Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 45, which takes a much more radical view and proposes leaving out Clause 52. I guess the happiness will end now. However, I take note of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about the anxiety over abuses in the system, and I will listen carefully to the response from the Minister, because it is an important issue. I agree with the noble Baroness that it will not be worthwhile pressing any of the amendments if the Minister’s response is that there is a need to reconsider matters in the light of our comments.
I will outline the reason for my suggestion that we leave out Clause 52 by exploring historically why youth ESA was set up. Under the provisions, a person under the age of 20 who is not in full-time education or who has had a limited capability for work for 196 consecutive days can gain entitlement to contributory ESA despite not having reached the contributions threshold. This measure has existed in some form in the benefits system for nearly 40 years to enable young people to access contributory benefits if they are unable to work because of illness or disability.
The youth rules were introduced for incapacity benefit in April 2001 as a result of provisions in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. They were intended to refocus benefits on people disabled early in life who had never had the opportunity to work and gain entitlement to incapacity benefit through the payment of contributions. The rules were carried over into ESA as part of the Welfare Reform Act 2007, again to ensure that young people who had not had the opportunity to build up a sufficient contribution record would not be excluded from the non-means-tested allowance.
With the Welfare Reform Bill the Government now intend to abolish the youth condition, as well as time-limiting its receipt to 12 months for existing claimants. The justification for this change, as set out in the impact assessment, is that it,
“will simplify the benefits system and ensure a consistency of treatment for those claiming ESA”.
This assessment completely fails to recognise that young people with long-term health conditions or disabilities are already in a place of disadvantage in comparison with older adults, hence the introduction of the youth condition in the first place, and that this change will entrench this disadvantage. This will mean that young people, including those unable to work because of cancer, will be extremely unlikely to be able to access the contributory element of ESA and will have recourse only to the means-tested income-related element to be subsumed into universal credit. Young people who are ineligible for the income-related component, which will include those with a partner who works more than 24 hours a week and full-time students, could therefore lose up to just under £100 a week. This will have a devastating impact on those who are unable to work and are struggling with the significant additional costs of a cancer diagnosis—and, believe me, there is a significant cost for all kinds of reasons once cancer is diagnosed.
The eligibility of young people for benefits is extremely dependent on their circumstances and particularly on their education status. I have serious concerns about how students, for example, are treated under the system. Full-time students are able to claim income-related ESA only if they are already in receipt of DLA. This is another example of how the eligibility rules at present disadvantage young people. I am also concerned about the knock-on effect of many young cancer patients who are students becoming ineligible for DLA as a result of the introduction of PIP—and we will discuss that later. I believe it is critical that the Government ensure that the eligibility of students with long-term health conditions and/or disabilities for ESA is not dependent on their receipt of DLA.
Let me give an example. David was diagnosed with stage 4 Hodgkin's lymphoma when he was 22. Before he was diagnosed, he received a full wage working for the NHS that stopped when he was undergoing treatment. As he had been working for his employer for only six months, he was entitled to three weeks’ paid sick leave. He was subsequently unable to claim any benefits, including ESA, because he was forced to move back home with his parents. David told me: “It can be really difficult for young people to build up time with one employer so that they are entitled to sick pay at full pay”. Similarly, it is extremely difficult for young people to build up national insurance contributions, so I am thankful that at present the youth rules enable young people, including those with cancer, to access contributory ESA, which can be a lifeline when they are already impacted by a loss of earnings.
DWP statistics show that 17 per cent of the current caseload of ESA claimants aged 16 to 24 are currently accessing contributions-based ESA, or both income and contributions-based ESA, and could therefore be negatively affected by this change. The DWP impact assessment estimates savings of only about £11 million per annum while noting that 70 per cent of those affected will lose £25 a week as a result of qualifying for income-related ESA only, which equals about £1,300 a year. A further 10 per cent will lose almost £100 a week by virtue of not qualifying for income-related ESA. Over a year, this amounts to almost £5,000. Only 20 per cent, or just under 3,000 claimants, will get exactly the same amount of income-related ESA that they would have got under the youth provisions. Based on the Government’s own estimates, this loss of income may affect as many as 10,000 people by 2015-16.
This means that only 20 per cent of claimants will be financially unaffected by these changes. I believe that it is wrong that these savings should be levied from such a small group of vulnerable young people. Indeed, the department’s own impact assessment notes that:
“The abolition of the ESA ‘Youth’ provisions is more likely to have an impact on disabled people because ESA is directly targeted at people with health conditions that limit their ability to work. There is a risk that the affected group will be more likely to need more support because of their condition than all ESA customers”.
I therefore believe it is wrong that the Government should seek to remove a vital form of financial support for young people with serious long-term health conditions. For a proposal that by the Government’s own admission will impact around 10,000 young people, the cumulative savings will be only £11 million.
In Committee, the Minister stated that he believes that his,
“proposals have built-in support for this group of claimants”.—[Official Report, 8/11/11; col. GC 58.]
I can assure the Minister that this is not the case and that his proposals will have a significant financial impact on young people with serious health conditions who may have no other option for financial support. For example, young people with cancer are not always able to access DLA, particularly if they have a treatment period of less than nine months. ESA may be their only option while they are undergoing treatment.
The Minister has also argued that no other group has this kind of concession in contributory benefits. However, that is exactly the point: the rules exist precisely because it is unlikely that young people will have been able to build up the requisite national insurance contributions, but they should still be able to access a benefit designed to provide financial support to those unable to work because of illness or disability. I do not see how this proposal can be part of a “principled approach to reform”, which is the basis for the whole of welfare reform.
The measure will remove a vital source of financial support for young people with serious health conditions and disabilities. I hope that the Minister will give some indication that he recognises this and that he is willing to look at it again or at least give it further thought. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about the abuse of the system, which certainly needs to be addressed. When the time comes for me to decide whether to press my amendment, I will be mindful of that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I support Amendments 45 and 46, to which my name is attached. The purpose of the amendments has already been explained and the case has been made convincingly. I simply want to add to that. Young people who are disabled from birth or early in life have been entitled to claim ESA or its predecessors from the age of 16 since 1975, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, pointed out. That has been accepted by all the main parties as a fair and proper way to treat young disabled people. Indeed, my noble friend Lord McKenzie did not thank me for reminding the Grand Committee that in a previous Parliament he was urged to be more generous to this group of young people by the then Opposition spokesperson, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I was therefore rather surprised when the Minister argued in Grand Committee that no other age group can qualify for contributory ESA without having paid, or been treated as having paid, national insurance contributions. That is because all other age groups will have had the opportunity to earn such contributions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, have already pointed out.
We are talking about a very small group. According to the Government’s figures, about 15,000 young people are likely to be affected each year. Some of these will qualify for income-related ESA, although sometimes at a lower rate, when there will be an estimated average loss of £25 a week, which is a significant sum for those on a low income. They may become automatically eligible for passported benefits such as free prescriptions, depending on the outcome of the review currently being undertaken by the Social Security Advisory Committee, but that does not justify removing their underlying entitlement to a weekly income. One in 10—or 1,500 a year—will lose all entitlement to benefit, perhaps because they have a partner in full-time work or because of the capital rules.
Lord Freud
To be absolutely honest, unwinding the effects of the first full year, which will be in 2017, is quite hard to do in simplistic terms when compared to an SR. The simple answer is that the £4 billion is a real £4 billion, not an eroded £4 billion. The impact assessment makes it clear that it is made up of roughly half and half efficiency; it is a much more efficient system. We have taken the efficiencies that we have gained and put them back into the pockets of people, plus an extra amount of £2 billion. That is where the money is coming from. The bulk of it is going into the lowest two quintiles in a rather efficient way; I forget whether it is 80 per cent or 90 per cent, but the bulk of that money is directed very efficiently.
I turn to Amendment 45 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Finlay. Clearly, the design of that amendment removes Clause 52 altogether. As I have just mentioned in my remarks on Amendment 45A, we have a principled approach to reform, in which we are trying to modernise and simplify the current welfare system and remove duplicate provision when our resources are limited.
As we move towards universal credit, on which I have just spent a bit of time, there are other areas of rebalancing the relationship between the state and individuals. I remind noble Lords again that the small number of youngsters who do not qualify for income-related ESA are in this position only because they have alternative resources available to them. All those in the ESA support group will continue to receive unlimited support. We will also, of course, provide support to ESA youth claimants whose awards end, and they later become vulnerable through their conditions deteriorating so they develop limited capability for work-related activity.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Does the Minister accept that there may be resources available to that group but that they are not resources over which they would have control, as they do not provide those young people with any form of independence, as does the contributory ESA?
Lord Freud
My Lords, where they have other resources, as they move into young adulthood, clearly they have to be resources of their households at that stage and their own capital and household income. The reality is that very many of this small group of youngsters are inheriting very substantial sums of money; that is why they are in the position that they are in. That is a decision in principle over whether we should support people who have very adequate resources of their own. We will continue to support those who have deteriorating conditions even when they have a high income. They just go back into the support group.
Let me just go into the rather complicated position with European law and the specific judgment here, which I am looking at. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will regard it as recent enough—this is the Lucy Stewart case on 21 July last year. It is within half a year, so I think that is recent. We have a code for soon and sooner or whatever; recent is within half a year. That judgment made it clear that we cannot use the past/present test to deny access to a benefit if a claimant demonstrates a genuine link to the UK in other ways, which may include consideration of the relationship of a claimant and the social security system of the competent member state or claimants’ family circumstances. The past/present test requires that a claimant must be present in Great Britain for 26 weeks out of the last 52 preceding a claim for employment and support allowance. We still lost the case, even though we had lots of powers on residence. Clearly, the view of this Government is that it should be a matter for the Government of this country to decide how people qualify for benefits. The effect of this judgment is that young people can qualify for a benefit even when they have not lived in this country for many years.
I cannot be absolutely hard and fast on the European benefit-shopping issue; I can tell your Lordships only that this is causing us enormous concern at a number of levels and we are currently challenging Commission lawyers on it. The issue, at the simplest level, is that if you can call something social support it is much less likely to be abused and taken abroad than if it is a contributory right. That is where the battleground is and your Lordships can clearly see what we are doing here. When we are asked for a concession and whether we can get round the European law, what we are looking at is a system that basically provides the support for the vast bulk of the youngsters whom we want to support without opening our doors wide to current and future dangers of this kind of benefit exportability. That is the approach that we have adopted to try to get round this problem.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I do not think that we ought to spend a huge amount of time on this—it is really difficult and moving very fast. The principle is that it is the automatic entitlement that makes us vulnerable. If it is for income supplement and social support, it protects us. Your Lordships can see that the change that we have made here is to cover the vast bulk of the youngsters with support, but it is not automatic. That is precisely the safety that we are going into with this European legislation. I do not think that the precise workaround from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, works or that we should sit round this Chamber and work something out. All I can tell your Lordships, for your consideration, is that this is the way that we have found to get round it while, as I say, covering 90 per cent of those youngsters.
I ought to hurry along, but let me move to giving your Lordships the figures on Amendment 45. The reduction in the cumulative benefits savings by 2016-17, over five years, would be around £70 million, which we would need to find elsewhere. A little bit here and a little bit there—it is a very hard thing finding bits of money.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to interrupt again but in Grand Committee the cumulative saving during that period was £10 million. Now, suddenly, it is £70 million. Where has the other £60 million been accumulated?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I want to make a very brief point in support of the amendments. The Government say that time-limiting ESA is not based on an estimate of a typical recovery time—it is not evidence-based—but on the principle that these are people who have other means of financial support, which of course is exactly the same principle that the Minister raised earlier to justify removing the ESA youth condition.
This other support is of course income-related ESA, and the Government point out that 60 per cent of people affected will be able to claim it. That means that 40 per cent of those affected—roughly one-third of men and nearly half of women—will not be able to. We are talking here about an erosion of their financial autonomy. Many noble Lords have received many letters from people saying that they are shocked and anxious at the implications of this.
An article in today’s Guardian summed up very well what this erosion of financial autonomy means. This quotation is from a man who is going to be affected by this:
“The satisfaction of being able to contribute to the family budget with a benefit that has been earned and paid for will be removed. The last shred of dignity will be stripped from people who have already lost a great deal in life and who may already feel a burden on those who care for them”.
Disabled people should never feel that they are a burden on those who care for them, and it is terrible that they are being made to feel that way by this clause.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I shall be very brief and respond, if I may, to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, who over the years has been a doughty champion for disabled people. However, I have never before heard her make a speech based on the sole proposition that because the House of Commons might reject an amendment, it should not be moved in this House. That is not a sound base for policy, as the noble Baroness will accept. That does not mean to say that at Third Reading there may not be compromise or fallback amendments and so on, but this House has never walked away from its proper duty to scrutinise because it feels that the other place may not accept what we are doing. I hope that the noble Baroness will not run up that sort of argument again.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, in Grand Committee the question of the assessment period got a bit lost because there were so many issues that the Minister had to deal with. I asked the Minister why the assessment period was not included but never got an answer.
We talk about the time limit kicking in after a year but it is a year minus 13 weeks because for those first 13 weeks people affected will be paid at JSA rate, which is lower. Quite a number of us were confused, but the upshot was that the Minister said:
“I have to admit that I am not particularly happy about the assessment phase of ESA and how it is working … I would like to look at it. It is difficult to have a set of principles around something that one is somewhat unhappy about”.—[Official Report, 8/11/11; col. GC 46.]
I hope that the Minister has looked at it in the interim and has perhaps realised that there is no principled reason for the clause as it now stands and there is every principled reason for supporting the amendment. I hope that the Minister will see reason and it will not be necessary to test the opinion of the House in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, was suggesting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I shall leap straight in on the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the assessment phase. What I was really alluding to was the upcoming sickness absence review, which is an important review of how we treat sickness absence. One of the things it has looked at is the interrelationship between sickness absence periods and the ESA regime. Basically the review sees no real reason for the assessment phase. As we look at this we must ask: are we structuring ESA and sickness absence so that it is a vulnerable or difficult process? I am sympathetic to my noble friend when he says that there might be a way through this. I want noble Lords to be aware that huge weaknesses have been found. We are pushing people through a process that puts them in limbo for a long period of 92 days or more. The sickness absence review states that that is deeply unsatisfactory, and I suspect that a lot of noble Lords in this Chamber who understand the system also believe that. In that area, I am not sure that this is genuinely the direction in which I want to go because I am not sure that it is something we want to maintain.
Moving on from that, let me set out some of the technicalities of the assessment phase. It usually ends after 13 weeks unless by that point there has not yet been a WCA determination. If a WCA has not been carried out by the 14th week, the assessment phase ends when a determination about limited capability for work has been made. So if the claimant’s assessment phase lasts longer than 13 weeks and they are found to have limited capability for work or work-related activity, the payment of additional components is then backdated. That is the existing system, which I am not that happy with. The effect would be to exclude it in terms of counting to the 365 days, or at least the 730 days depending on where we are, but in practice it does not always happen within 13 weeks and we have a lot of disparity of treatment. Even if we were to stay with the regime, it would be a pretty messy system.
I know that noble Lords hate me when I go through figures, but let me give some—I shall do my best because these figures have been running around. Purely on this basis, there is a cost of an extra £430 million cumulative to 2016-17 over the five-year period. I shall try to make a quick off-the-cuff assessment of how much extra it is when we look at it on top of the two years, and it is not actually a hugely different sum. It is £200 million on the SR period and £400 million on the total period of five years. I know that noble Lords feel that hundreds of millions are easily obtainable, but it is not an insignificant amount of money.
Moving on to Amendment 40B, the effect of this amendment would be that for existing ESA claimants, the one-year time limit would be calculated from the date the clause is commenced, and none of the time already spent on ESA would count towards the 365-day total entitlement. I want to have a word about retrospection. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, used the word slightly freely and in fact slightly aggressively. I was upset but not ashamed. I can understand that noble Lords are unhappy that we are taking account of days before the clause is brought into account, but this is about the question of whether noble Lords feel that this is the right approach; it is not about retrospection. Retrospection involves interfering with a claimant’s past entitlement and we are not doing that with this measure.
It is worth explaining what retrospection of time limiting would involve if we were to do it, which we will not. It would involve interfering with past entitlement to ESA. An example would be: at the date we commence the time-limiting provisions, if a claimant who had been receiving contributory ESA in the WRAG for 18 months, it would be retrospective if we demanded repayment of the extra six months of benefit he had already received because that would interfere with the claimant’s past entitlement. We absolutely are not doing anything which is retrospective in that sense. We are redefining the terms on which claimants are entitled to ESA in the future.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I do not want to reopen this matter at Third Reading on the basis of things that I will have no further information on at all. That does not make much sense. The noble Lord is absolutely right that if we were to get rid of the assessment phase—and clearly that is something on which, as those who know how government works will know, we would have to do some work—it would be a big change. It would tie in with a lot of other changes, with work that we are going to be doing this year. We are utterly committed to this sickness absence review, which has been a very important document for us. My noble friend said that there was some value in using this assessment phase in this way in the future. I am trying to say that I do not think there is, because I would not want to put any weight on it. There might be other things that we can do to get out of a hole—if we are in a hole—but I honestly do not think that this is a promising line. I do not want to have this debate again at Third Reading. I have said everything I can on it, but I hope that I have said enough.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I apologise, but I wonder whether the Minister could say one more thing now so that we do not have to come back to it at Third Reading. If the assessment phase is done away with, clearly there is no issue. Given that the Minister himself is clearly suggesting that he would like to see that, would it be possible for him then to say whether, in the event that the assessment phase is not abolished, he would accept the spirit of this amendment now?
Lord Freud
I am clearly not in a position, and it would take more than a couple of weeks to get into a position, to make that kind of assurance. I know how skilfully your Lordships ask me these questions, and I deeply appreciate it, but I cannot do that. All I can tell the noble Baroness is that we have had a very powerful report on sickness absence, which I am personally very closely associated with and have sponsored. It made this recommendation, and most people in this Chamber who understand these matters would say that that is the way to go—as I would. Noble Lords must take their conclusions from that, but I cannot go much further or make promises on hypotheticals, because that is not how the system works.
“Condition relating to youth
In paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Welfare Reform Act 2007 (condition relating to youth), after sub-paragraph (1)(d) insert—“(e) after the assessment phase has ended, the claimant has limited capacity for work-related activity.””
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I hope that this debate will be a bit more straightforward than what we have just been discussing. The amendment aims to protect the ultimate safety net in our social security system by ring-fencing the money devoted to it when responsibility is devolved to local authorities without any statutory duties attached.
Clause 69 abolishes the discretionary Social Fund, described by Barnardo’s as a lifeline for some of the poorest and most marginalised people in our society. Together with Family Action, to which I am indebted for its assistance, it is among many voluntary organisations looking to your Lordships' House to safeguard that lifeline. Indeed, 20 have this week written an open letter to the Minister. This is not the place to make the case against the abolition of the discretionary Social Fund; we rehearsed that in Grand Committee. Instead, it is up to us to ensure that when the discretionary Social Fund is abolished, the money allocated to local authorities and the devolved Administrations is used for the purpose intended.
The Social Fund was introduced in the late 1980s in place of a system of statutory payments to help some of the poorest members of society with one-off needs. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, and I were ranged against the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who unfortunately cannot be with us this evening for health reasons. Today, we are trying to salvage something from the forthcoming wreckage of what we now acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, achieved—one of life's ironies.
Through a system of community care grants and crisis loans, the discretionary Social Fund provides vital cash assistance to some of the most vulnerable members of the community. CCGs help people on out-of-work benefits to remain in or set up their own home, to retain their independence. We are talking, for instance, about young people leaving a children's home or foster care, people with chronic health conditions or disabilities who need aids and adaptations to allow them to live in the community—about one-third of recipients are estimated to be disabled—and women who have fled domestic violence. As one such woman said:
“The community care grant meant such a lot. I had been in a refuge. I had very few possessions as I had to leave them all behind ...The CCG helped me make my flat into a home”.
Crisis loans are interest-free loans payable where there is an immediate threat to health or safety—for instance fares when a child has to be taken to hospital or money to cover the cost of replacements following a flood or fire.
We accept that the discretionary Social Fund needs reform, but this is not reform, it is abolition with no guarantee that local authorities will pick up the pieces using the money allocated to them. The aim of the amendment is to write into the Bill just such a guarantee and thereby achieve the Government's aim of protecting the most vulnerable.
Experience suggests that without some form of statutory ring-fencing, there is no way to ensure that the money allocated to local authorities and devolved Administrations will be spent in the way that the Government and Parliament intend. That is not a criticism of local authorities but simple realism. Local authorities are already hard-pressed to meet all their statutory functions in the face of budget cuts. This pot of money could be very tempting.
In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, held us spellbound with a cautionary tale of what happened when he was a junior Minister of higher education, and money intended for Liverpool Polytechnic was purloined by Liverpool council for housing. It clearly impressed the Minister. More recent experience is that of Supporting People—a fund designed to help vulnerable groups. Since the ring-fence was removed from that, overall spending on Supporting People has been cut by more than 10 percentage points more than the settlement received by local authorities for the purpose. That is an existing budget; the pressure to cut a wholly new budget will surely be greater.
We should listen to what local authorities themselves have to say. Recently published DWP research with authorities addressed this issue. While admittedly some authorities were unenthusiastic about ring-fencing—perhaps seeing tying their hands in that way as being like turkeys voting for Christmas—a number were,
“concerned that without a ringfence ... funding would quickly become amalgamated into existing budgets and as a result its identity, visibility and purpose would be lost. A second concern was that Councillors or Directorate heads would redirect the funding to plug gaps in other budgets”.
It is just such fears that this amendment is designed to allay.
Both the present and previous Social Fund Commissioners have expressed similar anxieties. What will happen to the woman who has fled domestic violence and who needs to turn a house into a home for her family, or the disabled person anxious to remain in her home but without the means to do so, or the ex-prisoner who needs to set up home? The potential consequences have been spelt out by organisations such as Citizens Advice and Family Action: greater reliance on overstretched charities, on food banks and on high-cost lenders, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights also warned in its report on the Bill, or simply going without, with a potential risk to health or safety.
A child rights impact assessment of the Bill, just published by the office of the Children’s Commissioner, suggests that such consequences mean that the clauses in the Bill abolishing the Social Fund could be in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on a number of counts. Can the Minister—wherever he is—please tell the House what account has been taken of the convention and what the Government’s response is to this advice? I am sure that your Lordships’ House would not want to agree to a breach of obligations under the convention.
The case for ring-fencing was made from all Benches in Grand Committee. In response, the Minister acknowledged the strength of feeling and indeed accepted the spirit of the amendment when he said:
“It is quite clear that we need to make sure, if we are putting money out for vulnerable people, that it goes to vulnerable people and is not diverted elsewhere”.—[Official Report, 10/11/11; col. GC 140.]
I could not have put it better myself.
On the other hand, he argued against ring-fencing. He contended that ring-fencing would restrict innovative thinking and limit local authorities’ ability to devise schemes that best address the specific needs in their respective areas. However, ring-fencing does not prevent innovative schemes; it simply prevents local authorities using the money for some other purpose entirely.
The Minister promised to reflect on the arguments put in Committee. I am sure that all noble Lords will be delighted if he has come up with a solution to the dilemma in which he found himself—that of accepting the spirit of ring-fencing but not the legislative means of achieving it. If your Lordships’ House should pass this amendment, it would not cost the Government an additional penny, which should be music to the ears of the government Benches. On the contrary, it would help to ensure that the money voted by Parliament was spent on safeguarding the health and well-being of the vulnerable people for whom it was intended. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I support the amendment. When I first read the Bill, it had been my intention to put down an amendment to try to remove the clauses dealing with the Social Fund. Clauses 69 to 72 outline the abolition of the discretionary Social Fund, including community care grants and crisis loans. As we have heard from my noble friend Lady Lister, the Government expect these responsibilities to be undertaken by local authorities.
We are dealing here with quite desperate people. The funds provide assistance for people at the very end of their tether. They have no one to turn to and nowhere else to go. The problem is that local authorities are now under considerable pressure themselves. They are having to economise and there is no guarantee that the very poor people for whom the funds provided some form of immediate support will figure very high in the list of requirements so far as local authorities are concerned.
I did not process my amendment earlier but my fears are very well met in the amendment now before the House. As my noble friend indicated, it provides for ring-fencing to ensure that a local authority makes provision for the people already provided for by the Social Fund arrangements. There are many instances, as we are aware, of women facing domestic violence, which is rather horrifying. Much of it takes place within families, sometimes within immigrant families, and the women have absolutely nowhere to go. Some of the violence is unbelievably cruel and sometimes it surfaces in cases that eventually reach the courts. We have an obligation to ensure that people in such desperation have somewhere to turn.
There are other levels of deprivation and concern that have already been referred to, involving children, homeless people and those who have just been released from institutional care. They are people who have nowhere else to go and we have to provide that support for them. I very much hope that the Government will be persuaded to accept this amendment.
Lord De Mauley
Historically it has been AME. The funding for the year 2012-13 will be the funding that is transferred in 2013-14. It will not increase by that amount. However, there are the budgeting loans to which I have referred as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised a question over benefits. Short-term advances will replace crisis loans for alignment as part of a national payments on account scheme. These advances of benefit will cover those in financial need as a result of waiting for an increase in benefit or for a benefit claim to be dealt with.
On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, the policy is developed taking account of all relevant rights. We did not take specific legal advice.
I hope that what I have said will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Blair, who waited patiently all day and has shown his commitment to the importance of this amendment in doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is ever a supporter on the side of righteousness and rightly said that ring-fencing is the very least that noble Lords should expect.
I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which he responded to the amendment. It was very much the spirit in Grand Committee by the end—the recognition that we must ensure that the money is spent. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, it is not just on the people for whom it is intended but for the purpose for which it is intended. I am afraid that I am personally not convinced that a settlement letter is sufficient to ensure that. We have made some progress but not nearly enough. The Minister then half-answered the question that I was going to asked on how the Government would check that the settlement letter was followed. I think that he said that there would be a review in 2014-15 of a cross-section of local authorities. Perhaps I may suggest that perhaps he would like to consider Amendment 50ZA before we come back, as it would go further than that and require local authorities to report on how they use the money, because that is the only way in which to be sure that the settlement letter is adhered to.
I am afraid that I am not terribly convinced by the Minister’s response to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Sherlock about the UN convention on children’s rights. If the Government have not taken legal advice—and I believe that the Children’s Commissioner’s report is only just published—I would want to know specifically what the Government’s response is to that report and to what the Children’s Commissioner says. We have not heard that response tonight. However, I am aware that it is very late and it is not the time to test the opinion of the House, even though not one noble Lord has spoken in support of the Government and all noble Lords have spoken in support of the amendment. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I support Amendment 19. I have particular concerns. I fully endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that when people lose their job it is unacceptable for them immediately to face not only the shock of being unemployed and the dramatic fall in their incomes but the prospect of having to move their home. Psychologists always say that it is important to avoid changing more than one of our three mainstays of security in any one year: employment, our main relationship and our home. The risks of mental health problems rise significantly if we do so, as the noble Baroness illustrated very well.
There is therefore a strong case for allowing newly unemployed people time to adjust before they have to think of moving home. Of course the hope would be that they would find work within that year and never have to move at all. I want to raise again a particular problem that to some degree would be assisted by the amendment. I raised this issue in my most helpful meeting with the Minister but have reason to believe that his assurances would not work as he thinks they would. The issue is that of people with severe mental health problems who may be absolutely unable to move into shared accommodation, either because they themselves could not handle having someone else around or because the situation would be untenable if not downright dangerous for anyone else trying to live with them. The Minister assured me that discretionary housing payments should deal with this problem. Perhaps in theory this might be the case, but apparently in practice it does not in fact work. Does the Minister regard it as right for sick people to be penalised when for therapeutic reasons they cannot move into a living space with someone else?
I have a couple of examples to illustrate the point. A woman in her early 30s, living alone in private rented accommodation, receives ESA because of her mental health condition. She already has rent arrears as her housing benefit does not cover her rent. She applied for a discretionary housing payment but this has been refused. She has now been told that her housing benefit will be cut further, of course, in January 2012, when she is only entitled to the shared accommodation rate. She finds it difficult to cope with other people, and could not cope with a shared flat, even if she could find one. The adviser who is dealing with her fears that she could become homeless.
The other example is of a woman in her early thirties with HIV and related health difficulties, including depression. She is regarded as being unlikely to receive a discretionary housing payment until she is 35. I do not know why, but that is what I am told. She comes from a traumatic background, needs regular access to her many medications, and to the bathroom. She is not regarded as someone who could cope with shared accommodation: again, a likely homeless person.
If these claimants finish up on the streets, they will no doubt end up on one of our hospital wards at a cost of £261 per day, £95,000 per year to the taxpayer. I realise that this is a cost to the Department of Health, and not to the DWP, but I know the Minister is broad-minded on such matters and will not want to cause a massive increase in Department of Health costs. I am serious about it. There might be a saving to the DWP, but a much bigger cost in the Department of Health. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, does not accept at all that there would even be a cost saving in the DWP. There would therefore be a double whammy. We already see people moving automatically from benefits, to losing benefits, then on to the streets, and then into hospital. That is the way the system works, and this measure will simply make matters worse.
Apart from the inappropriateness of shared accommodation for some, though not at all every mentally ill person, there is also the practicality of finding such accommodation for this particular group. Someone with a mental health problem is going to be the last person many people want to share with. We know that the stigma involved is considerable. People are frightened, and they assume that people are dangerous when in fact they are not at all. But also, in reality, some people have difficult personal assumptions which would make them quite difficult to live with.
The result is that these people will not find shared accommodation readily, even if they could cope with it, and many absolutely could not. I know many people on our wards whom we could not discharge into shared accommodation. They would simply sit around on the wards, and it would be a problem.
I have focused on a particular claimant group, but an important one, in view of the numbers of these people. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment, for all the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out, but also because it would ameliorate the problem of this particular group of people with mental health problems who, with any luck, might over a year settle down rather further and then might be able to be accommodated within the system.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham. She has painted a vivid and powerful picture of what this means for the people affected. I have sat through and participated in a couple of debates already about this, partly on the regulations, in Grand Committee. The more I have listened and read the evidence, the more uncomfortable I feel about us allowing this measure to go ahead.
When I was younger, I flat-shared. I answered the ads in Time Out, and it is a very different thing. I am sure that many noble Lords may have been in that position, and think there is nothing wrong in sharing accommodation. But doing it from choice is very different from being pushed into it. As my noble friend has spelt out, we are talking about less salubrious accommodation.
I am concerned about various groups who are particularly vulnerable here, as we have already heard. When the Social Security Advisory Committee considered this, it talked in particular about the way women will be affected. Women are not disproportionately affected as a group, but those who will be affected could be particularly adversely so.
There are two groups in particular. Pregnant single women, the advisory committee said, will be restricted to the shared accommodation rate until they give birth. They face one of three undesirable situations. They can move home twice, at a time when they may be financially, emotionally and physically ill-equipped to do so, into shared accommodation, and then back to self-contained accommodation when the baby is born; they can decide to move into shared accommodation and remain there after the birth of their child; or they can try to make up the shortfall in their rent.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I would prefer housing benefit to be part of UC and to be paid to the tenant, because I think that that strengthens UC and makes it easier for one simple calculation to be made for the family. However, I support the amendment because, until the Government have rock-solid arrangements in place to ensure that the rent element in UC is immediately paid to the landlord, both tenant and landlord will, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, suffer.
Why would the tenant suffer? He may have to pay transaction costs. If it is looped through his bank account and there are any outstanding overdrafts, debts, or whatever, his UC, including the housing element, will be top-sliced. That is when there is no temptation to spend it on other things. I checked with my housing association. Even with direct debits from tenants in work, those direct debits go astray—deliberately or otherwise—and intensive work has to be done in housing management to reconstruct them again. Tenants can risk losing their home if rent payments are not made automatically to their landlord. For some tenants, that will be a real struggle. If tenants wish to have their rent paid directly to their landlord, but that choice is being denied them, they will suffer.
Why will the landlord suffer? Arrears will undoubtedly arise. I have doubled the amount in my housing association accounts because of potential arrears that I suspect will follow from this change, as have other housing associations. We will then also have to increase staff resources to try to collect those arrears. Private landlords, already reluctant to take DWP tenants, will certainly refuse. One reason for extending direct payments in the first place was to make it a more attractive option for landlords in the private sector, who have been notoriously reluctant since the 1950s to make accommodation available. They used to say, “No Irish, no blacks, no DSS, no dogs”. Versions of that scrutiny, that winnowing out, I fear regrettably still apply.
Ultimately, landlords may need to face evicting tenants. As many of those who cannot manage their money will be vulnerable, they may or may not be regarded as intentionally homeless. If they have children, they are a real problem for all parties, including social services.
Furthermore, housing associations, including mine, are seeking to raise money from private sources, from banks—even, we hope, from pension funds, which is under negotiation at the moment—for building programmes. Our asset is the security of our rent roll. If tenants instead have money paid to them which is not rock-solidly paid immediately to the housing association or the local authority, that rock-solid asset base will no longer be as valued. We estimate that the proposal will cost us something like 50 base points extra on all the loans we raise. We become a worse risk and, as a result, fewer homes will be built. An amendment putting the decision in the hands of not the DWP or landlords but in the hands of tenants is surely the right way forward.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, from a slightly different perspective, and repeat what I said in Grand Committee. In Grand Committee, I congratulated the Government on their research, Perceptions on Welfare Reform and Universal Credit, which sounded out various stakeholders about what they thought about some of the reforms. One thing that came from that from people who will be affected was that although they welcomed the one-stop shop approach of universal credit—to the extent that it is a one-stop shop—there were real fears about putting all the eggs in one basket. If all the money goes together in one lump sum, if anything goes wrong, people are left insecure—high and dry. If some of the rent payment is going to the landlord, where the tenant wishes it, that is mitigated. That is why that choice should remain
Not expressed in this research but by a number of outside organisations is the worry about what happens to the money in the family. I know that the Minister argues that budgeting accounts will sort this out. I hope that they will, but I think that he knows that I am still slightly sceptical about the magical powers of the budgetary accounts. There are fears that the money may not be paid into the account of the person responsible for paying the rent and that they may not then have control over how the money is spent by their partner. That is a slightly different perspective from that of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who understandably and powerfully is relaying some of the concerns about housing providers, but we have to think about the extra burden that this might be placing on some families.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Best, has made a powerful case. He made it very gently but forcefully. I was also struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, said. As one who held MPs’ surgeries for about 40 years and saw people come in who were often in considerable distress, I know that it is not just the feckless who get into financial trouble. Many decent people get into financial trouble. The ability to say that this money should go direct to the landlord could be of enormous help to someone who suddenly has a sick child and feels that they must spend the money on that child. If the money has gone to the landlord, the landlord is secure and the tenant is secure. That must surely be wholly desirable.
Those of us who have been constituency Members of Parliament know how difficult it is to persuade private landlords to consider tenants in this general category. We need an abundant supply of privately rented accommodation. Anything that may detract from that is to be regretted.
I admire my noble friend, because he is thoroughly the master of his brief and because his underlying aim, which is to create a more responsible society, is one to which we can, surely, all subscribe, but there are exceptions and times when it is right to give a choice.
Another point, which the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, made, struck a chord with me. There are many elderly people in receipt of benefit who get confused. I am not talking about people who suffer from dementia, but we all know—the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, knows from his constituency experience—that elderly people sometimes get confused. They think, very genuinely, that they have paid something when they have not. It would be a great blessing to give those people that choice.
I would urge my noble friend the Minister to give very careful thought to this. I hope that the House will not divide on it tonight, but I hope that he will be able to give some thought perhaps even to putting down an appropriate amendment at Third Reading.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
We are very pleased to hear that. Can the noble Lord tell us what definition of domestic violence the Government have in mind? They are consulting at present on the question of domestic violence and I wonder what the implications are for this provision.
Lord Freud
I am going to have to write with a precise definition of domestic violence and the threat of domestic violence.
Turning to Amendment 26, we are all too well aware that in-work conditionality is a difficult and contentious area. In this debate and in Committee noble Lords raised a number of concerns and questions. I think that I have been open enough to admit that I do not have all of the answers to those questions right now, but I hope that I can provide some real reassurance by describing our planned approach. We are going to take some time to get this right, because it is a new area. I said in Committee that there may be a role for piloting and I can now be much clearer on that.
We have decided that when universal credit is launched we will not be imposing conditionality on claimants with income or earnings which would, broadly speaking, have taken them over the cut-off point for the current out-of-work benefits. So we are effectively continuing with the current system. Rather than a review, our approach will be to pilot the application of conditionality on claimants whose income is above this level. We will want to gather views on the sort of approaches that could be tested and I commit to publishing the details of these pilots. We will then reflect on the results of that process before adopting any national approach.
Finally, turning to Amendment 24A, I have listened very carefully to the feelings of noble Lords on this and again let me say that we are of one mind on this matter. Work is already under way, as I said in Committee, around how kinship carers should be treated for conditionality purposes. I agree that kinship carers who need a period of adjustment should be given time to return to a stable footing before being expected to meet work-related requirements and juggle conditionality with new caring responsibilities. Advisers will have discretion to lift temporarily the requirements on individual claimants where a child’s needs are such that the claimant must be able to provide full-time care. I repeat what I said in Committee. I recognise the potential for value and clarity in a legislative exemption from conditionality and we are carefully considering options for further provisions. The Bill provides scope for flexibility in this area and we have powers to make regulations as necessary. These things take time, but I can assure noble Lords that work is progressing. I am on this case. We are currently talking to the Department for Education—
Lord Freud
No, my Lords, the sanction regime does not work like that. It takes away the equivalent amount of the JSA, so you keep getting your housing credit, but have this amount taken off, which will be a proportion of the total universal credit.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but is he saying that the department is unable to measure compliance with work-seeking requirements? If that is the case, surely the whole basis of the sanction regime falls apart?
Lord Freud
I think I can safely say that we are not saying that. We are just saying that we want real proof of a change. The prodigal son must do more than turn up and warm his hands on the fire as the fatted calf is slaughtered. I am saying that he has to take a job and hold it for a minimum of six months.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 1 and 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—who does not appear to be here—as well as in my name. These are not techie, administrative amendments; they are about people’s lives and have particular consequences for the lives of women, who are still the main managers of poverty on a day-to-day basis. At present, the out-of-work benefits, which the universal credit will replace, are paid fortnightly.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is discussing Amendment 1 in Clause 7.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I beg your Lordships’ pardon. I am speaking to Amendment 2, but also to Amendment 1, even though it has not been formally moved.
These payments used to be paid weekly and, according to Fran Bennett of the Women’s Budget Group, there is evidence from recent qualitative research carried out at Oxford University that the move to fortnightly payments has caused more problems than is sometimes claimed. “Struggle” was the word one woman used to describe what it meant. The leap from fortnightly to monthly payments will be much greater. As one claimant put it, “Very difficult to budget with two-weekly payments, impossible with monthly”. For those in-work recipients of tax credits who have opted to receive the credit weekly rather than four-weekly, who tend to be those on lower wages, the leap will be greater still.
We know from government survey evidence that nearly two in five of the lowest fifth of low-income families with children run out of money always or frequently, so we are not talking about a small number of vulnerable people in exceptional circumstances, nor are we talking in most cases about mismanagement. Again, research shows how well most people on low incomes manage their money—probably better than many of us, because they have to. However, managing money on a low income is very stressful, particularly for women who act as the shock absorbers of poverty, and it can have a damaging impact on physical and mental health.
One of the big fears is that monthly payments will lead to more families turning to high-cost credit and getting into debt. Just last week a big news story was the spread of payday loans which, according to an earlier report, have quadrupled in the past four years. In Committee, I read from an e-mail that I had received from a Conservative supporter, who described himself as a “responsible lender” to low-income households and who was enraged by the idea of monthly payments, which, he warned, would lead to an even greater reliance on such loans, which he wrote, had,
“risen up on the back of predominantly low income earners who get paid monthly”.
According to last week’s R3 report, nearly half the population sometimes or often struggles to make it to payday. In addition, there has been growing use of pawnbrokers, particularly by low-income women with children.
In Committee, we all got the impression that the Minister really listened and took on board the concerns expressed from all Benches. Indeed, he said that we had given him quite a bit of food for thought. This was very welcome. It is therefore disappointing that, having digested the overwhelming message coming from the Committee, he appears not to be willing to concede even on the point of giving claimants the right to opt for twice-monthly payments with the default remaining monthly, as provided for in Amendment 1. Instead, he appears to be looking to encourage access to budgeting products such as jam jar accounts, which would enable people to mimic jam jars in allocating their universal credit payment to different purposes through their accounts.
The Minister rightly observed in Committee that budgeting products mystified him, so, like a good academic, I have done my research. I can see the attraction in this context and I hope that the Minister is successful in developing the idea, but I am yet to be convinced that such accounts obviate the need for the amendments before your Lordships' House. Certainly, this is the view of the Personal Finance Research Centre. At present, only about 150,000 people use such accounts and typically they are charged between £12.50 and £14.50 a month for doing so. While I acknowledge that Social Finance, which provided these figures, is enthusiastic about the potential of such accounts to help people manage monthly payments, there is a long way to go to get there from here. Moreover, it has been suggested by the Personal Finance Research Centre that such accounts are more relevant to helping people who receive income weekly or fortnightly and pay monthly and quarterly bills, so they would still have a role to play in the context of the proposed amendments.
I know that the role of such budgeting tools will be explored in the planned demonstration projects, which according to the DWP will test some of the support mechanisms we will need to have in place for vulnerable groups. However, as I have already tried to explain, this is not just an issue for certain vulnerable groups. Anyone on a low income is potentially vulnerable to the problems created by monthly payments. Are they all going to be helped to access such budgeting products? I appreciate the effort that the Minister is putting in to try to develop the budgeting products solution to the problems raised in Committee, which he acknowledged were very real. However, I remain puzzled as to why he is so resistant to accepting the most obvious solution that we offered—more frequent payments.
“Is it because of cost?”, some people have asked me. It would appear not, as that was not an objection raised in Committee. The Minister himself emphasised in Committee that there is a distinction between payment period and assessment period, so that more frequent payment would not require more frequent assessment, which perhaps would have cost implications. The answer to a Written Question about cost in the House of Commons simply evaded the question. It leaves me to wonder whether the Minister’s solution is not more costly, particularly as it will also involve more frequent use of interim payments to tide people over as payments are made four-weekly in arrears. A story in the FT in September suggested as much. It said that,
“the plans had not yet been fully worked out or costed”.
In Committee, I asked that your Lordships’ House should receive a fully costed plan before monthly payments are finally agreed, but no such plan has been forthcoming. In its absence, I believe that it is only prudent that your Lordships’ House build in the kind of protection that the amendment would provide.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I support this amendment, to which my name is also attached. Because of the scheduling of business in your Lordships’ House this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on the Welfare Reform Bill, but I know that many, indeed most, in the carers’ movement owe a huge debt of gratitude to the noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have been speaking throughout Committee stage.
The amendment proposed so ably and passionately by my noble friend seeks to ensure that the universal credit does not put up a further barrier for those people who want to combine caring with work. Given that the aim of the universal credit is to support people into work, it seems wrong to reduce the work incentives for one of the groups for which that support is most needed.
I agree with the Minister’s aim to encourage carers to combine paid work with their caring. Let us think of the reasons why we want to do that. First, it would increase their income; we have already heard that caring takes place in poverty. Secondly, if carers are not in work, they build up poverty for themselves in future through the reduction in their pension contributions. Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, being in a paid job helps carers with the stress, which is often very great, of their caring role. It enables them to maintain social contact and skills and to have a bit of respite from the caring situation. So we want to help carers stay in work as long as possible.
We know, however, that carers already face significant barriers to work. According to research commissioned by Carers UK and the DWP for carers’ rights day in 2009, some 1 million carers—that is around one in six of the figure that we have heard of 6 million carers—have given up work or reduced their working hours in order to remain as carers. A major barrier is the availability of suitable replacement care. In a separate survey, over 40 per cent of carers who gave up work did so due to a lack of sufficiently reliable or flexible services. A similar number, 41 per cent, said that they would rather be in paid work but services available do not make a job possible. In addition to that, for those who are able to juggle work and care, stress and poor health are common. Nearly half of the respondents to a survey of working carers for Employers for Carers and Carers UK indicated that their work had been negatively affected by caring and that they felt tired, stressed and anxious. Employees with heavy caring responsibilities are two to three times more likely than those without caring responsibilities to be in poor health. For these reasons, carers are just the sort of claimants to be working a few hours a week in low-paid work. We estimate that 50,000 of them might be affected by this change.
I know that the Minister wants to encourage carers to start working more than a few hours, but because of the other issues I have mentioned, for many carers a small or even a tiny increase in working hours is impossible. Because the Government argue elsewhere in the Bill that increasing earnings disregards will incentivise work, it seems inconsistent here to suggest that reducing the carers disregard will encourage additional work. I hope the Minister will agree that there is no logic to discouraging carers from juggling paid work with caring as long as they can and leaving them worse off than they are. I very much support the amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I am not going to add to the very powerful case that has already been made by my noble friends Lady Bakewell and Lady Pitkeathley. I simply wanted to seek some clarification of what was said in Committee, when a number of us put the case for a carers disregard, and the Minister said in his reply:
“Rather than going through the complexity of the separate disregard route, we have provided an additional element that is included in the gross amount of the universal credit for carers. That is a change from carer’s allowance”.—[Official Report, 1/11/11; col. GC 443.]
I am rather confused by this, because it seemed to me that it was muddling up carer’s allowance—a very important benefit, which some of us would like to see higher than it is at present—and the support provided to carers through means tested benefits such as income support.
Because I worry about my memory for the intricacies of social security I did not challenge the Minister at that point, but afterwards I sought guidance from Carers UK. It, too, was very confused by what the Minister said, and wondered whether or not the Minister—I hate to say this—was perhaps confusing carer’s allowance and means tested support for carers. Because the position is not changing, I do not see how the removal of a disregard can be justified on the basis of what happens with carer’s allowance. Universal credit is not replacing carer’s allowance. There is an element in means tested benefits for carers that will continue, but it is nothing to do with whether there is a disregard or not. It wondered whether the Minister is promising a higher premium for carers under universal credit. That would be excellent news if it were the case, but I rather doubt it. Could the Minister perhaps clarify what he meant in Committee, because it did not seem to me that it was answering the kind of case that has been made by my noble friends; namely, why is it that carers are the only group to lose the disregard that they currently have?
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
I hope noble Lords will forgive me; I was a few minutes late in coming in, so I missed a little bit of what the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said. As I was listening I wondered to what extent more carers would or could be encouraged to be carers if in fact such a situation as she was proposing existed. Perhaps I am looking at this in a slightly disorganised way, but if there is an answer to my question, I would like to know it.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I support my noble friend’s amendment. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, I would say that the test of fraud is normally—I think I saw a former Lord Chancellor who would know much better than I—associated with intent and ignorance of the law and is not a defence, but I think in this case it is because we are dealing with the interlocking of very vulnerable people and a new and very different system for people to understand.
There are three or four matters on which if I were asked now whether people needed to declare things, I could not guide them, and I like to think I have some nodding acquaintance with this Bill. For example, a lone parent has a boyfriend who works away. He stays with her overnight one or twice over the weekend. As a result, is she no longer a lone parent? Clearly it will not depend on their sleeping arrangements but on what contribution he makes to their financial arrangements. On a weekend basis, would that be sufficiently substantial to make her no longer a lone parent but part of a couple and therefore falsely declaring if she claims to be a lone parent? I am not clear what would happen in that situation under the Bill. Perfectly reasonably she might regard the fact that as she is getting universal credit she is not a lone parent and he is somebody who comes in as a boyfriend but not a partner.
With housing benefit, you could have a family with a student son who is living at home, going to the local university and working part-time. Should he be declared for housing benefit as a potential contributor to the rent so that non-dependent adult deductions come into play? I do not know. I think it would be quite difficult for that couple to assess.
Let me give another example that we discussed at considerable length and about which the Minister was rightly sympathetic—kinship carers. Conventionally, kinship carers are entitled to claim for child credit and so on if they have the equivalent of the child benefit book, which normally takes about eight weeks to come across. In future, given that child benefit will not necessarily be a separate benefit entitlement, if there is a rotating relationship in which the child goes back to its birth parents for a few weeks and then, because the father or the mother may be an addict of some degree, goes back to the grandparents, at what point and for how long a period of continuous care are the kinship carers entitled to claim the child elements in universal credit? I do not know.
In those three cases—and I could elaborate another six on disability benefits that are becoming clear to us—I would not be able to advise somebody on what they should declare on their forms as being relevant for the consideration of UC. It would be natural for them in those quite complicated situations not to declare things that appear to work against them. They would not be doing it with an intent to deceive. They may think it is a perfectly proper statement of their position as they see it, yet under this clause they could be caught for negligence and fined. That is completely unreasonable.
The one piece of advice I would give the Minister is that whatever he does, whether he claims that this is needed as a reserve power or not, he should not touch it for at least three years until after the Bill has come into practical effect because of the bedding-down issues that it will have. The Minister has to make only one mistake, such as his department suing somebody for penalties for negligence when the department was wrong—and there will inevitably be departmental error; there always is when you introduce new systems—and the whole of the good will behind this Bill will disappear overnight.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, my noble friend gives some very good examples of how easy it might be to make mistakes, particularly when the universal credit is quite low. I remind noble Lords that on 24 October the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, told us how easy it is to make mistakes. When he applied for his retirement pension, he got it wrong. Was he being negligent? No. It was an example of how easy it is to fill in a form wrongly. It is not necessarily negligence.
Apart from that little reminder of how any noble Lord could easily make a mistake, I also wanted to pick up a point made by my noble friend Lady Drake about the expectation that 80 per cent of claimants will be claiming online. Recently a piece of research, Increasing Digital Channel Use Amongst Digitally Excluded Jobcentre Plus Claimants, found that one group of those claimants were what the authors call the “uninterested”. The researchers said that this group will,
“require persuasion or compulsion before they will use digital services, possibly with the threat of a benefit sanction for non-use”.
I would be very grateful if the Minister could assure the Committee that there is absolutely no intention to sanction people for not using online procedures. Some people have a mental block against using computers and we do not want yet another sanction in the system. I know that it was researchers who said this, and not the department, but if he could give us that assurance now, that would be very helpful.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Drake has made some very powerful points this afternoon, which the Government need to take on board or we will get into a mess when this is finally introduced. They should be indebted, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. His point is that there is an implication that the person who makes this sort of mistake has been deliberately negligent. That would mark people out as trying to defraud the system. It puts them in the wrong to start with, when these things can happen by accident.
Noble Lords will forgive me if I remind them of a point I made in one of our earlier debates. When I sat in the other place, I had a constituent who came to see me because she had been overpaid a certain benefit, and the department was pursuing her strongly for repayment. When we got the papers, we discovered what had happened. There were some boxes she had to tick. One of the boxes asked, “Have you received income support?”. She ticked “Yes”. However, she had stopped receiving it about six months before, and so beneath her tick, she wrote, “But this stopped”, and she wrote in the date on which it stopped. When we got to the bottom of this we found that when the form was sent in to the department, its computer could not scan in anything that was not in the box, so it continued to overpay her. She was in a terrible state. A large amount of money was involved, and there was a huge problem as a result. It will go wrong.
Noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat something that I mentioned in the Chamber a little while ago. In the case of universal credit, a lot will depend on a new IT system. Every major IT system that the Government have introduced in recent years has gone wrong. I know, because I sat on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place for a number of years and we had to look at some of these issues as a result of inquiries to the National Audit Office.
My noble friend Lady Drake also made the point, as others have, about people filling in these forms online. Thirty per cent of the poorest families in this country have no access to a computer. It has been possible to claim jobseeker’s allowance online for 20 months. The take-up is 17 per cent. The idea that we are going to get to 80 per cent of people claiming benefits online will cause a huge problem for the system.
My noble friend Lady Hollis has just made the point that a lot of the good things that this Bill will seek to introduce will be damaged because of the kind of approach that this particular clause takes. The Government should really think again and take note of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Is that also the case with any other penalty, not just the civil penalty? Is it a benefits sanction?
Lord Freud
We absolutely will not do that. The noble Baroness drew a comparison with current levels of JSA usage. The online facility that we offer claimants is so markedly inferior that people would not want to use it. We need to make sure that people will want to use the online provision, and we are taking a lot of active steps to look at how to encourage and help people to use it. Indeed, this is one of the discussions that I am currently having with the various groups and charities that are trying to get the most disadvantaged in society online, because that is one way in which they become a full part of the economic life of the country, and indeed of the whole life of the country. They and I see that this could be an immensely powerful force for getting that inclusion. As I said, we will work very hard to encourage people to use it. One does not encourage people to do something that could be life-transforming for them through some of the things which the noble Baroness suggests I might be doing.
The aim of the civil penalty is to reinforce the importance to claimants of providing accurate information that we require in order to administer their claims and awards in advising us when they have a change of circumstance. It is a different issue when someone does something knowingly. That is fraudulent, and we will target that behaviour by looking at tougher punishments than the one for missing a dental appointment—I had better not talk about my teeth. We want claimants to take more responsibility for overpayments and to encourage a positive change in claimants’ future behaviour so that they take proper care of their benefit claims and awards.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, made an important point about mental health. We will take that into account. Indeed, that is why we require the claimant to have acted negligently and to have no reasonable excuse. The department must satisfy itself that the claimant has failed to take appropriate care. Each case will be considered individually by the decision-maker, and the penalty will not be imposed if a claimant’s state of health or mental health is considered relevant to the error that has been made.
Amendment 147ZA would mean that a civil penalty could be imposed only on those who failed to notify us of changes of circumstances and the failure resulted in an overpayment, while a claimant who incurred an overpayment by virtue of their negligence and who failed to take reasonable steps to correct the error would evade a penalty. We already help claimants in Jobcentre Plus and, as I have said, we will reinforce that. We believe that everyone should take responsibility for the accuracy of the information they provide in order to receive a benefit, whether that be at the start of their claim or during the life of their claim when there has been a change of circumstances.
As for the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on legal aid, information on benefits and the conditions of entitlement for them is readily available to the general public. If claimants remain uncertain of which benefit is most applicable to them or have a question about their benefit entitlement, they can and should seek further advice from the department. New Sections 115C and 115D will therefore act together to remind claimants that it is just as important that they correctly report their circumstances at the start of the claim as well as report changes that occur within the life of a claim.
I will aim to answer the remaining three questions, having been bowled out on the fourth. On the ability of local authorities to impose fines, we consulted local authorities on the detail of the initiatives in the strategy and on our plans to implement them. Local authorities have provided input to the various projects that we have set up to implement the strategy. We have local authority staff collocated with the DWP and working on the strategy. That includes the sanctions and penalties project, which is doing the work on civil penalties. We will support local authorities in their work to implement the new penalty, which will include providing clear instruction and guidance on how to operate the new scheme. On the £50—
Lord Freud
Let me quickly pick up three issues. First, when I talked about clusters, I meant that, where there are clusters and mistakes, something is clearly going wrong with the way in which we are presenting universal credit. In those circumstances, we would look very hard at fixing that problem and we would not be able to accuse anyone of negligence.
Secondly, I shall look very closely at the run-in to operating the universal credit system. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on lots of things. She is absolutely right that we cannot have a system that demonstrates problems in its run-in phase.
Thirdly, on targets, I need to write to noble Lords. I would not mind forbidding the DWP from ever using those targets in that way—and I could offer it as a deal any day—but a future Government might not want to be so constrained.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I thank the Minister for his clarification about clusters. How many £50 fines would there need to be before there was a cluster? If it was then accepted in the department that the problem lay in universal credit or in the way in which the form was designed, would the department then consider paying back any £50 fine?
Lord Freud
No, I meant a cluster of mistakes. When we begin to see a cluster of mistakes around a particular set of questions, it clearly means that we have not got it right and need to do something about it. But we will know very fast.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I accept and quite understand that, but the point is that, before the department realises that there is a cluster, a number of people might have been fined.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I buy the point about the delicacy of the run-in. I have a tool with which to monitor it very carefully. However, we must have a system that tells people that they must take care with their application. This is an application on which tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds are riding. It is no good people just putting in slapdash figures and not caring; this is really important information and it must be put down carefully. That is what we are trying to ensure with this relatively modest civil penalty.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I have happily added my name to this amendment because I think it is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has moved it so ably that I wish to make only one point.
The Minister constantly evokes responsibility on the part of claimants and, similarly, everything that is written about the Bill emphasises the responsibility of claimants. The amendment would help to ensure that officials exercise their powers in a responsible manner. There needs to be a quality in the contract between claimants and officials. I am not suggesting that officials should be fined or receive a civil penalty if they get it wrong. However, the amendment would help to ensure that officials consider the impact on living standards and the knock-on effects of likely debt and exercise their power as responsibly as possible.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, there is, in my view, a principled reason for having something of this kind. However, I am not sure whether the noble Lord has necessarily got it right and obviously he wishes to discuss the detail with the Minister and his officials. For instance, I wonder whether the amendment would have caught the two examples that he gave. Subsection (1)(f) states that the Secretary of State shall consider,
“evidence of the impact that a sanction or penalty may have on the ability of the claimant to fulfil obligations to third parties including those relating to the fulfilment of benefit entitlement conditions”.
We are saying that before imposing a sanction you should ascertain whether the obligations to third parties,
“including those relating to the fulfilment of benefit entitlement conditions”,
prevented the attendance or whatever it was that is being sanctioned. It is not the sanction that does it; it is the fact that the sanction should not be imposed because of the obligations the claimant already had.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 113B. In so doing, I declare an interest. I am currently the chief executive of Relate, which provides a wide range of services to separating families. I am also part of an advisory group of people from the voluntary sector which advises DWP Ministers on what a network of integrated support services might look like. From that point of view, it is important that that is clearly stated on the record.
I want briefly to support the case that has been put forward by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood as to why it is important that we incentivise non-resident parents to engage in the gateway process, as well as parents with care. There are two points I want to make. First, the gateway and the application charge—and I know that we will come to the charge in a later grouping—bite at the moment on parents with care wishing to use the statutory child maintenance system. The aim of this is to incentivise them to try to negotiate a voluntary agreement with the other parent instead. I support that. It is right and proper, where it is practical, that incentives to do so are built in. But there is no equivalent mechanism pushing the non-resident parent actively to engage in the process of trying to reach a mutually agreeable arrangement. As the legislation is currently constructed, it is only after a parent with care has paid an application fee of £100 and a statutory calculation has been made that any incentive will be given to the non-resident parent to reach a private agreement. That is basically very unfair.
My second point is a more positive one: the gateway stage is an opportunity for meaningful conversation between both parents. It aims to explore the scope for reaching collaborative arrangements, to assess what help either or both parents might need in order to arrive at such arrangements and to signpost and refer one or both parents—and, indeed, the children involved—to suitable provision and the help that exists for separating parents and families. Non-resident parents who are responsible for paying child maintenance should, I feel, be especially involved in this process.
I conclude by saying a couple of things that come very much from my experience at Relate. It is very important to children that both parents after separation continue to be involved as co-parents of those children. The relationship between the adults may be completely and utterly at an end, and indeed new relationships may well have been formed; but for that child, the active involvement—of course, where safe—of both parents is absolutely critical, emotionally, in practical ways, financially and in a range of other ways. It is critical that these new arrangements, however they are finally constructed, put the maximum possible incentive on both parents to see how they can discharge their responsibilities to be effective co-parents after separation—a responsibility which I think that most of us think is for life.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I, too, shall speak in support of Amendment 113B, although what I have to say is also relevant to Amendment 113DA in the next group. I, too, thank Gingerbread for its help.
I want to concentrate on how Clause 131 in particular, coupled with the wider government proposals to charge parents for use of the statutory child maintenance scheme, will disproportionately impact on women who, according to the Government’s own analysis, make up around 97 per cent of parents with care who are eligible for child maintenance. It seems very surprising that, at a time when the Government are worrying about the erosion of their support among women, particularly so-called C2 women, they should be proceeding with a policy on child maintenance which will unfairly impact on this group.
The Government say that the new gateway and the proposed charges are intended to drive behavioural change—yet again—yet in the brief circulated last week, the DWP acknowledges that a significant proportion of parents will not be able to collaborate and that there are circumstances where there will be no reasonable steps that they could take. Therefore, echoing a question I asked last week in relation to the benefit cap, what behavioural change are they trying to achieve in such cases? Is it really fair to subject this group to charges, particularly in the name of behavioural change?
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I know that I have already spoken once but I want to ask a question now rather than jump up while the Minister is speaking, because I do not think that we have covered it so far. It is about free school meals. I believe it has been made clear that free school meals as an in-kind benefit will not be taken into account as a benefit received for the cap. However, the Government are currently consulting through the Social Security Advisory Committee about how such passported benefits should be treated with the universal credit. Has the Social Security Advisory Committee been advised about what would happen if it were to recommend that free school meals should become part of universal credit cash payment? Would that bit be treated as separate so that it is not taken as part of the cap, as it would be if it were still paid in kind, or would it be treated as income for the cap? That could be quite an issue in determining whether noble Lords want to support payment in kind or in cash. If the Minister will cover that in his response, I shall be very grateful.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, I shall not speak at any length because I was not able to be here for the previous day in Committee, but I am very concerned about the effect of the Government’s proposals on carers.
On paying rent to tenants rather than landlords, does the Minister know what the estimated fraud is at present? A few years ago I set down a Question in the House and it emerged that payment to landlords was causing fraud of about £2 billion a year, mainly because they put in applications for addresses that did not exist. If that is the case it slightly affects the statistics, and it must mean that paying to tenants would probably be more efficient.
Lord Freud
By the time that I am able to set out these arrangements Committee Members will have a tight band in which to make a judgment. Although it will not be precise I hope that there will be a reasonable degree of precision to enable Members to reach key judgments.
As I confirmed on Monday, support for childcare—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
The Minister seems to be moving off PIP. When we discussed PIP earlier I asked a question and the Minister said that it would be appropriate to discuss it as part of the benefit cap. I do not think that he has addressed the question. How many people does he estimate will be affected by the cap as a result of the PIP waiting period going up from three months to six months, and will he consider backdating entitlement for those who then become eligible for PIP?
Lord Freud
Yes, my Lords; that is an excellent question in this sense. I have made clear that we are looking at transitional arrangements, and I will look at precisely this issue of the timing with PIP in the light of those transitional arrangements as people move through. Clearly I have already committed to looking at the three months and the six months, so I have something of a three-handed chess operation to get through, but I hope to come back with the pieces in the right place—or, rather, although the pieces might be in position, they might not be in the right place as far as the noble Baroness is concerned. It will at least be a clear understanding of the position. I absolutely bear in mind the point that she has made.
The noble Baroness’s other question was on school meals. I am happy to commit that, however we restructure the provision of the passported benefit of school meals, it will remain outside the cap in the same way as childcare.
With regard to the kinship care amendment, we have already discussed and recognised in Committee the valuable role that kinship carers fulfil. I made a personal commitment, supported by the Secretary of State, to look at a range of issues affecting this group. I have already had a number of meetings with organisations that support kinship carers to help me better understand their priorities. These carers are able to receive support for the children in their care through the benefit system as, unlike approved foster carers, they have access to child benefit and child tax credit on the same basis as parents. Any payments they receive from the local authority will be disregarded. This parity of treatment with parents will be continued with the introduction of universal credit.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, perhaps the Minister will say more about that. I do not know about other noble Lords but I am afraid that I do not find that enough. I understand the broader argument about the limits and, as the Minister knows, I disagree. There has been talk about a level playing field. Will he explain to the Committee how the Government justify the fact that child benefit is being taken into account on one side of the equation and not on the other when we know that all those families on median earnings are getting child benefit? That is what I do not understand. In the previous session, I think it was my noble friend Lady Hollis who referred to comparing apples and pears. We are not comparing like with like.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I acknowledge that we are not comparing like with like. We are looking at a sensible level at which to put the maximum benefit payment. The level that we are looking at is the equivalent of a household earning £35,000. I think that one can overelaborate the logic, which I will not attempt to do here.
Amendment 99AA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would introduce a grace period. I accept that there will be occasions when changes occur that are beyond a household’s control. We have said that we are looking at what transitional arrangements might be appropriate. The arguments that I was laying around the PIP are equally applicable here.
Lord Freud
I return to the principle. As I understand it, this is a principle with which the Opposition agree: that there should be a limit on the amount of benefit a household can obtain. We have set that limit at the equivalent of £35,000 of earnings before tax and national insurance.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—of wherever he is of—would comment, if he were here, but he spelt out a very powerful argument of principle about entitlement. I have not heard the noble Lord address that argument and, in his absence, I would be very grateful if he could do so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Basically, the noble Lord is constructing universal credit based on meeting several different objectives and many of us support this very strongly. However, he then artificially reduces the amount that some people will get under the very structure he has set out to meet the objectives he has outlined. It is that inconsistency of a deliberate cut to an entitlement, constructed by himself through universal credit, that we find unacceptable—so far it has not been explained to us—particularly when some of the consequences may cost us more.
Lord Freud
That is one of the areas of support. If we have about one-third of families who are subject to full conditionality and others subject to partial conditionality, by which we mean moving towards work over a period, a very substantial proportion of the group can be helped into the workplace.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Is the Minister really saying that it would be supporting, say, a lone mother who has a baby to, in effect, require her to take a job as the only way she can avoid the benefit cap or to move to an area where she does not know people and has not got the support network she needs for her baby? I cannot believe that that is what the Minister is saying.
Lord Freud
There is a combination there. Those are the choices that half of the low income working families need to take, although they are not even low income families—this is pretty high income. I am not specifying any more, but we will look at hard cases. I do not want to be “loaves and fishes” about hard cases either, which I know the noble Baroness would want to accuse me of, but those are the two areas relevant to that case study.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I support the two overlapping amendments, Amendments 102ZA and 102A, as well as Amendment 102B, to which I will not speak specifically. Clause 97 is the Groundhog Day clause. Back in the 1980s I helped to lead a charge against the then Conservative Government’s attempt to pay the family credit through the wage packet. I then helped to persuade the previous Government of the error of their ways when they proposed to pay working families’ tax credit through the wage packet. I was able to do this using JRF-funded research that I had just carried out with Jacky Goode and Clare Callender into the distribution of income within families in receipt of benefits. It demonstrated the importance of paying benefits for children to the mother, who was in all those families the parent with the main responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children. Indeed, once out-of-work families had migrated to child tax credit, we would have achieved that for out-of-work families as well as those in work.
It was with a heavy heart that I realised we were back to square one and having to persuade the Government of the day why it is so important to pay money for children direct to the parent who has the main responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children and for day-to-day budgeting. But this time the stakes are that much higher because so much is being wrapped up in the universal credit, particularly because, as Amendment 102ZA refers to, payment for housing costs are also at issue. We need to bear in mind here our earlier debate about the hazards of payment of rent as part of the universal credit.
Lord Freud
However, in circumstances where a universal credit award is split, neither party will receive specific elements such as housing or childcare. They will each receive a proportion of the total award and decide for themselves how best to use the money. This adheres to one of the key principles of universal credit, which is that claimants must be responsible for their own budgeting.
In answer to the specific question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, contributory benefits will continue to be individualised entitlements, but we are looking at options for payment of benefit in cases where a household has entitlement to both contributory benefits and universal credit. It may be simpler to make a single payment of universal credit in that situation, but that is just one possible option and we have the power to cover different approaches.
We are, however, committed to ensuring that people can access support to manage their payment and help them budget effectively. This is likely to include access to nationally available advice and guidance, locally delivered targeted support and improved access to budgeting products.
Budgeting products, I know, mystify the noble Baroness. It is easy to think about universal credit and such areas in slightly Victorian terms. When we look at what universal credit is and the support mechanisms that are under it and wrap it up, we see that there are a huge number of options. I am actively looking at those and interested in encouraging access to what are popularly known as jam jar accounts. Those accounts allow partners to allocate part of their payment for specific purposes, particularly the ones that need to go to utility bills and rent. Such accounts incorporate direct debits and such things. There is a lot of work to be done in this area and I hope to be able to share that with noble Lords as we develop it.
We are talking to a lot of people about this. As well as to the banks and the financial services industry, we are talking to local authorities, housing associations and the voluntary sector about how to deliver this. I may have some more information about how this will start to work. I hope that it will break us out of what could be a 20-year debate into the opportunities offered by modern technology. I hope that I will be able to keep noble Lords updated.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Will the Minister be able to update us before we get to this on Report? I am sure that we will want to return to this on Report.
Lord Freud
I would like to. I have people working on this and we are beginning to think quite differently about how these issues can be addressed—what is universal credit, what is a banking product and where is the join. We must not forget that, at a simple level, a universal credit is a payment stream with budgeting advances. It does not take a lot of imagination to see how it could join up with a more formal banking product and we have to work out where the line is drawn.
Turning to Amendment 102B, I appreciate that the intention behind it is to demonstrate that the taper can be applied to individual elements within the overall universal credit award so that payment of—
Baroness Sherlock
Before my noble friend responds, will the Minister explain one thing to the Committee? He has explained why he wants to make clear to a claimant household exactly what income is coming to it as a result of universal credit and the different components to help them understand that. Why does he then have a problem with separating payments as opposed to assessments?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To save the Minister jumping up and down, I asked him a specific question about monitoring the impact on the distribution of income within households which I would be grateful if he would answer. I do not think he answered it, although the reply has been so fragmented because of the Divisions that we may have missed it.
Lord Freud
On the first question, I think we should look at this rather differently. It is one payment to the household. On whether we can look at how the household can do different things with that payment, I am very happy to look at all the budgeting supporting mechanisms. I am actively looking at them, and I hope I will get some more information on that.
To be honest, I have not got on the top of my head the detail on the monitoring. We will be looking at it very closely when that comes in and will be devising a structure to do that. As noble Lords know, we are planning to have a very substantial research exercise around universal credit, mainly because it is an almost unique research laboratory opportunity in that we can capture in one place all the different behaviours. I am looking very closely at how we can get world-class research behind many aspects of the universal credit.
“(8) For the purposes of this section, “entitlement” means the amount that would have been awarded to the claimant had the claim been correctly represented and all relevant material facts disclosed for the period to which the overpayment applies.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
In moving Amendment 103ZZZA I shall speak also in support of Amendment 103ZA tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to which I have added my name. In fact, Amendment 103ZZZA has been designed with the help of the Child Poverty Action Group to complement and support Amendment 103ZA, and it is just an accident of drafting that it is being taken first. I shall therefore start by speaking to Amendment 103ZA, which also has the support of Carers 2000 and a large number of charities and churches. The purpose of the two amendments is to apply to universal credit the rules on recoverability of overpayments that reflect those currently applied to most benefits in regard to official errors that a claimant could not have known about and to provide for the offset of underlying entitlement from overpayments, a concept that I shall explain in a moment.
The current rules on the recoverability of overpayments that apply to most benefits provide for recovery where overpayments have arisen because of,
“misrepresentation or failure to disclose a material fact by a claimant or by any other person”.
This is a fair and just test which has been in place for many years and has been tried and tested in case law. Its purpose is to allow the recovery of an overpayment which arises as the result of a claimant’s actions or failures, whether innocent or fraudulent, but protects the claimant in a case where the overpayment arises because of official error by the benefit authorities. In other words, it sanctions recovery in the case of negligence by the claimant but offers protection in the case of negligence by the state. I believe that this is a fair and just balance which reflects the responsibilities of claimants to correctly notify their circumstances when claiming benefit and the benefit authorities to calculate correctly and pay awards based on the information available to them.
Clause 102 proposes to allow recovery in all cases regardless of culpability. I believe that this alters the balance of responsibilities and justice unfairly in favour of the state. It would mean, for example, that a claimant could be presented with a large bill for repayment amounting to thousands of pounds many years after an overpayment occurred, even though the overpayment was due entirely to the negligence of the benefit authorities. In return for providing accurate and up-to-date information, I believe that a claimant is entitled to the accurate calculation of payment of entitlement by the benefit authorities and that the state should bear any losses caused by its own negligence.
In the other place the Minister of State accepted that there are some real issues around whether vulnerable individuals can or cannot be aware of the error that takes place when overpayments are made without them realising it, and they only discover afterwards that they have incurred a substantial debt. We have to be careful and sensitive in that situation. He went on to say:
“The real question about the clause, however, is whether it is sensible to establish safeguards in primary legislation that apply absolutes to a situation and which effectively say, ‘You can never do anything’”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Public Bill Committee, 19/5/11; col. 1018.]
That recognition of the sensitivity of this is welcome, but my answer to the Minister’s question in this instance is “yes”. The Government’s view however, is, of course, “no”. Although the Government appear to have recognised the justice of the case, they have done so only by indicating that they will provide for non-recovery in cases of official error in a code of practice on recovery. Can the Minister say whether that code of practice will be published, whether it will be made public, and exactly what it will cover?
I do not believe that a code of practice is sufficient, and I would argue that it is essential that provision is statutory so that an aggrieved claimant has the right of appeal against recoverability to an independent tribunal. The claimant should have a clear right rather than be vulnerable to discretionary decision-making. The Government have expressed their confidence that the introduction of universal credit will significantly reduce the scope for official error. If that is the case, the administrative burden of retaining protections for claimants unjustly prejudiced by official-error overpayments should be greatly reduced.
The system of automatic recoverability, perhaps supplemented by a non-statutory code of practice as proposed in Clause 102, mirrors the system which applied to tax credits. This system has blighted the administration of tax credits, caused widespread injustice and hardship and has been widely condemned in the media and in reports by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Select Committees in the other place. It has also resulted in thousands of complaints to MPs, the Revenue adjudicator and the ombudsman.
Amendment 103ZZZA provides for the offset of underlying entitlement when calculating overpayments. Underlying entitlement means the entitlement that would have been paid to the claimant had the claim been made correctly at the time. For example, an overpayment might arise if a claimant had separated from their partner and the claim continued to be paid as a couple claimed for several weeks after the date of separation. The claimant had not declared the change of circumstances immediately and had told their personal adviser that they were not aware that they needed to because they had hoped that the separation was temporary. I think that sometimes, in those circumstances, you do not really want to face up to what is happening. If the claim is cancelled from the date of the separation then the claimant must make a new claim. However, had they immediately declared the change then their claim would have been reassessed as a single claim, so it would have given rise to entitlement as a single claimant which could be offset against the overpayment as underlying entitlement. I am sorry that that is slightly complicated.
This mirrors the provision in the housing and council tax benefit regulations which ensures that only the true amount of excess entitlement is recovered. This provision is particularly needed in relation to universal credit because there is a requirement for the benefit to be claimed by either a single claimant or by both members of a couple, which, as is the case with tax credits, results in many notional overpayments when there is a change of status from single to joint claims and vice versa. The Revenue has belatedly recognised the need for the offset of underlying entitlement in such cases and introduced non-statutory provision for this from January 2010. This Bill gives the opportunity of providing for offsetting on a statutory basis, ensuring that it is applied fairly, openly and consistently.
It may be that it is intended to do this in regulations. I must apologise because I have seen the draft regulations only today. I have had a quick look at them and it seems that they are perhaps intended to do that. I am glad that the Minister is nodding but it would be even better if he put it formally on the record so that we know that that is the case. I am very happy that for once the Minister is nodding rather than shaking his head when I am speaking. There is another question that I hope the Minister will be nodding at as well. Can he assure the Committee that there will be a right of appeal to an independent tribunal in the case of a dispute as to whether an overpayment was caused by official error and should or should not be recovered; or—I do not see any nodding going on there—if there is no such right of appeal, how will a claimant be able to challenge a decision to recover an overpayment?
In conclusion, this might appear to be a rather techy amendment. However, the strong lobbying by a wide number of churches and charities signals its significance. The reason they are so concerned is in part because they believe it to be simply unfair that a claimant might have to pay for a mistake made by the state. They are also concerned because they know from their own work what this would mean in terms of hardship and possibly increased debt to moneylenders and loan sharks as claimants’ benefit was reduced below the statutory minimum. Heaven help them if they are also subject to capping. I hope the Minister will look favourably on a small but important amendment, which serves to protect the underlying rights of claimants. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, I support the case that the noble Baroness has made. I am particularly interested in the answer to the question about an independent appeal right in these circumstances. That would be very useful indeed and I hope that the Minister can confirm that that will be true.
I have four amendments in this group. They can be dealt with with reasonable dispatch but they deal with a very important issue that surrounds the whole question of amounts recoverable by deductions from earnings. During the Bill’s Commons stages the Government amended Clause 102 to add a new Section 71ZD(3)(e), which addresses the,
“level of earnings below which earnings must not be reduced”.
That is very welcome, as far as it goes, but I wonder whether the Minister could say a bit about whether any thought has been given to how that will be delivered and how that protection will be rolled out. That is important.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I will be very brief. I thank the various noble Lords who have contributed and really strengthened the case that was made. Readers of the Official Report may not be able to tell a joke when they see it—my noble friend was not supporting monthly payments, and we will be coming back to that on Report.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am very glad that the noble Lord has put on record that the question about underlying entitlement will be covered in the regulations. I am sorry that he is not prepared to put into statute the protection of claimants where it is the department that has made the mistake, not the individual. I am unhappy with so much discretion, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, made that point. I am very pleased that the code of practice will be published in the form of a leaflet and that noble Lords will be able to see it before Report. I welcome that, and I welcome what I think the Minister said that there would the general right of appeal on overpayment questions. It is good to have that on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Perhaps I may intervene. I can tell the Committee off the cuff that all of them with children will be receiving child benefit, which has a 99 per cent take-up rate. They will be receiving exactly the same amount in child benefit as people out of work, and one of the amendments in the next group will address this matter.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, as I understand it, everyone with children gets child benefit, so you can cut that out quite regularly because you know that it is going to come under subsection (4)(c)—that is inevitable. As I said at the beginning, we will find out from my noble friend what exceptions the Government are currently planning in order to change what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, calls apples and pears into apples and apples or perhaps pears and pears.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
That would certainly be satisfactory but even if that 10 per cent estimate is roughly right, it means that 90 per cent of the people who will be affected by this cap are under no obligation, under the Government's policies, to have full work conditionality. How does that square with the big thrust of this being about work incentives? I should also like to follow up on another point which the Minister did not touch upon: the profile of those, again within that 50,000, who would be tenants and paying rent of one sort or another. Is it the case that a significant proportion of that 50,000 are tenants of social landlords, RSLs or councils?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
While the noble Lord is conferring, can he perhaps explain to the Committee what behavioural effects the Government are trying to achieve in the case of those who are not required to seek work?
Lord Freud
On the figures, one reason why I am slightly betwixt and between is that we are looking at that impact assessment, which is now somewhat dated, with a view to updating it and providing fresher figures when we can. That work is in progress and we are getting some more detail. All that I can do is to offer to provide some of that extra detail as soon as we get it. I am not completely sure yet of its timetable but there is ongoing work there, which is why I am slightly hazy about exactly what some of these figures will end up being, for which I apologise.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 99AD and to oppose the questions that Clauses 93 and 94 stand part of the Bill. I want to make clear that I also support other amendments, both the more ambitious and the more limited ones. I see Amendment 99AD as something of a bottom line, particularly its exclusion of child benefit from the cap. However, first I shall say a few words about why Clause 93 should not stand part of the Bill.
Unlike some other noble Lords who have spoken, I do not support the principle of the benefit cap. Despite ministerial invocations of fairness, it is unfair. It deliberately reduces the amount of money that some families will receive to well below the amount that Parliament has determined is the minimum that is required to meet their needs—a minimum that is itself well below minimum income standards, as we discussed earlier in our proceedings. We have heard that the average loss will be £93. Nearly half the families affected will lose between £50 and £150, and 15 per cent will lose more than £150. Black and minority ethnic families will be disproportionately affected. It simply is not good enough for Ministers to say, as they have, that the state can no longer afford to pay this minimum. We are a rich society despite current economic difficulties. What the state can afford to pay is a matter of political choice.
In applying such a cap, the Government are arguably reducing income to below what constitute decency levels in a modern, industrialised society—below the level required to ensure human dignity. Therefore, it does not surprise me that legal advice received by the Equality and Human Rights Commission stated that,
“there must be a real concern … that the cap on benefits, which will disproportionately impact on larger families”,
will result in a violation of the Human Rights Act. Some of the likely consequences have already been spelt out by other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord McKenzie has already cited the Centre for Social Justice, which warned that the impact was “likely to be devastating” for some families, so how can this be justified?
The justification put forward by Ministers is another example of how the Bill is designed to try to influence behaviour and send out signals—so many signals that we should nickname this the “semaphore Bill”. Once again, the spectre of welfare dependency raises its head and people are to be incentivised to find work, although I thought that the main point of universal credit was to do just this, insofar as incentives are inadequate at present.
We have already heard how the incentives argument is not that convincing. As my noble friend Lord McKenzie has already observed, some groups affected by the cap are not expected to seek work—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds made this point—such as carers and lone parents of children aged under five. I was disappointed that the Minister could not explain to the Committee what behavioural effects the Government were trying to achieve in the case of those who are not expected to seek work. I hope that, having had more time to think about this, he might be able to do so when he speaks.
Could the Minister also address the issue that I raised at the last sitting, which the right reverend Prelate has also raised, about impact of the six-month qualifying period for PIP? How many are likely to be affected, and would it be possible to backdate the money that they lose as a result of the cap, when they then become eligible? It should also be noted that, to the extent that fewer people qualify for PIP than for DLA, so will fewer disabled people be exempt from the cap.
As has already been noted, the cap will also apply to some who are in paid work. Again, I was disappointed that the Minister could not explain at this stage how it is planned to determine at what point those in paid work will be free of the cap under universal credit. It is a very important question. As was pointed out in CPAG’s Welfare Rights Bulletin, the danger is that a threshold is created that people in low-paid work could frequently cross, resulting in wild fluctuations in their entitlement and complex better-off calculations. A small drop in earnings over which the claimant might have no control could leave to a massive drop in income if the cap is triggered.
Ferret Information Systems comments that the cap will create just the kind of cliff edge that universal credit was intended to remove. It gives an example of how a difference of 1p an hour for someone working 24 hours at the minimum wage level could generate a net income increase or loss of £98.23. This is surely nonsensical. The greater security of income promised with universal credit would be undermined if people on very low earnings are living in constant fear of the cap being triggered.
I am also unclear as to how work incentives are promoted if, as predicted, one effect of the cap is that families have to move house to find cheaper accommodation, which we have already talked about and could be difficult, given that a majority of those affected—although perhaps not quite as big a majority as originally thought—will be in social housing. Is there not a danger that in search of affordable accommodation they will end up moving to an area where job opportunities are even poorer?
At Second Reading and in response to previous amendments, the Minister argued that:
“The introduction of a benefit cap will mean that households on out-of-work benefits will have to make the same decisions as families in work with regard to the lives they lead and the areas they can live in”.—[Official Report, 13/9/11; col. 739.]
It is still unclear to me, having listened to everything that the Minister said earlier and the debate so far, what decisions people are supposed to take if they cannot find work or affordable housing. The answer is that they simply have to live below the level set by Parliament. In response to a Written Answer about the implications for homelessness, the Minister said that if they became at risk of homelessness then our old friend, the loaves and fishes of the discretionary housing payment, would come to the rescue.
For lone parents in particular, the loss of social networks that can help with childcare could serve to make it harder for them to enter into paid work if they have to move area. The loss of such networks surely goes against the aspirations of the big society. Moreover, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie have already said, the cap will create a significant new couple penalty. So it is difficult to square the cap with key elements of the Government’s own philosophy.
The Minister of State told the Public Bill Committee in the other place that the clause is not primarily a “cost-saving measure”. Instead, he claimed that,
“fundamentally it is about creating a more credible welfare system … We do not believe that it is reasonable or fair that households getting out-of-work benefits should receive a greater income from benefits than the average weekly net wage for working households. That is the core principle that we are seeking to put in place here”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Committee, 17/5/11; col. 985.]
We have heard that again from the Minister this evening. Is it not the case that the Government themselves are undermining the credibility of the so-called welfare system by sending out a signal that people on average wages are receiving significantly less money than some people on benefits, when the proposition is based on the false assumption that people on average—or, more accurately, median—wages are not themselves receiving welfare in various forms? That this is the case is demonstrated by parliamentary Answers, which show that, if the benefits and tax credits received by working families on median earnings were taken into account, hardly any of them would be worse off than out-of-work families. The Government could do much more for the credibility of the system if it sent out more accurate signals.
This brings me to Amendment 99AD, which is about protecting children, who are the main victims of the cap, as other noble Lords have underlined. They are victims who cannot respond to the Bill’s signals. I am grateful to Barnardo’s for circulating a briefing in support of the amendment. It is designed in particular to stop the cap penalising larger families—thereby failing the Prime Minister’s family test—and to create the level playing field that the Minister of State claimed for the cap in the other place. We have already heard—and I apologise for repeating it, but it seems like the message needs repeating because it has not been heard loud and clear by some members of the Committee—that one important reason why the playing field is far from level is that child credit and child tax credit received by families of median earnings are not included in the income level at which the cap is set, but are included in the out-of-work income to be taken into account. I could not believe it at first when I discovered that child benefit is being treated in this way, because it is so patently unjust. As I said earlier, take-up of child benefit is virtually 100 per cent, so there is not an issue as to whether families with median earnings are or are not getting it. They are getting exactly the same amount as families out of work: it just depends on the size of the family.
According to a Written Answer, the median level of child benefit received by families with median earnings is estimated to be £33.70 a week. If the child benefit of out-of-work families were ignored when applying the cap—and this is also the purpose of the amendment moved by the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds—it would reduce the numbers affected by 40 to 50 per cent. This would reduce the savings from £270 million to £140 million in 2014-15. Therefore, nearly half the savings from the cap are being made on the basis of a blatant piece of unfairness which drives a coach and horses through the Government’s claim to be creating a level playing field between those in and out of work. Given that the Minister of State has said that it is not primarily a cost-saving measure, I hope that the Minister will not use the cost as an argument for rejecting the amendment.
The amendment would also exclude childcare costs. If I understood the Minister correctly, he has told the Committee that those costs will not be treated as income for someone out of work. That is correct, so we have that again clearly on the record. I very much welcome that, because previously it had been suggested that they would be. That is an important step; it would have been nonsensical had it been, so perhaps we have achieved something here today.
I oppose the cap in principle, and would support more ambitious amendments than the one in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and Lord Adebowale. As I said, I particularly see the exclusion of child benefit from the income taken into account in applying the cap as a bottom line below which the Government’s claim to fairness is so patently unfounded that they should be embarrassed even to try to justify its inclusion. In the Public Bill Committee in the other place, the Minister of State had no real answer to this and kept evading the question of child benefit received by working families. I would therefore be grateful in the Minister could explain to your Lordships how in fact the Government justify the inclusion of child benefit in the cap when it is not included in the comparator incomes of working families. Better still—given that, according to the Minister of State, the cap is not primarily a cost-saving measure but purports to be about fairness, and given the strength of the opposition which we have already heard—I hope the Government will think again.
Welfare Reform Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and this amendment is also in my name. It is vital to ensure that the new framework is right, and this amendment gives me some comfort in what is a very difficult time for a huge number of disabled people. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, mentioned time. That time is required.
If someone has a health condition that is likely to improve, or a newly acquired impairment to which they are likely to adapt, no one would argue that the costs might not change over time and that there should not be a reassessment. For example, the costs of someone who is a lower leg amputee will be very different in the first 18 months or two years after the amputation from what they may be 20 years later when they have adapted to it. However, when someone has a health condition or impairment that is unlikely to change and the costs are likely to remain the same, it does not make sense to keep sending them for more face-to-face assessments. For people in this situation it should be enough to confirm with the claimant’s healthcare professionals that their condition is unchanged. I feel very strongly about this because the following claimant told the MS Society how she feels about the prospect of face-to-face assessments. Many like her find this process very strange given that so much is known about the condition, including that it will only get worse and not better. When such claimants have to talk to a stranger about some very intimate details of their life it can have a devastating effect on them. The claimant said:
“I am already dreading the day when I have to sit in front of someone and explain myself to them … When I am already seeing a neurologist and a whole team of people who help me to try and live as best I can with MS … This is just not fair in my eyes. … Shame on the people who have come up with these changes which once again affect real people who have no choice but to try and live with this illness”.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of the hobby horse of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, which we should take seriously. I was struck by what she said about how a trial period in which disabled people’s organisations were involved could do a lot to restore confidence in the system. I am sure that I am not the only noble Lord who has been struck by the e-mails, letters and faxes that I have received, which demonstrate that that confidence is at rock bottom. There has been a catastrophic loss of confidence. The noble Baroness is offering the Government perhaps not an olive branch, because that suggests that a war is going on, but an opportunity—I suggest that the Government would do well to grasp it—to listen to what is being said, accept this amendment with its trial period and involve disabled people’s organisations. That could go a long way to restore confidence in this system.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee that I was unable to be here at the beginning of the proceedings. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, to Clause 78 has to be considered in the light of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I draw particularly to the Committee’s attention the fact that paragraph o of the preamble to that convention provides that,
“persons with disabilities should have the opportunity to be actively involved in decision-making processes about policies and programmes, including those directly concerning them”.
The proposal for a trial period and the involvement of disabled people’s organisations in the assessment process will undoubtedly enhance that process, but it will also put the United Kingdom in a position in which we are in compliance with our obligations under the convention. I am sure the Minister will be aware that it will be most important to have a review in terms of having confidence in the Government’s new system, and to ensure that injustice is not done and that people do not lose the right to benefit simply because of a flawed assessment process, particularly one that is not conducted by those with the necessary expertise, as was referred to by a number of noble Lords.
I refer the Committee to Articles 19 and 20 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which are particularly relevant in terms of the opportunities that disabled people need in the context of this amendment. It is also cost-effective; more importantly, it is respectful of the rights and dignity of people with disability. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, was saying, when they are unlikely to experience any change in the health impairments from which they suffer and which result in significant costs, they should not be required to be assessed more than once every five years. It is a human rights issue. The assessment process itself, as we have been told, will take a toll on such people and it would be disproportionate, unnecessary and unproductive to require more regular assessment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, in Amendment 86A, and I believe she has covered the amendment very clearly. I also find the qualifying period worrying. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, has said, the first months are often the period when extra costs are at their greatest, and just as people are trying to adjust their outgoings, they are also adjusting to the impairment or illness.
I do not believe that it is the case that they will be able to receive support elsewhere. Social care support may be available, but that is means-tested and has its own application and assessment process, which we have debated quite a lot this afternoon. Support from the NHS can be very limited and not immediate and I do not think we should assume that appropriate help is that easy to find.
In Committee in another place, the Minister for Disabled People stated that this proposal was not being driven by the need to make significant savings, so why are we making this change? It has been argued that, for example, in the case of someone who has had a stroke, it may not be clear at three months what their long-term needs may be, and that may also be true at six months. However, their costs are likely to be very high during these initial stages. While no one, me included, wants to see repeated assessments, we have heard a lot about giving help to those who most need it. In the initial months following diagnosis we should look at the qualifying period as detailed in the amendment because those are the people who will need immediate help.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I support the amendments which seek to revert to the existing qualifying period of three months. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, said that six months is a long time to wait for extra resources, and we have heard from a number of noble Lords about the significant additional costs which can be incurred during this period.
However, there is a further twist in the tale—the benefit cap—which we will be discussing next week. PIP exempts people from the benefit cap but, of course, if you cannot qualify for PIP for six months then you would not only have to wait for additional resources but could find that your own resources are being significantly depleted during this period. This is very worrying. Can the Minister say whether any estimate has been made of the number of people who may be caught in this way? I suspect that it is not a large number, but one person is one person too many. It could be potentially very frightening for people to find that they might have to face this horrible benefit cap.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. If not, and the six-month period goes ahead, a perhaps minimalist way of addressing the question—although it does not really address it—is that someone who qualifies after six months should have the money backdated to cover what they lost through the benefit cap.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
My Lords, I support the amendment. I hate the term “alignment”. I worried about it enormously when it was used by the Government in connection with the proposal that mobility allowance should be removed from people in residential care homes because they wanted to align it with hospitals. We are now back to “alignment” again.
One of the major problems that nurses and doctors in specialist units face in trying to discharge their patients with brain injury or the onset of MS, which causes vast deterioration, is getting their support sorted out so that they can leave the hospital. DLA with a time limit of three months is cited as being difficult to get into now, so raising it to six months is wrong. We forget that people do not on day one think of their long-term disability—whether that be a spinal injury, a brain injury or something that is sudden and quick—and say, “Ah, I must put in my DLA request now so that I will get it in six months’ time”. That just does not happen.
This is another delay for people who find themselves in an appalling situation, in a crisis, and having to face even further barriers to the support that can give them some independence, enable them to get back into the community and return to their families as soon as possible. The three-month eligibility period should remain. The six-month period will cause more problems. Hospitals will despair about discharging people and it could mean that disabled people will have to leave work earlier than they would have because they are not getting the support that they require quickly to keep them mobile and to enable them to stay in work. It is a lose-lose situation.
Lord Freud
Let me go on a little further and try to pull this issue back. Noble Lords have said that, in practice, DLA is being used in a slightly different way to the long-term intention, and that that is tied to three months as opposed to six months. I have said that it is not a matter of money but of coherence. I have heard many strong views expressed in Committee about noble Lords’ discomfort with the move to six months and so I will take this matter back—that might be a slight overstatement—and look very closely at what we are hearing, not only from here but from elsewhere. This is not one-way traffic; some people are more concerned that if you go to an earlier assessment it implies that you will have more reassessments, which some groups dislike rather more. So it is not all one-way traffic for people who are affected.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I am sure that the Committee is extremely pleased to hear him say that he will take this away. I hear what he says about it not being one-way traffic but, given that the Minister is writing to the Committee already on this issue, it might be helpful if he could list the organisations which are supporting the move to six months and those organisations who are against it, so that the Committee can weigh the balance of opinion for itself.
Lord Freud
I have slight jitters about that level of transparency, apparently.