Social Security (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2012
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I can confirm that, in my view, the statutory instrument is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
These regulations support the powers introduced by Section 116 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which allow both the Secretary of State and local authorities to impose civil penalties in relation to benefit claims and awards in certain circumstances. That section allows for the amount of the penalty to be set by regulations. Our reason for bringing forward these regulations is straightforward. It is right that claimants should take responsibility for the information which they provide in order to receive benefit, or to notify us of important information affecting their entitlement. Claimants are in the best position to tell us of these facts and of these changes as soon as they occur. When you consider that £1.3 billion is lost each year as a result of claimants who fail to do this, it is clear that we have an immediate issue to address.
Introducing a civil penalty will help to make claimants more personally responsible for the overpayments they incur and encourage a positive change in future behaviour. We remain committed to tackling the intolerable financial loss through claimant error and the regulations before the Committee support that aim, the detail of which I will now explain.
In bringing forward these supporting regulations, we have set the civil penalty at £50 in all three cases where a penalty may be imposed. The amount of £50 was previously announced in government publications and was stated by me and my honourable friend in another place during the passage of the 2012 Act. I trust, therefore, that the penalty level is no great surprise today. In setting the penalty at £50, we aim to be tough but fair in our approach. It is also a significantly lower amount than the harsher consequences which would apply to those who commit benefit fraud offences. The penalty is directed at a failure to take proper care of a benefit claim, as distinct from fraud. We believe that £50 is an appropriate amount for the penalty level. It is high enough to encourage claimants to take more personal responsibility for overpayments incurred through their negligence as well as encouraging a positive behaviour change in any future dealings with the department. The penalty will be simple to calculate and easy for the claimant to understand and recognise. Providing for the same penalty to be imposed in all three cases where they can be imposed will allow for this.
I reassure noble Lords that we will always consider the individual circumstances of the case when deciding whether to impose a civil penalty. To be clear, we must tackle claimant errors which results in losing as much as £1.3 billion each year. This penalty will help us to achieve that. Those who continue not to take proper care of their claim in future will also risk incurring a £50 civil penalty on top of having to pay back the overpaid money. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations. They have of course already been considered in another place. We do not object in principle to what is proposed, given that some £1.3 billion is lost through claimant error each year. I do not know if the Minister has an update on estimates of benefit overpaid through official error; if he does, it would be of interest to hear what that number is.
As we have heard, the civil penalty is set at £50 for each of three types of error, namely incorrect statements, failure to provide information and failure to notify changes of circumstances. So far as incorrect statements are concerned, they must have been made negligently and reasonable steps not taken to correct the error. In the case of disclosure of information and failure to provide details of changes of circumstances, there is the defence of “reasonable excuse”. It is therefore acknowledged that application of the civil penalty should always require a judgment to be made; the Minister confirmed that.
Can the Minister confirm first that, except in the case of housing benefit and council tax benefit, the judgment will always be made by Jobcentre Plus decision makers and not by contractors? The Minister of State in the other place confirmed that guidance would be available to staff, but we would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Freud, could say a little more about that guidance. We have discussed many times the situations of those with mental health conditions, especially those with fluctuating conditions, in connection with the issue of sanctions. The same issues must surely run for the issue of penalties. Can the Minister say specifically what the guidance is likely to cover in this respect?
The Explanatory Note says that DWP will,
“draw on the expertise of interested outside stakeholders to ensure that guidance, communication products and decision making processes are suitably tailored to meet the needs of the range of claimants”.
Might we be told what this has amounted to, to date?
In passing, we had a very helpful presentation on progress on universal credit earlier today. I did not spot anything flagged as part of the claimant process issues around the prospect of civil penalties in the various bits of information we had, but perhaps we missed it in that presentation.
The Explanatory Memorandum states at paragraph 7.7 that where a failure to disclose could cause an overpayment of more than one benefit,
“only one civil penalty will apply”.
What is the situation where the failure relates to an assessment of, say, jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit? Prior to universal credit being introduced, the appropriate authority for the latter will be the local authority, not the DWP. How will it be ensured that only one civil penalty will arise?
We debated this during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act, but will the amounts collected in penalties accrue to the Treasury, to the DWP or to local authorities? If the latter, how will a single civil penalty be divvied up?
There was discussion in the other place during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act about the anticipated volume of civil penalties—in excess of 500,000—especially in contrast to HMRC data concerning parallel provisions. If this is right, it is a worryingly high volume and calls into question the real level of discretion that will be available in judging whether someone has been negligent or has failed to take reasonable steps to correct an error. What assessment has the department made of the time and cost involved in making these judgments? There must surely be an impact also on the volume of appeals. What does the Minister think this might be?
The provisions apply to the administration of council tax benefit also. As I indicated earlier, we are doing our best for the Minister to have its replacement inculcated within the universal credit through our deliberations on the government Finance Bill but, I am bound to say, some of our arguments are, unusually, falling on stony ground. Should council tax support be localised, the provisions of this order would presumably cease to have effect for local schemes, even the default ones. Presumably one would have to look to the powers in that Bill to see what alternatives might be available.
Because the universal credit is intended to be the great simplification, one would hope that that would make claims and associated issues easier to deal with and would therefore ease the circumstances in which these penalties might be applicable. However, that remains to be seen. We will not oppose these regulations.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I shall try to deal with as many questions and to avoid writing as many letters as possible. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the latest figure on official error. The latest figure is £0.8 billion. As regards making sure that one civil penalty will apply, we have put in place processes for decision-makers to check whether a penalty has already been applied for the same failure or error resulting in the overpayment. Only the JCP and the decision-makers, PDCS, are dealing with the non-housing matters. The way in which we ensure that we do not get a double whammy with local authorities and DWP is for local authorities to apply their penalties only when the standard housing benefit or council tax benefit is the only benefit in payment. In that way, there is no possibility of an overlap.
We are drafting the guidance and we hope to share the final draft guidance with SSAC by the end of this month. We will look to share it with other relevant stakeholders at that time to take on board their comments. The guidance will cover the obvious examples of negligence, reasonable steps and reasonable excuses. As one would expect, there will be intensive training, which will explore definitions of the penalty criteria. I do not think that the figures have changed from the impact assessment that we discussed when we were looking at the Bill. The cost is £19 million over 2014-15. The appeals estimate, which we discussed, remains purely an estimate.
In response to my noble friend Lord German’s question on the difficult mix of discretion and consistency, it is important that we have clear guidance about what constitutes the penalty criteria. Each case will be individually considered by a decision-maker. They will have general duties, such as to look at only what is relevant and to explain their decisions to claimants. My noble friend’s idea had not occurred to me. He is more devious than me about using this process to make sure that we do not have different information going to decision-makers and later to tribunals. I think that I shall take that away and think about it, as it is rather clever. That is a design issue that we shall explore.
I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that we will monitor the new penalty to ensure that it is effective—and to what extent—and that there is equality of treatment. We will use evidence from a range of sources such as administrative data and wider data sets. In practice, one of the main success criteria will be that we impose fewer penalties as time goes by.
We talked in the past about the fact that we now have a framework for conducting trials much more coherently right through the system. Clearly, we will pick out the key behavioural impacts of different aspects of the policy. How sanctions will work in that area is something that we will look at with randomised control trials. It is a very obvious test and there will be mechanisms for conducting it. We will look at the results very closely, and rather earlier than at the results of other tests, once UC has come in. I hope that I have dealt with all the issues.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Perhaps the Minister would just confirm whether the penalty revenue accrues to the department or to the Treasury.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I distinctly remember writing a letter to the noble Lord on this matter—and I really regret that I cannot remember what I said. So I will let my letter on the matter stand. Perhaps the noble Lord would look through his files. I have just received a note to say that penalty revenue will go into the Consolidated Fund. I remember writing that now; I laid it out in detail. If the noble Lord would like amplification on that letter, which was quite long, I would be happy to give it to him, perhaps over a cup of tea.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Lord. That means that the costs associated with the system will fall on the department and the revenue will go to the Treasury.
Lord Freud
Yes, but in reality there will be a transfer one way and then a transfer the other way within the overall DEL settlement. There may be some minor timing discontinuities, but my officials in the DWP are extraordinarily well versed in discussing these matters with equally well versed Treasury officials and getting the flows of funds to work together—so not even tea on that issue.
As ever, noble Lords asked very informed questions. I hope that I have dealt with all of them and welcome the fact that there is general support in principle for the regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Child Poverty
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
My Lords, I will pass that view on to the Department of Education.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as we have heard from the Minister, universal credit was supposed to be the last word in welfare reform and the route to tackling worklessness and child poverty. It is clear from recent information that it seems to be behind schedule and heading for being overbudget. Is that the reason for the Prime Minister’s latest foray into welfare reform? There are 17 ideas, which are apparently his and some of which he said could be implemented before the next election if he gained the support of his Liberal Democrat coalition partners. On which of the 17 ideas in particular is he trying to get the agreement of his coalition partners? Do they include removing access to housing benefit and the change in the link with inflation?
Lord Freud
I am really pleased to take this opportunity to reply and to tell noble Lords that universal credit is on time and on budget. The Prime Minister is looking at how to pull the welfare system into the future by asking some fundamental questions that we all need to think about.
Mental Health: Access to Work Support Service
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for securing this debate, which is especially timely given the report released today by the Centre for Economic Performance’s mental health policy group, to which I think every noble Lord has referred. It very much sets the context for our debate by pointing out the massive inequality in the NHS in the way in which mental illness, as compared with physical illness, is treated. It also stresses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, the importance of completing the national roll-out of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme.
We know that the costs of poor mental health are huge: costs to individual businesses in absenteeism and presenteeism and costs nationally in lost output and tax revenues and increased benefits, but costs to individuals in the aspirations blunted, the careers interrupted, the income lost and the social interactions diminished. We know that around 10 million people in the UK are affected by a mental health condition at any time. The Centre for Mental Health suggests that only about a quarter receive any treatment and that only about 19% of people with a mental health condition are in employment. In response to Dame Carol Black’s review of the health of Britain’s working-age population, the previous Government acknowledged the need to create a new perspective on health and work, that being in work is in general good for health, and that worklessness leads to poorer health. This is as much the case for mental health as for physical health and is, I believe, an agenda that is shared with the coalition Government.
We know that poor mental health is the main cause of absence from work and that with the right support individuals can be productive and fulfilled employees. This strand of thinking led to the piloting of the placing of employment advisers as a core component of the IAPT programme. Perhaps the Minister could give us an update on this. Before this evening, someone—I cannot recall who—referred to Access to Work as one of the previous Government’s best kept secrets, and we did not have many. The opportunity to shine some light on it, especially the newly commissioned service, is therefore to be welcomed. I think the noble Lord, Lord German, referred to the 2009 DWP evaluation of the programme as it was then organised, before the business model for delivery was changed. As he said, the evaluation concluded that awareness of the programme was patchy among Jobcentre Plus staff and that there was no evidence to suggest that customers found out about the programme in any systematic way, so the question posed by this debate is very relevant.
We know that this is currently a very difficult labour market and that this will continue for some time to come. Addressing the challenge that this presents for those with a mental health condition has been and will continue to be a recurring theme of our deliberations around welfare reform: the descriptors for the WCA; the fit for work, WRAG and support group determinations; the Harrington changes; the application of universal credit; and the Work Programme. In all this, the application of Access to Work for people with mental health conditions is of course to be welcomed. By definition, it applies to those who are in or close to the labour market. To get support, an individual must be in paid employment or have a confirmed start date, and the support must be needed when starting a new employment to reduce absence from work or to stay in work. The support is further available for the self-employed and for those about to start a work trial. As we have heard, the service has been contracted to be delivered by the vocational rehabilitation arm of Remploy.
If I may, I have a few questions for the Minister’s forensic approach. According to the specification, the indicative numbers for the service over the three-year contract period are between 0 and 1,615. Contrast this with the data for Access to Work as a whole, which identify 35,000 people having been helped in 2010-11 alone, of whom over 13,000 were new customers. Contrast it also with plans to make 1,500 people compulsorily redundant from the closure of the first wave of Remploy factories. If the numbers for the mental health service are realistic, that suggests just a scratching of the surface. Where will the funding come from if the take-up is to be higher?
What will the funding be for Access to Work for the current spending review? What additional resources are being made available for the new mental health service? There is seemingly a switch of funding amounting to some £15 million from the Remploy closures, but it is not clear how this is to be allocated. Under the specification, the support to be provided is limited to a maximum period of six months for any individual referral. Clearly we recognise the need to deploy limited resources in a targeted way, but given what we know, particularly about fluctuating conditions, will the Minister explain why this precise cut-off is used? How does this sit alongside the Work Programme? Is there a route for those on the Work Programme to be referred for support under this programme or indeed the existing Access to Work arrangements? If so, who bears the cost?
The contract with Remploy has been running for just six months, so these are therefore early days, but if there are any data on take-up and outcomes so far it would be helpful to know them, including the extent to which, under the right to control, customers have availed themselves of providers other than Remploy.
We welcome and support the new service, which will help some to access and some to retain mainstream employment. It is a small but important step.
Health: Needlestick Injuries
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am not aware of underreporting. The reporting figures are actually rather low. In the past decade, fewer than 10 people have reported getting infected from being hit by a needle or other sharp object. Usually the infection, particularly more recently, is hepatitis B or C.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in March last year the Government set out their plans for reform of the health and safety system in Britain, and these included reductions in inspections. The document they published talked about:
“Areas of concern but where proactive inspection is unlikely to be effective and is not proposed”,
which included the health and social care sector. On what basis was that judgment made?
Lord Freud
The judgment was made on the basis of the number of injuries or incidents. Industries with a higher proportion of these were clearly ones on which one would target scarce resources. As I have just explained, the declared figures for injuries from sharps with infection are that 100,000 people a year cut themselves. However, the real concern is how many are infected, and that number is rather low.
Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2012
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for the manner in which he introduced the order—and I think I spotted a few kind words as well.
My noble friend Lady Drake set out our position with her usual precision and focus, so I will be brief. Auto-enrolment goes live in a few months and we should take this opportunity to reflect on the tremendous efforts that have been brought to bear, not least by my noble friend, to make it a reality. Although we do not have an identity of view with the Government on all aspects of its implementation, we acknowledge their role in taking this forward in challenging times. The introduction of auto-enrolment may not be preceded by a torch relay but its effect and indeed its legacy have the potential to outshine the other exciting event that we expect to experience later in the year.
Appendix A to the Explanatory Note sets out the impact of changing the earnings trigger and the upper and lower limits of the qualifying earnings band. My noble friend Lady Drake focused on our major concern: the impact of the raised earnings trigger. As she explained, far and away the biggest number of losers are women. There seems to be an implicit assumption—which was in a sense reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord German—that these would be persistent low earners. I would be interested to know what evidence there is for that. If we wanted to align it with something that had a PAYE component, what about the primary threshold, for example?
I looked at the Government’s response to the consultation. The reason given for excluding the primary threshold was that there was no tax relief at the lower end. How much work have the Government done on this? I went to the HMRC website to remind myself of the rules on tax relief for pensions. It states:
“Usually, your employer takes the pension contributions from your pay before deducting tax (but not National Insurance contributions). You only pay tax on what’s left. So whether you pay tax at basic, higher or additional rate you get the full relief straightaway. However, some employers use the same method of paying pension contributions that personal pension scheme payers use—read more in the section on 'Personal pensions'”.
That section states:
“You pay Income Tax on your earnings before any pension contribution, but the pension provider”—
this is for personal pensions—
“claims tax back from the government at the basic rate of 20 per cent. In practice, this means that for every £80 you pay into your pension, you end up with £100 in your pension pot. If you pay tax at higher rate, you can claim the difference through your tax return”.
What happens if you do not pay tax?
“If you don't pay tax you can still pay into a personal pension scheme and benefit from basic rate tax relief … on the first £2,880 a year you put in. In practice this means that if you pay £2,880 the government will top up your contribution to make it £3,600. There is no tax relief for contributions above this amount”.
So the assertion that there is no tax component available simply because you are below the tax threshold is not true. I recall that the proposition was that NEST would adopt that alternative means of generating tax relief for people who went into the NEST scheme. Will the Minister outline in some detail the extent to which that issue was factored into the considerations; and confirm what the position of NEST is intended to be in relation to the routes by which people may get tax relief when it is introduced?
It is a great pity that the issue of the trigger has left us apart. The noble Lord, Lord German, instanced the fact that the tax threshold may rise to £10,000—part of a wider deal, I understand. We will see whether and when that comes to fruition, but it will simply exacerbate the problem that my noble friend Lady Drake outlined in such detail. I hope the Minister can deal with that point.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I said I was expecting a robust debate. It has been short but typically robust. What has clearly come through is that the figures around the earnings band seemed to get general acceptance in this Committee, and the real issue we are discussing is the trigger level. It is common ground that it would be pretty hard to find an earnings trigger that would target auto-enrolment perfectly. Our aim is to maximise pension saving for those for whom it is valuable, and minimise the number captured of those for whom it is not. Clearly this is not a perfect science.
The rise in the value of the trigger takes us to the impact on the low paid. As noble Lords pointed out, on balance many more women are in this category—in particular years, though it may not be a continuous position. I should put on the record that the rise from the £7,475 threshold to £8,105 excludes does not exclude 75,000 women; the figure I have is 100,000. We might as well get that on the record. Of those affected, my information is that 82% are women. We recognise that women are more likely to work part time or work less than men, and that they will be disproportionately represented in the group excluded from automatic enrolment by the increase in the trigger.
With the trigger, and automatic enrolment generally, we are talking about soft compulsion. We have developed a system that aims to capitalise on inertia—the default is saving, but we have left people who are new to pension saving to opt out if they consider that they really cannot afford it. Automatic enrolment with an employer contribution is an incentive to save. For the first year, certainly, we do not want to encourage people who do not earn enough to pay tax to divert wages into a pension pot unless their circumstances mean that it makes financial sense.
A question was asked based on reading three pages of the HMRC site, which was very assiduous. Tax relief was one of the factors considered, but not the only one. Maintaining an adequate gap between the trigger and the bottom of the earnings band was also relevant. We also needed to make sure that the right people—those who could afford to save—were enrolled.
There are two ways for a pension scheme to access tax relief for individuals. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, schemes using relief at source can get tax relief at the basic rate even if the individual is not a taxpayer. However, where a scheme uses a net-pay arrangement, individuals can get tax relief only if they have taxable earnings. To answer the specific question, NEST will use the former, so that all members can get that tax relief.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Does that mean that the tabulation in the Government’s response—which says that if the trigger is set at the primary threshold, it is not tax relievable at the lower end—would only run in some circumstances and would not run for many scheme members, particularly if they were members of NEST?
Lord Freud
Yes, on the basis of what I have just said, that is quite clear. For those saving in NEST, the figures would not work, while those saving in some other way, as the legislation currently stands, would not get the relief. NEST: yes; others: no. I think the silence behind me suggests a good spot there and I suspect we may look at that particular issue or anomaly —we may.
With the gently-gently approach of phased contributions starting at a modest level, we hope that we will not trigger a rush to the exit, but we do not know. We know what people tell researchers when they are asked. We can look at the opt-out rates in those countries that have similar systems. However, in the end, the evidence shows that if people feel they cannot afford it they are more likely to walk away, and the whole issue of pensions stays in the “too difficult to think about” pile. We are feeling our way here and there will be chances to make adjustments.
Youth Unemployment
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
I will look at that because one of the central thrusts of our policy is to ramp up apprenticeships. One of the most encouraging signs I saw when I visited a work programme contractor the other day was the way that having sustained outcomes—long-term jobs—is driving it towards putting youngsters into apprenticeships. That is a very happy fact pulling them together, and I will very happily look at anything we can do to reinforce the drive to apprenticeships.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, will the Minister explain why the Government have taken the decision to exclude disabled young people on the work choice scheme from accessing wage subsidies under the youth contract? Does that not mean that they will be doubly disadvantaged?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are trying to tier a structure of programmes where work choice, which is supported with its funding, is the way that young disabled people are supported.
Workers’ Memorial Day
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to mark Workers’ Memorial Day on 28 April.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, the Government extend their sympathy to all those for whom Workers’ Memorial Day is especially poignant. It is right to commemorate those killed, injured or made ill through work. The day also highlights the importance of good health and safety in the workplace. The Government continue to recognise Workers’ Memorial Day and consider that families and friends of those affected, and organisations representing workers, are best placed to decide how the day should be commemorated.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which I take to be personally sympathetic to Workers’ Memorial Day—which, as he said, is about remembering those who have been damaged by health and safety failures, and renewing the case for good health and safety provision. The Minister will have been availed of the report of Professor Löfstedt, which the Government commissioned. It states that,
“the vast majority of employers and employer organisations acknowledged the importance of health and safety regulation in their responses to the call for evidence and felt that, in general, the regulations were broadly fit for purpose. During the course of my review, I have neither seen nor heard any evidence to suggest that there is a case for radically altering or stripping back current health and safety regulation”.
Does the Minister agree with that? If he does, will he encourage the Prime Minister to refrain from such unhelpful utterances as “killing off the monster of health and safety”, and to act responsibly in these matters?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are very supportive of the report by Professor Löfstedt. He made the point in the report that legislation,
“can contribute to the confusion, through its overall structure, a lack of clarity, or apparent duplication in some areas”.
That is why we are driving through reforms designed to make the system easy to understand, easy to administer and easy to enforce.
Occupational Health Services
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
My Lords, that is absolutely smack on what the sickness absence review is looking at and whose recommendations we will be examining. The noble Baroness mentioned Rhyl. There have indeed been some quite remarkable improvements in this area. The project with which I was most impressed was in Lincolnshire, where triage was available on the same day. Advice, triage and signposting dramatically reduced the level of absence from work and, indeed, reduced the number of sessions of prodding that were required.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, one of the long-standing issues around occupational health services and intervention physiotherapy, particularly those which are accessible through the workplace, is the tax treatment of the cost, and in particular, whether it is an assessable benefit on individuals. I imagine that the likes of Barclays Bank have a way round this, but can the Minister say what the Government’s general approach is?
Lord Freud
As you know, my Lords, I always find it difficult to say what the Chancellor may or may not do at any time in the future, so I will avoid that. However, I will point out that there was a recommendation in the sickness absence review to have some of those services tax-allowed by the employer. The recommendation is there and we will clearly look at it.
Health: Pneumoconiosis
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
My Lords, if there are discrepancies between miners and quarrymen, I will go back and look at them. I was not aware that there were such discrepancies. I will look at them and take whatever measures are required.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as we know, one of the challenges of long-latency diseases is the tracing of old employer liability insurance policies. The noble Lord referred to that a moment ago. Will he be more specific about progress on the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, and in particular whether it is now accepted that there should be back-filling of policies to November 1999—the start of the code—rather than applying it only to future policies? Will the Minister also say whether there has been progress on ELIB, the bureau of last resort when employer liability policies cannot be traced?
Lord Freud
My Lords, although there has been silence since the document came out in May 2010, I assure the noble Lord that there has been a lot of activity behind the scenes. I am holding discussions with all the relevant parties and I hope that I am making progress on the matter of tracing. Noble Lords will be aware that when a company disappears some claimants simply cannot find their insurance. That matter is under active discussion.
Employment: Work Programme
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress is being made by the Work Programme in assisting benefit claimants to find employment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, the Work Programme provides personalised support for the long-term unemployed and those at risk of long-term unemployment. By the end of October 2011, 332,000 people were already receiving this support. We will publish the first statistics on job outcomes in the autumn.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. As the recent NAO report made clear, the Work Programme has been bedevilled by the speed of its introduction, which included a lack of piloting, going live before the IT was in place, and compiling the business case after the decision to proceed. Perhaps this is why the Government are a little coy about releasing data, although such relevant data as we have show that benefit off-flow rates are down, not up; that referrals to the Work Programme include only a trickle of the hardest to help; and the haemorrhaging of voluntary and community sector providers. Will the Government now at least permit providers to publish their own performance data and, under the Government’s own data work programme, arrange for the publication of user satisfaction information?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I must point out that the NAO acknowledged that the Work Programme addressed significant weaknesses of previous programmes; that key elements within it improved affordability and drove value for money; and that it was a significant achievement to introduce it in a year. It is expected to help more people more effectively and for less money than previous programmes. As for information, ERSA has put out some information about what happened to the first cohort. It said that people got into jobs at a rate of between 18 per cent and 23 per cent, which was more or less in line with the expectations of the industry.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to answer the question I posed. Will the Government now permit providers to publish their own performance data?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thought that I had made that clear. Some performance data have been put out by ERSA. We are discussing with ERSA what kind of performance data it can put out. Clearly, we have to be careful that the information that goes out from the providers cannot undermine what the national statistics will say. That is the issue.