Welfare Reform Bill

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to make my first contribution to this stage of proceedings on the Bill by welcoming an aspect of Government amendment 2. Specifically, it is enormously welcome that the short paragraph (e) will enable regulations to include

“a level of earnings below which earnings must not be reduced”

when overpayments are being recovered. That echoes the practice in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and other nations, which have legally enforceable, attachment-free limits when debts are being enforced, below which claimants must be protected. The limits relate to a national minimum income standard, which is set by a variety of methods. I am grateful to Professor John Veit-Wilson, Professor Elaine Kempson, Damon Gibbons of Debt on our Doorstep and Rev. Paul Nicolson of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, who have helped me to prepare for this debate.

I would be pleased to see the principle of irreducible attachment-free minimums extended to all debts and to the unemployed, in particular to safeguard children’s, disability and housing benefits. That would prevent the damage that is done to physical and mental health by the enforcement of debt against poverty incomes, and the damage that that does to the capacity of the poorest adults to find and keep work.

In Sweden, the standards for a reasonable standard of living are uprated for price index changes every year and reset every five years by the National Board for Consumer Affairs. The standards are based on survey data on national household consumption patterns and current prices; statisticians and NBCA policy officials decide what is reasonable in terms of deviations from the averages. For example, for the past four years in the UK, the prices of food and domestic fuel have increased faster than the retail prices index and the consumer prices index. The standards are used by the social service board for setting benefits and by the tax authority for setting the tax threshold. The tax threshold is also used by the court enforcement authority to set its attachment-free sum for debt enforcement. That sum consists of two parts: variable housing costs and a fixed standard normal sum for all other living expenses.

There are clearly other methodologies for setting the minimum acceptable income standard below which incomes should be protected and attachment-free. In Committee, we explored work that is under way in this country at the universities of York and Loughborough, among others, to develop a minimum income standard that can command and be informed by the perceptions of the public. There is a range of options for assessing and setting the minimum standard below which there will not be deductions. There are examples from other nations where such a minimum is enforceable by the courts and related to national minimum income standards. In countries that have legally enforceable limits, the courts, in setting payment plans, can ensure that the debtor is left with a minimum level of income, taking account of family size.

I hope that the small but vital paragraph (e) in Government amendment 2 will begin an era of cross-party support for legally enforceable irreducible and attachment-free minimums when people are repaying debts, which are based on minimum income standards. That would contribute to a reduction in the huge cost of mental illness to the health service and the wider economy, and make a significant contribution to the reduction of poverty in the UK. I hope that we have an ambitious approach to setting that minimum.

[Chris Grayling]

I start by saying that I very much appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I listened carefully to her points, a number of which she made in Committee. She has given a great deal of thought to these matters, and although I cannot offer her a guarantee that we will do all the things she wishes, I can say to her that we will take great care, in the regulations attached to the Bill, to ensure that we get the right balance. It has been clear for a long time in this country, and remains absolutely clear under the current Government, that in setting the levels of any deduction we have to be extremely careful not to tip people into hardship. In particular, we must not encourage them to leave work and end up moving them and their families down the poverty scale.

The hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) asked how we would determine the level of earnings below which deductions for overpayments cannot be made. Of course, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and the circumstances of different families are very different. There may be a case in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) suggested, there is a deduction for child support, or the number of children in a family or a disability may be factors. Great care therefore has to be exercised.

The minimum level that we will pursue will be determined to ensure that the debtor is left with sufficient income to maintain themselves and their family, in line with similar provisions in the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971. We therefore plan to use the same basis that the previous Government used—for example, to determine deductions from benefit payments.

In many cases, however, a direct earnings attachment will be implemented with little negotiation with the debtor. There will be a prescribed minimum level that will not take account of individual circumstances. We will try to create a system whereby we are mindful of the need to reflect the circumstances of the individual, but we cannot go the whole way, and we certainly cannot go quite as far as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston would wish.

If a debtor finds that they are unable to cope with the deductions being made from their earnings, they should contact us to discuss an alternative payment rate. Of course, they can avoid being placed in that situation, bearing in mind that we are discussing not people who are struggling to deal with something that they have already agreed but those who have wilfully refused to enter an agreement with us and are basically saying, “I’m not paying the money back”, or who have not even got to the point of saying anything to us at all.

Debtors who are repaying their overpayment by means of a direct earnings attachment will, in line with those repaying by other methods, be able to claim that the repayment rate causes them hardship and ask for it to be reduced. Although we of course have a responsibility to recover overpayments in order to protect public funds, we also take into account an individual’s financial and personal circumstances. The hon. Lady articulated a strong case for her points, but I cannot offer her quite as much as she would wish. However, I can offer her an assurance that we will always take an individual’s circumstances into account, particular where poverty, deprivation and hardship could arise.

The right hon. Member for East Ham made a point about employers. We will, of course, use the same mechanism for the attachment orders in the Bill as is used for child maintenance deductions. That process is well established through the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission system, and prior to that through the Child Support Agency, so it should not cause employers to recast their processes and do things very differently. On that basis, I am confident that it should not represent a significant additional burden on employers.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the provision for a £1,000 fine. In truth, there is no excuse for a refusal to engage in any part of the process. The orders will arise only because an individual claimant has refused to engage, and there is no real excuse for an employer to refuse to engage either. The matter should not be complicated, and it certainly should not be complex enough to cause an employer to decline an expansion in business or a recruitment to fill a vacancy. The process is established and many employers up and down the country are used to dealing with it, and I do not believe there will be significant extra burden on business.

The right hon. Gentleman asked how much employers could deduct for the administration charge, and the answer is an amount not in excess of £1 for each deduction. He asked for an assurance that the measure will not damage work incentives. The answer to that is that, as with all debt recovery, we must of course be mindful of the Department’s welfare obligations. As I said, recovery of overpaid benefits should not cause undue hardship. In the calculation of a repayment, we certainly would not want to push someone into a position in which they have to leave work to avoid payment under a DEA.

The operation of the DEA does not mean that the debtor will commence the repayment of their debt earlier than they would under another repayment method. The debtor will have had ample opportunity to make other arrangements to pay, or indeed to show that suspension of recovery was applicable in their case. We are not talking about people who have had no chance to engage and discuss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

If that would mean that people who are currently able to work for more than 16 hours had to give up their jobs altogether, I would not welcome it. That would be a seriously retrograde step. I accept that there is a case for supporting the cost of child care for people in mini jobs as well, but if the additional resources are not available to fund that, it would be a terrible mistake to press ahead and claw that money from people who depend on it to make work pay at the moment.

The Secretary of State set out at the seminar, at which I think the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) was present, some of the possible options. The Children’s Society has analysed some of the options and concluded that under one of them a family could pay out £1.56p for every additional pound earned. Ministers told us that that problem would be eliminated by universal credit, but it now appears that, if they proceed on the basis of that option, the new system will be a great deal worse than the current one, and will introduce a draconian new penalty for working parents. As I said to her, there is a good case for supporting child care for people in mini jobs, but it must not come at the expense of parents being helped at the moment.

The recent report from the Resolution Foundation and Gingerbread also underlined the point that spreading the same budget among a lot more people will mean families losing money for every additional hour they work. The Government are right to express the aspiration that it should always pay to be in work, but in this case, if they pursue the option set out in the seminar, something will be lost in translation, because families will have to pay out in order to work. The current system does a far better job; the new system that is envisaged will be a severely retrograde step, if it has the effect of taking more than £1.50 off people for each extra pound they earn. The Government appear poised, once they have finally worked out what their policy is in this area, to make work far less attractive than at the moment.

The Government have failed to come up with a policy, so our new clause 2 proposes one: it would retain the percentage of child care costs covered and the cash limits in the current system; it would ensure that work continues to pay for those for whom it pays at the moment; and it would allow the retention of the existing 16 hours’ threshold. The Government say that they cannot afford any extra spending on child care at the moment. My case to the House is that support for child care for those in mini jobs would need to wait until there is funding for it in order to ensure that jobs of 16 hours per week actually pay, as they do at the moment.

[Kate Green]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disingenuous of the Government to make proposals to fund child care for mini jobs, given that the child care market is simply not designed in that way? Finding short episodes of child care for just a few hours a week is extremely difficult for parents, and could make child care provision even more financially unviable and drive providers out of the market?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and is absolutely right. People are worried about what the Government’s proposed changes will do to the child care market as a whole. It could make some providers uneconomical. If a large number of people currently using child care for more than 16 hours a week are forced, as a result of these changes, to give up their jobs and to withdraw from their child care places, it would put a huge dampener on, and cloud over, the whole child care market in the way she is right to fear. We feel strongly about this matter—the Government simply have not come up with a policy—so I will seek, if I can, to divide the House on new clause 2.

The Government’s failure to produce a policy on child care before the Bill leaves the House is a particularly abject failure. Ministers have not been able to turn their claims into policies. However, although child care might be the most spectacular and significant hole in the Government’s policy, it certainly is not the only one. In this group of amendments, therefore, we have tabled two further new clauses to fill the policy holes on passported benefits, such as free school meals and free prescriptions.

At the moment, people on out-of-work benefits are passported to those additional benefits, but the out-of-work benefits will be abolished, so who will be entitled to free school meals in future? Again, that is not an obscure, but a basic question and the Government have again failed to give us an answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman has a good deal more experience in these matters, if I may say so, than some of his Front-Bench colleagues who are dealing with them at the moment. Good provision, particularly for child care support, was of course made through the tax credit system. That strong support for the costs of child care is why there was such a dramatic rise in lone parent employment under the previous Government. I supported that and I suspect from what the hon. Gentleman just hinted at that he supported it and continues to support it today. The problem is that once tax credits are abolished and universal credit takes their place, we have no idea how child care is going to be supported in the future. That is why I am—rather modestly, I think—appealing for the Government to tell us.

[Kate Green]

Does my right hon. Friend also agree that one of the real concerns we face as a result of universal credit forcing us to look at lumping all the different strands of financial support for families into a single payment is that all the eggs are in one basket, so if one thing goes wrong, the whole benefit—the whole structure of financial support for that family—could collapse?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For that very reason, the risks are great indeed. When I come on to speak to amendment 24 in a few moments, I will point out that if people go beyond a prescribed level of savings, they will lose all that help under all those headings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the attractions of supporting self-employment is that it often particularly helps those who find it difficult to access the traditional labour market, such as women, because they need to combine work with caring responsibilities and therefore need more flexible hours, and disabled people, who may not be able to access full-time work in a structured workplace but can do some work on their own at home? We also certainly know that there is a long-standing tradition of some of our ethnic minority communities finding that self-employment is the best way for them to sustain economic independence.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that self-employment is a crucial element of our economy for many people, including those with caring responsibilities; others who, for other reasons, are not necessarily able to commit to a full-time job; and, indeed, those who simply want the opportunity to build up a business for themselves—it is crucial that the system supports them. Tax credits have done so, but I am afraid that universal credit will not. That is a real worry and the approach being taken flies in the face of Government statements of support for self-employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The whole purpose of universal credit is to provide assistance to people who are trying to get back to work and to ensure that work always pays. I hope that the women of Bridgend will benefit, like those across the country, from the introduction of universal credit and the extra support that it will provide to ensure that they are better off in work.

[Kate Green]

I noted the Minister’s reminder a few moments ago that transitional protection would also be available in respect of child care costs. Can he confirm that one change in circumstances that can be predicted is that child care costs will vary between term time and school holidays and that that will not trigger a change in circumstances that would lead to the cancellation of transitional protection?

[Chris Grayling]

It is not our intention that routine or minor changes in circumstances would lead to the loss of transitional protection. The requirement for child care clearly fluctuates during the course of the year, but follows a set pattern. It is not our intention for a moment to remove transitional protection in that situation, nor is it our intention to remove it in an environment in which there is an annual increase—RPI or CPI—in the rate of child care. We are looking at material changes in circumstances, and I certainly would not envisage the change from term time to holidays as a material change.

The other issue that I have with the Opposition’s proposals is that they would remove the ability for people to take up mini jobs. For women re-entering the workplace after a lengthy time out of it, there is a bigger barrier than needs to be the case. One of the strengths of the universal credit system is the flexibility for people to take on mini jobs. The level of prescription set out in the Opposition’s proposals would set up unnecessary and inappropriate barriers to getting people back to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

I shall deal with some of those other points in my later remarks, because they are all important subjects for debate. Indeed, the proposals in new clause 2 suggest a figure of £300 a week for this element. I was genuinely surprised that there were people who were getting as much as that. I do acknowledge the cost of child care in central London: I have paid it for many years, so I recognise what we are talking about. However, £300 a week is a lot of money—it works out as £15,600 a year. It is indeed a generous cap.

I propose that we turn the child care element on its head. The initial move in what we might call the slide into work should be reimbursed at 100%. When people make the difficult first choice to go into work, the first few hours of child care, perhaps up to the earnings disregard—I ask the Minister to ask the Department to consider some of the maths involved—should be reimbursed at 100% as they make that important transition. When they reach the level of annual earnings represented by the disregards that we are talking about, the tapering of the contribution that the person in work would make to their child care would begin.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Lady has obviously given this matter very careful thought, and I have great respect for the way in which she is approaching it. Does she not see a risk that the mini-job would become a trap, and it would be impossible for people to be incentivised financially to increase either their earnings or their hours of work, because they would start to lose child care support?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady underestimates the extent to which the 16-hour job has already become a trap. I think we all know people who have been trapped in one. I am proposing that when people move on to that slide and have greater support in those initial steps into work, they will become much more familiar with the world of work. When they move into taking on more hours and so on—let us not forget that once somebody has moved into the workplace they often find themselves eligible for a promotion or for the next move up the employment ladder, which might coincide with their children rising five and going to primary school—the fact that they are on more of a slide will mean that because they have extra work they will be able to share more of the cost of their child care. I would like to see some experimentation with the formula so that the child care support for the first steps into work is more generous, and the tapering begins further down the line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

My point is that we should try to concentrate the support that the taxpayer gives into the early hours of going back into work. I would like the taper, and what can be afforded, to be announced annually by the Chancellor at the Dispatch Box, just like the overall taper in universal credit. The country’s potential to support people in those choices would go along those lines.

My second point about the alternatives to new clause 2 that the Department might consider concerns the need to recognise that the cost of child care varies greatly with the age of the child—although I acknowledge this goes somewhat against the simplicity of universal credit. Of course when children go to school the cost of child care out of hours drops dramatically from the cost of providing child care for an 18-month-old child. I suggest some form of annual review of child care support that takes into account the age of the child or children. We should also consider this in terms of the annual envelope, because that would address the issue raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about the predictable fact that holiday cover is an annual challenge for working parents, and reflect the fact that there is that fluctuation for parents of children at school.

I wanted to outline why I do not agree with new clause 2 and why I welcome the fact that the Government are having an open dialogue about the £2 billion that they are putting into child care support, and to emphasise that all families, whether they are on universal credit or not in the benefit system at all, have to make behavioural and financial choices about the world of work. I would like the support that the state gives to encourage people into work to be concentrated on those first few hours of child care.

[Kate Green]

I want to comment first on the proposed child care amendments. Owing to the funding envelope within which we work we face a difficult financial choice about which group of parents to assist with child care costs. I warmly welcome the implication in the comments of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). Obviously, one would want to support funding for child care as far as possible, and in making an early selection about which group of parents should benefit we do not want to shut off the possibility of financial support for child care for more parents being an aspiration over time.

In saying that we wish to protect the child care support available for parents who work more than 16 hours, we are certainly not saying that we might not aspire in due course to see child care supported beyond that. The loss of financial support for child care will make working completely unviable and will be a dangerous and retrograde step that I do not believe Ministers have fully analysed.

It is important that we do not see child care provision simply as instrumentalising the return of parents to paid employment. Nowhere in the debate today have we said much about the welfare of the child. We do not know what short hours child care, if any, will be available in the child care market. It certainly seems to be a complicated and unlikely form of child care for parents to be able to access and it does not reflect the way in which child care provision is currently organised. Of course, child care providers might respond if more parents were seeking to buy shorter hours of child care, but the question that arises is whether it is a financially viable model for providers. I am not aware of Ministers investigating that, and I would feel more reassured about the validity of their proposals if they had been able to say a little more about what they meant for the market, its resilience and its potential for growth.

I would also have felt more reassured if Ministers had analysed the extent to which very short episodes of child care are or are not good for children. I genuinely do not know the answer, but I have a sense that putting a child in child care for two or three hours on two or three days a week presents an unstable stop-go approach. We certainly know that, for younger children, one-on-one care with a single main carer with whom the child can form a stable relationship is very important. Although I do not rule out the possibility that shorter episodes of child care could be good for children, I have not seen any sign that Ministers have investigated whether that is the case. It is extremely difficult for us to support a measure that has given no attention to the well-being of children.

On the proposals—or lack of proposals—in relation to free school meals, I do not blame Ministers for seeking to pass the problem to the Social Security Advisory Committee because it is an extremely difficult one to solve. The previous Government had been concerned about the cliff edge that exists as parents move off benefits and into employment and free school meals are removed wholesale. Parents have repeatedly told us as politicians that that is an incredible financial shock to low-income families as parents move into work. We have no idea what Ministers will propose in due course.

We have been struggling to find the model that will work. Models have been bandied around that could leave parents able to afford school meals on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, but not on Thursday or Friday, or that might mean that they can afford school meals for some children in the family, but not for others. There is a real concern that what Ministers propose will still lead us to a cliff edge.

We need to be clear about the principles that we seek to achieve. I would like absolute clarity from Ministers that when they receive the recommendations and advice of SSAC, they will ensure that support is available for all children who need free school meals; that the system that is put in place will be simple for families, simple for schools to administer and simple for the Government, too; that child health will not be compromised because children currently eligible for free school meals and therefore accessing a healthier diet are in future shut out of such provision; and that the design of the system will not create work disincentives.

I have not yet seen any evidence that all those circles can easily be squared, unless Ministers are prepared to look again at the direction of travel that the Labour Government were following, which was, over time, to move towards extending the reach of free school meals. I accept that in the present financial climate it will be difficult to get all the way there, but Ministers need to think now about how they design the cliff edges and the tapers, because that is the foundation on which a future extension of free school meals to more children would be built.

The most comprehensive option would be to include a per child school meal element in the universal credit, which crucially would be paid directly to schools to provide meals, so that parents were not—by force, in many cases—obliged to use the money to meet other bills. I would like us to consider how a model could be designed that, when funding allows, would allow the money to be paid in full until the family reached their earnings disregard level, at which stage it would be withdrawn from universal credit at the taper rate, which we would like to have been maintained at 65%. That would mean that both DWP and families were contributing to the cost of school meal expansion. Entitlement could end when universal credit payments end, preferably when the imputed value of the school meal had been fully tapered out.

Achieving that vision immediately would undoubtedly create additional cost, which I recognise that Ministers want to avoid. Nevertheless, it is important that they give us assurances that they will seek at the outset to design a system that could be developed in that direction over time and as funding allows.

Amendment 68 relates to carers. A small group of carers seems to have slipped the notice of Ministers when considering the impact of the design of universal credit, specifically in relation to earnings disregards. We know that many carers can work only a very small number of hours because they are seeking to balance paid employment with substantial caring responsibilities. We also know that those few hours of work are very precious to them. They enable them to maintain contact with the labour market, they widen their social and external circles, and they provide a bit of a respite for the carers from the stress and strain of caring.

Where those carers are in receipt of income support, they can at present earn up to £20 a week from doing a few hours of paid employment without it affecting their benefit. In their proposals for universal credit, Ministers have provided for disregards for carers in a number of situations, but there seem to be some groups who will lose the benefit of that disregard as a result of the proposals before us. For example, some carers are caring for someone who does not live in the same home as the carer. Those carers may no longer enjoy the benefit of the earnings disregard. That seems completely at odds with the aspiration that Ministers have expressed for the universal credit, which is that every additional hour of work will pay.

I hope that Ministers will give careful attention to amendment 68 and consider what can be done to ensure that all carers are incentivised to take on even a few hours of work. What assessment have Ministers made of the number of carers who are left outside the ambit of the current disregard for carers, and of the cost of extending such support to all carers?

Finally, we cannot stress often enough how important it is that we ensure that payments for children go to the main carer of the child. Ministers seem to think it is good enough that couples have the option to make that decision, but very many families will, by default, allow all payments of universal credit to go to one member of a couple in a couple household, and we know from the evidence of the way in which the pension credit has been received in couple households that that is most likely to be the man.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

I will, but the hon. Gentleman will tell me that life is different now and that families share child-caring responsibilities more equally. I am sorry to tell him that although I would love that to be the case, all the research evidence says that it still is not. This is not in any event a gender point, although it would mean more money for women, because women are the main carers of children. Therefore, if we want to ensure that money is spent on children, we need to route it to the main carers, and that primarily means that we need to route it to women in couples.

I am surprised that the Conservative party has been so reluctant to accept that. The last time we had such an attack on the principle of money being paid to mothers for the care of children, it was Conservative ladies who were the best defenders of the interests of mothers and families, and I do not think the picture has changed that much. I know that the hon. Gentleman has an idealistic and ambitious view on the issue, and it would be good to hear it.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Lady for her generous introduction to my intervention. I take issue with her argument not in relation to who has primary responsibility for child care, but in relation to culture. In times gone by there was a much more divided culture, which is why older people see life very much in the way she puts it, but the reality is that joint working has changed that. My issue is not about economic power and management, but about sharing in the family unit as a whole, and that is backed up by the figures, which show that 76% of partnered mothers are working. Life has changed, and she should understand that the economics are much more shared these days than they used to be.

[Kate Green]

I am prepared to accept that life is changing, albeit rather more slowly than the hon. Gentleman suggests, but let us not forget that the partnered mothers who work do so largely in part-time jobs and that their incomes usually make the smaller contribution to family budgets. Let us not forget the extensive evidence that continues to show that women fulfil the bulk of child care responsibilities. Let us not take the risk that by removing money from the main carers of children, whether that is the fundamental intention or not, children become the losers in the drive to achieve the glowing future that the hon. Gentleman seeks to describe. All the evidence suggests that money is most likely to be spent on children when it is paid to their main carers, so I am concerned that that should be built into our system as a default to ensure that that is where the money goes.

Other colleagues wish to contribute to the debate and we have had a full discussion on a number of issues raised by the proposed amendments, so I do not need to go into further detail on many of those points, other than to offer my strong support for amendment 26. As we move towards this fundamental change to our social security system, which Ministers themselves have described as the most far reaching since the introduction of the welfare state after the second world war, it is absolutely imperative that, if anything, more welfare advice is available, at least during the transitional period, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) has pointed out, because it will surely be needed. Today’s debate is reaffirming the fact that this will not be a simple benefit to administer in practice. If we are to maximise take-up and ensure that people receive their entitlements, which I know from our discussions in Committee is the goal of Ministers, it is vital that proper advice is in place to support people as they navigate their way through the introduction of the new system under the Bill.

[Guto Bebb]

It is a great privilege to be called to speak in the debate. Having been here all afternoon, I feel as though I am back in the Bill Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) must again send my apologies to Downing street, because I have decided not to attend a party there in order to be here this evening.

I wish to speak about four specific issues and to new clauses 3 and 4 and amendments 23, 24, 27, 28 and 29. Before doing so, it is important to set today’s good and wide-ranging discussions in context. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who spoke with great knowledge and understanding on these matters in Committee and in her contribution to the House today, but an important point that we must bear in mind is this: the reason we need to look at changing the current welfare system is that it has not worked.

I challenged the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on the figures for the number of people in the United Kingdom who have never worked, which worsened from 2000 to 2010, and the figures I quoted for Scotland were supplied by the Office for National Statistics. The figures for the United Kingdom are absolutely deplorable. The number of people who have never worked increased from 572,000 in 2000 to 841,000 in 2010, when the previous Government left office. As a Member who represents a Welsh constituency, it is disappointing to state that the figures in Wales also show a deterioration. The context for the welfare reform package, therefore, is the fact that the current system is not working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Buck]

That is a reasonable option to allow people to take, but I seriously doubt whether it is an answer to the problem, for a whole host of reasons. In particular, there is a striking imbalance between where the social housing occupation is and where the demand for private rented accommodation is.

Many things worry me about what the Minister has just said, because here we are on Report, months after an impact assessment set out what the proposals are likely to mean, and suddenly an option as to how the Government think that the penalty might be avoided is thrown in. Let us sit down and have a proper impact assessment—a proper review. Let us see, for example, how any income from rental would be treated in the benefits system, because that could become subject to the same rules as non-dependant deduction, which would not leave people better off at all. Before the Minister asks me to regard it as a serious option, let us see exactly how it would be workable as regards the match between demand and supply and how it would be treated for the purposes of tax and other benefits.

[Kate Green]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a likelihood that from time to time, at least, if not constantly, disabled people may need extra space to accommodate overnight care? Therefore, the prospect of a tenant—a stranger, possibly—moving into their home would be completely impractical as well as potentially rather alarming.

[Ms Buck]

That is absolutely right; my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I am not going to say that just because someone is in a social tenancy they would not be able to have somebody else living in their home. People make that decision in the private sector; morally, it is not a completely absurd thing to do. However, I do not know whether it deals with the problem in any meaningful sense or what all the implications will be.

People with disabilities are, by definition, much more likely to have formal or informal care or to want the capacity to have friends and relatives coming in to provide them with care. Yet we know from the Government’s impact assessment that 66% of all those affected by the cut in benefit in the social housing sector are categorised as disabled—not all severely disabled; I understand that—and that between 101,000 and 108,000 of those properties, depending on which definition one accepts, are specifically adapted for their needs. In Committee, the Minister made some reassuring noises about the problem. She told us that the Government were prepared to

“look in detail at how we can ensure that there are exemptions for individuals who are disabled, where their homes may have been subject to extensive adaptations to accommodate that."

However, earlier in the debate she had told us:

“Providing an exemption for all adapted accommodation would not be the right approach”

and that exemptions should be applied only where making a fresh adaptation would cost more than

“allowing someone to stay where they are.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 3 May 2011; c. 685-716.]

That prompts several important questions about the sheer level of bureaucracy that will be necessary to send somebody into every single one of those 108,000 adapted properties to carry out an official survey to establish the extent of those adaptations and come up with a cost-benefit analysis to see whether a move to alternative property will produce a cost benefit, and if it does not to assess the margin of error. If an adaptation would cost £10,000, but it was deemed that the cost saving would be £9,500, would the person with the disability be expected to move from their flat? Would the difference be £1 or £20? This is one of those counter-arguments that sounds seductively simple until one starts picking away at it and finds that it does not sound very good at all.

Welfare Reform Bill (Instruction)

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I very much look forward to a full debate on the merits of the Government’s proposal in the remaining stages of the Welfare Reform Bill if the instruction is agreed to. However, I cannot wholly share the Minister’s reasoning on why it is appropriate to approach the expansion of the child poverty commission’s remit in this way.

The Minister said that allocating an advisory role to an arm’s length body would in some way weaken the Government’s accountability. I am confused about why advising should mean becoming responsible, and no doubt she will want to explain that. However, I welcome her acknowledgment of the importance of wide consultation. I hope that that will continue to be the case on the subject of the expanded remit that we are discussing.

I believe the Minister is mistaken to think that the planned child poverty commission would have had as limited a remit as she seemed to imply. As she acknowledged, the 2010 Act and the functions and remit of the commission had cross-party support, and the Act uses a wide understanding of what child poverty encompasses. That includes a number of the building blocks of social mobility, including on parenting, housing and education, that she seems to suggest would be missed. I hope that she can assure us that when the debate is passed on to the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, with its much narrower remit of considering employment and social security reforms, the vital focus on child well-being in its broadest sense will not be lost. That is what child poverty measures are fundamentally intended to address and improve.

I agree with the Minister that two central thrusts of the Government’s welfare reform agenda lie at the heart of our ambitions on social mobility. She is right that parental employment is crucial to how we tackle and address child poverty. Unless parents can access employment that genuinely lifts them and their children out of poverty, the child poverty targets cannot be met. She is right, too, to say that the Welfare Reform Bill is an appropriate vehicle for the discussion of child poverty. It is clear that neither child poverty nor social mobility can be addressed unless the right financial support is put in place for families with children. That includes the social security support that the Bill targets directly.

The reason I mention those two points is that there is considerable international evidence that parental earnings have as much impact on social mobility as other factors such as educational opportunity, and that the most socially mobile and equal countries are those with generous, albeit short-term, social security benefits. That is in striking contrast to the position that tends to pertain in this country and the United States, which is very ungenerous social security benefits that people rely on, in many cases, for quite a long time. It is therefore right that we should debate those issues in the context of the Welfare Reform Bill. In that sense, the Minister’s proposition absolutely stands up. However, this debate also gives us the opportunity to highlight the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Government’s agenda.

The meat of the Welfare Reform Bill includes issues such as the benefits cap, which will seriously damage families’ well-being, and the reduction in support for child care—we are still waiting in the Welfare Reform Bill Committee to see exactly what the Government will propose, although I think that the Opposition will have concerns about it—as well as access to the labour market for second earners or potential earners in couples and the disincentives that seem to be emerging in the design of the universal credit. They are all issues crucial to child poverty and social mobility, and it is right that they should lie at the heart of the Bill.

In conclusion, it is right to debate those issues in the context of the Welfare Reform Bill, albeit not just in that context. Doing so gives us an opportunity to remind ourselves that we tackle poverty, inequality and social fluidity not by individualising and pathologising problems, but through the structural solutions that only Governments can provide. Those solutions include ensuring access to education and training, ensuring that parents can access good quality child care, ensuring income adequacy, ensuring the redistribution of income and wealth to reduce the inequality gap, and ensuring the conditions for sustainable, good quality employment that genuinely enables parents to lift their families out of poverty.

The Government need to be aware that they have at least the beginnings of a credibility problem with those outside this House who are watching and monitoring closely their commitment genuinely to improving the well-being of children and lifting them out of poverty, as the coalition parties, in common with all other parties, last year signed up to do. I very much hope that what we are seeing this evening is not a proposition to marginalise or downplay hard-won gains in securing understanding of the inter-connectedness of poverty, inequality and social fluidity, and, at their heart, the importance of family incomes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is absolutely what we plan to do. We will bring forward our proposals shortly. The idea is that the available money will continue to be used for child care support. We recognise how important child care is in helping parents, particularly lone parents, to fit in their obligations to work and to look after their children.

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

Witnesses to the Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee stated last week that incentives for second earners to move into paid employment would be reduced in many cases under universal credit. Will the Secretary of State tell us what assessment has been made of the impact of the universal credit proposals on second earners and on women’s economic independence?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes. The majority of existing and potential second earners will not, on the basis of the figures I have looked at, be affected by the reforms, because the household already has earnings that take them beyond the reach of the benefit system. Approximately—I stress this is an approximate figure—300,000 second earners may see a deterioration in the incentive to increase their hours, and it is possible that some second earners will choose—or may choose as a result of their home commitments—to reduce or rebalance their working hours or leave. However, universal credit will provide much better incentives for the first earner, giving a greater choice to the household about how it wishes to spread its income.

Housing Benefit

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dame Anne Begg]

That is why it is important that the research is carried out. In his evidence to the Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord Freud, said:

“They would say that, wouldn’t they?”

It is not until the proposal is market-tested that we will know whether what we are talking about will be the case.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that we can already market-test to some degree? In my borough of Trafford, for example, we already know that two-bedroom properties in the private rented sector are heavily oversubscribed. The market is unlikely to reduce rents when it can readily let to people who are not in receipt of local housing allowance.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed, and there is the same situation in my constituency, where there is a housing shortage. Even people who work in the oil industry—a fluid population that comes temporarily to work in the offshore sector—have great difficulty in finding housing. There are jobs in certain areas and people flock to them, but those people often cannot take up the employment, because they cannot find accommodation. Those people are in the private rented sector and can afford fairly high rents, and their situation probably has more to do with rent inflation in Aberdeen than with anything that has happened as a result of local housing allowance. The Government have sometimes given the existence of the local housing allowance as a reason for rent inflation in the private rented sector, but in certain areas it has nothing to do with the allowance, simply because there are not enough LHA claimants to have that kind of market effect.

One aspect of the housing benefit reforms that we congratulated the Government on is the fact that disabled people who need a non-familial person to stay overnight will be able to claim housing benefit to cover the extra room required for that carer, which is, in itself, a good measure. It was a recommendation made by the Select Committee in the previous Parliament, and I have to say that the then Labour Government did not agree to implement it. However—there is often an “however” in all this—as a Committee we realised that even if the person looking after a disabled person is a relative who does not need space in the house, there might, for example, be a need for more space for wheelchairs, or an extra room for dialysis machinery. Disabled people need large houses, for which they would not qualify on the basis of their family size, for all sorts of reasons.

I was disappointed by the Government’s response on that issue:

“Housing Benefit is not designed to meet every individual circumstance and it would be complex to introduce different rules for the situations such as those described by the Committee”.

That is poor, because council tax benefit and the tax itself can take account of people who need extra room. If someone can prove that they are in a bigger house than they would otherwise occupy because they need extra room for a wheelchair, the local authority places the house in a lower council tax band. That is quite simple and straightforward, and it is not particularly difficult. I am disappointed that the Government have not recognised that such extra space might be imperative for disabled people. It is doubly imperative that the Government recognise that, because the proposals also introduce an under-occupancy rule, of which disabled people could fall foul simply because they occupy a house that is bigger than the one that they would need on the basis of the number of people in their family.

The Government also completely miss the point of the Committee’s recommendations regarding the possibility that someone with a disability who has had their house adapted has to move because they do not qualify for a house of that size, or because the house is too expensive. Their house, whether in the private rented or social rented sector, will no longer be covered by housing benefit. The Government’s response is, “Well, we’ve got the nine-month transitional protection,” or “There might be something in the discretionary housing payment that can be used.” The Government’s response suggests that disabled people will be able to move just like everyone else. Well, the answer is, “No they will not.” It is incredibly difficult, as it is, to get accommodation; it is almost impossible to get accommodation that is already adapted; and it is very difficult to get accommodation that can easily be adapted. For someone who has already spent a lot of money—out of their own pocket or through facilities grants—not only on making their home accessible, but on adapting the bathroom and kitchen and doing all the other things that need to be done, the Government are saying that it will somehow be okay, because if housing benefit is changed such people will be able to move and replicate those facilities somewhere else, but only in a smaller house or a cheaper area. That is not possible, and a lot of disabled people will be distressed by what I see as complacency by the Government.

I know that the Government say that all that will be covered by the discretionary housing payment. In fact, their response to our report seems to say that the payment will be a panacea. I came across mentions of the payment so often that I counted them, and it appears 20 times in a relatively short document. The discretionary housing payment will be the solution 20 times—it is mentioned three times on page 11 alone. So, £190 million is going to go an awfully long way and do an awful lot, and I am fairly sure that the Minister himself recognises that it is not elastic and will not cover all that the response says that it will.

[Kate Green]

I, too, noted the many references to the discretionary housing payment as the solution to the hardship and risk of homelessness identified in our report. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only about whether that payment can possibly be adequate, which looks unlikely, but about the fact that it is discretionary? That introduces further uncertainty for families and households about the stability of their home.

[Dame Anne Begg]

That is the problem. As well as the discretionary element, council tax benefit will be devolved to local authorities, although only 90% of it, and that as well will be discretionary to the local authority. The discretionary element must cover not only older people but disabled people, young people, large families and multi-generational families, perhaps from ethnic minorities, yet it will be up to the local authority to decide who receives it. I suspect that most local authorities will have a pecking order of groups that they think are worthy of support, leaving the groups that they do not think are worthy of support at the bottom of the heap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Anne Begg]

As we are speaking, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could read the report, where he will discover that the Select Committee recognised that housing benefit needed to be changed, and that the costs of housing benefit should be under control and affordable. There is no dissent from that. In terms of the Government’s response, the Government agree with the Committee, even within the ambit of the importance of getting the right amount of money to the right person to ensure that those who are on housing benefit are not experiencing a luxurious lifestyle, though I have to say they are not. That is where much of the problem in the debate came: the often overblown claims in some of the tabloid papers. One must remember that local housing allowance was set at broad rental market area level. Although the overall cap is £400, in a lot of areas it was already not possible to get that level of housing benefit or local housing allowance anyway.

[Kate Green]

If the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) has now had the opportunity to consider the Government’s response, I wonder whether he was as struck as I was by the recognition that, after the introduction of local housing allowance, it was found that most low-income working households do pay a rent slightly lower than the local housing allowance rate for the property they occupy. It was only slightly lower—that rent was usually 90% or more of the local housing allowance rate. The differential between those who were in work and those not, in terms of rent paid, was relatively low. The make-up of the two groups often accounted for quite a lot of that difference. Those who were in work and having to pay rent were often young professionals, for whom occupying rented property would be a transitional step through to property ownership.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Very often, partly because of the publicity and the tabloid headlines, the assumption is that people on housing benefit are always out of work, when that is certainly not the case. In fact, in London it is particularly important that if low-paid people are to get work and to have work incentives, housing benefit must be set at the right level. The danger is that the gap between what they can get in housing benefit and what they can afford is too great; they end up not being able to get accommodation in the area in which they are working, which is even more important.

Welfare Reform Bill

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I shall make a little more progress.

May I confirm that we shall move from the universal credit making inroads into the couple penalty to a subject on which I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members will want to speak—child care costs in universal credit? I can confirm that support for child care costs will be provided by an additional element paid as part of the universal credit award. We will invest at least the same amount of money in child care as in the current system, and we will aim to provide some support for those making their first moves into work, so that the support available is not restricted to those working more than 16 hours.

This is an important point. Although there is a debate about it, we must remember that working tax credit gives that child care support to those in the relevant band. Universal credit will allow claimants to adjust their hours of work to suit their child care responsibilities. It will allow people to set their hours of work more in line with their caring responsibilities. It will cover all the hours that people are planning to work. We will be much more flexible, and we intend to work closely with relevant groups to take further advice about the rates that we will set. By the time the Bill reaches its Committee stage, we will be able to be more specific.

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

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that as a result of that further consideration, there will be no circumstances in which, as a result of child care costs, a parent could be faced with a marginal deduction rate of more than 100%, as some models prepared for us by Family Action have suggested?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is not our intention, and it is why we were are proceeding carefully and consulting about our proposals. The purpose is to maintain incentives to go to work. Universal credit is designed to encourage lone parents to go to work, but it recognises their need to meet their child care responsibilities. We can debate the various elements, but the principle is that the measure should be more than helpful to them. We will move on to the finer detail as we get to Committee stage.

As we increase support to make work pay, it is right to ensure that claimants do everything they reasonably can to find or prepare for work. As the House knows, we will tailor conditionality to individual circumstances, and require all claimants to accept what I call a claimant commitment. From the outset they will be asked to sign up to the idea that we will provide them with the necessary support and access to universal credit, but we will also expect them to recognise that the sanctions regime is applicable. It is easy to understand. If they do not comply with that as they go further through the process, they are likely to encounter that sanctions regime at key moments.

The toughest sanctions will apply to those who are expected to be seeking work but fail to meet important conditions. They should understand that if they keep on crossing a series of lines, they will invoke the sanctions regime. The problem at present is that the regime is often confusing. I have visited jobcentres a number of times—and I see on the Opposition Benches one of the Members who used to be a Minister in the Department. As he knows, if one talks to jobcentre staff, they will say that the problem is that when claimants reach the point where they are about to hit sanctions, it comes as a big surprise to many of them that sanctions will be imposed and that the situation is real and serious.

By letting claimants know much earlier and by introducing a regime that is easy to understand, with a simple tripwire process, they will know from the word go. That should disincentivise people from taking the wrong turns. Benefits will be taken away for three months after a first failure, six months after a second, and three years after a third. That will apply to those at the top level—in other words, those who are fully able to search actively for work and to take it. There are, however, other categories. The same conditions would not apply to lone parents, for example.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Time is tight, so I shall mention a small number of issues which have not yet come up specifically in relation to the impact of the universal credit on women and children. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) alluded to the design of the universal credit as a breadwinner model benefit and the disincentive that that creates for second earners and households to work. That is important because women’s financial independence, whether in couples or on their own, is an objective that Ministers ought to be seeking, given their proclaimed wish to use the benefits system to help everyone stand on their own feet.

I am concerned, first, that the benefit will not deliver well for women. Half of women in poor households already do not have any money to spend on themselves. Money will now be paid only to one member in a couple. As the evidence of the pension credit shows us, where there is a choice as to which member of the couple is to receive the benefit—I understand that that is what Ministers intend for this benefit—77% of payments went to the man. I urge Ministers to examine closely the design of the benefit that they have created and its implications for women’s independence. That is important because women are more likely to spend money on children.

That leads me to my second concern: the impact of the benefits cap, particularly in relation to children. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the housing cap will force many families to go into arrears or to move. One of the important dimensions of forcing families to move is the disruption that that will create for children’s schooling, children’s social networks and child care arrangements. I urge Ministers to take careful note of the lessons to be learned from what happens to children who have been in temporary accommodation, and the damage that house moves can do to young children. I hope they will think again about the imposition across the board of that benefits cap.

The third thing that I ask Ministers to give attention to is payment of the universal credit on a monthly basis. I understand why they want to do that—to mimic the way in which many people receive their pay—but we know that one in four low-income families run out of money before the end of the month. Ministers must tell us what will be put in place to ensure that those families are not left struggling or destitute because of the design of a benefit payment that does not meet the needs of lower-income households.

The fourth aspect on which I would welcome clarification is an issue that has been highlighted to me. In some cases, because payment is made to one member of a couple in a household, benefit could be paid to a member of a household in relation to a cost borne not by them, but by another member of the household. That is the case particularly in relation to housing costs. One member of a couple could receive the universal credit, including the housing component; the other member of the household might be responsible for that rental obligation. I would welcome Ministers’ clarification on whether that is also to apply to mortgage interest assistance. That matters because it is likely to deter women from forming couple relationships, which Ministers are keen to promote, if women think they will be put in a position where money which is important for them to keep their home is to be paid to somebody else.

Finally, like other hon. Members, I am distressed that proposals are being introduced in the Bill so early on in the process of consultation on child support, when we are still waiting for the responses from the many experts in the field. I am concerned that we are moving to a system that will be almost entirely voluntary, with only a residual compulsory system. We all know that when voluntary arrangements are put in place—if they are put in place—it is women and therefore children who are most likely to lose out. Introducing the payment of a fee to access a voluntary child support system is highly likely to leave many women and children completely unprovided for, and I urge Ministers, on that point in particular, to think carefully and to think again.

Social Security

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I shall deal briefly with the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2011. The order provides for contracted-out defined benefits schemes to increase by 3% their members’ guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997. Increases are capped at this level when price inflation exceeds 3%. This is a technical matter that is attended to on an annual basis, and I suspect that it will not be the focus of our discussions.

The broader uprating of social security benefits this year is a landmark event for two reasons. First, it enshrines the restoration of the earnings link for the basic state pension. Secondly, it introduces a clear and consistent approach to price measurement through the move from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. I suspect that a lot of our debate will focus on that issue, but I want to turn first to pensions and pensioners. It is more than 30 years since the link between the basic state pension and earnings was broken. Although Labour Members talked a good game towards the end of their time in office, they had 13 years in which to restore that link, and they failed every year to do so.

The coalition Government said that they would restore the earnings link for the basic pension, and that is precisely what we have done. Indeed, we have gone one better with the introduction of our triple guarantee, which means that the basic pension will be increased by whichever is highest of earnings, prices or 2.5%. We estimate that the average person retiring on a full basic pension this year will receive more than £15,000 extra in basic state pension income over their retirement than they would have done under the old prices link. This important change will be a benefit to existing and future pensioners. It will provide a more generous basic state pension, giving a solid financial foundation from the state. So from this April, the standard rate for the basic state pension will rise by £4.50 a week, taking it from £97.65 to £102.15 a week. The introduction of this triple guarantee will finally halt the decline in the value of the basic state pension for current and future pensions. It will also mean that even in times of slow earnings growth, we will never again see a repeat of derisory increases such as the 75p rise presided over by the previous Government in 2000.

In addition to restoring the earnings link, we have taken action to ensure that the poorest pensioners do not see the increase to their basic state pension clawed back in the pension credit. This has been done by linking the minimum increase for the pension credit to the cash increase for the basic state pension this year. Therefore, from April 2011, single people on pension credit will receive an above-earnings increase to their standard minimum guarantee of £4.75, which will take their weekly income to £137.35. Of course, as you will be well aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is in addition to the key support for pensioners that the coalition protected in the spending review: free NHS eye tests; free NHS prescription charges; free bus passes; free TV licences for over-75s; and winter fuel payments exactly as budgeted for by the previous Government. In addition, we have reversed a planned cut—one of Labour’s many ticking time bombs that I discovered in my in-box. The previous Administration had planned to reduce the cold weather payment from the pre-election—I use that phrase deliberately—rate of £25 a week to just £8.50 a week. We took the view that despite money being tight, helping elderly people on a low income to heat their homes in winter was vital and a priority for the coalition. I can update the House by saying that we have paid slightly more than we thought—an estimated 17.2 million payments worth an estimated £430 million, which we believe is money well spent.

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

Naturally, elderly people will be relieved by the news about the winter fuel and cold weather payments. However, is not the Minister concerned that in the longer run the cut in funding for Warm Front will mean that those pensioners have higher fuel bills?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that home insulation is an important part of this: it is not just about helping people to pay their fuel bills, but about improving the insulation standards of their homes. Our colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change are working on the issue and will shortly introduce proposals that will build on the energy rebate scheme, which took place in 2010, whereby low-income pensioners and others—the most vulnerable households—received direct payments. I understand that a further scheme will shortly be brought forward that will benefit exactly the people she talks about.

Despite the pressure on public expenditure, the coalition, through these orders, will spend an extra £4.3 billion in 2011-12 to ensure that people are protected against cost of living increases, and, of that, fully £3.4 billion will be spent on pensioners.

Let me move on to the second landmark change—the move to the consumer prices index. At one stage, the House thought that it might have a jolly three hours on price indices after an all-night sitting, so we are probably all relieved that we got a bit more sleep before entering this territory. The purpose of the annual uprating exercise is to ensure that the purchasing power of social security benefits is protected against inflation. We view the CPI as the most appropriate measure of price inflation for this purpose, although we would acknowledge no single index is perfect. The CPI is

“more reliable because, taking account of spending by all consumers, this consumer prices index gives a better measure than the old RPIX measure of spending patterns. It is more precise because, as in America and the euro area, it takes better account of consumers substituting cheaper for more expensive goods.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1063.]

They are not my words, but those of the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). I could not agree more. Increases in line with the growth in the CPI maintain benefit and pension value. The CPI is the country’s headline measure of inflation, forming the target for the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. I remind the House that the legislation under which this order is made requires that we reflect the “general level of prices”.

It would be remiss of me not to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support for our position on this issue. When Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC challenged him at a press conference on 11 January, saying,

“You’ve said time and time again that you will not oppose every cut; but four months into the job, the list of cuts that you will support remains pretty short,”

the Leader of the Opposition said:

“Let me just say on the cuts, I listed four cuts that we had not opposed, but it’s not just four cuts...from Employment Support Allowance to some of the changes to Disability Living Allowance, to the changes to the Consumer Price Index and RPI, to a range of other measures, we’re not opposing all the cuts.”

I am very grateful to him for his support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Yes. For all the reasons I have been giving, we regard CPI as a more stable and appropriate measure for uprating pensions and benefits. We see no reason to change it in the future. The arguments that I am advancing, it seems to me, will stand the test of time.

There is an issue with the treatment of housing costs. One of the reasons why CPI is more appropriate than RPI for pensioners is that only 7% of pensioners have a mortgage. Mortgage interest fluctuations dominate the changes in RPI, sometimes swooping it up and sometimes swooping it down. The year in which RPI went negative, it happened because mortgage rates slumped. Not only was that of no benefit to the vast majority of pensioners; it was a penalty to the vast majority of pensioners because their savings rate fell. Just at the point when pensioners were suffering through low interest rates, RPI came along—to humanise it once again—and kicked them in the teeth and said, “Oh, inflation is falling so you don’t need a benefit rise.” I do not see how that can be right.

[Kate Green]

I am interested in the Minister’s argument for making CPI permanent. Will he comment on Lord Freud’s response to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions on the indexation of housing benefit, in which he suggested that it would be for this Parliament only?

[Steve Webb]

To be clear, my noble Friend was talking about the indexation of the housing benefit limit of the 30th percentile to CPI. We have said specifically that that will be looked at after two years, so that is a quite separate point. The fundamental point I am making is that the more one looks at the argument for using CPI for pensioners, the more powerful it gets.

There is an issue about the role of owner-occupier housing costs, as CPI includes rents and certain housing costs. The CPI advisory committee has said that the ONS should consider whether owner-occupier housing costs should be included. We are entirely open to that proposition and do not rule it out. It is interesting that the CPI advisory committee has already ruled out doing so by lumping in mortgage interest payments in the same way as in RPI. It accepts that putting that into CPI in the way it is put into RPI would not be a good way of doing it. We will obviously consider what the committee comes up with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment. The issue is likely to be taken up by the Minister in his summing-up because, from his comments from a sedentary position, he seemed to disagree with similar comments by the shadow Minister. I do not have a copy of the whole quote in front of me, but I am sure that he will be able to fill the House in on that and respond to her question later.

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. Lady accept that CPI is not a good measure for most working-age households precisely because of its exclusion of housing costs?

[Jenny Willott]

As I understand the way in which that relates to working-age households, people who are on benefits are much more likely to be living in social housing and so will not face large fluctuations in mortgage costs. For those of working age who are on benefits and do have mortgage costs, there is a lot of assistance from the state. They are not bearing the full brunt of mortgage interest fluctuations because a lot of that is borne by the state. Therefore, I believe that CPI relates appropriately to that group, too.

The financial implications, over this Parliament and beyond, for the Government of the difference between CPI and RPI have been discussed a lot today. We are in very difficult financial circumstances and the Government have had to make some extremely difficult financial decisions. The Minister has laid out why the Government believe that CPI is the right measure to use, but the financial benefits of that for the Government coffers are significant. By introducing the triple lock, the Government are protecting the most vulnerable pensioners. The people potentially most penalised are being protected, while the amount of money saved is quite significant and will help the economy to grow in future.

The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), eventually made it clear that the Opposition will not vote against the orders and will support the changes and the uprating, which seems to suggest that they understand the logic and agree with the overall decision. Whether it be for the moment, for three years or until the next Parliament, I am not entirely sure, but it is good to see it when occasionally agreement breaks out across the House. It is also good and quite a novelty to see Labour Members finally supporting measures that will save the Treasury some money. If they plan to return to RPI in the future, I look forward to seeing how they plan to find the billions of pounds that will be necessary to implement it.

I congratulate the Government on introducing the triple lock for pensioners, which is a significant step forward. It is also pleasing for me as a Liberal Democrat to see a manifesto commitment implemented.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is right to say that this is one of the most invidious unintended effects of a benefits system, and this country found itself in a worse situation on the couple penalty that most others did because of the interplay and complexity of that benefits system. The universal credit will not immediately end all that, but it will make the situation much better for couples. When couples want to stay together, the Government should never be the thing that forces them apart. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has made that clear and I back him up on it completely.

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

Block contracts with care homes often leave individual care plans unclear on what mobility costs are to be met by the home. What guarantees can Ministers give that no disabled person in residential accommodation will find their ability to leave their own home reduced as a result of the removal of the mobility component of disability living allowance?

[Maria Miller]

Again, I reiterate that we are looking to remove overlaps, not mobility. The local authority contracts contain clearly articulated requirements for care homes to cover activities involved in daily living, which include providing access to doctors, dentists and local services, such as libraries and banks. In addition, in order to become registered, a care home provider has to undertake to promote the independence of the disabled people living in the homes that it is providing. We know, as do care home providers, that mobility is an important part of that independence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I absolutely endorse his wish to have more local organisations involved in helping to get disabled people back into work. I know that through the Work Choice programme that we launched last year we already have Scope and the Shaw Trust actively working in his constituency in providing support for disabled people. I encourage him to ask more of his local organisations to get involved in that and other schemes.

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

The Minister will be aware that anyone who has come off incapacity benefit to move into work in the past two years was promised a two-year linking period, during which they could return to the benefit at the original rate. The new employment and support allowance conversion regulations, which are due to take effect next month, remove that protection, and those returning to work will be required to return to the ESA at the assessment rate for the first 13 weeks. Will the Minister urgently reconsider those new regulations, and their impact on a small number of benefit claimants who appear to have been affected by the backtracking on a commitment on which many of them had relied?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady brings up a very detailed point, and I should be very pleased to look at it with her separately, but I should underline the fact that in all the changes we are making, we want to make sure that we are judging disabled people on what they can do, not what they cannot, and we want to make sure that more disabled people are able to get back into work. At the moment, 50% of disabled people work, and many more want to, with the right support.

Disability Allowance

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clarke]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He will know far better than I do what is happening in Northern Ireland, but one of the persons whom I quoted earlier comes from the Province and I know that there are very severe difficulties there, too.

So what are we saying as we ask these questions, seek more information and express the views that we know disabled people living in residential care and their carers hold? We are simply saying this. While disabled people who live at home are to keep the mobility component of their benefits, and that is as it should be, it cannot be right, it cannot be fair and it certainly cannot be equitable for 58,000 disabled people in residential care to be hammered with a 69% cut in overall benefits.

Let us hear what care homes themselves are saying. The chief executive of Norwood, a fairly large, third sector provider for people with learning disabilities, wrote this to me:

“I am delighted that you are able to draw this matter to the House’s attention as it is certainly an issue that appears to have been so far unclearly presented. We provide residential Care Homes for 250 people whose needs are profound or complex in nature…they therefore require additional support for their daily requirements.

The mobility component of the DLA is given only to those people whose mobility is severely impaired. As such it enables them to access day opportunities, shops, leisure pursuits, holidays (often requiring special transport), all things that more able-bodied people take for granted.

To remove this allowance would be extremely regressive.

Surely the solution is straightforward…the mobility component remains to ensure that the people who need it are not penalised. LAs”—

local authorities—are

“instructed never to include this in their fees and the mobility component remains intact.”

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

My right hon. Friend rightly highlights the need sometimes for special transport for people who are in receipt of this component. Does he agree that they have very considerable difficulty accessing mainstream transport, which may be ill equipped to meet their needs and which may also mean that they encounter hostile public and staff attitudes, and that therefore it is particularly important that they can fund transport that does adequately meet their requirements?

[Mr Clarke]

Transport is vital to the quality of life of the vast majority of disabled people, but particularly those living in residential care. My hon. Friend makes her point very well.

I come now to the views of organisations of and for disabled people. It must be well known to right hon. and hon. Members that they have been virtually unanimous in their response. For example, Scope says:

“Disabled people are particularly vulnerable to cuts in services and benefits. They are disproportionately reliant on health, social care, housing and transport services, and also, as a result of low employment rates and the additional costs associated with living with an impairment, more likely to live in poverty and/or rely on benefits for a large proportion of their incomes.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

I am here today because I accept that this is a serious problem. Opposition Members do not have a monopoly on compassion; I care just as much about disabled people as they do.

Let me explain what I want to happen and what I believe should happen. Local authorities will have a legal obligation to provide mobility services for residents from their social funding. That funding will increasingly be distributed in the form of personal budgets, giving disabled people more choice and control over their services, including access to mobility equipment, taxis or scooters, if that suits them. That will end the anomaly whereby two state-funded residents with similar needs who are placed in the same care home can be treated differently according to whether they are funded through the NHS or the local authority.

I welcome the fact that the Government are waiting until 2012 to introduce this change, because it is important to give local authorities enough time. They will need safely to translate people on to personal budgets and to get those budgets up and running on a mass scale. Despite the welcome introduction of personal budgets in 2007, progress in rolling them out was simply too slow.

[Kate Green]

One difficulty that many of my constituents face is that they are in residential care outside the borough because there are insufficient places in the borough, which means that their transport costs are higher. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about stretching personal budgets far enough to meet those costs?

[Robert Halfon]

In some ways, I agree with the hon. Lady. The whole point of my argument is that we need to extend the personal budgets.

As was mentioned, the Audit Commission recently highlighted the fact that although some local authorities were on course to offer 30% of eligible people a personal budget by April 2011, most were not, and only six out of 152 councils are currently on track. What is more, a 2010 survey showed that only 6% of total spending on adult social care was allocated to personal budgets. That is a disappointing record, given the huge potential of personal budgets to give disabled people more independence.

My central concern is that we must help the 58,000 claimants I mentioned to access personal budgets before the mobility element of DLA is withdrawn. On that basis, I have a few questions for the Minister. Will she reassure hon. Members that the Government will seek to migrate those 58,000 claimants to personal budgets before 2012? Will she set out how the statutory requirement for local authorities to provide mobility services will work in practice? Finally, will she reassure my constituents that disabled people will continue to be supported so that they can keep their independence and mobility?

In conclusion, many people in Harlow are concerned for their families. They do not have a political axe to grind, but they are genuinely anxious about the future. As someone with a disability, I know that any change, or any threat of change, can cause immense anxiety, even if the outcome is not as drastic as expected. The problem with the changes that have been proposed is that decent people are worried. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure hon. Members and my constituents that disabled people and their families will not suffer as a result of these reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing the debate, because there is clearly considerable interest and concern right across the House.

I know that several Members would like to speak, and my right hon. Friend has eloquently presented many of the points that I would have raised, so I will highlight just three issues. First, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that disability living allowance is intended to meet social and participation needs, not to provide support for medical needs. That underpins the reason why so many of us in the debate are so concerned about its removal from people in residential care. To some degree, such people are already isolated from the community because they are in special and slightly artificial circumstances, and many of them are acutely aware of that special isolation. The mobility component of disability living allowance enables people to leave that residential setting from time to time for leisure or social purposes, to be with their families and, in some cases, for employment and educational purposes, so it is a precious aspect of their social participation rights.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

My hon. Friend brings enormous expertise to the debate. One point that has not been mentioned so far is that entitlement to DLA is a trigger for accessing the Motability scheme. As she says, contact with the community is enormously important, and some of the people we are talking about have jobs. Will people not risk losing the cars that they get through the Motability scheme? Is that not awful?

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that. I am also grateful to a number of disability organisations, including RADAR, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Leonard Cheshire Disability, for highlighting the fact that individuals need to be in receipt of DLA for three years to access the Motability scheme. As my right hon. Friend says, there is a very real risk.

Fundamentally, we are talking about a threat to the independence of people in residential care settings. That threat arises because the costs and inconvenience of leaving those settings are greater for such people than they are for those who do not need the mobility component of DLA. The mobility component helps those in a residential setting to go beyond the basic level of transportation—for instance, when attending medical appointments. It enables full participation.

I hope that a full impact analysis of the proposals will be directed specifically to social and participation needs. I would welcome such an undertaking from the Minister.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

To what extent does the hon. Lady believe that local authority care contracts should take account of the needs that she mentions? She makes a precise distinction between medical needs and wider social needs, but all Members here today would agree that those needs are equally important. To what extent should local authority care contracts take account of them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, which builds on one raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford).

Although local authorities might be expected to make full provision within their care packages, many will not—or may not be able to afford do to so because of inadequate funding. We also have anomalies in the system between those in residential care who pay for themselves, those with places in residential care that are funded fully or partly by the local authority, and residential care that is funded by the NHS. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill said, we need certainty and consistency of treatment, and we need adequacy of funding. Given the stretch on local authority budgets and the cuts they face, it is not clear whether disabled people in residential settings can be fully assured of equality of treatment.

I turn to the question of how disabled people will feel as a result of the proposal. It has the potential to threaten their dignity and cause considerable humiliation and hurt. I repeat something said to me by Mrs Khan, a constituent, who is the mother of a profoundly disabled young adult in residential care. She asks, “How will our son come home to see his family, as we will not have a vehicle to bring him home? What happens to his human rights?” She says, “Because he is disabled, is he not important?” That is the impact of this decision on her. Although I am confident that it is not the Minister’s intention to cause such hurt or humiliation, there is a real sense of not being seen as worth while. In the context of the big society, many disabled people feel they are now considered not worthy, not necessarily part of it.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent contribution to the debate, particularly on the question of employment, which had not been mentioned before. Does she agree that many of those in residential settings who are in receipt of the benefit have the most complex needs, and transport may be more important to them than it is to others? Although the Government want to challenge spending across the entire area, they may need to revisit this because those most in need will be affected simply because of where they live.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable and excluded people, and they have particularly high levels of need and face a higher risk of poverty—not least because of the additional costs often incurred by them and their families in order to cope with living with a disability.

There is a clear sense among my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I suspect more widely in the House, that this group is small but highly vulnerable and we ought to be offering them extra protection, rather than stripping it away. I urge the Minister to reconsider this policy, particularly in the light of the helpful comments offered on the cost of benefit; £135 million is not a substantial sum in the context of £18 billion of benefits cuts.

I alluded earlier to disabled people’s sense that their dignity and their rights are under attack. Will the Minister tell us what consideration has been given to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, particularly article 20? Regarding disabled children—in that respect, I had a helpful briefing from the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign—what attention has been given to the UN convention on the rights of the child? That convention specifically requires the UK, as a signatory, to ensure that children can access play, leisure, cultural and artistic facilities. What discussions has the Minister had with her counterparts in the Department for Education to ensure that such provisions can be kept in place?

There is widespread concern that the policy should be reconsidered. Most important, however, the voices of disabled people and their families must be heard. I ask the Minister to explain more fully how that consultation will take place. I hope that the significant and genuine concerns of disabled people and their families will be responded to, and that the policy will be reversed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is particularly true for areas of the country that have high levels of incapacity benefit dependency. For the first time, we will be attempting to provide real support to people who have been on incapacity benefit long term and are found fit for work or potentially fit for work through the work capability assessment. I am convinced that the specialist support that we can bring to bear for those people will make a particular difference in those parts of the country where the problem is substantial.

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

Most jobseekers will become eligible for entry into the Work programme after they have been on jobseeker’s allowance for a period of 12 months. Can the Minister explain how it is sensible that at precisely the moment at which they become eligible for the extra support of the Work programme, they will see a cut in their housing benefit because of the period that they have spent on JSA?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady must understand that we are seeking to maximise the incentives in the system. What we inherited from the previous Administration is a system that is full of disincentives to go back to work. If we do not remove some of those disincentives, create a push to get people back into work and combine that with support to do so, we will end up with the same 13 years of failure as we saw under the previous Government.