Welfare Reform Bill
Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Skelmersdale(13 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Skelmersdale
Can I just finish? I accept that this will involve lifestyle changes. It is inevitable, is it not? Noble Lords have spoken about housing. There is no doubt that idleness—no, idleness is an unfair word—having more time than someone in full-time work costs money. How and with what—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Would the noble Lord approve of a lifestyle change that forced someone out of a council house, whatever the level of rent, into much more expensive private sector accommodation because they had been made homeless? Is that a lifestyle change that the noble Lord would approve of?
Welfare Reform Bill
Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Skelmersdale(13 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, the members of the opposition party have been waxing lyrical in this particular case. With all the experience of his advisers behind him, can my noble friend say whether such an accident—and an accident it most certainly is—ever occurred during the course of the last Labour Government?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before the Minister responds to that, perhaps I may add to the list of questions. A moment ago he said that these were fair and targeted proposals, but can he expand on that proposition for us? The increase in the taper rate that affects some people runs to the tune of £780 million and the disability living allowance changes to the gateway amount to a withdrawal amounts to £1.4 billion from disabled people. How does he deal with that juxtaposition? How does he evaluate it? What is the basis for saying that those are fair and targeted? The Minister said it is always right to remind us about the inherited deficit. Perhaps I could say that it is always right to remind Members opposite that a financial crisis has hit every economy around the world—certainly all the major economies; when the last Government left office, the economy was growing and unemployment was going down.
Lord Skelmersdale
I am sure that the eloquent and moving speeches we have heard today will cause my noble friend the Minister to think very hard indeed. I accept the need for a change in the name of the benefit. “Personal independence payment” is wrong for all the reasons that have been advocated. However, there is a problem. This is a totally new benefit for disabled people, but I believe that having “allowance” in its name is a mistake as it is too close to “disability living allowance”.
While listening to the arguments today, I came up with my own preferred formulation—“personal disability costs payment”. It is all of those things, and it is a payment. When my noble friend thinks about these issues—I am sure that he will not give us a plus or minus answer today; at least, I jolly well hope not—I hope that he will consider that suggestion.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the proposition before us today is that we change references to “personal independence payment” and replace them with “disability living costs allowance”. We have heard strong and compelling arguments to support that proposition and I am happy to give support from the opposition Front Bench. I do not propose to offer an alternative formulation, but I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was coming from. It seems that the reasons that have been articulated today are overwhelmingly right. They are about clarity; about sending out the right signals; about not conceding issues to the press; about not allowing the word “disability” to be airbrushed out of the system; and about trying to combat some of the fears about the way that the proposals have been brought forward.
The DLA has its origins in 1970 when attendance and mobility allowances were introduced for severely disabled people. It was introduced in 1992 under the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I am delighted that he is regaining his self-confidence—I cannot imagine him without it. It was introduced because the then system was not meeting the needs of some groups of disabled people; for example, people with learning disabilities and visual impairments. The noble Lord, Lord Low, described DLA as now having iconic significance.
As the impact assessment produced for this Bill indicates, DLA is a benefit which provides a cash contribution towards the extra costs of needs arising from an impairment or health condition. Because it is not practical to measure each individual’s expenditure and therefore entitlement, entitlement has to be based on proxies for extra costs, care and mobility. These proxies were used at the time because research showed that they were the greatest sources of extra cost. So a decision about whether an award is made is not on the basis of an individual’s cost, but on the severity of their care and mobility needs.
Welfare Reform Bill
Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Skelmersdale(13 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, many years ago when my noble friend Lord Brooke was my temporary boss in Northern Ireland, never in a million years did I expect that he would ever be described, or indeed would describe himself, as St Sebastian. The reason I mention that is that I knew that when he became Secretary of State, he had moderately recently been a Treasury Minister. My job in Northern Ireland, inter alia, was to look after the Social Fund in the then 32 Northern Ireland social security offices. It quickly became apparent that the calls on the Social Fund in any particular office at any particular time were extremely erratic. I asked my civil servants if London would object if I moved money around the system in order to try to balance it up. Of course the following year I had to do it again because of that erraticism.
It is all very well expecting the Social Fund, which is expatriated to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales as a whole, to operate well with ring-fencing, but I find it absolutely impossible to believe that ring-fencing can ever apply when it is expatriated to local authorities in England for the simple reason that one local authority will build up a certain amount while another will be permanently in deficit. That is not going to help the people whom the Social Fund is intended to help in the first place.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have added our names to Amendments 86ZZZB, 86ZZZC and 86ZZZD and we support the other amendments in this group. We have our own amendment, Amendment 86ZZZEB, and I should say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that I am happy to accept his amendments to my amendment. Perhaps we can go through the Lobby together when the opportunity arises.
The Social Fund, particularly the discretionary component, helps some of the most disadvantaged and marginalised individuals in the country. We have been given a lot of historical perspective on this, but my brief says that the fund has its origins in the exceptional needs payments scheme introduced by the Labour Government in 1948. However, some may go back a bit further. We should recognise that the fund as it operates today is not perfect. Indeed, a number of noble Lords have made that point. When we were in Government, we paved the way for change and consulted on it. The case we made was the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord German, which was that the system was short-term, passive and complex. Its role was as a sticking plaster to deal with short-term crises and did not address the longer-term challenges which individuals face, particularly those of financial and social exclusion.
That said, we should never lose sight of the importance of a safety net for those who are in desperate need. We have all received powerful testimony from a range of organisations to the difference that a crisis loan or a community care grant can make when individuals with acute needs are faced with very difficult circumstances. It helps the poorest and the most vulnerable people in our society and we know how an early intervention can prevent a slide into even more desperate circumstances.
The case has been made by others, particularly in a very powerful presentation by my noble friend Lady Lister, as to why we should continue to support this. I would like to comment on some of the other contributions. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that the great mistake he made was to confront Derek Hatton with a Socialist Worker under his arm. It should have been Militant, and then he might have got a better reception. So far as ring-fencing is concerned, I recall one party conference when a certain Dennis Skinner was speaking from the platform. He addressed the mayor who had come to open the conference and suggested that he should melt down his chain and put it into the housing revenue account, so there are precedents as well.
One of the difficulties I have with the government proposals is in trying to understand precisely their vision of what should result from this process. On page 25 of Local support to replace Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans for living expenses in England, the Government’s response to the call for evidence, they say:
“There is no expectation or desire from central government that the new service will mirror the current Social Fund scheme in whole or in part”.
If that is right, what is the Government’s vision? What are they seeking to achieve? My blood ran cold when I turned to page 27—this was the point made by my noble friend Lady Lister—where it says:
“One of the design issues raised by a large number of respondents is whether provision should be in the form of cash payments or goods and services, including for example food parcels and both new and re-conditioned household items”.
The next paragraph says:
“The need to offer recipients choice or control over the item they received was not generally considered a requirement and by a number of respondents it was thought to be undesirable. There was a strong sense that if there is a genuine need recipients will accept the support that is offered”.
What sort of country are we living in where we have those sorts of rules? It is “take it or leave it”, living off the scraps from the supermarket when they clear the shelves at night.
My noble friend Lady Sherlock pressed on a range of points concerning funding. I shall address Appendix C of the document I just referred to. Bandied around somewhere in the text is a figure of £178 million, but this annexe says it gives us,
“National-level data from the latest available financial year and 2005-6”.
The year then was 2009-10, so it was not as up to date as my noble friend. It says:
“We have indicated our intention and already taken action to manage the current levels of demand and spend for Crisis Loans back towards 2005-06 levels. 2005-06 data should therefore be regarded as more representative of the levels of demand and spend at the point of transition to the new local provision”.
The gross spend on crisis loans in 2009-10 was £67 million, but what was it in 2005-6? It was £20 million. Is that what the Government are about now, trying to scale back from even the 2009-10 figures to just £20 million in allocating moneys to start this process? It is an absolute disgrace if that is the proposition, and this is supposedly not meant to be about saving money.
Notwithstanding that, the information we have had is that the Government are cutting back on some of these arrangements. Crisis loans for items only following a disaster and crisis loans for living expenses have been cut back from 75 per cent to 60 per cent, supposedly aligning with the hardship payment rate under JSA. Crisis loans for living expenses are limited to three in a rolling 12-month period. There is already a process under way to cut back on this spend before we get into the new arrangements. I would like to understand the rationale and the justification for that.
I thoroughly and wholeheartedly support the proposition concerning ring-fencing. What we are talking about is money that goes into local authority budgets, ring-fenced for a specific purpose. The Government have made great play of reducing ring-fencing on local authorities—as we did in Government to a certain extent—but as a technique and as a means of ensuring that the money that goes through to local authorities is spent on that endeavour, it is well tried and tested. There is not a problem in doing it. Indeed, one of the experiences we need to reflect on is what happened to the “Supporting People” programme. That programme was originally ring-fenced. It was then un-ring-fenced, I think with the support of the CLG Select Committee, but at least in those circumstances local authorities were required to continue to report centrally about how that allocation had been dealt with. It was not rigid but at least there was a reporting requirement. I do not know, but perhaps the Minister can tell us, whether any such arrangements are proposed so far as the Social Fund is concerned.
My noble friend Lady Hollis was absolutely right to identify the issues that will arise under two-tier authorities. She suggested that one way of dealing with this would be to have a mandatory allocation to districts, but that raises the whole question of who people will engage with at the local level to get the support they need. Most of their needs will be related to housing, which is at the district level, but some may be related to adult services, which are the functions of a county council. Where people go and what the process will be is entirely unclear.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, supported the issues around ring-fencing. He made the point, as did other noble Lords, about the pressure that is on local authorities at this time. They have had dramatic cuts made to their budgets and some of those cuts have been front-end loaded. In some respects, they have had greater responsibilities imposed on them under the Localism Bill. Indeed, what are hard-pressed councils to do when such extraordinary pressures are placed on them? They must try to make decent decisions so as to protect and support their communities. This is another example of the Government, in the guise of localism, pushing down on local authorities and giving them the supposed problem that they are not prepared to face up to and deal with themselves.
My noble friend Lady Turner centred her speech on issues around domestic violence. I wholeheartedly agree with her, and that is why the amendment should be supported.
The greatest difficulty with all this is being able to see what the Government’s vision is. Local authorities are innovative and many of them will work very hard to protect in every way they can the vulnerable citizens in their communities, and indeed those from outside their communities. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made the point about connections. If local authorities put in place a focus on people with local connections, it will particularly disadvantage those whom the Social Fund is designed to help—the people who are settling back into a community and perhaps do not yet have a fixed abode. They may be rough sleepers or—I think this is the expression—they sofa-surf, which is when they kip down for the night on friends’ sofas here, there and everywhere. Helping those people means that a barrier cannot be put on some localised connection. I would support all the amendments which seek to avoid that.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, was absolutely right to say that we need consistency of approach and transparency in all this. In part, that is what our amendment seeks to do: it would establish that there should be mechanisms to make sure that we get consistency. As I say, that has to be on an England basis because separate and well funded schemes will operate in Scotland and Wales. That is fine, and we should be happy with that. One of the other challenges here is that these changes are being introduced at a time when there is a whole maelstrom of change going on around localism, welfare reform, our health and social care provisions, and what legal aid support people can receive. In the midst of all that, these changes are being brought forward. They will affect the most vulnerable people in our society, and if we have a duty as Members of Parliament and certainly as members of a Government, above all we should look to protect them. These provisions simply do not do that.
Welfare Reform Bill
Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Skelmersdale(13 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a probing amendment designed to focus on issues of in-work conditionality. We attach it to Clause 15, which is just on the “Work-focused interview requirement”, but it is intended to cover work preparation requirements as well as work search and work availability requirements.
The Minister will be aware that some of us were able to attend a briefing session with officials yesterday—I thank them for that. It is clear from that session that much of the thinking about in-work conditionality is at best embryonic, notwithstanding that we are being asked to give considerable powers to the Secretary of State in this primary legislation.
The proposition that conditionality should not stop when someone accesses work is not of itself unreasonable. The progression from a mini-job to a full-time job is to be encouraged for those whose health, family and caring commitments permit. How it will work in practice is what matters. We have only a few parameters at the moment. It is the express policy intent that conditionality will cease to apply for claimants without caring responsibilities or health conditions at a level of gross earnings equivalent to 35 hours per week at the national minimum wage, currently £212 per week, or £11,000 a year. Obviously, other things being equal, that would put someone within the tax and national insurance net and therefore into the higher tapers. Someone being paid twice the national minimum wage would have to work only 17 and a half hours per week; someone on lower pay twice that long. The threshold for an equivalent couple is double that for an individual, so the family income would need to be £22,000 before they escape conditionality.
It is not clear how well those parameters have yet filtered into the public consciousness. Perhaps the Minister can point us in the direction of the equality impact assessment which covered that issue. We welcome the fact that the Government have given some assurances about easements—for example, for lone parents with young children and for those with health challenges and caring responsibilities. There is also the flexibility promulgated for ways in which claimants can increase their earnings by supposedly increasing hours or pay, changing jobs or taking on a second job. That is nice in theory but likely to give rise to all sorts of practical problems.
The vagueness around the provisions, the extent to which providers or Jobcentre Plus staff will be making the determination, and the sources of capacity and training are a real worry. Affirmative regulations are all very well, but we know that they provide limited parliamentary oversight of what is a significant change.
A number of points arise: we know from the briefing that the ultimate requirement in terms of hours or overall remuneration will be included in the claimant commitment ab initio. How will this help those who wish to have a staged return to the job market? How will employers who are able to offer part-time work react to someone whose claimant commitment accepts that they are to achieve full-time work? It seems to me that this could damage their job prospects.
The test is apparently to be on gross earnings, so where does this leave, for example, employer pension contributions? These will be a significant feature, given auto-enrolment, which we know the Government are committed to introducing next year. What capacity will there be in the system to do the appropriate kinds of comparison? These will be complicated matters.
How will this work for the self-employed? What happens if the profits of the business are slower to materialise than hoped for, margins are squeezed beyond expectations, or the business operates in a fluctuating market? If it is a seasonal business, one can see the prospect of fill-in work, but on what analysis will Jobcentre Plus or providers seek to divert individuals from the sometimes painful process—particularly in the current economic climate—of building a profitable and sustainable business? What expertise will they be able to bring to bear?
Our discussions yesterday raised a number of issues about how the work programme fits with this, as well. There seems to be a potential conflict between work programme providers, which are remunerated by sustaining individuals in work for at least 16 hours per week, and in-work conditionality, which seeks to move people to 35 hours a week, if remunerated at the national minimum wage.
It is understood that there is scope to renegotiate outcomes with existing providers, but this could be a significant change of focus. What evaluation has been undertaken of the potential to renegotiate? Can the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with the business community and, indeed, the TUC, on how this novel interaction with the labour market should proceed?
We acknowledge what the Government are seeking to achieve, but there appear to be so many unknowns—unless the Minister can give us comfort this afternoon—that it is difficult to accept that we should give the powers that the Government are seeking in this Bill. At the least, this looks to be a case for a sunset clause. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, first of all, I should apologise to the Committee for not being here when it last discussed this Bill on Monday, and accord my grateful thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for speaking to some of my amendments in a large group which was somewhat precursored—I think that is the word—by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
The noble Lord, in his speech to this probing amendment, asked a whole string of questions which I am not in any sense qualified to respond to. I am able to respond to the amendment, which leaves out,
“or more paid work or better-paid work”.
The object of the exercise, we all agree, is to get as many people as possible into work, through this system. The trouble is, if the words I have just quoted from lines 10 and 11 on page 7 of the Bill are left out, then once the claimant has got paid work that is the end of the Secretary of State’s responsibility.
What happens if the claimant decides that the hours he is doing are not sufficient for his needs, even with the universal credit? I accept there are the pension commitments and various other commitments that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, spoke about. Is the claimant going to go back to the provider or to Jobcentre Plus and ask how he is to increase his earnings? If so, there is very good reason to have these words remain in the Bill. The question—
Lord Skelmersdale
Can I just finish? The key question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is to what extent there will be bullying, by either the provider or the Jobcentre Plus officials. I hope to goodness that there will be none.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The amendment, as I explained, was a probing amendment and was not of itself meant to be taken literally. It was the peg on which to hang the argument and this very important debate, which we should have. The noble Lord was musing about what would happen with claimants who wish voluntarily to increase their hours. There is nothing to stop them doing it, and we would all applaud that if they were able to, and to do so without further pressures on Jobcentre Plus or the providers. There is nothing wrong with that.
Lord Skelmersdale
No, my Lords. The reason I added my last sentence and prevented the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, from rising to interrupt me was for the simple reason that the claimant may well need guidance and help in order to get the extra hours or money that he requires. Therefore, I am asking the Minister to what extent this is going to be driven by the claimant, or by the job provider, education or Jobcentre Plus. I said that I hoped it would be claimant-driven, and nothing else.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for his reply and will certainly withdraw the amendment. One point pressed on us was that if there is a recognition that volunteering programmes can be beneficial, perhaps that could be recognised by Jobcentre Plus in the other programmes that it is structuring for individuals. There have been suggestions that sometimes people slip out of volunteering programmes because they cannot keep the commitments, because they have work-focused interviews or other mandatory activity.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, perhaps I might interrupt here as I am interested in volunteering, having been a volunteer in various fields myself, as I suspect most of us in this room have at one time or another. Volunteering strikes me as a way of getting work experience—not necessarily but it could be—and therefore is to be most definitely applauded.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I agree with that and I am sure that we all would. I suppose it depends a little bit on the precise programme and activity, but the point is not to lose that opportunity for individuals who are already undertaking it because Jobcentre Plus is imposing other requirements with clashing commitments, meaning that people have to drop out of the programmes. That was a particular point that was pressed on us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Welfare Reform Bill
Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Skelmersdale(13 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, we have heard an enormous amount of words, some of them very persuasive, for this amendment. But I find myself remarkably schizophrenic about the whole thing. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, put her finger on at least half my schizophrenia.
Universal credit is a cash sum. You get it in your bank account, through your giro, from the post office or wherever. Council tax benefit is exactly the opposite. It is a discount; you do not see the money. Therefore, I can see that it ought to be treated in a totally different way from universal credit. On the other hand, you cannot live in a house without paying council tax. This is where my schizophrenia comes in. From your lump sum of universal credit, you are going to pay your rent, and so on, but you have the likelihood of outgoings and you cannot from those outgoings separate out the council tax that you are also going to pay. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Freud can solve this great dilemma that I have.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will speak briefly on this issue in support of the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Hollis and the exceptionally powerful case made by her and by pretty much every other the noble Lord who has spoken on the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, raised an interesting point about how you would extract the payment. My noble friend Lady Turner asked whether it was a rebate, a discount or quite what it was.
I recollect that she pressed us in Government on behalf of the Royal British Legion, who were campaigning to have the term rebate replacing the benefit. We all signed up to that at the time. I am not quite sure what progress was made. I think that it went to local authorities. However, I remember that there was a potential price tag of tens of millions of pounds to local authorities just for that one system change. These are not inexpensive projects that we are dealing with. I cannot believe that this is what the noble Lord or the DWP want. The noble Lord is an exceptionally logical person. He analyses things. The scale of the problems that the localisation of council tax would bring seems to me to be totally out of kilter with all of the work and analysis that has gone on in producing plans for the universal credit. As everyone has said, it undermines the universal credit—the benefits of the single taper in particular. With all the raft of issues about how people would understand what their position was, the simplicity of the system would fall away.
We had a meeting with officials. As ever they were very helpful. We explored this issue a little bit. My understanding is that it was not until March of this year that the department started to contact local authorities to get their minds around how it would work. To produce something in a Bill and develop a policy on an assumption that this component can be dealt with separately without any clear knowledge as to how that will work in practice seems unusually foolhardy. Again, I cannot believe that the Minister believes that this is the best way forward. There are lots of practical issues. We know lots of local authorities will have outsourced their arrangements in respect of housing and council tax benefits. You would have to break the costs involved in the multiplicity of contracts. I do not know if the Minister has any idea of what would be involved in that exercise.
What we are seeing here is what we have seen in the Localism Bill writ large. There have been a lot of instances where the Government and the Secretary of State have said that they want to devolve power and give more freedoms to local authorities, but have then realised the consequences and drawn those back with all sorts of regulation powers, which, as my noble friend Lady Hollis said, would have to be there if you were going to make any sort of sense of this proposal to have any sort of understanding of whether it is regional systems, which are common.
There is another component as well. It relates to the cut in the total amount available. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord German, that in a sense there are two issues: the financing and what cash sum is available, and how it should be dealt with. This Government have a record of imposing on local authorities and getting them to take the pain, the heat and the difficult decisions, and seeking to walk away scot free. We will see and debate what is going to happen with the social fund. That is another example—no duties on local authorities and no ring-fenced funding from it.
My noble friend Lady Hollis made a telling point. If our understanding is correct—and the Minister will doubtless confirm this—this is switching AME to DEL, the reverse of what I think the Minister himself negotiated so effectively when he was dealing with work programmes. It does not make any sense. I know that the Minister has to do his job. We have all been in the position of defending the indefensible before. However, I cannot believe that it is going to end up as currently proposed because it would seriously undermine the universal credit and all the good work that the Government are trying to do on that.