Pension Equality for Women

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris]

I will come on to the Minister’s remarks in that debate, but if he did want to take the opportunity, I am sure that the WASPI women would welcome it.

What we and the campaign are asking for, as set out in the motion, is simple: a non-means-tested bridging pension. That would mean that some 3.8 million women would not have to live in poverty. The pension would be paid as a percentage of the full state pension, with compensation offered over the period between the age of 60 and the new state pension age.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. We all agree that this injustice needs to be dealt with, but should we not also consider how that could be funded? I have discovered from the House of Commons Library that bringing forward the proposed increase in the pension age from 67 to 68 from 2037 to 2036 would in itself raise approximately £7.5 billion, which would go a considerable way towards helping these women to address the injustice that they face.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention. I shall come to some of the proposals that have been made and how the injustice might be addressed.

Support for Care Leavers

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Gillan, for calling me to speak; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on securing this important debate.

This debate is ultimately about improving life chances, and the stats on care leavers are concerning. They are five times more likely to have been excluded from school and five times more likely to be convicted of a criminal offence or subject to a final warning or reprimand, and, as my hon. Friend mentioned earlier, only about 6% of care leavers end up going to university. However, the most troubling statistic for me is that care leavers are at considerably higher risk of homelessness, which is an issue that I care passionately about and that is the perspective from which I want to contribute to the debate.

I serve as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ending homelessness, alongside the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). In July we produced a report that examined homelessness among three specific cohorts: victims of domestic violence, prison leavers and care leavers. Everyone in this Chamber would agree that care leavers, given that often they will have grown up in challenging circumstances, should have all aspects of their wellbeing taken care of, and yet their housing needs are sometimes overlooked, as my hon. Friend mentioned earlier. When our APPG held its inquiry, we were told that a third of care leavers become homeless in the first two years after leaving care.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise for not being here earlier; I was at a suicide prevention conference in Belfast. I very much share his concerns. In Norfolk, when children being cared for by foster carers reach the age of 18, in many cases the carers’ payments go down significantly. Does he agree that we need to avoid creating perverse incentives that might end up with children having to leave home and therefore being at risk of homelessness?

[Will Quince]

Broadly, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am pleased that the Minister has heard that point. I hope she will take it on board.

We also found that 25% of homeless people have been in care at some point in their lives. The Government’s care leavers’ charter states:

“We promise…To find you a home”.

We have to make sure that the benefits system supports that aim.

The APPG’s report recommends that care leavers should be exempt from the shared accommodation rate up to the age of 25. To provide some background, in 2012 the Government extended the shared accommodation rate to everyone under 35. The rate is the maximum amount that an individual can claim in housing benefit for a private rented property, and it is based on the cost of a room in a shared property rather than the cost of self-contained accommodation.

The rationale for that change, which incidentally I agree with, was to

“ensure that Housing Benefit rules reflect the housing expectations of people of a similar age”,

meaning a similar cohort who are not on benefits. Yet it is often the case that care leavers have had a really challenging upbringing; they might have suffered traumas that other people of their age might never experience.

We already recognise that we should have different expectations of care leavers compared with those we have of their peers. We currently exempt care leavers from the shared accommodation rate up to the age of 22. Nevertheless, most young people have the option of staying at home if they are unable to move out, but that choice is not available to care leavers. Furthermore, in our evidence sessions we heard from care leavers who said that they would feel unsafe in a shared home.

Exempting care leavers from the shared accommodation rate up to the age of 25 would give them the space and security of their own home, which would make a tremendous difference to their transition into adulthood. That suggestion has actually been recognised by the Government. The 2016 “Keep on Caring” strategy stated that the Government would be

“reviewing the case to extend the exemption to the Shared Accommodation Rate…for care leavers to age 25”.

Obviously, such an extension would have a financial cost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar pointed out earlier. Currently, we do not know the number of care leavers who are affected by the move to the shared accommodation rate. I found that out—or, rather, tried to find it out and failed—when I submitted a written parliamentary question. However, the Children’s Society estimates that the potential case load is about 3,300. With an average difference between the shared accommodation rate and the one-bedroom rate of about £1,600, the cost of exempting care leavers would be about £5.3 million. Given the potential difference that change could make to the lives of care leavers, that is not an unreasonable figure.

The state has a responsibility for care leavers, young adults who are often among the most vulnerable in our society. We need to ensure that their housing needs are looked after just as well as their other needs. By exempting them from the shared accommodation rate, we can give them safe and secure accommodation, and help them in that all-important transition to adulthood.

I know that the Minister is as passionate as I am about improving the life chances of care leavers and ensuring that we address and minimise the risk of homelessness. I hope that the Government will take that recommendation on board and look at it. I will send the Minister a copy of the APPG’s very good report and hope that the Government will also look at its other recommendations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady tempts me to make spending commitments on behalf of the Department for Communities and Local Government. While I would, of course, be absolutely delighted to do so, it is a little bit beyond my job description. I am sure the Department will read with great interest her comments in Hansard.

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous. The former Minister Edward Timpson introduced a very good reform to enable payments to continue to children in foster care beyond their 18th birthday, which was widely welcomed. However, if the rate paid for the most complex children being looked after by very experienced foster carers goes down at their 18th birthday, it creates an incentive for the foster carer to encourage them to leave, which is the very last thing we should be doing. Does she agree that we should seek to find ways of ensuring we provide incentives for them to stay at home, as happens in every other family?

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to my former colleague, Edward Timpson, who was a most fantastic Minister in the Department for Education and a great advocate for care leavers. We are supporting the Staying Put arrangements that the right hon. Gentleman alluded to, which mean that care leavers who remain with their ex-foster carer can claim means-tested benefit from their 18th birthday up to the age of 21, but I will look at everything he has said.

In addition, we have exempted care leavers from the shared accommodation rate until they are 22. The shared accommodation rate is normally paid to single people aged under 35. That means that care leavers can claim the higher local housing allowance one-bedroom rate of housing benefit until their 22nd birthday.

I have listened to the arguments made by hon. Members about the issue today. I particularly welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince); he gave an eloquent description. I also thank him for the significant contribution he has made as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on homelessness, where he does a sterling and very valuable job.

We have always said that this is something we would like to achieve, but at the moment we do not have plans to extend the exemption for care leavers from the shared accommodation rate to age 25. I assure my hon. Friend and other Members who have raised the issue today that we will continue to keep it under review and will consider evidence from stakeholders on the impact that the shared accommodation rate has on care leavers.

We have given care leavers priority access to personal budgeting support in universal credit. That includes benefit advances, rent paid direct to landlords, payments more frequent than monthly and budgeting advice, including debt advice, which was raised by the hon. Member for Stockton North.

We have a fantastic “See Potential” campaign—I say fantastic as it falls under my ministerial portfolio. It encourages employers to recognise the benefits of recruiting people from all kinds of backgrounds, including care leavers. I was so pleased to celebrate the inspiring workplace and training achievements of young people, including care leavers and others, at the Land Securities Community Employment Awards recently—we saw the incredible growth, development and achievement of some very inspiring young people.

I am pleased that the Government are leading by example by setting up a cross-Government scheme to provide employment to care leavers. My Department’s own care leaver team includes a quite brilliant care leaver intern, who I have had the pleasure of meeting, and who is providing us with very valuable insights into issues that care leavers face and helping us improve our services for care leavers. She is very cool as well—she is in the room, which is why I am saying that!

In developing our support for care leavers, we have worked closely with stakeholders. I am particularly grateful for the input from the Children’s Society, representatives of which I met shortly after being appointed to the Department. When I met with them, I was made aware of the fact that in some cases care leavers have difficulty taking up apprenticeships and a number of hon. Members have raised that today. We know that without the support of a family, they struggle economically. Having had that meeting, I hotfooted it straight over to the Department for Education and met the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills to discuss the idea of an apprenticeship bursary, which would ensure that apprenticeships were an affordable option for care leavers, who do not have the family support that most apprentices can rely on.

The Department for Education are reviewing how the new apprenticeship funding approach is supporting all those who are disadvantaged, including care leavers, with the intention of improving how the system supports those individuals from 18 to 19, so that apprenticeships offer a more attractive opportunity to them and a greater chance of success. It has agreed to explore the proposal for an apprenticeship bursary.

The debate has raised some really important issues, and I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for the points they have made, which will continue to inform our work to support care leavers, alongside our discussions with our valuable stakeholders.

State Pension Age for Women

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Let me correct the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). If he reads section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016, he will see that the Scottish Government are prohibited from doing anything about pensions or relating to age.

The key issue is communication. The Work and Pensions Committee said that people should have 15 years. The Government said, “Well, you did. It changed in 1995”. But they wasted 14 of those years by not informing women. They only started to write to women in 2009, one year before the first batch of women found that their pension age had changed. Many only discovered in 2011, when they were informed of the second change, that they were being hit by a double whammy.

The problem, as I mentioned earlier, is one of communication—an article in the Financial Times is not an acceptable way to inform women such as me, born in the 1950s, that our pension age is changing. HMRC and the DWP can certainly find us when they want to, so I would have thought they could send a personal letter. The idea that we should have to ask for our pension age is ridiculous when we have known what it was for our whole lives. The Government owe those women a duty of care; those women who have suffered the gender pay gap, raised children and cared for the sick—

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whitford]

I will give way.

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has to approach the microphone. Strictly, under the rules of the House, he should be sitting before he stands. I know it is difficult, but he has to be near a microphone.

[Norman Lamb]

I was sitting.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I apologise, but he must speak into a microphone.

[Norman Lamb]

I am very grateful. Is it not part of the problem that all those women who have given up much of their adult lives to caring responsibilities then face real discrimination when seeking work at this age? They are therefore left in unacceptable poverty.

Personal Independence Payment: Regulations

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

It is a relief that we are having this debate on the Floor of the House, and I thank you for granting it, Mr Speaker, following the application of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). It is a shame that the House has had to drag a Minister to the Dispatch Box so that the Government can be held to account on this matter after weeks of their refusing to debate it. As we have heard, 179 Members from eight different parties signed an early-day motion to annul the statutory instrument that implements the changes. The truth is that the Government have been shying away from accountability for the regulations from the start. They initially refused to comply with the upper tribunal ruling by bringing forward these changes in the first place, and then they did not even have the decency, nor the courtesy, to refer a draft of the regulations to their own Social Security Advisory Committee. If the Government are so confident that the regulations will hold up to any kind of scrutiny, why have they avoided due process by trying to sneak the changes in through the back door?

My party and other Opposition colleagues will not allow the Government to take these unfair backwards steps. Sense estimates that the changes will affect 150,000 people. Those people will lose out on PIP, which supports the extra cost of living with a disability, while the Government save £3.7 billion. That smacks of hypocrisy, given that the “Work, health and disability” Green Paper said that the Government would not seek to make any further cuts to the social security budget. Is that the real reason why they did not want the regulations to be scrutinised?

Given the Government’s attitude to PIP and the assessments, it seems fitting that they will sneak out the second independent review of personal independence payments tomorrow—the day the House rises for Easter recess. What are they so scared of that they have scheduled the release of the report so that they can face no immediate scrutiny? During the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which established the new personal independence payment system, Ministers were clear that PIP was an important step to achieve the parity of esteem between physical and mental health that we want. Ministers even talked about the descriptors for the mobility component taking into account someone’s ability to plan and follow a journey. They said that PIP was designed to assess the barriers that individuals face, not to make judgments based on the type of impairment. Personal independence payments are supposed to support people with the additional costs of disability.

We have heard about the court ruling that the regulations seek to undermine. The court ruled that people who find it hard to leave the house because of anxiety, panic attacks and other mental health problems should be able to receive the higher rate of PIP.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

These changes run the risk of again increasing the stigma of mental health, because they say to people with anxiety that causes them to stay inside that that is not really serious. Is that not completely in conflict with the principle of equal treatment for mental and physical health?

[Corri Wilson]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We should not be treating one disability differently from another.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating that the Government cannot simply move the goalposts every time they lose a battle in court. The regulations do nothing more than pander to the old stigmas and attitudes towards mental illness. If a person needs help, he or she needs that help regardless of the nature of their disability or health condition.

In evidence to the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Disability Agenda Scotland, an alliance of Scotland’s major disability organisations, raised a number of concerns. It said:

“We disagree with the Government’s presentation of the change that this will not be a ‘cut’ for people currently receiving PIP, as it is a clear diversion from the stated aims of the legislation back in 2012 (to award the enhanced mobility component ‘if a person’s mobility is severely limited by their physical or mental condition’).”

Essentially, the Government are intent on trying to spin their way out of this outrageous, stigmatising move against those with severe mental health conditions. Disability Agenda Scotland also fears:

“Current recipients may also lose out in future despite no change to their condition, if they are reassessed under the new criteria.”

It will come as no shock that the DWP’s own evaluation of the changes shows that the Government have no idea of their long-term impact—no idea! They simply do not care and are happy to push forward a move that makes a clear distinction between people with different conditions, against the ruling of the Court.

There are clearly concerns about assessment processes for personal independence payment, and the Scottish Association for Mental Health’s report on PIP, “What’s the Problem?”, sets out those concerns. One of the main themes running through its research is a distrust of the process. One person said:

“People advise you not to shave, and turn up dishevelled—to show that mentally they are unwell! Just because you’re articulate doesn’t mean you don’t have a mental health problem.”

There is simply no consistency in the assessment process, yet the Government keep shifting the sands in a piecemeal way, which only exacerbates the problem and the impact on the lives of those who are simply trying to claim what they are entitled to.

The Government have form on pulling the safety net from under those who are desperately or life-threateningly ill. Such is the impact of sanctions on those with mental health conditions that many become destitute and dependent on food banks. The Government do not strike me as keen to ensure parity of esteem for those with mental health conditions; they seem intent on doing everything they can to make people dependent on support, rather than empowering people to live independent lives. We know that, in practice, “parity of esteem” means nothing to the Government, who have instructed private companies carrying out assessments to award the higher rate of the mobility component only to people with physical, cognitive or sensory impairments.

The Scottish Government, on the other hand, are determined to build a social security system with dignity and fairness at its heart. The process of building that system and taking over responsibility for personal independence payments is ongoing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nusrat Ghani]

I am sorry, but there just is not enough time to give way.

Research and evidence was gathered by the Thomas Pocklington Trust, Sense and the RNIB, and the key finding of the study, which reflected real-life experiences of people with sensory loss and visual impairment, is that those participants who transitioned from DLA to PIP received a “positive” financial outcome with PIP. However, I hope the Minister will reflect on the feedback on the process, which some found confusing. Assessors need always to work to deliver a positive experience at face-to-face assessments. Regardless, the evidence from this study, available on the RNIB website, shows that switching from DLA to PIP meant a more positive financial outcome, and that is welcome.

Opposition Members have accused the Government of betraying people with mental health conditions, but we are spending £11.4 billion on mental health this year alone, and more people with mental health conditions are receiving the enhanced PIP daily living and mobility rates than were previously getting the equivalent under the DLA system.

[Norman Lamb]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Nusrat Ghani]

There just is not enough time for everyone to get in. Some 66% of people getting PIP with a mental health condition get the enhanced daily living amount, which compares with 22% who were receiving the highest rate of DLA.

I will finish by focusing on this Government’s record on helping disabled people into work. Since 2013, the number of disabled people in work has increased by half a million. However, those with sight loss are at the bottom of the table, and I hope we can do more to ensure that they get—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right.

I wish to say a little more about the precise content of the regulations. The Secretary of State told us at the beginning of the process that nobody would have their current benefit cut; I think Ministers now accept that that statement was incorrect. Regulation 2(4) states:

“In the table in Part 3 (mobility activities), in relation to activity 1 (planning and following journeys), in descriptors c, d and f, for ‘Cannot’ substitute ‘For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot’.”

The changes explicitly carve out people who cannot plan and follow a journey because of psychological distress.

The Secretary of State has said not to worry, because people with cognitive impairments can still qualify for the highest rate of the mobility component. That may well be the case, but that is a different group of people. The changes explicitly carve out people whose mobility impairment arises from psychological distress. Was that the original intention? On 7 February 2012, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller)—if I remember rightly, she was the predecessor but two of the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson)—said in a written answer that

“when considering entitlement to both rates of the mobility component we will take into account ability to plan and follow a journey, in addition to physical ability to get around. Importantly, PIP is designed to assess barriers individuals face, not make a judgment based on their impairment type.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 232W.]

That is a clear statement of the original intent of this benefit. If the Secretary of State has been advised that the original intention was something different, he simply needs to check the record.

The changes in the regulations are different from the original intention. They introduce an explicit judgment based on impairment type; the original intention was to have no such distinction. The regulations introduce a distinction that was not in the benefit’s original intention. They say that someone is in if they struggle to plan and follow a journey, but if their problem is because of psychological distress, they are out. It is an explicit judgment, it is explicitly contingent, and it carves out a large group of people with mental health problems.

[Norman Lamb]

Does not that carve-out ultimately amount to nothing but discrimination against people suffering mental distress? Also, is it not the case that any references to spend on mental health in any other area are totally irrelevant to this issue? This rule change is about discrimination.

[Stephen Timms]

That is absolutely explicit in the regulations. That group is now being discriminated against, which is contrary to the original intention. The Secretary of State talked about restoring the original aim of the policy, but the change does not do that; it is different.

The Secretary of State suggests that it was never the intention to include this group of people with mental health problems, but his predecessors told the House, in terms, that it was the intention to include people irrespective of their impairment type. That was the intention of Ministers in 2012, but these regulations will thwart it. I hope that, like the other place, we will say no to these changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Evans]

I am sorry, but I really want to make some progress so that other Members can have their say.

More than two thirds of PIP recipients with a mental health condition receive the enhanced daily living component, compared with just 22% who used to receive the higher rate under the disability living allowance. This Government are investing more in mental health support than any other before them. The figure stands at £11.4 billion this year.

Parity between mental and physical conditions is a core principle at the heart of PIP’s design. Awards are dependent on the claimant’s overall level of need, regardless of whether the condition is mental or physical.

As well as increasing spending on disabilities, this Government are challenging attitudes towards disability through initiatives such as Disability Confident. Last year, I, along with many Members of this House, held my first Disability Confident fair, bringing together 20 local businesses and support agencies to hear at first hand the benefits of employing people with disabilities.

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman says that parity of esteem applies to the way in which PIP works, but the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has specifically explained how the carve-out of mental distress means that it is clearly discriminatory. Does he not agree with that?

[Graham Evans]

I cannot comment on the specific case to which the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) referred. All I would say is that there is variation from case to case, and we can all give examples. In my experience, these changes to PIP have, overwhelmingly, been better for people with mental illness in my constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am coming on to the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

The number of consultant psychiatrists in this country has risen by 5%. We are working to join up the healthcare system, the welfare system and society more widely so that we focus on the strengths of people with disabilities or health conditions and what they can do if properly supported. It is for that reason that in the summer of 2015 the health and work unit was created in the Department of Health, and why in October last year we published, “Improving Lives”, the work and health—

[Norman Lamb]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You rightly ensured that the Minister had enough time to answer questions, but none of what she is saying is about the key issue in the regulations.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman must seek to intervene if he can and pursue other mechanisms if he cannot.

Welfare

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on intergenerational fairness, about which a debate is emerging. If he looks at the changes to the state pension, half a trillion pounds is being saved over the next 50 years as a result, so the burden is being spread across generations, but there is an important debate to be had.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role and genuinely wish him all the very best of luck. I suspect he realises that he will need it. The problem is that there is a sense of double -unfairness in the Budget. Not only were taxes cut for the better-off while the burden on disabled people increased, but better-off pensioners were again completely protected while working-age people suffer another cut. Does he set himself completely against looking again at the problem of inter generational fairness?

[Stephen Crabb]

My intention, very simply, is to look at all these questions with a fresh pair of eyes and with the support of a fantastic team of Ministers around me. The point the right hon. Gentleman is making is similar to the one just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), and my answer is the same at this moment in time.