Benefits: Sanctions

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I thank my noble friend for giving me advance notice of that question. Only a small proportion of claimants are sanctioned two or more times. For high-level sanctions, only 5% received two sanctions and 1% received a third sanction. On the specific question about the Troubled Families programme, that provision is delivered by local authorities and unfortunately we do not have the data available at the present time.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, given that the Social Security Advisory Committee warned that sanctions tend to impact disproportionately on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, and given that a recent survey of citizens advice bureaux showed that the new sanctions regime is having a severe impact on physical and mental health, with one respondent saying,

“The strain has quite literally smashed our family to pieces”,

what steps are being taken to monitor the unintended consequences of sanctions, as called for by SSAC? Will the Minister undertake to report regularly on the impact of sanctions on these groups?

[Lord Freud]

As I just said, we are having one review, undertaken by Matthew Oakley. My colleague the Minister for Employment is also looking at this area very closely, and I am expecting the details of the review that she is overseeing to be published reasonably soon.

Universal Credit

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we already have an electronic payments system, so nothing is different or will change in the actual payments system. I think that the noble Baroness was asking: is there a proper back-up to the IT information systems? Clearly, in any IT system—and in today’s legacy systems, which are kept on computers, albeit somewhat older ones—we need to record that information and make sure that we have back-ups in case of loss. We will maintain that principle.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, Howard Shipley told the Work and Pensions Committee that the next stage is couples. That will be a complicated issue as couples come together and divide, and may have children. Things happen. This sort of software is not something that you get on the back of a cigarette packet. Surely it was understood before we got this far that couples come together and separate. Does the Minister accept that the evidence from single people about budgeting monthly tells us nothing about what it will be like for mothers trying to budget on behalf of families monthly?

Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Again, my Lords, it is hard to reach definitive conclusions. We now have £180 million for discretionary housing payments for this year, including £20 million that is by demand, to be bid for. So far, we have had just 13 bids in for that money. Last year, some discretionary housing payment money was returned. We are monitoring this extraordinarily closely to make sure that councils are able to deal with their hard cases.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a body of research showing the importance to families in poverty of local social networks to help them get by in poverty and even get out of poverty. Will the Minister explain how weakening those social networks through the bedroom tax contributes to the Government’s anti-poverty policy and the big society?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, there is a misunderstanding here about the nature of the provision of a lot of social housing. Some 61% of people in social housing are single: they are not the families envisaged. Those are the people, by and large, who are affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy. We are looking at that very closely indeed.

Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, there are many issues raised by the claims and payments regulations, but I plan to focus on the two that I raised in our debates on the Bill itself: monthly payments and payment into single accounts. These are lumped together in the guidance on personal budgeting support in a way that is not very helpful, because there are different issues at stake—a point to which I will return. Nevertheless, some questions relate to both matters: most fundamentally on both, the Government have rejected the arguments made by many noble Lords for choice about payment arrangements in favour of a convoluted system of personal budgeting support, which I suspect is going to be pretty difficult and staff-intensive to administer.

The clear injunction in the guidance that alternative payment arrangements are not available through choice would appear to contradict the earlier claim in the guidance that they would be claimant-centric—that is, done with, rather than to, the claimant. While I am pleased that the policy is no longer couched in the language of exceptions and vulnerability, designed to make a claimant feel different, this still appears to be the underlying philosophy.

This is also revealed in the argument that alternative payment arrangements should be temporary, to avoid labelling claimants as financially incapable. However, it is the Government who are in effect labelling them as such, by requiring claimants, who may be managing as well as can be expected, to adapt to payment systems that might simply be inappropriate for their circumstances. This determination to change claimants’ behaviour smacks of the kind of social engineering that sits uneasily with both traditional Conservative and liberal philosophy.

In our previous debate on regulations, the Minister said that he would be able to provide more information about the department’s working assumptions on the number and proportion of claimants likely to be deemed to require personal budgeting support,

“as we work our way through”.—[Official Report, 13/2/13; col. 755.]

As that was eight months ago, is the Minister now in a position to provide more information, as requested by my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton in his excellent and passionate opening speech? In particular, will he provide the information regarding those requiring monthly or split payments? Does he accept SSAC’s warning that the range of claimants who require these facilities may be greater than anticipated?

Will the Minister also explain how personal budgeting support will work with couples? In the case of joint claimants, will just one or both need to demonstrate the facts as listed in the annexe to the guidance? Will the decision about whether it is needed be based on a joint interview? Will money advice be offered to both members of a couple and will the Minister also advise us about the progress made with financial products such as jam jar accounts, which he earlier presented as a solution to just about all payment problems?

In July, the Minister was still able to tell the Work and Pensions Select Committee only that he hoped to be,

“coming up with something in the not-too-distant future”.

That is not very encouraging. Has he also taken on board the Social Market Foundation’s warning that jam jar accounts, while potentially beneficial,

“have only partial applicability across the claimant population”,

because of strong resistance from a significant number? Part, though not all, this resistance was because of the likely cost to the claimant. As the Communities and Local Government Select Committee observed:

“More information is needed … on how these accounts would work and who would pay for them”.

The Social Market Foundation cites evidence from the financial inclusion taskforce of the lack of appetite for financial products among about half of the unbanked. Those without a bank or Post Office account will be able to use the Simple Payment service to receive their benefit. As the Minister confirmed in a Written Answer, the problem with this is that it requires claimants to withdraw the whole amount, and not part, of each benefit payment at the same time, up to a limit of £600. This is potentially a lot of cash to withdraw in one go and leaves the claimant vulnerable to both robbery and temptation. Although it is estimated that only about 60,000 working-age claimants will be paid in this way, it is a cause for concern. Why is it not possible to draw part of the payment, as this would surely often be the responsible thing to do?

This brings me to the question of monthly payments, because if it were a more frequent payment, this would not be such an issue. Since noble Lords from across the House first raised concerns about monthly payments, evidence has been mounting to demonstrate just how un-claimant-centric this policy is. It is clear, from both government and independent research, that a significant number of claimants—particularly those out of work—see this as posing a real risk to their financial security. They fear it will upset their budgeting strategies and leave them running out of money.

In a DWP press release about early findings from the direct payment demonstration projects, the Minister acknowledged that the findings,

“show that most people on low incomes manage their money well.”

As SSAC has noted, one of the key lessons was that:

“Budgeting support needs to recognise that people on low incomes often budget on a fortnightly or weekly basis.”

Has it not occurred to the noble Lord that there is a connection here? As the demonstration projects show, many people on low incomes use fortnightly or weekly budgeting strategies as a means of managing their money well. Research shows that mothers, in particular, often take great pride in doing so. By forcing them to change their budgeting strategies, the Government could be setting them up to fail, a message that comes across clearly from the SMF study cited by my noble friend.

That is likely to have an adverse impact on morale, as well as living standards and, in doing so, could undermine the very objective of making claimants more work-ready. Where a more frequent payment is agreed, it will be paid in arrears, in addition to the new seven-day waiting period for some claimants. As the Women’s Budget Group has pointed out, this means that,

“claimants would be paid only half what they are owed for the month seven days after the end of that month and will then wait another half month for the remaining half. This would seem to contradict the Government’s wish to help those who find monthly payment most difficult and can result in hardship cases and requests for advance payments.”

Women’s Aid, to which I am grateful for its briefing, warns that most survivors fleeing domestic violence will have no alternative to claiming a budgeting advance. I appreciate why the Government are not keen to make a half payment in advance, but does the Minister accept that it would create fewer problems than paying in arrears?

As I said earlier, the question of payment into a single account versus a split payment raises rather different issues to that of monthly payment, even if both are likely to have adverse gendered impact. It is about access to, and control over, money rather than about managing it. The erroneous treatment of split payments as a management issue is illustrated by the guidance on when to review alternative payments. It says that the adviser,

“will decide that the claimant is now capable of managing the standard monthly payment.”

Where a split payment has been granted because of domestic violence, as opposed to a partner’s financial mismanagement, such advice is surely irrelevant. On what basis will a decision whether to continue a split payment be made? Does the Minister accept that there may be some situations where it cannot be treated as a temporary measure?

At present, the guidance seems to suggest that split payments will be an option only in cases of financial abuse or domestic violence. Can the Minister confirm that they will not necessarily be restricted to such cases? With whom will an adviser discuss this question and, even more importantly, the initial decision to make a split payment? Will it be both partners, and if so, will it be discussed separately or together, or will it be just the partner in need of diversion? If the latter, what will the other partner be told about the interview? How will advisers negotiate with gendered power relations which are likely to be at work between the partners to ensure that they have a true picture of the situation?

The department’s study of the implementation of JSA DB easement revealed a reluctance to disclose domestic violence to advisers, a concern that was raised by SSAC. This is likely to be the case here too. How will advisers detect domestic abuse, particularly when it is not manifested physically? Where a male partner uses the threat of abuse of various kinds to control a female partner, it could well be kept hidden. What steps can be taken to ensure that a split payment, which reduces the money paid to the perpetrator, does not provoke further domestic violence? Will the Minister indicate what training in financial abuse and domestic violence is proposed for universal credit advisers? More generally, what is the department’s response to SSAC’s recommendation for an effective training programme designed to ensure that advisers have a sufficient understanding and capability to manage the complex and dynamic nature of risk and vulnerability within universal credit?

It is important that the evaluation does not conflate the effects of wrapping up a number of benefits in one payment with payment into a single account under the rubric of a single payment, as did earlier departmental research.

At present, the guidance seems to suggest that split payments will be an option only in cases of financial abuse or domestic violence. Can the Minister confirm that they will not necessarily be restricted to such cases? It is not always possible to foresee situations in which they might be appropriate, and it would therefore be wrong to rule out other scenarios in advance. Indeed, Fran Bennett, to whom I am grateful for her briefing, suggested adding the scenario where a lone parent with children from a previous relationship takes an unemployed new partner into her rented accommodation. It may not be conducive to the success of a new relationship if one partner has control of all their joint universal credit.

I apologise for asking so many questions, but I cannot find the answers in the public advice and guidance. Reading that guidance, I am not convinced that the department fully appreciates how delicate and difficult an issue this is in any couple where there are difficulties of any kind with regard to control over money. Indeed, only last week, in discussing other regulations, the Minister drew attention to the extent of domestic abuse. If the fears of organisations such as Women’s Aid are realised, I suspect that the Government will have to revisit the policy and rethink the default position to ensure that both members of a couple have direct access to their share of universal credit, if they want it.

The Government’s refusal to listen to reason on these key payment issues could derail the successful implementation of universal credit, which is already looking somewhat shaky, to put it kindly. During the passage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said,

“if this is the nail in the shoe that gets the whole thing discredited because it does not work or gives rise to disturbing social consequences, we will have lost the great prize of universal credit that many of us want”.—[Official Report, 10/10/11; col. GC 434.]

We should remember the lessons from the child support legislation, when widespread consensus about key principles meant that insufficient scrutiny of the practical details led to one of the worst examples of social policy-making in recent history. I hope that even at this late stage, the Minister will take heed and remove the payments nail from the universal credit shoe.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with some of the sentiments that we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and with some of those that we heard in the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. It seems that there are questions which need to be asked and questions which are still outstanding. However, perhaps some of the clues to the answers that we need to those questions can be found within the noble Lord’s opening speech. He said that we do not yet have the evidence from the rollout of universal credit to give us the learning pattern that we need to establish the route forward for some of the detailed questions which lie before us. They are real issues.

--- Later in debate ---

I heard my noble friend Lord Kirkwood’s point about keeping the most informed and valuable audience in the country about this informed and in dialogue, and I will think about it pretty hard.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am very sorry to prolong matters. I quite understand that it has not been possible to answer all the questions asked, but will the Minister undertake to write to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate with detailed responses to the questions that have been asked?

[Lord Freud]

I have tried to answer absolutely everything. I will double check. If I have missed anything, I will write on it, but my answers are on the record. I think that I answered virtually everything, but if there is anything more, I will make sure that I cover it.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elton]

I assure noble Lords that it is very difficult to get close to my marriage. My noble friend put forward an arrangement that gave the Government time to think and gave the Secretary of State the power to review and to act if it seemed appropriate. I think I was a little ungracious in moving my own amendment because I was so pleased with how clever my own drafting had been. However, that was the principle that I sought to support.

I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, who had been quite supportive of my amendment in Committee, came forward with all sorts of reservations and was unable to support it earlier. Your Lordships will now be expecting me, with a certain satisfaction, to say that I cannot follow him so far. However, I am a man of principle, and I think that we need to have equality through this Bill. Amendment 84A gives the Government the power to pull out of this if necessary. I remind them that, during the time that they are considering, reviewing and consulting, they might go through the same reviews and consultations with the insurers as they have done over, for instance, flooding. The Government are used to talking to insurance companies and can at least find out where the shoe pinches, and this amendment would allow them to do so. I do not support the first amendment in this group, which locks them in, but I believe that the second one is a reasonable proposal, which honours the principle that we reluctantly have accepted; but, having accepted it, I think we should be gracious about it.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I support the first amendment for reasons of principle, about which the noble Lords have spoken. The principle of equality is very important. It seems to me that, in Committee, the Minister was unable to respond with any arguments at all based on principle. They were purely pragmatic arguments, which I do not think noble Lords found very convincing.

Amendment 84A, which I support, is very much in line with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which argued that,

“we consider that the Government should carry out a full review of pension provisions in relation to survivor pension benefit entitlements of same sex married couples and civil partners to ensure that there is no unjustifiable discrimination in pension scheme provisions”.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I have added my name to manuscript Amendment 84A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Alli, because we believe that this is the most sensible course of action at this stage. Like my noble friend, we want to ensure that there is no discrimination in the Bill and that there are not two tiers of marriage. I, too, am extremely grateful to the Minister for managing to arrange a meeting with the Pensions Minister yesterday.

We have always accepted that there would be some direct cost to private pension schemes. However, £18 million, which is the figure often quoted, is a drop in the ocean for schemes worth an estimated £76.4 billion. The Government have asserted that equalising pensions benefits for civil partners and married couples of the same sex after this Bill could leave the public sector liable for costs of up to £3 billion to £4 billion. However, they have been far more reluctant to explain where those costs might come from.

As my noble friend said, the Government have already acted to equalise survivor benefit entitlements for civil partners with those of widowers for public sector and contracted-out schemes. The £3 billion to £4 billion estimate is based on the assumption that the removal of the legal exemption for civil partners will leave the Government being forced to equalise the entitlements of widowers with widows, thus levelling everyone back to 1978. But why they believe this to be a significant risk remains unclear.

The 1978/1988 distinction between widowers and widows was based on the historic position of women as being largely dependent on their husbands for income. Indeed, the courts have only recently upheld this distinction in the case of R v Iain Cockburn and Secretary of State for Health, where the judge ruled that there was an “objective and reasonable justification” for this because there had been, as the Government argued, a progressive realisation of gender equality and the initial rules had been set up to recognise the weaker economic position of widows.

Without the provision within this Bill, female spouses of same-sex marriages would, we presume, simply be treated as widows for the purposes of survivor benefits and male survivors as widowers. But nothing in my noble friend’s Amendment 84 would affect the historic male/female distinction that the courts have so recently upheld. To argue against this on the basis of retrospectivity is also flawed as the Government violated this principle themselves when levelling civil partners back to the entitlements of widowers, as they quite rightly did for public service pensions and contracted-out schemes.

In some sense, it could be said that by creating a different entitlement for widows and widowers of same-sex marriages from those of opposite-sex couples the Government are actually weakening their case against future challenges to widow/widower distinction. However, despite agreeing with my noble friend that the Government’s argument here is extremely tenuous, we want to offer the Government an opportunity to remove this inequality in the most appropriate way, as noble Lords on the Benches opposite have also said, and that is why I have added my name to the manuscript amendment today.

By voting for Amendment 84A, noble Lords will be saying, “We are not happy about the provisions within the Bill as it stands so we are leaving them there in parenthesis, as it were, for now until the Government have come forward with firm proposals for how to deal with this clear inequality”. It is quite clear to us that, one way or another, the Government will have to sort this out. It is better to do this through a process that they can own rather than be forced by the courts to do it later, as undoubtedly they would have to do.

I urge the Minister to accept Amendment 84A. I realise that the Government may well have to come back with tweaks at Third Reading but we want to right this inequality and this is a very fine way forward. It gives the Government some space to reflect, to look, to review and then come back, using the order-making power, to get rid of this inequality. I trust that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alli]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Alli. The best thing I can do is to endorse everything that the right reverend Prelate has said. If this is a Bill about equality, we have to treat people equally. As that is what we are told it is, that is what I expect will happen.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, a very powerful case has been made. I simply want to draw attention to what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said on this and to the oral evidence that the Minister gave to the committee, where he talked about wanting to find the fairest place to put same-sex married couples within the pensions framework. What we have heard this afternoon shows that this is not the fairest place. I would be very interested to hear how the Minister can justify this discrimination as being the fairest place.

When he gave evidence to us, the Minister gave some large sums and made it all sound incredibly complicated. He talked about £3 billion to £4 billion. It is not at all clear to me where those sums come from. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify why such large sums are being bandied around. The committee called for a full review of pension provision in relation to survivor pension benefit entitlements of same-sex married couples and civil partners to ensure that there is no unjustifiable discrimination in pension scheme provisions. What we have heard sounds like unjustifiable discrimination. We call on the Government to provide precise information about the potential costs of equalising pension rights.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. When the Civil Partnership Act went through, it was interesting to note that employers were already ahead of the law and that a number of private schemes already recognised partners. When the civil partnership law was enacted, many more then did so. It is fair to say that in this House there are people who may have forgotten more about pensions than I will ever know. However, in the greater scheme of things, this is not very much money in terms of the overall pension contributions, yet it means an immense amount to individuals; those people who are doing all the things that we would encourage others to do, like being judicious in provision for their later life. It seems to me wholly wrong that they are not rewarded in the way that every other person would be if they did the same thing.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 4 I will speak also to Amendments 5A and 6. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lady Lister on Amendment 5 and what appears to be a very worthy extension of the scope of the promised review and report, which we can also support. Amendment 4 relates generally to the criteria for Clause 2, and Amendment 5A has been tabled with the strong support of the shadow Secretary of State following press revelations of the existence of sanctions targets and league tables operating in London. It insists that the review specifically report on this matter.

Clause 2 brings some redemption to what is otherwise a deeply unsatisfactory Bill. The clause exists because of the perseverance of my right honourable friends Stephen Timms and Liam Byrne in another place and gives us the hope that at least something positive may yet come from this débâcle. The clause requires the appointment of an independent person to prepare a report on the operations relating to the imposition of penalties. The sanctions which are in scope for the review are those imposed for failures in the period from June 2011, when the defective regulations were first introduced, until February 2013, when the Court of Appeal judgment was delivered. We are told that the sanctions involved amount to around 25% of all JSA sanctions, which is clearly a minority of such sanctions. For those both delivered and withheld, covering the ESE and MWA programme, this amounts to in excess of 300,000 sanctions, mostly relating to those assigned to the Work Programme. The huge growth in the number of sanctions and the amounts involved—on average some £600 for ESE sanctions and £800 for MWA sanctions—are real causes for concern. There are suggestions that the growth of sanctions is a significant cause of the proliferation of food banks.

Recent revelations about targets and league tables are deeply worrying and reinforce concerns that the sanctions regime is being used to control benefit expenditure rather than for its proper purpose of supporting conditionality and changing behaviour. Ministerial denials will cut no ice until these matters have been fully and speedily investigated. We would be appalled if the reports of the suggested behaviour were true, as they would demonstrate not only that a climate of fear is being created within jobcentres but that staff are being actively encouraged to refer customers for sanction, especially to fine customers that they can claim are not fully available for work if they make mention of looking after a grandparent or having informal arrangements sharing custody of children. Jobcentre Plus is supposed to support vulnerable people, not try to trip them up on technicalities.

The review should also cover what management statistics are routinely kept and what use these are put to. At what point of it all are statistics around appeals on reconsiderations subject to any comparison, either intra a Jobcentre Plus area or between areas? Are the data broken down into individual decision-makers and matched against appeal performance? Do these form part of any discussion at appraisal time for individuals? Noble Lords will recognise that it is not even necessary to have formal targets to create a culture where these issues are seen to matter.

At Second Reading the Minister said:

“I have heard today concern from Peers about how DWP issues sanctions to JSA claimants more generally. I would like to make it clear that the department will discuss with the Opposition the terms of reference of the sanctions review”.—[Official Report, 21/3/13; col. 756.]

This is to be welcomed. Can we take it from this that the review need not be limited just to those sanctions identified above? Of course, a discussion with the Opposition does not necessarily mean agreement, which is why we have particularised, in Amendment 4, specific questions posed by the right honourable Stephen Timms in another place. We have added to the list the important matter which my noble friend Lady Lister spoke to at Second Reading concerning the public sector equality duty. I am sure that my noble friend will pick up that issue shortly and expand on her telling intervention that the Government know that they are treading on thin ice on this matter. It is too late for this legislation to be able to benefit from the scrutiny of the JCHR, which makes it imperative that it is covered by the review.

The items included on the list are for the most part self-explanatory and have been discussed numerous times before. However, now is the time to have an independent assessment of what is actually happening in practice. These include how penalties are being applied to those with a mental health condition, or rather fluctuating health conditions, which has been a longstanding concern under this Government and, to be fair, under the previous one as well. As we need to know how in practice the sanction and hardship provisions are really affecting people’s ability to survive, it is important that the review and report are thorough and that sufficient time is available to do the job effectively. However, this should not preclude an interim report, which is what Amendment 6 suggests.

This is fast-track legislation which we now have very limited time to consider further. The independent review was an important consideration for us in our approach to this Bill and we need to nail this down as tightly as possible tonight. Paragraphs (a) to (l) of the amendment must be deliverable, and if the Government are approaching this in a spirit of co-operation it really should not present them with a problem. Will the Minister commit now to these being included in the terms of reference for the review?

Above all, however, we need to be certain that we get to the bottom of the alleged existence of targets and league tables, which is why Amendment 5A is essential. If the Government are committed to their mantra of low targets, they should have common cause with us in accepting this. If they want to tidy the wording for Report, then so be it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 5 as well as in support of Amendment 4, moved by my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. Amendment 5 complements and amplifies Amendment 4. The point behind it is that the sanctions in scope of the review established in Clause 2 of the Bill represent approximately only a quarter of all JSA sanctions imposed over the relevant period.

If we are to understand how the sanctions regime is working, the review needs to set the narrower group of sanctions in the scope of the Bill into the wider context of the operation of sanctions more generally. I have tried to make sense of the sanctions statistics, and it seems that there has been a massive increase since March 2010 in the number of fixed-length sanctions applied in relation to work-related programmes, and a smaller increase in other varied-length sanctions, albeit in both cases with some month-to-month fluctuations.

The review needs to help us understand what lies behind these statistics in the round. The sense that I am getting from voluntary organisations working in the field is that there is a growing concern about the general operation of sanctions. I am particularly grateful to CPAG and SPAN for the information they have sent me at very short notice.

I do not propose to pursue the question of whether or not jobcentre staff are being set sanction targets. My noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton has already addressed that point admirably. However, I want to say something about the wider culture that is giving rise to such claims. It has been brought to my attention that some jobcentres are pursuing a practice of “botherability”, which includes bringing in claimants at weekends. CPAG sent me the example of a client of the CAB in the north of England.

The client is a lone parent with two children aged eight and six. The eight year-old has reduced hearing and gets low-care DLA. The client is claiming JSA, housing benefit and council tax benefit. She received a letter at the start of March 2013 calling her into the jobcentre for a compliance meeting a few days later, at 9.30 am on a Sunday, which was Mother’s Day. She asked for a different date but was told that her benefit could be sanctioned. She decided to go to the interview as she could not afford not to, but her two little girls were very disappointed as they were planning a treat for her on Mother’s Day morning. She has been on JSA for six months and says that she has jumped through all the hoops. Last week she said that she had applied for 22 jobs. She does not understand what she has done or not done that has necessitated a compliance interview, especially on Mother’s Day. She says she is pretty disgusted with the way that claimants are treated—can your Lordships blame her? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on such practices. Is he aware of them? Does he condone them?

It seems to me that whether or not formal targets are operating, such practices are indicative of an oppressive culture that is aimed at punishing claimants rather than helping them to find work. The point has been made to me that in assessing the overall impact of sanctions we need to be looking at those cases not just where sanctions have been applied but where they have been threatened, sometimes inappropriately; in other words, when claimants have been led to believe that failing to do something is a sanctionable offence when it is not.

I wish to focus on the paragraphs of Amendment 4 that deal with mental health conditions, the effectiveness of hardship provisions and the application of the public sector equality duty. Mind has argued that the incentive structure represented by conditionality and sanctions in back-to-work support for people with mental health problems is a misplaced and counterproductive response to the barriers they face. It cites recent DWP research which found that some staff believe that conditionality and sanctions are not useful or appropriate for some groups of participants, including people with disabilities or addiction problems, and some staff acknowledge that the stress that can be caused can be counterproductive in terms of claimant engagement, which also has implications for paragraph (k), which concerns,

“the effectiveness of sanctions in changing claimant behaviour”.

Mind cites a number of service users who have been in contact. I will take just two examples. The first is:

“I got a nasty letter which said my benefit was at risk because I didn’t attend an appointment and I had to give a really good explanation within a week or my benefit would be cut. It quoted all these regulations I broke. I freaked out because I couldn’t understand what I hadn’t done … It turns out there was a mistake”.

Another example is:

“I was made very anxious and sleepless by what I perceived as threatening letters and terms from Jobcentre Plus and A4e. I became depressed because I could see that my hopes to return to work were being made unrealisable by this route”.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of these people and imagine how stressful it must be for anyone, never mind someone with a mental health problem, to be treated in that way. Further examples can be found in evidence submitted by Citizens Advice Cymru to the ongoing Welsh Affairs Committee inquiry into the Work Programme. A number of them are where there was failure to take account of mental health problems as good cause for non-compliance—an issue to which we will return when debating Amendment 7.

A 20 year-old female sought advice from a CAB in south Wales. She had missed four appointments and was sanctioned. She suffers from periodic depression and memory problems and relies on her social services support worker to remind her of appointments. On these occasions, the support worker failed to do so. She could not apply for a crisis loan as she had been sanctioned, and she has no money at all. She is also worried that she will lose her accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, if I might intervene, there are several noble Lords in the Chamber who from a sedentary position keep saying that this is ridiculous. The only ridiculous part of the debate this evening is the fact that we are debating such a serious issue at 12.20 am, and we should be allowed to hear my noble friend in peace.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I thank my noble friend, particularly as I am quoting from a lone mother who is very upset. She says:

“The sanction is over a missed Thursday 9am appointment. My next appointment is 3pm on a Monday. My advisor is well aware that my son is at school for 8.50 am, it takes 25 minutes to get to WP, I collect my son at 3.15 pm yet I’m expected to attend at 3pm for 30 mins. So I’ll be taking him out of school at 2.30pm. I want to help him do well at school, attendance is a high priority of mine”.

Here we have the threat of sanctions demoralising a lone mother who is trying to do the right thing by her son. How making her feel useless and overwhelmed is going to help her in her jobseeking is a mystery to me.

As I have said, I have not been able to do full justice to the briefing that SPAN sent me. I therefore suggest that it be invited to submit evidence to the review established under Clause 2. Indeed, what provision will be made to enable outside organisations with experience of what is happening on the ground to feed evidence into the review?

Of course, the public sector equality duty is not just about lone parents. An international review of the evidence about the operation of sanctions within conditional benefit systems, conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation a couple of years or so ago, warned that evidence suggests that the administration of sanctions is not rational and equitable. The studies conducted in the US have identified racial bias in the imposition of sanctions.

At Second Reading the Minister emphasised that,

“we are trying to design a much more flexible welfare system in which we individualise responses”.—[Official Report, 21/3/13; col. 753.]

It is difficult to quarrel with flexibility and individualisation, but the downside is that they leave greater scope for discrimination, in the negative sense of the term, and they can undermine rights. It is therefore all the more important that the sanctions review allows us to judge whether the administration of sanctions is indeed rational, equitable and consistent with the public sector equality duty.

The Government’s willingness to discuss the terms of reference of the sanctions review with the Opposition is, of course, welcome. I hope therefore that the Minister will accept Amendments 4 and 5, in the interests of ensuring that the review is as thorough and informative as it needs to be, and that the Government will express a willingness to take evidence from organisations on the ground.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, as far as I am concerned this is an important debate on an important amendment and, indeed, it is an important suggestion that we should have a review of the sanctions regime. Most colleagues already know this, but I am a non-executive, non-remunerated director of the Wise Group, an intermediate labour market provider in Glasgow that is subcontracted to the Work Programme, so I have had experience of some of these matters. There are difficulties that need to be ironed out and I hope that this review will take the opportunity to do just that.

I strongly urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to pay careful attention to what is being said, although I think that the amendment is a little ad longam to put in a Bill. I am with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in spirit, but I am not sure that the amendment is necessary. I think that we get the point that he is trying to make—I certainly do.

To the need for a review in this amendment I would add the question of the costs, which have been calculated as a maximum of £130 million. At the risk of being pedantic at this time of night—and I apologise to the House—I refer the Minister to page 6 of the impact assessment and Annexe A on the methodology of the calculation. Paragraph 18 describes the total value of the money allegedly at stake in this Bill. Frankly, I cannot understand it, but that may just be the hour of the morning. It states that the total value equals the number of sanctions multiplied by the number of weeks, although, in passing, I have to say that sanctions are variable in weeks—they are not all fixed-week sanctions, so I do not know quite how you can multiply by a number of weeks when they vary. That is multiplied by the percentage of cases of under-25s multiplied by the rate for under-25s and the percentage of cases of over-25s multiplied by the rate for over-25s. However, the final clause puzzles me, because that total value is,

“multiplied by reduction due to successful appeals and hardship”.

You have a multiplier multiplied by a reduction. Either my arithmetic is not good, which it is not, or the language in that paragraph is wrong. If the language in that paragraph is wrong, I would like to be told, because that is what we are being invited to consider as the potential cost to the taxpayer as a result of these changes. If the impact assessment has not got the methodology of the calculation correct, it would be good to know.

My other point is about recompliance. My experience in the Wise Group is that although many of these sanctions are originally set at, say, 26 weeks, the participant in the programme gets the message that they are going to lose out rather quickly and they come back into compliance. They are therefore reduced from a 26-week penalty to a four-week penalty as a matter of course. I do not know to what extent that is factored into the calculation of the total value. There are a number of methodological problems that I do not understand. One of the things that this report should do—I am not suggesting for a moment that we need answers to all these things this evening—is to look carefully at exactly what the total amount at stake in this Bill is. We look forward to getting that confirmed one way or the other.

Briefly, my view is that the Work Programme was introduced with indecent haste. The flexible New Deal programme was in the middle of its operation and in 2010, in a very short space of time, everything was changed. I understand the need to take away everything that went before, but everyone I now talk to tells me that the loss of corporate knowledge is a difficulty in working with the department. A lot of serious and expert people are no longer in the positions that they had. Bringing this programme in so early and losing such a lot of corporate knowledge over a short space of time is bound to lead to symptoms and consequences of this kind.

Part of the problem generated by these sanctions is that the notices that are given to participants in these programmes are often handled not by prime contractors but by subcontractors. I do not believe that some of them are authorised by the Secretary of State as they should be under the Jobseekers Act 1995, which is part of the reason why some of these notices are not detailed and informative. Therefore, it does not surprise me that the court took the view that it did. That is something that this review should be looking at as well.

Finally, one thing that I am clear about from my Wise Group experience is that a lot of participants in these courses do not appeal against sanctions because they cannot do without the benefit for the duration of the pending appeal—it is a serious loss of money to them. I hope that this will be investigated in the review, but we really need to look at whether the sanctions are being properly scrutinised in terms of the numbers who go to appeal. I think that people just throw in their hand because they cannot afford to do anything else.

In conclusion, there is a lot of important work to be done. I hope that the review will be serious in undertaking that work and making the results and conclusions available to the rest of us so that we can get this sanctions regime better adjusted for future use in the jobseeker’s allowance regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I do not have the information on Sundays, particularly Easter Sunday. The underlying issue is compliance checks using different days for attending the jobcentre, which are an important element of Jobcentre Plus’s toolkit to combat benefit fraud and confirm conditions of entitlement to benefit. That can include asking claimants to attend a jobcentre on a day other than their normal signing day. That is not something that is different under this Government.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am sorry to intervene, but does the Minister think it is reasonable to ask a mother to come in on Mothering Sunday?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, clearly, I cannot talk about examples when I am not familiar with the particular example. It may have been a strategy. As I said, there is a general strategy to prevent non-compliance by using the device of asking people to come in on different days. Sometimes people are asked to come in on every day of the week. The example I am thinking of is the five workings days, but I have seen examples of that. I saw that example under the previous Government to be honest. I do not know why noble Lords opposite are looking aghast as this was absolutely standard procedure under the previous Government and nothing has changed. It was standard procedure and has been maintained because it works in areas where we are concerned about benefit fraud.

On Amendment 4, it is worth noting that for sanctions more broadly much of the information that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, sets out in his amendment is already published by the department. For example, we have published, and will publish every six months, tables setting out the number of sanctions issued and the number of reconsiderations and appeals. The latest figures published for employment, skills and enterprise schemes and mandatory work activity show that up to October 2012 around 170,000 sanctions were issued. There were just over 50,000 reconsiderations, with claimants being successful in just over half of them. Following this there were about 5,000 appeals to the First-tier Tribunal, with claimants being successful in around a quarter of them. I hope that gives enough reassurance to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that the independent review will be comprehensive and in the spirit of Clause 2. I therefore urge them to reconsider the position and not press their amendments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised a point on hardship and the new hardship regime. The new hardship regime will not apply to these jobseeker allowance claimants. It will come into effect only when universal credit is in place. The lone parent’s caring responsibilities are taken into account when setting work search requirements. In the example used by the noble Baroness, they can be used in citing a good reason for non-compliance.

I turn now to the linked Amendment 6, the purpose of which is to ensure that there is an interim report on the operation of the provisions relating to the imposition of a penalty, as well as the report after 12 months that the Bill already requires. I am as keen as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that the review is expedited and we will endeavour to complete it as quickly as possible. However, it may help if I set out why an interim report would be unhelpful in providing a complete picture. A claimant who has a sanction imposed on them has 13 months to bring an appeal against that sanction, so by imposing a six-month deadline for an interim report we would miss those appeals made at a later point. That could then give a misleading view of the overall picture in a way that could be unhelpful. As I said earlier, we are committed to producing a report as soon as is reasonably practicable and it would be far better to wait for the full annual report. I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider the position and not press that amendment.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. The amendment just about says it all: incompetence leading to retrospective legislation; unjustified fast-tracking; and the need for various assurances, to which we will return in Committee. I simply want to add two points, as well as reflect on the implications of retrospection.

My first point is a brief social policy one. I accept the Minister’s point that the case was not about the substance of the policy, but that is the context in which it is being debated and it helps explain some of the anger that is being expressed outside this House.

Of course, as my noble friends have said, we are not arguing that there should be no sanctions. Despite all the political talk about social security having been for too long all about rights and no obligations, benefits for unemployed people have always been conditional on requirements associated with paid work, and if those conditions are not met there has always been some form of sanction. However, over recent years, those requirements have been extended to groups not previously expected to seek work, and have become increasingly onerous. At the same time, the sanctions regime has been ratcheted up further to new heights under the Welfare Reform Act 2012, while at the same time the hardship provisions are being weakened.

Cait Reilly, the young woman whose appeal has led to this Bill, was required to give up voluntary work that she was doing at a local museum, which was highly relevant to the kind of paid work she hoped to pursue, in order to participate in a sector-based work academy placement that required her to give her labour for nothing. What was the sense in that? Ms Reilly commented that she agreed that,

“we need to get people back to work but the best way of doing that is by helping them, not punishing them”.

It is hardly surprising that claimants are experiencing this sanctions regime as punishment, because it is increasingly punitive. That is one reason why we need an independent report into the sanctions regime that goes wider than the one provided for in the Bill. We will return to this matter in Committee, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie has said.

My second point concerns the human rights implications of this miserable Bill. I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but I cannot speak for the committee because the fast-tracking of this Bill has made it impossible for the committee to scrutinise it, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has hinted. This is also to be deplored. Although there has been no formal human rights memorandum, the Explanatory Notes contain almost a full page explaining why the Government believe that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Yet it is clear from how it is couched that the Government acknowledge that they could face a challenge on the grounds that the legislation interferes with property rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Indeed, they implicitly accept that there is such interference when they state that,

“any such interference is justified as there are compelling public interest reasons for doing so, given the significant cost to the public purse of repaying previously sanctioned benefits, and as the aim of the proposed legislation is intended to restore the law to that which Parliament intended”.

The Government also concede that:

“A claimant might also argue that legislation which removes their right to a refund of sanctioned benefits, or allows the Secretary of State to impose a sanction, notwithstanding the Court of Appeal’s decision, is a breach of their right of access to court under ECHR Article 6”.

They go on to explain why they believe that this is not the case, but end by saying:

“Even if the proposed legislation would interfere with a right of access to court, the Government considers that the interference is justified for similar reasons as for Article 1 of Protocol 1”.

Reading this as one of the few non-lawyer members of the JCHR, the Government seem to be well aware that they are treading on thin ice with regard to the human rights implications of this Bill and that at the very least there is a case to answer. As it happens, the notice of objection lodged in response to the Secretary of State’s appeal to the Supreme Court argues:

“The actions of the Secretary of State and the Act, if enacted, represent an interference in these proceedings that is contrary to the rule of law as protected by Article 6”.

This legislation is in effect interfering in the proceedings of the Supreme Court and pre-empting any decision that it might make. This is a serious matter. The Minister said in his opening remarks that the Bill would not affect the case before the Supreme Court. I did not quite understand that, so perhaps he could explain more fully in his response.

The notice of objection goes on to state:

“Mr Wilson would also wish to contend that the retrospective imposition of benefits sanctions on him represents a violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol”.

It is therefore clear that serious human rights questions are raised by this Bill, but that, because it is being fast-tracked through Parliament, having been pondered over for a month in the department, as underlined by the Constitution Committee—I was not convinced by the Minister’s response on that to my noble friend Lord Foulkes—the committee charged by both Houses of Parliament to advise on such matters has been prevented from doing so. This is surely a disgrace. The committee has already been effectively circumvented by the speed of passage of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill through Parliament, despite its clear implications for the social and economic human rights of children, when it will cast 200,000 more children into poverty.

I return to the Bill in question. On the day after a Budget that says we can afford to cut the cost of a pint of beer, never mind the tax cut to be enjoyed by the highest earners next month, we are told that it is justified to override constitutional and human rights principles—which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said were priceless—for the sake of £130 million. Of course, we are then threatened with this £130 million being taken from elsewhere in the social security budget if Parliament refuses to go along with this charade.

As a lay person, I have been trying to get my head around the implications of retrospection. It seems to me like legal science fiction where the Government are able to operate in a parallel universe where they can say that what happened did not happen by the strike of a legal pen, or, more to the point, that what did not happen—that is, adequate notification to claimants of their legal position under the sanctions regime—did in fact happen. Somehow by the stroke of that legal pen, the administrative law principles enunciated by Lord Justice Pill and Sir Stanley Burnton in the Court of Appeal decision of 12 February can simply be set aside.

Sir Stanley Burnton made the point that:

“There is a constitutional issue involved. The loss of jobseekers’ allowance may result in considerable personal hardship, and it is not surprising that Parliament should have been careful in making provision for the circumstances in which the sanction may be imposed”.

He also said:

“The Secretary of State cannot avoid the requirements of the Act in relation to schemes by calling them programmes. It would be absurd to conclude that a scheme is subject to the statutory requirements only if the Secretary of State decided to call it such”.

Reading the judgment and reflecting on this legislation, it struck me that the parallel universe that I mentioned could have been devised by Lewis Carroll. Noble Lords will recall the pointed exchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice in Through the Looking Glass:

“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all’”.

Unfortunately, in fast-tracking this legislation, the Government are proving that they are master—and abusing power, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put it—and that they can make ultra vires regulations mean in retrospect what they wanted them to mean. Moreover, as the nub of the Court of Appeal judgment was that the claimants were not provided with the legal certainty required by the law, they are saying that they can create legal certainty in retrospect where legal certainty did not exist: a true Humpty Dumpty stroke if ever there was one. However, just because the Government are master, it does not make them right. I therefore hope that noble Lords will express their unhappiness with this fast-tracked, retrospective, constitutionally and human rights-dodgy legislation by supporting my noble friend’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

The moment that there is a ruling—if there were to be a ruling—against the department, we would be liable from that moment to repay. What would we do? Would we obfuscate, say that we could not pay and were dealing with the paper work while we put through emergency legislation? We would be obliged to make the payments from the moment when the ruling came through. That is what this is about. It is why we are going ahead at this time and at this speed, which is clearly not something that we enjoy doing.

I turn to the review, which we have taken on in response to the Opposition in the other place requesting such a review. It will focus on the sanctions affected by the provisions of the Bill, which amount to roughly 25% of all JSA sanctions issued in the period. I have heard today concern from Peers about how DWP issues sanctions to JSA claimants more generally. I would like to make it clear that the department will discuss with the Opposition the terms of reference of the sanctions review. I assure noble Lords that the stockpile of claimants who are issued with a benefit sanction as a result of the legislation will receive the same information that is received by all claimants who are sanctioned for failing to participate in a scheme; namely, they will be told about their right to appeal, how to appeal and how they can go about claiming for hardship.

I will try to pick up as many of the questions that I have not dealt with as I can. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, appreciates how closely we have studied the Constitution Committee’s report. I can tell him that Miss Reilly will not be affected by the legislation as she complied with the scheme that she was required to attend and was not sanctioned. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that we needed to put the regulations out within a day to keep mandating claimants going forward. The retrospective legislation required careful thought and an exploration of all the avenues. We also consulted the Opposition and the whole process took some weeks. I assure the noble Lord that there are absolutely no benchmarks or targets for sanction referrals. Sanctions will involve a temporary loss of benefit. We will not seek lump sums from people in work. We will look to use good cause and, for the more recent sanctions, good reason, but they are in practice the same.

As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, a little earlier, the information given to claimants was not confined to what was in the letters. The sanction decision notice provides information on how to appeal and access other help. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, was concerned about legal aid. The first stage of the tribunal process is inquisitorial and legal aid is not required. It helps to ensure that everything that is relevant is considered. That is the job of the tribunal. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR and will overturn some of the undesirable consequences of the judgment. That should not be done lightly but it is entirely proper to do so in the circumstances.

A number of noble Lords enjoyed having a go at the Work Programme. However, it has resulted in 200,000 people moving off benefits. The PAC report is somewhat premature in its conclusion about what is happening. I look forward to talking about that programme further in the months to come. I conclude by urging the noble Lord to withdraw—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I quite understand that the noble Lord has not been able to answer all the questions that were asked. However, will we get answers to those questions over the weekend?

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

11: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty on the Secretary of State
Before enactment, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report which states—(a) his assessment of the adequacy of the social security benefits listed in Schedule 1;(b) the principles upon which the future up-rating of all benefits and tax credits covered by this Act will be based.”

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, Amendment 11 is in part inspired by the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester at Second Reading. He suggested that this was an occasion for considering,

“the moral responsibility of this House”,

and warned that this Bill,

“looks like part of an ideologically motivated attempt to alter the very nature of the welfare state”.—[Official Report, 11/2/13; col. 469.]

He voiced his fear that we are heading towards a US-style system, where pensions are protected,

“but working-age provision is less generous and more stigmatised, barely providing enough for people to live on without relying on charitable handouts”,

and asked:

“Is this really the kind of society that we want to live in?”.—[Official Report, 11/2/13; col. 471.]

It certainly is not the kind of society in which I want to live.

The purpose of this amendment is to facilitate a debate on that fundamental question of the generosity of benefits for working-age people and their children. The first part addresses the question of whether the social security benefits affected by this nasty Bill are adequate in the first place, and the second the principles that should govern the uprating of benefits in the future once the Bill’s provisions have ceased to have effect. Of course, the two questions are related because the current level of benefit reflects uprating policies over the years.

As the House of Commons Library briefing notes:

“It is a misconception that benefit rates in the UK are based on some regular, systematic estimate of minimum needs”.

In fact, they are not even based on an irregular systemic estimate, for as the briefing points out,

“no government has … attempted any official empirical study of adequacy”,

since a covert study undertaken by the National Assistance Board back in the 1960s, despite countless fundamental reviews of social security, which some of us have lived through to tell the tale.

There are various indicators that we can use to assess benefits’ adequacy. The most basic is whether they are sufficient to keep people out of poverty and, patently, they are not, as so many people living on benefits are in poverty if one uses the relative income and material deprivation measures. The income support received by, for example, a couple with two children or a lone parent with one child is around 30% below the poverty line. Briefings from children’s charities underline the hardship that families already experience as a result. For instance, research undertaken by Barnardo’s among its service users found that two-thirds were cutting back on fuel and half were borrowing money. Three-quarters reported that food poverty was impacting on their children’s health and well-being. Similarly, a Children’s Society survey of teachers found that nearly half of those surveyed are seeing children coming into school hungry. Recent peer research undertaken by five Gingerbread community researchers in partnership with the Poverty Alliance found many lone parents skipping meals to feed their children. As one said, “Occasionally, I’ll miss meals and things like that just to make sure that they get wee bits and pieces. It makes me feel better about them having than me having”. This is an example of a common phenomenon, where mothers deprive themselves of basics to try to protect their children against the worst impact of poverty, as they act as the shock-absorbers of poverty. It is an example, too, of a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, on our first day in Committee about how women are disproportionately affected by the Bill.

The most sophisticated benchmark of adequacy is the minimum income standard developed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. It represents what members of the public through group discussion have arrived at as the minimum acceptable standard of living: what you need in order to have the opportunities and choices necessary to participate in society. I emphasise that it is about needs, as socially determined, rather than about wants.

The latest calculations indicate that a couple with two children, or a lone parent with one child living on the basic safety net benefit of income support, receive only three-fifths of the income needed to meet the minimum income standard. A single working-age person receives only two-fifths. The researchers, who are colleagues of mine at the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University, observe that, because increases in costs have not been adequately captured by the consumer prices index, out-of-work benefits fall even further short, providing a lower minimum income living standard for non-pensioners than they did in 2008 when the MIS was first calculated. They concluded, even before this Bill was proposed, that the gap between the incomes and needs of the worst-off households is widening, especially for families with children. While the JRF is not suggesting that benefits should be raised to the level of the MIS, the sheer scale of the shortfall is indicative of how far they fall below the decency benchmark established by members of the public.

Policy has been more successful in ensuring that pensioners can achieve minimum income standards, which is of course a good thing, but according to Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, the decision to uprate pensions by 2.5% and working-age benefits by 1% for three years is going to exacerbate further the absurd differentials in benefit rates that have developed over time. In 1948, a single pensioner received only 10p more than a single person on national assistance. Now, a single female receives £71 per week in jobseeker’s allowance. When they are eligible, they get £142.70 on pension credit. A lone mother with one child gets only £133.21 a week. These differentials, Professor Bradshaw says, clearly have nothing to do with need.

That brings us to the second half of the amendment, on the principles underlying uprating policies. The significance of these policies was underlined in an earlier JRF study. It pointed out that uprating policies have big effects over time. They are among the most significant decisions taken by Chancellors. Their gradual effects seem imperceptible on a year-to-year basis yet they carry immense implications for the future. This year’s decisions will certainly be perceptible, and the implications for the future are even more immense, because, whatever decision is taken by future uprating policies, they will be uprating benefits that have been significantly depressed in real terms over a three-year period.

The report called for a more open debate about this often hidden area of public policy, so that decisions that prevent the poorest members of society keeping up with rising living standards would not be taken in the dark. Unknown to most people, uprating policies have resulted in a significant erosion of relative living standards among benefit recipients over most of the past three decades. Recently, this has been exacerbated by the use of CPI rather than RPI as the measure of inflation, particularly during the period when prices of necessities that represent a disproportionate share of spending among benefit recipients have risen faster than prices generally—a point that we made on the first day in Committee. As Donald Hirsch of the Centre for Research in Social Policy comments, in this context, the index used to uprate benefits has become a highly imperfect mechanism for preserving their real value and a rather arbitrary means of raising benefits by an amount that politicians feel that the country can afford rather than of protecting living standards.

Of course, assessments of affordability cannot be ignored. They can also be contested, as we are doing in relation to this Bill, but looking to the future I agree with Donald Hirsch that there is a need to establish principles linking benefit uprating to some stable concept of what is fair, rather than just ad hoc decisions about what can be afforded. He suggested that, as a start, this might involve reasserting the principle of human decency whereby the real value of benefits is genuinely protected and that, in the longer term, if prosperity starts to grow again, we need to consider how those in greatest need can share in such growth.

I suggest that a report to Parliament that addresses these fundamental questions is the least that we can ask of a Secretary of State willing to preside over a deliberate reduction in the living standards of the most deprived members of our community. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, I have put down my name in support of the amendment and am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her tabling of it and for her powerful advocacy of it. I have done so because I am repeatedly told by citizens advice bureaux and the like of the uncertainty which is being introduced by this Bill. It is ironic that we have talked so much of certainty in setting the rates for the years up to 2015-16, when those on benefit and providing advice feel uncertain as to its short and long-term effects.

So long as benefits have been uprated by inflation, it has been possible to budget taking them into account. But this cap on uprating is a major and apparently long-term change to the whole principle of our benefit system. Recipients and those who work with them are owed an explanation. I am not looking for commitments from either Front Bench beyond 2015, but I would be very grateful for comment from both of them on whether this is to be seen as a temporary reduction with the aim of restoring benefit values after 2016 so that we ensure a decent living standard for those on benefit—the requirement that has been so ably put by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Or is this actually a permanent reduction to a lower level, which will then be stabilised in real terms after 2016, or a continuation of a gradual reduction expected to continue after 2016? None of those options is desirable, but they are very different in the effect that they will have, and a sense of purpose and direction from the Government and Opposition is important in all this. It is important to know just where benefits are anticipated to be going in future, both from the opposition and the government Front Bench. I hope that they can supply that in the debate on this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

It will be based on the benefits that exist at that time.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I start by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds for supporting the amendment so powerfully. He asked for a sense of direction. I fear that we have a sense of direction but it is not one that either the right reverend Prelate or I feel happy about. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, who, as ever, has brought important issues to light. I also thank my noble friend Lady Sherlock who again made a powerful speech. I also thank the Minister, whose attempt to deal with the issues raised by the amendment I acknowledge and appreciate. She was given rather a hard time but I am sure that she will understand because people feel strongly about the implications of the Bill and the effect it will have on benefits. I should like to address a number of her points.

First, my noble friend Lady Hollis picked the Minister up on this mantra that work is the best route out of poverty. Of course we all agree with that, except that work is not always the best route out of poverty because some people are going to work and are in poverty. As well as the point made by my noble friend, there seems to be an assumption that if we depress benefit levels we are somehow making it more likely that we will push people into paid work. I always remember work on lone-parent families carried out by another poverty guru, Alan Marsh of the Policy Studies Institute. He pointed to evidence that,

“a malign spiral of hardship, poor health and low morale … builds up its own barriers to work”.

He found that those in severe hardship were three to four times more likely to suffer low morale, compared with those who were not in hardship. He very wisely commented:

“It is quite hard to contemplate work if you are that demoralised and hard up”.

That is why we must not assume that keeping benefits low is necessarily going to improve work incentives.

The Minister made a point that I found quite chilling. She said: “It has never been the intention to alleviate poverty through benefit payment”. That is not my understanding: I thought that the whole point of benefits was to try to alleviate poverty. I am dismayed by that statement.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

What I said was that we believed it was misguided to try to lift people over the 60%-of-median-income line through benefit increases alone, because this would not change their lives or their children’s since it would not tackle the reason they found themselves in poverty in the first place.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I accept that, but I wrote down what the noble Baroness said. She said: “It has never been the intention to alleviate poverty through benefit payment”. I wrote it down. If she wants to retract that statement, I would be delighted.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I think it was at the point when the Minister said that unemployment benefits were only intended to be temporary while people were in between work, and that therefore they were never expected to address poverty as such. That is the problem that we are worried about.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

This is a debate about the adequacy of benefit rates, not about benefits in a package of what people receive. The difference here is that if somebody is in receipt of a combination of different benefits—housing benefit, jobseeker’s allowance and so on—I can absolutely see the point that the noble Baroness is making. What I am saying in the context of a debate about how to set the rate of a benefit is that benefits alone do not alleviate poverty.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I thank the Minister for her clarification. I think I can take it that it is not the Government’s position that benefits are not there to alleviate poverty; I hope that is right. The noble Baroness must remember that not everybody can take the route into paid work: there are some people of working age who will be on benefits for a considerable length of time and we cannot just say, “Oh well, they don’t matter”.

There was quite a lot of discussion about food banks. It just so happened that I chaired a meeting the other week for a group called Just Fair, where the director of the Trussell Trust was speaking. He pointed out the exponential increase in the number of food banks over recent years. The increase is huge. That meeting was addressed by the UN rapporteur on the right to food. He made it very clear that he did not see food banks as any kind of solution to the problem of food poverty. I accept that the Minister was not saying that she was happy about the spread of food banks, but I think she was, perhaps, underplaying the extent to which they have spread recently. I do not think it is simply because Jobcentre Plus is now acting as a signpost.

I was disappointed that the noble Baroness was referring back to quotes from 1985 about the difficulties of establishing the adequacy of benefits. Research has become a lot more sophisticated since then and there is a growing consensus—although clearly not on those Benches—around the work done on minimum income standards. When my noble friend Lady Sherlock asked about impact, I do not think she was asking for the same kind of impact statement that we have been talking about—the numbers and so forth. She was asking for an impact on well-being. Local authorities are now supposed to address the well-being of everyone in their areas. What impact is this Bill—together with all the other things that are happening—going to have on the well-being of children and their parents? This goes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, was saying about monitoring. Monitoring is not simply about numbers: it is about what it is going to mean to the lives of some of the most deprived members of our community.

I am disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to accept an amendment which is not about spending money; it is about trying to let us better understand the principles that should govern our social security system when times are easier. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, I hope to make an even shorter contribution to this important debate. I agree that the amendment relating to child poverty is apposite and important. I want to confine myself to seeking further clarification from the Minister, if she has the information to hand. It would be to the Committee’s advantage if we knew more about what we can expect from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, because it relates directly to the substance of this amendment.

I was pleased that there was a recent change to the membership of the commission and that our very own noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, has joined it. I am pleased about that because she is an experienced hand and I trust her judgment. I look forward to seeing the fruits of her work within that commission. It is important to us all. However, I was disappointed to learn recently that the first annual report of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission is not now to be with us before 26 September this year. We were expecting it in May. I make that observation because it is a sign of drift, potentially. If I am wrong about that, I hope that I will be put right.

I was very uneasy about adding social mobility to child poverty. The original terms of reference of the 2010 Bill as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, were the correct ones. The Deputy Prime Minister, of whom I am a great fan, as I am sure people understand, was wrong. Social mobility is a different subject altogether. It is much longer term and in the short term, we are dealing with a situation that is more of an emergency than the aspiration of social mobility, which of course we all accept. We really need to understand what contribution to child poverty this commission will make. If the Front Bench can tell us anything about that in the course of this amendment, that would be very useful.

My second point is that of course we know that there is a consultation on child poverty measurement. I am taxing my memory here, but I think we were expecting the end of the consultation to be earlier this year—some time in February. If that is the case and my memory is correct, I hope we can be told that the Government’s contribution to the further development of child poverty measurement will be vouchsafed to us sometime soon. It will certainly be important to get hold of this around the time of the Budget, if we can. Some of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessments of future policy in terms of the Budget should be seen against the background of the Government’s view about how they will treat child poverty measurement in the future.

I am slightly nervous about some of the things that I have been hearing are being factored into the measurement of child poverty in the future. It may be that I am misreading signals but I hope that we do not lose focus on the fact that, at the end of the day, child poverty can be addressed only with money. Regarding any attempt to dress that up and expand the measurements too widely, while I am in favour of having all the data and metrics that we can access, for the reasons I explained on the last amendment we are facing an emergency situation the extent of which I did not anticipate.

The difficulties are mounting up, as we heard earlier. The decisions to be taken by the Government in the near future on measuring the data on child poverty are very important. If the Minister can help us to understand when we might expect information of that kind, it would help the Committee’s consideration of this Bill not just today but over the rest of its proceedings.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friends on this important amendment, which has been moved so ably. The Government have still not explained why they did not include the impact on child poverty in the impact assessment for the Bill, as they promised. A Written Answer in the Commons as late as 30 January wrongly stated that the impact assessment sets out the estimated child and adult poverty effects, but it does not. As it is, the shameful figures had to be dragged out of the Government by a Written Question, as my noble friend said. Nor have the Government explained to the Committee how the anticipated increase in the number of children living in poverty thereby revealed is compatible with their obligations under the Child Poverty Act 2010, to which my noble friend referred. I asked this question during Second Reading, but answer came there none.

Instead, the Minister deflected the question with the Government’s usual line that the child poverty measurement indicators are somehow not fit for purpose —picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. That was followed by a brief discussion about the importance of education, debt and paid work in tackling poverty, but nothing was said about how by enacting this legislation and knowingly adding 200,000 children to the poverty rolls, the Government are fulfilling their obligations under the Act. Those obligations are in addition to the increase in child poverty estimated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to which my noble friend referred. I would be grateful if today the Minister could answer the question I asked at Second Reading. What does this mean for the Government’s statutory obligations under the Act? Whatever the Government think about the measures of poverty enshrined in the Act, unless they plan to amend it—perhaps the Minister could tell us if they do—they must face up to their legal obligations as set out in it. What countervailing measures will they take against the increase of 200,000 children living in poverty?

I agree with the Minister that education, debt and work are important factors in any anti-poverty strategy, but it is unclear how reducing real incomes will help with any of them. How, for instance, will making life harder for low-income families enhance the educational chances of their children? Hungry children do not make good learners. Anxious and stressed parents are less able to support their children’s education. Adequate incomes are important to educational chances. Paul Gregg has estimated that around 50% of educational inequalities or attainment gaps between the rich and the poor in the UK stem from differences in income. Similarly, as the Minister said, debt is a major problem for poor families, but I fail to see how reducing their weekly income will reduce that problem. All the children’s charities are predicting an increase in debt as a consequence of this Bill, and a Bill that depresses the incomes of low-income workers is hardly conducive to promoting work as the best route out of poverty. I made the point earlier about what Alan Marsh said: people who are demoralised do not make very effective jobseekers.

As the Government consistently attempt to deflect questions about the impact of the Bill on child poverty by dismissing the measures in the Child Poverty Act 2010 as inadequate I should like to say a few words, if the Committee will indulge me, about their recent consultation on those measures. Noble Lords might have read a letter recently in the Guardian from eight fellows of the British Academy, myself included. The letter argued that the Government’s proposals to measure child poverty in a new way,

“are confused and would meet neither the government’s objectives nor international standards”.

While accepting that,

“it is helpful to track what is happening to the factors that lead to poverty and the barriers to children’s life chances”,

the letter advises that,

“it does not make sense to combine all of these into a single measure. To do so would open up the government to the accusation that it aims to dilute the importance of income in monitoring the extent of ‘poverty’ at precisely the time that its policies will be reducing the real incomes of poor families”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, this proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a report in each of the years in question, assessing the impact of that year’s uprating order on child poverty based on the different measures contained in the Child Poverty Act. I absolutely understand noble Lords’ concern to ensure that we are tracking progress and impacts on child poverty. However, I do not believe that this new clause is necessary to do that.

The Government already publish child poverty figures every year using the households below average income series, which is usually published in May or June and includes details on the areas listed in the amendment: namely, the number of children,

“living in relative low income … combined low income and material deprivation … absolute low income … persistent poverty”.

Moreover, later this year, we will see the first of what will become an annual report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, chaired by Alan Milburn. It will report on the Government’s progress towards reducing child poverty, in particular meeting the targets in the Act and implementing the most recent UK strategy.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked a number of questions about that commission. He asked where it had got to and what it was going to say. The answer is that the Government do not know what it is going to say because it is an independent commission. We await its report eagerly, but we are not attempting to pull it up by the roots to find out what it is going say as it is in the process of undertaking its work. I can reassure my noble friend that there is no drift in the work of the commission. It is a very substantive piece of work and it is therefore not surprising that it cannot do it very quickly. We expect that its report will be available in the late summer. It will report to Parliament and I am sure that we will give considerable scrutiny to it in your Lordships’ House when the time comes—we are already looking forward to it on these Benches, I can tell you.

I strongly believe that it is only through such comprehensive reporting, looking at poverty issues in the round, that we can have a meaningful debate about child poverty. As noble Lords have mentioned, we published in response to a Parliamentary Question in another place the expected impacts on child poverty of the uprating measures that we have announced. An additional 200,000 children will be in that category by the end of the period covered by the Bill as a result of the measures in it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether we would publish other impacts of the measure. We do not think that it is possible to derive estimates of all the measures in the Bill. For example, impacts cannot be modelled for the persistent low income poverty measure because impact assessments are based on cross-sectional data rather than longitudinal data. In addition, measures based on an estimate of material deprivation are technically complex to model because material deprivation relies on more factors than just income, so impacts have not been modelled for these measures. The noble Baroness asked also about the absolute poverty figure. If she will forgive me, I shall write to her on that separately.

As we have said previously, we believe that we need to be cautious about setting too much store by such individual assessments of impact. These are not predictions of how the child poverty figures will change in the future, as they do not take into account all the other variables which exist. For example, our estimates will change as forecasts of economic growth and average earnings change, and they do not take account of policies which cause child poverty figures to move in the other direction such as universal credit. Universal credit, which has not played much of a part in our debate today, is of course expected to lift up to 250,000 children out of poverty depending on the effect of the minimum income floor. I believe that we can have a meaningful debate about poverty, as we have started to do in the latter part of this debate, only when we accept that poverty goes wider than the measures contained within the Child Poverty Act.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked a number of questions about the work that we are doing on defining poverty and on the consultation. The consultation is finished. She is quite right that a number of people have been very critical of what the Government are proposing and we are now considering how we respond to those criticisms. It is not the case that the Government have made up their mind about the outcome and are going to ignore everything that has been said—that would be ridiculous. I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that we are analysing all the submissions, of which there have been a number, and we will produce our response to the consultation in the summer.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am sure that the Minister is about to say this, but the assurance that I was seeking was that all the responses would be published on the web. I do not question the fact that the Government are analysing them all—I am sure that they would not ignore any of them—but the public need to know what people were saying about it.

[Lord Newby]

I am happy, I think, to give that assurance. I say “I think” only because I have not talked to officials. That is the standard practice and, unless somebody for a reason that I cannot immediately think of has said that they do not want their comments to be published, I would expect the department to publish all the comments and representations that we have received.

I want to clarify a few matters that have been put to us on several occasions by noble Lords. First, the Government are committed to the Child Poverty Act; secondly, we are committed to eradicating child poverty; and, thirdly, we strongly believe that income matters and will remain a central part of any new measures of child poverty. Our discussion is about what else one needs to do both to measure and deal with child poverty so that all children have a better opportunity when they are living on very modest means.

A number of noble Lords have cited figures from the IFS and the Child Poverty Action Group which suggested that child poverty levels would rise by between 800,000 and 1 million by 2020. I really would caution against setting too much store by those figures. First, child poverty forecasts are an inexact science. For example, the numbers that the IFS produces do not account for future changes to government policy. It is measuring change at a time of immense fiscal challenge for the Government but cannot know what government policy will look like in four or five years. The IFS core numbers also do not take fully into account the dynamic and behavioural changes that will result from the Government’s reforms. Moreover, even in the short term, child poverty forecasting has proven difficult to get right. The IFS, which I accept is a leader in this area, made predictions in October 2011 of a fall of 100,000 in the figure for relative child poverty for the year 2010-11. In reality, the figure fell by 300,000. It is therefore an inexact science and it is very easy for numbers produced by it to be spectacularly wrong. This does not of course detract from the importance of taking action to reduce the level of child poverty, but it serves as a reminder that we should proceed with caution in making forecasts of child poverty, whether based on measures in isolation or changes over the longer term.

It is important to remember that many figures on poverty are based entirely on tax and benefit changes feeding entirely into the relative income measure of poverty. This measure does not capture the full range of issues that poverty involves. It captures a lot, but it does not capture them all. It will not tell us how many children’s lives will have been changed by 2020 but only how many children have circulated around the poverty line. One way of tackling child poverty is to focus on this line, pushing up benefit incomes to lift people from just below it to just above it. We already know that focusing on the relative income line alone yields perverse results, and people have referred in this debate and earlier debates to the fact that, in 2010, 300,000 fewer children were set to be in poverty because the recession had caused median incomes to drop. Children were set to be pulled out of poverty not because anything had changed in their lives but because the rest of society got poorer.

The alternative path that we are trying to follow in government focuses on the interventions that transform lives. That is why we have protected spending on the education budget; that is why we have invested £2.5 billion in the pupil premium for disadvantaged pupils; that is why we are spending £1.2 billion on capital investment in schools; and that is why we are investing in making work pay through the universal credit, sending out a clear signal that we believe that work is the best route out of poverty for parents and their children. As part of the universal credit, we are spending an extra £200 million to support families with childcare costs and, for the first time, this support will be made available to families who work fewer than 16 hours a week. This will mean that 100,000 working families will be helped with their childcare costs.

As I have said, the Government are currently analysing responses to their consultation on new measures of child poverty, measures which will attempt to capture the wider reality of poverty in the UK today. The Government already produce a number of detailed reports on poverty. I hope that this will reassure the Committee that we will continue to publish vital information around child poverty and to take our obligations around child poverty seriously. This proposed new clause would therefore be an unnecessary addition to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I start by making it absolutely clear that, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has just said, the United Kingdom has a strong and effective maternity and parental regime. The UK is significantly more generous than the requirements of the EU pregnant workers directive. The directive says that a woman should benefit from 14 weeks’ paid maternity leave; we provide 39 weeks. It also says that a woman should receive at least the amount that would be paid for sickness; our standard rate of maternity pay and maternity allowance is £135.45. This compares very favourably with the current statutory sick pay rate of £85.85 per week.

In addition, the latest available data from the OECD from the previous financial year show that the proportion of our GDP spent on maternity and parental pay is higher than in Germany or France. Moreover, in the past decade, the standard rates of statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance, which is the allowance that is paid to women who are not in work who have children, or who were not in work prior to the birth of their child, have increased by more than 35%, from £100 a week in 2003 to £135.45 currently. So while I accept that the decisions we have taken on statutory maternity pay will mean a slightly smaller increase for people over the next few years, the UK’s strong and effective maternity architecture will remain firmly in place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, referred to what she described as a mummy tax and to media reports on it. I am slightly surprised that she referred to Mumsnet because when her honourable colleague Rachel Reeves published an article on Mumsnet on what she described as a mummy tax back in December last year, the blog attracted a lot of comment. It is worth highlighting some of the points that were made. Most of the contributors were at pains to say that they were not supporters of, or spokesmen for, the Government, or supporters of either of the two parties in government. One contributor said:

“I despise this latest Labour ‘Mummy Tax’ campaign. For one, the name ‘Mummy tax’ is hugely patronising and sexist for people in a relationship as my husband benefits from maternity pay just as much as me as all our household income is pooled. And let’s be clear although there is a real terms cut due to the rate of inflation, this change is not a tax”.

The comments continued and attracted quite a lot of support. Another contributor responding to the post on Rachel Reeves said:

“I’ve had no pay rise for the last 3 years and we are getting nothing this year and told to expect the same for the next 2-3 years—is that a tax? No, it’s just the real world and I have to get on with it. I’ve had a child during that time and we had to work around what we could afford with regard to length of maternity leave and to be honest £180 would have made no difference whatsoever. I despise the term ‘mummy tax’—it’s a patronising media friendly sound bite, which creates a hugely distracting perception of the middle class having to cut back on cappuccinos whilst on maternity leave which removes debate from the real issue. I would like to see the labour party setting out what it would do in power and challenging the government instead of wheeling yet more spin and inaccurate bluster”.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I accept that that must have been said on Mumsnet and I have to admit that I do not particularly like the term “mummy tax” either, but does she accept that while it is the case that the mother who posted on Mumsnet pooled her income, research that I and others have carried out shows that for many women having a benefit in their own right is important to them psychologically? They receive money over which they have control, whether or not they then pool it in the household. Not all households pool their incomes. Some do and some do not.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That is a fair point. The people who were posting on the internet at that time were responding to the comments of Rachel Reeves about the proposals having a disproportionate impact on women, and only women.

Away from the debate on Mumsnet, the Government are committed to make this architecture for women stronger. The provisions in the Children and Families Bill, which had its Second Reading in another place last week, will allow working parents to choose which parent takes parental leave and pay to care for their child in the early years. This will give mothers real choice over when and whether they return to work. This is helpful in two big ways—where the woman is the higher earner and in starting to chip away at the inequality that some women face at work just because it is assumed that they and only they will take a break in their careers to have children. Our proposals will start to make a big difference.

It is also important to remember that the Government have introduced other reforms that will help to offset the impacts of these changes. For example, a woman working full time at national minimum wage for six months of the tax year, who then receives statutory maternity pay for the next six months, will still be better off overall as a result of changes to the income tax personal allowance. The introduction of universal credit will also provide a big boost for many mothers and lone parents, with 2.6 million women and 700,000 lone parents expected to gain through increased take-up and improved financial incentives to work. In addition, as part of the introduction of universal credit, £200 million extra is being spent to support families with childcare costs. For the first time, this support will be made available for families who work less than 16 hours a week. This will mean that 100,000 more working families will be helped with their childcare costs. That is important, because it means that even if someone is able to take on only a small amount of work, they will get that support for childcare costs to which they previously would not have had access. In another move that will be helpful to mothers and parents, as my noble friend Lord Newby mentioned, we have committed to introduce 15 hours a week of early education for 40% of two year-olds, starting with the most disadvantaged.

The Government will also continue to make extra support available for mothers on low incomes to buy the basic goods that they need. We have a programme called Healthy Start, and the Sure Start maternity grant—a lump sum payment of £500—is available to help parents with the costs of having a new child. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said that this is now available only to parents who have a child and no other child under the age of 16. However, this support is additional to the money that parents receive through their statutory maternity pay. Bear in mind that if there is another child in the home, some of the initial substantial expenses of having a family often are not repeated if they have a second child.

The amendment would reduce savings from the Bill by around £50 million in 2015-16. None of the decisions contained in the Bill are easy. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, would prefer that we did not include statutory maternity pay in the Bill. I would like that, too. I would love it if we could say, “Let’s exclude this or that”. However, as my noble friend said in our previous debates, every time we say that we will not include something in the Bill, we have to look somewhere else for the money. That £50 million is not a small sum and is equivalent to more than 20,000 part-time nursery places for three to four year-olds. This is money that will cover substantial support that rightly we provide to mothers and families in other ways.

I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that there is a strong architecture to support women when they have children. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether the Schedule should be agreed.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, in opposing the question that the Schedule be agreed, I do not wish to reopen the debates we have already had about the damaging impact it will have on some of the most deprived members of our community. I hope I can take it as read that I oppose this schedule in the same way that I have opposed the clauses. Instead, on the helpful advice of the Public Bill Office, I wish to use this debate as an opportunity to draw attention to the needs of an even more deprived and vulnerable group who cannot even count on a miserable 1% increase in benefits, and that is asylum-seeking families reliant on asylum support.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds and I raised this issue briefly during Second Reading. The Minister responded, correctly, that asylum seeker benefit rates are a matter for the Home Office and are not within the scope of the Bill. He kindly said he would draw our remarks to the attention of colleagues in the Home Office. We are, of course, aware that asylum seeker benefit rates are not within the scope of the Bill; that is the very reason why we raise the question. They should be part of its scope and treated in the same way as other social security benefits when it comes to uprating policy. As I have given the Minister’s office notice that I planned to raise this issue in this context, I hope that the Minister will be able to address the substance of our remarks when she comes to respond.

The right reverend Prelate and I, together with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, remember the all-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people, set up by the Children’s Society. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Children’s Society for all the work it has done on this important issue and for its briefing for today’s debate. That briefing draws on the findings of our inquiry. We found that the current asylum support system is forcing thousands of children and young people seeking safety in the UK into severe poverty. We were shocked to hear of instances where children were left destitute and homeless, entirely without institutional support, and forced to rely on food parcels or charitable donations. This cannot be right.

It is estimated that there are 10,000 children living on asylum support. The panel heard powerful evidence of the reality for those living on as little as £5 a day, whose parents are forced to skip meals to feed their children and are unable to buy warm clothing in the winter. Some families find current levels of support particularly difficult, including pregnant women and lone mothers with young children—and families of a disabled child, because asylum support does not offer families any standard additional support when a family member has a disability. With regard to pregnant women, one particularly shocking example brought to our attention was a mother having to walk home from hospital in the snow with her newborn baby in her arms because she had no money.

Just last week, Maternity Action and the Refugee Council published a report which gave more examples of the problems faced by pregnant and nursing women who had insufficient money to meet their most basic needs. Most asylum-seeking parents are not allowed to work, leaving families totally reliant on state support; paid work is not a route out of poverty for them. Asylum support levels differ significantly from income support and other mainstream benefit levels. Until 1999, asylum support was set at 90% of income support, after which levels of support were reduced to 70%, with the justification that asylum seekers in accommodation no longer had to pay utility bills. There is currently no statutory provision to make an annual uprating of levels of asylum support in line with increasing costs of living. I acknowledge that the previous Government did not set a good precedent on the uprating of asylum support. I therefore hope that my own party will at least be open to rethinking our policy on this.

Asylum support rates have not been raised in 2012-13, so they have effectively been frozen without any announcement to justify this. When I asked a Written Question about this, the Answer was that there was not only no statutory obligation to carry out an annual review but no obligation even to make an announcement. There should be, in both cases. As it is, I was told:

“There are no current plans to change asylum support rates”,

although the Government,

“will continue to keep them under review”.—[Official Report, 15/1/13; col. WA 121.]

If the rates are frozen for a second year in succession, that will mean a cut of 6.2% in relation to income support payments over the last two years, making it even more difficult for families to survive. Can the Minister please explain which factors are taken into account when keeping asylum support rates under review? What is the actual process for deciding how and when they will be uprated?

The inquiry recommended that asylum support for families also provided with accommodation should be aligned with mainstream benefit rates paid for living expenses. Where accommodation includes utilities, which would normally be expected to be paid from living expenses, it is appropriate to make a deduction. However, such a deduction must be reasonable. The inquiry argued that the rates of support should never fall below 70% of income support. As it is, asylum support now bears no relation to income support.

The inquiry was particularly concerned about the situation of families on Section 4 support, which may be provided if a child is born after an asylum claim had been refused but where the family are, for some reason, unable to leave the UK. Almost 800 children are being supported under Section 4, some for many years. Under Section 4, the amount provided is even lower and the use of a cashless system—the azure card, as it is called—can be degrading and wasteful because it can be used only in certain designated shops. The inquiry recommended that this particularly inhumane form of asylum support be abolished entirely and replaced with a single cash-based support system for all children and their families who need asylum support while they are in the UK.

Given that asylum support rates were not increased in 2012-13, they should be raised as a matter of urgency for the 2013-14 financial year and thereafter increased annually, at the very least in line with income support, along with other benefits in the schedule. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the rationale for treating asylum support differently from mainstream social security benefits when it comes to annual upratings. Ministers frequently refer to the Government’s ongoing review of asylum support when questioned on these issues, including recently in response to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, which referred to our all-party inquiry. In his Written Answer, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said that the Government would consider our findings as part of this ongoing review. Will the Minister please tell us whether the Government will respond to the all-party inquiry’s report? How long will this ongoing review go on, and when can we expect an outcome?

I would argue that a review of the treatment of one of the most deprived groups in our community should be treated with a little more urgency. It is shameful that we are willing to allow children and their parents who are seeking asylum in a rich country such as ours to continue to suffer in this way.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that the payments made to people who have applied for asylum should be treated in the same way as any other benefits and should be subject to review by your Lordships. Instead, as the noble Baroness explained, there is no obligation to uprate the benefits or even to make a statement, nor, in particular, for the Government to explain whether they believe that the payments made to asylum seekers should bear any relationship to those on income support, or whether the two calculations are to be performed on an entirely different basis. If so, what is the underlying rationale behind the amounts paid to people on asylum support?

As the noble Baroness has already said, with her I was a member of the cross-party parliamentary inquiry organised by the Children’s Society into asylum support for children and young people, under the very able chairmanship of my honourable friend Sarah Teather, the former Minister for Children. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in expressing the concern and dismay that we all felt when listening to the stories of suffering and destitution of asylum seekers. The worst-off were those supported under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, many of whom were failed asylum seekers who could not be returned to their country of origin because it would not accept them. Under that provision, people have to live in housing and accommodation provided by private agencies, the standard of which often is grossly deficient and lacking in ordinary facilities.

I could not help noticing the contrast with the Statement made earlier today about the arrangements being made for our forces returning from Germany. Quite rightly, £1 billion is being spent on 1,900 new houses for those families, when nothing whatever is spent on the accommodation of people who have applied for asylum.

Section 4 provides support in the form of vouchers which can be redeemed only at certain shops. The value of the azure card, which is intended to provide for all essential living needs, is £70.78 a week, compared with income support for a couple with children of £123.35. Because they have no cash, as the noble Baroness has explained, the recipients cannot do many ordinary things, such as buying stamps, taking a bus or making a telephone call. She gave a particularly lurid example of evidence that we heard about a mother who had to undertake all sorts of physical arrangements with her small child as regards apparatus that was needed. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach said, in his brief answer to a question on asylum support on 24 January, that he was surprised to find that there were two levels of benefit within the asylum system. Indeed, one cannot imagine the motive for building this level of complexity into it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I was going to refer to the complaints that have been made about delays in dealing with Section 4 cases. These problems have been acknowledged by the department. Efforts have been made to address the causes behind those delays and there have been some improvements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said that disabled people receive no additional support. If asylum seekers have higher needs, they are supported by their local authority under an old Act, the National Assistance Act 1948. My noble friend Lord Avebury asked whether disabled children would receive higher value support. Again, that is a matter for individual local authorities, which will have considered the needs of the child and conducted a relevant assessment. My noble friend also asked whether these arrangements are compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the answer to that is yes. The UK Border Agency is bound by its Section 55 duty to consider the best interests of children. As I have said, fully furnished free accommodation, education and healthcare are provided, plus an allowance to meet the need for food, clothes and other essential items.

Although I acknowledge the strength of feeling that has been expressed by noble Lords about the difficulties that inevitably are faced by people who come to this country seeking asylum, when comparing asylum support rates across Europe, our research shows that the UK is comparatively generous in family cases, providing more to an asylum-seeking family of four than countries like Sweden or Denmark. Further, as I have mentioned, there is an ongoing review of our approach to asylum seeker support and we expect to finish conducting our inquiries shortly. We are taking account of the views of partners, including the recommendations of the Children’s Society. We will want to ensure coherence with the mainstream benefit system and the financial constraints being faced. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked for further details about the evidence that is being considered in the course of the review. I shall see whether I can write to her with further details on that.

It is worth saying that there is no statutory obligation to carry out an annual review of asylum support rates. Instead, Parliament has set a clear benchmark that the support provided must meet the “essential living needs” of recipients of Section 95 support and that it must provide “accommodation” to recipients of Section 4 support. It would be wrong to raise expectations in this area given the current constraints on the funding available, but we are committed to an approach to asylum support that is fair, reasonable and balanced. No one who has sought our protection need be destitute while waiting for an application to be decided, but if the application is refused and the decision is upheld by the courts, we expect people to return home. Perhaps I may add that if someone is granted asylum, if they are in need of benefits they will transfer on to the domestic regime, which ensures that they receive the same benefits as anyone else in this country under the normal rules that apply.

If I have failed to address all of the detailed questions put by my noble friend Lord Avebury and, indeed, if there are any others, I will follow them up in writing. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for the opportunity to set out the support that is provided and I hope that I have been able to reassure her and other noble Lords that the Government continue to take this matter very seriously. I hope that she will withdraw her objection to the schedule.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the right reverend Prelate for their powerful support in this debate, and I thank my noble friend Lord McKenzie for accepting that perhaps our side will have to reflect on the findings of the inquiry. That was very welcome. I also thank the Minister for her full reply and for the good news that the review is expected to conclude by the end of this financial year. That is one good piece of news. When she writes to noble Lords, perhaps she will also say whether the review will be published so that we can read the full results.

I want to make only one point because I am conscious that noble Lords are waiting for the next debate. I turn to the question of “temporary”, which was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I would point out that a Written Answer in the other place last week stated that the average time spent on Section 95—not Section 4—was 525 days. That is a long time to be living on such a low income.

It has been useful to have this debate. Although I cannot welcome everything the Minister has said, I do welcome her acknowledgment of the importance of these issues and the fact that the review is about to conclude. I do not intend to oppose the schedule.

Schedule agreed.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Your Lordships may have seen a briefing from the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggesting a simpler purpose clause, but I fear that it is merely a description. There are no aims. It separates equality from human rights, rather than uniting them. It gives little or no direction and does not reflect what the Government have said about the commission’s future role. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this late stage of the Bill is not the time to be suggesting such a proposal, with no opportunity for true debate. To debate it as good scrutineers is our job, after all. It is vital to keep Section 3 and I hope that your Lordships will support me in this endeavour. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I apologise for not being able to be present when this amendment was debated in Committee. However, I have read the debate and the balance of opinion clearly lay with the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton—not surprisingly, given the powerful speech she made and the one which she has also made today. It is a privilege to support an amendment moved by such a respected champion of equality and human rights, who I would like to call my noble friend. In doing so, I wish to address just two points that emerged during the debate in Committee.

First, the Minister argued that the general duty contained in Section 3 “creates unrealistic expectations”. She went on to acknowledge the importance of the statement contained in the general duty and suggested that it could,

“be replicated in the commission’s own strategic plan”—[Official Report, 9/1/13; col. GC 61.]

or mission statement. Surely, however, that is to undermine her own argument because if the problem is one of unrealistic expectations, they would still be created if replicated in a strategic plan or mission statement.

The other main argument put forward in the debate was that repeal of the general duty would not make any difference anyway, as it is of symbolic rather than practical importance. This is the official stance taken by the commission itself. I have two responses to that: first, as a number of noble Lords noted in Committee, this justification was challenged by Professor Sir Bob Hepple of Cambridge University. He argued that Section 3 has an important legal function and that without it equality law would be “rudderless” and would lack the “important unifying principle” that Section 3 provides, and which the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomed in its report on the Equality Bill. However, even if the significance of the general duty were more symbolic than practical, symbols matter in politics and we should not underestimate the symbolism of removing the section. The deluge of e-mails that I have received in recent days defending Section 3 is a testament to the power of that symbolism.

At a time when politics has become increasingly managerial and uninspiring, I find it rather wonderful that the Equality Act contains an aspirational, visionary statement of intent. Moreover, the European Commission study on national equality bodies advised:

“In order to fully realise their potential in promoting equal treatment for all, equality bodies should develop a vision of their role within the administrative culture and society”.

It is a sad day if the vision enshrined in the legislation is now struck out. As the British Institute for Human Rights argues, it sends a worrying message that the Equality and Human Rights Commission,

“is to be a compliance factory with no real ambition or purpose”.

I fear that the suggested alternative put forward by the commission in its briefing, namely that it should be,

“a national expert on equality and human rights”,

and the strategic regulator for equality offers neither ambition nor visionary purpose but is, as the British Institute argues, purely descriptive, as the noble Baroness has already said. It offers mundane prose where Section 3 offered the poetry of high ideals.

I hope that the Minister will have thought again in the light of the support for this amendment in Committee and the public concern now being expressed. If not, should the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, decide to test the opinion of the House, I hope that noble Lords will support her. The amendment will cost nothing, but it will provide reassurance that the work of the Equality and Human Rights Commission will continue to be framed by a vision of society in which each of us without exception is treated equally and with dignity and respect—the core principles of human rights.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I associate myself with what has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Lister. I do not want to repeat what I said at Second Reading—we had a very full debate then—but I was disappointed that we continue to hear that removing the general duty was a bit of tidying up and that it would have no effect whatever on the work or legal responsibilities of the commission. The question that has been put a number of times, including by myself, was then why do it? Why do something if it will have no impact at all? I am afraid that the reply has not given me much confidence.

I strongly believe that the Government have a choice between a strong independent body that is committed to promoting and safeguarding our values, which I believe are British values, independent of the Government of the day—whichever colour—or we go for the option of a watered-down, less independent, weaker institution, which in time would be rendered merely an enforcement agency or regulator without the vision and underpinning that is so important. I cannot think of another organisation, independent or statutory, that does not have some sort of mission statement or a duty to promote or do something. This is the only organisation of its kind in this country. Are we suggesting that the Equality and Human Rights Commission does not need such a mission or values, which were very much fought over and arose as a result of cross-party agreement when the Equality Act 2006 was debated and enshrined?

I said at Second Reading, and it is worth saying again, that the then Opposition gender and equality spokesperson Eleanor Laing, MP, spoke of how important it is that the general duty is ambitious and wide ranging. With the change of government and apparently as part of an unwritten agreement, this seems to have changed for whatever reason, and I am disappointed.

There is an opportunity here for the Government to say what sort of organisation we want. We have a choice, but I also think that maybe we need to take a step back. Perhaps this is not the right place to debate what sort of mission statement or general duty an organisation as important as this, with such a multifaceted function, should have at this stage. We evidently need more time to consider this. It cannot be resolved via this Bill on the Floor of the House.

Will the Government take this away and consider the type of organisation they want and what they want it to do? As I said, in line with other organisations, if not in this country then in the world, it should have some form of agreed mission statement incorporating its aims, responsibilities and duties to the taxpayers and citizens of this country. The Government should do this in consultation with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and bring it back to the House. Will the Minister respond to that?