Personal Independence Payments
Lord Touhig Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people are awaiting assessment for personal independence payments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
I am pleased to update the House that the average claimant is waiting 14 weeks for an assessment. This is within the 16-week target set by the Secretary of State. In any high-volume business, we would always expect to have a significant number of cases moving through the system at any one time.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, anyone making an application for a PIP assessment today will have time for 16 return journeys to the moon or 35 flights around the world before they will get their assessment. In fact, they would be back in Britain a week before their assessment was due. The timeframe announced by the Minister is simply not acceptable. However, when this was debated in the Commons in January, a number of Members of Parliament said that when they intervened the process was reduced considerably. Is the system so broken that the best way to get a short and quick interview for a PIP assessment is to involve a Member of Parliament? What does he say to his own independent reviewer, Paul Gray, who said that the delays were doing a disservice to disabled people and their families?
Lord Freud
The backlogs that we suffered earlier have been reduced very substantially. The 14-week wait I referred to is down from 30 weeks in June 2014. We are now putting through 52,000 cases a month.
Housing Benefit (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
Lord Touhig Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, this Motion relates to an order brought forward by the Government to address a loophole that they have belatedly discovered in enacting what they call the social sector size criteria and everybody else calls the bedroom tax. The loophole means that people claiming housing benefit continuously for the same home since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the bedroom tax. It emerged recently, as noble Lords may remember from the discussion on a recent Urgent Question, that the group may be even wider as it may affect some people who have inherited this protection from a former tenant who enjoyed it.
People covered by this exemption have unlawfully had their housing benefit cut. When this matter was discussed in the other place, a number of examples of people affected were given. For example, there was a widower in Staffordshire suffering from mental health problems who had to find an extra £14 a week to stay in his home. There was a 56 year-old women from Rotherham with health-related problems who paid over £700 in additional rent, which we now know was unlawful. In Greater Manchester, a woman who cares for her granddaughter paid £200 extra in rent as a result of the bedroom tax, fell into arrears and was threatened with eviction from the home she has lived in for 26 years. Incidentally, Grandparents Plus notes that kinship carers like her are more likely to be affected by the bedroom tax, because they are older and more likely to have spare rooms, technically, because their children have grown up and moved on.
These people and many others like them are now due a rebate but, rather than apologise for the distress that they have been caused, the Government now want to apply the bedroom tax again to these people and thousands like them. Because local authorities in most cases do not have electronic records which go back to 1996, they are finding themselves having to waste time and money trawling through paper files looking for affected cases. Meanwhile, the Government have brought forward this order to close the loophole, despite having no idea how many people are affected by it.
The Opposition have tried very hard to find out how many people are affected by asking Ministers. On 13 January, the Employment Minister, Esther McVey, gave a Written Answer in the other place. She said simply:
“This information is not available”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/14; col. 449W.]
On the same day, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told the other place that,
“the number is likely to be between 3,000 and 5,000”.—[ Official Report, Commons, 13/1/14; col. 577.]
The very next day, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, told this House that,
“the numbers involved in this anomaly are small and the amounts are modest”.—[Official Report, 14/1/14; col. 106.]
However, early reports coming from the ground suggested that the numbers could be rather higher than that. Therefore, under the Freedom of Information Act, the Opposition asked local authorities how many people they believed would be affected. The resulting figures already show that over 23,000 are likely to be affected, even though a third of councils have still to reply and many said that they could not give complete answers because they could not include housing association tenants. Not only is this a mess, but the Government seem to have no idea how many people are caught up in the mess.
We should not be surprised. The bedroom tax was a bad policy in the first place, incompetently executed, with the heaviest price being paid by the poorest and most vulnerable. More than 500,000 households have been hit. Two-thirds of those affected are disabled. Of those affected, 35,000 disabled people have had their homes specially adapted with, for example, wheelchair ramps, wider doors, stair lifts or accessible bathrooms. If they are forced to move, it is estimated that the cost of repeating those adaptations in new properties could reach £234 million.
Some 60,000 of those affected by the bedroom tax are carers. More than 200,000 families with children are affected. On average, people are paying an extra £14 a week—the equivalent of losing all of your child benefit for the second child. Most depressingly, so many of the problems predicted by noble Lords from all Benches during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act have come to pass. According to the National Housing Federation, on average two-thirds of tenants affected by the bedroom tax are currently in arrears; of those, three-quarters have seen their arrears increase since the bedroom tax came in. Of those tenants hit by the bedroom tax who are in arrears because they cannot make up the shortfall, 40% have been issued with a notice seeking possession.
The impact on landlords is also huge. Nearly three in five housing associations say that they have been affected by the bedroom tax either a great deal or a fair amount. That hides huge regional problems, as I know only too well. About 90% of housing associations operating mainly in the north-east and 80% in the north-west report that they have been significantly affected.
What a mess, and for what? What has been achieved by all this chaos and misery? Has the bedroom tax achieved its aims? Ministers have not been able to explain whether the policy is supposed to reduce overcrowding or to save money; it cannot do both. If tenants stay put and accept a cut in their benefits, the state saves money but no houses are freed up. If tenants are forced to move, no money is saved. The costings assumed that people would not move. During the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, when the matter was voted on in this House on Report on 14 December 2011, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, explained the Government’s position, saying:
“The introduction of size criteria into the social rented sector from April 2013 is essential to reduce housing benefit expenditure”.—[Official Report, 14/12/11; col. 1300.]
So it was indeed about savings. The Minister explained that it would save around £500 million per annum.
I wonder whether those savings really are materialising as Ministers had hoped. Last Friday, Esther McVey was asked on a BBC Radio 5 Live programme how much money the Government had saved through this policy. She began by saying:
“It was never all about saving money”.
The interviewer interrupted just to ask how much it would save. She came back to the question. The interviewer asked her repeatedly whether there would be savings and how much they would be but could not get an answer.
There is now a real risk that the bedroom tax will end up costing more than it saves. Research from the University of York suggests that the policy could save significantly less than the DWP predicted. The National Housing Federation has said that the savings claimed by the Government are “highly questionable”, partly because those forced to move to the private rented sector will end up costing more in housing benefits. Housing associations say that tens of millions of pounds are likely to be lost through the build-up of arrears. I ask the Minister today to tell the House precisely how much of that £500 million savings per annum has been realised in the first year of the bedroom tax. After taking into account the cost of discretionary housing payments, the cost to local authorities and social housing providers and the payment of higher housing benefits to those who had to move, what is the net saving to the public purse? If it was not about saving money, as Esther McVey has said, what was it about?
The Government have since changed tack and claimed that it is about tackling overcrowding or dealing with the waiting lists. They say that people need to be pushed to move out if they have spare rooms so that others can have their houses. At various times, noble Lords from all Benches have pointed out that, in fact, many of these are not spare rooms, and, even if they were, there were nowhere near enough spare smaller properties available in the areas hit by the bedroom tax. Now we know what has happened. A recent BBC investigation showed that, after the first year, just 6% of tenants have moved.
This entire episode should shame this Government. Half a million people have been affected, most of them disabled, losing an average £14 a week from their already meagre incomes. Instead of bringing forward an order to make the bedroom tax apply to up to 40,000 more households, the Government should announce today that they will scrap this unfair, cruel and unpopular tax. I beg to move.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sherlock for securing this debate. Of all the Government’s reforms to welfare, it is hard to find another more cruel, more callous and more mean-spirited than the bedroom tax. The policy was dreamt up by people who have no need for housing benefit themselves and probably do not even know anybody who depends on it. While it may make sense in theory, in practice it is having a devastating effect on the lives of vulnerable people. Additionally, the very ideas and theory behind the policy are, I believe, wicked and wrong. Ministers have stressed that the policy is designed to fix a broken system of housing benefit and encourage behavioural change among recipients of housing benefit. This is sheer nonsense. The system is broken, though not because of the behaviour of those who use it; the cause is the housing stock itself. In England, there are 180,000 tenants underoccupying two-bedroom homes but only 85,000 smaller homes available.
The Catholic charity Caritas Diocese of Salford has been working with Michelle. She has three children and lives in a three-bedroom home. Originally she cared for her brother, who has now moved into supported accommodation. Her 13 year-old daughter now uses the so-called spare room. Michelle is trying for a home swap, looking for a two-bedroom home, but nothing is available. The £12 she loses each week means that she now regularly resorts to food banks. This is the reality of the bedroom tax. The only economy left for families to make is on food. When that cannot be done, they have to resort to food banks. In Merseyside, social landlords have referred 553 tenants to food banks.
The cost of the bedroom tax is horrific, but the attitude that it displays towards social housing is also wrong. No longer can people regard where they live as their homes. Housing benefit and social housing appear to be something that the Government begrudgingly provide. My local newspaper, the South Wales Argus, recently reported the story of Kevin Reeve, who has occupied the family home for 50 years and cared for his mother and father, who have both now sadly passed away. He is now underoccupying, losing between £35 and £45 a month and has been forced into trying to move.
The local housing association, Bron Afon, has catalogued the effects of this tax on the local community. It discovered that one person affected is a former solider suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. He lives with his daughter, who is hoping to go to university. They already underoccupy by one room. They are already cutting down on heating their home and eating. His daughter is now questioning whether she should go to university. He is resigned to trying to move. His current home is the one in which he raised his children, the home that he shared with his wife, who, sadly, has now died. He is proud of that home, and we should be proud of him, a veteran who has served our country. Is this the way we repay our servicemen?
The bedroom tax is another example of the chaos, confusion and poor implementation of chronically ill conceived policies by the Department for Work and Pensions. It is clear that this policy is unjustly penalising vulnerable people for something beyond their control. It is causing immense hardship and devastating people’s lives. It shows complete callousness towards those who rely on housing benefit. Many good people who rely on housing benefit feel that they live not in prosperity Britain but in poverty Britain, thanks to this Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government. Those responsible for this policy should hang their heads in shame.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, I should first declare my interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, which represents the housing associations across England.
I will speak briefly, on a personal basis, to say that I cannot support the Government’s policy on this. I believe it was misjudged in the first place and we are rapidly seeing the proof in the pudding. I cannot support something that deprives people of money that, by any standards, they need—the Government do not give people more in benefit than they need to live on—when they have no option to move somewhere else because of the shortage of smaller homes. That is quite apart from the fact that to describe these rooms as surplus to need is in many cases simply wrong, and even if they are surplus today, they are often not surplus tomorrow. Therefore, for example, a family with young children will have to have those children live in a room together, but after a year they might need to live apart.
This simply does not make sense. I very much regret that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, on this, were not passed, because that would have secured the Government some of what they wished but given a much fairer deal to individuals; for example by not removing the money if a reasonable alternative has not been offered to them.
However, the most fundamental reason—the proof of the pudding—is that this is not a saving to government any more than it frees up rooms. That is because of the huge cost to housing associations of having to work with individuals to help them, and the cost of the work and the money that the Government have had to put in to support individuals. It has removed capacity from the social housing sector to provide more homes. All of the money lost—and, frankly, the arrears that are being built up—will never be gained back from people who have no ability to pay it. That simply undermines the capacity to solve the very housing problem which the policy was theoretically meant to address but has failed to do.
Although my instincts are those of a team player, and my track record over a substantial period of time shows that to be the case, this is not something on which I can support my noble friends.
Benefits: Sanctions
Lord Touhig Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
Jobcentre Plus advisers are well trained to look after their clients. One of the most difficult areas for them is always mental health, and that is something that we are looking to push further forward. We are introducing a mental health toolkit along the lines of that given to prime providers in the Work Programme.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
People with special educational needs and physical disabilities are particularly badly hit by these sanctions. Will the Minister respond to the question put to him by my noble friend Lady Lister? Will he come to the House and report regularly on the impact on people with these difficulties?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I said earlier that I hope that we will be announcing the context of the review that my colleague Esther McVey is looking to produce. When I have that information, I will, of course, bring it to this House.
Universal Credit
Lord Touhig Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
My Lords, if you do these major cultural transformations, it is absolutely vital that you do them at the pace at which you can. One thing we are doing, which is a development from our thinking in 2010, is a huge programme of testing, learning and implementing. In particular, one thing we have introduced in the past two years—thanks, I must acknowledge, to help from this Chamber—is very substantial work with local authorities on the local support service framework. I think that will support the vulnerable in a way that they have never been supported in this country in the past.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, on 6 November last year, in answer to a Question I put to him on the IT system for universal credit, the Minister confidently told the House that,
“the universal credit programme remains on schedule … to go live in October 2013”.—[Official Report, 6/11/12; col. 888.]
Having already admitted that the Government have written off £40 million in IT costs, what does he say now and how confident is he that it will go live in 2016?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I need to remind the noble Lord that the system went live, as he put it, earlier than October—it went live last April. We have a pathfinder which is learning extraordinary amounts. In particular, I remind noble Lords that we have established that the link between universal credit and the real-time information system works. The real-time information system that we were able to announce earlier is now fully up and running, with 99% of people on PAYE feeding through into it.
Mental Health: Cost of Living Support
Lord Touhig Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that people with mental health problems get the help they need to meet the cost of living.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, the association between poor mental health and poverty is clear, and it is equally clear that the best way to meet the cost of living is through work. We are committed to improving employment outcomes for people with poor mental health by supporting them to return to, and stay in, work through a combination of tailored work-focused healthcare and employment advice and by ensuring that they are supported equably in the benefit system.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, when an alcoholic schizophrenic with mental health problems turned up at St Vincent’s community support in Cwmcarn in south Wales, the person attempting to help her by applying for the new personal independence payment had to answer more than 40 questions in an hour-long telephone conversation with the DWP, simply to get the application form. The helper said she found this very distressing. Without this intervention, this mentally ill penniless woman would be destitute. Is there nothing the Government can do to simplify the way in which people with mental health problems can get the support they need, without enduring this bureaucratic nightmare?
Lord Freud
My Lords, on the process of getting PIP, we have been taking advice from people with an interest, particularly the autism group, which I know the noble Lord will be interested in, and we have been adjusting our PIP application process to reflect the observations and points made by those groups.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Touhig Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I wish to confine my remarks to social care support, particularly for people with autism. A commission on autism and ageing on which I served, and which was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, was told that most people with autism in this country are adults and that most are undiagnosed. Autism was identified in the 1940s and the first generation to be diagnosed is therefore now moving into old age. As a consequence, very little is known about the impact of autism on ageing, and vice versa, but we know that autism is not rare. It is estimated that 1% of the population have an autism spectrum disorder, while some 70% of those diagnosed are not receiving the help that they need from social services.
Far too many adults with autism are still waiting for the everyday support that they need, so the purpose of the commission of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is to build on the work of the National Autistic Society and advise on the policy changes required to ensure that people with autism can access the right support as they get older and that they have equal access to older people’s services. Here, I should declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society.
The society’s research shows that local authorities often do not identify adults with autism living in their area and do not plan and commission services to meet their needs. As a result, many fall into the gap between mental health services and learning disability services. Too often, people with autism find that they do not fit into existing structures. I am reminded that, in my 20 years as a councillor, too often when I took up a case on behalf of a constituent I would be told by an official, “Sorry, councillor, he/she falls through the net”. But who created the net? Well, we did—councillors, parliamentarians and the Government. We created the net that so many people fall through.
This year, however, there are two major opportunities to begin to change this. First, the Government are reviewing the adult autism strategy. This is a chance to assess progress on implementing the strategy so far and to identify and remove barriers preventing the much needed transformation of services to support adults with autism. Secondly, in the Queen’s Speech we have the Care Bill, which promises a fairer system for adults with disabilities. It is a good start, but it, too, can be improved. This Care Bill is important, as it relates to social care laws for adults and will provide the framework for adult care and support services in the future. I hope that the Bill will ensure that the duties covered by the statutory guidance in the Autism Act continue to apply to local authorities and the National Health Service.
Social care must no longer be a service of last resort. Under the current system, too many people become eligible for support only when their needs become acute and they require intensive, high-level care and crisis management. Research by the National Autistic Society shows that only 10% of people with autism receive social skills training, yet 55% would like to receive it; that only 10% of people with autism receive employment support, but 53% would like to receive it; and that just 17% of people with autism have access to a social group, yet 42% would like to. Many adults with autism would benefit greatly from low-level services such as befriending or social skills training, which would help them to avoid isolation and allow them to participate in society. A lack of access to these services can have a devastating impact. A third of adults with autism who responded to a National Autistic Society survey said that they had developed serious mental health problems as a result of lack of support.
Crucially, evidence from the National Audit Office shows that providing low-level services is cost-effective and prevents people from developing more complex problems. Its report stated:
“Beside the negative impact of such crises on a person’s life, acute services are also expensive, with inpatient mental health care costing between £200 and £300 per day”.
I want the Care Bill to guarantee that local authorities are under a duty to identify people with low-level needs to prevent and delay further needs accruing. They must also be held accountable for the exercise of these duties.
Many adults with autism are not eligible for support under the current system, leaving their needs unmet. The National Autistic Society, as a local service provider, knows that community care assessments can vary depending on where you live and on who assesses you. I therefore welcome the Government’s proposal to introduce national minimum eligibility criteria so that people will be assessed on the same set of criteria across the country. However, in order for the new system to be fair for people with autism, the Government must ensure that social and communication needs are given equal weight to physical needs in the eligibility assessment. The new eligibility threshold must be equivalent to moderate needs under the current system. This is essential if the Government are to succeed in their stated aim to prevent or delay care needs developing and to support people when they need care. Better we do that than intervene only at crisis point.
The National Autistic Society, Scope, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire Disability and Sense have produced a joint report, supported by economic modelling by Deloitte, which shows the cost savings that can be made by investing in support for people with moderate needs. Many people with autism can make a valuable contribution to the workplace, but they must be supported to do so. This can mean full-time or part-time employment, supported employment, internships or work experience. At present, far too many people with autism are missing out on the opportunity to fulfil their ambition and potential, while society is missing out on their talents. Just 15% of people with autism are in full-time employment. Furthermore, 26% of graduates with autism are unemployed, which is by far the highest rate of any disability group. As many as 79% of people with autism on unemployment benefits say that they want to work but need support to retain full-time employment.
We cannot change these things overnight, but the figures that I have given show just how far we have yet to travel. Indeed, we have a great opportunity to start to make a difference so that people who are disadvantaged in the way that people with autism are disadvantaged can enjoy the opportunities that those of us in this House have enjoyed throughout our lives and, indeed, the opportunities that most people in this country take for granted.
Let no one believe that the Care Bill is the light at the end of the tunnel. It is not that but, coupled with the Autism Act, it is our chance at least to see the tunnel entrance. I hope that, through the Care Bill, we will establish ways in which people with autism can enter and remain in employment. I hope that the Government will be open to working with noble Lords on all sides of the House to make sure that the Care Bill succeeds, but I also hope that the Government are open to helping to make it a better Bill, which I am sure the contribution of noble Lords across the House will do.
Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill
Lord Touhig Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
The noble Lord makes the same point as JRR Tolkien, who did not think that “growth” was the right way to refer to hobbits at Bilbo Baggins’s birthday party. If the noble Lord can think of a better word than stockpile, I will happily use it. I cannot think of one off the top of my head. If the noble Lord finds that offensive—
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am not going to pick up a particular case because I do not have the detail on it. It would not be appropriate for me to hazard a guess on what was behind a particular e-mail or a particular concern.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I hear what the Minister has said, and he is held in high regard across the House. In view of what my noble friend Lady Hollis has said, will he therefore initiate an investigation into how this memo came about? Will he come back to the House to explain what action the Government are taking on this? Somebody is clearly acting against government policy, and it should be stopped.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Will the Minister also, therefore, ensure that all DWP local offices receive the same information—that this is to be deplored?
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
Lord Touhig Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
My Lords, these amendments, to which I have added my name, are essential to protect the basic well-being of the very poorest children. Those seeking to justify restrictions to our social security system have continually argued two things: first, that we must fairly distribute the burden of national economic hardship, and secondly, that we must take tough decisions in order to ensure a sustainable future. Yet driving down the value of child-related benefits achieves neither of those objectives. Instead, it unjustly shifts the burden onto the most vulnerable section of our society and damages the future prospects of hundreds of thousands of young people.
The Government’s own impact assessment highlights that the Bill as it stands will disproportionately affect families, with lone parents experiencing the most significant real-term cut to their income of £5 per week. Noble Lords might think that £5 is not much, so let us put that figure into context: it is the equivalent of half an average weekly heating bill or two lunches for a child. The loss of it is a significant challenge to the increasing number of parents currently struggling to cover utility costs or turning to local food banks for their children’s meals. In practice, the actual shortfall is likely to be larger still owing to above-inflation rises in the cost of necessities such as groceries, fuel and gas and electricity. The net result will inevitably be more child poverty and greater family suffering, making a mockery of any notion that this is a fair or just mechanism for securing cost savings.
As Helen O’Brien, the chief executive of Caritas Social Action Network, said recently,
“it is absurd to suggest that a child going to school hungry or coming home to a cold house is shouldering their fair share of austerity measures; rather they are being deprived of a basic standard of living to which all children are entitled”.
Removing child-related benefits from the scope of the Bill will not completely prevent or reverse this hardship, as low-paid and unemployed families will still face a rapidly widening gap between their outgoings and their core benefit income. However, specific parts of the safety net designed to cover essential costs of caring for their sons and daughters will be crucially safeguarded if these amendments are agreed.
This is particularly important given that the relentless squeeze on the support available for poor families has already left considerable numbers of children not only without the facets of a good childhood but growing up in simply unacceptable living conditions. Reflecting on cuts to local housing allowance and the pending introduction of the household benefit cap, Alison Gelder, chief executive of Housing Justice, recently noted that,
“across the country we are seeing increasing numbers of children suffering from a life in sub-standard housing and being forced into overcrowded accommodation”.
Taken in conjunction with this April’s intended ending of council tax benefit and the imposition of social housing underoccupancy penalties on approximately 220,000 families with children, these measures are putting the income levels of the poorest parents under unprecedented strain. On top of this, child benefit is already subject to a three-year freeze, which stands to create a further annual real-term loss of £130 by 2014.
More than ever the most vulnerable families require protected child-related benefits in order to mitigate the most damaging effects of this rapid and extensive cut to their income. At the very least, the Government should allow sufficient time for the impact of recent and pending benefit changes to be properly examined in relation to child poverty. The result of committing to another three years of real-term cuts before many key restrictions have even come into force will be disastrous for children whose parents are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on their table.
Ultimately, increased levels of child poverty are not only devastating for individuals and families but stand to have a profoundly negative effect our society. One of the most significant risks is to children’s education, an issue previously recognised in the DWP’s impact assessment on restrictions to housing benefits. It stated that overcrowding resulting from the cuts could hamper children’s ability to do homework and affect educational attainment. Last year, more than half of teachers surveyed reported that financial hardship among families had resulted in children arriving at their classes hungry, with significant consequences for concentration and behaviour. A report from the Children’s Food Trust last week reinforces the picture of children going to school hungry. Of 250 staff surveyed, 84% said they had seen children without enough to eat and 68% said they had seen an increase in this over the past two years. If child-related income is driven down further this is only likely to worsen, jeopardising the potential of even more young people and undermining the prospects of the next generation.
When parents struggle to afford basic necessities for children, there is also the very real risk of running into long-term personal debt. The shocking findings by the magazine Which? last year showed that payday loan companies now spend over half a million pounds targeting cash-strapped mothers and fathers by putting their adverts on television during children’s programmes. This is indicative of the increasingly desperate situation that so many families now face. A growing number of parents are turning to these lenders, while some 25% now use credit cards to meet everyday living costs. The abolition of community care grants and crisis loans in April only stands to deepen this problem by closing the door to interest-free emergency funds.
It is difficult to see how pushing even more parents into debt by slashing the value of child-related benefits will contribute in any way to our future economic recovery; yet increased levels of debt are precisely what will result from this Bill. Children still need healthy meals, warm houses, winter clothes and new shoes. When parents are faced with a real-term cut in child benefit and tax credits, alongside above-inflation rises in the prices of these goods, they will have to turn somewhere to make up the shortfall. It is as simple as that.
These amendments are not only right, but imperative. Capping up-rating of child-related benefits at 1% for the next three years will exacerbate the already unsustainable pressure that parents are under. It will cause serious damage to our communities in the long run and, most critically, it will drive down the living standards of millions of children. Protecting the basic level of income required to meet young people’s most intrinsic needs is a fundamental test of our society and one that we cannot afford to fail.
At the general election, the leader of the Opposition, Mr Cameron, now the Prime Minister, said that we lived in broken Britain. I paid little attention to him at the time because I believed he was wrong. However, after two and a half years, we live in a Britain where multi-millionaires are about to receive thousands of pounds a week in tax cuts; we live in a Britain where corrupt bankers who fiddled the LIBOR rate are rewarded with pay-offs when they should have gone to prison; we live in a Britain where those who operate our transport system cannot run the trains on time but get big bonuses; we live in a Britain where energy companies have more than trebled their profits yet require pensioners to pay an extra 6% for gas and electricity; and we live in a Britain where hard-working low-income couples with children will now see their weekly income slashed, the unemployed and poor will have their benefits cut and disabled people will see what help they get now cut or taken away altogether. Now, in 2013, I have started to understand what Mr Cameron meant by broken Britain.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I want to make some very brief comments on the amendments, mainly to follow up some things I said at Second Reading. As my noble friend Lord Touhig just said, these amendments are imperative, crucial and brilliant, and I congratulate the movers on putting them so powerfully. Any amendments that will mitigate against benefits having a negative impact on children are very forceful and follow very well from earlier, powerful speeches about child poverty.
I suggested at Second Reading that anything that might increase child poverty should be removed from the Bill. I say that again and support these amendments. The Government should really think about listening very carefully to the organisations and experts who work closely with children and families and who understand child poverty. These organisations and experts have pointed out the negative implications of this Bill. Surely their analyses should be taken very seriously.
The Government have already announced that the Bill will directly increase relative-income child poverty by 200,000 children, of which 100,000 will be in families in work. Nearly all the highly vulnerable children that Barnardo’s works with are receiving in-work or out-of-work benefits. This Bill will impose a real-term cut to their income. One in 10 families will be affected by this Bill, the poorest families most.
Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013
Lord Touhig Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests. As the Minister will recall, in Committee and at Third Reading of the Welfare Reform Bill, a number of colleagues, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar—who is no longer in her place—and I all raised issues about face-to-face assessments.
I urged the Government to take a “tiered approach” to the PIP assessment. This would mean that instead of people with conditions such as autism having to undergo a stressful and often inaccurate face-to-face consultation, assessors would first consider existing medical and other evidence about their needs. On the basis of this, a decision would be made as to whether a face-to-face consultation would be necessary. We are all keen to learn the lessons of the work capability assessment for employment and support allowance, which, as the Public Accounts Committee in the other place confirmed recently, continues to be problematic at best. A tiered approach to PIP would help make it fairer and more accurate for people with autism and other complex conditions.
The guidance that has been published by the Department for Work and Pensions for the assessment providers Atos and Capita reflects this tiered approach, which is certainly most welcome. However, the guidance also makes it clear that the end-to-end assessment process should be completed within 30 days. I understand that contracts between the DWP and the providers make it clear that there is a financial incentive to work towards this timescale; indeed, if fewer than 85% are completed within 30 days the providers are at risk of losing their contract.
I share the view of the National Autistic Society, which has serious concerns about whether evidence can and will be collected within this very tight timeframe and whether as a result people with complex conditions such as autism will undergo a stressful face-to-face consultation, and a decision will be made about their needs by an assessor who may not be in possession of all the relevant evidence. A one-hour face-to-face assessment will not enable the assessor to gain a full picture of the impact of autism on the claimant. It is an inherent part of the condition that people with autism will present differently according to the environment in which they find themselves.
Does the Minister think that 30 days is a realistic timeframe in which to get a response to a request for further evidence from busy health and social care professionals? Is he prepared to consider extending that, in particular with regard to people with autism and other very complex conditions?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register and also declare an interest in that I have close relatives who are in receipt of DLA. I want to use this opportunity to put on the record again my ongoing concerns, which are very much reflected in the amendment that the noble Lord has spoken to. I continue to have these concerns about the Government’s change from DLA to PIP for three principal reasons.
First, although I recognise, as others have, that my noble friend has worked very hard and made concessions that have very much improved these regulations, in successive debates about PIP he has repeatedly reassured us that “the most vulnerable” will still be in receipt of the benefit. To me, saying “the most vulnerable” is like saying “the most pregnant”—people are vulnerable or pregnant but the degree starts to give me cause for concern.
The second area that gives me concern, which has already been mentioned, is this figure that has been attached to how many people will lose their DLA. It seems to be an arbitrary figure and nobody seems able to identify quite how that figure came about or how it will be implemented.
Thirdly, in recent years the Government have had to take account of the demographic changes relating to the cost of the care of the elderly—something on which we have had an announcement in the past week. But equally, in looking at these changes, they have ignored another demographic change: the number of people with a disability who now live independently, who 20 or 30 years ago would not have done so.
When I had the privilege of representing Tiverton in Devon, in the 1980s we had three mental institutions in that constituency. The policy to take people out of mental institutions and integrate them into the community was not without its problems, but when you saw those people eventually living in the community it was only too evident that they had become institutionalised because they had basically been locked up for decades, and that the vast majority of them should never have been there in the first place. We do not do that any more. We do not lock people away. Equally, a changing trend that I am very pleased to see is that particular groups of disabled adults no longer live into their middle or old age with even more elderly parents. There are many who still do that, but the trend has been to move them into independent living.
If one sees the cost of what is required to move vulnerable people, even if they are only a little vulnerable, one realises that it is not a cheap option if those people are to be safe and to have the quality of life which we would all aspire to. The Government should have done their homework and looked at this change in society whereby we now integrate people into independent living in a way that a previous generation would never have countenanced. That is not just about putting a roof over their head; it is also about providing support and sometimes even having to contrive some sort of social life, which is again supported, so that they really feel that they are integrated into society.
My noble friend said at the Dispatch Box just now that the costs of DLA have gone up greatly in the past decade. I suspect that a lot of those costs are associated with the very welcome news that people are now integrated into independent living, sometimes supported but sometimes fully independent, where previously they would either have been locked up or sitting on the sofa at home with elderly parents. There would have come a point with those adults when their parents were no longer able to look after them and when, usually in an emergency, they suddenly became dependent on the state at much higher cost than those small amounts of money needed to support them in independent living. Unfortunately, despite what any Government say, Governments work in silos, so I appreciate that what my noble friend has to look at is the budget of the DWP, when a lot of people who are now moved into independent living are dependent not just on disability benefits but on health and local authority services. It is that package that helps them attain independent living.
I am seriously concerned that many of the 600,000 people, or however many it turns out to be—as my noble friend will know, I have a particular interest in this group—who are on the autistic spectrum, as my noble friend Lord Touhig described, or who have learning disabilities and mental health problems, do not always present initially as people with deep-seated problems and needs. Rather like icebergs, they very often present with a third on the surface and two-thirds under it. When they run into difficulties with independent living or taking their place in society it is not only devastating for them personally but very expensive on the public purse. It is therefore a false economy if that particular group, many of whom may be intelligent and do not present as the most needy or the most vulnerable, lose their DLA after achieving independent living. I say that on behalf of many autistic people whom I have known and on behalf of autistic young people whom I can think of who have committed suicide because they simply could not cope with day-to-day living. It may have taken a long time to get them to independent living and if you pull the rug from under them, the whole structure collapses around them like a pack of cards. It is not the case with learning-disabled or autistic people that, once they have achieved a level of independence you can walk away and say, “Okay, they’ll be all right now for the rest of their life”. They simply do not function in that way.
The Government should look at this changing trend in independent living. It is rarely mentioned by the Government but it is just as significant as some of the challenges that we face with the ever increasing dependency of old age. Much as all of us who take an interest in these matters appreciate what my noble friend has done—he has a very good understanding of autism and is doing a lot to try to help more autistic people into work—none the less, the words set out in this provision give cause for concern and it is a concern that I share.
Universal Credit Regulations 2013
Lord Touhig Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, I welcome the introduction of universal credit. I think it is a very important step forward. Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for all the work that he and his colleagues have put into the regulations before us today.
However, I am concerned about the inadvertent hardship that might be caused to some of the most vulnerable in our society. The report of the inquiry led by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, Holes in the Safety Net: The Impact of Universal Credit on Disabled People and Their Families, has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. It clearly sets out the concerns of disability charities and the millions of people they represent. I want briefly to highlight one of the issues about which I feel concern: the impact on families with disabled children.
As I understand it, the regulations laid before us today propose to reduce the level of financial support to most disabled children from £57 a week under the current system to just £28 a week, or £124 a month—a reduction of nearly £30 a week. According to the Government’s own estimates, 100,000 disabled children will be affected. Only the most severely disabled children who are on high-rate care components of the disability living allowance or registered blind will be unaffected.
Many parents of disabled children already struggle to find the money to cover the extra costs of having a disabled child, such as specialist adaptations to their home, access to disability-friendly services and higher travel and childcare expenses. Already, 28% of households with a disabled child are living in poverty, and this rises to around 50% if the additional costs associated with being disabled are taken into account.
For those affected by this further reduction in their income, the impact could be very serious. Two-thirds of them say that they will have to cut back on spending on food and more than half say that they will get into debt, yet on Monday we heard in the debate on the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill that the lower disability addition of universal credit, as well as being cut in half, will be now uprated by just 1% a year in 2014 and 2015, well below the expected rate of inflation. That is why one of my colleagues on these Benches will support an amendment to remove the child disability elements of universal credit from the 1% cap.
I highlight to your Lordships the serious concerns raised in the report on these and other areas produced by the inquiry headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I urge the Minister to review and monitor the impact of universal credit on disabled people, and in particular on families with disabled children so that this policy can better meet its aims of supporting those in greatest need constructively.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, we have had a very good debate and I do not want to spoil it, so I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. As the Minister knows, I am supportive of the whole idea of universal credit, but have concerns about the IT system that will be essential to make it work. To be fair to the Minister, I have had some very helpful conversations with him about universal credit and I have tabled a number of Questions which he has answered, although I am not entirely happy with some of the Answers.
The implementation of universal credit has been described by Margaret Hodge, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, as a train crash waiting to happen, a point made by my noble friend Lady Hollis a little earlier. Having served on the Public Accounts Committee when I was in the other place, I can testify that no major government IT project in 20 years has been successful. Every one has gone massively over budget and or been years behind in its date of implementation.
I share the concerns of those who are worried about the implementation of the IT system to support universal credit. As I understand it, it will require two separate IT projects to piggyback on a third. That is a real challenge if ever there was one. I am also given to understand that, to make universal credit work, at least 80% of claims have to be made online. When I discovered this, I also discovered that the only benefit that was then claimable online was jobseeker’s allowance, which only 17% of claimants were claiming online.
As my noble friend Lady Hollis pointed out, 30% of the poorest families in this country do not have a computer and I presume that these are the people who need benefit support. What happens if 80% of claimants do not access the system and claim online? What happens to those who are unable to access the system on the computer? To make the system work effectively, it will require every employer to inform HMRC every month of how much they have paid every single employee and how much that employee has paid in tax. If any of those employers’ staff are on benefits and the employer fails to file the information by the due date that universal credit requires, there will be real problems for that person’s benefit because it is paid in real time.
I tabled a number of Questions about this. I asked the Minister,
“what assistance will be available to people receiving universal credit if their payments are wrong as a result of their employer failing to notify Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of their pay and tax details”.
In response, the Minister said:
“If earnings are not reported … for any reason, claimants will be requested to declare their earnings to DWP through the universal credit interface”.—[Official Report, 19/11/12; col. WA330.]
I then asked how the universal credit interface would operate. The Minister replied:
“The universal credit … will allow claimants to provide … details via a self-reporting tool”.—[Official Report, 26/11/12; col. WA24.]
That tool is the telephone. It does seem a bit Heath Robinson if that is how it is going to operate.
There are then widespread concerns about the cost of the IT project for universal credit. We are told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put it on the Treasury’s “at risk” list. That “at risk” status is given to projects that will go over budget or be late in delivery. I have asked a number of questions on this. Perhaps I may ask the Minister three brief questions about the cost of the IT project. First, of the £105 million total cost of universal credit in 2012, how much supported information technology development? I cannot seem to get answers to that point. Secondly, can the Minister give us exact figures for expenditure on developing universal credit’s information technology for the years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15? Finally, how does the current total cost estimate for universal credit’s information technology project compare with the Government’s original estimate? All these questions are relevant to making universal credit work. All across the House, people want it to work, but if the IT project is wrong, it simply will not and people will lose out as a consequence.