Covid-19: Child Maintenance Service

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Minister for taking time earlier today to speak to me about some of the cases that are of concern to me in my constituency.

Once upon a time, I was the Minister with responsibility for the CMS, and my worry is that our debate will degenerate into an attack on the hard-working staff. I know from my own experience how diligent they are—sometimes in the most difficult of circumstances, trying to track down parents who refuse to pay and investigating those very difficult cases where people deliberately hide their income. I think there is a special place in hell for those who go out of their way to disguise income to prevent their former partner from being able to feed their children, or to buy school shoes or a new winter coat.

From the work that has been done by Gingerbread and others, I am conscious that single parents have been hit very hard during this pandemic, and we know that 80% of them are women. As Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, I am extremely interested in how well the CMS has coped with the many cases in which income has varied over the course of the pandemic. Of course, that means that variations will have to be efficient and quick. As parents come off furlough, it is possible for their income to go up as well as down.

We know that the strain on families during the pandemic has increased. I thank the Minister for the work that he is doing with victims of domestic abuse, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the priority that he has given to that. It is important to reflect on the fact that not all domestic abuse is physical. Some of it is financial, and I have heard numerous times from constituents over the last nine months about the financial abuse they have suffered at the hands of ex-partners, and how the CMS has been drawn into that as variation after variation is requested and income is disguised. I have been privy to the emails from parents threatening, “Unless you agree to this figure, I will just keep asking for a variation so you get nothing.”

I also heard this morning from a constituent who has been forced to contact her former partner’s employer herself, because the CMS has not been in a position to chase up the direct deduction from earnings order that she was entitled to. She feels very strongly, and she is right, that she should not be the one who has to chase it up. If the CMS has a deduction from earnings order in place, it should be contacting the employer when the money has not gone through.

Finally, I would like to raise the case of my constituent Stuart McAuliffe, whose issues with the CMS long predate the pandemic but have been exacerbated by it. Some of that is about the fact that CMS staff did not have access to records at the beginning of the pandemic, but for years he has been asking for a breakdown of the amount that he owes in arrears—the charges that he believes were wrongly levied as part of a collect and pay arrangement, when he had been on direct pay and had been paying regularly. He feels very strongly that he should never have been moved to collect and pay, and that those charges have been accrued wrongly.

My constituent has asked for a schedule of payments, but he has been told that that information is not available. Surely, it must be available. Anybody who is involved with the CMS should be entitled to look at a breakdown of what they have paid, what arrears there may be and what charges may be on their account. The only information that he gets from the CMS is that it cannot provide him with that detail. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister if he will look at the case personally so that my constituent can finally get some resolution.

I think it is crucial that we recognise that the CMS is working in incredibly difficult times, and that it has many challenges in front of it. However, it is critical that paying parents and parents with care are given the support that they need at this difficult time. As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, no child should be going without and no child should be suffering because of the CMS.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

Place-based support and understanding is really important in devolving down and making changes on the ground. There is a great opportunity in the coming changes to the European social fund, in the shared prosperity fund and in the ability to work with local enterprise partnerships and local mayors, because young people may have fantastic employers around them, but never know that those opportunities exist.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Ind)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments about the national living wage and young people. On what evidence has she based the decision not to extend that down to 18, or is she perhaps considering providing the national living wage to those who are younger but still able to provide a great deal to employers in the workplace?

[Mims Davies]

My right hon. Friend knows that, if it were up to me, I would love to extend the national living wage down to 18, but sadly this is down to the Treasury; I will question the relevant Ministers accordingly.

Work and Pensions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the winding-up speech given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery on 18 April 2017 in the Westminster Hall debate on the Child Maintenance Service.

[Caroline Nokes]

I am very conscious that some non-resident parents hide assets and income within the bank accounts of other family members. We desperately need to address such abuses, which will form part of our arrears strategy, which we will publish later in the spring, notwithstanding my earlier comment about this morning’s announcement.

[Official Report, 18 April 2017, Vol. 624, c. 250WH.]

Letter of correction from Caroline Nokes:

An error has been identified in my closing speech. The correct statement should have been:

[Caroline Nokes]

I am very conscious that some non-resident parents hide assets and income within the bank accounts of other family members. We desperately need to address such abuses, which will form part of our arrears strategy, which we will publish later in the year, notwithstanding my earlier comment about this morning’s announcement.

Child Maintenance Service

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this important debate. She is certainly committed to this issue. I thank her for the work that she has done in raising the profile of the Child Maintenance Service and for her contribution this morning. I also thank Members of all parties. It struck me this morning that this issue transcends party lines. We have heard from the three main parties in Westminster—

[Jim Shannon]

And the DUP.

[Caroline Nokes]

And from my friends in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) raised the question of whether I felt the heat of this issue. I can assure him on this beautiful spring day that I certainly do feel the heat. Members have made me feel it this morning, but, much more importantly, I feel the heat of this issue every single time I open an email from a parent with care who is not receiving the correct amount of maintenance. I also feel it when I receive emails from non-resident parents who raise concerns about the amount they have to contribute and whether arrears that have built up are indeed the correct figure. So yes, I feel the heat. I also concur with what I think every single Member has said this morning: our first thought should be for the children. It is not a question of non-resident parents and parents with care. Their battles, to be frank, are not of interest to me compared with what we feel for the children who need support and maintenance from both parents.

I commented at a Select Committee last year when I was a new Minister—it seems a long time ago—that I wanted to hear about cases, because that helps me to point out to CMS officials where there have been failings and where we could do better. That matters to me, because it matters that maintenance flows to children in as many cases as possible. I said it at that Select Committee and I will repeat it today: I welcome receiving emails from parents with care and from non-resident parents because I need to know—although given this morning’s news, I do not know for how much longer I need to know.

I want to be clear that the responsibility for ensuring that child maintenance is paid on time and in full lies with paying parents. Parents who think they have got away with not paying their maintenance as their children grow up are not cheating the system; they are cheating their own children. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw spoke of having to think about what she left out when she composed her contribution this morning. I wake up thinking of the children who are not receiving the correct amount of maintenance. The words of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate about a truck being more important than paying maintenance to children will ring in my ears.

The DWP is currently delivering a comprehensive package of reforms to the system, which are intended to encourage and support parents to take responsibility for paying for their children’s upbringing. Where parents do not meet their responsibilities, the statutory scheme is there to enforce payments.

Hon. Members have rightly mentioned this morning that under the old system the Child Support Agency did not provide the right support to parents and was expensive to run. We know—Members have acknowledged this—that the bulk of arrears referred to accrued under the former CSA. The new system run by the Child Maintenance Service is designed to specifically address some of the shortcomings of the CSA. We have learnt from mistakes of the past. Where the previous system often drove a wedge between parents, the new system is designed to encourage collaboration at every stage. Evidence shows that parental collaboration has a direct positive impact on children’s outcomes such as health, emotional wellbeing and academic attainment. We know that a constructive inter-parental relationship, whether parents are together or separated, will improve outcomes for children.

The new child maintenance options service acts as a gateway to the scheme, ensuring that parents are given the information and support they need to make an arrangement that is right for them, whether that is a family-based arrangement or a statutory one. Our agents receive specialist training to help them to deal sensitively with clients, and tailored support is delivered via phone, live webchat and email. Child maintenance options has helped a quarter of the clients who contacted them to set up family-based arrangements, which we know are better for children in the long term. The number of parents who have made an effective arrangement following contact with the service increased in the first two quarters of 2016, from 82% to 87%.

We know that maintenance arrangements, while important, are one of the many issues that parents face when they separate, so our agents can also signpost parents to a wide range of organisations that can provide specialist support and advice on the issues they may need help with in their relationships.

The charges, which we have heard about this morning, were introduced in 2014 to provide a further incentive for parents to collaborate, and we know that collaboration works in the best interests of the children. Although the service is primarily funded by the taxpayer, the charges contribute a small amount, helping to offset some of the costs associated with providing the service—it is a small amount, in the region of 10%. All the measures are designed to encourage the parents who can to make their own family-based arrangements. It is perhaps inevitable that the families who end up in the statutory scheme will be the ones for whom that is most difficult.

It is important to reflect on that point. Parents who can collaborate do. Those who are committed to working together seldom come within the orbit of the CMS. It therefore follows that the parents with whom we do have contact are the ones who are most likely to have conflict and difficulties. It is true that, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, family-based arrangements are the ideal solution and provide the best outcomes. We do not want parents to have to come within a statutory scheme. However, we acknowledge that that is not always possible.

We continue to use all the tools at our disposal to maintain compliance and recover arrears, but it is inevitable that some arrears will accrue as some parents go to great lengths to avoid their responsibilities. At the end of last year, I visited our CMS centre in Hastings and spoke to both the enforcement team and the financial investigation unit. I was very impressed by their professionalism and dedication, but I was also struck by how difficult their job is. Perhaps it is inevitable in a buoyant employment market that non-resident parents find it easier to change job than when the economy is not so good.

We have heard from various hon. Members that one of the significant problems lies with the self-employed and company directors. It is there that we have the biggest challenges. Both the financial investigation unit and the enforcement teams are determined to do what they can, using the powers already available to them. We can at present make deductions from single-held bank accounts, but not from joint accounts. We are looking at how we can best use our powers to include joint bank accounts. I am very conscious that some non-resident parents hide assets and income within the bank accounts of other family members. We desperately need to address such abuses, which will form part of our arrears strategy, which we will publish later in the spring[Official Report, 20 April 2017, Vol. 624, c. 1-2MC.], notwithstanding my earlier comment about this morning’s announcement.

I promised the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that I would leave her some time to conclude. I am conscious that I have been short of time, but I have a mass of information that I would like the opportunity to share. My parting shot is this: if we are to have an arrears strategy and an enforcement strategy that really works, we need to be creative and determined to do it. My door is always open to Members who wish to come forward with new and innovative ideas as to how we can best make parents accept responsibility for their children.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I call Marion Fellows for about 45 seconds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)]

13. What assessment he has made of whether the benefit cap encourages people into work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

The evaluation of the previous cap speaks for itself: capped households were 41% more likely to move into work than similar uncapped households, contributing to the record levels of employment we see today. Since 2013, over 26,000 previously capped households have moved into work.

[David Mackintosh]

Can my hon. Friend give me some examples of how the benefit cap is working in my constituency?

[Caroline Nokes]

In Northampton South, of 110 house- holds capped since April 2013, 90 are no longer capped. Of those, about 48%—40 households—have moved into work, demonstrating that my hon. Friend’s constituency is outperforming the national average.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

rose—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

The hon. Lady will of course be aware that tax credits fall within the remit of Her Majesty’s Treasury, and I will be happy to ensure that that is raised with the relevant Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

Forgive me, I could not hear the Secretary of State and did not lip read effectively, but I now realise at what he was hinting. No doubt an answer will be furnished in due course.

Vinovium House

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for securing this debate. Its subject, as she has passionately and ably outlined, is Vinovium House in Bishop Auckland, one of the Department’s back-of-house processing sites for child maintenance claims. From the outset of the debate, I want to be clear that the services provided by the Department for Work and Pensions matter to millions of people every single day. But for the Department to continue to deliver its critical services and support across the country, it is vital that arrangements are put in place to protect the long-term sustainability of our services.

There is near-universal agreement that the Department for Work and Pensions needs to continue to provide excellent services for its customers while providing good value for money for the taxpayer. Reducing the amount of under-utilised space that the Department occupies is an excellent way of making sure that the Department is delivering value for money, both for those using its services and for the taxpayer.

On 31 March next year, DWP’s 20-year contract, which covers the majority of its current property portfolio of more than 900 sites, will expire. That portfolio includes Vinovium House, in the hon. Lady’s constituency. To put that into context, the DWP currently occupies about 1.5 million square metres of office space, and we must acknowledge that at least 20% of that is under-occupied. The falling claimant count and the increased use of our online services in recent years means that 20% of the money that the Department is spending on rent is going towards space that we are not using. By paying only for the space that we need and the services required to operate from it, we anticipate saving £180 million per annum over the next 10 years.

In response to the changing demands facing the Department, we have redesigned our estate in a way that delivers better value for the taxpayer. The expiry of the property contract has presented both a unique opportunity and an essential requirement to review our estate. Let me be clear: this is not about reducing services; it is about taking the opportunity to stop spending taxpayers’ money on empty space so that we can spend more on supporting those in most need.

We have carefully considered the challenges that we anticipate in the Department, but the jobs landscape and the way people work have changed significantly in the past 20 years. The Department’s services always have adapted and always will adapt to social trends. Nearly 90% of universal credit claims are made online, and more of our services are moving online. We want to continue making the most of the opportunities that new technologies present to help best meet our claimants’ needs. It is right that we reflect not only the impact of such a digital revolution on meeting our claimants’ needs, but the realities of a more flexible labour market and the significant falls in unemployment since 2010. The employment rate is at 74.6%—a new record high—and unemployment is down 913,000 since 2010, as the economy has grown. Only by building a more modern and more dynamic DWP estate can we take full advantage of new opportunities and ensure that we have sufficient flexible capacity to allow us to expand in the event of an economic downturn.

In every case where change is proposed, including that of Vinovium House, we have sought to minimise disruption and to listen carefully to those who might be affected. As I have already said, Vinovium House is a back-of-house processing site for child maintenance claims. It is a comparatively small processing site, which has total capacity for only about 135 people, and is currently only 64% used. As a result of modernisation and efficiencies, the Department’s Child Maintenance Service now takes fewer people to deliver than it did previously. Across the whole of the DWP estate, there is significantly more capacity than is needed, and it is only right that we consider our options.

Delivering a modern and dynamic service to claimants requires modern and dynamic working environments, and we are striving to work towards that as part of our vision for the DWP in 2020. Our aim is to maintain and improve the services offered across the country, and we recognise how important DWP staff are to achieving that aim. In fact, DWP staff are our most valuable resource. It is as a result of their immense effort that the Department is able to provide such a high level of service to our customers. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out the high performance of our staff at this location and to comment on the office’s top-five rating. I recognise and celebrate how great our staff are, and I reassure her that our staff are our highest priority. My colleagues and I have been clear that the proposals put forward for the DWP’s redesigned estate do not mean a reduction in the number of frontline staff. In fact, we are recruiting, and we expect to have more work coaches in every nation and region in March 2018 than we have today.

For staff at Vinovium House, we are currently working through options with each individual, identifying relocation opportunities in the event of closure, but, most of all, listening carefully to them to understand fully the impact on staff. To that end, every member of staff has been offered a face-to-face meeting with their manager as part of the current consultation. This will allow us to hear the opinions of any of the staff members who would be impacted by the proposed changes. We are listening to the views that the staff are expressing. The hon. Lady was good enough to write to the Department in advance of this debate, and she has highlighted in her letter and this evening the concerns that the staff have already raised. I want to reassure her that we are taking those concerns very seriously indeed.

In the event of site closure, the Department has already made a commitment to support anyone who chooses to relocate, including the payment of additional travel expenses for up to three years. However, the fact remains that the Department has significantly more capacity across its network than is needed to serve the needs of child maintenance group clients.

Vinovium House in Bishop Auckland accommodates a team of Child Support Agency staff working on the 2003 scheme cases. These staff ensure that compliance is maintained on ongoing cases. We recognise the vital importance of compliance and of as many children as possible benefiting from the maintenance they are owed by their non-resident parent. Although we do not envisage this, should the closure of Vinovium House result in a shortfall of staff, we are committed to deploying appropriate resources to make sure we continue to keep the money flowing for the children.

[Helen Goodman]

Before the hon. Lady moves on to another aspect of this problem, may I say that when someone phones up non-resident parents to get them to pay the money that the parent with care is entitled to receive, they have to have a bit of a negotiation. It is not like applying for child benefit—I agree that people can apply for child benefit online—because, as she must know, such discussions are particular, personalised and specific. All this about being able to do it online is irrelevant to the work done by these people in this office.

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have sat with Child Maintenance Service officers, listening to the calls that they make to non-resident parents. My first visit as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pension was to the north-east. I went to Cobalt House and saw the Child Maintenance Service in action. I have also been to the compliance unit in Hastings. She is right that those discussions are not easy—they are negotiations. That is something the staff made very clear to me. I want her to understand that one of my highest priorities is ensuring that we keep the money flowing to the children who are owed it by their non-resident parents.

I emphasise the need to cleanse the cases on the old CSA system that we are transferring to the new CMS caseload. While compliance work is immediate and happens, the arrears cleanse process can be undertaken as resources are available. We will, therefore, be able to flex our rate of cleanse in line with the amount of resources needed, to ensure that compliance work is not affected.

The overriding story to be told about the child maintenance group is one of immense improvement. All ongoing maintenance liabilities, like those managed by Vinovium House, will be managed by the Child Maintenance Service once all case closure is complete. We are seeing non-resident parents contributing to maintenance liability in seven out of eight cases. That has resulted in nearly 90% of the money due being paid towards the liability. Arrears growth is slowing and is down to 13% of total liability from 17% in 2015. Those figures reflect the Department’s commitment to improving the performance of the Child Maintenance Service.

We have made a number of changes in line with the recommendations of the Henshaw report. We have simplified the administration of the service; we have made our calculations faster and simpler through the use of HMRC income information; and we have introduced new applications in a staged pathfinder approach to ensure smooth delivery of the new scheme. All of those measures have put collaboration between parents and increased parental responsibility at the heart of the Child Maintenance Service. I am proud to say that, according to the latest figures, approximately 250,000 children are benefiting from maintenance, in part due to the excellent work of the DWP’s child maintenance service.

The proposed changes—I emphasise to the hon. Lady that they are proposed changes—are the result of careful analysis and planning. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s concerns about the proposals and thank her again for this debate, but the rationale for them is very clear: Vinovium House is currently only 64% utilised, and across the whole DWP estate 20% of the occupied space is underutilised. We are striving towards a more modern, dynamic DWP estate. That will ensure that we continue to have sufficient flexible capacity and to deliver the best services we can to our customers. To that end, we are considering whether the work currently undertaken at Vinovium House could be redistributed across the existing DWP network. In the event that that course of action is required, we would expect it to have no impact on the services we continue to provide to child maintenance group users. It is important to stress again that the closure of Vinovium House is still only a proposal at this stage, and we are continuing the consultation process with our staff to assess how each of them might be affected.

Question put and agreed to.

Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds)

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if she will make a statement on the impact on homelessness of the Government’s plans to remove automatic entitlement to housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

From 1 April, automatic entitlement to housing costs will be removed for some 18 to 21-year-olds. This is a Conservative manifesto commitment and it was formally announced as a Government measure in summer Budget 2015.

This policy removes a perverse incentive for young adults to leave the family home and pass the cost on to the taxpayer. This is about stopping young people slipping straight into a life on benefits, and it brings parity with young people who are in work but who may not be able to leave the family home, while an unemployed young person can do so.

We have always been clear that this policy will have a comprehensive set of exemptions, to make sure that the most vulnerable continue to have the housing support that they need, so the policy will affect only those who have no barriers to work and who are unable to return safely to their parental home. In addition, there is a time-limited exemption for those who have recently been in work. The policy will apply only to those in universal credit full service areas who make new claims or whose earnings drop below the in-work threshold after that date.

The policy will be implemented at the same time as the new youth obligation, an intensive package of labour market support for young people from day one of their claim. With new support available under the youth obligation, more young adults will move into work, significantly improving their current living standards and future prospects.

[John Healey]

My urgent question—this concern is shared by Members on both sides of the House—was: what assessment has been done of the impact of the cuts on homelessness? With respect to the Minister, she has made a statement but she could have given a one-word answer, which is “none”. No impact assessment was published with the regulations on Friday. Why not? How many young people will now be denied all help with housing benefit? There are 1,741 18 to 21-year-olds in the Minister’s county of Hampshire claiming housing benefit. How many of them will still get help next month, and how many will get nothing?

The Minister may not have done an assessment, but the charities that work day in, day out to help the homeless in all our constituencies have done so. Centrepoint says that 9,000 young people will be put at risk of homelessness. Shelter says that

“there is no way this isn’t going to lead to an increase in rough sleeping.”

Crisis, which drafted the very important Homelessness Reduction Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), says that the policy “runs entirely counter” to the aims of that Bill, and that it

“could spell disaster for the many vulnerable young people rightly entitled to help.”

Surely the Minister does not think that those charities are wrong. If she knows they are right, surely the Government are not going to go ahead with these cruel and counterproductive cuts.

Members on both sides of the House have deeply held concerns about the rapidly rising level of homelessness in our country. Will the Minister accept that none of the arguments that she has made today or previously really stack up? She says that this is about levelling the playing field, but these young people, who are old enough to marry, work, pay taxes and fight for our country, will now be denied the same right as other British adults to basic help with housing costs.

Ministers have said that the exemptions will protect the vulnerable, but the National Landlords Association declares:

“Never mind the nuances, all landlords will hear is that 18-21 year olds are no longer entitled to housing benefit…they just won’t consider them as a tenant.”

Ministers have said that this will save money, but once the knock-on costs to other services are taken into account the saving will fall to only £3.3 million.

The Minister talked about the manifesto; it contained a commitment to remove the “automatic” entitlement. Claimants already have to pass multiple checks and tests, so there really is nothing automatic about young people getting housing benefit. Will the Minister recognise that the Government have the opportunity in tomorrow’s Budget to reverse this counterproductive policy? Will she leave the House this afternoon and tell the Chancellor that if he does so, he will have the fullest support not just from Opposition Members but, I suspect, from Members across the House?

[Caroline Nokes]

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of those across the country—he specifically mentioned Hampshire—who are already in receipt of housing benefit. They will have transitional protections and will not be affected. So when he asks how many in the county of Hampshire will have their housing benefit withdrawn, the answer is none, the same as for every county. He also raised the case of those who are serving in the armed forces, of taxpayers and of couples who have children. If he looked at the list of exemptions that was published on Friday, he would see that those are all included.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the light of all the exemptions, we are actually talking not about the children, but about the responsibilities of the parents? Are we not seeing here a reassertion, rightly, of the responsibilities of parents for unemployed young people under the age of 21?

[Caroline Nokes]

My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. This is about encouraging family responsibility. It is about enabling and helping young people who have the choice to remain at home to stay there. For those who cannot stay at home, a very significant exemption is written in; those for whom it is inappropriate to stay in the family home will be exempted from this policy.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Yesterday, SNP MPs joined others to try to annul this ludicrous legislation. The Government seem to be working on the incorrect assumption that young people can simply stay at home, when parents have no obligation to house their adult children. The SNP has consistently opposed the withdrawal of housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds, but under the current powers of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government cannot reverse the cut or provide an exemption for Scotland. Does the Minister agree that it is simply ridiculous that young people should suffer purely because the Government are obsessed with imposing austerity? Can she tell us how many young people will be affected who do not qualify for an exemption? Does she think that an unemployed young adult is more likely to get a job if they have a stable address, or if they are living in a hostel or sleeping on the streets? Will the UK Government exempt Scottish young people from the impact of the regulations and allow the Scottish Government to provide the housing support on their behalf?

[Caroline Nokes]

The Scottish Government already have a wide range of powers that would enable them to alleviate the proposed changes. Our Government are committed to working with the Scottish Government on a whole range of issues in the DWP portfolio, to make sure that they have the power and the strength to implement those powers.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

What are the Government doing to ensure that this policy supports young people who are in work?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend is right to mention young people who are in work. Anybody who is working 16 hours a week or more at the national minimum wage equivalent will be exempt.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I think we should call this what it is: a nasty, vindictive policy that will make injustice worse, from a Government who said that they would tackle burning injustice. Will the Minister now answer the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) asked? No impact assessment has been published for the measure—inexplicably, in my view. Will she tell the House what advice she has received from her officials about the impact on homelessness of this proposal?

[Caroline Nokes]

The Department has, of course, met all its requirements under the public sector equality duty. Equality assessment information has been received and shared with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which chose not to consult on this.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Young people in their first jobs cannot afford their own accommodation, so they share with other young people or they stay at home. Why should it be different for people who are out of work?

[Caroline Nokes]

My right hon. Friend makes exactly the point that underpins this policy. We want young people in work and young people out of work to be making the same choices about where they are going to live.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think that anyone listening to this urgent question would, frankly, be appalled by the responses that we have had thus far from the Minister. She has not answered any of the questions that were rightly asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). Will she tell us why the equality impact assessment has not been published and when she will bring it forward, so that we can all see exactly the rationale behind this ridiculous policy?

[Caroline Nokes]

I think I have answered that. The Department has engaged extensively at ministerial and official level with stakeholders. We announced this measure in the summer Budget. There is no duty on us to share the impact assessment with the House, but we did share it with the Social Security Advisory Committee.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that care leavers will not be affected by these changes?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point about care leavers. Absolutely, they are exempt from this policy.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

One of the exemptions in the regulations where housing benefit can still be paid is if

“in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is inappropriate for the renter to live with each of their parents”.

Does the Secretary of State assume that this exemption will automatically apply where the parents refuse to have their child living with them?

[Caroline Nokes]

Absolutely. That is a point. A very important exemption is included, so where that is inappropriate—where a parent cannot or will not accommodate their child—such people will be exempt from the policy.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

The key point is that nipping the dependency culture in the bud at the earliest opportunity is very important, because once it takes hold it can be very damaging to the interests of those concerned. I must say one thing, however: young people may well think this is fair, but when we do this and protect every single penny going to pensioners, including the winter fuel allowance for millionaires in mortgage-free mansions just because they are over 65, they can be forgiven for thinking that we are not playing fairly by everybody. That would be my observation.

[Caroline Nokes]

We are trying to play fairly by young people who are in work but have to make the decision that they simply cannot afford to leave the family home and stay living with their parents.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Will the Minister explain the rationale for denying young adults access to housing and support, while providing it for older adults? On the face of it, and from the Minister’s comments so far, it appears to be nothing other than the demonisation of young people.

[Caroline Nokes]

This is not about the demonisation of young people; it is about encouraging young people to make sensible and rational choices about where they are going to live, whether or not they are in work.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

As a parent of two children between 18 and 21, I would be appalled if I felt that they had left home to live a life on housing benefits while they still have a bed in my house. Will the Minister confirm that support will be made available for those who are vulnerable or have complex needs?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, and absolutely yes. Those who cannot live with their parents and those in receipt of the main disability benefits will be exempt from this policy.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Further to the question from the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), will the Minister confirm what I believe she said earlier, which is that the only thing necessary for a young person to demonstrate before being entitled to the housing element of universal credit is that their parent has said that they cannot live at home?

[Caroline Nokes]

Yes, and I think I have made that very clear. If it is inappropriate for a young person to live at home with their parents, they will be exempt from this policy.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The YMCA tells me that, from April, it may not be able to house young people with the most complex needs, those with addictions and mental health conditions, those who may not be able to learn or earn, and those who cannot or will not stay at home or, indeed, access temporary accommodation. In relation to supported housing for vulnerable people, which is at stake, will the Minister clarify the scope of the exemption in regulation 4B(e), and defer the application of the impact on those at most risk of homelessness until we know the outcome of the supported housing review?

[Caroline Nokes]

The YMCA has been involved in the consultation process. As I believe I said at an event downstairs last night, it is always a trusted adviser that provides excellent advice and information. Absolutely: those with complex needs and mental health conditions will be exempt from this policy.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell me whether she has made any assessment of the impact of these changes on excellent small charities, such as Doorstep in my constituency, that help young people who find themselves unable to continue to live at home?

[Caroline Nokes]

I have received a great deal of information from and had roundtables with a number of providers and charities, including some of the smaller ones. We have been very clear: those for whom it is inappropriate to live at home will be exempt from this policy.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The principal reason why young people become homeless is a relationship breakdown with their family. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State, not by local decision makers who may discriminate against young people when they cannot live with their family?

[Caroline Nokes]

I commend my hon. Friend for his excellent work on the Homelessness Reduction Bill. Absolutely: it is a question of young people informing a work coach, somebody in the local authority or a trusted medical professional of their inability to live at home because their relationship with their parent has broken down, and in those cases they will receive the exemption.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Given that the Minister has conceded that there is an impact assessment—she said that she has not published it because she does not need to—and in view of the concern that exists, would she care to think again and publish the impact assessment?

[Caroline Nokes]

We looked very carefully, under the public sector equality duty, at the impact this policy would have and we have shared that information with the Social Security Advisory Committee. I am under no obligation to publish it.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Will the Minister explain how the policy will apply to young people on apprenticeships, who may be earning below the national living wage?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point in apprenticeship week. Absolutely: apprentices will be exempt from this policy.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

Last Thursday, as part of the work I am doing on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on homelessness in Greater Manchester, I went around the streets of the city centre of Manchester and was shocked to see the risk that young people face from the dealing of psychoactive substances and the threat that they face from violence. Does the hon. Lady not understand that this will force significantly more young people in our country into rough sleeping and make them increasingly vulnerable? Is this not the personification of the return of the nasty party?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman makes the assumption that this will increase homelessness. In fact, we expect there to be behavioural change and that young people will, where they can, stay living with their parents. Where they cannot stay living with their parents, they will be exempt from this policy.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

At a time when the public is increasingly fed up with politicians who do not do what they say they will do at election time, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on the audacity of sticking to a Conservative manifesto commitment? Will she confirm that youth unemployment actually continues to fall and that, week by week, more and more young people have the security and dignity of taking a wage back home?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are 197,000 more young people in work than there were in 2010. He is right: this policy was a manifesto commitment and it was in the summer Budget of 2015, and we are delivering on that commitment.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The vast majority of my young constituents who need to access housing benefit are doing so in the private rented sector, which means that they already face crippling costs and great insecurity. Why can the Minister not see that, across the board for young people, this policy simply makes precarious situations more precarious, stigmatises young people and is nothing short of a kick in the teeth? Why are the Government ignoring the overwhelming evidence from those who work with young people showing that this policy will make homelessness worse, and why will she not drop it?

[Caroline Nokes]

As the hon. Lady will have heard, we have put in place a long list of exemptions to protect those who are most vulnerable and to enable those who need the support to continue to receive it. She makes the really important point that we are there to support the most vulnerable and also to ensure that there is an even playing field between those in work and those who are not. One of the most straightforward ways in which to be exempt from this policy is to be working for 16 hours or more a week.

[Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)]

Like the Minister, I am a great supporter of the YMCA. Will she confirm what impact the measures will have on all these young people, who benefit in so many amazing ways from organisations such as the YMCA?

[Caroline Nokes]

The YMCA is among the best and leading training providers in the country, and it is also a significant housing provider. We are determined to work with such stakeholders to make sure that young people who are exempt from the policy receive that exemption and are still supported to make sure they are in training, so that they can move into the work they need.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My constituency has full service before most other constituencies. The Highland Council’s temporary homeless accommodation framework is £175 a week. Before universal credit, my constituent Gavin was awarded £168 a week, leaving £7 extra to find from other entitlements. Now, it is £60, meaning £115 extra, which is much more than he gets, even before he pays for his food, light, heat or anything else. How is that fair?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman did not say how old his constituent is. It is really important that we are focusing support on those who need it most. When it comes to young people, we are obliging them to make the same sort of choices that his constituents who are in work for 16 hours or more a week are making.

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that the Government are doing everything possible to prepare young people for the world of work, so that fewer young people are at risk of falling into a life on benefits?

[Caroline Nokes]

The Government are bringing forward the youth obligation in April, which is about making sure that young people who are not in work are undertaking the appropriate training or apprenticeship they need to put them in the best position to move into work.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

May I return to the definition of “inappropriate to return”? Would that include a case that I have heard about: a young man who was kicked out by his stepfather for being gay, but was told he could return home if he denied his sexuality?

[Caroline Nokes]

Yes. We have been very clear about that. If a young person would find it impossible and inappropriate to return home, they would receive the exemption. The situation outlined by the hon. Lady is absolutely one that we have considered.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

Drilling down into the exemptions, who will make the decisions about cases such as the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue)? Similar exemptions exist for victims of domestic violence to access legal aid—they need a letter from a doctor or from a specialist agency—but 37% of women still report that they are not able to access legal aid. How does the Minister propose that the policy will work, how much will it cost and how much will it save?

[Caroline Nokes]

The anticipation is that the policy will save in the region of £105 million over the period of this Parliament. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that victims of domestic violence are exempt from the policy. We recognise the impact on young women who have been victims of domestic violence and the importance of supporting them.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The young people the Minister describes bear no resemblance to the young people I used to work with at the youth homelessness charity Centrepoint, many of whom had experienced horrendous physical, mental and emotional abuse, which meant that they understandably no longer had a relationship with their families. How does she expect those young people to prove that they cannot return home? They cannot simply pick up the phone to their parents, and they should not be forced to recount to a stranger again and again the stories of what had happened to them. What will the Minister do to make sure that young people are not subjected to reliving the horrendous abuse that they have already suffered?

[Caroline Nokes]

Those who have reported abuse to a stakeholder or a trusted professional will be exempt from the policy. It is our intention to ensure that we establish a long list of stakeholders who can take on that reporting. It should, of course, be the case that they should only have to report it once.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Yet again, for ideological reasons the Tories have identified a problem that does not really exist. Less than 1% of 18 to 21-year-olds claim jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit at the same time. We have heard that the policy will only save £105 million if it actually works as planned. Will the Minister tell me one non-Government stakeholder that agrees that it will help young people into long-term, stable work?

[Caroline Nokes]

We put the policy in our manifesto for the 2015 election and included it in the summer Budget 2015. We have been really clear that it is about providing fairness for those who are in work as well as those who are out of work, and ensuring that young people have the same decisions to make about the affordability of their housing.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

There has been a war on young people by this Government for seven years, and this is the most shameful policy they have brought forward affecting the most vulnerable. Not to produce an impact statement is an absolutely disgrace. The Minister talks about getting people back into work, so let us talk about what the Government have done for young people’s wages. An apprentice wage is £3.50 an hour. How on earth can that person get to work if they are denied the assistance they need for housing and they cannot work near their home?

[Caroline Nokes]

As I said earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), apprentices will be exempt.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I have come across many reasons that 18 to 21-year-olds have left home, but I have never seen claiming housing benefit as an incentive. Given the long list of exemptions, would it not just be easier for the Minister to scrap the policy altogether?

[Caroline Nokes]

The Government included this as a manifesto commitment, and we are determined to deliver it.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

The Minister talks about an even playing field. If she is so confident that the policy is fair, why will she not publish the impact assessment? What does she have to hide?

[Caroline Nokes]

There is absolutely nothing to hide. I have considered my public sector equality duty carefully. As I said, the assessment was shared with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which chose not to consult on this.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I would like to help the Minister. She is almost there. She said that this policy will save £105 million. We can work out how many people will be affected when we leave the Chamber, but will she confirm whether it is in the region of 10,000? Is the figure higher or lower than that?

[Caroline Nokes]

The policy is expected to affect 5,000 young people in the first year, and 10,000 a year in steady state.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Given that the number of people rough sleeping has more than doubled since 2010, does the Minister think that the policy, which singles out young adults, will make that shameful statistic better or worse?

[Caroline Nokes]

As I have said repeatedly, we have put in place a long list of exemptions precisely to prevent homelessness. Those who are unable to return to the family home will be exempt from the policy, so we do not expect it to increase homelessness.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The lack of a published impact assessment is simply scandalous. Will the Minister tell us the measured impact on a vulnerable young person who has had to leave home because of difficulties or abuse, and who is now being asked to prove that abuse just so they can get the housing support they need to live away from their family?

[Caroline Nokes]

A vulnerable young person who has had to leave home because of abuse will, of course, be exempt.

Draft Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017.

These regulations were laid before both Houses on 12 January. They provide the details of a new benefit—bereavement support payment—that was first considered by this House as part of the Pensions Act 2014. Bereavement support payment will replace bereavement allowance, widowed parent’s allowance and the bereavement payment for those who lose a spouse or civil partner on or after 6 April 2017. The regulations set out the amounts to be paid, the duration of payments, payments for those who are prisoners, and the territories in which a person must reside in order to receive the new benefit. I am satisfied that this instrument is compatible with the European convention on human rights.

Losing a spouse or civil partner is a tragic occurrence; bereavement benefits provide important financial support during this deeply distressing time in a person’s life. Previous reforms have tended to be limited and in response to specific pressures. No one had really considered how this support fits in with the wider changes to the benefits system and, indeed, to the social landscape as a whole. Consequently, the current benefits are out of date, difficult to administer and hard to understand. Reform is essential to simplify and modernise the system.

The history of bereavement benefits is rooted in the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act 1925—a time when most women were wholly dependent on their husband’s income. Then, if a woman was widowed, her sole source of income would disappear completely, so it was considered necessary to provide a replacement for that income in order for her to survive. Thankfully, that is no longer the case. Women as well as men are active participants in today’s workforce, and many households are now made up of and benefit from dual careers and dual incomes.

Where the loss of a spouse equates to the loss of the sole breadwinner, income-related benefits are available to make sure that nobody is left without sufficient money to live on. The bereavement support payment is designed to be significantly simpler than current bereavement benefits, with a uniform payment structure and a single contribution condition. The aim is to provide targeted financial support when it is needed most, without affecting access to additional forms of support available through other parts of the welfare system.

The reform of bereavement benefits has been welcomed by both the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Select Committee on Work and Pensions; the latter heralded many of the changes as long overdue. In addition to the scrutiny provided by those two bodies, the bereavement support payment was also the subject of a public consultation exercise that was launched in 2011. Responses to the consultation played a major part in the design of the bereavement support payment, including the carefully considered decision to structure the payments as a series of instalments as opposed to a single lump sum, and the decision that the bereavement support payment will not be subject to income tax. The evidence from our public consultation exercise found that the financial impact of spousal bereavement is particularly acute in the early months. The bereavement support payment will therefore provide a significant cash lump sum for people when they need it most. It will be a single payment followed by 18 monthly instalments.

Recognising that those with children need greater support, a higher rate will be paid to those who are pregnant or who have dependent children when they are bereaved. The duration of the payments is not intended to equate to the period of an individual’s grief; nor is it intended to provide ongoing income replacement. The fundamental design principle of the new benefit is that, as a short-term payment, it aims to address the additional costs of bereavement, rather than contribute to everyday living costs.

As the bereavement support payment is clearly distinct from income replacement benefits, we will disregard the payments for the purposes of universal credit and legacy benefits, as well as discount them from the calculations that count towards the benefit cap. This will clearly benefit the least well-off, as they will for the first time be able to receive payments of bereavement benefit in full, alongside any other benefit entitlements. Let me be clear that this reform is not about saving money; it is aimed at providing targeted financial support when it is most needed. Analysis shows that, overall, over half of new recipients will be better off after the reforms.

Looking at the welfare system as a whole, I believe that the best way to provide meaningful support to those who have been bereaved is through a shorter-term payment of bereavement benefit, combined with longer-term means-tested benefits if needed. As I have already stated, losing a spouse or civil partner is a tragic occurrence, the effects of which are likely to be felt for many years after the event. We need to keep in mind that the support we provide should be more than just help towards the initial costs; we also have a responsibility to help the bereaved to adjust to their change in situation.

For those who are not in work or who have given up working in order to care for a terminally ill spouse, part of the process of adjustment is making plans to return to the workplace. It is well known that prolonged periods away from the labour market can have a negative effect on a person’s financial, emotional and psychological wellbeing. Growing up in a workless household is known to have a detrimental impact on children, affecting everything from socialisation to educational attainment. This responsibility needs to be balanced with the need for the surviving parent to be able to spend time with their children to help them to process their grief.

In keeping with current bereavement benefits, the bereavement support payment has no work-related requirements attached. Universal credit claimants who are bereaved are exempted from work search requirements for six months. After that period has passed, we will take a flexible approach to conditionality, allowing it to be tailored to the individual. This progressive reform to bereavement support is an important aspect of the system; by providing greater flexibility and tailoring conditionality in this way, we are seeking to make it far more sympathetic to people who have suffered a tragic loss.

The bereavement support payment should not be seen as just the latest in a list of reforms to bereavement benefits. It is a brand-new approach to helping those who have been bereaved. First and foremost, it is about providing fast and direct financial help in the crucial months following the loss of a spouse. Secondly, it is about helping widows and widowers to rejoin the labour market and providing them with the right level of support to make that a reality. It is a new approach with the interests of the bereaved, of families and of children at heart. With that in mind, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. As I have already stated, the Government are absolutely committed to supporting those who have lost a spouse or civil partner; financially in the shorter term by way of these payments, and then practically, if and when it is appropriate, to return to employment.

I express my appreciation for the consideration that hon. Members have given to these regulations, in what I see as the first step to ensuring that we align bereavement support with other welfare policies. I want to respond to comments made by hon. Members and the shadow spokesman. We do not believe—nor could we—that the period of payment should be equivalent to the period of grief following spousal bereavement. We heard from several hon. Members that grief is not linear; it impacts different people in different ways and at different times.

We learned through the consultation process carried out with SSAC and the Work and Pensions Committee, as well as the wider public consultation, that grief will impact at different times in different ways. It will particularly impact on anniversaries. That is one reason we listened to the comments of the Work and Pensions Committee and chose to extend this provision from 12 months to 18 months, so that there would be no coinciding with the anniversary of the death.

It is right to put on the record that we considered providing a simple, lump sum payment at the moment of bereavement, which could be described as a death grant. However, the consultations said that was not wanted and that there should be some level of ongoing support during those critical first few months.

Bereavement support is designed to support people with the additional costs associated with bereavement, rather than to provide an income replacement. That is a really important distinction to make. Income-based benefits are more suited to provide the longer-term assistance with everyday living costs. By investing an additional £45 million, the Government are seeking to provide financial support for the acute period to facilitate the process of readjustment.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister heard the quotes I used from young Sam, who tells us that he is still hurting after four years. People can hurt with bereavement after almost a generation has passed. Surely there is some concession to be made by the Government for the likes of Sam, whose mother took two and a half years to get back to work and still needs some support to drop him off and pick him up from school.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I was going to move on to refer to Sam’s comments. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have seen a copy of the letter that he sent to his MP, and there are some important reflections on that. On universal credit, it is important to note that the conditionality can be lifted or someone can be completely exempted. It is important to recognise in the arena of universal credit that we want a much more tailored relationship between individuals and their work coaches.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Minister explain how somebody can be exempted unconditionally into the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

By discussion with their work coach. That is simply the way we expect that to happen. People will be able to develop that relationship and ask for that exemption. That is really important, reflecting what the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Islwyn and Sam have told us: grief can strike at any time. It is not linear or necessarily over in the first 18 months, and we are not suggesting that it is.

[Alex Cunningham]

I have not seen anything offering guidance to work coaches. Will the Minister publish guidance to work coaches in the Library so that we can understand the advice that people are getting and how they can ensure that they get the support they require?

[Caroline Nokes]

We will be happy to publish that guidance when the legislation has been debated and completed.

Extending the provision of bereavement support payment to cohabitees was discussed during the passage of the Pensions Act 2014. Indeed, the eligibility criteria of a legal marriage or civil partnership with the deceased form part of that Act. The eligibility of cohabitees was therefore fixed in the primary legislation and is not a matter for these regulations, but I am happy to explain the decisions that Parliament took on eligibility in the Act. Marriage and civil partnership are legal contracts that are associated with certain rights, including inheritance and recognition in the tax system. Extending eligibility to cohabitees would not only increase spend but be complex to administer. Having to prove cohabitation at a time of bereavement could be a lengthy and complex process and might cause additional distress, which we seek to avoid.

Critics have suggested that those who choose not to formalise their relationship might be treated unfairly, since they can be treated as a couple for income-related benefits but not for contributory benefits. However, income-related benefits serve a very different purpose: the ongoing day-to-day needs of a household, irrespective of whether the relationship is formal. When assessing entitlement to income-related benefit payments, the state rightly assumes that couples have joint outgoings and share resources such as earnings or other income, whatever the legal status of their relationship. The position is different for bereavement benefits because they are contributory benefits; the founding principle of the contributory benefit system is that all rights to inheritable benefits derived from another person’s contribution are based on the concept of legal marriage or civil partnership.

[Alex Cunningham]

Surely if a man and a woman live together, have children together and are on the electoral register together, they are a couple for all intents and purposes. Why on earth are we penalising the child? I cannot understand why we can make the exception in some areas of benefits but not in this one.

[Caroline Nokes]

As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman, that question was discussed and debated during the passage of the Pensions Act 2014, in which the eligibility criteria for contributory benefits are clearly set out.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am sorry to be such a pain to the Minister, but if the person who has died has been a contributor throughout their working time, surely his or her children are entitled to something from that contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

Which indeed is a point that the hon. Gentleman could have made back in 2013 when we debated the 2014 Act. As I said, it is a long-established principle of that Act that contributory benefits are based on the concept of legal marriage or civil partnership, and this Committee cannot change that.

The draft regulations will make no changes to conditionality. Like the bereavement benefits that they replace, bereavement support payments have no work-related conditions; any obligation to participate in any work-related activity will come from claiming other benefits. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, it is well known that long periods out of work can have a negative effect on an individual’s prospect of future employment. The Government therefore think it important that people are encouraged to maintain a link with the labour market. Recipients of the bereavement support payment who also receive universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance will be able to access Jobcentre Plus on a voluntary basis from three months after bereavement and will not be subject to conditionality for a further three months. Those exemptions can apply even when there is no entitlement to bereavement support benefit. At the end of the six months, advisers will use their discretion to ensure that individuals’ capabilities and requirements are taken into account, as the hon. Member for Stockton North and I have discussed.

The hon. Gentleman raised uprating. Bereavement benefits are uprated by annual social security benefits uprating orders. The basic component—bereavement allowance and widowed parent’s allowance—must be uprated annually at least in line with price inflation, but there is no requirement to uprate the bereavement payment, which has been frozen since 2001. Bereavement support payment is a grant paid in instalments rather than an income replacement benefit, so it is treated in a similar way to the current bereavement payment: it is reviewed annually on a discretionary basis. Section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides for the rate of bereavement support payment to be reviewed annually. Regular review would allow the value of the benefit to be increased if that is considered necessary. Any decisions on future changes will be taken as part of the annual fiscal process in the context of wider public finances.

The Government have already committed to reviewing the 2013 impact assessment. We will do so when sufficient evidence is available to assess all aspects of the policy, including its effectiveness.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Since the regulations were laid before the House in January, what consideration have the Minister and her colleagues given to developing cost-neutral proposals that could spread the payments over three years to those with dependent children? The suggestion was made by the Childhood Bereavement Network as a way to work with the grain of the Government’s proposals while allowing families to receive the benefits for a longer period.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that suggestion. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes, and for Thornbury and Yate, who wrote to me on behalf of their constituents Heather Smith and Sarah Metcalfe to make exactly that point. I am conscious that the suggestion comes from the Childhood Bereavement Network, which has been in touch with me personally over the last few weeks.

When we considered the proposals, as I said originally, we considered making a one-off grant at the outset, but that was rejected by both the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee. They suggested a period of 18 months, on which we consulted the Childhood Bereavement Network. I can see the merit in considering changing it to three years, but that would halve the monthly payments in the first 18 months. We did not think that gave families the best chance of lessening the fiscal impact of losing a spouse’s income. We considered it, but we came to the view that we should adopt the Work and Pensions Committee’s suggestion of 18 months.

[Alex Cunningham]

I do not know whether the Minister has acknowledged the £100 million saving, but surely it would go some way toward providing the extension to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley referred.

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will of course be aware that over the first two years of the proposed reform we will spend an additional £45 million. Any savings will be for future Governments to reinvest as they choose.

It is important to emphasise that nobody in receipt of the current bereavement benefit stands to lose out as a result of the reforms. Recipients of the current benefit will continue to receive it for the natural lifetime of their award. Furthermore, households with dependent children will receive higher payments in recognition of that fact. Analysis shows that more people stand to gain than lose from the changes, particularly the least well off, because bereavement support will be paid on top of any income-related benefits that the household receives.

As I said, we are disregarding bereavement support payment in the calculation of other benefits, which will ensure that the immediate additional costs of bereavement are met while those requiring further support will be able to obtain it from other parts of the welfare system that are better placed to provide longer-term, means-tested financial assistance. As various Members have mentioned and I have confirmed, conditionality can be tailored through the ongoing relationship with Jobcentre Plus according to a claimant’s personal circumstances.

I meant to mention Sam—apologies for not having done so. I was particularly moved by his letter and thought that he conveyed his situation both movingly and incredibly intelligently. One can only feel for a child who has lost their parent. I must emphasise that families such as his, which are currently in receipt of the benefits as they stand, will not lose. Nothing will change for them. That is an important distinction to make. As I said, it was a benefit system meant to recognise widows—women, not men—way back in the 1920s. It is important that we heed the words of the Select Committee, which said that this reform and modernisation was well overdue.

In conclusion, I reassure hon. Members that this Government have the welfare of the bereaved and their families at heart. There can be absolutely no question but that the loss of a spouse is tragic, and it is doubly so for families with children. There can be no time limit on grief for such a loss, and nor is there a pre-defined way in which grief will manifest itself, but where we can help, we will do so. We remain committed to supporting widows and widowers to adjust to their new circumstances and to providing financial help in the difficult months following their loss. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

Social Security and Pensions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.

[Mr Speaker]

With this we shall consider the following motion:

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.

[Caroline Nokes]

With the leave of the House, and as you have indicated, Mr Speaker, my remarks will cover motions 3 and 4 on the Order Paper. In my view, the provisions in both orders are compatible with the European convention on human rights.

I will first deal with an entirely technical matter that we attend to in this place each year and that I do not imagine we will need to dwell on today. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2017 provides for contracted-out benefit schemes to increase members’ guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997 by 1%.

The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2017 reflects the Government’s continuing commitment to increase the basic and new state pension with the triple lock by 2.5%, to increase the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings, and to increase benefits to meet additional disability needs and carer benefits in line with prices. The Chancellor reaffirmed this Government’s commitment to the triple lock for the length of this Parliament in his autumn statement on 23 November last year, ensuring that the basic state pension will continue to be uprated by the highest of earnings, prices or 2.5%. This year, the increase in average earnings and the increase in prices were less than the baseline of 2.5%, meaning that the basic state pension will increase by 2.5%. From April 2017, the rate of the basic state pension for a single person will increase by £3 to £122.30 a week. As a result, the basic state pension will be more than £1,200 a year higher from April 2017 compared with April 2010. We estimate that the basic state pension will be around 18.5% of average earnings—one of its highest levels relative to earnings for over two decades.

Last year, the Government introduced the new state pension for people reaching their state pension age from 6 April 2016 onwards, making the system clearer and providing a sustainable foundation for private saving. The Government have previously announced that the triple lock will apply to the full rate of the new state pension for the length of this Parliament. This is the first year that the new state pension will be uprated. As a result, the full rate of the new state pension will also increase by 2.5% this year, meaning that from April 2017 the full rate of the new state pension will increase by £3.90 to £159.55 a week—around 24.2% of average earnings.

We are continuing to take steps to protect the poorest pensioners, including through the pension credit standard minimum guarantee, the means-tested threshold below which pensioner income should not fall. The pension credit standard minimum guarantee will rise in line with average earnings at 2.4%, meaning that from April 2017 the single person threshold of this safety net benefit will rise by £3.75 to £159.35. Pensioner poverty continues to stand at one of the lowest rates since comparable records began.

On the additional state pension, this year state earnings-related pension schemes, the other state second pensions and protected payments in the new state pension will rise in line with prices, by 1%. The Government will continue to ensure that carers and people who face additional costs because of their disability will see their benefits uprated in the usual way, so disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, incapacity benefit and the personal independence payment will all rise in line with prices, by 1%, from April 2017.

In addition, those disability-related and carer premiums paid with pension credit and working-age benefits will also increase by 1%, as will the employment and support allowance support group component and the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit.

This Government will be spending an extra £2.5 billion in 2017-18 on uprating benefit and pension rates. With the guaranteed minimum pensions increase order we continue: to maintain our commitment to the triple lock for both the basic and the new state pension for the length of this Parliament; to increase the pension credit standard minimum guarantee by earnings; and to increase benefits that reflect the additional costs that disabled people face as a result of their disability, and carers’ benefits, in line with prices. That includes increases to the disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, incapacity benefit, the personal independence payment and disability carer premiums.

I commend the orders to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), speaking from the Opposition Front Benches, for their contributions. I will attempt to address the specific points raised in full.

The Government did respond to the National Audit Office report outlining the online Check your State Pension service, which now delivers personalised information to people many years in advance. The report also acknowledged that the aggregate impacts of the reforms need to be taken into account. Taking account of all elements of the reform, about 75% of people will receive more from the new state pension by 2030 than under the previous systems. There is no statutory requirement for formerly contracted-out pension schemes to increase for those accrued between 1978 and 1988. The Government do not intend to introduce legislation requiring those schemes to index pre-1988 guaranteed minimum pension rights. This needs to be set in context with the changes to the overall pensions landscape. Other aspects of pension reform may offset the loss of indexation—for example, maintaining the triple lock in this Parliament. Since 2011, the basic state pension has risen by £570 a year more than it would had it been uprated by earnings.

Work, not welfare, is the best and most sustainable route out of poverty, which is why our tax and welfare reforms are designed to ensure that work pays and that increased earnings are rewarded, rather than penalised. However, we remain committed to supporting people who cannot work and those with additional needs, which is why the orders provide for an additional £2.5 billion in 2017-18 to increase benefits for pensioners, carers and the additional costs of disability. We have had to make difficult decisions on spending. To protect those with additional needs, we are increasing the ESA support group component in line with the consumer prices index, and will also increase the enhanced disability, severe disability, carer and pensioner premiums.

The Government are committed to building a country that works for everyone, which is why the forthcoming Green Paper will identify and address the root causes of child poverty, building on the new statutory indicators of parental worklessness and children’s educational attainment, which were set out in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will be aware that the current policy regarding overseas pensions is a longstanding one of successive Governments that has been in place for almost 70 years. Many Commonwealth countries, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand, have pension systems that take account of overseas pensions as part of their means test. That means that a significant proportion of any increases in the UK state pension would go to the respective Treasuries of those countries. The hon. Lady is, of course, right to point out the issue of British overseas pensioners in other EU member states. Let me reassure her that their rights are part of the negotiation process. The Government are committed to getting the best deal for those pensioners.

The Government will be spending an extra £2.5 billion in 2017-18 on uprating benefit and pension rates. We will be spending over £2.1 billion more on state pensions and pension credit; nearly £0.3 billion more on disabled people and their carers; and £100 million more on people who are unable to work because of sickness or unemployment.

To conclude, the Government are continuing their commitment to the triple lock for both basic and new state pension for the length of this Parliament. We are increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee by earnings, and increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs, and carer benefits, by prices. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Pensions

Resolved,

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.—(Caroline Nokes.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

T9. Does the Minister agree that it was important to introduce the cap on out-of-work benefits to deal with the excesses of a system that used to see a single household being given £100,000 a year in housing benefit?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

My right hon. Friend is right to point out that the benefit cap is working. It has brought about behavioural change, and evaluation of the current cap level has found that capped households are 41% more likely to go into work than similar, uncapped households. More than that, 38% of those capped said that they were doing more to find work, a third were submitting more applications and a fifth went to more interviews.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

T2. New recipients of support who are in the work-related activity group will cease to receive the work-related activity component payment as of this April. As we have only a short six weeks until those claimants are hit by this change in policy, can the Minister tell us exactly what additional support they will receive?