Welfare Reform Bill

Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I will be brief on Amendments 27, 30, 31 and 29, which deal with sanctions. However, given the hour, there is just one particular point I wish to pursue.

We have already had the assurances of the noble Lord and his colleagues that there will be no target set in respect of sanctions. That is clearly on the record in Committee. We might like one more go at it, but we need not spend any more time on that. In the other place we made the argument for reducing the maximum sanction from three years to one. Given where we are, I do not see merit in going over those arguments again; we will just have to differ on that.

The point that I wish to pursue is the opportunity for people to mitigate that longer-term sanction. My noble friend Lady Hollis touched upon this briefly in Committee. If someone is sanctioned for three years, your leverage to encourage them closer towards the labour market is very limited. Three years is a long period of time; people change and perhaps understand the consequences of what they have done. It seemed a reasonable proposition that they should have an opportunity of mitigating and reducing that three-year period. That is the point that we wanted to pursue in this amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend on his last point. The whole point of sanctions is not just to punish but to change behaviour. If someone does so and therefore, having learnt their lesson, is willing to comply, they should get rewarded for that, so to speak, otherwise there is no incentive for them to change their behaviour. I hope that the Minister will hear my noble friend’s wise words, otherwise the sanctions regime will not work or stick—and, I suspect, will end up being judicially reviewable.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I shall speak extremely briefly to Amendment 28, which is in this group, but I would not wish the House to take the brevity of my remarks as an assessment of the importance that I attach to it. The amendment concerns thousands of people up and down the country with mental health problems, mental impairments and learning difficulties and would affect whether they are fairly treated or denied benefits unfairly because of misunderstandings and a failure to understand why those people have failed to comply with the conditionality requirements and then have their benefits removed or cut.

I emphasise that it is not sufficient, as I believe the Minister said in Committee, that if a matter is drawn to the attention of the officials, they will take that matter into account. Many of these people will not be aware that they need to make that clear; they will not even necessarily have the capacity to make it clear that their disability, handicap or learning difficulty prevented them satisfying the conditionality requirements. They may indeed be lying in bed, not opening their post, not answering the phone, not responding to requests to come for an interview and so on.

The Minister is very familiar with these issues, but I was concerned in Committee that he seemed simply to suggest that a person can point out that they have a problem. I would be interested to know whether he can assure the House that specific actions will be taken by officials to ensure that they have considered and checked whether a person has a mental health problem or a learning difficulty, and whether that has in fact affected their capacity to respond.

The other issue in the amendment has to do with reasonable adjustments. Of course there are people who cannot get to the office and attend an interview or assessment, such as people suffering with agoraphobia. Many others are also sufficiently unwell in a mental health way that they simply will not be able to perform as others might. Reasonable adjustments have to be made for those claimants if they are going to be fairly assessed and not sanctioned unreasonably. I will be very interested to know what the Minister has to say in response to these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will also try to be as brief as possible. We had a very good discussion on this area in Committee, and I can make clarifications which have been informed by some of that discussion. One of those clarifications is that we will limit the sanction amount to three years, so we will not have it compounding above that level.

The second relates to the parable of the prodigal son. From the argument of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, there has got to be a way back into the system. We are trying to change behaviour: where someone has come back and got a job for six months at his job goal level, we will take away his sanctions at that point. I thank noble Lords for the very informed debate that we had.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Did the noble Lord say that if the person got a job, after six months in the job the sanctions would be removed?

[Lord Freud]

Yes.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I do not think that is good enough. That means that coming back in and searching for the job—in other words, conforming to the sanctioning conditions—is not enough. He also has to be successful, which will depend on the lottery of what jobs are available, and so on. I would have thought that providing he is conforming to the work conditionality regime in searching for a job, that ought to be enough. You should not be able to punish him just because he lives in Merthyr Tydfil and the jobs are not there, whereas in central London they may be.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we thought about this matter very deeply and thought that it was very hard to genuinely measure compliance if there was not a hard result. We decided that the hard result was taking a job and holding that job for six months, and then we would take away the sanctions. That is where we are. It is a lot better than where we were.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

But if that means that he was previously on JSA and HB as part of his universal credit, and he has now gone into low-paid work, so is getting a wage, then presumably if the sanctions still apply he would fail to get the housing element going into his universal credit, and he would not have enough to live on.

[Lord Freud]

No, my Lords, the sanction regime does not work like that. It takes away the equivalent amount of the JSA, so you keep getting your housing credit, but have this amount taken off, which will be a proportion of the total universal credit.

[Lord Freud]

I think I can safely say that we are not saying that. We are just saying that we want real proof of a change. The prodigal son must do more than turn up and warm his hands on the fire as the fatted calf is slaughtered. I am saying that he has to take a job and hold it for a minimum of six months.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Could the noble Lord perhaps move from the Old Testament to the New Testament?

[Lord Freud]

I thought it was the New Testament. It is definitely a New Testament matter. I am shocked that the noble Baroness—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I was a Methodist.

[Lord Freud]

I am utterly shocked. Let me keep going; the hour is late and I am forgetting what I am talking about very quickly.

Turning to Amendment 28, we will impose reasonable requirements, taking into account the claimant’s particular circumstances, including any health condition or disability. Universal credit claimants with a health condition or disability that limits their capability for work will not be required to look for work. There are specific safeguards in this area. Decision-makers must consider any relevant matter raised by the claimant when considering whether there is good reason for a failure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, when we discussed a similar amendment to this in Grand Committee, I explained that we intend to retain the existing practice in the benefit system whereby claimants can be treated as having income or capital in cases of deliberate deprivation. However, we believe that different issues arise in relation to self-employment. We think that it is right in principle to apply a minimum income floor to claimants who choose to be self-employed but whose earnings do not make them financially self-sufficient. I confirmed in Committee that the floor will not be based on the hours claimants work. We assume that claimants’ earnings are at a level that we would expect from claimants with similar circumstances in employed work.

Claimants will not be forced to take reduced benefit payments by accepting the minimum income floor. Self-employed claimants will have the choice in universal credit. Some will choose to continue solely with their existing activity with the expectation of increasing their earnings. They will accept the minimum income floor. Those who do not will need to satisfy conditionality requirements. The conditionality regime will aim to guide the claimant towards the most appropriate form of gainful work. For some claimants, this would combine their self-employed activity with part-time employed work. In other situations, the regime may very well encourage the self-employed to keep going in their self-employed efforts. We will need to build a quite sophisticated regime to manage this.

This approach differs from tax credits, which allow claimants to receive maximum support so long as they declare that they are working a minimum number of hours. However, in 2009-10, for example, around 60,000 of the households claiming tax credits that received some or all of their earnings from self-employment declared earnings of under £2,500 a year—less than £50 a week. While this is legitimate under current rules, we believe that some intervention to guide claimants towards increasing their income is justified in return for state support.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the Minister explain what he expects here? The old enterprise allowance scheme, which was very effective, used to give people a top-up of £40 a week to start a business, and as far as I recall this ran for up to two years to give people a chance to establish a small business. How long will someone be allowed to have low earnings while they try to build up a business, and how quickly will guidance from young people in Jobcentre Plus, who frankly have never tried to start a business, steer them back into sanction and conditionality?

[Lord Freud]

I do not automatically think that we will use the example of young people in Jobcentre Plus to deal with some of the more complicated issues here. We acknowledge that the real issue is that we need to create an environment that encourages entrepreneurship. We need to balance the exact rules about the interrelationship between the new enterprise allowance and the time that we will allow. I do not have the exact figures yet, as we are still currently elaborating them. We are looking through all the details of employment earnings. Clearly, the HMRC is expert in this area and we are working closely with it to develop our proposals. I must say to the noble Lord who said that it was a straightforward matter that on that basis he can come and help us to do it.

We are aiming to get the reporting requirements aligned as closely as possible with the tax system. However, in our view, it is reasonable for claimants to provide clear information on their income in return for state support. We are looking at a number of rules within the current benefit and tax credit systems to see what the most appropriate approach is for universal credit. We will then prepare regulations that will set out clearly the way in which earnings from self-employment will be assessed. This House will have the opportunity to debate those regulations in due course, and I think that that will be a fascinating discussion.

In today’s debate we should focus on principles. We clearly need to avoid requirements that will add unnecessary burdens, especially for people who are starting out in business—the people whom we really want to encourage. However, we cannot have a situation where people can be treated as being in full-time work for conditionality purposes, but because they declare no earnings they receive as much benefit as though they were not working at all. That is taking it to the absolute extreme. I hope that this explains why the Government cannot support Amendment 32 and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it. I know that we will be discussing this area again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, in speaking to the two amendments in this group, I want to mention a personal interest in the issue that I shall be talking about, as some years ago a member of my family was affected by it.

As noble Lords know, the capital of a claimant is taken into account when assessing the level of benefit to be received. If the amount of capital is greater than a prescribed amount—I think it is currently £16,000—then the person’s benefits are adjusted accordingly. There are several exceptions to what is counted as capital and these include any funds held in trust. This is clearly outlined in the 2009 Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit Guidance Manual, which states that certain types of capital should be disregarded in full, including the value of any funds held in trust and the value of the right to receive any payment under that trust following payments made to the claimant as a result of a personal injury, such as vaccine damage payments or criminal injury compensation. The value of these funds is not taken into account when calculating the capital of the claimant. Therefore, any payment made into the trust as a result of a personal injury, such as criminal injuries compensation, will not count when the claimant’s benefits are considered.

These amendments seek to apply the principle that claimants who have received criminal injuries compensation should not lose benefits, regardless of the form in which it is received or kept. A year later, the 2010 Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit Guidance Manual states that officials should treat lump sum compensation payments as capital. Examples given include lump payments, such as those made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. However, the manual then reminds officials to disregard the value of any compensation payment for personal injury which is held in trust. I believe that criminal injury compensation payments should not be considered as capital at all when assessing the levels of benefit, regardless of whether this is a £1,000 payment for 12 weeks of blurred vision or the maximum of £500,000 which is paid out for injuries leading to indefinite loss of earnings. Recipients of larger sums are likely to put this into a trust, but recipients of smaller sums are not. They may intend to use it for a holiday—some recompense for the injury that they suffered. One of the purposes of criminal injury compensation is to give recipients the opportunity to improve their quality of life after their trauma.

These amendments would benefit some victims of crime, particularly people with mental health problems or learning difficulties. Not only are they more likely to be in receipt of benefits, they are also more susceptible to being victims of crime. The benefits that they receive are provided to cover essential costs, and any payments made as criminal injuries compensation are made in recognition of pain and suffering that the victim has gone through and perhaps for the purpose of making up any lost earnings.

The idea that the benefits that the person is receiving and the criminal injuries compensation provide for two distinct purposes is very important. It is for this reason that allowing one to influence the level of the other would be unfair. The Minister may consider that Clause 5 would have been a better place for these amendments. I hope that he will accept these amendments or undertake to bring them back at Third Reading in a more appropriate form. I hope he will reassure me that these simple amendments would be acceptable. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I had the privilege many years ago of being responsible for vaccine damage payments within the department and always tried to make a distinction between payments that were in lieu of earnings, which tended to be of the incapacity benefit sort, and payments which were a lump sum. Sometimes there was a structured payment of capital over a period of time as compensation for suffering and injury as opposed to an earnings replacement. We always excluded that second element from coming within the debiting of benefit. That distinction has been well drawn by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.

I hope that the Minister can respect the ethics as well as the long history of making a distinction between getting an income replacement benefit—ESA, for example—and getting an element of compensation for damages, for suffering, for pain and so on. In my understanding that has always been protected and has not been debited against your rent. Otherwise it is not worth anything to you at all. That was never the intention of the law. I hope that the Minister can support the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has brought an important point to our attention. I have only two questions for the Minister. Can he explain the extent to which the current rules are going to be translated and taken up in universal credit? The position at the moment is that the compensation recovery scheme does not apply to criminal injuries compensation. Can the Minister say whether that would continue under universal credit?