Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Sherlock

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have just two quick questions. First, where the recipient who is due to make payment is subject to a benefit sanction, what impact does that have on the amounts that are collectable, as proposed in this order? Secondly, the £8.40 can be an amalgam of the collection fee and the maintenance payment. So far as the government accounts are concerned, how is that split and dealt with?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of these regulations, and all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly my noble friend Lord McKenzie; he always comes up with questions I would never have thought to ask, and they are always excellent. I hope the Minister had thought further ahead than I did—although I see someone running to the Box so perhaps she had not.

I very much agree with the points made about child poverty and the role that child support plays in helping to provide a platform on which single parents can build an income which helps lift their children out of poverty. So we do not oppose these regulations. It is important, wherever possible, that both parents should contribute towards the cost of raising a child after a break-up. An adult may leave their partner but they do not get to leave responsibility for their children.

I accept that the regulations are designed to provide a series of changes and clarifications to make it easier to collect arrears and maintenance payments under the Child Maintenance Service scheme. I will concentrate on a few specific points: the proposal to allow deductions for child maintenance to be made from universal credit where a non-resident parent has earnings and meets the criteria to be eligible for the flat rate; the increase in the amount, plus collection charges, that can go towards paying arrears; extending the scope; and the enforcement points.

The proposal to allow deductions of £8.40 from benefits for arrears in cases where the non-resident parent is no longer paying ongoing maintenance seems sensible. I can understand that for someone on a low income, £8.40 is a lot of money, but it is entirely possible that the single parent on a low income could also be on benefits, and both parents may well have suffered from the cut in living standards brought about by the benefits freeze and the other cuts in benefits. That seems to be an element of fairness that has to be addressed.

It is also very important that non-resident parents are clear that they will be chased for any arrears they owe. I ask the Minister for a broader update on this. She mentioned that we debated some child maintenance regulations last November. At that point the key thing the Government did was to write off billions of pounds of arrears from the old CSA system, and the quid pro quo for that, because we pushed them at the time, was that they would promise to pursue enforcement. This really matters because otherwise there is a moral hazard question. If a message goes out to parents: “If you just hold off long enough and don’t pay, in the end the Government will give in and write it off”, clearly that creates a disincentive to pay the money that should be paid for your children. So it is really important that we do not get back into that question. Ministers made the case in those regulations for a clean break with the old system, but that places a huge onus on them to make sure that arrears do not build up again in the new system.

I looked at the latest statistics and I am a bit worried. Since the new Child Maintenance Service began, a total of £259.2 million of child maintenance is unpaid, which should now be paid through the collect and pay service. That is 11% of all child maintenance due to have been paid since the service began. In the last quarter of last year, only 66% of paying parents using that collect and pay system were compliant; and compliant does not mean that they pay all of it but that they are paying some of it. So only two-thirds who were using the actual statutory system of compliance were paying anything at all. I may have misread those figures, but can the Minister confirm whether that is right? If the figures are right, is she happy with them? If she is not happy with them, how much difference does she expect these regulations to make to that performance?

Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Sherlock

Monday 17th March 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for taking us back to those earlier days and the discussions we had at that time. I have the same question for the Minister: what progress are we planning to make on closing the gap between amounts paid to dependants and to sufferers? From recollection, the first task was to close the gap between the 2008 scheme and the 1979 scheme, but that gap between dependants and sufferers remains open still.

As I recall, the funding for the 2008 scheme was to come from recoveries of civil compensation claims. There was always a bit of a mystery about how you got those claims in what was meant to be a no-fault scheme, but there is no doubt that recoveries were made and that they funded the 2008 scheme. Will the Minister tell us the current recovery level and how it relates to the 2008 scheme expenses?

We have debated extensively the broader issue of the consequences of exposure to asbestos, and I am sure that we will come on to it in the regulations that we are to consider next. Will the Minister confirm that the HSE will switch on its awareness-raising campaign on asbestos? It ran a very effective campaign that was curtailed a couple of years back. My understanding is that it is going to be revived. If the Minister can confirm that, it would be very helpful. In doing so, will he tell us something about the funding for the HSE to make sure that it is not just a nominal effort but a really effective campaign? Asbestos is, sadly, still with us in too many parts of our infrastructure, and we need to keep messages going about all the risks of exposure to it.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I recognise that there is no statutory obligation to uprate these amounts, and therefore I, too, welcome the Government’s decision to uprate the pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma lump sum payments under the 1979 and 2008 schemes.

A number of the questions that I wanted to raise have been asked, but I want to return to one point, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie, about the difference between payments made to applicants in life and those made to dependants under both schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, explained the three points of difference between the two. As he reminded us, in 2010 my noble friend Lord McKenzie reduced the differential in lump sum payments between in-life claimants and claims from dependants, but there has been no further narrowing of the gap between the two. When regulations equivalent to those here today were before the Grand Committee on 7 March last year—with a very similar cast, I notice from Hansard—representations on this very point were made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who is not in his place. In his reply on that occasion, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to whom it fell to respond, said:

“Ministers have to balance competing priorities, and because of the current financial situation, it is our duty to ensure that all available resources are well targeted. As around 85% of payments made under these schemes are paid to those who are suffering from the disease, I believe that they are currently rightly targeted on the sufferer to help them and their families to cope while living with the stress that illness inevitably brings”.—[Official Report, 7/3/13; col. GC 314.]

I remind the Committee of the point that the Minister made in his opening remarks, which is, in fact, that people live for a very short time knowing that they have the disease. If people on average live only nine to 12 months after diagnosis, I wonder whether the Minister still feels that that argument for focusing resources holds water.

When the regulations were debated in another place on 7 March last year, the then Minister, Mr Mark Hoban, acknowledged the discrepancy and said:

“It is something that we need to keep under review, and if the resources are available, we will see whether we can introduce measures to do that. The point about the difference between payments made to a sufferer and to their dependants is well made”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 7/3/13; col. 9.]

I have three questions for the Minister. First, will he tell the Grand Committee whether the Government have indeed kept this issue under review and, if so, what conclusions they have drawn? Secondly, will he tell the Committee what percentage of payments is currently made to dependants rather than sufferers? Finally, what estimate has the department made of the cost of narrowing further or, indeed, eliminating the differential between the two? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Sherlock

Monday 17th March 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My noble friend is too kind, but I am conscious of the fact that this Bill has been forged in very difficult economic circumstances, and it is a splendid result that we are where we are. Like others, I also welcome the increase in the level of payout. As I remember it, when we were discussing this during the passage of the Bill, there were two versions of the gross tariff: one from the ABI and one from the DWP. I think the difference between them was based on the projections of the age profile of those who contract mesothelioma. We focused on the higher, DWP, one. Will the Minister confirm that this is still the gross tariff that we are working to and that it will be 80% of that?

A number of noble Lords have raised the 3% of gross written premiums. I am not sure that I heard the Minister actually say that this is where the levy is going to start, and it will be helpful if he could confirm the position. I thought his expression was “within that 3%”, but it would be good to know when we will see the levy regulations and whether the expectation is that it will be fixed, initially, and thereafter, as my noble friend Lord Howarth said, at 3% of gross written premiums. Obviously, this is to the extent to which they did not produce more than a 100% payout.

The Minister confirmed that the legal fees at £7,000 per case would be paid on top of that. I am not quite sure that I followed the reasoning of how that will be dealt with in alternative regulations. I would appreciate it if the Minister reiterated what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been steadfast on the issue of research. Will the Minister take the opportunity to tell us where he thinks the insurance industry now stands, and what the prospects are of getting extra funding from it one way or another?

I have a couple of technical questions. Can we have an update on the oversight arrangements? I do not think there is a specific reference in these regulations to the oversight committee and whether there should be any obligation on the administrator. I should say that the Minister has been true to his word in terms of the process of appointing the administrator of the scheme, but I do not think there is anything in these regulations which requires co-operation and engagement with the oversight committee. Perhaps the Minister will say how he sees that working.

There was an issue over Schedule 3 to these arrangements, which deals with the application. This sets out all the information that needs to be provided and includes the names of all the person’s employers and the description of the arrangements under which the person was engaged by each employer. One of the issues that cropped up just at the tail end of the Bill’s consideration in the other place was HMRC policy on work histories and the extent to which a court order is now necessary for HMRC to provide them. I hope that this issue has gone away, but I would appreciate an update from the Minister on that point.

On a smaller point, will the Minister clarify where the administrator can impose conditions on a claimant? I think we understand why that would be but, as I understand it, there seems to be some differentiation. Conditions can be imposed where a dependant is an applicant, but where the applicant is deceased and the payment goes to the personal representative I am not sure that the constraints or conditions on that payment would apply. Maybe that is not necessary because it would be the role of the personal representative to make sure that that was effectively dealt with. Can the Minister confirm that?

Finally, I just ask about the Ministry of Justice procedure for reforming mesothelioma claims. In a sense, the Government backed up what was originally proposed but paragraph 39 of their response to the consultation on these proposals states:

“The stated purpose of the Secure Mesothelioma Claims Gateway was to support the proposed Mesothelioma Pre-Action Protocol. As the Government has declined to take forward the MPAP supported by a fixed recoverable costs regime, the ABI will no doubt want to consider whether and how it would wish to take forward its proposal for funding and hosting a SMCG and how claimants and defendants might voluntarily make use of it”.

Could the Minister give us an update on that and what it means in the current situation?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations and all noble Lords who have spoken. I am reminded of what an effective Committee process we had during the passage of the Bill. The Minister must feel a certain sense of déjà vu that he is back here yet again being interrogated quite so effectively about the detail. I join other Members of the Committee in congratulating the Minister on pioneering this and pushing it through. I also thank my noble friend Lord McKenzie. I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Howarth included him for all his sterling work in getting this show on the road in the first place and helping to steer it through Committee.

It is very good to see the progress made towards the introduction of the scheme. I am very pleased by the decision to raise the level of payment to 80% of average civil compensation. I also place on record a tribute to all those who campaigned for a higher payment, not only Members from all sides of this House, including my noble friend Lord McKenzie and many Members of this Committee today, but also victims’ groups, trade unionists and Members of another place such as my honourable friend Kate Green and other MPs, including the late and still very much missed Paul Goggins, who was such a strong fighter on these issues. Many in this field will be very grateful.

Clearly, as we have heard, the amounts of scheme payments in Schedule 4 do not now represent the levels of payments we expect, but I thank the Minister for explaining that we may expect imminently some negative orders to come into force to affect that. The Minister said that the Government are able to increase payments because of savings in administration costs. We are indebted to my honourable friend Kate Green who suggested that in the Public Bill Committee in another place—something acknowledged by the Minister there—but it would be very helpful if the Minister here could explain to the Committee precisely where those savings were found.

The impact assessment produced last November indicated that an uplift in payments from 75% to 80% would cost an extra £11 million in the first four years of the scheme and an extra £22 million over the first 10 years. With payments set at 75%, it also stated:

“The costs of the scheme are split between a levy of £371m on the insurance industry and £17m in government funding. This covers scheme payments direct to individuals (£261.4m), benefit recovery (£72.2m), applicant legal fees (£24.6m) and admin of £30.0m (including case legal fees of £24.2m, set up of £1.4m and running costs of £4.4m)”.

To focus in on that, that impact assessment showed two sets of legal fees provided for: applicants’ fees at £24.6 million and case legal fees at £24.2 million. There was some debate as to what the case legal fees covered but the Minister in another place assured the Public Bill Committee that they were for the benefit of applicants. Originally, claimants’ legal fees were set at £7,000 a case, when payment was at 70% of average civil damages. During the passage of the Bill through this House, that payment rose to 75% and legal fees were reduced to £2,000 per case.

In the Public Bill Committee in another place, legal fees reverted to £7,000. The Minister there said that he had had discussions with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and felt £7,000 to be a reasonable figure after all. Crucially, he also said that if cases could be conducted more cheaply, applicants would none the less receive the full £7,000. We now know that extra moneys have been squeezed out of administration costs to fund this uplift but can the Minister explain where they come from? I presume that they do not come from a further squeezing of legal fees. He also confirmed—and this was very helpful—that £7,000 per head remains the sum allocated to applicants for their legal fees. Can he confirm for the record that, if the legal fees in some cases fall short of this amount, applicants will still receive the difference in cash up to £7,000?

Assuming that there are no changes in respect of the position relating to applicants’ legal fees, can the Minister tell us where the additional £11 million or £22 million to pay for the uplift has been found? On the face of it, it must have come in some combination from other administration costs. Can he also say what he assesses the running costs and set-up costs of the scheme now to be? Can he also tell us how much is now allocated for case legal fees as opposed to applicant legal fees? If those case legal fees have been reduced and, as the Minister in another place explained, they were to be for the benefit of applicants, will the applicants suffer in any way as a result of that? If the extra money is not coming from there, where is it coming from?

Can the Minister also confirm that payment at 80% is to be met within the planned levy of 3% on the industry, including in the first four years of the scheme? I will turn in a moment to the levy and the points raised by various noble Lords, but I want to talk briefly about a few other aspects of the scheme.

Regulation 5(4) requires the scheme administrator to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of suitably qualified persons to determine applications under the scheme. Does the Minister have any more information that he could share with the Committee about the likely professional background and qualifications of those people and, in particular, about their independence and how they will be employed? Will they be employees of the scheme administrator or might they work on a freelance basis? In particular, if they are freelance, is there any possibility that there could be a conflict of interest if they have other roles within the industry at the same time? The crucial question is: if that is the case, how will such conflicts be identified and dealt with so that the public and the applicants can be reassured of the independence of the people making the determinations?

I welcome the provisions in Regulation 9(2)(a) regarding time limits for applications. It makes it clear that applicants would have three years from the date of diagnosis or, if diagnosis is after 25 July 2012 but before the regulations come into force, three years from the date they come into force. However, there are still some concerns about time limits when we look across to Regulation 18. Generally, if a claimant dies before the case is determined, a payment may be made to his or her personal representative if the claimant leaves no dependants, but that still leaves a small group, admittedly, of mesothelioma sufferers without dependants who were diagnosed on or after 25 July 2012 but who died before they could make an application simply because the forms to do so were not yet available. I understand that they will be available from April, and perhaps the Minister could confirm that. In those cases, I understand that payment will not be made to the deceased’s personal representative. Can the Minister clarify that? If that is so, it seems unjust. It has been quite clear that the Government’s firm intention was for claims to be backdated to 25 July 2012 in all circumstances, but I should be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

I welcome Regulation 11, which sets time limits for the provision of additional information—a suggestion from my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton. I am sure that he will be very glad to hear it, and I shall make sure that I communicate the information to him. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord McKenzie for raising the question about HMRC and the fact that it needs a court order to release the employment records of deceased claimants. This is really serious. I understand that a letter from the Minister to my honourable friend Kate Green in the other place suggests that progress was not being made very quickly on this. I look forward to hearing whether this can be resolved before the scheme is launched.

I also welcome the provision in Regulation 18 which provides for the applicant to request a review of a determination. That was another suggestion from my noble friend Lord Browne, about which I predict he will be even more pleased.

Finally, two important commitments made by Ministers do not appear in the regulations before us today. The first concerns the levy, which was raised by my noble friends Lord Howarth and Lord McKenzie and others, and, in particular, the absence of any reference at all to it in the regulations. I confess that I was a bit surprised about that, but I may have misunderstood where it is to be dealt with. Will the Minister explain whether there is a reason why the levy and the rate at which it is to be set are not included in these regulations? It is important that people are reassured that 3% is to be the amount, although if the Minister wants to adopt the formulation offered by the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, I am sure we will all be very keen to hear that today.

Financial Assistance Scheme (Qualifying Pension Scheme Amendments) Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Sherlock

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I may put two brief questions to the Minister. There is no impact assessment attached to these regulations, but my recollection is that the FAS is funded from the public purse and not, as is the case for the Pension Protection Fund, from the levy. It may be that it is just de minimis in the scheme of things because we are dealing with only one identified scheme at the moment. However, I would be interested to know what the costs of this in terms of additional FAS spending might be. Perhaps the Minister might take this chance to update us on what the annual ongoing costs of the FAS currently are. Can the Minister also clarify for me, in relation to the particular scheme that has been identified, whether it had been paying the protection levy? If not, why was it outside of that?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation and my noble friend Lord McKenzie for his, as always, insightful questions. I am very pleased to see the Government’s ongoing support of the Pension Protection Fund set up by the previous Labour Government. The PPF has made a substantial difference to people’s lives. As regards schemes including Woolworths, MG Rover and Turner and Newall, the members would all have had much lower pensions had it not been for the PPF and the Financial Assistance Scheme. I also welcome the Government’s continued support for that scheme.

I would like to ask a couple of specific questions. First, I recognise that the Minister is trying to close a specific loophole and obviously the changes relate to a particular case. I must confess that the Opposition are therefore unsighted on some aspects of this. Following on from the question of my noble friend Lord McKenzie, can he explain a bit more about the Government’s thinking in deciding to plump for the FAS as opposed to the PPF, rather than leaving the members of a scheme ineligible for either, because that would seem to be the key question?

Secondly, obviously, the Government have not brought forward an impact assessment for these regulations. The Explanatory Note was helpful in explaining the long gap between the consultation process and these being brought forward, but will the Minister confirm that there is a timescale for further consolidation of the regulations on which the Government consulted in 2011, and that an impact assessment will be brought forward to accompany those changes?

[Lord Bates]

I am grateful for those questions. In terms of context, we are talking about a specific scheme with a number of members—the George and Harding pension scheme. To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the scheme had not been contributing to, or paying, the PPF levy and therefore was not able to claim under that procedure. Therefore, we are changing the relevant dates so that we do not break the contributory principle of the PPF but ensure that financial assistance is made available. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is as astute as ever and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, as a former adviser in Her Majesty’s Treasury, will also be aware that Her Majesty’s Treasury did seek to have some idea of what the impact would be on the Exchequer. The estimated full cost of the FAS contribution is £600,000, which comes out of the Exchequer over time because, obviously, that will be the way that people will be compensated as and when the funds will need to be drawn down. That is also the reason for the specific dates because we are trying to cope with a specific scheme rather than giving an open-ended commitment. Having demonstrated this, I hope that we can point to the fact that, should similar gaps in certain schemes arise in the future, we will look very carefully at them without giving any cast iron guarantee.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Sherlock

Monday 20th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 37 is headed: “Automatic enrolment: powers to create general exceptions”. I am tempted to rest my case there but I will press on a little. I hope that this will be a relatively uncontroversial amendment that the Minister can accept.

If the Committee looks at Clause 37, it will see immediately that it is drafted very broadly—too broadly, I suggest. In effect, it gives the Government the power by regulation to create exceptions from the employer duties under auto-enrolment in a way or to an extent that could undermine the intention of Parliament in establishing auto-enrolment in the first place.

When this clause was discussed in another place, the Pensions Minister said that the Government needed the powers to make regulations in order to ensure that employers do not automatically have to enrol people whom it will be a waste of time to enrol because they will be immediately removed; for example, people who have resigned, are retiring or have used their lifetime tax allowance. Apparently the clause is broadly worded because, the Minister said in the other place, we cannot predict the future need for exceptions. I suspect that our Minister’s brief contains similar assurances.

Clause 37(2) inserts a provision into the Pensions Act 2008 which enables the Secretary of State by regulation to provide for exceptions to the employer duty that may,

“be framed by reference to a description of worker, particular circumstances or in some other way”.

We accept that there will be circumstances in which it will be inappropriate to auto-enrol someone who is likely to want to be removed immediately, but it is our view that the clause is unnecessarily widely drafted—a view that is shared by others, including the TUC and the CBI.

In Committee in another place, the shadow Pensions Minister, my honourable friend Gregg McClymont, quoted from a letter from the CBI in which it expressed support for the intention of the clause but said it was too broadly drafted because:

“The inclusion of ‘in some other way’ would provide too broad a power to government to change the scope of automatic enrolment at any time it saw fit. For instance, it would provide the Secretary of State with a secondary legislation power to exempt some businesses. This is a move the CBI could not support, as it undermines the consensus that was reached on pensions reform by giving exempted firms a cost advantage”.—[Official Report, Commons, Pensions Bill Committee, 9/7/13; col. 352.]

If the Government want to exempt a category of business, they should come back to the Floors of both Houses and amend their legislation. This is not fanciful. It is not long since the Beecroft report recommended that micro-employers be exempted entirely from auto-enrolment.

This amendment makes it clear that Clause 37 shall not be used to exempt entire classes of business, such as small or medium-sized employers. This will ensure that the Government’s apparent intention for auto-enrolment to apply to all categories of employer and business will be honoured. If the Minister is of the same view as the Pensions Minister on this point—in other words, if it is the Government’s intention that no such general exemption should be made—there can be no reason to resist this amendment. If he does, he has some explaining to do.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. Auto-enrolment has, initially, clearly been a success and the Government deserve credit for implementing the policy. But we should recognise that we are just at the beginning: although it has been up and running for 18 months, we are just approaching the point in April this year when smaller and medium-sized employers, those whose largest PAYE scheme covers between 50 and 249 employees, have to commence their duty.

There have already been a range of changes to the process, implemented by regulations, resulting from a review of early live running. Those changes mostly came into force last November, although some are due this coming April. The consultation on the draft regulations also canvassed views on other changes, including the proposition of excluding a certain category of worker from auto-enrolment. It sought more information on three situations, identified that it had a substantive response to the use of an exception, and committed to publish the results, with government proposals and a further consultation. When will the results be published? Will it be before Report? At the very least, can the Minister provide us with a list of the circumstances being considered, if those extend beyond the three identified in the briefing note, which states:

“The initial evidence suggested that there is a case to re-examine the appropriateness of the employer duty in some, very carefully specified, circumstances”?

However, as my noble friend has clearly set out in the amendment, the power taken in Clause 37 is a very wide one.

The circumstances covering someone handing in their notice, where the notice spans the automatic enrolment date, and where an active scheme member gives notice of retirement and stops making contributions could, it is suggested, be the subject of specific amendment. As for those individuals with fixed or enhanced protection for their lifetime allowances, the Minister might tell us how an exclusion might be framed so that the employer could operate without input from the worker. That those circumstances need to be addressed to avoid detriment to workers is clear, but at present the encouragement from HMRC is to do so by opting out. If the system for exemption depends on the worker lodging the existence of enhanced or fixed protection, perhaps with some validation from HMRC, I am not sure that that is a more effective route than the worker simply opting out.

If the rationale for Clause 37 is based on just those three circumstances, I am bound to say that it is not overly convincing. If we are to understand that a range of other circumstances have been identified which justify the clause, we must be entitled to know what they are. The Government must be aware of them from representations that they have already seen. The briefing note sets down some core policy principles against which suggested exclusions are to be tested. One of these is:

“Are the individuals unlikely to benefit from pension saving?”.

This has echoes of some of the challenges to auto-enrolment when the policy was first originated and being developed, particularly around older women just approaching retirement.

It is entirely reasonable that there will be changes to the operation of auto-enrolment arising from practical experience, but we should be cautious of wide powers to remove the employer duty of enrolment. That is the cornerstone of the policy. Of course, we are mindful that the duty has already in practice been narrowed by aligning the starting point with the level of the income tax personal threshold, thereby removing thousands of the low-paid from its benefits. We are also mindful that there is a subtext to the overall Bill about generating savings for the Treasury, so my noble friend is right to be cautious about this clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Nobody disagrees that there could be some limited and carefully targeted exclusions in particular circumstances, but I am trying to understand the circumstances that the Government have currently identified. They have laid out three of them in the briefing document, which suggests that they might have had representations on a whole range of other areas. I reiterate my question: can we know what circumstances, other than the three identified, the Government are focusing on that warrant an exclusion from the provisions?

In particular, one of those that has been identified deals with enhanced or fixed-protection provisions. I accept that there is a financial detriment for people who get auto-enrolment in those circumstances, but HMRC has advised them pretty clearly to opt out in that case. How, specifically, would the Government draft an exclusion to encompass that group of people? The enhanced or fixed-protection status of individuals would not be readily known to employers. Would an employee have to report it to an employer? How is that a better arrangement than the employee simply opting out?

Fundamentally, I am trying to understand how many circumstances the Government have identified where they think there might need to be an exceptional exclusion from auto-enrolment. I accept the Government’s good faith on that remaining the cornerstone of the policy, but how many other circumstances, given all that has gone on and all the representations and discussions to date, have been identified which warrant this power?

[Baroness Sherlock]

I have a question to add to that. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation as to why the Government feel they need to have some flexibility to deal with circumstances as yet unknown, but I do not think that the Minister addressed what the problem is with the specific amendment I moved. After all, the amendment does not seek to prevent the Government from having those powers; it simply says that the Government may not make regulations in such a way as to exclude categories of business such as small and medium-sized businesses from auto-enrolment. What is the Government’s particular problem with this amendment?

[Lord Bates]

I will come to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in the first instance. We have said that there are three categories, which he rightly referred to: tax protection, leavers and retirees. Those are the issues that we have identified. We are, of course, having a consultation. One of the challenges we invariably have is that we phrase a piece of legislation and make certain statements on the record in terms of the progress of that legislation through the House. We give certain assurances and then put something in to say, “This is to cover for unforeseen circumstances”, to which the legitimate question is: “What are those circumstances?”. The legitimate response to that has to be that they are unforeseen at present.

Responses to the consultation are currently being processed. They will be dealt with and published later this year and could reveal examples that we have not actually identified at present. This is a new policy and a new area and we therefore need to look at this. As I made my remarks about unforeseen circumstances, I gave examples of areas where it would be unacceptable to exclude people from the terms. We have rejected these exemptions and certainly would not want to introduce them. We have identified casual staff and teachers with second jobs, for instance, as being examples of people for whom we would not want this provision to apply. However, there will be further consultation on this issue and I ask noble Lords, if not quite to trust the Government, at least to accept that sufficient assurances have been put on the record. We recognise that there is broad consensus, but this needs to apply to everybody. However, this is a young policy in general terms and therefore flexibility is still required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I look forward to the letter and its contents in due course. We were relaying the origins of NEST in the first place. These issues—the restrictions—were not intended by the then Government that introduced it to avoid NEST being distracted.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I thank my noble friend for that. First, I am disappointed that the Government decided to go ahead and stick with their current position. I would have liked the House to have the opportunity to discuss this further, as I do not think the Minister took on seriously the arguments made from this side. There was no reference at all to the question of scale. If the reports one hears from the industry are correct, it is possible that some of the big players may, this year or next, shut their doors to new members. We should do everything possible to enable NEST to build an appropriate level of scale and to enable it—far from distracting itself—to do precisely what it was set up for: to fulfil its public service obligation by delivering a high-governance, low-charge offer to those who can benefit from it.

The Minister made reference to employer choice but of course, by definition, the constraints actually reduce employer choice. Employers who want to go into it are unable to because the restrictions remain in place. I am disappointed that, despite the pressure from this side of the House, the Government have not revised their position. However, given that we are in Grand Committee and I can do nothing else, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Sherlock

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

This amendment moves us into somewhat gentler waters. The amendment calls for a strategy to improve take-up of national insurance credits. It is by way of a probing amendment, seeking clarity on what is planned to encourage greater take-up. In a sense, it is a subset of the debate that we had on Monday about communications in general, which we have touched on today. We had a very thorough note from the Bill team, which confirms that the NI crediting system is comprehensive but also highly complicated. There is a low level of awareness of some credits, carer’s credits in particular, the very aim of which is to protect state pension provision for individuals who take time out of paid work due to caring responsibilities. Of course, the issue especially affects women.

The importance of ensuring take-up of maximum credits is increased under S2P because of the increase from 30 to 35 years in the number of years required for a full state pension and the 10 years’ minimum threshold. This is a reversal of the position whereby the reduction in qualifying years from 44 and 39 to 30 meant that the gaps were not so important. The increase in the number of years to 35 has in part rebalanced that, although the value of credit in the new system would be higher.

We are promised a review of the national insurance recording and operating systems and an HMRC review of deficiency notices. Perhaps the Minister will say a little more about that. There was reference to deficiency notices being suspended for those due to retire on or after 6 April 2016, and the Minister might like to take the opportunity to clarify that. Some awards of credits, of course, are automatic; some have to be claimed, including class 3 credits for foster carers or kinship carers and those caring but not receiving carer’s allowance, and class 1 credits for maternity, paternity or adoption pay, for non-governmental sponsored training, jury service, for those wrongly imprisoned and, as we discussed earlier, for Armed Forces spouses or civil partners. There is also a new issue for those with high income who would be excluded from claiming child benefit.

Our briefing note identifies the carer’s credit as achieving take-up significantly lower than the 2007 legislation anticipated. We acknowledge that those in receipt of universal credit will automatically get a class 3 credit and that this would cover some of these circumstances. However, universal credit will not be fully in place for a number of years and, in any event, there will be some credits which will be claimable. Crediting entitlements has come a long way in recent years, and universal credit looks to improve the position further, but some are still missing out and this needs to be addressed.

I will revert to one point that I touched upon earlier. As I understand it, the credit for universal credit is a class 3 credit and therefore is focused on pension and bereavement entitlements only. Given that employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance and working tax credit are at the moment a class 1 credit—obviously those benefits will be subsumed within universal credit—it seems that we are worsening the position of some groups. I will be interested in the Minister’s response. The purpose is to give the Minister a chance to focus on those who have to claim where take-up is not as it should be and to see what can be done. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord McKenzie for giving us the opportunity to touch on this issue and for setting out the challenges in his characteristically clear and well informed style. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

I would be grateful if the Minister would answer the following questions. First, will he clarify whether all the routes to gaining national insurance credits which are currently available will continue to be available in the new system on the same terms? Secondly, if not, or if there is any doubt about that, have the Government consulted on changes or will they commit to a public consultation before making any changes? I include within that any changes that are implied or necessitated by the switch to the new pension system or the universal credit system.

My noble friend raised an issue concerning the Government’s strategy. In particular, I am concerned about the categories of people who have actively to make claims for credits and will not get them automatically, even under universal credit. I think he cited all the ones that I have been able to identify, plus child benefit, which I had not noted. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government’s strategy will include elements targeted at those categories of person? Within that, will they consider how they engage with direct routes, rather than just generalised campaigns? My noble friend Lord Browne mentioned that the Armed Forces look for ways to make sure that members of the forces community can take up those credits. Will the Government consider other routes to that—for example, through adoption services or the ways in which the Government already communicate with those in receipt of maternity, paternity, adoption or sick pay? Is the department in discussions with other government departments about the way to take this forward?

My noble friend Lord McKenzie also mentioned take-up. It would be helpful if the Government could report on take-up now and under the new system and tell us how they will monitor that and report to Parliament on it. Finally, will the Minister tell the Committee whether the Government have considered ways in which people might actively be supported in claiming credits for past years, which might now become important, where they would not have been previously?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and my noble friend Lady Sherlock for her questions. On the latter point, I am not sure that the Minister specifically dealt with whether there would be individual strategies focused on those types of people whom we particularly need to reach, such as carers. On the issue that was just raised about not accessing the benefits through other benefits, the point about contributory ESA and contributory JSA, as I understand it, is that you cannot achieve them only by credits; there has to be a payment arrangement as well to qualify. If the credit is changed, that makes it potentially more difficult than it is at the moment. The Minister mentioned the earnings factor credits but, as I understand it, those disappear because S2P obviously disappears as well in the new regime.

I am comforted by the fact that deficiency notices, perhaps in their new form, are to be reactivated once we get to the stage where the April 2016 data are available, which is helpful. I suppose that, broadly, one accepts that there is going to be a big communications strategy. I see that my noble friend Lady Sherlock is poised to ask a question, so I will give her that opportunity.

[Baroness Sherlock]

Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, the reason I asked the Minister generally at the beginning about whether all the currently available routes to gaining NI credits would continue on the same terms was precisely to try to draw out the kind of things that my noble friend has been highlighting. If the Minister finds anything else which could possibly fall under that category when he goes back and consults more with his officials, perhaps he might write to us.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will be pleased to do that.

Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Sherlock

Monday 15th October 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Perhaps I may briefly revert to the issue of shared care when it is equal shared care. Obviously if both parties agree that there is equal shared care, they would not be in the system anyway because no maintenance would flow from it. Clearly it is potentially in the interest of the non-resident parent to claim equal shared care because then there would be no maintenance liability. What will the process be for determination of that and whether any form of appeal is attached to it?

[Baroness Sherlock]

One of the questions I asked was in relation to preparing parents in the current system for moving across to the new system, in particular transitional protection. I apologise if I missed the Minister’s answer.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Sherlock

Thursday 19th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Hollis, I move Amendment 79B and speak to Amendment 83 in my name. My noble friend asked that I convey her apologies to the Committee. When she tabled her amendments, she believed that they would come up last Thursday. When that sitting was cancelled, they were moved to today when, unfortunately, she is chairing a meeting of her housing association, so she asked that I make that clear and apologise to the Committee.

Amendment 79B is designed to make clear that when a local authority makes a council tax support scheme which takes income into account in determining entitlement to support, that income should include universal credit, not just earnings or other kinds of unearned income. I presume that the Minister will need little persuasion of the merits of such an approach, as her default scheme takes precisely that approach. My understanding is that the default scheme will take account of universal credit income with some deductions relating to income that is to meet housing and childcare costs.

Having read the Explanatory Notes, I wrestled for some time yesterday trying to work out why the default scheme would want to take account of income net of the child cost element of universal credit. Why would you deduct the element designed to meet the costs of children? My noble friend Lady Hollis and I had a debate for some time trying to work out what the Government might be thinking of by this. Having read the draft regulations themselves, I concluded that this was meant to be a reference to the childcare cost element of universal credit, which of course is completely distinct from the child cost element. Having talked to an official—I am very grateful to the Minister that her department gave me access to a member of the Bill team—that is still my understanding. It would be helpful if she could confirm that on the record for the benefit of those reading the report of our debate.

I ploughed through the 155 pages of regulations as best I could with my limited understanding, and on page 105 there is a list of the rates that should apply for the various elements of council tax support under the scheme. When I read them, I panicked slightly because they are not the current rates that apply to council tax benefit. They are constructed in the same way but they are different numbers. Again, my noble friend Lady Hollis and I spent some time trying to work out why that might be and, in the usual way of politicians, ranged through cock-up and conspiracy theories trying to work out what the Government might mean by that by the wonderful old-fashioned Kremlinological means. Was this a way of saving 10% in the scheme itself? Actually, my best answer is that it is probably a mistake and that they are last year’s rates rather than the current year’s rates. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the intention is to use the current year’s rates, which were published this January, rather than those for last year.

We know very little about universal credit and the new system, because in those 155 pages of draft regulations the only substantive reference to universal credit comes in chapter 3 of part 10, which addresses the question of income and capital when there is an award of universal credit. That chapter is only 389 words long, and that includes the title. Of course, it would be hard for it to contain much more because there is a great deal that we do not yet know about universal credit, so I do not blame the department for the fact that it does not have that detail yet, but that is a point to which I shall come back. At least universal credit income will be taken into account. The case for doing that for everybody is compelling. Has the Minister had the opportunity to read the IFS report, Reforming Council Tax Benefit? It is a 148-page report that has an entire chapter on integration with universal credit. The report notes that the universal credit system was intended to,

“simplify the benefit system by reducing the number of different benefits that claimants and administrators must contend with”.

As council tax benefit is,

“the means-tested benefit with the largest number of recipients”,

keeping it outside universal credit,

“and allowing it to vary … undermines this simplification”,

but we are where we are. The report goes on:

“Universal Credit is also intended to rationalise work incentives by replacing a jumble of overlapping means tests with a single one, ensuring that overall effective tax rates cannot rise too high. Again, separate means tests for council tax support could undermine this, with the potential to reintroduce some of the extremely weak work incentives that Universal Credit was supposed to eliminate”.

I shall translate that for simpletons like me. If council tax rebates carry on having a 20% withdrawal rate and if universal credit is not counted as income, the effective marginal tax rate for a basic rate taxpayer could go up to 89.8%. Furthermore, it would mean that,

“income from private pensions, contributory benefits and spousal maintenance would actually make some recipients worse off”—

more money coming in, less money left behind, which is really serious—

“unless these income sources were ignored when calculating council tax rebates, which would be expensive for local authorities”,

as well as complicated. The report continues:

“This arises because income from these sources will reduce Universal Credit entitlement on a pound-for pound basis”.

I apologise for getting to this level of detail, but I am trying to illustrate the consequences of not taking universal credit into account as income.

There is no simple way out of the challenge faced by local authorities. Some authorities will decide that they have to devise their own schemes to avoid having to find the money to pay for the 10% saving by next year. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, gave them some advice during our last sitting, on Monday, saying that local authorities,

“could opt to use the default scheme, but perhaps with some amendment to secure some easy savings. Local authorities could choose to develop a more sophisticated scheme later, but that is a choice that they will have to make … However, if a local authority wants to have a complex scheme, it can have one in later years, and it can go for a simple scheme perhaps based on the default scheme in year one”.—[Official Report, 16/7/12; cols. GC 15-17.]

A simple scheme based on the default scheme of 155 pages of draft regulations would be quite difficult. More complicated still is that any means-tested system is basically a complicated ecosystem.

Although I am teasing the Minister, I do not blame the department at all for having 155 pages of regulations. It is impossible to devise simple means tests that work well; that is why there are 155 pages, and they are based on the regulations for comparable benefits at the moment. If a council were to try to find an easy way forward, the reality is that its most likely step would be, for example, simply cutting 20% off the top of the applicable amount that goes to everyone or the maximum amount, but it may not fully understand the consequences of doing that distributionally across incomes or different types of activity. It is very complicated.

As the IFS notes, it would be simpler for local authorities to have an independent taper from that used for universal credit, but to do so would be worse for effective marginal tax rates. The key question is, “Why should we not leave it up to local authorities to decide how they will individually treat universal credit income?”. The answer is that one of the Government’s main arguments for the upheaval involved in creating universal credit is that it would reduce the very high marginal tax rates faced by some working claimants, so there is a clear risk that council tax rebates will undermine one of the main advantages of universal credit, namely the elimination of those high effective marginal tax rates.

In other words, it is a policy question. Think for a moment about the impact that this could have on the noble Lord, Lord Freud, the DWP Minister. If the Government cannot determine how universal credit income interacts with the taper on the various council tax support systems, it is impossible for central government to determine the effects of changes it makes to its own universal credit systems. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, could make a decision to do something that is more generous and has a particular effect, but when he pulls that lever he will not know what will move in the various parts of the country that have devised their own schemes. That is simply a bad policy outcome given the billions of pounds of public money being spent on universal credit. It is clear that the Committee should agree to this amendment and direct councils to take universal credit income into account.

I turn now briefly to Amendment 83, which would require a local authority to consult not just on the scheme it proposes under the current social security system but, at the appropriate time, on the scheme in the world of universal credit. The reason is very simple. There is a whole series of decisions that a local authority will have to take, even if it sought to devise a scheme that mirrored as closely as possible in the universal credit era that obtains in the current tax credits and benefit system. Simply maintaining the status quo is not possible, as the department has already discovered, because universal credit replaces a range of tax credits and benefits for working-age adults that are currently treated differently for council tax benefit purposes. For example, tax credits count as income, but income support does not, and nor does jobseeker’s allowance or income-based employment and support allowance. In universal credit, if one half of a couple is under state pension age, the whole household is treated as that, as my noble friend Lady Hollis reminded the Committee last week, but that is different from the current situation. Somebody on income support, JSA or income-related ESA is automatically passported on to maximum council tax benefit. That will not be possible in future. If universal credit income is taken into account without making corresponding adjustments to the means test, as the IFS noted:

“It could be impossible even for those with no private income at all to be entitled to maximum rebate”.

In other words, once a local authority has its own scheme in place, when universal credit comes in, it will be impossible, even for those in the current system, to know for sure what will happen to their entitlements unless there is an additional consultation and more information is made available. Indeed, although I had a very helpful conversation with an official earlier, which has moved me along in understanding this, I am not completely clear about what will happen to somebody in the default scheme. Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell us on the record? The Explanatory Notes to the draft regulations for the default scheme state:

“Applicants with an award of Universal Credit may still receive 100 per cent support under this system”.

“May” is good; “will” would be better. The Explanatory Notes also state that use will be made of income and other assessments. My understanding from the notes and the conversation is that in the default scheme the means test made by the Secretary of State for universal credit purposes will be taken across, certain deductions will be made for housing and childcare allowance and it will then be applied. For simplicity, will the Minister tell the Committee whether, if somebody is on income support, JSA or ESA and is passported on to maximum council tax benefit, when the new system comes in under the default scheme, that person will still get the maximum 100% council tax support, assuming no complicated changes of circumstances or other unknown factors? Simply person for person, will the very poorest still get the most?

This is an issue for all kinds of councils, especially those that do not use the default scheme or that want to make the 10% saving because they may want to use thresholds but they—and certainly the population—will not know what the consequences will be. Local authorities should simply be told that they must consult again under the universal credit regime. It is particularly an issue given, as I understand it—and I think we come back to this on a later amendment—that authorities may not amend their scheme in-year but must determine it some way ahead, when they may not know how universal credit is going to work in practice. Finally, when the Government are consulting they could take the opportunity of combining it with a take-up campaign, if they can afford it, of course. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall start on a somewhat disagreeable note, which is to register our protest about the tardiness of the regulations that we now have before us, to which my noble friend Lady Sherlock referred. They were published on Monday, and there was some challenge to get hard copies so that we could work on them on journeys and when away from screens. It is unacceptable, particularly bearing in mind the point my noble friend made that it was quite possible that this amendment would have been taken earlier before we had seen the regulations or known what was published on that day. At least we have the chance now to get into them before Report. The scope of the regulations is profound indeed, and we should at least have had last weekend to review them in some depth. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sherlock; it is clear that she has done so from the presentation that she just made.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Sherlock

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I will detain the House only very briefly, but I feel I should say a word of support, having put my name to this amendment, put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

I wish to say just three things. First, we have heard that the effect of these cuts is really quite severe. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is correct: parents could find themselves losing up to £1,400 a year, even if they have a family with just one disabled child. That is a very significant loss.

Secondly, the case for doing this is weak. The only case that I have heard over money is about alignment with adults. We have heard a very compelling argument from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, as to how that simply is not the case.

Finally, there is the question of money. I understand that the Government have said that the cuts are not intended to save money but to redistribute it, so that the money saved by these cuts will be used to raise the level of support for adults in the support group. This amendment lays down a marker; by saying that the support given to disabled children cannot be reduced below the current level, it makes the Government think again about that particular brand of rough justice. There is no particular reason why, in making these redistributions, disabled children should be asked to pay for money that is being given to other groups of disabled people. This amendment is not seeking an investment of billions of pounds; it is simply laying down a marker and saying that, when decisions are being taken, this group cannot be expected to bear that cost.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we support Amendment 4, so comprehensively moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and spoken to by a number of noble Lords who are very knowledgeable about these issues. It deals with just part of the inequity introduced by the restructuring of support for disabled people: that affecting families with children. We will debate further issues affecting disabled adults and the removal of the severe disability premium in due course.

Like other speakers, I welcome proposals to increase, over time, the levels of benefit for those in the support group, but we do not think that this should be paid for by drastic cuts in support provided for families with disabled children. Leaving aside transitional protection, my figure is that some 200,000 could lose £27 per week. Whether it is 100,000 or 200,000, it is many children indeed.

We have heard about transitional protection, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, but transitional protection is of no use to new claimants. It might stop you losing what you have, but it does not help if you are claiming for the first time. As it is a cash protection it will in any case reduce in real terms over time. Transitional protection will also cease on change of circumstances—the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, pursued this point—and we have yet to receive clarity on quite what this means.

We are told that the restructuring of these benefits is to simplify the system and that aligning the rates of support for adults and children will ease the transition for disabled children into adulthood, but how does the Minister respond to the point that there is not true alignment? There is also the issue that the gateways are different: for adults it is the WCA process; for children, as now, it is via the DLA. Children who are severely visually impaired will receive the higher addition—a move that we welcome—but it is by no means certain that adults who are severely visually impaired will be allocated to the support group under the WCA. Furthermore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, pointed out, disability disregards in the universal credit proposals add to the support for adults.

In Committee, we had some knowledgeable contributions from noble Lords about the costs that families with disabled children face. We know that families with disabled children are disproportionately likely to be living in poverty. In Committee, we heard the very personal experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. We also heard detailed analysis. We have heard further details today from the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Campbell, and my noble friend Lady Wilkins. I shall list some of the potential extra costs faced by families: heating, which is a big issue; sensory equipment; special toys; special diet; transport; extra and special clothing; and help with siblings, who will not have their parents’ time and attention. To this must be added the lost opportunity for parents—or at least for one of them—to work.

For those in work, costs can be higher because of the increased costs associated with care and transport for disabled children. Those costs do not only or most heavily fall on families with the most disabled children—that point was tellingly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. As framed, the amendment need not have overall cost implications for the Government, but it would of course cause a rethink of the restructuring, a restructuring that currently redistributes resources away from children and towards adults.

Reversing a benefit loss of £27 a week for some of the neediest families in our country must be a priority. Failure to do so will inevitably increase poverty at a time when the Government are reneging on their commitment to upgrade the child element of the child tax credit by more than inflation—a measure that they proclaimed in their 2010 Budget would ensure that effects on child poverty would be statistically insignificant but that is a cloak that they can no longer hide behind.

If the noble Baroness is minded to test the opinion of the House, we will support her on the amendment.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Sherlock

Monday 28th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I would like to add just one point for the Minister to think about in his response. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made a very powerful case. If the Minister does not like this way of doing things, could he help the Committee to understand how he can guarantee that his officials will undertake what seem to me to be the eminently reasonable strictures contained within the clause? If this is not the way, then what is?

Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and others in Committee have drawn the attention of the Committee to the fact that many of the people who will be receiving this benefit are living on the breadline. They are living on incomes which are so tight that what may seem to be relatively small sanctions can tip somebody into misery, as the classics will tell us. Could the Minister therefore consider how we in this Committee and in the House can have the confidence that nobody in that situation will be plunged potentially into despair by having a sanction applied without due consideration being taken of the impact on their physical and mental health, and indeed on the well-being of any children in their family, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, as has been said by my noble friend Lady Sherlock, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has made a powerful case in principle. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, I am not quite sure that the formulation set down here is quite right, as it lumps together sanctions, penalties and recovery of overpayments, and there might be arguments for unpicking those. It would be helpful, in any event, if, following this debate, we could have in writing a note as to what information decision-makers would routinely have in front of them when they make the decision with regard to each of those various categories. That would help us as we move to Report.

We debated issues around the claimant commitment earlier, as has been said. My noble friend Lady Lister made the important point again about that being more about co-production rather than something that is delivered and given to the claimant. That is an important point. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, we are dealing with people whose resources are, almost by definition, incredibly stretched. In many cases they are on the edge. If we are going to further reduce the means that they have, then we ought to be very clear that we do that in the knowledge of all of the circumstances and the impact on their well-being.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Baroness Sherlock

Monday 21st November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who has been unavoidably detained, as he has an important meeting on other legislation. I shall speak also to Amendment 98A.

In doing so, I am grateful for briefing, particularly from CLIC Sargent, a charity that works with children with cancer. These are probing amendments that are designed to ensure that personal independence payment is able to meet the distinct needs of young people aged 16 to 24 who have a long-term health condition or disability. I understand that the Government have confirmed that the reform of DLA for under-16s will be taken forward separately, but there is still an issue about whether PIP is able to meet the unique needs of young people aged 16 to 24. There is a concern that they will end up being treated the same way as adults, despite being much less likely to have financial independence and having fewer benefits available to them. I understand that DLA is at present the only benefit available to young people with a health condition which is available in all circumstances. Therefore, it is particularly important that PIP is able to meet the unique needs of this group of young people with health conditions or disabilities.

As noble Lords will appreciate, those young people aged 16 to 24 face a range of transitions as they approach adulthood. They may leave education and move on to higher education or employment, perhaps leaving their family and moving into their own home. They may enter into long-term relationships and have children; increasingly, those key transitions happen in the 20s. In particular, I am conscious that elsewhere the Government are moving to raise the age participation rate for children in education. There are also reviews going on of SEN; the disability Green Paper is looking at a co-ordinated system of assessment and support from birth to age 25. But the plans to raise participation age will mean that, for example, most 16 to 18 year-olds will still be in education or training, but PIP will classify them as working-age adults. By way of example, I understand that the best practice NICE guidance treats 16 to 24 year-olds with cancer as being a distinct group with specific social, psychological and educational needs and goes on to explain the best way for services to be shaped for this group. Could the Minister be encouraged to look at that as an approach that might be helpful in transitioning across to examining PIP?

The effect of relying on different age ranges within the benefits system not only complicates transition for long-term health conditions or disabilities but can also see them facing a cliff edge. Can I put some specific questions to the Minister? I have no desire to press this amendment but perhaps he could help the Committee to understand how the Government intend to support this group of people. Has he looked at the possibility of introducing specialist teams or a tailored approach to young people aged 16 to 24 in the benefits system? Would he consider a distinct PIP system for those aged 16 to 24, which would include an age-appropriate system of assessment for that age group? In particular, would he consider whether those already in receipt of DLA could continue to receive it until they turn 18—or maybe even up to 24, if he is feeling particularly generous today? Would he comment on the qualifying period? Could he reassure the Committee that that will not apply for those under 18, and ideally not for those under 24? Could he help the Committee to understand what approach the Government are taking to harmonising the various age limits across the benefit system?

This is a potentially particularly vulnerable group of young people, and it is important that in looking at how PIP will operate we take careful account of the impact on this group. I hope that the Minister is able to reassure the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, these are useful probing amendments to understand fully what is happening or proposed in respect of this group of young people. I imagine that the Minister will say that, as the Bill stands, there are already powers to make regulations as proposed for 16 to 24 year-olds, but it is an opportunity to get something on the record. We certainly support the thrust of this and the needs for regulations that are affirmative—not just the first set. I think that we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord German, on that in a moment.

The age 16 already has ramifications in the DLA system. Below that age, young people cannot qualify for the lower-rate care component via the cooking test, and there are additional tests for the lower-rate mobility test. So there is already a potentially stressful transition under DLA that could be compounded with the transition to PIP. The figures that have been mentioned are that over the next three years 173,000 disabled children will turn 16. If they have to seek or apply for PIP immediately, that is a big challenge. There was a hint in the other place when this was debated that that would not necessarily be the case and that, in the scheduling of young people in this age group, they would go directly on to PIP. Perhaps we can have the Minister’s reassurance or an update on that point.

The briefing note that we got from the DWP sets out the work undertaken to date, seeking to base the assessment on the education health and care plan that is being developed across government, which we would support. But I am not quite sure how it fits together on timing, particularly over the next couple of years, with PIP being relatively close by and due to be with us shortly. Can the Minister confirm to us the process of assessment for young adults and say what the likely migration process is? What happens to 16 year-olds who are on DLA at the point when PIP is introduced?