Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment of my noble friends. On a visit to a Centrepoint hostel in Soho several years ago, I spoke with a very young girl—16 or 17 perhaps—and asked her why she was there. She said that her mother had a new boyfriend who did not want her around. The OECD said in its report on family formation that this country will overtake the United States in the 2030s in terms of the numbers of young people growing up without a father in the home. We have to think about the changes in families and about the Children’s Commissioner’s report on the sexual exploitation of children. Most sexual exploitation takes place within the family, from people within the family who the children know. Some 90% of lone parents are going to be women, and if different men are regularly coming into the household, this issue of girls in such households having worries about sexual exploitation or being sexually exploited also has to be considered. I commend the amendment to the Minister.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, as your Lordships have heard, we have added out name to Amendment 60 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and I cannot think why we did not do likewise for Amendment 62C, which we support and which also has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.

The proposition to remove access to the housing element of universal credit for 18 to 21 year-olds from April 2017 has been some time in the making. Its progression—or, more likely, regression—can be tracked from a series of references by the Prime Minister at his party conference. Its original focus was to remove housing benefit for people aged 16 to 24, but this has now been narrowed, as we have heard, to 18 to 21 year-olds for universal credit. There are of course already lower levels of housing benefit allowances for single people under 25 and couples under 18, as well as restrictions under the shared accommodation rate. Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister’s desire to have an extended denial of housing benefit or universal credit for 16 to 25 year-olds is now off the agenda? The rationale for the policy has a familiar refrain:

“This will ensure young people in the benefits system face the same choices as young people who work and who may not be able to afford to leave home”.

That is a simplistic view of the choices facing many young people and in any event ignores the fact that housing benefit can be claimed by those in work.

This policy is being introduced at the same time as the new youth obligation for 18 to 21 year-olds on universal credit—the so-called boot camp. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, points out, we are promised that there will be exemptions, and the amendment is probing what might be available. The policy starts from April 2017 for 18 to 21 year-olds who are out of work. Can the Minister confirm specifically that there will be protection for vulnerable claimants, as spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and that they will definitely include those with recent experience of work, young people living in homeless hostels or domestic violence refugees, care leavers, those with dependent children, those receiving ESA, or its equivalent, or income support and those who cannot live at home?

Like the noble Lord, Lord Low, we are grateful for the briefing provided by Crisis and its insights into the consequences of these proposals should they not be ameliorated—in particular, the consequences for those who are homeless or who have experienced or are at risk of homelessness. Its briefing reminds us that if the protections and exemptions are not sufficient, any savings from this measure will be wiped out by costs elsewhere, mostly from increased homelessness.

The policy has generated a range of criticism, as we have heard. The Chartered Institute of Housing says that it could mean young people being less willing to take risks in moving for work because of the removal of a safety net. Centrepoint says that claiming housing benefit is for many a short-term solution to a situation they find themselves in, providing them with a safety net from which they can get their lives back on track. Shelter opposes the measure because it asserts that,

“every young adult deserves somewhere safe and decent to live”—

and who could disagree with that?

House of Commons briefing paper number No. 06473 of 26 August 2015 refers to the Uncertain Futures paper published by YMCA England. This points out that, of the estimated 3.2 million 18 to 21 year-olds, just over 19,000 young people are currently claiming jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit, and that 71% of the 18 to 21 year olds who access JSA do so for less than six months. It also points out that 7,200 young care leavers between 19 and 21 years-old in England are currently out of work and would potentially be able to claim JSA and housing benefit and that nearly 1,400 18 to 21 year-olds are currently living in YMCA supported accommodation and claim JSA and housing benefit. It points out, on lifestyle choice and the assertion that people just want to live on the dole, that most young people are entitled to £57.90 a week in JSA—frankly, what we would blow on a meal at the weekend.

YMCA England concludes:

“By removing automatic entitlement to Housing Benefit for 18 to 21 year olds the Government could be in danger of inadvertently taking away support from the young people who need it most and in doing so, exposing many more vulnerable young people to the risk of becoming homeless and therefore damaging their prospects of finding work in the future. Action is needed to address youth unemployment, but without protections thousands of vulnerable young people will face uncertain futures, not knowing if they will have anywhere they can call home and leaving them less able to find work”.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the Government’s policy proposal is to remove automatic entitlement to the housing cost elements of universal credit for certain young people aged 18 to 21. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that that is the Government’s policy. It will apply only to relevant 18 to 21 year-old claimants who make new claims in the areas where UC digital has rolled out. This will ensure young people in the benefits system face the same choices as young people who work and who may not be able to afford to leave the family home.

I start with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. It is not fair that taxpayers should have to pay for young people who are not working to be able to live independently when young people in work or education may not be able to afford to do so. Having said that, the Government recognise that vulnerable people need to be protected. Work is currently being undertaken with a wide range of stakeholder groups to understand who these vulnerable young people may be. I can reassure the noble Baroness that the policy will not stop people looking for work in other areas of the country in the same way that young people not reliant on benefits can look for opportunities away from where they live.

We need to complete the consultation work in order to ensure that a robust policy is put in place. I acknowledge the remarks of a wide range of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord McKenzie, but we are doing this work. It is too soon to make decisions on the specific exemptions that will be applied, but we will bring forward detailed proposals once the work is completed—although, to anticipate the question, that will not be in time for Report. Indeed, to jog back to the previous amendment, I do not anticipate that the work on the work allowances that we discussed in UC would be done in time for Report. As I mentioned previously, the change will apply only to new universal credit claims from April 2017.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Suri (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to support Amendment 67, which is crucial. At present, the disability employment gap means that disabled people are over 20% less likely than their counterparts to be in full-time employment. Employment has many benefits other than the obvious one of economic advantage. The recognition of your employment acts as an important societal signal, improving your reputation among your peers. Furthermore, in what the Prime Minister has termed the “global race”, the cost to the country of having unutilised human capital is immense. Quite simply, high levels of unemployment for the disabled are not something we can afford.

The new clause which Amendment 67 would introduce would nudge the Secretary of State into dealing properly with this issue, and laying out a clear strategy to close the disability employment gap. The current Secretary of State has made significant strides towards helping the disabled into work. It would also allow Members of Parliament and Peers to scrutinise the work done in this field separate from any other scrutiny of employment statistics which goes on. Some might argue that this is not required or that it is impracticable to have a separate report for disabled people but, as the amendment says, these people are,

“marginalised from the labour force and require a specific focus”.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, before I get to Amendment 62, I will comment on the range of amendments which other noble Lords have spoken to. Each of these has the aspiration of getting appropriate reporting requirements from the Government, particularly to address the challenge of closing the disability employment gap. We heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans about the importance of reporting, particularly in the context of something such as the ESA WRAG. If that is going to challenge closing the employment gap then reporting is needed to make sure it is better addressed. He said that we have ignored for too long the aspiration of disabled people to work.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

I can answer that. It is a general way across the world that social scientists compare family to family of different sizes so there are ways of weighting each child or adult in the family.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a thoughtful and extensive debate. Amendments 24 and 26 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, would cause data on low-income families where one or both parents are in work—that is, in-work poverty—to be reported.

We support these amendments. We know, as we have heard, that some two-thirds of children living in poverty are in working families and that whatever the climbdown on tax credits, the Government have in-work support in their sights. If we are concerned with measures that look at the current experience of poverty as well as the risk of poverty, there seems no logic in including out-of-work but not in-work poverty, although the policy levers may be different.

Amendment 25 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, seeks to retain the current income measures in the Child Poverty Act. We, of course, support that. Our Amendment 46 does the same but retains that Act’s targets as well.

The absence of income measures cannot be justified and runs counter to pretty much all the evidence or views of those engaged with child poverty. The Government’s suggestion that income measures are a symptom of poverty, rather than a cause, is too simplistic. My noble friend Lady Blackstone gave us a great example relating to educational attainment. If people are poor they do not have the same opportunity to have the same equipment at home; they do not necessarily have books at home and they do not necessarily go to school with a meal inside them so that they can be more attentive at school. It is simplistic to say that one is looking at the experience of poverty and that it is not a symptom of poverty.

In its July 2015 response to the Government’s child poverty statement—a number of noble Lords referred to this—the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission stated:

“The commission has argued in the past that a more rounded way of measuring poverty—taking … account of causal risk factors—is sensible. The life chances of children, the poorest especially, depend on many things … It is not credible, however, to try to improve the life chances of the poor without acknowledging the most obvious symptom of poverty, lack of money”.

Pretty much every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate, with the possible exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, agreed with that proposition. She asserts that looking at simplistic measures of income contains a number of flaws, but my noble friend Lady Hollis made clear that the Child Poverty Act 2010 had four measures. You need to look at the circumstances in aggregate, not just at one snapshot in time.

CPAG says:

“We believe that poverty is a condition marked by a lack of adequate resources, some of which may not be financial. Nonetheless, an inadequate income remains the decisive characteristic of poverty and must remain central to any poverty measurement”.

A number of noble Lords referred to the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the LSE and the work that it did. It looked at the responses to the DWP’s consultation on child poverty measures, which sought to test the level of support for replacing the existing measures with new dimensions, including those provided for in the Bill. As we have heard, the research shows that there is a very high level of support for the existing measures in the current Act. Most wanted no change and those who countenanced additional dimensions saw this as supplementary information, but not as measures of child poverty itself. Most respondents were of the view that lack of material resources— income—was the very core of child poverty. We agree with that. It is suggested that respondents to the consultation saw the proposals to change the measures as bringing to an end the official measurement of child poverty in the UK. How does the Minister respond to that? He will doubtless tell us that the HBAI figures will still be published as now, but we know from our prior deliberations—the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, made this point—that what gets reported under Clause 4 will be the focus of the Government’s attention. That is why they are approaching it this way.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am sorry to intervene, but I wanted to ask the Minister whether he could answer a specific question relating to that. I know that there are some fears about this among academic social scientists and the voluntary sector. I absolutely accept the Minister’s assurances that the households below average income statistics will continue to be published, but will he assure the Committee that they will be really clear and published in an accessible form, not just as a load of Excel tables that some of us will not be able to understand? It is very important that we have that assurance on the record.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I doubt there is much that she does not understand or is incapable of understanding, but she asked a highly relevant question. I hope that the Minister will give that assurance.

We have had a number of contributions to this debate. My noble friend Lord Liddle took us back in history but stressed the importance of the work that went into developing these measures in the first instance, enjoining the skills of Tony Atkinson. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham recognised the value of having worklessness and educational attainment as part of a measure. However, he said that that was not sufficient; there needs to be a focus on income if life chances are to be influenced and addressed.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, supported the existing measures in legislation. I think that the Child Poverty Act was the first legislation that the Minister worked on in opposition when he joined this place. At the end of the day, I thought that we had pretty much cross-party agreement, although it is fair to say that the Minister said there were other aspects of poverty which he thought should be reported as well. However, I do not believe that is the same as tearing up the Child Poverty Act, which is what this piece of legislation seeks to do. This is a very important issue because, unless we look at income, we will not address the here and now of poverty. It is all very well looking at some of those factors which have medium and long-term effects on people’s life chances, but we also need to address how people without resources exist today. That is why we need these amendments.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, if we are taking a trip down memory lane, I remind the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that he unceremoniously threw out my amendment to put in four key life chance measures, which I said at the time would better reflect the real drivers of poverty, so clearly the debate has not moved on a lot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Does the noble Lord accept that the issues he was talking about were quite properly to be included in the building blocks of the strategy, which the Bill also required? It did not eschew the measures themselves.

[Lord Freud]

I shall address the amendments. I am sure the noble Lord will come back to me on some of these issues as I go through my remarks. Amendment 25, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, seeks to expand the report to include data on children living in households with low relative income combined with the other three income measures in the current Act, as we have discussed. The reason that we do not want to include those is that they fail to tackle the root causes of child poverty and focus on symptoms, which we want to replace. I will set out my argument in full. The effect of Amendment 46, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is wider still. It would prevent the repeal of those measures from the Child Poverty Act 2010.

I shall try to explain why we find the four income-related measures unfit for purpose, particularly as regards treating them as targets. The income measures they are based on are a poor test of whether children’s lives are really improving. As my noble friend Lady Stroud pointed out, in the past, they have shown child poverty falling when the economy was in recession. Much more importantly, when you look at them as a driver of decisions by a Government, they are inherently unpredictable and would lead a Government to spend finite resources on action that does not produce the best results for children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blackstone]

My Lords, though the Minister makes a commitment, will he accept that, as is so often said in this House, if there is no statutory requirement and nothing on the statute book any one of his successors could abandon that commitment? That is why we who have concerns about children in poverty want this measure to go on being collected and to be done under statute.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I agree that we should have this in legislation but can the Minister confirm that his personal commitment will cover the circumstances and the work that needs to be done to identify whether somebody is experiencing material deprivation? That is not just an income issue.

[Lord Freud]

I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, will support me here but my memory is that the material deprivation figures are in the HBAI statistics. She nods that that is the case, so I can confirm that.

I shall summarise briefly. I am not in a position to give noble Lords the one word they want, but hope I have indicated that the measures will be available to see what is happening to relative child poverty. I am convinced that it is our new life chances measures—the measures rejected six years ago by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which focus on the key drivers of worklessness and educational attainment—that will make the biggest difference to children, and that these amendments, were they on a statutory basis, would dilute that focus. We want to focus on the measures that make a real difference to children’s lives. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I rise to speak first to Amendment 31. Given the serious enthusiasm that the Government have for introducing “life chances” as a title and theme, it would make complete sense for the Government to want to report on improvement in children’s life chances in the future. So I commend this as being entirely in line with the purpose of the whole Bill—it would make sense to report.

I will speak now to Amendments 36 to 40 and 42 to 45, and I would like to keep us in the north-east of England. Yesterday, it was my privilege to open the new building for Holy Trinity primary school in Seaton Carew in Hartlepool, and to then go to Prior’s Mill primary school in Billingham, both of which are Church of England schools. I add that I have visited the school in Berwick that the noble Baroness mentioned and can confirm what she said; it is a very fine school but it has not produced people for higher education in the way that it should.

The proposal to change from a “Social Mobility Commission” to a “Life Chances Commission” gives us a very rare opportunity to change the title of a government commission so that it is understood by the very children whom it seeks to serve. Most of our departments and so on do not resonate with the life, language and conversations of children themselves. However, in both the schools I visited yesterday, I found myself talking with those children about their hopes and their dreams and their fears, but they were longing to talk about the chances and hopes that they had in life. Those were not purely about money: they were about work and home and family and so forth. Not once did I hear any of them talk about social mobility possibilities.

In all seriousness, I say that it would be a much more sensible heading and title for the commission and it would fit much more accurately with the aims and purposes that the Government have stated for life chances, so I would seize this with every opportunity. It would please the children of the nation if they understood what the commission was about.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall be brief because I know that we want to make progress today. I support wholeheartedly my noble friend Lady Lister, with her brilliant exposition as to why we should substitute “life chances” for “social mobility”. I join her in opposing the proposition that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. We have a very specific amendment in this group, Amendment 41, which is merely to delete the words, “on request”, so that the commission, whatever its final title and remit, can be proactive in offering advice to the Minister. That obviously carries the implication that the commission must be appropriately resourced. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is intended in this regard. I hesitated to raise that issue, because I feared that the Minister was going to tell me that we put it there when we were in government, but I hope that he will not. Even if we did, it seems to be entirely reasonable that it should now be expunged from the provision.

I also support those who argue that there should be proper strategies, so that you do not just have odd reporting obligations: there must be an intent to come forward with a strategy focused on life chances and on fuel poverty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, if we do not have a strategy, where is all this reporting going to lead? Given the hour, I think I will leave it there.

[Lord Freud]

I hope that what I have to say on this group of amendments will be a little more pleasing, although I do not think it will please everyone on everything. I will divide my remarks into two areas: the first on strategy and targets, and the second on the commission. It is a wide group of amendments, and that is the way they break down.

Starting with Amendment 33, I think that noble Lords who put that forward would accept that we have dealt with that pretty thoroughly when we considered Amendment 25, so I shall not reiterate all of my arguments on that matter. Noble Lords have heard my concerns about the implications of legal targets when the financial figures are so difficult to forecast.

Amendment 31 sets out exactly what information should be in the Secretary of State’s report. I think that I am going to please the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, when I explain where we are. We will publish a strategy on life chances, so that is the noble Baroness’s strategy. We will then publish an annual statutory report on the new measures: I think that is effectively what the noble Baroness is driving at. The Government have produced major new strategies, and I think that noble Lords all around the Chamber will accept that we have tried to transform all the structures of the benefits system and the support we provide for people in a coherent way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is an extremely important group of amendments. On behalf of the Labour Benches, my noble friend Lady Sherlock and I will oppose Clauses 13 and 14 standing part of the Bill and will support Amendments 50 and 53, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. We support the thrust of Amendment 52 in the names of my noble friend Lord Layard and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Tyler, which concerns access to psychological therapies. I acknowledge the campaigning work conducted by my noble friend when we were in government and the fact that he managed to move the issue of psychological therapies up the political agenda. More than that, he was significantly responsible for people getting treated.

As we have heard, Amendments 50 and 53 defer the changes to ESA coming into force until their impact on individuals’ physical and mental health, their financial situation and their ability to work has been estimated. All these matters have, in one way or another, been the subject of real concern since the substance of this policy—a £30 a week docking of the WRAG rate—became apparent. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, explained that he was particularly focused on people moving from the support group to the WRAG who were recovering from cancer. In so far as the Government’s impact assessment seeks to address these matters, it seems to conclude that it is doing claimants a favour by removing the WRAG rate and its equivalent in universal credit because this will encourage them to take steps back to work, with a consequent improvement in their health and the life chances of their children.

We should be ashamed, if not surprised, that a priority for our Government is to reduce the income of disabled people—individuals who have been assessed as not currently fit for work—from the current rate of £102 a week to just £73 a week, and to pray in aid a 10 year-old OECD report which, by all accounts, does not make a single reference to disabled people. We should also be concerned about the attempt to incentivise and coerce people into work when they have been found by a rigorous assessment not to be fit for work. There is either a lack of understanding of, or a callous disregard for, the financial circumstances that many in the WRAG face today, let alone in the future—circumstances that mean they struggle to pay their bills and maintain their health, rather than not drift into social isolation and focus on activity that will move them closer to work.

Of course, this is not a small group. There are nearly 500,000 disabled people within the ESA WRAG, almost half of them with a mental and behavioural disorder, including learning disabilities and autism. These are individuals who will need time and proper support to make it back to the labour market. Far from help with their struggles, the ESA cut will add to debt, stress and anxiety, making their journey more difficult, if not impossible, and pushing them into further poverty.

Most noble Lords here today will have received a raft of substantial and authoritative briefings from charities and other organisations whose opposition to this particular cut is remarkably consistent. We should thank them for their defence of disabled people, particularly their robust challenge to the proposition that cutting the WRAG is a work incentive. We also now have the benefit of the formal review of the proposed reduction in the employment and support allowance and how it will assist the Government’s declared aim of halving the disability employment gap.

The report was led by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Grey-Thompson, at the request of a group of charities. We should acknowledge their commitment and the clarity of their conclusions and recommendations. I hope we will hear from them and have the benefit of their expertise during this debate. One of their central recommendations was to reverse the removal of the ESA WRAG component and the equivalent payment in universal credit. This is precisely what our amendments will do. But the review is not just about objecting to the change that the Government are seeking to impose. It sets out a series of recommendations focused on helping the Government to help more disabled people move closer to and into work. Perhaps a recast amendment on Report might better capture this broader approach.

I will not attempt to outline each of the 11 recommendations of the review in the hope that others will cover some of them but of particular significance is the call to redesign the WCA, focusing on a holistic approach which understands the barriers to work that people face, and ensuring that this information is used to provide appropriate support. Not only did the review find no evidence that the £30 a week WRAG component is acting as a disincentive to work, or that reducing the payment will incentivise people to seek work, it received evidence to the contrary—that the reduction would hinder rather than help people take steps towards work.

The extra money individuals in the WRAG receive is to recognise that they are likely to be unemployed for a longer period than those receiving JSA, and that once out of the workplace disabled people find it more difficult to return. The typical time for which claimants were expected to be in the WRAG was two years; for those on JSA it was much less. This loss of resources is being imposed on a range of other measures that can affect disabled people—council tax support cuts, the bedroom tax, the benefit cap for those not on DLA/PIP—and benefit freezes are in place. The review reminds us why this extra income is so important to disabled people and why the threat of its loss—as well as the reality, should it come about—is so hazardous to their health and well-being.

Your Lordships should read the report and understand the strains of daily living for so many of our fellow citizens—individuals who would welcome the chance of moving towards and into work if we would only invest in tailored and personalised programmes to make this a reality for them. I urge the Government to reject these misguided cuts, listen to the views of those whose lives would be made a misery if they proceed, and instead grasp the opportunities that could genuinely transform the lives of so many disabled people.

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, we on these Benches strongly oppose the question that Clauses 13 and 14 stand part of the Bill, along with the opposition party. At Second Reading, I made it clear that these were the clauses that the Lib Dems were most concerned about—in a Bill which had little to be joyous about.

Clause 13 legislates to reduce the amount of money that new claimants receive within the employment and support allowance work-related activity group—known as ESA WRAG—by £29.05 per week or nearly £1,500 a year. This cut is mirrored in Clause 14 for the equivalent payment in the new universal credit, called the limited capability for work group. As the Disability Benefits Consortium says, this is despite the fact that the WRAG is specifically there to provide support for disabled people who are assessed as being not fit for work, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, stressed.

In his summer Budget, in order to make savings on welfare expenditure, the Chancellor announced that he would reduce the level of benefit paid to claimants in ESA WRAG to the value of jobseeker’s allowance—JSA. How can that be right? These are people who have been deemed to be ill. This is despite the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others have said, the people receiving ESA WRAG and the limited capability for work element of universal credit have been independently medically assessed by government assessors as being too ill to work—not by their own GPs but by independent assessors, and that is really key. These are people with disabilities—nearly 500,000 people; people with long-term health conditions such as mental health and behavioural disorders—nearly 250,000 people; and people with cancer or progressive motor neurone illnesses such as MS and Parkinson’s disease.

I entirely agree with Macmillan Cancer Support, the Disability Benefits Consortium, Mind, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire Disability, Scope, the Rowntree Foundation and many others—they cannot all be wrong—that reducing the amount of money received by individuals on ESA WRAG and the limited capability for work element of universal credit will make it harder for individuals to cope with the financial impact of their condition and to afford what they need to support their recovery. The additional pressure to seek work when not fit could detrimentally impact on an individual’s health and recovery. I have seen this, having worked in the NHS for many years. This could actually move them further from the labour market. That is not what the Government want to do. The negative impact of returning to work before individuals are fit to work compromises them and is unsustainable, and may lead individuals to require welfare support for longer or indeed move them into the support group, where they do not work again. That cannot be right.

The Government’s impact assessment states:

“Someone moving into work could, by working around 4-5 hours a week at National Living Wage, recoup the notional loss of the Work-Related Activity component or Limited Capability for Work element”.

Frankly, that is unbelievable, as people in this group have been found not fit for work. That is the hub of the whole issue. Clauses 13 and 14 have no place in a caring and compassionate society and I urge that they be removed from the Bill. It is far better that the Work Programme trains advisers better to understand conditions so that the most appropriate support and help can be given to individuals to return to work. Barriers to employment such as lack of job opportunities, attitudes and transport difficulties must also be addressed by the Government, and employers should be given the necessary training and support to enable them to take on more disabled people so that people can return to work when they are deemed fit to do so.

I urge the Minister to exempt people on the ESA WRAG and that Clauses 13 and 14 do not stand part of the Bill. The Government must give people hope and support. I fear that these measures are merely about the Treasury wanting to demonstrate that it can achieve a budget surplus—how wrong is that?—without, I fear, the Treasury thinking about real people and real lives, and the impact it will have on those people. This is not about figures on a balance sheet but people who will find the impact of these clauses deeply damaging, as they will affect their life chances. This is not just about the young. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that these clauses are not sensible or morally right.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend’s Amendment 34 and focus on the impact of benefit sanctions on people with mental health problems. Mental health professionals are extremely worried about the impact of this, which is why this amendment asks for a report containing data to be published.

The latest statistics around the number of people with mental health problems being supported into work though the back to work scheme are astonishingly low. Just 9% have been supported into employment since the scheme began. There are two key areas where better evidence is needed. We know that more than half of people receiving ESA in the WRAG have a mental or behavioural disorder as their primary health condition, and many more people in the WRAG will have comorbid physical and mental health problems.

We also know that people with mental health problems are being disproportionately sanctioned. Recent Freedom of Information requests to the department revealed that in 2014, on average 58% of sanctions for people in the ESA WRAG were given to people with mental health problems—20,000 in all.

The mistaken assumption is that people do not want to work, and that the best incentive is to threaten benefit withdrawal. Research shows that people with mental-health problems have a high want-to-work rate. I could say a lot more about that, but in view of the time I will not. What are the barriers? We need much more information—hence the request for a report.

I would like to share an example given to me by Mind, the mental health charity. It told me the story of a man who has been out of work for most of his adult life due to his mental health problems and who is currently in the support group. Under conditionality in the work-related activity group, this man felt so fearful and anxious of the threat of sanctions that he forced himself to attend his appointment a couple of days after being hospitalised following an overdose. This is just one shocking example of the pressure claimants are under, the health conditions that people face and, crucially, the level of anxiety and stress reportedly caused by fear of sanctions.

I urge the Minister to take these concerns and this amendment very seriously.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is largely focused on the non-income issues and seeks to add the matters of worklessness and educational attainment to the measures, which the Government say are focused on the causes of poverty rather than its symptoms. These matters are important because it is asserted that what is measured and reported on will drive the focus of government attention, although reliance on this approach is inherently weaker than having strategy obligation and specific targets. There will be more about that in later amendments.

In considering Clause 4 and these amendments, we should set the context by reflecting on the starting positions, and that has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. The current Child Poverty Act 2010, as amended in 2012, contains targets to be met in 2020 that relate to: relative low income; combined low income and material deprivation; absolute low income; and persistent poverty. There are four targets, not just one. It provides for the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission—formerly the Child Poverty Commission, and soon to lose child poverty altogether—to give advice when requested to Ministers on how to measure socioeconomic disadvantage, social mobility and child poverty and to report on progress on improving social mobility, meeting the targets and implementing the required strategies.

The Act also requires the publication of a strategy to comply with the targets and to combat socioeconomic disadvantage. In preparing the strategy, consideration must be given to measures—we referred to them as the building blocks at the time of the legislation—including: parental employment and skills; financial support; promotion of parenting skills; physical and mental health; education, childcare and social services; and housing and social inclusion. The Act imposes a requirement for local authorities to co-operate to reduce child poverty in their areas and prepare local child-poverty needs assessments.

As well as having income measures and associated targets, this required the Government to produce a strategy which would have regard to a range of factors, including the multiplicity of matters which affect child poverty. Apart from for Northern Ireland strategies, this Bill sweeps away all those provisions—the entirety of them. We will seek to reinstate this with subsequent amendments. Instead, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report containing data on children in workless and long-term workless households in England and educational attainment at key stage 4 for children in England and the educational attainment of disadvantaged children. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to define these terms until the first report is provided for, in the year 2017 and a veiled reference to developing “other measures” to recognise what is suggested are the root causes of poverty: family breakdown, problem debt and drug and alcohol dependency. There is no statutory obligation to do so.

There is a reference in the briefing notes to a “life chances strategy” in due course, but no commitment on the scope and timing of this. The commission will have a focus on social mobility and no longer on reducing child poverty. Crucially, the Bill removes any income measure and related targets. This is on the basis that income is a symptom, not a cause, of poverty and that the relative income measure can lead to spurious outcomes when medium incomes are falling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

There have been studies showing the numbers who are addicted to one or the other. I remember producing some figures on that in the debate on the last Welfare Bill. Clearly, one of the points of developing a life chances strategy is to get a better grip both of those areas and, indeed, the figures on debt. As the noble Baroness hinted, the figures are imperfect, and that is one of the reasons we want to get a better grip on it. When we look at the levels of debt, that will tell us about impacts, and we can start to analyse what those impacts are. That would of course include any government measures and the impacts would be revealed.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am still a little unclear on one fairly key point. When responding to the consultation on the measurement of poverty, the commission recommended almost a two-pronged approach. One was that there should be a multidimensional focus on the causes of poverty, but a clear focus on recording the experience of poverty and dealing with poverty here and now with an income measure. I understand what the Minister has been saying about focusing on the causes. One can see the longer-term impact of that; but what, precisely, are the Government going to do differently in respect of the here and now of people’s actual experience of poverty—people who simply do not have enough income today, and will not tomorrow or the day after, to get by and play their part in society? That is what I find to be missing, so far at least, from the Minister’s response.

[Lord Freud]

I am not sure that the Government would do much different from what they are doing. They have a safety net and there are various measures to support people. We are building at speed now the universal support system in which we are combining with local authorities to help the most vulnerable, but in a very different way from how people have been helped in the past, which was through crisis loans that they went on and on building in a random way, without anyone looking at the root causes of their problems and trying to help them out of them. This approach accords with that. Clearly, we will be spending our money on the root causes of poverty and on life chances. But there will be income measures published, because we have said that we will go on publishing the HBAI. If people want to see what is happening, that gets a lot of publicity every year. That is the change: the money that we will be spending on life chances. Those are some of the mechanisms by which we will do it. Universal support is one of the key things, but there are a lot of other things. Getting mental health right is something that has evaded Governments for a long time, and we are now spending more money on that than any Government have before.

I urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Could we perhaps have one more brief run-through of the issue of income? The Minister says that the Government are not doing anything specific to address income poverty other than the application of their current broad benefit regime, with all the cuts that that is now having to endure. Is that it, in terms of actually tackling current poverty? How does the Minister deal with the point that pretty much every expert out there has concluded—certainly the commission has—that we need to have consistent, robust measures of poverty? What the key driver is, and all the other stuff, is subsidiary to that. There seems to be an overwhelming view coming from the experts on that. Is that not a view that the Government share?

[Lord Freud]

No. Every year I stand here because there is a forecast that says that child poverty is going up, has gone up or will go up, but when we actually see the figures we find that child poverty has actually gone down; the Government have been impressed and shocked by that. When you transform the economy, change the culture so that work is what has been driving things, and move up the employment rates and the earning rates in the way that we have, you find that the behavioural impacts are very different from the static analysis that many of the external experts tell us about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I will follow up on the point about local authorities that my noble friend Lady Lister raised. The Minister will be aware that we are in the era of devolution deals, particularly with combined authorities—Manchester was the first, and there are others as well. As part of that process, is the department engaged in inputting into the package with a particular focus on child poverty issues?

[Lord Freud]

As noble Lords will be aware, the Government’s emphasis is to put authority into the hands of local authorities, which is what devolution is about. Therefore they cannot have devolution on the one hand and then send a whole series of specific requirements down on the other.

State Pension: Women

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Bakewell for initiating this short debate and for bringing to our attention some of the distressing communications she has received in her postbag. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for their contributions. We are a small but select band on this occasion.

The focus is the new single-tier state pension, which is due to come into effect in April 2016, and in particular how it is being communicated to people about to reach state pension age. This is brought into sharp focus as its introduction looms and the spotlight falls on the detail of what the changes mean to individuals. The issue is also to an extent entangled with the changes to the state pension age and the different ages at which men and women will gain entitlement to a state pension. It is also relevant to the changes to private pension provision and the new freedoms concerning access to pension pots if decisions are to be based on robust information about future income in retirement. It is also relevant, as we have heard, to progress on auto-enrolment.

The single-tier pension has been promoted as the route to speeding equalisation of pension outcomes between men and women a decade earlier than would be achieved under the 2007 legislation. Despite significant improvements under that legislation—in particular, the reduction of the number of years needed for a full basic state pension to 30, and more generous credits for carers—we know that women have continued to be at a disadvantage compared to men. They have been less likely to be in work, more likely to work part-time, often in multiple jobs, and more likely to be on low pay and therefore historically inherently less well treated by the mechanisms determining state pension entitlement. We know that life expectancy is increasing and that life expectancy for women is greater than for men. The majority of today’s pensioners are women, and this is projected to be the case into the long term.

Therefore, the prospect of accessing a new single-tier pension with the promise of greater simplicity and a shorter period before an equalised outcome with men is obviously to be welcomed. These changes are driven by the ending of the earnings-related state second pension and because a new single-tier year is worth more than the current basic state pension year. However, it is not all good news: 35 years of contributions are needed for a full single-tier pension and there are restrictive rules concerning reliance on a spouse’s national insurance contributions.

Despite the new arrangements offering the prospect of eventually leading to a simpler, more understandable pension system, the transition certainly has its complexities. We should acknowledge that the Minister is on record as recognising as an early issue on taking office that more needed to be done to communicate what these changes mean, and we look forward to an update when she replies.

The Minister will have heard from my noble friend about the confusion, frustration and disappointment that abounds on this issue, especially among women. That confusion is not only about what level of pension will be payable. There is frustration about the precipitate changes to the state pension age. These issues potentially make more difficult the choices, usually falling on women, about leaving employment to take up family caring responsibilities, for example.

My noble friend is right to challenge whether more could be done to encourage realistic expectations of what will flow from the single-tier pension. In this context, it is helpful to remind ourselves of the overall impact of the proposals. The DWP’s impact assessment produced for the Pensions Act 2014 showed that over the long term the overall expenditure on pensioner benefits from the state is projected to be lower than under the current system. It is broadly the same as the current system in overall costs through to 2040 but with savings thereafter. This includes pensions as well as pensioner benefits, pension credit in particular. However, we should not forget that the Exchequer will gain massively from the ending of contracting out next year and the consequent increase in national insurance contributions. This benefit was due to be applied to meet the proposed changes to the funding of social care, and perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that is still the case and how it is being put into effect.

The very helpful Library briefing reminds us that the Work and Pensions Committee concluded that the overall impact of the reforms, whether people gained or lost, is likely to be marginal. Reference is made to a Joseph Rowntree Foundation report which concluded that gainers from the new system will include the self-employed and those not qualifying for the additional state pension prior to 2002, but the conclusion is that overall and in the longer term the new single-tier pension will be less generous than the current system for most people. Do the Government accept this analysis?

Of course there are a host of reasons why from April 2016, contrary to many people’s expectations, there will not be a single-tier pension of £155.65 per week for all pensioners. For a start, the single-tier pension will apply only to people who reach state pension age on or after 6 April 2016 and, because state pension ages will not have been equalised by then, the starting point for a man is those born after 6 April 1951 but for a woman it is those born after 6 April 1953. Not all will have achieved the required number of national insurance contributions, by payment or crediting, for a full pension, which is to be increased to 35 years, and if at least 10 years’ contributions have not been earned then there will be no entitlement at all. Not all will have the opportunity to close gaps in their national insurance record, and those who have been contracted out of the additional state pension will suffer a deduction which can be made good in whole or in part only by post-April 2016 payments before state pension age. Some will have a starting amount under the current pension rules which provides for a protected payment in the new scheme.

These are just some of the factors which will determine entitlement or lack of it. Recent press reports, which were referred to by my noble friend Lady Bakewell, highlight the impact of these issues on the early years of the scheme. It is suggested that of the 400,000 expected to claim the new state pension next year only 20,000 women will get the full rate of £155.65. Do the Government accept these figures? What is the Government’s analysis of the actual reasons why individuals are not receiving the full rate?

The National Federation of Occupational Pensioners reinforces the point that its members are confused about which system they are in. It also points out what it says is an anomaly—that the triple lock applies to the entirety of the single-tier pension, whereas it applies to just the basic state pension under current arrangements. The federation also emphasises the difficulty which the increases in the state pension age have presented for women born in the 1950s.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, in October 2014, the previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, launched a service to provide individuals with a written estimate of what they might expect to receive under the single-tier pension. This is to be available for those reaching state pension age between April 2016 and August 2021. Will the Minister tell us how many such written estimates have been requested and provided to date? Will she say whether the information provided contains a comparison with the existing pension system and whether the projected levels of pension could be enhanced by, say, the payment of voluntary national insurance contributions? The papers we have provide further details of the single-tier communication strategy. Will the Minister update us on progress on the strategy and, in particular, on whether phase 3 is under way and on schedule?

Pension issues can be complicated, even for the sophisticated practitioner, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, acknowledged. It is clear that the Government are failing to communicate effectively with potential pensioners on these very significant changes to the system. My noble friend Lady Bakewell should be congratulated not only on bringing this issue before us today but for her continual support for those women—WASPI—whom this Government are letting down.

State Pension: Equalisation

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, the policy of merging and transferring pension pots will be addressed but, at the moment, there is a significant amount of increased regulation and changes in legislation for the pensions industry to cope with. By 2018, when auto-enrolment is fully rolled out, we will know much better what are the appropriate and required measures for automatic transfers.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will doubtless recall one of her contributions to Saga magazine where she wrote:

“A group of older women are very angry. Many of them have written to me, some have written to their MPs, and others say they don’t believe it is worthwhile writing to their MPs, as the Government will not listen to them anyway. They remember that it was the Conservative Government in 1995 who increased their pension age, which they quietly accepted, but they now feel taken advantage of and treated like a ‘soft target’ because they have been given such short notice of another major change. They feel the move is discriminatory and manifestly unfair”.

She went on:

“The plans demonstrate a lack of understanding of the realities of many of these women’s lives. They feel betrayed that the Conservatives have hit them a second time and by far more than men”.

Does the Minister stand by those words?

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, as I have said, this matter was properly and thoroughly debated by Parliament. All those arguments were put to both Houses of Parliament and a majority voted for the legislation more than four years ago. This afternoon, I checked quite carefully and it is clear that this issue was missing entirely from the Labour Party’s manifesto before the general election. No party committed to doing anything about the billions of pounds that it would cost to change any of these plans.

Employment

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, there have indeed been concerns about disparities but they are reducing significantly. The plans for the northern powerhouse will make a difference. The latest figures from the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and KPMG show that the Midlands and the north led a broad rise in demand for permanent staff, with salaries rising as well.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

What evidence do the Government have that docking £30 a week from half a million disabled people in the work-related activity group will act as a work incentive and help close the disability employment gap?

[Baroness Altmann]

It is indeed the aim of this Government to halve the disability employment gap. The reforms to the employment and support allowance are designed to ensure that we have the right incentives in place to help people in the work-related activity group, of whom 61% do want to move into work, to do so.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, notwithstanding the fascinating and varied content of their contributions, given the hour, I hope that the House will allow me just to offer collective congratulations to all our maiden speakers. I look forward to hearing their contributions in future.

This is a wretched Bill. I am bound to say that it is the worst I have encountered in my time in the House. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said at the start, it will increase poverty, penalise working households and accelerate homelessness. There is more besides as the Government are pursuing further cuts in parallel, not least their ill-fated attempt to cut tax credits through secondary legislation. This is done in the name of moving to a low-tax, lower-welfare and higher-wage society but we know that tax cuts and higher wages, even when they come, do not compensate for the scale of social security cuts which the poorest will be made to endure. The national living wage is not a direct substitute for cuts to in-work support and we know that half of the cash gains flow to the wealthiest half of households and are not available to the self-employed. My noble friend Lady Donaghy made some important wider points about the self-employed, which we will need to explore in Committee.

A significant contribution to the Chancellor’s £12 billion of cuts, which the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, rightly claimed as a political choice, will come from across-the-board freezes in working-age benefit rates. This amounts to a 4.8% real cut, given the OBR forecast for CPI, and comes on top of three years of nominal increases under the coalition Government—presumably, also a political choice. Because of this, the IFS tells us that 13 million families will on average lose something like £260 a year. Breaking the link with prices and earnings, a growing feature of government policy, means cutting the poorest off from the mainstream of society. We argue for an annual assessment of benefit levels. My noble friend Lady Hollis reminded us to be careful of the mantra around benefits and pointed that as a percentage of GDP, the welfare bill has been pretty constant over a long time. The welfare and social security system is something which we all dip in and out of during the course of our lives.

The IFS analysis of the distributional effect of the coalition’s tax and benefit changes shows that, overall, the coalition Government raised a net £13.5 billion in taxes and cut net benefits by £16.5 billion. Who picked up the tab when measured as a percentage of income? The bottom two deciles have borne the most. How is this supporting the most vulnerable? Where are Adam Smith’s values in all that and who will bear the cost this time round? According to the IFS, it will be the poorest income decile groups.

The reporting obligations of Clauses 1 to 3 can be supported if strengthened. We heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Eaton, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green, who was passionate about having quality apprenticeships and the importance of that government commitment. We need to be clear what employment means to the Government. I sometimes think that the impression is created that active market policies began with the Centre for Social Justice. If we need to look at a bit of history, perhaps I may take the Minister back to a report which he wrote in 2007, when he said that the Labour Government,

“has made strong, and in some respects remarkable, progress over the last ten years”.

He went on to say:

“This is a genuinely impressive record. And underneath these headlines the biggest improvements have been for areas and groups which were previously furthest behind. Nearly every disadvantaged group that the Government has targeted (e.g. lone parents, older workers, ethnic minorities and disabled people) has seen its ‘employment gap’ reduced”.

I commend the noble Lord for the excellent report which he wrote previously.

Several noble Lords talked about the troubled families programme. My noble friend Lord Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Lupton, have supported that. I think we need to make sure that reporting of the troubled families programme includes a report on resources that are made available to local government. Several noble Lords focused on the lowering to three of the age of children whose parents must undertake work search or be sanctioned.

As well as seeking an independent review of the operation of sanctions, we will look to constrain this policy in circumstances where suitable and affordable child care is not available. We agree that child poverty is multifaceted and have no problem with further reporting requirements around worklessness and educational attainment. We might think about bad housing as well, but, although we subscribe to work being the best route out of poverty, we need to acknowledge the growing reality of in-work poverty, a point made by several noble Lords during this debate. CPAG tells us that 64% of children who are now living in poverty are in working households.

Like my noble friend Lady Lister, we are vigorously opposed to the removal of the measures and targets in the Child Poverty Act. We know that the lack of adequate income is a decisive characteristic and one of the primary drivers of poor life chances. Not having to measure income or indeed develop a strategy may be convenient for the Government, but it will not change the reality, a reality where the Resolution Foundation says that we are facing, in this rich country of ours, having some 3.7 million children in poverty by 2020. This is an outcome which is spurred by cuts to working-age benefits.

We look forward to the review of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Grey-Thompson, and to their bringing their expertise to bear on the consequences for disabled people of this legislation. We have great confidence in their deliberations.

We support the Government’s ambition to halve the disability employment gap, although their progress, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, should be routinely measured. However, there are a number of measures in the Bill which do not help in recognising that disabled people take longer to get back to work and have challenging financial resistance. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, gave us an authoritative account of some of the challenges that disabled people face in getting back to work. Removing the uplift for individuals in the WRAG will cost them £1,500 a year and is justified on the spurious and unsubstantiated basis that it will improve work incentives, notwithstanding, of course, that people in the WRAG—this is a point made by several noble Lords—have been assessed as not currently able to work. These are individuals also who will be disproportionately affected by cuts to working-age benefits, including, for those not in receipt of DLA/PIP, the benefit cap. How is that supporting the most vulnerable? We will seek to remove Clauses 13 and 14 from the Bill.

It is said that disabled people have been failed by the benefits system. We maintain they have been failed by the Work Programme, particularly those with mental health challenges. I commend the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Layard.

That we have a housing crisis is not in doubt. New build is woefully short of what is required. Rents in the private sector are rising. Homelessness is increasing. Of course, one of the first decisions of the coalition Government was to cut capital spending for social housing and to put the burden of funding on so-called affordable rents. No surprise therefore that the housing benefit bill ballooned by some £30 billion, so now it is all going to go into reverse with enforced social rent reduction, amounting to an average 12% by 2020, reversing also the agreements relating to refinancing agreements for local authorities. That may be good news for some tenants, perhaps, but the benefit will overwhelmingly accrue to the Treasury in reduced housing benefit. Taking some £4 billion out of the sector by 2020 is bound to lead to fewer social homes being provided. We heard from my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh that this problem is already beginning to bite. As was mentioned, the National Housing Federation has said that it could lead to 27,000 fewer homes by 2020.

We have received strong representations about the impact of this policy on providers of specialist housing that deliver vital services to some of the most vulnerable in our communities. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in particular focused on this issue. Being able to seek an exemption from the policy is all very well, but we support a statutory exemption for specialised housing and seek to require the Secretary of State to bring forward arrangements to ensure that the impact of rent reduction will not impair the ability of housing associations or councils to build new affordable homes. We know that the benefit cap has already reduced the affordability of suitable housing and increased homelessness. Further reductions will make the vast majority of the country unaffordable to couples with three or more children. Freezing local housing allowance will further put housing beyond the reach of many. Shelter advises that in two years local housing allowance will not cover the bottom one-third of rents in almost all local authorities, which is staggering. The homelessness duty placed on local authorities will become intolerable, as cuts to their budgets bite. Of course, although DHPs will help, they are not a panacea.

We will support exemption from the cap for those in high-cost temporary accommodation; we will also seek to remove carers from the scope of the cap and exclude children-related allowances from the calculation. The assertion that this is all about work incentives is bogus, as those caught by the cap are overwhelmingly not required to work. Perhaps the Minister can give us the figure of how many people that actually involves. The Secretary of State should certainly not be let loose to change the cap almost at will and without reference to clear criteria.

As for switching support for mortgage interest by grant to a loan, we will seek protection for pensioners, who comprise some 45% of claimants. Given the switch, there seems little justification for the extended wait to 39 weeks. We will probe in Committee the availability of independent advice and concerns over conflicts of interest.

We have heard fierce opposition to the two-child policy, none more powerful than that from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and my noble friend Lady Sherlock. Their opposition and that of the faith communities generally is not only about the financial impact of the restriction on larger families, including some 2 million children—families which already have a higher risk of poverty. As their briefing makes clear, the policy will have profoundly negative effects on family life. It raises horrific images of what women may have to endure in seeking exemption. There is much that we have to challenge in this Bill, none more so than this grotesque policy. It is a line that we must ensure that the Government are not allowed to cross.

Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (General Duties of Self-Employed Persons) (Prescribed Undertakings) Regulations 2015

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree entirely with the comments of my noble friend Baroness Donaghy. She is absolutely right to raise her concerns. I also want to raise the question of the agriculture industry. I know that this industry is prescribed; it is the most dangerous industry working today. There is a shocking level of drownings, electrocutions and other fatalities in this industry. It has a really appalling record. I hope the noble Baroness can comment on that today because it really is an industry in which a lot of individuals work and in which some very serious injuries take place. Frankly, the regulations at present are not good enough or strong enough, and need strengthening in that industry.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for introducing these regulations. I welcome her to what I understand to be her first foray into the health and safety debate. The Minister will doubtless be aware of the extensive legislative consideration given to this matter in what was then the Deregulation Bill—now the Act—which culminated in the provision now enabling these regulations.

As we heard, these changes to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 have their origin in the report of Professor Löfstedt entitled Reclaiming Health and Safety for All, in which he recommended that those self-employed people whose activities posed no potential risk of harm to others should be exempt from the general duties under that Act. This recommendation was made, notwithstanding that it was generally acknowledged, included by the professor himself, that these duties did not overly burden the self-employed, and that any requirements in these circumstances would be minimal in time, cost and enforcement effort by the HSE and local authorities. Their main duty was to carry out an assessment of the risks to themselves and others that are relevant to their work. There was no necessity to record the findings. The impact assessment that accompanies the regulations estimates that those within the provisions would have spent on average just 15 minutes a year on this endeavour. Paragraph 58 of the impact assessment further states:

“One current requirement that the self-employed might not comply with if they became exempt is carrying out a risk assessment considering risk to themselves. However, in order to know whether they qualify for the exemption, they would still need to assess whether their work poses risk to others, and it is likely that any risks to themselves would arise from the same factors”.

So there is no particular practical easement from that perspective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The Minister referred to the 1.7 million people who will be taken outside the scope of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. What estimate has been made of the number of those people who would have to undertake a risk assessment in the first place to determine whether or not they pose a risk to others?

[Baroness Altmann]

We would expect that if they are exempt they would not need to undertake a health and safety risk assessment. The idea is that it will be made clear to them if they are working in such conditions that they pose no threat to the public. As I described, if you work from your own home and you do not come in contact with the public, you will not need to do a health and safety self-assessment, and somebody will not come along and say, “Oh, by the way, everybody has to conduct a health and safety assessment”. However, of course, if you are employing other people, that will still be required. I hope that that answers the question.

I understand that it is difficult to imagine how this will work until it is actually working, but the guidelines and the guidance will be available six weeks before the regulations come into force. There will be an extensive campaign to publicise this change and to explain it to the public. Our estimates have been made and we are accepting the recommendations of an independent review. We are talking only about someone who is self-employed so our expectation is that this will save both time and money; it will also save those self-employed people who are now exempt from having to keep up to date with any changes in health and safety regulation, which in itself can take time or cost money.

We are aiming to help businesses. We expect that more new businesses will start up as a result of this. Again, one cannot demonstrate precisely how many—

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am sorry; I promise not to interrupt again. Is the Minister seriously saying that an estimated 15 minutes a year has been prohibiting self-employed businesses from starting up and flourishing; or that the minuscule savings that, in aggregate, even on these estimates, are expected to accrue will affect the growth of self-employed businesses? There have been some 200,000 new businesses in recent times in any event. They do not seem to have been inhibited by overburdensome health and safety regulations.

[Baroness Altmann]

I accept that it is impossible to prove but that is the expectation of the department. At the margin—these decisions are often important at the margin—some people will be reassured to know, if they are intending to set up only as a self-employed person working from home, that they are not included in the health and safety requirements they are now being exempted from. It is impossible to say, as with all such things, but we certainly have been advised that, and it is the view of the independent reviewer that, this will make a difference. Therefore, we are recommending these changes.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I said that I would not intervene again, but I want to stress to the Minister that the statement made that those working at home can be outside the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act is very dangerous. To make blanket assertions in such a bold way—that no one in that situation will pose a risk of harm to others or need to undertake a risk assessment—is highly dangerous. I apologise for interrupting. I will not do it again but we have to stress the importance of not going down that path of encouraging people to think that they are outside the provisions of this very important legislation.

[Baroness Altmann]

I absolutely share the noble Lord’s view that this is very important legislation. The advances we have made in health and safety and the consequent reductions in accidents, along with the measures introduced all those years ago, are a significant achievement and success. However, I am suggesting that certain businesses can be exempted from this provision because they pose no risk to the public. I certainly would not wish to give the impression, and I hope I have not, that everybody who works from home is exempt. One million self-employed people will still be covered by the regulations. They will apply only to certain types of activity and they will be made clear. They will be clarified by the guidance and by the campaign that will be launched six weeks before these measures come into effect.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

Perhaps my noble friend might like to explain to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the party opposite that what is actually needed here is common sense, not risk assessment. Risk assessment is a formal legal process. People should use their common sense to make sure that they look after themselves. I think that is what my noble friend is trying to drive at and it must be the right way to proceed—to avoid paper form-filling and unnecessary diversion of effort for people who, with common sense, could work it out for themselves.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

But is risk assessment not a matter of common sense?

[Baroness Altmann]

I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his comments. I would certainly be of the view that in the cases one could imagine these regulations applying to, it would be common sense to identify whether you pose no risk to the public in the work you are doing. You would therefore not need to carry out a health and safety assessment on yourself or your place of work if you do not pose any risk to anybody else. As I have said, a self-employed person who is an employer will continue to have duties under the Act; so will anyone who carries out high-risk activities.

Universal Credit

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many households are in receipt of the housing element of Universal Credit.

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

The information requested is not currently available. The department published its strategy for releasing official statistics on universal credit in September 2013; officials are currently quality-assuring data for universal credit. It is not yet possible to give a date for when these statistics will become available.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his reply as far as it goes, but I am surprised that the department does not have better systems for identifying these statistics. We know that its approach to the introduction of universal credit, which is meant to be a flagship policy, is painstakingly slow. We also know that the Secretary of State has declared that it is unlikely that the target date of 2017 will now be met. The Minister is aware that universal credit can bring great hardship to vulnerable clients, which is why alternative payment arrangements have been put in place. Is the Minister able, at least, to say anything about the extent to which direct payments to landlords now operate in respect of people on the housing element of universal credit, and the extent to which those individuals can be identified early, before they build up debt arrears?

[Lord Freud]

We have put out some statistics on the level of housing arrears, which show that, right at the start, 16% of people were in arrears. That compares with 7% for JSA equivalents. In the second wave of research, that 16% figure had come down to 12%. We have put in a lot of measures to ensure that we get that figure right down and give people the support that they need to manage their finances.

Health and Safety Executive

Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the findings of the triennial review of the Health and Safety Executive.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in doing so draw attention to my interest in the register.

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, Martin Temple’s triennial review of the HSE concluded that the functions performed by the Health and Safety Executive are required and that it should be retained as a non-departmental public body. He made recommendations concerning potential efficiencies and opportunities to raise income, and the Minister for Disabled People has asked the HSE to work on these. Other recommendations require further consideration, and we will respond more fully later in the year.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for what I take to be a positive reply. The Minister will be aware that the report refers to the “nearly universal praise” for the HSE, which it considers a reflection on its,

“impartiality … independence … professionalism and technical competence”.

What assurances can the Minister give that any requirement placed on the HSE to increase its commercial income will not impair those vital attributes, and what more can the Government do to promote the excellence of the HSE and the UK health and safety system?

[Lord Bates]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. I think that Martin Temple pointed out exactly that. He paid tribute to the work of the HSE, which it does day in, and day out, in maintaining safety standards. One reason why this country enjoys such high standards of health and safety in the workplace is because of the work of the HSE. It is of course necessary to ensure that its work is efficient and effective. For that reason, he suggested that the HSE focus its efforts on major hazard sites rather than those areas of relatively low risk. That is what it has been doing over the past couple of years.