Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot join totally in the congratulations, although obviously the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Hollis, have achieved great things. However, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I were very keen that those adopters of difficult children who join their families should also be excluded from the cap. In his reply, the Minister accepted that, where sibling groups were adopted, that would be an exclusion, but where there was one child, his words were, I think, that they would be not unlike any other family.

I suggest to the Minister that any adopted child is not like any other family. Children in care who are going to be adopted are not sweetness and light on the whole. They have had very difficult childhoods and are going to need extraordinary care. I express my disappointment. We have written to him to say that we are disappointed that adopted children have not been included in the list. Having said that, I am extremely grateful for those who are.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Government for the concessions that they have made, and I share the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that, on this occasion, when a good argument was mounted, it was listened to. However, I say to the Minister that, if he liked those, I have plenty more where they came from, so I look forward to future useful conversations. I also promise him no vituperation at all. Perhaps he will permit me a mild sulk when I come to the third of his amendments, but I promise to be gentle about it.

I welcome wholeheartedly the decision to exempt all those in receipt in carer’s allowance and also to go a step further and not just to exempt guardian’s allowance, as had been hinted at at a previous stage, but in fact to exempt all households containing someone claiming guardian’s allowance. That is a generous response to the pressure from this House. In particular, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for all the work she has done on carers, of whom she is such a tireless champion, and to my noble friend Lady Drake for emphasising the position of carers of different kinds.

I have certainly raised the question of guardian’s allowance to precisely no effect whatever, but when my noble friend Lady Hollis gave a speech and made a report, the Minister ran the white flag up the flagpole at once, and said, “I now know how to deal in future with matters on which I have good arguments.” I commend him for having listened carefully to that one.

The question on which I am still a little unhappy is related to government Amendment 3, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. As the Minister said, I pushed on this on Report, and I would have brought another amendment back, had I been permitted, but I am afraid the Companion does not allow me to do it. I am glad the Minister has explained why the Government took the view to accept only in part the recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. However, I think it is worth while reminding ourselves that the committee could not have been much stronger. It actually said that it considered it inappropriate,

“for this Bill to confer the highly significant regulation-making powers in Clauses 7 and 8 without the application of the SSAC scrutiny requirement”.

When the Government decided not to accept that in full, that is quite a strong statement. It is worth remembering why. Although the benefit cap is a matter for Parliament, all regulations are a matter for Parliament. All that happens is that they go there via an expert Social Security Advisory Committee which will then give advice to us and to Ministers about the way in which the Government should proceed. The Executive are entirely at liberty to ignore that advice and to press ahead, but they really ought to listen.

The reason that the level of the cap is important is that it is not just a matter for the economy. For example, it would be perfectly possible for a Minister to bring forward regulations saying the cap should be set at £500 a year. I am not suggesting they would, but they could. In doing so, that would render completely pointless the entire array of social security legislation, specifying the entitlement people have to a range of benefits by simply saying, “You may be entitled to all of those—however, anything over £500 we just will not give you”. I am not suggesting the Government would do it, but that is an extraordinarily important power, and therefore a very good reason that the SSAC should have been invited to use its powers in scrutinising it before the Government were able to go ahead and do it. However, all I can do at this point, as I say, is sulk mildly, register my disappointment and urge the Government to go away and think again, because I would not want to break the mood of general congratulation, in which I share.

I take the opportunity to ask the Minister a couple of practical questions. He mentioned that the Government will be bringing regulations back later in the year to legislate for those parts of the concessions that are not covered by the amendments today. He has explained he would do that in relation to the amendments on the benefit cap. Will the Minister also tell the House when and how the Government will legislate to deal with their concessions in relation to the two-child policy for kinship carers and adoptive carers? I understand that the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. Is that correct? If so, will he commit to publishing draft regulations before anything is laid in Parliament? A lot of debate has gone on and in the light of that debate and, indeed, in the light of the comment that he made on Report to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth in relation to domestic violence, it would be helpful to the House if he were willing to offer that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Low, has asked for—a meeting on this matter. Of course I would be pleased to meet him, and other colleagues, to discuss this as it wends its way back to the Commons, and perhaps back to us, depending on what happens.

May I take this opportunity to place on formal record my thanks to noble Lords throughout the House? They have discharged their duties to look at the Bill really conscientiously, and have worked hard on some difficult and sensitive issues. They have brought out some unintended consequences, and they have described them and expressed their case in calm, clear language, which means that we can take the points and aim to address them. Indeed, both today and on Report we have tackled some of them.

The Bill has been insulted by one or two noble Lords. I have to reflect back that it has raised some profound issues around what the benefit and welfare system does and how it works. Pinpointing where it affects the most vulnerable and how we can ameliorate that and sort it out has been really valuable.

I thank the Bill team, a handful of whom are in the Box now. They have been formidable in supporting me all the way through the progress of the Bill. I know that they have also been assiduous in briefing noble Lords, because we set up the system, which I have used with previous Bills, whereby there is a briefing ahead of Committee stage, so that when we debate these issues we do not waste time but are able to deal with the issues. The Bill team have done a really good job, and I believe noble Lords think so, too. I am sure I express the view of the whole House in thanking them for all their support.

[Baroness Sherlock]

May I, on behalf of the Opposition, thank the Minister for giving us access to his officials? I thank the Bill team and some very impressive policy people who have been briefing Peers from all over the House. We appreciate his generosity in giving us access to them, and their expertise and willingness to explain to us patiently—sometimes, if necessary, more than once —precisely how the Bill works. We are grateful for that. They have also been helpful in working with the wonderful Muna Abbas, from our Whips team, who has done a brilliant job in supporting us from this side.

We have not been persuaded by the Minister that this is anything other than a bad Bill—but now, as a result of what this House has done, it is less bad than it was. I pay tribute to Peers throughout the House, who have shown the House of Lords doing what it does best—being a revising Chamber which, even when it does not like legislation, focuses its attention on improving it and sending it back to the other place much better than it was. Long may we do so.

Amendment 5 agreed.

Housing Benefit (Abolition of the Family Premium and Date of Claim Amendment) Regulations 2015

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s enthusiasm to respond to the challenges put to him, but I regret that I am going to add to them, if he can bear with us for a little bit longer. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for giving us the opportunity to debate these regulations and for having gone into some detail about the process questions. I very much share his concerns. We have concerns of substance on these Benches, but the process should be of concern to all Members of the House, irrespective of the view that they may take on these regulations. I hope that the Minister gives some satisfactory answers on that.

As we have heard, these regulations do two things: they remove the family premium from claims to housing benefit from April 2016 and the backdating of housing benefit, to which I shall come in a moment. Existing claimants will also be affected if their circumstances change, such as if they move or if a child reaches the age of 18. When it is lost, it will be lost almost exclusively to working families, because households where someone is claiming an out-of-work benefit will automatically receive the maximum possible housing benefit payment. The Social Security Advisory Committee report cited an example from the Peabody Trust of a single parent in part-time work, caring for her disabled adult son. Should she need to make a new claim for housing benefit following the removal of the family premium, she would lose around £572 a year, compared to what she would get currently—a lot of money for someone in those circumstances.

My noble friend Lord McKenzie asked a very good question about the admin costs. It is hard to believe that simplification is the reason; one could always simplify benefits by abolishing them. We really have to have better arguments than that.

The DWP claims that withdrawing the family premium in HB will “promote better work incentives”, but, as the SSAC points out, some HB claimants will permanently lose the premium if they temporarily increase their hours and therefore could be deterred from doing so. Equally, some will be deterred from moving address to secure or look for work if it means a drop in HB, or could be discouraged from taking short-term work over Christmas, for example, if it means a drop in housing benefit. Will the Minister comment on that?

The SSAC was also very critical of the Government’s refusal to adopt linking rules. It gives the very serious example of domestic violence victims who need to be rehoused and points out that if somebody moves outside a local authority area, they lose the entitlement. The SSAC points out that some local authorities and social landlords have a deliberate policy of moving domestic violence victims to a different local authority area to minimise the risk that they would run into their assailant and to protect them. It states:

“Those organisations now face a fairly stark choice in terms of whether to keep the existing policy in the knowledge that the victim is likely to be financially worse off, or to rehome them within the existing local authority area where they may be at greater risk”.

The Government’s only response to this is to say:

“Since 2010 our policy has been to move away from building new linking into our reforms to Housing Benefit”.

That is not a reason. That is basically saying “The reason for our policy is that it is our policy”. I hope the Minister can give us the reason behind the policy rather than telling us that it is the policy. The Government go on to say that they do not think linking rules are the most appropriate way of supporting vulnerable cases, but they do not explain why. The only alternative they can offer is our old friend the discretionary housing payment, which has already been offered as an answer to almost every problem created by welfare change since 2010, from the fallout of the welfare Bill to the benefit cap.

The SSAC also points out that universal credit will allow linking and continuity of claim where there is a temporary increase in income or relocation to another local authority area, but they will not be available under these HB proposals which it says will have a negative impact on work incentives and will raise issues around income stability and security.

I now come to the backdating change which other noble Lords have commented on. A number of NGOs and charities have said that limiting backdating to one month will have a significant impact on vulnerable renters, a point made very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie. As we have heard, the SSAC recommended that the Government should not proceed with the reduction from six months to one month. It is interesting that the committee expressed disappointment at the lack of proper consultation with local authorities, landlords and voluntary and charitable bodies which will be impacted by these changes. I hope the Minister can explain why that consultation was not done.

The SSAC’s view is that the position faced by HB legacy claimants, especially the more vulnerable, is substantially different and more challenging than the position following migration to universal credit. It pointed out that in the absence of a robust impact assessment the case for simple alignment was not there.

The response from the Government to the SSAC report was so slight as to be almost rude. Their only argument is to say that the policy intention is to align the housing benefit treatment with that in universal credit. Where is the rush? As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, pointed out, it is not as though the entire population is about to land on universal credit. I know that back in November 2010 the DWP believed that everybody would be on it by 2017, but we now know that it is going to be at least 2020, possibly 2021, and maybe some way beyond that. We are years away from everyone needing housing support getting it entirely through universal credit. There could yet be millions of people who could come on to housing benefit, get it, move into work, come off it, come back on to it and still not be on universal credit, so there is a significant issue. I hope the Government will tell us their real reasons. It cannot just be that they want to be in exactly the same position on universal credit and on legacy benefits; otherwise they presumably would not have allowed the situation to develop where two people in identical circumstances, one on tax credits and the other on universal credit, could find themselves with a difference of £3,000 a year in entitlement. Will the Government tell us what the real reasons are?

To summarise I would like the Minister to answer some questions. I will be interested in his response to the process points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. He referred to the Minister’s letter of 11 January to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, saying that he had instigated a review of the way the DWP produces explanatory memoranda. Will he tell the House when that review is likely to report? Will its findings be published? If they are not going to be published, how will the House get reassurance that his department will be able to do this job better in the future than it has in the past? Will he tell us why the Government did not consult properly before issuing this instrument? Will he explain the reasons for opposing a linking rule in the family premium? In particular, will he tell us why he has rejected the SSAC recommendation of three months if the Government are not willing to go all the way to six months? I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I ask noble Lords to forgive me for not keeping up with the exact floating role of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, as he moves forward and back on the Benches. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions which, as one would expect, covered a number of issues.

I start with the family premium, which will align housing benefit with universal credit, which does not have this process. As noble Lords will be well aware, it applies to new cases only. It will therefore not affect people in receipt of family premium on 30 April this year. They will continue to receive the family premium until they are no longer responsible for any children or young people under 20 or make a new claim for housing benefit. To avoid people dying at the stake for the sake of these premiums, I remind noble Lords of their very complicated history which started in 1988. With the reform of tax credits, they were removed from income support but not from housing benefit. I know there is a lot of historical nostalgia for bits of the benefit system, but this one reminds me more of an appendix than of anything else: it had a purpose at one time, but it is pretty odd to remember what it was and it can cause you problems, as I am discovering.

On the linking rules, where claimants are in receipt of housing benefit and subsequently move house into a different local authority, they are required to make a new claim for housing benefit. That has always been the case and the policy does not seek to change it. If the claimants were in receipt of the family premium before their move and they move after 30 April, they will no longer receive the family premium in their new housing benefit claim from their new local authority. That responds to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I know that the noble Baroness likes to stretch out the period for which this will last, but universal credit will be coming in for new cases reasonably soon. It is simply not feasible to introduce linking rules for these cases because that really would introduce a level of complexity and cost.

I regret that I cannot answer the precise question from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on the administration costs saved. When you go through the sums of how you reach that family premium amount and then do the taper with it, and you have to do that differently through every local authority, I have to believe that it genuinely saves some money. However, I cannot put any amount on that.

On the point about work incentives made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, the loss of family premium would be one factor among many others, including the financial gain and development prospects that would come from entering work. It is important to mention the likely behavioural change that could result from this policy, as the potential reduction in benefit may make claimants more likely to find work or increase their hours. Indeed, you see evidence of that in some of our welfare reforms already.

I turn to the issue of backdating, which noble Lords touched on. This change introduces equality for working-age claimants by aligning housing benefit rules with those in universal credit. Under current rules, as noble Lords have pointed out, the working-age housing benefit claimants may have their claim treated as made from a date up to six months before they actually make the claim. The backdating period will apply from the date of claim and is not dependent on the time that it takes to process claims. Our rationale is that the one month provides a reasonable period to seek assistance or to get claimant affairs in order for those who can demonstrate good reason as to why they did not claim more promptly. While claimants still receive legacy benefits before migration to UC, there is sense in preparing them for the transition to UC by, so far as practicable, equalising how they are treated. The other factor that is useful when we look at this is that our administrative data show that more than two-thirds of backdating claims for housing benefit are awarded for one month or less.

The noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Low, asked why we rejected the three-month recommendation —although, interestingly, the numbers between the one-month figure and the three-month figure are actually not very great. We are aiming to change behaviours. If people want to claim benefits, one month allows sufficient time for them to register a claim in the first instance. It does not matter if it is a more complicated process, because the processing and getting the detail does not change the date of entitlement, which is established on the initial claim.

To respond to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who as usual has excruciating detail at his fingertips, I confirm—and I am impressed that he has looked at this—that where a claim for housing benefit is linked to a claim for one of the legacy income-related benefits that applies the three-month backdating rule, entitlement to housing benefit will be linked back for the full three months if it is made within one month of the award for legacy benefit. So he got that spot on.

On the point from the noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Low, we do not anticipate pressures on the homelessness front. I am slightly influenced by the fact that every time we make such a change we are warned about that but so far it has not come through.

Under-occupancy Charge

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer from the other place. The Court of Appeal ruled against the Government on two bedroom tax cases: one from a victim of rape who had had a panic room installed by the police, and the other from the Rutherford family, who care for their severely disabled grandson. In both cases, the court ruled that the bedroom tax was illegal and discriminatory. However, any relief for the families was short-lived because, astonishingly, Ministers have decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. References to the fact that families may receive the temporary discretionary housing payments from a pot being stretched in ever more directions are nothing but a fig leaf.

I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. First, can he confirm that 280 victims of domestic abuse have had a panic room installed under the sanctuary scheme and are affected by the bedroom tax? On the same point, is it true that exempting domestic abuse victims would cost the Government only £200,000 a year? Can he tell the House whether, in the wake of this judgment, the Government will consider withdrawing their appeal and instead taking the right decision of exempting severely disabled children and their families and victims of domestic abuse from the bedroom tax, in which the people of Britain have now completely lost confidence?

[Lord Freud]

I do not have the figures to which the noble Baroness referred, so I will have to check the figures we have and write to her on that.

Effectively, with this appeal we are joining these two cases to a number of others for the Supreme Court to look at the whole thing in one context. It is, essentially, about whether the discretionary housing payment system is appropriate for handling these particular hard cases, which the High Court has, in practice, accepted as the right way to ameliorate those cases, up to now.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 40, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Drake, and to support the other amendments in this group in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, to which I have added my name. I thank him for introducing this group of amendments with what we are coming to see as characteristic clarity and compassion.

I shall say a word first about the two-child policy, which I regard as a regressive piece of social policy. In Committee, we found it hard to get Ministers to put up any kind of cogent argument for the policy as a whole, so why is it being done? Whatever one may hear behind the scenes, this is not about the small number of unemployed parents with lots of children. They would already have been caught by the benefit cap, which we now know would hit a couple with two children living in a modest house in Leeds or Plymouth. This is about a family with three children who are working but struggling anyway. It is about all those who had children confident that they could provide for them until, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, something went wrong. Perhaps their spouse died, they got sick and could not work, a parent lost their job and so on. Those are all the things that the welfare state is meant to protect against. The nearest we got to a case was in the impact assessment, which states that it is about,

“ensuring those on benefits face the same financial choices around the number of children they can afford as those supporting themselves through work”.

So it is about choice, and my suggestion is that we should use that as a yardstick by which we test these amendments.

Let us take first disabled children. Parents may have felt that they could manage a third child, but then they find that the child is born, or becomes, severely disabled. The disabled child element of tax credits will still be paid, but it does not begin to cover the extra costs. The charity Contact a Family states that it costs three times as much to raise a disabled child as one who is not. It is also much harder for the parents of a disabled child to raise their income through working, because it is difficult to find suitable childcare and more expensive if you can. Did the parents really make a choice to be in that situation?

What about the situation, described so powerfully by the right reverend Prelate, where a family is happily married or settled and the very worst happens, in that one of the parents dies? He described clearly what would happen to that family. As well as the trauma, the finances are going to get worse, especially if the deceased parent had been the main earner. This is almost a classic example of a family that probably did not need benefits or tax credits before, but suddenly finds that it is catapulted into a position where it needs to rely on the welfare state. This is exactly the kind of thing that the welfare state is meant to protect families against. Where was the choice there?

The right reverend Prelate mentioned stepfamilies. Perhaps it is not so dramatic, but what if the relationship breaks up? If the children deserved support when they were living apart, why do they stop deserving it because they are living in the same house?

Then there are the people who literally did not make a choice at all—cases of domestic abuse. Sadly, a child may have been conceived under duress rather than as a clear choice. Abuse can include the refusal to allow a woman to use contraception. It can include pregnancy as the result of rape, which may never have been reported to the authorities because of fear of the partner. Moreover, the fear must be there that the two-child limit will make it harder for a parent to leave an abusive relationship. Too often, they end up fleeing in the clothes they are standing up in. They are homeless and they have to hide from the former spouse, which means moving to a new area, away from jobs, schools and families. It is tough enough anyway to rebuild a life without added financial pressures.

On the subject of rape more generally, I hope that the Minister is now able to explain how the proposed exemption for women who have been raped will work. I hope that he can address the questions I asked in Committee. Will the exemption apply only when a woman has made a complaint to the police, or when someone has been charged or convicted? If not, will she have to give evidence to the DWP, to whom and what kind of evidence, and can the Minister assure us that this process will remain confidential?

We come now to the subject of my Amendment 40, which would exempt children who enter a household as the result of adoption, kinship care or private fostering. I hope very much that the Minister can accept this amendment, as the arguments are completely compelling. Children raised by kinship carers are typically unable to live with their parents because of parental abuse or neglect, perhaps due to alcohol or drug problems, or because the parents are in prison or indeed have died. A grandparent, and sometimes an aunt or a sibling, will then step in and take the children in, often in a case of emergency. There is clear evidence that children in kinship care settings do better than those in unrelated care, even though they have often had similarly adverse experiences in early life.

But kinship carers pay a huge price for their kindness. They face significant additional costs when their family size increases, and sometimes it can double in size overnight. A Family Rights Group survey found that almost half of kinship carers had to give up work permanently to take on the children, thus pushing them into reliance on benefits. The state should not be putting financial barriers in the way of families willing to take on often vulnerable children. It also makes no financial sense. The average child tax credit claimed by families with three or more children is £3,670 a year; it costs £40,000 a year to keep one child in foster care.

A similar argument applies to adoption, particularly of sibling groups. It is the Government’s policy, and I welcome it, to increase the number of children being placed for adoption and to remove any unnecessary barriers to the speed of the process, but this measure will directly undermine that policy objective. Adoptive parents often already have a child or children, so there is a clear disincentive to adopt if it would mean that they would not get payments for each child, and a particular disincentive to adopt sibling groups. There is already a shortage of parents who are willing to take on sibling groups, and this will only make that situation worse. If it delays adoptions, that becomes a vicious cycle. Children grow older and it is harder to place them, and therefore it is even less likely that they will be adopted at all. The only alternative is to break up sibling groups, which damages the children because that is often the only remaining bond they have. I hope that the Minister will consider this carefully.

If we judge the Government by their own yardstick, have they passed or have they failed? Have the families we have described today, who are covered in the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate and myself, been reckless in having children or taking on additional children without understanding the consequences? I do not think they have. Even if we accept the premise behind the two-child policy—and I confess that I do not—the Government’s own rationale simply does not work. These amendments make absolute sense both financially and in terms of the Government’s policies, and above all they are right for the people affected.

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches have added our name to Amendments 36 to 38. We also support Amendment 40. The amendment is similar to the one that we put down in Committee when it was debated at great length. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I do not intend to rehearse that contribution again today. Excellent reasons have already been given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, as to why exceptions should be made to the two-child limit on receipt of tax credits and the child element of universal credit.

I want to pose a few questions. For those who did not sit through Committee stage, I will read out the exemptions we seek. Under Amendment 38, we seek an exemption if,

“the claimant responsible for children in the household is a single claimant as a result of being bereaved of their partner”—

I ask the Government, where is the choice in that?—

“the claimant has fled their previous partner as a result of domestic abuse”—

where is the choice in that?—

“the child or qualifying young person has a disability”—

where is the choice in that?—

“the child or qualifying young person is in the household as a result of a kinship care arrangement, private fostering arrangement, or adoption”—

where is the choice in that?—

“or … the claimant was previously entitled to an award for the child or qualifying young person and has re-partnered creating a household with more than two children”.

Of course, there is a little bit of choice in that. It is love, which we can believe in or not, but sometimes we do not choose who we want to partner.

Effectively, these circumstances are beyond the control of the claimants. This amendment attempts to demonstrate that the first responsibility is to the child. It must be so, otherwise what kind of society are we really creating? I was, and I remain, particularly concerned that, despite the Government’s laudable commitment to exclude women who have had a child as a result of rape from the two-child limit policy, the Minister did not explain to my satisfaction how this exemption would operate. I will not go into that debate again. It is such a sensitive area. Perhaps he will explain today. Should this amendment be voted on, we on these Benches will wholeheartedly support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, Amendment 46A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hollis, would require the Government to produce and lay before Parliament a report assessing the impact on work incentives of the Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2015, which passed through Parliament last year. In particular it would require the Government to analyse data on income and hours worked by household type, and the impact of the regulations on the levels of awards of in-work support payable to claimants who have moved, or will move before 2018, from tax credits to universal credit as a result of changed circumstances.

I shall address the matter of substance first and then move on to the politics of the matter. I raised these matters in Committee to get the Minister to tell the House what would happen to people who were moving across from tax credits to universal credit. The answers were deeply worrying. It is now clear that two big and distinct problems are emerging in relation to universal credit. First, the incentives to enter and progress in work have been severely damaged by a succession of changes made by the Government. As the director of the Resolution Foundation observed, universal credit was set to be £2.3 billion more expensive than the six benefits it replaced. Indeed, versions of the policy early in the last Parliament were even more expensive than that. No wonder the Treasury was nervous about a fast rollout—not, I suspect, the chief concern facing it at the moment. But after repeated chipping away, it seems that universal credit will now actually save the Treasury money—more than £2 billion a year once it is fully in place. Of course, if it saves the Treasury money, it costs claimants money, so universal credit is no longer going to do the job it was meant to.

The final straw was the reduction in the work allowances that went through Parliament last autumn. After weeks of pressure from all quarters and being asked to think again by this House through the Motion of my noble friend Lady Hollis, the Chancellor announced that he was scrapping the equivalent planned cuts to tax credits. I unreservedly welcomed that change. However, the Government decided to press ahead with comparable changes to universal credit. These various changes have done serious damage to work incentives, and, furthermore, the way that universal credit is now structured means that there is a significant problem with lack of work incentives for second earners and the position of self-employed people is a major problem.

Then we have the second problem: transitional protection. Iain Duncan Smith declared on “The Andrew Marr Show” in the wake of the tax credits change that no one would lose a penny from universal credit cuts. That is by no means clearly so. We know that if you take two working families with children in identical circumstances, but one on tax credits and the other on UC, the one on UC could be almost £3,000 a year worse off. How can nobody be a penny worse off? It depends on the transitional arrangements. Evidence given to Members of another place by the department suggests that there are two ways that people could end up moving from tax credits to UC. The first is “managed migration”, as the jargon has it. These are people who are moved over en bloc by the department, but that will not happen until 2018. They will get transitional protection.

The second way is by what is slightly oddly called “natural migration”. This happens when someone who is getting tax credits has a change in circumstances and is forced by the department to move across to universal credit. We now know that this can happen through all kinds of changes, some of which were alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor: if someone loses their job; has a baby or adopts a child; if a lone parents gets remarried or repartnered; if a couple splits up; if someone becomes a carer or ceases to be a carer; or even, slightly oddly, if a lone parent’s child reaches the age of five.

As I understand it, in all of those circumstances and indeed in more, a tax credit recipient will be forced on to universal credit and overnight could see their entitlement fall by up to £3,000 a year. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case? Further, can he tell the House whether any transitional protection will be forthcoming for the group of people in the category called “natural migration”? How many people does his department anticipate will be in that position during the first year of the new work allowance regime? We have a problem of transition and a problem of seriously damaged work incentives. Above all, there is an unacceptable lack of clarity about the impact on low-income working families.

I should probably have declared an interest as I was an adviser to Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer when tax credits were invented. He hired me away from the single-parent charity where I was toiling to support him in trying to work out what to do about the fact that we had the second-highest child poverty rate in the developed world. Child poverty had trebled under the previous Tory Government. We also had significant problems around lone parents not working. I worked with Gordon Brown to work out how the Government should tackle what was then a very low rate of single-parent employment. Tax credits made a massive difference. They helped to lift millions of British children out of poverty and led to the most dramatic rise I know of in the proportion of single parents in work. To see this Government damage work incentives that were so hard won breaks my heart.

I fully accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, truly cares about the plight of working families, but I do not think that those families are helped by leading them to believe that this House can do things for them that it cannot do. It is clear to me, and I am sure it is really clear to Liberal Democrat Peers—I understand that we have to go with the politics of the age—that there is a distinction between opposing something and feeling that this House should vote it down. I oppose this entire Bill, but I did not vote against it at Second Reading because as a revising Chamber it is not our place to do so. As I say, we are a revising Chamber, and, if that is the case, we should do our job properly.

Rather than using primary legislation retrospectively to repeal regulations which have only recently passed through both Houses of Parliament, and are not even regulations flowing from this Bill, let us focus instead on taking appropriate action to hold the Executive to account. Let us not let the Government off the hook by playing politics with this issue. Let us not pretend that we all take the same view on tactics, but that does not mean we have different views on substance.

I understand that during the tax credits debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, wanted to run a fatal Motion against all the conventions of the House. We did not back that; we backed my noble friend Lady Hollis in running a delay Motion which had exactly the right result but in an appropriate constitutional manner. That is the position we are in today. The Chancellor’s cuts are going to do significant damage to working families in Britain. Those people and this House have a right to know what that damage is. That is what we are pushing for today and that is what we on these Benches will be voting for.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

46A: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Universal Credit (Work Allowance) (No. 2)
(1) Within one year of the coming into effect of the Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2015, the Secretary of State shall publish, and lay before each House of Parliament, a report assessing the impact of those Regulations on work incentives.
(2) The report prepared under subsection (1) must contain data analysis of—
(a) income and hours worked, by household type, and(b) the impact of the regulations on the levels of awards of in-work support payable to claimants who have moved from tax credits to universal credit as a result of a change of circumstances, or claimants who will move from tax credits to universal credit as a result of a change of circumstances before 2018.”

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his commitment to evaluation, but I regret that it is not enough. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

46E: Clause 16, page 15, line 33, leave out from “section” to end of line 34 and insert “may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendments 46E and 46F in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. In doing so, I remind the House of my declared interest as a senior independent director of the Financial Ombudsman Service in case it should prove relevant to the debate.

I will not go back over the substance of the matter, as we discussed it in some detail in Committee. However, I want to push two points that I did not feel, in the end, were satisfactorily addressed by the government response. Amendment 46F seeks to retain the SMI grant scheme for claimants who are in receipt of pension credit; in other words, our poorest pensioners. In Committee, I dubbed this the reverse Salisbury-Addison amendment, reminding the House that we were helping the Government to maintain their manifesto commitment to protect all pensioner benefits, since that is, in fact, who this is mainly aimed at. My concern is that the effect of this policy is essentially to wipe out what is usually the only asset of poor pensioners, and currently their safety net in case they need equity released for care or other emergencies. As I reported last time, Age UK expressed a concern that older people would be reluctant to take on extra debt, so whereas they might have taken a grant, they will not take out loans. They may indeed compromise their own well-being by limiting essential spending instead. I do not think the Minister addressed that, so I would be grateful if he would.

I also asked a number of other specific questions. I had answers to some at the time, and answers to others in writing later. Sometimes the answers in writing were not the same as those given in Committee, but we will come on to that in a moment. I just want to deal with a couple that are left.

I raised the issue of people who die without enough equity in the house to meet the debt and who might worry that it would not leave them with enough money to pay for their funeral. I had hoped to persuade the Minister to leave a cushion untouched, but he was not having it. His response was that the family could apply for a grant, a funeral payment, from the Social Fund. So will all SMI loan recipients be automatically entitled to access a funeral payment from the Social Fund? If so, how much is it? Will it be enough to cover the fast-rising costs of a funeral all around the country?

I also asked if the loss of SMI would result in someone no longer being entitled to pension credit and thereby losing access to passported benefits such as cold weather payments, help with health costs or access to funeral payments. After a series of questions, supported by the right reverend Prelate of Durham, about the advice that would be offered to people, and having reread the record and read the letter that was given, I wish to tell the Minister what I think has been said and he can correct me if I am wrong. I understood him to say that people will get generalised guidance rather than advice about their own particular circumstances and what they should do. Is that right? I gather that the claimant may have to pay for the advice. Is that right?

During the debate the Minister assured me that the provision of advice would be independent of the party recovering the debt. He assured me that that was the case but then wrote to me afterwards and said that in fact it was not the case. I assume that he did not change his mind but that he misread his brief. Either way, can he reassure the House about that because it seems to be a potential conflict of interest? If someone who is advising a pensioner to take out a loan is also making money out of the recovery of that debt, is that not a conflict of interest? If not, how not? I asked him whether a face-to-face option would be available, at least for vulnerable clients. Can he tell me that?

Amendment 46E would require regulations for the scheme to be introduced by the affirmative procedure. The House will recall that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed significant concern about the fact that the draft regulations for the SMI loan scheme had not been made available to the House for debate, given the plan that the scheme be set up by negative regulation. Effectively, the Bill abolishes the grant scheme and empowers Ministers to create a loan scheme but there are no draft regulations before us. Under the proposals they would be introduced under the negative procedure. The committee therefore recommended that regulations under this clause should be subject to the affirmative procedure. It is usual practice that such a recommendation would be followed. Can the Minister confirm that this will happen? If for some reason he cannot, can he tell the House when the Government last refused such a recommendation from the DPRRC? I beg to move

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, we briefly went round this course in Committee. The noble Baroness has raised a number of points to which the Minister will want to respond. However, I am not sure that she made a forceful argument for her Amendment 46F, which seeks to exempt a group of people from this new provision.

Looking at the Bill as a whole, this seems the least painful way of reducing public expenditure, and the argument for looking to this clause for savings is not as strong as the case that could be made in other parts of the Bill. The Opposition recognised this because, in their amendment to the Bill on Second Reading in another place, they specifically said that loans for mortgage interest were a necessary change to the welfare system. So the principle of switching from grants to loans was conceded by the opposition party in another place.

The operation of what is proposed makes no difference to the pensioner at all—the money will simply be paid from the department to the lender—and the impact on the standard of living and the income of the pensioner is wholly unaffected; their day-to-day income is unchanged. The Government’s proposal is that they will continue to get exactly the same level of support as they do at the moment. The fact that the loan may eventually be recovered from their estate has minimal bearing on their financial position, although of course their heirs may take a slightly different view. One has to balance the expectations of the heirs against the taxpayer, who at the moment is footing the bill. Given the imperative to reduce welfare expenditure, it seems to me that this is one of the least objectionable ways of doing it, and I very much hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Amendment 46E would apply the affirmative procedure to the support for mortgage interest loan regulations as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee opined that these are novel provisions which are likely to have a significant impact on a large number of people. This is true, but the part which is novel is the change in this support from a benefit to a loan. In all other aspects the level of support offered and the way the system will be administered will simply replicate the existing system. The committee made its recommendation before your Lordships debated these measures in detail. I have been quite clear about how the new loan system will be implemented and that the regulations we will bring forward will replicate the existing SMI system. Using the affirmative procedure for these regulations would therefore not be a good use of parliamentary time.

I will come to the government amendments, which may actually be the real palliative here because we will have SSAC reports in this area. If they come up with something there is space within the negative procedure to bring issues before the House. The committee did not have that information about what we were planning with SSAC. I should also point out that the current SMI regulations are subject to the negative procedure.

Amendment 46F would prevent the Government from changing the benefit into a loan for those on state pension credit. It would allow regulations to be made to create a system of grants for pensioners’ mortgage interest. This would mean that pensioners would receive help with their mortgage interest as a grant rather than a loan and that that would be the case indefinitely. In this context that would be unsustainable and clearly unfair on the taxpayer. It is not right that taxpayers, many of whom of course cannot afford to buy their own home, are subsidising the acquisition of what in many cases is a very substantial asset. Pensioners will have access to the same level of support for mortgage interest payments as the current system provides and the Government will not recover the loan until the property is sold. With pension credit claimants, it is most likely that this will be on their death and therefore will impact not on them but on the beneficiaries of their will. My noble friend made the point that they may not be that pleased, but the balance is between them and the taxpayer.

I shall pick up on some of the specific points. Pension credit claimants will have access to passported benefits such as funeral payments. We would normally provide advice through a telephone conversation and the advice will focus on the circumstances of the individual concerned with regard to their options, asking whether they have alternatives available such as downsizing or help from relatives or their heirs. I think that the noble Baroness should take my last word on the issue of who would do this as I wrote in my letter. To the extent that that contradicts what I said earlier, it should be the latter. Our view is that whatever theoretical potential conflict there might be, we will make sure as we set out the arrangements that there is no conflict in the way it is done. I think that that is what I expressed in my letter, although perhaps not using that language.

Let me reassure noble Lords that the Government will seek to recover the debt only up to the level of available equity when the property is sold. Any outstanding debt will be written off. The amendment would also provide powers to introduce regulations to introduce a waiting period for pensioners before they can receive help. There is currently no waiting period for help with mortgage interest for pensioner claimants and it is not the Government’s intention to introduce one. With those explanations, I urge noble Lords not to press the amendments.

Amendments 47 to 49 and 83 provide that loans for mortgage interest regulations made under the Welfare Reform and Work Bill are submitted to SSAC, the independent statutory body that provides impartial advice on social security and related matters for consideration. With the introduction of the new loans-based scheme, help with mortgage interest will no longer be a part of benefit entitlement. However, we recognise the important role that SSAC plays in the scrutiny of regulations and have accepted the recommendation of the DPRRC to provide that regulations relating to loans for mortgage interest fall within the remit of SSAC. I have just realised that I slightly misspoke when I implied that the committee might not have both those bits of information. Perhaps I may also withdraw that point.

The amendments also ensure that certain decision-making rules in the Social Security Act 1998 apply to decisions about SMI loans in the same way as they apply to decisions about benefits. In particular, this will ensure that an appeal may be brought against a decision relating to a mortgage interest loan in the same way as an appeal may be brought against a decision relating to a benefit. This means that applicants will have the same appeal rights as under the existing provision for support with mortgage interest, ensuring fairness for applicants of the new loan provision. They will allow the department to supply information about SMI loans within the broader welfare system to persons who are concerned with the provision of welfare services. For example, it will allow the Secretary of State to share information with those providing free school meals and health benefits such as free prescriptions, so that recipients of SMI loans can access these “passported” benefits. I think that that picks up on the point made by the noble Baroness about concerns with the passporting issues.

The final amendment is a minor and technical change to the Long Title. The purpose of SMI loans is to prevent repossessions. All types of mortgages and loans are eligible for support under the new loan system. This change ensures that the Long Title accurately reflects the contents of the Bill by including a reference to “other liabilities”.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I hope that he will take away again the point about the DPRRC. I certainly welcome the move to refer the regulations to SSAC but, welcome though SSAC is and much as I respect its expertise, it is not Parliament. Parliament should have the opportunity to debate this. He mentioned that the DPRRC recognises that regulations for loans for the grant scheme were negative. I am working from memory but I think that the committee pointed out that, had the draft regulations been available, it would have recommended negative in the ordinary run of things because the original regulations had been negative. In fact, the draft regulations were not available, which is why it recommended the affirmative procedure. Will he go away and think about that?

The fact that the Minister said that the service normally will be by telephone gives me a glimmer of hope that the department might be willing to consider a face-to-face service for vulnerable consumers. I hope he will consider that. I will not take on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, although I disagree with him. Given the lateness of the hour and the fact that we went around this issue fairly effectively in Committee, I will set that to one side. I thank the Minister for his other comments. I hope that when he looks at the record he will check the presumptions that I have made as to the operation of the scheme. Should any of those prove to be wrong and not to have been corrected by him, I hope that he will write to me. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 46E withdrawn.

Family Test

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I assure the House that the family test is indeed incorporated into every new domestic policy consideration by this Government.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I spoke recently to a woman called Ruth, who had adopted three siblings aged under four. The children were placed with her only because she agreed to stay home in their early years, because they were very damaged. However, her husband was a vicar, and she could only afford to give up work and feed the children because of tax credits. She got in touch to say that if the Government push through the plan tomorrow to limit all benefits and tax credits to the first two children in any family, she would not be able to adopt those children in future, and they would stay in care at a cost of £40,000 per child per year. I asked the Minister how that policy passed the family test. He would not tell me. Will she?

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, as I said, the family test is not a tick-box exercise. Policy is always about trade-offs, but the family test ensures that family impacts are explicitly considered when making those trade-offs.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.

I am puzzled. When we considered the 2012 Welfare Reform Act, the Minister rightly commanded the respect of the entire Committee and allowed the proceedings to be lengthened from the original 10 or 11 days to 17 days, in the process of which he negotiated, discussed and shared information because he was determined that the introduction of universal credit would be, as far as was possible, evidence-based. That was something that we all responded to: we were not being motivated by the latest piece of journalism or an ideological twist; it was evidence-based.

What puzzles me about the Government’s position is not that they are seeking to get analysis of the impacts of poverty in terms of well-being measures, adult worklessness, child educational attainment at 16, and so on—it is perfectly sensible to have information about that. But this is not an either/or situation. We all know that we need to know about the income going into a family as well as about the impact of that lowered income on the outcomes that affect the family and the children, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said. This is not an either/or situation. We need both because, above all, government need to know where they can most effectively intervene to ensure that, as far as possible, children and their families have good, strong, decent and well-funded lives. We cannot know that unless we collect the information on both income and on what the Government believe to be the impact. It is not a question of which comes first, which drives one or the other, or which is the gateway. That does not matter—we need both. On the basis of that evidence, we, as a House and as Parliament, can come in behind government to see what levers are most effective in addressing the issues that that evidence has identified.

The Minister is an evidence-based Minister, which is why he has our respect. Therefore, in the light of that and all the work that he did on the 2012 Bill, I urge him not to sabotage it by ignoring crucial evidence of how best the Government should use the resources at their disposal. I hope that he will accept the right reverend Prelate’s amendment.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, we on these Benches are fully supportive of Amendment 2, to which I have appended my name. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has made a strong case for his amendment, backed up ably by my noble friends Lady Lister and Lady Hollis, and I will not add a great deal to the fundamental case that they have made. However, I do wish to say a brief word.

The Bill has a lot in it which will have a serious impact on the incomes of millions of families in Britain, particularly families with children and households with disabled people in them. I would love to send the whole Bill packing, as I would love to dispatch various statutory instruments recently passed through both Houses, but that is not what we are going to do; it is not our job. Our job over this week is to send back to the Commons for further consideration parts of the Bill where they have simply not begun to understand the consequences of some of what they have done; where the costs can be significant but often have just been shunted rather than taken away.

The great advantage of this amendment is that it does not cost any money and yet it would be incredibly powerful in holding the Executive to account, something which this House always takes seriously.

I have been struck, not only in listening today but in re-reading the excellent debate on this subject in Committee, that the Minister was signally unable to persuade Peers from around the House of the case that he made. Let me summarise the Government’s case. The report to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the drivers of child poverty said this:

“From the range of academic and institutional evidence reviewed we can confidently conclude that”—

brief pause—

“The key factor for child poverty now is parental worklessness and low earnings … The other main factors include low parental qualifications, parental ill health, family instability and family size”.

It also highlighted child education attainment as a key factor in increasing the risk of a poor child growing up to be a poor adult.

So what have the Government done in response to that evidence? This Bill guts the Child Poverty Act 2010, removes the requirement to report on income poverty at all and requires Ministers in future to report on only two factors—worklessness and educational attainment. That leaves a couple of key questions.

First, Ministers are not saying that these factors equal poverty but that they drive it. So presumably the Government will seek to address those factors and, if they are successful in addressing them, child poverty will fall—but how will we know? If we do not expect the Government to report on the effect on child poverty of the work they are doing, then how do we know whether their strategies are succeeding or failing? The Minister may point to the fact that data on households below average income are currently published, but, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, there is no guarantee that that will carry on indefinitely without a statutory routing. If the Government are so confident, why will they not report on the impact of their policies on child poverty and be accountable for it?

Secondly, Ministers have cherry picked some of the factors on their own list and ignored others. In particular, as has been mentioned, why have the Government ignored the key factor of low earnings, which is the first in their line of analysis of drivers for staying in poverty. Is it because, by definition, it must be an income measure, to which there was therefore a political objection? Or is it because, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, pointed out, they know full well that two-thirds of poor children are living in households where a parent is in work. I will return to this issue in a later group but I remind the House that if the Government continue to damage work incentives by attacking universal credit and cutting the value of in-work benefits they can hardly be surprised to find that work is no longer a route out of poverty.

No one is arguing that money is all that matters—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham expressed that very well. I fully recognise his comment that the idea that money does not matter is often most closely held by those who have plenty of it. I make an exception in the case of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who despite, as he said himself, having always been comfortable has shown an impressive concern for those who have not had the benefits to which he found himself entitled. I commend him for that. Nobody is arguing that, but when 202 out of 203 responses tell you that you have got it wrong, it really is time to think again. The odds on that only one being the one that is right have to be pretty small.

Housing Benefit: Social Housing Units

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are looking to double the housing budget to more than £20 billion over the next five years. We are committed to 400,000 new affordable housing starts worth £8 billion—£1.6 billion of that is going to the rented sector. This is from a Government that are really trying to get housing back after the last Labour Government in 2010 left housing starts at the lowest level ever since the 1920s.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, let us put a couple of facts on the table. The Government said they are going to spend £20 billion on housebuilding this Parliament, of which only £1.6 billion will go on affordable housing. Under the welfare reform Bill that the Minister is dealing with at the moment, the OBR has said that 14,000 fewer social housing units will be built as a direct result of the plan to force housing associations to cut rents. How does that help bring the housing benefit bill down?

[Lord Freud]

I just repeat what I said: we are spending £20 billion to have 400,000 new starts. That is more than this country has seen. Where there might be a policy that may have a pressure, we will look at that but, overall, we are determined to get the houses built in this country.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Manzoor]

We totally support this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I also totally agree with my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, who has amply identified the arguments as to why it should be supported. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, rightly said that we need levers. If we do not have such levers, how are we to address the issues about people who work, those who are not in work and in-work benefits? We will talk about the universal work allowances and the implications and ramifications of that. I hope that the Minister is listening very carefully. If the amendment is called to a vote, we on these Benches will support it.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for tabling this amendment and for introducing it so well. In Committee, she made a very compelling case and I share her view that the Minister’s response was more than usually unpersuasive. In fact, she may have identified the reason for that and may be on to something. It is not as though we lack evidence. We have heard that two-thirds of children in poor households have a parent in work. I think we all accept that the risk of poverty is lower in families where parents are working and that the risk rises as the hours worked do not. But that does not change the fact that today large numbers of children are in poverty even though their parents are in work.

My noble friend Lady Lister and I clearly had the same weekend reading. How sad am I? I, too, dug out the State of the Nation 2015 report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission and the original evidence command paper from 2014. The commission put it really clearly. It states that,

“today 1.5 million children are in poverty because their working parents do not earn enough to secure a basic standard of living and the risk of absolute poverty for working families after housing costs has increased over the last decade”.

We clearly have a problem. In their command paper, from which my noble friend Lady Lister quoted, the Government analysed what drove how long a child stayed in poverty. They state:

“The main factor is lack of sufficient income from parental employment … this is not just about worklessness, but also about working insufficient hours and/or low pay”.

They did not mention something which was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—namely, that another crucial determinant is the nature and level of in-work benefits and the way in which they apply. But the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission did raise that. In its 2015 report, it commented:

“Many families will find it very difficult to increase their earnings enough to make good the cuts in state support even if they benefit from the welcome introduction of the National Living Wage … we recommend that the Government should, as the public finances improve, revitalise employment incentives in Universal Credit”.

However, as we know, things are going in the opposite direction. The Government have done real damage to work incentives—the very thing that UC was designed to tackle—by cutting work allowances. In this Bill, they are cutting the value of the main in-work benefits through the benefits freeze. They are abolishing the family premium in universal credit for all families and significantly cutting child tax credit for families with more than two children, both of which will hit working families with kids. On Saturday, the Times reported that cost-cutting means that 240,000 families will be denied the free childcare promised to them in the Conservative manifesto.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, argued strongly against targets on relative poverty because he believes that they drive government decisions on allocation of resources and he does not like the way they do it. He got his way on that, if not on measurement. But the information should at least be recorded. The risk of failing to measure and to discuss the trends in in-work poverty is that the Government will not do anything about it because it somehow legitimises the idea that poverty is not about money but about worklessness, as though, by definition, children with working parents could not be poor. If we do not focus on that, it could distort policy-making too.

If the Government are focused only on worklessness, they could end up pursuing policies that just move children from being poor in households where they see their parents a lot to being poor in households where they do not see their parents very often because they are out working unsocial hours in order to be able to make ends meet. With all the consequent damage to family life that that does, that is not the answer. I live in hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, having been persuaded by the brilliant arguments of my noble friend Lady Lister, but just in case, unaccountably, he is not going to do that, will he tell the House one very specific thing? Does he accept that it is possible to be poor if your parents are in work and you are a kid? If so, what are the Government going to do about it?

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Sherlock Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 25 would remove child benefit and child tax credits from the benefit cap. I return to this amendment, which raises an important point of principle together with children’s rights questions, partly because in Committee it was grouped with various other exemptions from the cap, but, more importantly, because—and at the risk of being accused of being vituperative—once again, the response from the Minister was inadequate. He was challenged a number of times to justify why these benefits should be subject to the cap for those out of work when they are received by those in work, so that the cap is premised on a comparison between earnings in work and income out of work, but he failed to do so.

The argument boils down to what we believe is fair. According to the impact assessment, the clause promotes even greater fairness between those on out-of-work benefits and taxpayers in employment. Our view is that fairness requires that old cliché of the level playing field, on which, if you ignore the child benefit received by all taxpayers in employment on wages of £20,000 to £23,000 and the child tax credits received by a good proportion of them—how many and how much the Government refuse to say—you must ignore it when calculating the income of those on out-of-work benefits.

The exchange between my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham and the Minister on this point could have come straight out of a pantomime: “Oh, yes, it’s earnings”, “Oh, no, it’s income”; or that old song, “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off”: “I say income, you say earnings”. But whereas my noble friend, as you would expect, offered argument, the Minister offered only assertion. He just kept repeating:

“We are looking at the level of earnings”,

without ever saying why, other than, as my noble friend put it, “Because I say so”. Therefore, I thought it only right to give him the opportunity to offer an argument today in justification so that noble Lords can decide whether it is indeed fair to base the policy on such an uneven playing field.

Other arguments that did not get addressed properly by the Minister concerned the impact on children. How did the policy fare against the family test, which was not even mentioned in the income assessment? He assured me that the family test was applied, but, as he could not,

“recall what was in it”,—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2378.]

he promised to write to me with the details. I do not believe that I have received them, so perhaps he could provide them now. What is the likely impact on child poverty? That was conveniently circumvented on the spurious ground that it is all too difficult to estimate the likely dynamic effects of the policy. There is no reply to the argument that the policy has a disproportionate impact on children.

In the judgment in the recent Supreme Court case on the cap, which we spent some time debating in Committee, Lord Justice Carnwath made the point that the inclusion of child benefit and child tax credits in the cap raises the question as to why,

“the viability of a scheme, whose avowed purpose is directed at the parents not their children, is so disproportionately dependent on child related benefits”,

and said:

“The cap has the effect that for the first time some children will lose these benefits, for reasons which have nothing to do with their own needs, but are related solely to the circumstances of their parents”.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, observed that, as a result, the children affected,

“suffer from a situation which is none of their making and which they themselves can do nothing about”.

This brings me to the children’s and human rights implications of the policy, which, as the Equality and Human Rights Commission has complained, were dealt with inadequately in the Government’s human rights assessment and the impact assessment. What is at issue is whether the inclusion of children’s benefits in the cap is in the best interests of the child in line with Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In the human rights memorandum, the Government note the Supreme Court’s decision and assert that they have fully considered their obligations to treat the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. However, their analysis of the,

“best interests of the child”,

seems to rest on this proposition:

“The best interests of children overall is to have parents in work and work remains the surest route out of poverty”.

As the EHRC observes, this betrays,

“a particular lack of understanding regarding compliance with the UNCRC”.

It may well be in the best interests of many children for parents to find work, but it will depend on the work available, the circumstances and the durability of any work found. Moreover, this bald statement ignores the fact that the great majority of those already subject to the cap did not find work as a result. Is it really in the best interests of their children to have their standard of living reduced even further when a survey reported in the first-year review of the operation of the cap found that over a third of those affected had already had to cut back on household essentials and many had incurred debt, which the Government identify as a root cause of poverty? In fact, the Government’s position pretty much ignores the judgment of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that they,

“misunderstand what article 3(1) of the UNCRC requires. It requires that first consideration be given to the best interests, not only of children in general, but also of the particular child or children directly affected by the decision in question. It cannot possibly be in the best interests of the children affected by the cap to deprive them of the means to provide them with adequate food, clothing, warmth and housing, the basic necessities of life. It is not enough that children in general, now or in the future, may benefit by a shift in welfare culture if these are also the consequences. Insofar as the Secretary of State relies upon this as an answer to article 3(1), he has misdirected himself”.

In his response, the Minister did not address the substance of these arguments, but took refuge behind what he called the “sterling work” of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, whom he described as “utterly masterful” on the legal aspects and who he said had certainly taught him a lot. I am no lawyer, and I am sure the Minister will not consider me masterful on the subject. I am diffident about getting involved in legal disputation once more, but I am assured by the CPAG’s solicitor, to whom I am grateful—I make my usual declaration as the group’s honorary president—that the interpretation by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is open to challenge. The Minister’s law lesson might, therefore, need some revision. It is not the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asserted, that the Supreme Court found the Government to have been “perfectly correct” when they were taken to court on not implementing the UNCRC, nor that five of the noble judges ruled, in the Government’s favour, that the benefits cap was not contrary to the rights of the child. Rather, the court found, by a majority of three to two, that the benefit cap regulations are in breach of Article 3(1). It is true that they went on to find that, as the convention is not incorporated into domestic UK law, it should be for Parliament, not the courts, to decide how to remedy the breach. Lord Justice Carnwath advised that the court’s concerns about the rights of the child would need to be addressed in the political arena. In other words, the court was looking to us—to Parliament—to find a way to ensure that the Government upheld the UK’s obligations under international law with regard to the cap.

That is what the amendment seeks to do. Just because the UN convention is not directly enforceable in UK courts, the Government cannot simply ignore it when their claims to have complied with it are challenged by the Supreme Court. It must concern us that, far from responding to the Supreme Court’s ruling and to the specific recommendation of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, that the Government consider removing children’s benefits from the cap, the Government are now compounding the infringement of children’s rights by reducing the cap to below median earnings, thereby bringing many more families into its net. I suspect that it is only a matter of time before the matter is before the courts again, as this could now mean that the cap is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights because of its disproportionate impact.

On grounds of both fairness and the rights of children, I believe there is a strong case for the exclusion of children’s benefits from the cap. I hope that today the Minister will actually engage with the arguments, rather than continue with the “because I say so” approach. Given that that approach tends to be used when there is not a valid case to be made, better still, he should accept the amendment on grounds of both fairness and children’s rights. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for the way she has introduced the amendment and for her persistence and expertise on this subject. My noble friend raised this issue in Committee but did not get an adequate answer. One of the things I find most depressing about the debates on the benefit cap is that Ministers increasingly lump all benefits together as just welfare payments. No distinction is made between the various kinds of benefit we have traditionally had in the British social security system: between contributory and non-contributory benefits or between income-replacement benefits and those designed to compensate for extra costs. The failure to make such distinctions tends to demonise recipients. It also muddies the policy-making waters, because Government are reduced to making fairly broad claims for the behavioural impacts of benefits the purposes of which are, in fact, quite distinct from each other.

Child benefit is a good case in point. It has traditionally been a universal benefit and is still available to all but the highest-earning households. In effect, it is a horizontal transfer from taxpayers as a whole, including those who do not have children, to those who have children. Originally, it replaced an allowance in the tax system and it is there because, as a society, we recognise that children are a public as well as a private good. We all have a stake in ensuring that parents can afford to raise the next generation healthily. Child benefit goes to parents in and out of work, of course, as does child tax credit—the two benefits that are the subject of this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, the amendment would exclude guardian’s allowance from the cap. I shall briefly set out the regulations on exactly who gets guardian’s allowance, because I think it is worth doing. You can get it only if you are caring for somebody else’s child, you are entitled to child benefit for the child and both of the child’s parents are dead, or one of the child’s parents is dead and at that time the whereabouts of the other parent is unknown and you have made all reasonable efforts to find them, or one of the child’s parents is dead and the other is in prison with a minimum sentence of two years remaining to serve, following the death of the other parent. People do not get this allowance lightly. It is not paid to foster parents or prospective adopters. My noble friend Lady Hollis, with a precision and a lyricism that I could not begin to match, set out the effects of taking this away from a group of people who are reaching out to some of the most vulnerable children in our country. I hope that that has persuaded the Minister how important this is. But given those effects, and given how few these people are in number, and given how vulnerable the children are, I would like the Minister to explain why they do not fit into the category that he described under the last amendment, when he said that the Government wanted to incentivise work but also to protect the most vulnerable. Why do they not count as the most vulnerable?

In Committee on 21 December I asked the Minister what behavioural incentives the Government were seeking by including guardian’s allowance in the cap. He said:

“Recipients of maternity allowance and guardian’s allowance will be affected by the benefit cap only if they are in receipt of a significant amount of other welfare payments”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2378.]

That is not a justification. Either it is right to include guardian’s allowance in the cap or it is not; it cannot be right because you get other benefits as well. So if the Government believe that it is right, can the Minister please tell the House what behavioural response the Government are looking for from people who receive guardian’s allowance as a result of the cap? If he cannot provide one, will he accept that the fact that they will be affected by the cap only if other benefits are also received is not a good argument for guardian’s allowance itself to be counted towards the cap? That argument could be made for any benefit. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation.

[Lord Freud]

Amendment 26 seeks to remove guardian’s allowance from the list of those that are included within the benefit cap, so that it is disregarded when calculating the total amount of benefits a household can receive before the cap is applied. Guardian’s allowance is paid to those who are responsible for a child or young person and either both parents or in some circumstance one parent have died. The Government recognise the crucial and valuable role that recipients play in helping children to recover from the loss of their parents, but I do not agree that it should be excluded from the benefit cap. That is about the principle that there is a clear limit to the amount of benefits that an out-of-work family can receive.

In the interests of time, I shall not repeat my previous arguments, but will provide the best information that we have, which is that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is right to say that this affects very few people. On our sums, the inclusion of the guardian’s allowance within the cap affects fewer than 50 claimants—those are the figures that I have. Rather than a blanket exclusion of this benefit, it is better that targeted support is offered to those who need it. That is where the discretionary housing payments of £870 million come into play. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

There is one ray of hope. Given that if she is wise she will probably choose rent arrears rather than risk the health of her newborn by cutting back on heating or eating—that is what I would do—she may well end up in temporary accommodation, where, according to Shelter, over a quarter of capped households currently live. That number will soar as a result of the benefit cap. Hopefully, however, at least she will then have the cash to feed and keep warm her baby and any other children she may have. Of course, this will cost the local authority far more, DWP will export its costs on to the local authority, and her children in consequence may not be school-ready and, because they are in temporary accommodation, may suffer developmental delays; we all know those early years findings. But no—DWP will have saved some £8 million to £10 million a year. Does the Minister really think it is worth it? I beg to move.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, this amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis, would exempt from the cap women who are at least 29 weeks pregnant or responsible for a child under nine months of age. I thank my noble friend for making it clear to the House just what a perilous situation these women will find themselves in if things proceed as planned.

Some very strong arguments were made to me by Gingerbread as to why this particular group ought to be excluded. It suggests, first, that the group will find it most difficult to move into work to escape the cap and therefore will simply be pushed deeper into poverty. Of course, that is the last thing that it wants for a woman who is pregnant or has a very young child. Secondly, it points out that the Government want families on benefits to make the same choices as those who are in work. Parents in work have pregnancy and maternity rights, including an expectation that they will have some time away from work both when they are in the later stages of pregnancy and in the first months of their child’s life, so this exemption would mirror the rights of working families.

As my noble friend Lady Hollis pointed out, pregnant women and those with very young children are not listed as a priority group for discretionary housing payments, despite the complex challenges that they face as they move into work, and therefore they cannot have that to fall back on as other vulnerable groups might. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to these challenges.

In Committee, I tabled an amendment that would have excluded maternity allowance from the cap. I did so to probe the Government’s reasoning and particularly to try to find out what behavioural responses the Government were expecting of pregnant women. However, as I explained earlier, I could not get an answer from the Minister. The only thing that I got on maternity allowance was the same as for the guardian’s allowance: the response was that people would not be affected unless the household was also getting other benefits. As I have said, that is not an answer.

This amendment from my noble friend seeks to protect a very narrow group of people at a very vulnerable time. The Government’s usual response is that if someone wants to escape the cap, they should either get a job or move house. Can the Minister explain to the House what he thinks the chances are of a woman who is 29 weeks pregnant getting a job? How strong does he think her chances will be out there in the job market if she has not worked previously? Secondly, if that is not a practical thing for her to try to do, maybe he thinks she should move house. I do not know whether he has ever had to help a very heavily pregnant woman move house, but would he really suggest to her that moving house when she is very heavily pregnant or has a brand new baby is either desirable or practical, unless of course she is forced into it in the circumstances described by my noble friend because she ends up being evicted for rent arrears?

I just want to get the Minister to address the practicalities of this situation. This is a very narrow group of people. What do the Government expect them to do if they find themselves hit by the cap? Will he please tell the House?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as I have already set out, those with a sustained work history benefit from a nine-month grace period before the cap is applied to them. Therefore, those households that have been in employment for at least 50 out of 52 weeks will be exempt from the cap. This gives time for households, including those with a new child, to adapt to their new circumstances before the cap is applied to them.

Households in receipt of working tax credits or which meet the UC earnings threshold will be entirely exempt from the cap. Although some single mothers will not be immediately able to move into work, for those households consisting of couples, the partner need work only 24 hours a week for the household to qualify for the exemption. Around 45% of households that include a maternity allowance claimant who will be affected by the new cap levels are households consisting of a couple, meaning that a partner can help to exempt a household from the cap through work. Households that include a claimant in receipt of maternity allowance may also be entitled to working tax credits and so be exempt from the cap.

Although I am grateful to the noble Baroness for speaking on this issue and for the research that she has put into it, I am not sure that the amendment would do what is intended. It would not create a disregard or exemption from the cap for the specified group; it would, however, appear to make the group subject to a different prescribed list of benefits to be defined by the Government in regulations. That would of course go against the approach that the Bill adopts of providing certainty about the capped benefits by including them in the Bill. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freud]

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended in its report of 23 November a number of amendments to the benefit cap clauses in the Bill. Amendments 29 and 30 are technical and consequential amendments as a result of the committee’s recommendations. Amendment 28 is a tidying amendment and not as a result of the committee’s recommendations.

Before I do that, I would like to explain that, although the committee recommended that Clause 7 should be amended so that new Section 96, which it inserts into the Welfare Reform Act 2012, should reference single persons, couples and lone parents, and provide for the meaning of those terms to be specified in regulations, the Government do not consider this to be necessary. Redrafting the provision in the way suggested would overly complicate the legislation. The Government have been very clear in debates and briefings that the higher tier of the cap levels will apply to lone parents and couples, and that the lower-tier levels will apply to single people without children. I am happy to formally put on record again here today that this is the policy.

Turning to the amendments that are being taken forward, the committee recommended that the affirmative procedure should apply to any regulations amending the level of the benefit cap, using the power introduced in new Section 96A of the 2012 Welfare Reform Act to be inserted by Clause 8. As currently drafted, the affirmative procedure is applied only if the level of the cap is lowered. The amendments to Clause 8 mean that any change to the levels of the cap will be subject to parliamentary debate in line with the committee’s recommendation. This is a considerable level of extra parliamentary scrutiny for these future decisions. I am sure that these amendments to Clause 8 will reassure noble Lords’ concerns that for any future review of the cap this House and the other place will have the opportunity to have the decision explained and debated, and to agree it.

The committee also highlighted that currently regulations pertaining to the benefit cap are not required to be referred to SSAC. It has recommended that an amendment be made to provide that regulations pertaining to the cap must be referred to SSAC. After careful consideration, the Government accept this recommendation in principle and will table an amendment at Third Reading to reflect this. However, the Government do not accept that regulations relating solely to the level of the cap should be referred to SSAC, as that is a matter for Parliament.

A consequential amendment to Clause 7 has been identified. It has arisen as a result of the removal of Section 97(3) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Section 97(3) provided that the first set of regulations made under Section 96 were affirmative. As the first set of regulations has been made, the removal of the word “other” from Section 97(4) is purely consequential on that. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. We welcome the move to affirmative regulations and are happy to accept his assurance that the other amendments are technical and consequential. I look forward to his returning at Third Reading with details of the amendments relating to SSAC. I would like to ask him to come to Third Reading armed with some specific information. If the Government are not minded to make reference to SSAC in relation to the level of the cap, and given that all the benefits affected by the cap are now in the Bill, will the Minister come back and detail for us precisely what those regulations might refer to that are still available to be sent to SSAC? Will he come back at that point and give a better explanation, of appropriate length—I am not blaming him for not doing it now—as to why the Government do not think that the level of the cap should be referred to SSAC, given that that is probably the single biggest determinant of the impact on those affected by it?

Amendment 28 agreed.