Child Poverty

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, we should all congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on enabling us to have this debate, because it is timely, in view of the fact that within a few months, we will have had a general election and there will be a new Government. In my view, that Government must see that reducing child poverty should be a very high priority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, said, the root causes of child poverty are systemic. She is right.

The debate has been extremely interesting, in that it has thrown out a range of ideas that we might look at. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for example, said a number of things about school, diet and finance that could be explored further.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, talked about Lord Joseph, who knew that we had to do something about the cycle of deprivation. The problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said, is that we still have that, in that we have the inheritance of poverty. We have the inheritance of wealth on the one hand, but the inheritance of poverty on the other. How do we break out of that? Given that 10% of our young people aged 16 to 24 are not in education, employment or training, you have to intervene at an individual level to assist those who want to be in work, education or training, but who cannot be, for a variety of reasons. I would like to think that one might have individual work coaches for those not participating in the opportunities available to them.

I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about social housing. I understand the point he is making, but children need a secure, decent home, and for many that will only be—

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I agree with the noble Lord. Children do need a secure home, but the real problem is that all the conditions that lead you to need social housing mean that you never have a full life. I say to anybody in this House: try living in social housing, and then try to get to university or into a skilled job. That very rarely happens; that is the only problem. For me, the problem is not that social housing is not one of the most beautiful things in creation. The question is: what are we going to do to make social housing the foundation for a growth away from poverty and need?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I take the noble Lord’s point, and I understand. Perhaps that is why we need a broader, longer discussion. From my perspective, housing waiting lists are so long, and the quality of so many homes in the private rented sector is so poor, that the need to build decent homes within the sector for social rent seems imperative. Without that we will never solve the housing crisis.

Social housing providers can have a responsibility for providing wider support services, particularly for getting people into work and for giving help and advice to those who suffer from ill health. Estate officers can often do things to assist families or individuals that they would not be able to do if it were not for social housing. Maybe we need to have that longer debate.

I understand totally what the noble Lord was saying about a ministry of poverty prevention. Of course, all Whitehall departments are supposed to be doing things to reduce poverty, but the main one is the Treasury. It is about persuading the Treasury to invest more in things such as social housing that might help to reduce poverty.

There is an issue around income disparity. The first thing that has to be done to reduce poverty is reducing income disparity. That is why we have to deal with low pay, and make every effort to increase the minimum wage and the living wage above the rate of inflation so that those in lower pay brackets have more.

Mention has been made of absolute poverty and relative poverty. The truth is that too many children are being brought up in households with very low incomes. That is always poverty, whether it is absolute, relative or deep. We have heard the figures of 4.3 million children living in relatively low-income households and 2.9 million children in deep poverty—a household where income after housing costs is below 50% of median income.

All those tests are based on income, whereas child poverty derives from long-term unemployment, low qualifications, ill health, poverty of aspiration and poverty of opportunity. All those need tackling by the different Whitehall departments that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, talked about.

If levelling up is to be a success for the Government, child poverty needs to be addressed. The point is that levelling up is about people, not places. It is about individual children, and hence the two-child limit seems wrong. It was introduced in 2017, seven years ago. The Resolution Foundation has told us that it increased poverty, particularly for families with three or more children. It should cease, as it is increasing poverty in poor households. All the organisations that one can think of—the National Association of Head Teachers, the Church of England, Save the Children, the Child Poverty Action Group and Barnardo’s—say that it should cease.

As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln reminded us, Sure Start was a success. It was introduced in 1999 to improve child development. Some 250 projects were created, concentrated in places where high numbers of children under five were living in poverty. Those centres helped with play, learning, health and childcare. I recall that, when I was leader of Newcastle City Council, we had a major success with our Sure Start centres. It is about aspiration and addressing some of the issues that the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, reminded us of.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said in a recent report that the programme of Sure Start paid for itself with better GCSE results, improved skills in literacy and numeracy, personal development, and fewer interactions with the police and criminal justice system. It is a means of achieving what the noble Lord, Lord Bird, set out asking us to do, which is to spend more money on prevention rather than on solving the problems that poverty has created. There was too short a judgment in 2010, when there was a change of Government and an end to Sure Start. Too many people thought that it had not proved itself but, if a longer timescale had been taken, they would have known that it had.

Something needs to be created in a new Government. It may be called Sure Start or something else, but we need something like that, which intervenes with those who live in poor households.

Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2023

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

That this House regrets that the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2023 will freeze Local Housing Allowance (LHA) at the levels applied in April 2020 and therefore fails to account for inflationary increases in rent, resulting in vulnerable claimants spending a greater proportion of income on rent; further recognises that His Majesty’s Government’s inability to control inflation has resulted in unaffordable rents and contributed to housing insecurity for all tenants; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to align LHA with local housing rates.

Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I move this Motion on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who cannot be here today because she tested positive for Covid last night. She sends her apologies to the House, and I am sure we all wish her a speedy recovery. I draw the House’s attention to the wording of the Motion. Special attention is drawn to the instrument in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 27th report.

No one in our society should be without a home but, due to successive freezes in local housing allowance, more and more people are being pushed into homelessness. This evening I will challenge the Government to reconsider urgently the decision to impose further real-terms cuts on local housing allowance this year. Last week the chief executive of Crisis described this decision as

“nothing short of crushing for people who rely on this vital lifeline”.

More than 1.87 million private renters on low incomes rely on local housing allowance to help pay their rent —this is more than one in three private renters.

It was right for the Prime Minister to act to protect these households during the pandemic, when as Chancellor he invested in the local housing allowance so that it would cover the cheapest 30% of rents in a local area. That meant that people were able to sustain tenancies during a period of hardship, and it also helped people who had been trapped in homelessness into tenancies. It is worrying that this progress has not been sustained. Despite inflation and rising rents, local housing allowance remains at the same cash level as three years ago, based on rent levels from four years ago. As the report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlights, the Explanatory Memorandum did not “explain the policy objective” of the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2023 or explain what its effects would be on the recipients of local housing allowance.

However, the Government’s own figures show how severe the consequences are. Landlord repossessions increased by 98% at the end of last year. For every household facing eviction or rent rises it cannot afford, moving house is incredibly difficult to afford; for some, it is impossible. Advertised rents have risen at record rates since 2020, with Zoopla estimating an increase of 12.1% in the last year alone. Some areas have seen particularly high increases: rents are up 15.6% in Manchester, 14.1% in Glasgow and 17% in London.

In recent weeks, DWP Ministers have said that local housing allowance is not intended to cover all rents in all areas—nobody is calling for that, but surely the Government agree that it should cover some rents in all areas. Dataset after dataset shows that, in significant parts of this country, a household would simply not be able to find any properties to rent at local housing allowance levels. In July last year, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that only seven properties were advertised at local housing allowance levels across Wales. More recently, in February, the Bevan Foundation found that 16 local authorities in Wales did not have a single property advertised that was affordable on local housing allowance. Last autumn, Crisis and Zoopla found that only 8% of properties advertised across England over the previous 12 months were affordable on local housing allowance. In Watford, only 4% were affordable on local housing allowance. Overall, nearly a quarter of local authorities had fewer than 20 properties available at local housing allowance rates, and more than 100 local authorities had 3% of properties or fewer affordable on local housing allowance. For context, 38% of private renting households rely on local housing allowance to help pay their rent.

With an acute shortage of social housing, we need far more housing for social rent. As Members in this Chamber today have constantly pointed out over recent years, our building rate of social housing for rent has simply been far too slow. With that acute shortage of social housing, many people on low incomes have no alternative to renting in the private sector. As that becomes unaffordable, homelessness is rising. Having made progress in ending rough sleeping during the pandemic, the Government have now overseen a 26% rise in rough sleeping in England in the last year.

Investing in local housing allowance prevents people experiencing homelessness and makes it easier for people to move out of homelessness. As well as being one of the most effective ways to prevent homelessness, uprating local housing allowance would lead to savings across public services. Almost 100,000 households are stuck in temporary accommodation in England, including more than 125,000 children. Temporary accommodation costs local authorities nearly £1.6 billion a year. Staying in temporary accommodation, including unsuitable hotels and B&Bs, also has a damaging impact on people’s lives, making it harder for people to work, get their kids to school and stay healthy.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has been clear that the choice to freeze local housing allowance is resulting in wide geographic disparities, whereby low-income renters in some areas can get the cheapest rents almost covered, whereas those in other areas must find an extra £150 a month to top up their rent, or face homelessness. Last month, Sam Ray-Chaudhuri of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said of investing to uprate local housing allowance:

“This isn’t an expensive policy”.


In a debate that can be overly focused on averages and aggregate costs, I will conclude with the experience of what it feels like for people on the brink of homelessness. One person—who it is not possible to name, but it is on the public record—has described how the rising cost of living was affecting him. He said,

“I wasn’t even earning enough money to be able to pay for the rent that I had currently for two years been paying, which was £870 a month, plus all of the other bills. And then of course when [the landlord] came back to me he said, ‘I put it up to £1200 because that is the going rate,’ and I just thought I have no hope … of being able to find that extra money, because it was hand to mouth pretty much all the time … to be able to find another £400 a month was just absolutely impossible. So, I had to tell the estate agent that I wasn’t going to be taking the lease on again and I was going to have to find other accommodation.”

There are plenty of people like that, and the other accommodation that they would like is just not there. Hostels, sofas and rough sleeping are what remains for far too many people, and the instrument we are debating does not offer them a route out. Unless the Government change their approach, thousands more people will be forced into homelessness over the coming months. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for tabling the regret Motion and to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for moving it. I hope that the noble Baroness will be better soon.

The regret Motion follows a highly critical report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The importance of the issues it raises was reflected in the unusually large number of very helpful briefings I received when I tabled an Oral Question on the issue recently and the “huge amount of evidence” on the impact of the freeze received by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee recent inquiry into the private rented sector. As the Commons Library briefing on the LHA notes:

“Numerous bodies, including homeless charities, the representative bodies of local authorities and private landlords, are making the case for LHA rates to be uprated to cover at least the 30th percentile of local rents, alongside relinking rates to the real cost of renting for future years.”


According to the IFS, the freeze means that just 8% of low-income private renters now have all their rent covered by housing benefits, compared with almost half in the mid-1990s. For nearly a third of them, the amount of rent not covered eats up at least a third of non-housing benefits income, a situation faced by just 14% of the group in the mid-1990s.

This is one reason why analysis from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation indicates that the cost of housing for private tenants is a key driver of poverty today, most starkly for families with children. The more that private tenants are having to use their non-housing universal credit to meet their rents, the less that next month’s 10.1% increase in universal credit and other benefits—which no doubt the Minister will pray in aid —will help them to meet other basic costs, such as food.

A recent report by the JRF and the Trussell Trust shows how universal credit is too low in any case to meet the most basic of needs. A piece in my local paper, the Nottingham Post, just last week cited the growing gap between the LHA and increasing rents as an important factor in the worrying increase in arrears and everyday living debts seen by the local Citizens Advice.

In his helpful letter following the uprating debate, the Minister said that DWP is working closely with DLUHC to monitor rental shortfalls. Could he tell us what their assessment is of the average shortfall and of the numbers affected? Following my Oral Question, he promised to write to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with a reply to his question as to what proportion of those receiving the LHA are unemployed and therefore more reliant on this money to pay their rent. Could he share that information—in a letter, if necessary—with the rest of us and include other private tenants without earnings?

The other reason that this is so important is that the inability to meet the full rent can tip people into homelessness, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, and as the homelessness charities have warned. So far, the Minister has carefully avoided answering questions as to the likely impact on homelessness of freezing the LHA yet again. I cannot believe that the Government have not done some kind of assessment of the likely impact, so I would be grateful if he could share it with us.

Hitherto, whenever this issue has been raised in either House, the ministerial response has been woefully inadequate. There seems to be three stock justifications, none of which is convincing. The first is simply the cost, which, it is suggested, cannot be borne in addition to the general benefit uprating. I have already indicated why this is short-sighted from the perspective of individuals suffering the consequences, but as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has highlighted, it is also short-sighted from a public-spending perspective, because of the knock-on effects on public services through homelessness, short-term accommodation and both physical and mental health. Have the Government made an estimate of those knock-on costs? From last week’s Westminster Hall debate, it would appear not, which betrays a very narrow approach to assessing the cost of policies to the public purse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in the one or two minutes I have, I thank all those who have spoken this evening. I hope the Minister has been impressed by the unity of view across the Chamber. He said that the Government were spending around £30 billion a year on housing support in the private rented sector. That is a false economy. It is essential to spend it, but the only way to bring down the benefits bill is to build more genuinely affordable social housing, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has explained.

Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. I noted everything that he said, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that, while it would be churlish not to welcome the Bill, such a welcome must be qualified. A year ago, as she reminded us, there were lots of objections—including from me—to the level of the increase, particularly in view of the rising rate of inflation and its projected peak.

As the Minister said a moment ago, the aim is to get financial support to those most in need. I think that is an objective we would all subscribe to. However, while the Bill helps over 8 million families across the country at a time of rapid increases in the cost of living, some households are excluded from support. One category is sanctioned universal credit recipients, the vast majority of whom have missed an appointment for a variety of reasons. To qualify for the cost of living payment, a claimant has to be entitled to some payment, however small, in the month preceding the qualifying date for that additional payment. If they are sanctioned, they have no payment, and yet those people have an underlying entitlement.

It was estimated that, last year, well over 6,500 households across the UK did not receive a cost of living payment. This problem was known about a year ago, and I find it surprising that a solution has not yet been found by the department because the people who are affected by this are, by their very nature, vulnerable. It is difficult to see why this problem needs to exist when solutions are available. Why can the qualifying period not be extended from one month to two? That way, those who enter employment with an immediate increase in pay would not receive the payment but those who do need it would get it. Is it necessary to add to the problems of a universal credit recipient who is already sanctioned by giving them the additional penalty of being disqualified from the extra payment during a cost of living crisis? I do not think it is right for a universal credit recipient to be punished twice.

Further, what are the Government’s plans to help those with fluctuating incomes, such as receiving a one-off bonus in the qualifying period? I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, saying that, in the Commons, there had been a debate about the qualifying period and the number of payments; it was suggested that if there were three payments in the course of the year then, broadly speaking, that would reduce the chances of success of someone losing out. The difficulty is that some did lose out in the last year—some 6,500 households did. It seems that the simpler answer is to move to a two-month qualifying period. Can the Minister give an explanation as to why that does not seem to be on the Government’s agenda?

I remind the Minister that it was a year ago that these issues became clear. I feel that the opportunity was there then to address some of those concerns about the Bill. Is there any procedural override within the system—perhaps at a local level—to help those who are facing substantial financial pressures?

Finally, the point has been made about the start date for the first instalment. I find it very odd that that date is still not publicly known. Over the weekend, I saw in the press that this matter has been questioned. If I was on a very low income and was very dependent on the support, I would really want to be able to plan better than people are currently able to. I hope the Government can give some reassurance on the matter this evening.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th October 2020 Lords Chamber

I indicate now that I will not press this amendment to a vote, but I urge the Minister to accept it. The Committee deserves a comprehensive and serious response from the Government today. If that is not available, they could at least follow the spirit of this amendment and bring forward a report on these issues before Parliament soon. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 4, to which my name is attached, I also wish to support Amendment 3, which addresses similar issues. The aim is to understand better the impact of this Act on pensioner poverty.

According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, pensioner poverty has been decreasing across the UK. Given the existence of the triple lock, that should not be a surprise. Indeed, it shows the success of the triple-lock policy since 2010 in reducing pensioner poverty generally. That is something of which my party should be proud.

Yet, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, pension credit is still needed by large numbers of individual pensioners, and we know from a Question asked yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that the campaign to encourage take-up of pension credit this year seems not to have achieved very much.

As we have heard, too many people who would qualify for pension credit still do not claim it. One reason could be clawback. I think a main reason is lack of face-to-face support to assist individuals for whom digital and telephone access is a barrier. I hope the Minister will look carefully at this problem, because if the Government really want to reduce pensioner poverty, they have to will the means of doing that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said, we need a new campaign.

Our Amendment 4 also identifies a considerable pensions gap between men and women and calls for a specific review of the impact of the provisions of the Bill on women. I hope the Minister can agree to that.

We said at Second Reading that the Bill is primarily a technical Bill. But the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Janke adds an important dimension, which is that any further decisions on pensions uprating should be brought forward by the Government in the light of their findings from the review; in other words, we need the clear, evidence-based decision-making that Amendment 4 would provide.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for her work on it. I have previously spoken about the importance of the Government fulfilling their promise to deliver the triple lock to pensioners, so I support the general thrust of the Bill. However, it is important that a considered approach to uprating is taken that analyses the benefits of this policy. After all, pensioners, like the rest of the population, represent a very diverse range of income levels.

Covid-19 has shaken the economic standing of much of the working population—a fate that pensioners have largely been shielded from. The taxation of future generations to pay for current pensions must be balanced with assessments that clearly outline the effectiveness of this policy. The reality is we do not have unlimited economic resources at our disposal, and trade-offs are required. I do see dangers in uprating the entire pensions scheme by 2.5%, without the necessary impact assessments, at a time when unemployment and working household debt are rising. Reviewing both the cost and relative success of this policy in determining not only whether it reduces existing levels of pensioner poverty but whether the relationship between pensioner and working household incomes throughout a given period might lend itself, in the future, to a much more targeted approach to uprating.

I expect the report’s assessment of existing levels of pensioner poverty will be reflective in assessing the efficacy of blanket uprating policies and whether considered and targeted increase in social security and relief would better account for uncertainties such as the Covid-19 crisis, which has had a disproportionate economic effect on the working-age population. Of course, pensioners need to be adequately looked after. Until a review on whether the 2.5% minimum uprating delivers intergenerational fairness, it is right that the House approves these measures.

Finally, on intergenerational fairness, which was mentioned at Second Reading, I once again call on the Government to extend April’s universal credit increase and extend this lifeline that so many across the country are relying on.

Pension Credit

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

As I have said before, there is no plan at the moment for a campaign and I am not aware of any research being commissioned of the kind that the noble Baroness requested.

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Citizens Advice in my home city of Newcastle upon Tyne reports that, during the Covid pandemic, there has been a rise in the number of young people seeking advice, but a proportionate decline among people over 55. This may relate to the lack of availability of face-to-face advice. But does the Minister agree that there should now be a new campaign to promote pension credit and that, without that, a lot of pensioners who would qualify are not going to have as much money as they otherwise might?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I can only agree with the noble Lord that many people over 50 prefer to do business face to face, and I appreciate that that opportunity has been curtailed. I have no desire to be dismissive, but I think I have already answered questions about a new campaign, and I will come back to the House with an answer.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like others I speak in support of the Bill, but first I must say that we are looking forward very much to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, in a moment? Before I talk about the Bill, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, on his excellent maiden speech. He made a number of telling points, including on the importance of education and apprenticeships, on modern slavery and on the need for us to be one nation. We should thank him for all he has contributed to the thinking on poverty, financial fairness and the benefits system over so many years. It is very good indeed to have his experience and expertise in this House.

As the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said, this is a technical but important Bill. It is particularly important for pensioners on low incomes and even more so for those in receipt of pension credit. I assume it was an oversight that this situation might arise. The context is a serious one, as we have heard, because many poorer pensioners may have been very dependent upon small amounts of investment income which they have seen reduced to very low levels by declining interest rates. Holding down their state pension as well would not be right.

As we have heard, this is a one-year adjustment. However, there are some implications, a number of which we have heard about already. If earnings bounce back for 2022-23, there would have to be very careful consideration of whether that annual rise should be tracked. One approach would be another one-year adjustment that could then be based on a two-year period with a baseline from before the outbreak of the pandemic. That might eliminate unintended consequences. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on that, and to know when the draft order will be laid to increase pension benefit rates by such a percentage

“as the Secretary of State thinks fit.”

I am aware of the timescales for ensuring that the IT system works, but the earlier the percentage is known the better it would be for our consideration. The timing of that decision should bear in mind the need for financial fairness across society in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.

As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, a decision is pending on the universal credit uplift, which is due to end in March. A report published recently by Citizens Advice has found that three-quarters of the people it gives advice to on debt problems and who receive universal credit and working tax credits would not be able to cover their costs if the uplift were discontinued. I submit that that would not be fair.

We have heard from a number of speakers about the importance of intergenerational fairness. I subscribe to the opinions expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Bourne, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and others. I say to the Minister that we will need a national debate on how we address the fragility of our benefits system, which has become so exposed by the coronavirus pandemic. The financial well-being of society should be an ambition that demonstrates that it is truly inclusive. The next few months need to be used to review and reform.

One of the things that we now need to consider is universal basic income. I have watched pilot schemes for it and I have sometimes wondered whether it would work effectively in a UK context. It might, but that is part and parcel of what I am saying to the Minister: we cannot move from a decision on pensions and a different decision on universal credit uplift when we now need to look very carefully at the whole structure of our benefits system in a post-coronavirus position.

Benefit Changes: Vulnerable People

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston. He made a compelling case in support of blind and partially sighted claimants, and his criticism of work capability assessments for blind and partially sighted people was particularly crucial in that.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Janke for leading this excellent debate. She talked about how the Government needed a better safety net for vulnerable people, pointed out that too many cuts have hit the poorest most, talked about high housing costs, and how the freezing of local housing allowance and reducing levels of support for high rents had all made people poorer. She also talked about injustices alongside the rise in in-work poverty and the impact of disability on increasing poverty. My noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester from these Benches took a calm, rational look at universal credit and personal independence payments and importantly, asked the Government not to close their ears to existing problems.

My noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope commented on the scale of the changes to the benefits system and how complex it was, which is indeed the case. He confessed that it might never be a perfect system given the sheer complexity, and I too concede that it will never be 100% perfect. However, as he said, the DWP has not proved itself to be good at assessing vulnerability. There are some excellent staff doing some excellent work there, but I will come on shortly to the conclusions of the National Audit Office, which a year ago produced a report on the functioning of the DWP.

My noble friend Lord Greaves’s contribution from his perspective as a local councillor was particularly important, because he gave practical examples of problems and waste in the system. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, reminded us of the progressive tax and welfare reform of the Labour Government after 1997 but before the financial crash, and how difficult it is for people to escape poverty today. In an extremely important contribution, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester said that the two-child limit traps children in poverty. I could not agree more with that conclusion. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, talked about the excellent work of Changing Lives, but reminded us of the problems for victims of violence or abuse. She gave worrying examples of disadvantage and vulnerability caused by the benefit system.

The Motion refers to recent benefit changes and vulnerability. By recent, I mean post-2015, when the restraining influence of the Liberal Democrats in coalition was removed. On vulnerability, the DWP definition, as reported by the National Audit Office in a report a year ago, related it to mental and physical health, life events, poor skills—with literacy and/or comprehension problems—limited internet access or IT skills, and difficulty with budgeting. I find the last one a bit rich, as those who suffer cuts in their already low income will inevitably have problems budgeting. For reasons that escape me, the absolute lack of money does not seem to be a factor in DWP thinking, let alone that of the Treasury, nor does the impact of increasing poverty.

Across Whitehall, in all government departments, the impact of individual departmental decisions is never factored into the overall impact on a local area. Whitehall does not think geographically; it thinks departmentally, with a silo approach to policy-making. Cuts in Sure Start by two-thirds, deep cuts to neighbourhood services such as libraries, limiting access to IT facilities and help, and cuts to youth budgets all contribute to vulnerability. It amazes me that the Government seem not to understand that. Put another way, one department’s cuts—in, say, youth services—can be another department’s increased expenditure in coping with crime.

Another vulnerability relates to council tax. Many of those in arrears are benefit recipients, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I am grateful to an article in Saturday’s Financial Times for these figures, cited from the Money Advice Trust. In 2016-17, £2.3 million of debts were referred to bailiffs. They can charge a poor person £75 for sending them a letter and £235 for a home visit, so increasing the debt of already poor people. We need to get back to local councillors doing the work themselves through increased advice and support to those in debt.

The context for this debate is one in which we have the second highest level of inequality of any western democracy. There has been too much talk by members of the governing party, particularly those standing for election, about lifting the higher rates of tax, when they should be talking about improving the lives of poor people. In April, we had the start of the fourth—and, I hope final—year of the benefits freeze. That freeze costs poor families an average of £400 in the current year alone, while the tax changes applied in April have overall led to an average of £280 extra income a year for the top 20% of earners but a £100 reduction for the poorest 20%. How can the Government justify tax cuts of that kind while benefits are cut at the same time? I am afraid it is not enough for the Minister to say that the 1 million households on universal credit are gaining up to £630 per year as a result of increases to work allowances—a welcome decision—since most poor households are not yet on universal credit and thus suffer the wider benefit cuts.

I pay tribute to the role of the National Audit Office. When the Audit Commission was abolished a few years ago, I and others were keen to ensure that detailed auditing of the delivery of public services was still done. The NAO’s work on benefits, the implementation of new DWP policies and the rollout of universal credit is, for me, an excellent example of its work. In a report published a year ago, it concluded that the Government should assess the cumulative social impact of their policies. I am sure we all agree that it is staggering they did not. It pointed out that there were significant problems with staff training and that the DWP had underestimated the problems that an initial waiting period for universal credit would cause and seemed surprised when 60% of new claimants needed an advance. It said the DWP had problems identifying and tracking claimants it deemed vulnerable. The comments by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope add to this; it seems this problem has not been resolved. The NAO also said that the DWP lacked a,

“systematic means of gathering intelligence from delivery partners”,

and was making too many late payments. It is a complex system, but these were worrying conclusions.

It was noticeable that in January this year, in their response to the Public Accounts Committee report on universal credit, the Government said that the DWP had,

“made 1,500 changes to processes”,

following feedback from partners and its own staff. Clearly, a lot has been learned. I particularly acknowledge the partnership the Government have with Citizens Advice and the work done by Citizens Advice to assist vulnerable claimants today.

There has been discussion in your Lordships’ House in recent days on the work capability assessment. It is generally acknowledged to be unfit for purpose, in that many disabled people are refused benefits when they cannot possibly work. I hope the Government will look at the suggestion a few weeks ago, again from the Secretary of State, that they might link the assessments for personal independence payments with the work capability assessment, since they are assessed using very different criteria. The noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, referred to this matter following a briefing we all had from the RNIB, which added that 90% of appeals by people who are blind or partially sighted against a refusal of a personal independence payment are successful. A system in which only 10% of appeals are refused is not a good system.

There has been reference to housing benefit and the fact that it has doubled to £22 billion in 15 years but covers a lower proportion of rents than it used to. The problem is that the Government have not been building enough social homes for rent, which has forced up rents in the private sector. We have to convert the cost of housing benefit to use money to build social homes, which would reduce the amount of money currently used for housing benefit. As Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said in a Times article on Monday—I think someone referred to it—

“our housing market has rewarded the better off and punished the poor”.

I have some specific points for the Minister to consider after our debate. The Trussell Trust, in its briefing, pointed out that we must rethink government cuts, such as to work-related benefits, for households with inescapable extra living costs. I concur. Might the Minister or staff talk to Macmillan? It said in its briefing that 25% of universal credit claims were not completed because claimants struggled with the application process, and that home visits are not consistently and proactively offered to those too unwell to go to the jobcentre.

As a start, we have to move the wait for support from five weeks to five days. Will the Minister look at removing the two-child limit?

Poverty: Metrics

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for her work and for this debate. As she has said and as my noble friend Lady Tyler agreed, what gets measured gets done—but the noble Baroness also reminded us that it needs to be an agreed measure. If we do not have an agreed measure, it will be difficult to solve the problems of poverty.

I should also say that the independence of the Social Metrics Commission has been crucial in identifying the new measurements. In particular, they include assets rather than just income and they add in unavoidable additional costs such as childcare or a disability. They allow for high housing costs to be reflected and for the adequacy of housing to be measured, which is vital to so many people on low incomes who have to live in unfit conditions, who are perhaps rough sleeping or who are in temporary accommodation.

As we have heard, the Social Metrics Commission has concluded that 14.2 million people are in poverty in the UK, of whom more than half are in persistent poverty: that is, they are in poverty now and have been for two out of three previous years. Those figures are worrying, but it is particularly worrying that so many of those living in poverty are actually in work. I read a recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which concluded that over the past 30 years the UK has effectively swapped mass unemployment for mass low-paid work. I concur with that conclusion—but it demonstrates that we have a very big problem to solve.

Philip Alston, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, said in a report published in November last year that the welfare state is disappearing,

“behind a web page and an algorithm”.

I am very concerned about the Government’s policy of digital by default. It is a feature of universal credit, but the truth is that one in five of the UK population does not have the required skills or the necessary resources to engage with a digitally based benefits system. Indeed, the House has repeatedly warned Governments of this.

I conclude by saying that too many UK citizens are living in a cycle of low-paid jobs and poor prospects. No one should have to depend on food banks. The report of the Social Metrics Commission helps us to identify the real extent of poverty and the ways of addressing it, because the damage created by social exclusion and financial inequalities simply cannot be allowed to continue unaddressed.

Poverty and Disadvantage

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for enabling this debate and agree with him about the need for justice for the residents of Grenfell Tower. He talked about calling the bluff on poverty. I am less certain about criticising the number of organisations that measure poverty; I am glad that they do, because decision-makers need robust and accurate information on which to base legislation. I do, however, take his point about the importance of charities working more closely together.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Wallace, who reminded us that poor educational attainment leads to poor life outcomes and that investment in education pays off. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Tyler, who said that well-targeted local initiatives can help to alleviate problems caused by poverty in those areas.

In government, my party introduced the pupil premium for children in deprived neighbourhoods who qualified for free school meals. It was a major policy initiative which has enabled many schools to improve standards and opportunities for disadvantaged children. There is a value that is very important: all citizens should be able to benefit from a decent education, a stable job and a secure home. It is the responsibility of Governments of all parties to put in place the means of their doing so. All too often, at least one of those three foundations is missing. Too many households are in insecure accommodation. Indeed, 20% of households are now in the private rented sector, facing high rents, restrictions on financial support and short-term tenancies, none of which has been helped by the way universal credit has been rolled out.

I was very struck by the recent annual report of the Social Mobility Commission, which revealed that in some of the wealthiest areas of England, disadvantaged children face worse outcomes than children in places that are generally much poorer. It gave the example of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. It is the council area with the highest rate of child poverty—and it is next to the City of London. I cannot be alone in thinking that there is something fundamentally wrong in a society where income and wealth distribution is so unequal—a problem that is getting worse.

The rise in homelessness announced today is worrying. It results from an inadequate supply of social homes for rent. As long as we fail to address this issue, too many households will be insecure and forced to pay higher rents than they can afford. There is a value that we should support, and it is this. People in work on the living wage should be able to afford to live reasonably close to where they work, spending no more than a third of their income on housing. That should be a crucial aim if we are to be a truly inclusive society.

Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit) (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, we have heard a number of impressive figures and statistics this evening. It seems to me that the principle underlying all this is that you can save money with one hand but you will pay it out with another. According to End Child Poverty statistics released this month, we have 3.5 million children living in poverty in the United Kingdom in the 21st century. In some regions, up to 47% of children are living in poverty. In my own diocese, in the Bradford local authority area, 32.7% of children are living in poverty after housing costs. The national average is 29%. In Leeds Central, it is 41.8%. If children are living in housing and food poverty—as we know they are from food banks and all the other stuff we see on the ground in our cities, towns and rural areas—then we will end up paying out through the National Health Service and in other ways for the consequences of what children do not have at present.

Could the Government see their way to reducing the impact of this change on children by excluding children’s benefits from the cap, so that families always receive a basic income to spend on their children’s needs? Secondly, could the Government reverse the reductions to in-work allowances under universal credit in order to incentivise moving into work through the provision of better in-work financial support, recognising that much of the poverty we see around us involves those who are in work? I support the Motion to Regret.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope for moving this regret Motion. He has raised a very specific issue about the need for additional support to be made available to help those affected by the cap to find work. But, as we have heard, the issue is broader than this. The Government need to get to the heart of the problem, which previous speakers have identified, which is that they have not been building enough new homes, and as a consequence prices have been rising steeply, whether for owner occupation or for rent.

Crucially, the Government’s emphasis on subsidising owner occupation has left the social rented sector seriously short of funding and therefore of supply. Those who cannot afford to buy are increasingly forced into the private rented sector, with its high rents in most parts of the country. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the implications for the private rented sector and the likelihood that the availability of homes in the private rented sector will decline for those who are on housing benefit.

Building more homes will help to hold down rents, which in return can reduce the Government’s revenue costs in terms of housing benefit. I understand that there is to be a White Paper on housing supply shortly. That is welcome, but can the Minister confirm whether the purpose of that White Paper is to address the lack of social rented accommodation? Might it also address the absurdity of calling a home “affordable” when for many people such homes are nothing of the kind?

Meanwhile, the impact on homelessness of lowering the cap could be severe. The Government are already committed, as we have heard, to supporting the Homelessness Reduction Bill, but their support for the Bill seems to sit oddly with this cap, which will actually increase homelessness. We have heard a whole set of disturbing figures, from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds and others. I understand that Shelter has estimated that there will be more than 120,000 children in temporary accommodation at Christmas. I find that disturbing. Also disturbing is the fact that since the original cap was introduced, around 70% of those affected have not found work. So doubling the number subject to the cap and worsening it for those already subject to it means that many more people who are already poor are going to be made poorer.

When the Prime Minister took office, she declared that his was a Government for all the people. But this is a dubious claim when poor people are being made poorer. The Government must show that they are prepared to invest further in helping people back into work, at decent rates of pay, thus overcoming the barriers so many can face daily in their attempts to do so. If the Government do not do that, they are simply widening social and financial inequalities in our country, which is unacceptable.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I support this Motion to Regret, over three issues in particular. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to the 17% of mothers who have a child under the age of one. I would add pregnant mothers to that. Can they not be exempted, or can that at least be looked at? The Maternal Mental Health Alliance report published last year highlighted to all of us the terrible bane of post-natal and pre-natal depression and the risk that if a mother’s mental health deteriorates, her relationship with her young infant is damaged. This costs society huge amounts in the long term.

My second concern is about more children being taken into care. We were reminded earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that most children coming into care come from poverty. Has the Minister examined this policy to look at whether it increases the risk of children being taken into care?

Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, alluded to the fact that we face having 120,000 children in Britain in temporary accommodation this Christmas. There has been an 18% rise in the past year in the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for such families. I followed a woman’s journey through temporary accommodation last year. First, she was in a domestic refuge and then in a very small single room with her 16 year-old daughter and one year-old child. She was distressed by that, but most distressed by the uncertainty of where she would go next. She was evicted from there to another, even smaller room and then there was the fear that she might be moved away from London, as far afield as Manchester, where she would know no one; she was in despair about this situation. Finally there was resolution. She has, at least for now, a larger and quite comfortable place for the next six months, for which she is so grateful. But one cannot overestimate the impact on the mental health of families and children of being put into homeless temporary accommodation.

I recognise that the Minister may be limited in how far he can help the House today, but I hope he will take very much to heart the concerns that have been raised. I share my noble friend Lord Best’s gratitude to the Government for supporting the current homelessness legislation, the Homelessness Reduction Bill. I look forward to the White Paper on housing supply, and to the Minister’s response.