Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Baroness Meacher Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 72 and 92 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which I support. As I said at Second Reading, although we on these Benches agree on the need for a cap, we do not see the logic in reducing it to £23,000 a year for households in Greater London and to £20,000 for those in the rest of the country. Nor do we see the logic behind breaking the link between average earnings and the cap, as has already been said. I agree with the Child Poverty Action Group, which states that:
“The reduction in the level of the benefit cap severs the link with median earnings, and instead is based on an arbitrary figure, leaving it unclear what the fairness test is now”.
The Government’s rationale is that the benefit cap will deliver strong work incentives. However, the real concern here is that the requirement to find housing at an affordable level may force families away from areas where there are high levels of work opportunities, such as in London, to places of high unemployment. This would undermine the ultimate aim of getting people off benefits.
Although the Government demonstrate that the existing benefit cap successfully strengthens work incentives, as evidenced by the greater proportion of those capped moving into employment as compared to those under the cap, in-depth interviews conducted by DWP itself in 2014 show that many households responded to the cap by,
“being willing to accept low-skilled, low-paid jobs, rather than pursuing further qualifications which they hoped would help them get a better job in the future”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has already said, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which undertook a peer review of the DWP research, concluded that its analysis told us:
“that the large majority of affected claimants responded neither by moving into work nor by moving house”.
Forfeiting further education and training for low-skilled, low-paid jobs limits an individual’s long-term human capital and earning prospects, which lowers potential tax revenues paid to the Government and, on an aggregated level, hinders economic productivity and potential output.
Long-term reductions in welfare spending will be realised only by increasing people’s income through employment and by reducing their outgoings, primarily through improving access to affordable housing. I urge the Minister to maintain the benefit cap as currently set.
At Second Reading, I asked whether the Government intended to undertake a distribution analysis of the levels of housing benefit that the average person hit by the benefit cap would receive and where they might be able to secure suitable housing. I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to answer this question more fully on this occasion. Will he also say what impact the further lowering of the benefit cap will have on single parents and how the rights of children will be protected? This has been very clearly highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Gingerbread quite rightly is concerned. Lowering the benefit cap will continue disproportionately to affect single parents, of which as many as 70%—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, quoted 69%—will have a child under the age of five. That cannot be acceptable.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 94—I emphasise that it is a probing amendment. I do so in the hope that we can highlight the need for a comprehensive and regular review of the impact of the totality of the benefit cuts on specific groups—who are the most vulnerable—applied during the past few years, including those in the Welfare Reform Act 2012, in more recent legislation and in this Bill. The amendment requires that in carrying out a review of the benefit cap, the Secretary of State must include an assessment of the impact of the benefit cap on disabled people, their families and carers. I for one have not fully grasped the full impact of the multitude of cuts. At the very least, I believe that the Government have a moral obligation to understand the implications of their policies for the most vulnerable citizens in this country and to make public that information. That is what this amendment is about.
The benefit cap applies even to benefits designed to compensate for the extra costs of disability or caring for disabled people, including ESA WRAG, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and carer’s allowance. We know that one-third of disabled people—fully 3.7 million—live below the poverty line already. The benefit cap combined with the freezes and cuts to employment and support allowance for those in the WRAG group will see disabled people’s incomes reduced significantly again. This significant reduction is from a level which is already below the poverty line.
The Government argue that the new lower, tiered cap has been designed to strengthen the work incentives for those on benefits. When I met the Minister from the other place, he said, “The whole point of this is to encourage people to work for more hours”. I find that so cynical, when most of these people simply cannot work more hours for a range of reasons. However, as we have argued previously in Committee, the Government have provided no evidence to back up the claim that cutting benefits that disabled people receive will incentivise them to work. As I have already indicated, the Government’s reference to an OECD study failed to point out that the study did not even refer to disability throughout, and rightly so—of course, people who are disabled are in an entirely different position from those who are healthy and able bodied. We have evidence that reducing disabled people’s incomes will make it harder and not easier for them to move into work.
In addition, the impact assessment provides no detail on the impact of lowering the cap on disabled people who are in receipt of DLA/PIP—those who are severely disabled and cannot do much about their situation. This amendment has no financial consequences. I hope that the Minister will take this matter away with a view to bringing back a government amendment on Report.
I support Amendment 93 tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The case for the amendment has been eloquently spelt out and, fortunately, I do not need to add to that. I hope that the Minister will assure the Committee that this crucial issue will be dealt with on Report.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I add support to the amendment just spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, to which my name is added. While an exemption for households including a DLA or personal independence payment claimant exists, this does not protect all families affected by disability or all carers from the cap. That is because of the way in which “household” is defined in the benefits system. For the purposes of the benefits system, a household is considered to be an adult, their partner if they have one and any children they have under the age of 18. If any other adult relatives—for example, older parents, brothers or sisters, or even adult children—live in the same house, they are considered to be part of a different benefits household even though they all live together. This means that while carers looking after disabled partners and disabled children aged under 18 are exempt from the cap, those caring for adult disabled children, siblings or elderly parents are subject to it.
The Government’s impact assessment for the introduction of the benefit cap estimates that 5,000 households containing carers would be affected by it. That seems to be completely contrary to the Government’s policy on supporting carers. In its 2015 manifesto, the Conservative Party committed to provide more support for full-time carers. The fact that the benefit cap continues to apply to carers and the further lowering of the cap are entirely contrary to that commitment. The inclusion of the carer’s allowance in the list of capped benefits also goes against the commitment to protect vulnerable families that are coping with the extra costs of disability and ill-health. I will have more to say about the inclusion of carer’s allowance and the recent judgment in a later set of amendments.
Carers struggle every day with the extra costs of caring and it is clear, as the noble Baroness said, that many carers are absolutely unable to work as a result of heavy caring responsibilities. Therefore they cannot afford any reduction in their income at all, and yet the Government continue to cap their benefits, with those carers who fall within the scope of the cap losing up to an estimated £169 a week under the new cap compared with the position before the introduction of the policy. The benefit cap places an increasing financial and emotion strain on families, pushing carers to breaking point and ultimately threatening the sustainability of those caring relationships. Surely the Government must be prepared, at the very minimum, to assess the impact of these changes.
Lord Lansley
I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making, but I am afraid that I do not agree with it, for two reasons. The first is by virtue of the other measures that this Government are taking in relation to availability of childcare, the further extension of personal tax allowances and the increase in the national minimum wage, leading to a national living wage. All of these enable people who are in work to achieve more of a living income through being in work. The second and most important reason is that work in itself changes the character of a household; it changes the character of people’s lives. Frankly, in the long run, it changes people’s employability.
Baroness Meacher
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is making an incentives argument, which I accept completely. Does he accept that, when people are unable to work more or at all because they are carers or severely disabled, the incentive argument really falls down?
Lord Lansley
The point I was answering was in relation to people in work, so that is a slightly different point. In relation to that point, too, as the noble Baroness has brought it up, the structure of the benefit cap is designed to ensure that people who are in a support group under the employment and support allowance, those in receipt of personal independence payments, and so on—there are number of exceptions—are not covered by the benefit cap. Those households are not covered by the benefit cap. We are focused, to a large extent, on those who have a capability for work even if that capability may be restricted in some ways.
I did not complete the point I was making in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Many years ago I was deputy director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce— and I do not think it has changed in the slightest—and I know that what matters to employers is that people have been in work and have all the attributes of somebody who has been in work. The longer one is out of work the less likely one is, as we know, to have those attributes. Therefore, the entry into work, even if it might not necessarily be the right job or be regarded as suitable or appropriate, will by its very nature make someone more likely to have those attributes necessary for work.
That is just one of the reasons why the benefit cap is needed. It is also needed because of a sense of the fairness between those who are in work and those who are not. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said there was a relationship with average earnings. That was true when the benefit cap was introduced, but to assert that it is some kind of mechanistic or scientific relationship is misleading. It is a judgment. A judgment was made, when there was previously no benefit cap to try and establish a benefit cap at a level that was regarded as fair.
I have to tell noble Lords—again coming from recent experience of fighting elections and being in the other place—that the public support the benefit cap. They regard it as still generous—too generous in many respects. When one looks at the relationship with those who are in work—the four in 10 households, broadly speaking, as was mentioned—who are not earning any more from their work than would be available through the benefit cap by the accumulation of benefits, they do not regard it as fair or reasonable for people to accumulate more by way of benefits than they are able to access by work.
Baroness Meacher
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, in moving Amendment 75 I shall speak also to Amendments 78, 80, 81 and 83. The amendments seek to exempt those in receipt of carer’s allowance or disability benefits from the cap. I shall talk about the two groups, carers and disabled claimants.
As Carers UK has pointed out, unpaid carers save the state an estimated £132 billion per year. Clause 7 includes just one of a number of measures which will have a damaging impact on the finances of the 6.5 million carers in the UK. The lives of carers are already extremely hard. A Carers UK survey of 4,500 unpaid carers, mostly caring for 50 or more hours a week, shows that almost half of them, some 41%, are cutting back on essentials such as food and heating—one wonders what else they could cut back—while 45% said that financial worries are affecting their health. I want to draw to noble Lords’ attention the fact that Clause 7 breaches a Government election manifesto commitment to increase support for full-time unpaid carers. The cuts set out in Clause 7 and elsewhere in the Bill come on top of previous changes which Carers UK estimates will result in a cut to carers’ incomes of more than £1 billion between 2011 and 2018. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to this point.
The Government’s impact assessment identifies that 6% of carer’s allowance recipients will be subject to the cap. Those who have had their benefits capped at £26,000 will lose an average of a further £64 per week. The figure of 6% may seem small, but for every one of those families it will be devastating. The cumulative impact of the cuts, together with the cut to WRAG benefits and further reductions in local government funding, will inevitably undermine the capacity of many carers to continue their invaluable caring work. I know that carers looking after disabled partners and disabled children aged under 18 are exempt from the cap, but why are those who care for adult disabled children, siblings or elderly relatives not also exempt? I would be grateful if the Minister explained this. Why should one group of carers be given preference over another group? Surely that is an anomaly.
The Minister will be aware that on 26 November 2015 the High Court ruled that carers in receipt of carer’s allowance should be exempt from the benefit cap following a judicial review challenge to the policy and its impact on carers and the disabled, seriously ill or older loved ones they support. The judge’s comments will be known to the Minister, but I want to quote one short passage in which he concluded that, “With carers being unable to mitigate the cap, this endangers the sustainability of the caring role and indirectly discriminates against the disabled person, who will no longer be able to receive care”. What do the Government plan to do in response to this ruling? I hope the Minister will clarify the position for noble Lords.
Recent DWP research shows that households containing carer’s allowance claimants subjected to the cap are more likely to move into work than those not capped. To what extent has the cap already led claimants to abandon their caring responsibilities in order to return to work? How many disabled people have moved into residential accommodation as a result? The implications for social care services and costs to the public purse may be considerable. Does the Minister have information on this point? In fact, will the cap save money as far as it affects carers, or will it cost the Exchequer a great deal?
I will say a brief word about the amendments aimed at excluding disabled people’s benefits from the calculation of the cap for any household. We have already discussed the severe consequences of this Bill for disabled people, particularly if all the cuts go through unmodified. I want to say in the context of Clause 7 only that disability benefits were introduced to compensate disabled people for the additional expenditure they incur because of their disability. If these benefits are included in calculating the cap, families with a disabled member will be poorer than able-bodied families. They do not benefit in material terms from their disability benefits, because all those benefits do is compensate for the higher costs of travel, heating and so on than able-bodied families incur. Is it the Government’s intention to hit disabled people particularly hard with this legislation? If they wish to treat disabled people on an equal basis with others, disability benefits should indeed be excluded from the cap calculations. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on this point. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I rise to strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. We have said already that the cap is applied unequally to carers. While I welcome the exemption for households in receipt of PIP or DLA, it means that carers who are considered to be not in the same household as the person they care for will be penalised.
Lord Blencathra
I rise briefly to oppose the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, because her amendment would remove the ESA part in Clause 7(4)(e). I do not think that removing it will serve people with disabilities well. To be fair, when the Labour Government introduced the ESA back in 2008, they had a noble aim: to help support many people with disabilities into work. I commend them on that. The work-related activity group—WRAG—within ESA was originally intended to act as an incentive to encourage people to participate in work-related activity and therefore return to work quicker.
Previously in Committee, noble Lords suggested that people in the WRAG have been declared not fit for work, but that is not the case. They have been declared to have “limited capacity for work”, which is not the same thing, as most noble Lords will understand. That is an important distinction, for the purpose of this group is to encourage people into work. Indeed, when the Labour Government introduced the benefit White Paper, Raising Expectations and Increasing Support: Reforming Welfare for the Future, published in 2008, they stated that they aimed to reduce the number of people on incapacity benefits by 1 million by 2015. I am making no criticism or political comment. It was a wise and noble aim, yet the reality is that we have failed and only 1% of people in the WRAG leave the benefits system each month.
It is good that the Department for Work and Pensions is currently looking to reform this area and I look forward to seeing my noble friend’s White Paper in the new year. It would be a backward step to remove the ESA. We have already discussed this, and my noble friend has already stated today the tremendous success that the cap has in getting people into work. Removing the ESA would be slightly counterproductive.
Baroness Meacher
Very quickly, I just want to raise the question of whether the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, thinks that there is a problem with the work capability assessment or with the ESA WRAG. I am aware that people with Parkinson’s are already assessed as having limited capacity for work. The idea that their capacity will grow is frankly inconceivable.
Lord Blencathra
The noble Baroness makes an interesting point. We addressed the capacity for work test at an earlier stage. There are concerns and it may not be perfect. It is very difficult to assess. We can have 100,000 people with MS and every single one is different, so it is very difficult to come to a firm conclusion. I know that the Government are continually improving it. Labour improved it. The coalition improved it and the current Government are trying to improve that test. I hope that my noble friend will continue with that.
Lord Freud
I have already answered that question in the first of these amendment groupings. I repeat: there is a difference between having a state expectation—and conditionality attached—for people to go to work, and a financial incentive for them to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether responsible carers would be set requirements that they cannot meet. We will ensure that any work-related requirements will be tailored to individual circumstances and compatible with childcare responsibilities.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on kinship carers. The Government recognise the service that kinship carers and others provide, and the Bill continues the current provisions for foster carers, kinship carers, and family and friend carers. If they, or a child for whom they are caring, are in receipt of an exempt benefit the cap will not apply. In addition, any payments received from the local authority for providing care will be disregarded from the benefit cap. Finally, there is a nine-month grace period whereby the cap may not be applied to those who have recently left sustained employment. This will give time for kinship carers who may have had to leave employment to take on additional caring responsibilities to adapt to their new circumstances. Family and friend carers are treated in the same way as parents in the benefit system, so it is only fair to ensure that this principle applies to the application of the cap, too. The benefit cap is intended to promote fairness between those in and out of work, and to increase incentives for people to move into work—principles that I believe apply in the same way for family and friends carers as for parents.
Regrettably, I am not in a position to supply the specific data requested by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on what is happening in London. As I said, I will come back to the matter of carers at a later date but I cannot support the other amendments and I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press them.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken very powerfully in support of these incredibly reasonable amendments. My understanding is that what we are all about is seeking that the cap does not apply where it is completely inappropriate and unfair to expect that person to work. In the case of kinship carers as well as other carers, the impact on the disabled child or relatives is likely to be extremely serious. The impact on the Exchequer or the taxpayer is also likely to be extremely costly.
I thank the Minister for informing the House that Ministers will be returning to the issue of carers, but surely the arguments of the High Court and the judge in relation to carers in general apply equally to kinship carers. I cannot see any possible argument that they do not—they just have to—so I ask the Minister to take away that point and consider the relevance of the High Court judgment and comments on kinship carers, and the need for some consistency. I also ask him to think further about the importance of people who cannot work for whatever reason, whether they have a one year-old child or are disabled to such an extent that they simply will not get better. Those people should be exempt from the cap and I ask the Minister not just to put that issue away and think “Job done”, but to think seriously and say, “Now hang on—surely we should be doing something about this”.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Baroness Meacher Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I gave notice that I wish to oppose Clause 13 standing part of the Bill and I now wish to do that in support of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. Clause 13 would cut ESA by just under £30 a week, or £1,500 a year, for new claimants in the WRAG group from 2017. The Government’s reasoning is that the £30 a week uplift from the JSA level constitutes a disincentive for those in the WRAG group to seek work and that cutting this premium would remove that disincentive.
As I hope many noble Lords will by now know, with my noble friends Lady Meacher and Lady Grey-Thompson I have just carried out a review of this policy approach and its impact on the Government’s objective of halving the disability employment gap. The review was published yesterday; copies have been distributed and I hope that many noble Lords will have had a chance to look at it. I place on record my thanks to the disability charities which supported the review, including Leonard Cheshire Disability, Mind, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the National Autistic Society, the Royal Mencap Society, Scope and RNIB, of which I am a vice-president and I declare my interest. I also thank the 30 or so organisations which responded to our call for evidence and the nearly 200 disabled people who gave us eloquent and often very personal accounts of their lives and aspirations, and the hardships that they face.
Our review found no evidence to support the Government’s approach. The Government’s impact assessment contains no detail on how disabled people might be affected and seems to be concerned only with savings to the Government, which would amount to £640 million by the end of the Parliament—not a massive amount as these things go. The Government rely principally, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, on a 2005 OECD study which deals only with unemployment generally and not the unemployment of disabled people at all, which is generally reckoned to be very different, as evidenced by the intractability of the disability employment gap. Officials have referred us to a 2010 study by Barr and others in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, which suggests that there is a significant negative association between benefit levels and employment. But the authors commented that:
“While there was some evidence indicating that benefit level was negatively associated with employment, there was insufficient evidence of a high enough quality to determine the extent of that effect. Policy makers and researchers need to address the lack of a robust empirical basis for assessing the employment impact of”,
the 2010 welfare reforms.
The central recommendation of our review is therefore that the proposal to reduce payment to claimants in the WRAG group to JSA level should be put on hold in order to carry out a thorough assessment of ESA and the impact that any reductions might have, not only on disabled people, their families and carers but on other services that might be affected, such as social care and the National Health Service, as well as knock-on effects on other benefits. As we conducted our review, I was hugely impressed by the wealth of expertise possessed by the organisations which came and gave evidence to us. If the Minister were to establish a working group to tap into this expertise, I am sure that these organisations would be only too happy to help him get this matter right.
ESA is an income replacement benefit for those assessed as not fit for work. It is important to stress this point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, has done. They are assessed as not fit for work; they may have been assessed as capable of undertaking activities potentially leading to work but the essential point to grasp is that they are in the WRAG group because they are not currently fit for work. Moreover, the extra £30 a week is there in recognition of the fact that it takes much longer and costs more for disabled people to take steps towards work, during which time savings run down. It is important to remember that this is a group in which many are already in or close to poverty.
According to the Office for National Statistics, 31% of disabled working-age adults live in poverty compared with 20% of non-disabled adults. Currently, roughly 60% of people spend approximately two years in the WRAG group. This may be even higher for some groups. For example, blind and partially sighted people are five times more likely than the general population to have had no paid work for five years. This compares with 60% of people spending roughly six months on JSA. As I have said, the extra payment is there to reflect that but also to recognise the additional costs that disabled people face when looking for work or undertaking work-related activities. Respondents told us about increased travel costs, as well as the cost of assistive technology. Of course, DLA and the personal independence payment are designed to cover additional costs associated with disability. However, respondents reported that DLA and PIP are not enough to cover all their costs—it is only a contribution to them—and we know that only around 50% of individuals in the WRAG group also receive DLA or PIP in any case. Individuals would really struggle to cover those additional costs if the ESA WRAG component is removed.
Our review took place in the context of the Government’s welcome aim to halve the disability employment gap. It concluded, however, that the proposed cut to ESA would hinder rather than promote this aim. One respondent said that they would need to cancel their phone and broadband contracts, with the result that,
“I would not be able to make calls regarding workplace volunteering that I want to do”,
in order to help them get back to work,
“or make job applications when I am ready. I would also no longer be able to afford smart clothes which you need for work”.
An important contribution came from the Disability Benefits Consortium, which surveyed 500 disabled people in the ESA WRAG group. Almost half of these—49%—said that such a cut would mean that they were not able to return to work so quickly. The disability employment gap is a long-standing structural one, exacerbated by failed back-to-work schemes—the Work Programme in particular—as well as societal and employer attitudes. It is not generous benefits that are holding people back.
Our review identified a very close connection between the proposed cuts and people’s mental health, which, in addition to the human cost, would lead to people being pushed further from the labour market. As one respondent commented:
“Losing this money would make me more worried and stressed which would impact my mental health considerably turning the whole thing into a vicious circle”.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, stressed this point very eloquently. It is important because the current ESA WRAG group consists of close to quarter of a million people with mental health problems as well as learning disabilities.
In summary, our review concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that disabled people can be incentivised into work by cutting their benefits. Instead, the Government should look to improving support by making it more tailored to people’s individual needs as well as working with employers to tackle attitudinal barriers. If the Government could only do this effectively, and halve the disability employment gap, that would really make dramatic inroads into the size of the ESA bill.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 50, moved by my noble friend Lord Patel. I also support the call of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for Clause 13 not to stand part of the Bill. I put on record my thanks to the charities that worked tirelessly to produce what I think was an excellent report for the review, and in particular Rob Holland of Mencap. I also express my gratitude to the hundreds of disabled people who took time to share with us their stories, experiences and concerns. I thank the Minister for a very helpful meeting yesterday focusing on our review.
We need to be conscious of the fact that the cut in the income of WRAG claimants is just one of many cuts to the benefits of sick and disabled people, as has become apparent through these debates. The OBR report shows that there will be a steady fall in the percentage of GDP spent on benefits for sick and disabled people between now and 2020, which I would have thought is something the Government should be rather ashamed of. This is being achieved of course through freezing a number of benefits, tighter criteria for eligibility for PIP—which will lead to 500,000 disabled people no longer qualifying for the benefit by 2018—cuts in the level of disability benefits and, of course, the cut in WRAG benefits by £30 per week, the subject of Clause 13.
Amendment 50, if agreed, would in my view ensure that Clause 13 would never be implemented. There is no doubt in my mind that the implications of this clause for the mental and physical well-being, the financial situation and, more particularly, the ability to return to work of WRAG claimants will be devastating. The first problem concerns the inadequacies of the WCA—the work capability assessment. Many people in the WRAG should very obviously not be there, and should be in the support group instead. One of the problems, but a very important one, is that the WCA is a functional assessment that does not take any account of the real world, in which employers simply will not employ someone with a progressive disease who is already assessed as unfit for work—someone with Parkinson’s disease, for example. The early stages are fine, but then they would be assessed as fit for work. In addition, over half of WRAG claimants have mental and behavioural disorders, including learning disabilities, autism and mental illnesses, which generally fluctuate in their severity.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists reported new research by the universities of Liverpool and Oxford which estimates that the increase in WCA assessments may have led to 590 additional suicides, as well as an increase in mental health problems and in the number of prescriptions for anti-depressants. One has to think about the cost of all these downsides. While some WRAG claimants are, no doubt, quite properly preparing to return to work, many are being inappropriately required to jump through all sorts of work-preparation hoops and, no doubt, being required to make dozens of fruitless job applications, even if they are aware of the electronic screening of such applications, which I learned about from the Minister, most helpfully, yesterday.
Many of these claimants are having to try and come to terms, at the same time, with the fact that they have long-term mental or physical illnesses, terminal health problems or unpleasant symptoms which in many cases will only get worse, as well as with the misery of thinking that no employer may ever take them on again—quite a lot for someone to cope with.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Baroness Meacher Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher
“( ) The limit on the number of children or qualifying young persons for whom an individual element of child tax credit can be claimed, as set out in subsection (3B), shall not apply to households where one or more of the children or qualifying young persons are disabled (including, but not limited to, those persons in receipt of the disability element of child tax credit).”
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 3 seeks to exclude all families with a disabled child from the two-child limit on receipt of the child element of child tax credit and the child addition within universal credit.
I have also tabled Amendment 8, which is more limited in the protection it affords. Amendment 8 would exclude any disabled child from the number of children considered in relation to the child element of universal credit. Thus, if Amendment 8 were accepted by the Government, a family with four children, one of whom is disabled, would still lose the child element for the third non-disabled child. I argue very strongly for Amendment 3, but Amendment 8 would be a great improvement on the Bill as it stands. At this point, I pay tribute to Rob Holland from Mencap for his considerable help with the Bill.
Families with disabled children face financial and other stresses which are not faced where all the children are healthy and able-bodied. These families have extra costs for special aids, adaptations to their homes, and additional clothing and travel costs. The travel costs of medical appointments alone can be very considerable. One family, for example, reported regularly having to get to three appointments a week, and this can rise to as many as seven. The appointments are at four different hospitals, involving additional petrol costs, depreciation of the car and, most particularly, parking fees. Another family talked of their child often breaking bedroom furniture and other items due to the frustration of their disability, which then had to be replaced.
The enormity of the cuts envisaged for families with disabled children is quite extraordinary. While I know that the Government are committed to a much smaller role for the state in future, can it be right to hit the most disadvantaged the hardest? Without these amendments, the two-child limit for claims of child tax credit means that if a two-child family has a third child who is disabled, the family will be £2,780 per year, or an average of £50 or so per week, worse off than they would be under the current provision. This loss must be considered alongside the substantial fall in the level of the disability element of child credit under universal credit. The current value of that benefit is £57 per week, whereas the disability addition in a family’s universal credit entitlement will be worth only £28 a week—a loss of £29 per week. I understand that, in all, a new claimant family with three children, one of whom is disabled, will be about £79 per week worse off when these two changes come into effect than a family currently claiming equivalent benefits. Will the Minister confirm whether or not he agrees with these figures?
Research conducted by the Children’s Society and Citizens Advice in 2012 into the two-child limit for child tax credit found that the impact could be disastrous for the health and well-being of the children. Two-thirds said that they would have to cut back on food, more than half said that it would lead them into debt and more than one in 10 feared that they would have to give up their home.
Have the Government assessed the impact of these cuts on the number of children placed in residential care? There seems little doubt that all parents will be less able to cope with a disabled child at home if money is as tight as highlighted by the Children’s Society and Citizens Advice. What would be the net savings to the Exchequer, having taken into account residential care costs of a proportion of the children involved, as well as other costs of health and social care? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether work has been done to clarify the net savings from the two-child limit in the context of the other planned benefit cuts, and taking account of increased government spending on other services. If this analysis has not been done, does the Minister agree that these changes should not go ahead until the Government have a clear understanding of these points? As one parent put it, “We would face the choice of increased debt or the eventual institutionalisation of our child”.
The Government may be assuming that local authorities will take over the burden of these family costs. I understand that this simply will not happen. In fact, among the families already receiving additional support from local authorities, about 60% said that that support had been cut over the past year, and there will be more cuts to local authority services in the coming years.
A big concern is lone parents with disabled children. Many years ago when I was training to be a social worker, which I did for a few years, I spent six months working in a school for severely handicapped and disabled children. I found myself running a group for the parents of those children. The group comprised about 14 parents, every single one of whom was a single mother. The fathers had apparently walked out some time after the disabled child was born. If these mothers had also abandoned their disabled children, the state would have had to take care of the children and pay the bill. The impact of the two-child limit will be greatest for these parents.
In a meeting with Ministers about tax credits, I was told that the Government expected claimants to work extra hours to make up for their losses. However, these lone parents with disabled children are not able to make up the shortfall by working extra hours. The simple fact is that the disabled children and their healthy siblings will suffer if this measure goes ahead. I understand that the Government recognise that some groups—I think it is two groups—should be exempted from the two-child limit for the child elements of child tax credit and universal credit. I hope very much that the Minister will today assure the Committee that he will give serious consideration to exempting families with disabled children from this particularly savage cut. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments. It is very important to remember that being the parent of a disabled child is not the same as being a parent. It is sometimes very difficult to get that point over. I remember that when we discussed the Children and Families Bill, officials and even Ministers said, “I am a parent and I do not need any extra support”. However, this is not the same as being a parent of a normal child, if I can put it that way. We all expect to care for our children until they are 18, and many of us for much longer than that but, for a parent who is caring for a disabled child, that caring is likely to be a lifelong commitment— your life or their life. That is the point we have to remember. That lifetime commitment means that these parents face huge problems. They face practical problems, particularly when services are being cut and there is not enough support. They also face very severe emotional problems. As the noble Baroness reminded us, marriage breakdown is very common where there is a child, or more than one, with disabilities. These parents also face financial problems, which is what we are concerned with here. I suggest that most households with a disabled child already face financial hardship, even without these changes. More than half—53%—of parent carers answering the State of Caring survey in 2015 said that they were struggling to make ends meet.
Research shows that it is three times more costly to bring up a disabled child than a non-disabled child, as we have been reminded. Some 34% of sick or disabled children live in households where there is no adult in paid work compared with 18% of children who are not sick or disabled. Four in 10 disabled children live in relative income poverty once the additional cost of their disability is accounted for. Last year, the Carers UK Caring & Family Finances Inquiry found that parent carers of disabled children were one of the groups least likely to be in employment. As one carer said: “I gave up work thinking I would be able to return within a year or two once I got my daughter the support she needed. Little did I know how poor local services were and I am still caring years later”. That carer will probably be caring all her life and certainly for all the life of that disabled child. Surely we are not thinking of making hard lives even harder by these pernicious changes. I support the amendment.
Lord Freud
We are getting way off but our evidence is that the vast bulk of households share financial resources, so although someone in a household may receive a particular amount of money it does not necessarily mean that they do not share the burdens evenly. One can make a lot of false assumptions out of some of these data if one is not careful. I urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I thank the many noble Lords who have spoken in this relatively short but very powerful debate. The Minister certainly got a clear message that this is a matter of considerable concern to Members in most parts of the House. Perhaps I can say again that one-nation Tories of the past have always supported families with disabled children. I still hope that this Government too can show that they will follow the traditions of their party and not leave these families bereft and in severe straits. That is what these provisions will do in the absence of any amendments to them. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful responses as always. I think he always gives us a pretty good innings, but I hope that before Report he will feel able to clarify the relative costs of these various amendments, and then we can perhaps sit down and really think where the need is the greatest. If we are all in the dark it really is quite difficult to make sense out of things, unless the Government have implacably decided they will not change anything in this Bill at all. I hope that is not the view of the Government and of the Minister. I thank all noble Lords and the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Baroness Meacher Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I crave three minutes to support the spirit of the amendments in this group, which recognise that progress and life chances for children depend on their physical, social, emotional and cognitive development and on other influences too. I support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that a government strategy for children should be drawn up, tracking development from birth to adulthood. As he said, we have the means to do that through government departments such as education, health and welfare working together, with help from the voluntary sector and local authorities. I remember that many years ago the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—possibly when she was Secretary of State for Education—spoke about having level playing fields for children. She said that some children begin the race with both feet tied together. Sadly, this is still the case. Feet are tied together through poverty, deprivation, low expectation and lack of care and stimulation in the early years. We know that the gap in attainment between poor children and more affluent ones is large by the age of five and continues to grow. We have recently had strong evidence from research that a holistic approach is necessary and I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in his concerns.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 34, tabled so comprehensively by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham. This amendment is of particular importance in view of the enormity of the cuts to welfare spending since the passing of the Child Poverty Act 2010. The Institute for Fiscal Studies reports that this will amount to £123 billion taken from our poorest citizens by 2016-17. The second feature of government policy the effects of which need to be monitored effectively—and would be under Amendment 34—is the conditionality and sanctions regime which undoubtedly increases the stress level of claimants very considerably.
As a panel member, along with Sir Keir Starmer and others, for an inquiry by the Fawcett Society into the impact of the Government’s welfare measures upon women, and by association their children, I found quite appalling the sheer level of errors and abuse in some Jobcentre Plus offices, affecting innocent women who only wanted, if at all possible, to gain their independence from the state. Our inquiry concluded that sanctions applied through no fault of the claimant were affecting claimants’ mental and physical health and the health and well-being of their children to a considerable degree. The Government have a duty to be aware of the consequences of their policies and to respond to the adverse effects.
I am aware that the Minister believes that injustices are limited in number, and that his department is doing its best to lessen them further. However, the inquiry made it clear to us that in fact the quality of service across the country varies very considerably. In some offices the staff were helpful and professional, and claimants certainly reported that. However, in others they were inadequately trained and could be callous and careless, with the most appalling consequences for the families affected. A typical example were mothers who, contrary to the guidelines, were required to travel three hours a day in total to and from work. They could not afford this and believed—rightly, in my opinion—that it was entirely wrong for their very young children to be in childcare for 10, 11 or more hours per day. Despite this entirely unreasonable requirement, such parents were sanctioned and then could not even feed their children. This was not an isolated problem but rather a regular occurrence in offices up and down the country.
Another often repeated story was that of a mother phoning the office to say that she could not attend an interview or required activity due to the sickness of a child, and was told that this information would, indeed, be passed on to the appropriate official. Of course, nothing was done. The mother would arrive at the post office to pick up her benefit only to find that there was nothing there. A sanction had been imposed with no information given to her. I cannot imagine the shock and utter distress of a mother in that situation. I believe that the Government may have adjusted the sanctions regime to ameliorate that problem and to make sure there is a gap between the imposition of a sanction and it taking place. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the position this evening.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation produced a comprehensive review of international evidence on sanctions within systems in which benefits are conditional on claimant behaviour. It confirmed that sanctions strongly reduce benefit use and increase exit from benefits. However, Rowntree also finds that sanctions are generally less favourable in terms of longer-term outcomes, the well-being of children and crime rates, for example.
Every sanction which is unfairly imposed will cause extreme stress to parents, who suddenly find that they have no food for the children and no money even for the bus fare to reach a food bank, and have more debt and so forth. It should be a matter of great concern to the Government that 28% of sanctions are overturned on appeal and a higher percentage—39%—in the case of lone parents. Successful appeals soar for high-level sanctions. Fully 64% of single parents have high-level sanctions overturned on appeal. These must be just numbers to many of us but the Government have a responsibility in my view to report on the mental and physical health effects of the extraordinary hardship behind those numbers. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend’s Amendment 34 and focus on the impact of benefit sanctions on people with mental health problems. Mental health professionals are extremely worried about the impact of this, which is why this amendment asks for a report containing data to be published.
The latest statistics around the number of people with mental health problems being supported into work though the back to work scheme are astonishingly low. Just 9% have been supported into employment since the scheme began. There are two key areas where better evidence is needed. We know that more than half of people receiving ESA in the WRAG have a mental or behavioural disorder as their primary health condition, and many more people in the WRAG will have comorbid physical and mental health problems.
We also know that people with mental health problems are being disproportionately sanctioned. Recent Freedom of Information requests to the department revealed that in 2014, on average 58% of sanctions for people in the ESA WRAG were given to people with mental health problems—20,000 in all.
The mistaken assumption is that people do not want to work, and that the best incentive is to threaten benefit withdrawal. Research shows that people with mental-health problems have a high want-to-work rate. I could say a lot more about that, but in view of the time I will not. What are the barriers? We need much more information—hence the request for a report.
I would like to share an example given to me by Mind, the mental health charity. It told me the story of a man who has been out of work for most of his adult life due to his mental health problems and who is currently in the support group. Under conditionality in the work-related activity group, this man felt so fearful and anxious of the threat of sanctions that he forced himself to attend his appointment a couple of days after being hospitalised following an overdose. This is just one shocking example of the pressure claimants are under, the health conditions that people face and, crucially, the level of anxiety and stress reportedly caused by fear of sanctions.
I urge the Minister to take these concerns and this amendment very seriously.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Baroness Meacher Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will explore just some of the concerns about this new wave of welfare cuts. We need to consider these cuts in the context of the £21 billion of cuts implemented in the last Parliament. Under this Government, we are witnessing the most dramatic rolling back of the role of the state and the deepest reductions in the security floor for our most vulnerable citizens ever seen, in my view, in the UK.
The Minister said, I think, three times that the Government will protect the most vulnerable. My Lords, I have to say that is not my perception. What, for example, will this Bill mean for disabled people? The Government’s justification for the cuts is, of course, that they want to make sure that work pays and to end benefits dependency as far as possible. This is certainly a fine theoretical position—no one could disagree with it—but it does not work for people with a disability or long-term sickness who cannot find an employer willing to take them on. This is the bit of the jigsaw that is missing in this Bill: the probably perfectly realistic position of employers. Whom will they employ? They will not employ some of the people who are going to be affected, and the results could be catastrophic.
Can the Minister inform the House whether his department has assessed the likely impact of the benefit cuts on the demand from disabled people for mental health services—for example, a bed in a psychiatric hospital or social services? The Royal College of Psychiatrists has expressed some concern about what that effect could be. In my view, it could be very worrying. The key issue is that if the DWP succeeds in cutting its budget, all that happens is an increase in the budget for the NHS and social services. Then, the Government’s objective of a smaller state will not be achieved. I really would be grateful if the Minister addressed that point in his wind-up speech.
There are many, many causes for concern, but the cut I find most cruel—other noble Lords have mentioned this—is the cut of nearly £30 per week for sick and disabled people placed in what is commonly known as the WRAG: the ESA work related activity group. These people—as, again, other noble Lords have pointed out—have been assessed by an independent assessor as unfit for work. The Government argue that the extra £30 disincentivises sick and disabled people from working. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, mentioned those on the autistic spectrum. I have worked with people with a variety of mental health problems and people with learning difficulties. In my experience, all these people desperately want, more than anything else, is to be regarded as normal. What does that mean? It means being able to go to work. They really do not need this sort of incentive or disincentive.
About half those in WRAG are entitled to DLA or PIP. These are people with serious disabilities who will find it very hard to find work or to keep a job if they get one. Does the Minister not find it appalling that people with Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis—progressive illnesses, of course—are included in the WRAG because they are unfit to work now, and they will be subject to this £30 a week cut? If they are not fit for work now, the chances of an employer’s taking them on in the future, as their symptoms get worse, are surely remote. Will the Minister ensure that such groups with worsening symptoms, assessed as not fit for work, are in future placed in the support group, whatever happens to the WRAG group?
Further, over 50% of people affected by this cut will suffer from mental and behavioural disorders. These people long to be accepted. Their families, who themselves may be on benefits, will have to pay for their food and heating. Is the Minister aware that 70% of respondents to the Disability Benefits Consortium survey said that the cut would in fact mean a return to work later, rather than sooner? Obviously, that is a judgment, and it may be wrong—but job hunting costs money, including money for transport and clothes, since you cannot go to work or an interview without appropriate clothes. That is probably particularly true for disabled people. If a claimant cannot afford the fare to attend an interview, how will that promote his employment prospects? Does the Minister have any evidence of the likely consequence of this cut on the employment prospects of sick and disabled people?
The Disability Benefits Consortium welcomes the commitment in the Conservative manifesto to halve the disability employment gap. Again, we are all behind such an objective, but depriving disabled people of essential resources will simply not achieve it. A specialist employment support programme has been mooted, which really could make a significant difference. Again, it would be good if the Minister advised the House about progress in developing that proposal.
The exemption from the benefit cap for claimants of DLA, PIP and the support group level of ESA is very welcome. However, many sick and disabled people will be subject to the cap, along with a small but significant number of carers of those defined as non-dependants in the benefits system, such as carers of adult disabled sons or daughters. The four-year freeze of benefits, including JSA, ESA, WRAG, housing benefit and universal credit, will also severely affect many disabled people, so there are multiple cuts coming along for particular families.
Perhaps the most extraordinary fact, if I am right about it, is that the most drastically affected claimants are families with disabled children. As a result of a cluster of cuts to child tax credit, the disability component and the introduction of the two child limit, a new universal credit claimant would have a maximum annual entitlement of just one-quarter of their current entitlement in the tax credit system. Will the Minister inform the House whether that is correct? Do the Government really want to penalise such families with a disabled child more than anybody else? I find that quite difficult to believe. What action are the Government taking to assess the impact of these cuts on those people? I would be grateful to know about the evidence behind that.
There are many other serious concerns, including the impact of the reduction in social housing rents on the provision of supported housing for a number of vulnerable groups, as explained by the National Housing Federation. On housing, it seems that there is one real opportunity for the Government to save billions without hurting anybody, which I have mentioned before: by releasing 10% of the greenbelt around the major urban areas. That would transform the cost of land, housing and housing benefit. Yes, we love our greenbelt, but we go walking in the greenbelt regularly, and there is never anybody there.
In conclusion, the level of anxiety among sick and disabled people and others about this onslaught on their modest standard of living is unimaginable. The future for them is truly frightening. I hope that, through debating this Bill, we can truly mitigate the effects of the Government’s plans.
Benefits: Sanctions
Baroness Meacher Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
Let me clarify this. The sanctions level runs at around 5% on a monthly basis. That level is the running rate of sanctions and other figures are simply wrong. On the first point that the noble Baroness made, we do use illustrative examples where they are real, and we make it clear where they are not. In this case, it was wrong—and we have said it was wrong—to have made illustrative examples look as if they were real.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I was involved in an inquiry earlier this year on behalf of the Fawcett Society into the effects of the welfare reforms. One of the greatest problems for clients seems to be the errors on the part of staff, as a result of which a woman can go to a post office for some money at the end of the week and be told, “Sorry, you are sanctioned”, because the message had not been passed on that her child was ill so she could not attend an interview—that sort of thing. Can the Minister tell the House what action his staff are taking to stamp out these errors in communications with clients?
Lord Freud
Clearly, one error is one error too many. We work to try to eliminate the error rate, and we have layers of safeguards, for both JSA and ESA, to make sure that we review these cases at each level so that we get it right. Some, of course, will creep through.