Welfare Reform Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I think that we could debate this issue for a long time. The point that I am simply trying to make is that the arbitrary nature which this time limit has been accused of looks much less arbitrary when it seems to be the time norm chosen by a whole range of countries. Other countries such as Canada, Germany, Poland and Australia also feel that it is right that there should be some limit to the state’s support for those who have an illness.

[Lord McAvoy]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has given way a lot, as we all recognise. However, I am sure he recognises that this is a very complicated and emotive subject. I do not have the mastery of detail that the Minister or my Front Bench team have. How can a 12-month period be applicable to someone who is suffering from cancer? It is an arbitrary decision.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I shall come to the point about cancer, which is clearly very important. The powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on his amendment had to do with that. I shall deal with it as a whole. I am trying to make one point at a time. The point I am making is that our proposals are not out of kilter with the arrangements in many other countries. We still provide unconditional support to those in the support group and income-related benefits for the poorest.

I shall just pick up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the expectations of contributors to national insurance. National insurance contributions are used to pay for a wide range of contingencies. These include working-age benefits, the state pension and the NHS. The overwhelming proportion of expenditure—some £60 billion a year—goes on the state pension. This is in contrast to around £6 billion on ESA and incapacity benefit and around £1 billion on jobseeker’s allowance. There have been numerous changes to national insurance and the benefits system over the years to take account of changes in society and demographic factors. For example, far more women now pay national insurance than when contributory benefits were first created. As I have said, we believe that the adjustments we are making are fair and reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Lord McAvoy]

I am not as sympathetic as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on this because we co-operated in getting the groupings and the Minister knew the groupings that were coming. That sounds uncharitable, but there is no doubt that he has made absolutely every effort. That it has taken so long to answer questions demonstrates the complexity of the whole group of amendments.

[Lord Freud]

I feel drawn to say, in response to the noble Baroness, that I was very happy with how the amendments were grouped, because it allowed me to deal with a complicated set of issues in their entirety. When amendments are degrouped you very often find that you are arguing one thing at one time and then miss a key part of your argument and have to repeat it. So I would plead with the noble Baroness to accept that at least I was very happy with how it was done and that we got through a very difficult set of issues—I know how difficult they are—in reasonable order.

Benefits: EU Nationals

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am being taken well off my brief which is concerned with benefits, so I will not comment on that question either.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, the issue of reciprocity was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord German. Have the Government ever calculated the cost of reciprocity in terms of how much it costs the United Kingdom to pay benefits to EU nationals and what our 900,000 people get back?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, amazingly, we do not have those data, but that is clearly not the present Government’s problem as we are looking to get those data. Our concern is that, if we let in benefit tourists in the way the Commission is looking for us to do, the costs of doing that could be up to £2.5 billion a year. Noble Lords will be absolutely aware that we have many better ways of spending that money on people who are in this country and who have been making a contribution to this country.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I support this amendment. As has been stated, the WCA is about deciding whether a claimant has limited capability, either for work or work-related activity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, there is no definition in the Bill, nor indeed in regulation, about what is meant by “work”. This is particularly important for those with fluctuating conditions, who are, at different times, both fit for work and incapable of work within the same month. We already know that, apart from any assessment, people with unpredictable fluctuations find it difficult to obtain employment or to keep it. This is partly because of their previous work records, partly if any of these fluctuations occurred during a probation period, and partly if they are honest and open with a potential employer.

It goes without saying that we support the principle of helping all those who are able to work to do so, but I am concerned about the apparent drop-off in the number of new customers helped by the Access to Work scheme, which has gone down to 13,240 compared with 16,520 in the previous year—a fall of nearly a quarter. It would be interesting to know what is thought to be the reason behind that, because it is an important way of helping people into work.

The really important word in this amendment is “sustainable”. Sustainable employment is defined as 15 or 16 hours a week and on a basis probably of 26 weeks. This amendment is particularly important, as the Government are proposing that regulations about defining capability for work or work-related activity are to be subject only to negative resolution procedure and thus with no opportunity for debate.

We have had a note which states that the Government’s intention is that regulations made under subsection (3) will set out the detailed circumstances and descriptors used to determine limited capability for work and limited capability for work-related activity. These regulations will be based on the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 and the subsequent amendments contained in the Employment and Support Allowance (Limited Capability for Work and Limited Capability for Work-related Activity) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 and any other changes to the ESA provisions before the introduction of UC in 2013.

We understand that the Government are undertaking further work to develop a supplement to the assessment to accurately identify individuals with enduring health conditions that limit their long-term ability to fully provide for themselves through work. However, regulations under Clause 41, which are also subject to the negative resolution procedure, will define the meaning of “work”. Given that this is another area where we remain unclear of the Government’s plan, it will be particularly important to have assurances about how people with fluctuating conditions are to be protected.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, as a former Member of the other House with experience of constituency cases and organisations, I could not sit silent during this debate. I fully support the point outlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe, Lady Wilkins and Lady Grey-Thompson.

Not referring to a GP when there is a fluctuating illness results in Atos taking a hard line. As I have said before, I am not one of life’s social liberals, but the line taken by Atos on too many occasions has been unfair and there has often been a bit of bother in trying to sort it out. This causes fear and apprehension, not only among the less able bodied but also among the able bodied who are not particularly articulate when they face Atos and its people. I hope notice is taken of the circumstances illustrated by my colleagues today because it is wrong that there should be that fear.

I know that the media, as is their wont, take some cases, pile into them and get stuck into government and organisations such as Atos to highlight obvious unfairness, but there is enough experience in the department and among Ministers to counteract that. However, there is something in the amendment. The Minister can take it away, look at it, amend it or alter it, but I sincerely hope that he takes notice of it and does not dismiss it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley]

I understand where the Minister is coming from. However, the point is that there may well be a difference of opinion between what is perceived as good public policy in Cardiff and Edinburgh and what is perceived as good public policy in his department under his Government. After all, they are different Governments of different political complexion, which will have different priorities. That is true of the current Government in Cardiff and the coalition Government who were there before them. The whole point is that we need some understanding on this.

[Lord McAvoy]

Is the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, perhaps interested in asking the Minister whether these confidential discussions are subject to freedom of information requests?

[Lord Wigley]

That would indeed be interesting. No doubt we will hear if that is the case. However, on this amendment I was also pressing for assurances—it may well be that the Minister was giving them in the words that he used—with regard to the application of the concordat. I assume from his words that the concordat—I quoted from paragraph 17—is fully applicable and will be in the context of these negotiations; and, likewise, that the assurances of “no surprises” that have been given to local government will also be applied. If there are any direct relationships between his department and local government in Wales, which there could be in the context of housing benefit because there is a direct relationship, will those assurances apply equally? I am sure that the Minister is about to nod that that is his understanding, but I should be grateful if that could be put in writing.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point and it is related to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. There are two areas where we will have to have specific rules. First, in the start-up phase, what are the rules for that and how long does one allow for it? Secondly, in the period when something goes badly wrong, when you have had a business going very well with profits and then you have a sudden collapse, what do you do about that period? That was the example that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised. Those are two of the issues that we are looking at very closely and how to get that right.

One of the things we want to get out of this is the most business-friendly suite of support that we can put together. In this sense, working tax credit for the self-employed does become a support for entrepreneurial endeavour, tied with other support for new business such as the new enterprise allowance.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, on the small businesses aspect—and I declare an interest as I am “lucky” to own a public house although I am a teetotaller and they are closing down all over the place in Scotland—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Because they are all teetotal?

[Lord McAvoy]

Most are tight-fisted so do not think you will get a free drink. What information is needed, and where would you get the information, to make that sort of calculation and deliberation? The feeling among small businesses is that nobody listens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

And I hope that it has a nice picture of him. I look forward to going there.

[Lord McAvoy]

You will need a Labour Party card to get in.

[Lord Freud]

The basic way to get information from the self-employed is this: they will put in the information in the universal credit system, or an equivalent system, which will potentially match up later with the information that they provide either to the VAT authorities or to HMRC. There is a process of reporting.

To get back to the point, there is an opportunity to provide real support for entrepreneurial business, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, so shrewdly said, we must not be an open cheque book for people who are not running genuine businesses. We need to get that right.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, like others, I was absent from the last sitting of the Committee, unavoidably. I was having my gardening wound attended to in a magnetic resonance machine; I think I am still radioactive but I hope it is not affecting other people.

I am in favour of these amendments. Conditionality is an important part of this and I am not sure that we have got it right, although the principle of conditionality was hammered out almost to infinity over the last two welfare reform Bills and it is now a more or less agreed policy. That is not to say that we have not got to get some of these important questions right. The expertise of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is acknowledged in this field. It was demonstrated beyond any doubt in the last two welfare reform Bills and the Committee is the better for having his experience. Having buttered him up, I should say that this debate is at risk of being incoherent. I would much rather have had a conditionality debate over a solid period without a whole list of disaggregated amendments.

I am about to lose my well established credit with the Committee because I am going to repeat myself. I was looking at this last night when I came in. The Marshalled List was substantially different and I was looking forward to an all embracing principled debate, because we all know that if you have to resort to conditionality this policy is not working. I know this because I am a director of the Wise Group, and colleagues know that. If you have to inflict penalties in big numbers in circumstances that are not clearly defined, there is something wrong that needs to be fixed further up the food chain.

I want to continue with my whinge for another moment if Members will indulge me. I am very worried that there are four or five big issues here, one of them being disability, that we are not going to give proper time to if we disaggregate the amendments to the extent they were overnight. It is not for me to tell people how they do their business and I am speaking for no one but myself but I notice how far we are down the sitting stage. I have been here before—as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said famously in the Chamber the other day, I didn’t come up the Clyde on a bike—so I see that we will end up doing three days on the trot, something disabled colleagues might find quite difficult to deal with, never mind the rest of us, to cover everything between Clause 15, which is where we are, and Clause 136.

I cannot do anything about any of this and I am willing to take part in debates. I do not want anyone to say that I am saying anything like conditionality is not important, because it is. As a matter of process, however, I appeal to all colleagues to try to make sure that we get to the important things. To be brutally honest and tell you the unvarnished truth, I want to put pressure on the coalition Government on four or five issues here. I may run out of time because we are doing things in a way that is disaggregated to the extent that it is. So I am appealing to my colleagues on all sides of the Committee—even from Rutherglen—to think carefully about that. We are having very good debates and we are getting very good responses from the Government and I make no complaint about that but we have to be realistic about making sure that we get to the really important political things in this Bill, otherwise the Committee will not do as effective a job for the House as it would otherwise.

[Lord McAvoy]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for drawing attention to that sort of matter because, with the exception of the first two Committee meetings, at every sitting half the time has been taken up by the Labour Opposition and the rest by others. There is no question of anything deliberate on this side; that was a clear inference. This side has taken up half the time and half the time has come from others. I do not complain because on at least seven occasions the Minister, who is extremely able and competent—I can also butter up—has had to say “I will write to you” because of the complicated nature of the questions from my noble friends on this side of the House. It is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, should make but I do not think he should make it to this side.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I think that I have attended every sitting of this Committee. I find it immensely frustrating that, when one sitting ends, one finds that by the beginning of the next a wodge of new amendments has come on board. It does not mean that the points raised are not important or that there has been time-wasting. However, it is immensely difficult for people, particularly those with responsibilities to organisations outside the Chamber, to organise themselves to put the points that they need to put in debates. It is not just for this Committee but for the House to consider how to get a more orderly way of doing business.

--- Later in debate ---

I have spoken for too long: I apologise. My final point is to reinforce Anna Freud’s work on the developmental lines of childhood, from infantile dependence to adult emotional independence. It is very important that we ensure that we support the parent/child relationship as far as we can so that children grow up into independent adults who will go out, find work, make positive, strong relationships with their future partners and keep strong relationships with their own children as they grow up. I am not sure whether that is clear. I look forward to the Minister's response to these concerns.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I would like to speak in support of the noble Earl’s amendment. There are cuts in the tax credit system, and I know from experience that many couples use that as part of their overall family income, to get high-class childcare. There are a whole stack of couples who are now in the process of cancelling that because they cannot afford to keep it going. There is going to be chaos in the childcare system because many parents, either single or together, will be in trouble, trying to get the same conditions that they have been used to in childcare over the past few years.

Unless parents are given that assurance that their children are going to high-class, quality childcare that they can trust—the noble Earl mentioned some circumstances in which parents do not trust childcare—the whole field of childcare and its provision is going to be a real headache for society. This amendment would be a safeguard to ensure that parents are satisfied.

Having had some experience of Ministers, I can almost hear the Minister’s reply, along the lines of, “How can you guarantee the security of a system? People will fiddle, people will do all sorts of things, and we can’t trust them”. In some cases that is a reasonable judgment, but not in all cases, and certainly not in the majority of cases. People will feel that they have been done out of something here, and as usual it will be the women who give up the second job that assistance for childcare has helped them to go out and do.

I have spoken to scores of women in my former constituency for whom that support for childcare was absolutely essential. This amendment will go a long way towards making sure that parents are not subjected to failure if they do not receive the quality, flexible and affordable childcare that they have been used to up until now.

How would the Minister cater for those people who, with less money coming in, will perhaps have to downgrade their expectations if they want to continue with childcare, because they cannot afford as much? This has been a great liberation for parents, and it is something that the Government need to assure us of.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

May I come in from my sedentary position? I ought to start by saying that, having been in another part of the United Kingdom for most of the day, I only strayed in here to demonstrate continuing interest and to check that the Minister was still being reasonable. I felt driven to contribute, as all too often both upstairs and downstairs, by the subject matter that was being discussed.

If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, need make no apology for the length of a speech from a noble Lord who has taken greater interest in these matters than almost anyone else in the House over all the time I have been here. His genuine knowledge and concern comes through, and we all benefit from it.

That said, I shall now incur the wrath of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, or both, or indeed of everyone. I had better admit immediately that if I were the Minister I would not touch this amendment, in its present terms, with a bargepole. It is all very well for noble Lords to talk about guarantees, but what does all that mean? Does it mean predictable? The number of hurdles here is unbelievable. The amendment speaks of “guaranteed”, “predictable”, “high quality”, “flexible” and “affordable” childcare. Who will be the judge of all those? It also talks about the care being,

“acceptable to the parents and the children”.

Frankly, that is not on, as a workable concept. I will just put that on the record in the interests of being helpful to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

On that note, I shall take this opportunity to respond. My first point is that we are all in general agreement that it is vital to balance the requirements placed on claimants with any childcare responsibilities they may have. The amendments raise the concern that we will not take these responsibilities into account. I hope that I will be able to reassure noble Lords that this is not the case.

As is the case now, legislation will provide clear safeguards. We are committed in particular to ensuring that the same safeguards exist for lone parents as are currently in place. Our legislation will ensure that no claimant who is responsible for a child under five can be made to look for or take a job. These claimants will be required only to attend work-focused interviews. If they fail to meet this basic requirement for no good reason, they will be subject to the lowest level of open-ended sanction. The sanctionable amount for this group will be capped at 40 per cent of the sanctionable amount for other claimants.

No claimant with a child under 13 will be required to look for a job that does not fit in with their child's school's hours, including a reasonable allowance for travel time. Such restrictions will mean that a claimant will not be required to apply for or accept a job that would mean that they could not care for their child outside school hours. Advisers will take into account the care needs of older children so that work search requirements can continue to be restricted where this is appropriate.

[Lord McAvoy]

How will those applications be checked? Will there be a system to verify that what the claimant says is accurate?

[Lord Freud]

I take it that the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, means checking that the claimant is working and using childcare.

[Lord McAvoy]

And the arrangements for going to school, with all the timings involved as well.

[Lord Freud]

That would be done through a conversation between the claimant and the adviser. Clearly, what is a reasonable amount of time is not that complicated an issue when you know where someone works and what their route should be. I am sure that they will be able to reach a reasonable agreement on that.

To the extent that childcare may be needed to help claimants meet work availability requirements, for example in school holidays, advisers will work with parents to help them identify childcare options. Currently, this would include referring claimants to the local family information service.

I take the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the role of relatives in caring for children. Clearly their role is important as it allows parents to work and supports them. My best response is that we will keep it very much in mind as we develop our thinking and put the system into a state of implementation. We agree with the principle that childcare must be acceptable to the parent and even the child, despite what my noble friend Lord Newton said.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, Amendment 34A, as noble Lords will understand, is a paving amendment for the subsequent, substantive amendment, Amendment 48, so that we can have a broader discussion on housing stock before we get into talking about individual client groups. That seemed to be a sensible way of proceeding. I declare an interest as a former chair of a local authority housing committee and a current chair of the Broadland Housing Association.

For me, underoccupancy is the most important issue in the housing section of the Bill. Essentially, the Government are saying that any tenant who is not a pensioner and is underoccupying will have their benefit cut to the size of the property that they should be occupying. The English house condition survey, and the DCLG in the past, regards someone as underoccupying if they have more than one spare bedroom. Indeed, the latest Written Answer from Grant Shapps states:

“It is estimated that 423,000 households were under-occupying”,

which obviously includes pensioners.

“This estimate is a three-year average … Under-occupying households are those with at least two bedrooms more than they need according to the Bedroom Standard”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/2011; col. 337W.]

The DWP, for benefit purposes, will not allow two bedrooms more or one bedroom more but requires a precise fit. This is a much tighter and even claustrophobic ruling. A later amendment, Amendment 44, which I favour, would align the DWP to the DCLG standard. As almost 80 per cent of tenants who are affected by the DWP’s proposals have only one spare bedroom, that would address the issue for most people, although of course with implications for projected savings.

This amendment, like Amendment 43, tackles the issue in a different way. It requires the social landlord, not the tenant, to take responsibility. If the landlord does not have the stock to offer, the tenant should enjoy his current home with full HB. If the landlord can offer appropriately sized stock by DWP standards, the tenant takes the HB hit if they choose not to move.

Why do I think the DWP standards of underoccupancy are too tight? Under DWP plans, a couple with two teenage daughters in a three-bedroom house will be underoccupying, and will receive benefit only for a two-bedroom flat or home. Let us remember that we are dealing with social housing that is now built well below Parker Morris space standards. Two teenage girls might be expected to share a second bedroom that is 10 feet by 8 feet. Let us visualise two single beds put against the 8-foot wall, with 2 feet between them. Fifteen year-olds are not going to sleep in bunk beds as though they are five years-old. A 3-foot wardrobe and a 3-foot wide chest of drawers are in the 3-foot by 6-foot space at the bottom of the beds. There may be a gap of 1 foot, and that is it, if you are to open the bedroom door. There is no space for a desk, a table, or a chair. Where exactly do they do their homework? Not in the galley kitchen, because they will not have one, and not in the only living room, where the parents want to eat, talk, watch TV. They cannot do their homework anywhere, so maybe they will not. City children can stay on at school of an evening or use the public library for their homework in that situation. Rural children, dependent on the school bus, can do neither. And then we are surprised at the GCSE results. As a result they cannot find a job, and I fear that there could be two generations of worklessness.

This example assumes that those four family members have moved to the two-bedroom flat as required under the new proposed changes in housing benefit. Actually, probably they will not. Most two-bedroom homes are actually three-person, not four, with a small second bedroom, and although some 12 per cent of my housing association’s three-bedroom houses are four-person houses with a double bedroom and two singles, most are five, so we have three-person accommodation, and five-person accommodation. Imposing HB caps by bedroom numbers rather than by total space size of bedrooms—that is, trying to shoehorn a four-person family into a two-bedroom, but three-person, property—will certainly take us into the realm of forced overcrowding and judicial review. Such a family will be deemed by the DWP to be underoccupying a three-bedroom five-person property, and deemed by housing law to be overcrowded in the only property they can move to, which is a two-bedroom three-person home. What would the Minister have us do?

Will the Minister say whether, if that family were in a three-bedroom but four-person house, they will receive full HB as three bedrooms or persons, or whether they would be expected to move to a two-bedroom flat even if they were three persons? If we put a family of three into a two-bedroom four-person house, would that be classified as underoccupied? I am not playing word games because, depending upon the outcome of this question, families will or will not lose more than £10 a week of their housing benefit. These are the allocation decisions that my housing association and local authority are making day in and day out.

A fortnight ago I was visiting an attractive small development of some 20 homes that we have just built. Thirteen of them were two-bedroom houses, four of them were three-bedroom and there were three bungalows. However, of those 13 two-bedroom houses, 12 were three-person. Only one was four-person. We do not have and we are not building the four-person stock that the Minister has now told us that tenants in a family of four should occupy to get their full HB. They are mostly either three-person or five-person, with the assumption that the couple get the first type and the couple with children get the other. Nationally, our situation is replicated. There is a huge shortfall of one-bedroom and two-bedroom accommodation. Relatively, there is a surplus of three-bedroom accommodation. The national federation calculated that last year 180,000 families were waiting for two-bedroom homes, and just 60,000 became available. Who do those families go to?

I can tell noble Lords about our allocation structure. First, the homes go to families in urgent housing need. Next we have pensioners—to whom the changes do not apply—in three-bedroom homes queuing up to move to more convenient and easier-to-heat two-bedroom homes. Yet we cannot always help them because we do not have the stock, and they are the people who are most likely to underoccupy. Then we have families who need to transfer from one two-bedroom property to another in order to help look after frail elderly people in a nearby village. So we have queues of people wanting two-bedroom accommodation who are willing and able to move, and we cannot meet that demand.

However, under the Bill, if there is no two-bedroom accommodation for my four-person family to move to—as there is not—they are fined with cuts of £15 a week or more. It is madness as well as a misery. We allow—indeed, we make—the pensioners who would like to downsize stay put, while requiring the family who wants to stay put to move. This possibly causes a dislocation of schools for their children and of family support. Yet the HB bill would be identical if we swapped those categories around.

To its credit, the impact analysis recognises this and agrees that there are insufficient two-bedroom properties to meet these forced moves. On page 2, it is stated:

“If all existing social sector tenants wished to move to accommodation of an appropriate size, there would be a mismatch between available accommodation and the needs of tenants”.

Quite so. Some 670,000 tenants would be affected—2,000 of them disabled—or 32 per cent of all HB claimants. Some 108,000 tenants live in an adapted property, with the average cost of adaption being £6,500; yet 78 per cent of them are underoccupying by only one bedroom, which the DCLG does not consider as underoccupying but which the DWP is proposing to consider for benefit purposes. That could be an extra small bedroom for each teenage daughter to do their homework in, for a husband or wife who is in poor health and has disturbed sleep, for the occasional overnight carer of a disabled person, or for a grandchild.

Let us return to my family of four who are obliged to move or face HB cuts. As there is a shortage of smaller accommodation, what then? How can the tenant move if there is nowhere to move to? “Oh”, states the impact analysis blithely on page 8, at paragraph 24:

“In these circumstances individuals may have to look further afield for appropriately sized accommodation or move to the private sector, otherwise they shall need to meet the shortfall through other means such as employment, using savings or by taking in a lodger”.

Employment? Do noble Lords really think that they have not so far looked for work and that a £15 fine on their HB bill will find them a job? Using savings? The average individual savings of £300 would cover the shortfall for barely five months. Taking in a lodger? If you have small children? We need to get real. Instead, if they cannot afford the HB cut, they may move, apparently, to the private rented sector, where their HB bill will of course increase because it is higher. That, of course, is if they can find a landlord to take them, given their past history of possible rent arrears, and if they can find the deposit—a month’s rent in advance—together with moving costs, curtains and carpets, which may come to £1,500 out of savings of £300. In rural Norfolk, all this takes place close to the school that the children go to. It is simply not possible. If the family moves after falling into arrears, which private landlord will accept them anyway?

The impact analysis is revealing—it sort of knows all this. It expects savings of £700 million, but this is based on the presumption that families do not move but stay put, are fined and have their HB cut. I quote page 2:

“If a significant number of tenants wished to move, this would reduce direct savings and place extra demands on social landlords”.

A couple with a child in Crawley, quoted by Shelter and Crisis, moving from three-bed social housing to a two-bed private rented flat would see their HB bill rise by £66 a week. The savings—and this is key—are based not on people moving to smaller accommodation but on their being fined for not moving because the stock is not there and for staying put. In other words, the Government are basing their savings not on people doing what the Government say they should do but on their not doing it. The Government need their public policy, for people to move home, to fail if they are to ensure that their private policy—to cut HB and make the savings off the fines for people not moving as normally required—succeeds.

I was pretty horrified when I read that. You might think that issues around underoccupation were at the very least being propelled by a huge increase in overcrowding, so that, however reluctantly, underoccupying families should move to make way for those in greater need. It is not so. On average, 5 to 6 per cent of all households in all rented sectors are overcrowded; 40 to 50 per cent are fit; 40 to 50 per cent are underoccupied, many of them containing pensioners. So the needs of the overcrowded could be met if we were able to meet the requests of pensioners and others to downsize. No force majeure is required, except that we do not have the stock to do it.

This is not about the need of other families for the house that you are underoccupying; it is about artificially capping the HB bill knowing that there is insufficient stock for tenants to move into and then pocketing the fines because they have no alternative course of action. That is not a proper way to behave. They stay put because they cannot move and arrears mount because they have run out of savings. What do the Government suggest local authorities and housing associations then do? Should they evict them? As I said, how many private landlords will take on a tenant with rent arrears? No judicial review, and there will be plenty of those, would regard them as intentionally homeless—in which circumstances the local authority would give them priority housing and back they would come again into social housing, where everybody can find a home, or go into B&B at five times the cost. But if they are not evicted, arrears mount rapidly and a housing association’s balance sheet goes into the red. It may already have tripled the amount set aside for rent arrears due to direct payments to tenants. It could now expect it to double again if it does not evict.

We have four solutions. First, we can follow Amendment 44, aligning the DWP’s definition of overcrowding with that of the DCLG and largely define the problem away. This is the solution that I prefer, but I accept that it has cost implications. Secondly, we can build and better balance the stock, but that will take years, as our building programme is being halved by DCLG. We can, thirdly, ask local authorities to use their discretionary housing payments to top up, except that my local authority ran out of money halfway through the financial year—last November, in fact—and even then had helped only a few families. The £60 million, although welcome, will go nowhere near to meeting or softening cuts of £2 billion-plus. The final option is the path of these amendments. We place the responsibility on the landlord and not the tenant. They do not say no change; they are genuinely a compromise. If the social landlord can make an offer of appropriate accommodation, the tenant will be expected to take it or take on the HB shortfall and government make their savings. But if the landlord cannot do so because the homes are simply not there, as in my housing association, then HB continues exactly as was.

We sanction people in JSA if they do not seek work, because they can and should. We use the threat of sanction to change their behaviour. What we do not do is sanction them if, after a proper job search, they cannot find a job, because no change in their behaviour can change the economy and job vacancy rates. We sanction them according to what we can reasonably expect them to do and how they change their behaviour. This is about job searching, not a lack of job success.

Similarly, it may be reasonable to sanction by HB cuts someone who is grossly underoccupying a house that a much larger family desperately needs and who could change their behaviour by downsizing. We could debate that, but to sanction families for not moving when they cannot change their behaviour and cannot move because of the housing stock is not a sanction but a punishment of people who not only have committed no offence but who can do nothing to avoid the sanction by changing their behaviour. That is wrong. We should not fine some of the poorest people in the country who have been set up to fail. It is not their fault, and it is not decent, and I really hope that the Minister, who I am sure will share these worries, can indicate that he accepts the principle of the compromise of this or some subsequent amendment. We would all be happy to discuss further with him how this might be done. I beg to move.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I want to put a couple of points to the Minister on a particular aspect of the availability of suitable accommodation. I will describe the city of Glasgow because it is the biggest city I know. I stay adjacent to it and I know quite a bit about the different types of housing there. Some is council accommodation. My noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham has indicated that size is important and that people can be in a small room that is classed as a room. Glasgow has what are called three-stairs-up tenements, which are usually in red or grey sandstone tenement blocks. The rooms are smaller in the likes of Dennistoun, Townhead and some older parts of the city centre, but massive in the likes of Shawlands, King’s Park and Langside. If someone was “forced” to move from a small two-bedroom flat in Dennistoun to King’s Park or Shawlands, they would be dancing up the stairs, because it would be a vast improvement on the living space that they had had. They would soon get a sofa bed in the living room.

I am leading up to the fact that this is a very difficult situation and I really do not know how this can be done. Has any assessment been made to address the main thrust of my noble friend’s amendment, which deals with the fact that the size of rooms is just as important as the number of rooms? As I say, it would baffle me, but there are highly paid people working for the Government who should at least be able to test this. My question is therefore: has some consideration been given to assessing the size of rooms compared with the number of rooms in individual cases?

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I support the amendment, which was so comprehensively moved by my noble friend Lady Hollis. One of the concerns of the organisations that have written about the Government’s proposals relates to the plan to reduce housing benefit for working-age tenants who are allegedly underoccupying social homes. From 2013, some 670,000 social housing tenants receiving housing benefit could lose an average of £676 a year, because under the new rules their homes could be deemed too large for their needs. The cuts could force them to choose between moving away, and thus leaving any local support networks or supportive neighbours, or going into debt. This could be particularly difficult for disabled claimants, many of whom could have had their homes adapted to deal with their disability. A spare bedroom may be necessary should family members visit or if the aid of a carer is required. There may well be no similar accommodation available in the locality. Some of the amendments before the Committee attempt to deal with these problems.

Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Browning]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkwood for initiating this debate, because it gives me an opportunity—my noble friend the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say this—to raise the case of people on the autistic spectrum, particularly in respect of the exemptions as outlined in the order.

Reference has already been made to the fact that there are exemptions. The exemption that would particularly affect people with autism is the one applicable to people who had been able to live independently and are entitled to severe disability premium. However, severe disability premium requires people to be in receipt of the middle or higher rate of the care component of disability living allowance, a benefit which is itself under review. The regulations are due to come into force in January next year. How will this timescale fit in with those people who are currently in receipt of the middle or higher of DLA care component but who may when decisions are being made about their eligibility for exemption under these regulations suddenly find that they are no longer in receipt of DLA at all or have been downgraded to a lower rate?

I know that my noble friend has great knowledge about autism. He has taken particular care to make sure that he understands the way in which autism manifests itself. He will therefore understand, I know only too well, that somebody who has been able to achieve independent living will have been through a journey to reach that point. For somebody on the autistic spectrum to be expected to share accommodation with another person would almost certainly be traumatic. It would affect their whole demeanour and well-being. The consequences of disturbing what for people with autism is very often a rigid way of life may be serious. Getting them to the point where they can maintain independent living is achievable and we are seeing more and more of it. It is sometimes but not always done with some external support—very often, voluntary support comes from family members and others; it is not necessarily an official package of care from social services. However, we aspire as a Government and a society to get more people on the spectrum to live independently.

I am extremely concerned about the impact of these changes, and I have made available to my noble friend’s officials a letter which I received only this week from the mother of a 32 year-old man who has been living independently for three years and who is in receipt of £93.45 a week. That is income support and the lower DLA rate, so he certainly would not qualify for the exemption. At the moment he is being paid £103.56 in housing benefit and it is calculated that he will lose £43 of that when this change comes in. Forty-three pounds out of an income of £93.45 a week is a significant amount. His mother is clearly aware of these changes and what the impact will be for her son. She writes a very moving three-page letter about what she thinks might happen to him as a result, concluding,

“local authorities will have available a pot of money that they can, at their discretion, use to help people make up the shortfalls in their benefit. Knowing this, though, will condemn those with autism to months of anxiety over whether they would be successful in benefiting from this. These months of anxiety will overwhelm many. The waiting is certainly causing James untold worry”.

I note that the Merits Committee report talks about the discretionary sum and expresses some concern. In paragraph 5 on page 5 it states:

“That increase must be used to cover all calls on the discretionary budget; no additional provision has been made to address any demands arising from these changes to the SAR regulations”.

My noble friend will understand immediately my concern about the way in which this might affect those living independently with a diagnosis of autism or Asperger’s syndrome. Many will not qualify for the exemption. The disruption to their lives will not only be severe in terms of their well-being and health but will, like a pack of cards, ripple out to other services that may have been involved in providing for them. Once you destabilise them in one area of their life, everything else starts to fall down like a pack of cards. So I hope my noble friend will take a look at this mother’s letter and perhaps take another look at how we might mitigate the distress that will almost certainly be caused to this very vulnerable group of people.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I join the ranks of those thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, for bringing this forward for discussion, to make sure that it is aired, and for taking the opportunity to try to mitigate some of the effect of the regulation. The deficit has been mentioned. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, that these are not the broadest backs that the pressure is falling on. The pressure is falling on these vulnerable people for an annual saving of £200 million. I believe in fiscal rectitude and I do not have any bother saving money, but with a group of people like this, whose vulnerability has been described by several colleagues, I think the deficit is the excuse for bringing out this measure. A colleague mentioned that perhaps it has been a long-term ambition of the department—not the particular individuals who happen to be here. But the consequences here are so drastic more serious consideration should have been given to pilots. I know that when a new Government come in, there is a determination not to be caught up in delays. The Government are in a hurry and they want to get things through. I have seen it happen and been part of it and I have the experience to regret some of it. I think that is what is happening here. They have been saying, “Get a decision. Get it made. Get it through”. I think it is pretty poor that people like these are in that position.

Although I have no intention of repeating the valuable comments made by colleagues, I will rely heavily on the reports produced by the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Merits Committee. The SSAC report makes a plea for delay by stating:

“We recommend that the proposals do not go ahead in their current form”.

In paragraph 23 of the Government’s response to the advisory committee’s report, after mentioning that the Government,

“does not accept the Committee’s view that the proposals are driven solely by the need to reduce the Housing Benefit budget”,

the Government claim that the changes will remove a “potential work disincentive”. Now, I have seen some daft and totally irrelevant things put into official documents—I might even have put in one or two myself—but what is a “potential work disincentive”? I do not know what that means. Perhaps the Minister could give us examples of where he imagines that might happen; it will be difficult for him to provide proof as there is very little evidence for anything in this measure. I would like to hear some examples of where this disincentive would take place.

Indeed, the Social Security Advisory Committee report states:

“On work incentives the Committee contends”—

and I think that normal life would confirm this—

“that the impact of the changes for Housing Benefit claimants already in work could result in a move to a location some distance from their place of work”.

Colleagues should be clear that, in many people’s lives, this could result in a big disruption, which should not be underestimated. A pilot would have been useful.

We are in danger of creating an itinerant population—a phrase that I have used elsewhere—who will be easily identifiable because they will be vulnerable for many reasons. As I have seen for myself, for people suffering from alcohol problems and from various degrees of mental ill health, security and permanence are very important. Moving people about in this way is not something that any British Government should be doing to part of its population.

I may be a touch cynical, but I wonder whether the reason that this particular group has been selected to bear £200 million-worth of cuts is that these people are not a very effectively organised part of the community: they are invariably not members of trade unions or interested in getting involved with trade union activity; they are not involved with community councils or politics; instead, they are on their own trying to cope with the situation in which they find themselves. Like the Government, I have no evidence for saying this, but it would be realistic to say that the percentage of these people who vote will not be too high, because not many of them will have any faith in politics—I would find it hard to argue with them when they say that. The Government would have picked an easy target for cutting £200 million, were it not for the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood.

Another interesting, and depressing, point is that, according to my reading of the Government’s response to the Social Security Advisory Committee’s report—if I am wrong, the Minister will contradict me—not one of the advisory committee’s recommendations was agreed to. Where is the listening to, or taking account of, the terrific experience of the people who serve on that committee? Not one of the committee’s recommendations was agreed to even partially. There is just a total blank.

Others will no doubt speak about their own areas, but I believe that the danger point here is likely to be the cities, where the drifters seem to congregate. For example, page 70 of the advisory committee’s report lists the number of claimants by area and the average amount lost per week. In the City of Edinburgh, 590 people, or 17 per cent of the caseload, will on average lose £37 a week. In Glasgow City—I am not a Glaswegian, but I live next to that city and know that it has many problems—800 people, or 25 per cent of the caseload, will on average lose £22 a week. In my own council area of South Lanarkshire, which does not have a big city but nevertheless includes some big towns, some 270 people, or 23 per cent of that sector of the population, will on average lose £11 a week. I know that some might say, “That’s up to them. It’s just £11 and they will manage with that”. However, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, given the current situation in which utility costs and all the rest of it are rocketing up, losing £11 a week against that background of rising prices will be really difficult.

It will not make any difference to the Government, but a lot of us are worried about the availability of accommodation. Will they get accommodation? Will it be suitable? There is no evidence that the landlord sector will be able to guarantee availability of alternative accommodation. Folk will have to deal with that. They will face an upheaval in their lives plus cash losses. Collectively, we should not be proud of doing that to this sector of society. Having mentioned society, I shall finish with this statement. We are told by the Prime Minister—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular—that they want to establish the big society. They say that we are all in it together. I do not see many people in society who will feel in it together with these vulnerable people.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, although I did not intend to speak after the amendment was moved so excellently by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, she holds to the hope that the Minister’s attitude is not set in stone, so I have decided to contribute a point of view. One thing about the other place along the Corridor is that its Members come from various backgrounds, especially from working people. That House achieves a balance and gets a view that perhaps individuals over here do not have. When people over there hear a view, it may influence how they vote on legislation.

My noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope said that he does not have much experience of this, but I sure that if he thinks back to where he comes from—Cranhill, a housing estate in Glasgow—he will remember that when the family allowance of eight shillings was paid on every week on Tuesday, it was a lifesaver. He was also correct to point out that it is being sexist against women to say that they carried the burden of budgeting. They were responsible for making sure that the family budget and the household were run properly. Certainly that was the case in my family, one with a very matriarchal mother. Without her, I think our family would have been lost. I can assure colleagues that the certainty of a weekly payment, not a monthly payment, is still very important to a certain sector of society.

The amendments offer choice. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, criticised that as perhaps being confusing, but the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, in very reasonable tones defended and advocated it. I certainly believe in the choice outlined in these amendments. In addition, other amendments would provide the certainty of knowing that these decisions, which will impact on so many people’s lives, will be covered by a review. We can look at the evidence to see the effect of different types of payment periods.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s attitude and I hope that my noble friend Lady Lister has read it right. I want to bring to the debate the point of view of someone from a family for whom, when we were growing up, that payment of eight shillings of family allowance was worth a lot. I am sure that quite a lot of people remember the family allowance, although I had better be quiet about age. I can assure the Minister and my colleagues that that eight shillings a week in family allowance, paid every Tuesday to the mother, the person who actually ran the household and looked after the children, was absolutely essential. I hope therefore that the Minister can see his way at least to considering some movement on that.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, before the debate continues, I have to say that I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, has somewhat misunderstood what I said. I came down firmly in favour of fortnightly payments. What I did not say, if for no other reason, was that the move from weekly to fortnightly payments is so recent. I do not believe that it has yet bedded down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I think the noble Lord, with his normal subtlety in his amendment, has made a distinction between bi-monthly and fortnightly. This is one of those issues, to be honest, where if you start delving into it, you will end up with daily rates because of the arbitrariness of both weeks and months. It is not a straightforward thing to do. Clearly, at one level all the utility systems are driven on a monthly basis, while other areas are driven on a weekly basis. With this system, we are one of the drivers of the way people behave and of social change. We should not forget that; how we do this will shape the norm, so it is not just a question of saying, “This is what everyone does. We must adapt to it”. There is an element of saying, “If we do it like this, we will shape the way people arrange their lives”.

Lord McAvoy: The system has a degree of flexibility if you alter the way benefits are paid. For instance, when it is a holiday Monday, the whole thing seems to change and payments can be altered then.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, in the spirit of developing a system together, which we seem to have moved into, we can look at a greater amount of flexibility. Some things are not that expensive to do, but others are. Payment systems are not necessarily hugely difficult. I do not have my computer gurus sitting around me whispering how much things cost, but my feeling is that there are areas of flexibility here which we are going to explore in great detail in the next year or so in order to get this right. We can be flexible and make changes if we feel that things are not right.

I turn now to the series of questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the relationship with housing benefit. I will try to deal with them one by one. The universal credit will be an itemised statement. It is being developed and at the moment comprises three layers. You will see the summary on the top sheet, so to speak, and a somewhat more elaborated thing when you hit the button for the next level, and then you see pages of the stuff at the third level, which we do not think a lot of people will go to. However, we give them the option to do that. The statement is simple; it itemises the intention. The structure that we have arrived at has been the subject of a lot of toing and froing with the customer insight people. A couple of weeks ago I sat on one side of a piece of glass watching how people were using the system. That is where we have ended up in that particular bit.

I was asked whether this process would be slowed down to the rate of the slowest element. Where you have some decided elements, the JSA rate and so on, we should be able to get that going straight away without tying it up. We will be able to separate out elements with new claims involving big new changes rather than the whole claim waiting for the last little bit of evidence on, say, housing to come through. We are looking at tackling this matter much more flexibly.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Thursday 6th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Freud]

I think noble Lords will be somewhat relieved at the approach and will get quite a lot of information from the impact assessment on universal credit on its own. If it comes out soon, as I expect, there will be an opportunity to debate it again, perhaps around Clause 11, or possibly Clause 8, when we can look at the taper, so there will be a chance reasonably soon to look at the implications again.

[Lord McAvoy]

Before the Minister passes on to the next issue—that may have been a Freudian slip—he has charmingly used the words “soon” and “very soon” to, quite frankly, parry requests for a wee bit more detail on timing. Can he give us an idea whether the assessments that he keeps referring to are operating at a normal pace? Is there an expectation about how long that should take? Are these assessments that we are waiting on taking longer than he would expect?

[Lord Freud]

No, we had anticipated that this impact assessment would come out during Committee stage, and I think we said that. I hope I gave noble Lords a reasonable clue when I suggested the opportunities we might have to debate it because I referred to a couple of clauses that, depending on our speed of progress, we will get to soon.

I shall return to the main topic and the question of pensioners. Noble Lords will be aware that there have been persistent concerns about the low level of take-up of council tax benefit among pensioners. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has had this as her absolute central focus. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, pointed out, there was cross-party consensus on the word “rebate” a couple of years ago. Many have argued that the reasons that pensioners are reluctant to claim are because it is an income-related benefit and because they believe that the process for claiming it is complicated and intrusive. We believe that there is a strong and persuasive case that council tax support for pensioners will be better delivered through localised schemes of support. Noble Lords will have seen that DCLG’s consultation paper stresses that the position of current and future pensioners should be fully protected.

I will take the opportunity to answer the specific questions raised by my noble friend Lord Newton. The allocation of cash to local authorities will be based on existing CTB expenditure, less 10 per cent. The current cost of delivering housing benefit and CTB is £500 million per year. I am not able to say what the new system will cost, mainly because the consultation that DCLG is conducting has not been concluded.

My noble friend raised the appeal process. The consultation paper does not set out a final view on what that process might be, and it is the subject of one of the consultation questions. The nature of the appeals system will depend on the final design of the system.

To summarise, the approach the Government are taking on the aspects that this amendment raises is the right one. Therefore, I thank noble Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I ask the Minister for some brief clarification. If I am picking it up correctly, the definitive removal of any option for anybody aged 16 to apply for these benefits under the special circumstances is proposed. I have the benefit—it might not have seemed like a benefit at the time—of 23 years of parliamentary surgeries as a former Member of the other place. There is one thing these surgeries teach you, and that is that there can be no definitives in dealing with human beings. I can certainly recall occasions—not hundreds but certainly scores over the years—when people of that age had special circumstances. I am worried about the reasons for removing the possibility of applying, and about the alternatives being brought into legislation to account for that option being removed. I always worry about definitives and a lack of options, and I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Amendments 18 and 19 seek to amend the basic conditions of entitlement to universal credit and would in effect limit our ability to provide for exceptions to those conditions. Amendment 20 would create a new regulation-making power to set out circumstances in which certain groups are to be treated as not receiving education: specifically, young people, parents and disabled students. Clause 4 sets out the basic conditions that must be met in order to be entitled to universal credit. These basic conditions are designed to be simple and easily understood, fitting together with the support for people in education and for older people through state pension credit. However, as I am sure noble Lords will agree, there are always exceptions to the general rule, and it has never been our intention that these basic conditions will be so prescriptive as to prevent certain groups of people being entitled to universal credit. In that sense, we are entirely in accordance with the sentiments just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy.

Amendment 17 seeks to make universal credit adopt the principle that entitlement to support begins at 16 rather than at 18. We intend to maintain the current rules where 18 is the minimum age. This is consistent with the approach taken by the previous Administration, and we see no reason to change it. Equally, however, there are circumstances where people aged 16 or 17 should be entitled to universal credit in their own right. This includes people with responsibility for a child, disabled people and people estranged from their parents. Sixteen and 17 year-olds should be in education or training and not living on benefits. If we were to set the lower age limit to 16, we would send the wrong message to young people and their parents about the value of education and the strength of the family unit.

We will continue to support young people who find themselves in straitened and difficult circumstances through leaving care, family break-up or whatever, at the age of 16. We are not planning to change the rules for care leavers in any way. However, as a result of the last Government’s Children (Leaving Care) Act, care leavers cannot usually claim benefits until the age of 18. That is why the Bill makes provision in subsection (3) of this clause, and why I do not think that the amendment is necessary.

Amendment 18 seeks to remove the regulation-making powers that will allow us to provide for exceptions to the basic conditions. While we would still be able to specify some of them through other subsections of the clause, the amendment would limit our ability to make provision in all cases. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate the importance of flexibility in these matters. The power can in any event be used only to extend eligibility, not restrict it.

Amendment 19 would remove subsection (5), which allows us to make regulations in respect of residence and presence. We have been clear that migrants will generally be able to claim universal credit only if they have a right to reside here and are habitually resident. This position has not changed—and was reiterated by the Secretary of State and Minister for Employment just last week. In the tough financial conditions we currently face, it is particularly important that UK taxpayers should not have to subsidise people with very tenuous links to this country. “In Great Britain” is the same formulation as in the primary legislation for income support. Nothing sinister is implied by the wording.

On the question of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the EU ramifications, we do not expect to have to renegotiate social security treaties, although he will be aware that there is considerable movement currently going on about export of benefits, which we are concerned about. Removing the powers in this subsection would also prevent us providing for circumstances in which a person can be treated as being in Great Britain although they are temporarily absent. Current provisions allow us, for example, to pay benefits to people who may have gone abroad for a short period of time to receive medical treatment for themselves or their children. They also, in the case of tax credits, ensure that service personnel and their families are not prevented from claiming because they have been posted overseas. We want to replicate this position within universal credit. The amendment would prevent us doing that. This is a valuable thing for us to be able to do: I am sure that that is not a contentious claim to make in this Committee.

Amendment 20 would require the Secretary of State to specify the circumstances in which certain groups will not be treated as receiving education. There is a long-standing principle that in general the benefits system should not be a source of financial support for those within the education system. Young people are primarily the responsibility of their parents until they leave school. Students in higher education have access to a comprehensive system of student loans and grants. However, there have always been exceptions to the general rule and, as the Minister for Employment made clear during debate in the other place—and I am happy to repeat here—the current boundaries that exist in relation to income-related benefits will not be redrawn.

We do not wish to widen the extent of support for those in education. Nor do we intend to remove support from those groups of young people and students who currently receive it under the current system, such as lone parents, disabled students and youngsters in non-advanced education who are living independently. The powers we need to do this are already contained in subsections (2) and (6)(b) of the clause. We do not need to make the extra provision that this amendment would provide.

I apologise if that was a lengthy summary of our position. I need to track back a little bit because I may have inadvertently misled noble Lords on the point of support for care leavers. I want to make absolutely clear with regard to care leavers that our support is constrained by the previous Government’s Children (Leaving Care) Act, which starts the clock for them at 18. I think that I inadvertently said 16 earlier and want to make sure that that is absolutely clear and on the record. With that explanation and assurance, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, we have had a number of really excellent contributions from very experienced people this evening—in particular from my noble colleague Lord Kirkwood, whose contribution was certainly worth listening to. I intend to concentrate on housing and hope to cut two or three minutes off my speech, and if the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, would regard those few minutes as off-setting his, I hope he will regard them as a gift from me—although some of his colleagues may say, “Beware of Tommy bearing gifts”. But you never know.

Like many colleagues, I, too, have a number of briefing notes, particularly from Scotland. There was one from Sense Scotland with which I certainly agree. It said: “We are concerned that the focus in the Welfare Reform Bill as proposed is on cutting costs rather than on the principles of a fair and equal society, although reference is made to fairness in the proposals without specifying what it means for people in their day to day lives”. We have been told this evening that the country cannot afford to pay for benefits; we have been told that the country is in a terrible state financially, so therefore these measures have got to be taken. There was not a word about the bankers, not a word about the people in the financial world who brought this situation about and still get their large bonuses, not a word about tackling them. It is all about tackling the people on benefits; that indicates the priorities of the Government.

I said that I was going to concentrate on the housing aspect of the Bill, and another briefing note I received was from Caritas Social Action Network. It says that,

“the Bill will enable the Government, through secondary legislation, to enact proposals relating to housing benefits”.

That is what I want to deal with. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, wrote in a letter to Archbishop Nichols in July 2011 that,

“based on the most recent impact assessment, the Government is still unable to estimate how many people will be left without accommodation”.

As for under-occupancy, I was brought up with my mother from the age of seven and we lived in a house which, in the current situation, would have been taken from us. We would have been forced to move because of the under-occupancy rule. We would have had to leave the community in which my mother and I were born and brought up. God knows where we would have gone or the condition of the house to which we would have been sent.

The under-occupancy rules will result in a large group of people being prodded and poked out of their houses and made to go elsewhere because they cannot afford to stay. Their housing benefit will be cut because they allegedly have been given too much. I am not sure whether the Government realise that the social engineering in which they are participating will create a large group of people who will be alienated from and by society. They will be treated differently and as people who are not quite of society or of the country. Severe discrimination could take place and it would be criminal. I will be blunt. The situation will affect people who have no understanding of how a whole swathe of working class people live. I am no social liberal and do not condone benefit fraud—I am quite hard-line on that—but I have to say that, measured on the scale of the situation created by the bankers and financiers, this is an overreaction. This is setting up an Aunt Sally. It will single people out and society will pay a price for it.

I am well aware of the limitations of this place. I support this place as a revising Chamber and not as a place for defeating the Government of the day. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is correct, and we hope that there will not be any votes in Committee or at any further stages because changes will already have been made. I was also pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, mention the time factor, although I do not think that he will have to push too hard. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, has indicated that he favours 12 days in Committee, with which I would go along.

In short, I hope, as the noble Baroness said, that we get change. I feel frustrated and angry about the owner-occupancy rules but I accept the limitations of this place. I hope that the two minutes that I have cut will go some way to helping my colleagues.