passing, I want to contrast that with fraud. I think that the policy contained in these regulations will be counterproductive—it is a policy objection that I have more than anything else—and that it will make things worse rather than better. I draw a clear distinction between handling sanctions and conditionality and fraud, which the Government have to attend to with more vigour and energy. To be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, I think that he is aware of that and that he is doing more to try to deal with the problem. However, here we are dealing with regulations which will take people out of benefit if the sanctions are applied to the extreme for three years.

Last week, I noticed that there was an identity theft fraud case in which £90,000 had been fraudulently taken out of the benefits system by someone who had stolen 13 identities. He got two years in prison. Here is a criminal defrauding the benefits system of £90,000 and he gets to stay at Her Majesty’s pleasure for two years, whereas somebody who falls foul of the sanctions regime gets no money for three years. You begin to ask yourself, “Is that balance correct?”. I leave that question hanging but I have a very clear idea about it. If we are going to be tougher, we need to be tougher on fraud. We need to stop talking about fraud and error in the same sentence and in the same way, because in my view they are entirely different. I am with the Minister—I welcome her to the Dispatch Box and wish her many happy hours there in the future—but I think that we need to drill into and make better progress on the whole question of how we deal with stigmatisation and fraud.

From my association with the Wise Group, I am very clear that you need three things to get people into fulfilling long-term work pathways. You need to have trust between the claimant and the adviser—the person doing the coaching, steering and supporting—and the trust needs to be both ways. The claimant needs to be aware that the person on the other side of the desk is on their side. That sometimes takes time and is difficult to achieve, because some of the claimants are a long way away from the labour market. You also need to motivate the claimant and need to persuade him or her that they are in control of their own pathway back into work.

I have said this many times before. The Paul Gregg report that was done for the previous Labour Government in 2009 made perfect sense to me. It was a positive case for conditionality. But the essential condition that he applied was that the claimant had to be in control of the pathway. The destiny of the pathway had to be felt by the claimant to be something that he or she wanted to do. If they offend against the jobseeker’s agreement in that context, once you have established the trust, then conditionality is necessary because some people need a wake-up call—even I know that. We have all learnt that from our American friends. But only a tiny percentage of people should be in that situation and should be considered for conditionality.

As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, some of the figures that are beginning to emerge from 2010 are deeply frightening. They will get worse if we are not careful. You need a trusted adviser relationship. You need the person to feel that they are in control of what is being done to them and you need employers who understand all that and are willing to come to the table and say, “Okay we will be part of this process to get this individual back into gainful, full-time employment”. All of those elements need to be present for this important public policy to work, and I support it.

But conditionality wrecks the relationship between the adviser and the claimant. The trust goes out of the window because people are being told what is good for them. They start to think that the system is against them and then they go AWOL. After they go AWOL, the system ignores them, in the main. Nobody follows them wherever they go—to a life of working in the grey economy, crime, drugs or anything at all. Nobody follows them and nobody has a responsibility to ask, particularly over a three-year period, where have they gone? Our American friends got a real fright about the number of people who disappeared off the rolls. In terms of three-year sanctions in the future, we will have a real problem in trying to get back the relationship once these sanctions are applied to the extent that we are talking about today. Sanctions are a punishment. They are counterproductive. They may be necessary, but they should be used with great discretion and in very specific circumstances.

I have a number of questions. The noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord McAvoy, and my noble friend are keen to pursue this. When the policy is rolled out in the pilot areas it needs to be absolutely monitored to death in terms of what is working and not working. I do not believe that it will get people into work. It will get people off benefits: I can see that. It is stark staring clear that you can get people off benefits by sanctioning them, but does it get them into work? That is the important question. Some people in the Committee may think that getting them off benefits is enough, but not me. The policy is deficient in the second half of the necessity of supporting people and getting them into fulfilling long-term work.

If I had more time, I could develop the point about the difficulties facing single parents, people in rural areas and in destroyed labour market areas, who have no real prospect of finding work because the labour market is so difficult in different parts of the United Kingdom. People with disabilities will obviously also find it difficult and will struggle.

I am in favour of clarity. The current policy is deficient in that most people do not know why they are being sanctioned, and that is not just those who have a mental illness, because the system is so confusing. I am in favour of conditionality, but I think that this is overdone. I believe that in the fullness of time it will not work. If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit that. I want answers to some of these important questions, even if they are in a letter, because I do not think the Minister has a realistic chance of answering them all in detail. I want an undertaking that the sanctions applied during the pilot phase will be analysed and followed through by the department to see what is actually happening and how they work out in practice. If I am right, these conditionality requirements will make things worse. That is not in anyone’s interests—not in the interests of the claimant, the Government or anyone else. So we need to be cautious about how we roll out this policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful for the contributions that have been made in the debate today. A number of points of detail have been raised which I will do my best to go through before I conclude my responses. I will try to cover these points in groups rather than going through every individual one systematically, as I feel that it is important to cover some of the general points made by noble Lords that fall under several headings.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for welcoming me warmly to the Dispatch Box, but of course I am disappointed that he does not feel able to support these regulations. I have listened carefully to all the points that have been made today, and most of them have been questions about the regulations and concerns expressed about them. In answering them, however, I can go a long way to addressing them.

The people I think about most when I consider what we are doing today is those who find themselves suddenly out of work through no fault of their own, and who are desperate to get back into work and are doing everything that they possibly can to do so. When they go on to jobseeker’s allowance, or in due course when they are receiving an element of benefits that will apply under the universal credit, people will want to know that while the rest of us are fortunate to be in work at that time, a regime is in place that respects those who are doing everything that they can while penalising clearly and appropriately those who do not. They will want to know that they are entering into a regime that is properly labelled and properly reflects that they are trying their best to do what they can for themselves, and we will not do them any service by putting in place a regime that is not clear.

The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, used some colourful language that she may have been trying to ascribe to those of us in government regarding what we are doing. I assure her that we are not saying that.

There were concerns about what will happen if people find themselves affected by the sanctions and not in receipt of benefits. Let us not forget that the reason why people are entitled to jobseeker’s allowance is that they are fit and able to look for work. Because they are fit and able to work but are not able to find work at that time, the payment is made to them. If they are not doing what is required of them to entitle them to the benefit, then it is only right that they should be sanctioned; there should be a clear deterrent in order that they should comply with the expectations placed upon them. If they are sanctioned, then what they lose is the jobseeker’s allowance—they do not lose any of the other benefits that they may be entitled to, such as a hardship payment or housing benefit. While this measure may look very severe, it is important to bear it in mind that this is about jobseeker’s allowance; it is not about all benefits over a period of time. I will come back to the politics to which the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, referred, because they are worth addressing, but not until I have dealt with some other matters.

Several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, asked when a three-year sanction will apply and how it will be communicated. The new system will be explained to claimants. It would apply where a claimant has three times failed to apply for suitable job offers for work which they are capable of doing. The regulations are not designed to leave people in hardship, as I said, but to be a deterrent. Claimants will still be able to claim a hardship payment of up to 80% of JSA for the length of the sanction. They still have access to passported benefits such as housing benefit, free school meals and free prescriptions.

I know that there is a lot of concern about those who may face a three-year sanction. It is important to say that we do not expect many people to end up being sanctioned for three years. If the system is to work properly, the deterrent should be strong enough for us to avoid that. However, during a three-year sanction, a person is still entitled to JSA although it is not paid. They may receive hardship payments, but to do so will still need to meet conditionality, and their adviser will still work with them to help them to find work during the sanction period—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. In response to him, I repeat that we must be clear that JSA is a benefit for people who are deemed to be fit for work and not confuse JSA with other benefits of which they may be in receipt.

The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, asked: how can people who are sanctioned find work when there are no jobs to be had? I refute that point. At any one time, there are about half a million unfilled vacancies in the economy, but that is only a snapshot that hides the dynamism of the job market in which most vacancies are filled quickly and new ones are coming up for people to move into. It is worth noting that of those who come on to jobseeker’s allowance, about 50% leave within three months and 75% within six months.

Several noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, in particular—asked about the evidence to support the introduction of the sanctions and what research had been done. Evidence from the UK and internationally shows that sanctions motivate claimants to engage with job search and other labour market requirements. For example, the DWP research suggests that more than half of claimants say that they are more likely to look for work because of the threat of sanctions.

Last summer, I spent about three days visiting jobcentres and spending time with advisers who were interviewing claimants as they came in. It was notable to me during those sessions how sanctions were a topic very much discussed and how once they became a possibility, some people who might not otherwise have done so changed their behaviour. Many noble Lords asked whether people under sanction would be supported by the jobcentre. I have already covered that; that is clear.

[Lord McAvoy]

The Minister is dealing with a series of complicated matters, but I seek clarification. In the other place, Mrs Anne McGuire said:

“It is important to remember that a person who is sanctioned will cease to receive their £71 per week in jobseeker’s allowance or the universal credit standard allowance”.

How does that fit in with what the Minister says? It was not contradicted by the Minister in the other place.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Could the noble Lord repeat the point he is making?

[Lord McAvoy]

I do not see any sign that Ms Baldwin rejected this. My right honourable friend said:

“It is important to remember that a person who is sanctioned will cease to receive their £71 per week in jobseeker’s allowance or the universal credit standard allowance”—[Official Report, Commons, Eight Delegated Legislation Committee, 11/9/12; col. 6.]

Is that the case, or has the situation changed?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That is the case. That is what I have explained. If you are sanctioned, you are not in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance. There may be other benefits that you are entitled to, such as housing benefit. I think it is the use of the word “entitled” that is confusing matters, and I must apologise if I am confusing the Committee.

If somebody receives a sanction which leads to them not receiving their jobseeker’s allowance, that does not mean that they are not entitled to jobseeker’s allowance; it just means that they are not in receipt of it because they have not done something that is required of them in order to be entitled to receive that allowance. To be disentitled means that you have to stop being—I forget what the precise language is—available and able to carry out work. I think I have used imprecise language, and I apologise.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton—

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Grand Committee

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, in his amendment. I respect the view of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on ME, and I also thank the Minister for his recent letter to me that clarifies a lot about the department’s stance on ME. I am very grateful for what he has done.

However, there are serious cases of ME where people are just not going to get better. In the House the other day during our consideration of the Health and Social Care Bill, I described a young lady who has had ME since she was 15 and who is now 30 and is not going to get any better. There are a lot of people like that. She is suffering terrible stress with worrying about what is going to happen with her personal independence payments, and that is not helping her condition. In cases like that, where it is pretty obvious that the person is not going to get better—unless there is a miracle of medical science, when of course it should be reviewed whether the person’s health can be improved, which would be all well and good—such patients should not be subjected to the stresses of a medical examination.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I would like to follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that medical science might come up with a cure, but I am puzzled as to why that is problem. Surely when the facts change, the law would be changed; I do not see any great problem with changing the law.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have a degree of sympathy with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Touhig and spoken to by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. As I understand it, it goes with the grain of what the Government are seeking to do. When we debated similar issues last week, I thought the term “exceptional circumstances” was somewhat broader than a strict reading of it might lead one to conclude. Therefore, I ask the Minister to expand on that when dealing with this amendment and to say whether he accepts the proposition that there will be those with long-term degenerative conditions that are unlikely to improve.

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, makes the reasonable point that we never know if there might be medical scientific breakthroughs, but, as my noble friend said, these matters could always be revisited. It seems to be important to try to give some comfort to people whose condition is sadly not going to improve. What is the purpose of bringing them in simply to pile stress on to their lives and use resources that could be deployed elsewhere?

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister could answer another question. It might be a bit pedantic, but in a litigious world things can happen. Can he assure us that the Government are not liable to be sued in the courts for behaving outwith the law?

[Lord Sassoon]

I do not believe that there is any question of the Government being sued. The matter is clearly regrettable. The error was not spotted by anybody either inside or outside HMRC until August, when a technician in HMRC spotted it. It was not spotted by any of the numerous parties who no doubt crawled over this technical area, and it is now being corrected at the earliest practical time. Therefore, there is no question of the Government being sued by anybody—but it is important that we correct the technical error.