Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the right reverend Prelate’s caring remarks, and my intervention will be brief. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful outline of the impact of these complicated regulations about serious matters. I note that Article 19 of the order to follow—the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2017—refers to bereavement benefits. Can the Minister give us an estimate of the numbers of those claiming such payments in the past year? On the basis of that insight, can he estimate the number of future claimants under the new regulations?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these draft regulations and all noble Lords who have spoken today.
As we have heard, these regulations enact the provisions of the Pensions Act 2014—which, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, we debated at some length. They introduce a new single payment to replace bereavement payment, bereavement allowance and widowed parent’s allowance for those whose spouse or civil partner dies on or after 6 April 2017. The Government’s case is that this will modernise the current provision and increase simplicity for those who are bereaved and seeking support. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the Government’s main aim is not to save money. However, I am pleased to reassure him that they are, accidentally, about to save quite a bit of it. I confess that my antennae always start twitching whenever I hear Ministers promise that a social security reform is mainly just about making things simpler. The first question is always to look at who stands to gain as a result of the new simplicity—the claimant or the Treasury. On this occasion, after two years of an introductory period the answer is, I am sorry to say, the Treasury. The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that after two years of reform, steady-state savings are expected to be about £100 million a year. In other words, these reforms take £100 million a year from bereaved families and give it to the Exchequer.
The Explanatory Memorandum offers two other objectives for the reforms: for the system to be fair and to promote self-dependency. I suspect that if the Government had tested public opinion on the matter of fairness, being kind to widows might come high up the list. Has the Minister reflected again on the issue of promoting self-dependency? People who get married or civilly partnered and have children were not intending to be self-dependent. They formed a family which had been ruptured, presumably by the death of their spouse or partner. That was precisely the sort of situation for which the welfare state was designed to step in. We on these Benches registered our concerns about the impact of these reforms during the passage of the Bill. Indeed, concern was expressed across the House. I still remember the powerful speech given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby when we discussed these matters; his interventions were very much taken to heart by many in the House. We sought to amend the Bill to mitigate some of the effects but, sadly, we were unsuccessful —so here we are.
On matters of detail, concern was expressed by the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Work and Pensions Select Committee about a number of areas, and I am pleased to see that the Government have responded to one criticism raised by both committees by extending the period that the bereavement support payment can be accessed from 12 to 19 months. Unfortunately, that is less generous than it sounds because the Government have simply redistributed the amount of money that they originally proposed over a longer period, so people get the same amount but for a longer time.
There are notional gainers, such as younger widows, although figures in the original impact assessment seemed to me to suggest that, perhaps unsurprisingly, and fortunately, there are very few of those, with the vast bulk of the current caseload in the over-55 bracket. Despite the time extension, the Childhood Bereavement Network, which I thank for the very comprehensive briefing that it sent to all interested noble Lords, suggests that 91% of parents will still be supported for a shorter time than under the current system and that the DWP’s own figures admit that 75% of claimants with children will get less money. Can the Minister confirm that those figures are correct and, if not, give the Committee the department’s own estimates instead?
Those with young children will be disproportionately affected, as the parents can currently claim for longer. The current widowed parent’s allowance is paid until the youngest child leaves full-time education. As the briefing from the Childhood Bereavement Network briefing pointed out, a six year-old child losing her father in 2016 would be supported until she leaves school. A six year-old losing her father in 2018 will be supported for just a year and a half. I suspect that her mother might be willing to deal with a bit of complexity for the sake of another decade of additional support to feed and clothe her daughter. The Childhood Bereavement Network says that those with younger children could be up to £31,000 worse off in total than they would have been without these reforms. Can the Minister confirm that this is correct?
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised the question of cohabiting couples, and I am sure that the House was glad to hear concern for those cohabiting couples and their children, notwithstanding his support for the institution of marriage. In their consultation response, the Government said:
“The Government position on this issue is unchanged: there are still no plans to extend eligibility for bereavement benefits to those who are not married or in a civil partnership”.
No reason was offered as to why the Government had rejected this proposal. Given that the right reverend Prelate had given his blessing and feels that the institution of marriage will be safe should the Government venture into this territory, can the Minister take the opportunity to tell the Committee why the Government chose not to extend provision in this way?
Lastly, I would like to ask a couple of questions about universal credit—first, on the interaction of universal credit with bereavement support. I think that I heard the Minister say—and I apologise as I did not quite follow the argument, which is entirely my fault—that BSP will be disregarded in full when calculating entitlement to universal credit. Can he confirm that in his reply? I apologise for making him revisit the matter.
Secondly, paragraph 7.13 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“Payments will be subject to a disregard within the calculation of income-based benefits; Payments will also not be counted as benefit income when calculating the maximum amount of other benefits a person can be paid”.
I think that that means that BSP will not count towards the benefit cap, but could he just confirm that? I apologise if he did so and I missed it.
There is then the question raised by the right reverend Prelate about those who need to claim universal credit as well as BSP and will be subject to conditionality. I understand that those conditionality requirements, as the Minister said, will be suspended for six months following the death of a partner or child, but during the passage of the Bill we had a lot of discussion about this point—the position of parents with children who are dealing with the consequences, not just for themselves but for their children, of losing a partner or parent. The consequences were emotional for the children and for the parent having to deal with their own and the child’s emotions, but also practical in a range of ways. During the passage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, agreed to conduct a review of the position of parents whose children had suffered distress in bereavement, in response to points made in the Chamber by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Parents whose children’s distress and bereavement disrupts their normal childcare responsibilities are, I understand, able to request a one-month suspension of work-related requirements. If I have read this correctly, you can request another one month every six months for up two years. So that would be potentially four one-month periods but only one every six months. I believe from my reading of the regulations that that was enacted in Regulation 8 of the Universal Credit and Miscellaneous Amendments (No. 2) Regulations 2014. Can the Minister confirm that that is the only specific provision available for parents in this circumstance? If it is, can he tell the Committee—or agree to write if not—how many claimants have used, or are expected to use, this facility?
On backdating, paragraph 7.17 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Given the vulnerability of this claimant group there will be a period from the date of death in which the claimant can make a claim without losing any money. If a claim is received more than 3 months after the date of death payments can be backdated for three months before the date of claim. This time limit is extended to 12 months for the initial higher payment to help ensure that people do not miss out on this payment”.
I am glad that the Government are acknowledging that people are vulnerable after a death and that they may not always quickly manage to turn their attention to making a claim for bereavement support payment. However, given that the Government have accepted that, what is the rationale for limiting that flexibility only to the lump sum? Why not allow people the same flexibility in relation to the monthly payments?
I endorse the point made by the right reverend Prelate about whether or not it is the Government’s intention to update the value of this payment in line with other benefits. It would seem that it is not. I hope that we have misread that and that the Government can tell us now whether it is their intention or that we can expect a change of policy on that matter very soon.
I thank my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate for their contributions and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Henley
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for saying that it has been rejected. By that, I take him to mean that it is still not possible for those of the opposite sex to have a civil partnership. Civil partnerships will therefore apply to those of the same sex, and marriages to those of the same sex and those of the opposite sex. We took the view that it was better and simpler to confine it to those groups, rather than to extend it to cohabitees. Cohabitees, as we have always known, have the ability to take steps to rectify their position and become married or, in certain cases, to become civil partners. To add the complexities, which I accept already face cohabitees regarding, for example, income-related benefits, such as UC, to a payment of this sort would not be appropriate. It can be dealt with by people themselves if they wish to regularise their position, which is always important to know.
I can remember some of the debates on various Private Members’ Bills, particularly one which I think was promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. He said that there was gross ignorance about this matter and that people thought being a common-law wife or husband gave them the same rights. I think that by now, most people should know that it does not give them the same rights; their rights are distinctly different if they are cohabitees. As I said, it would add excessive complications to a benefit of this sort, and I do not see the reason for extending it.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked about the numbers of those who are likely to be affected. In the past, it has been something of the order of 40,000 a year and we have no reason to believe that it will be any different. I can add to that one other figure, which will be of interest to him and the Committee: of those 40,000, some 8,000 also have dependent children. That figure might or might not surprise the noble Lord. I was slightly surprised, since we are talking about claimants of working age, that it should be as low as that. But that is the figure, and I have no reason to believe that it will change.
Finally, I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that bereavement support payment will be disregarded for universal credit and for income-related benefits. I think I made that clear in my speech. If even Homer nods, perhaps even the noble Baroness occasionally nods.
Lord Henley
She was nodding in a different way but anyway, I can confirm that it will be disregarded, as it will be for the benefit cap.
Finally, the noble Baroness talked about the time for claiming the benefit and the fact that the monthly payments must be claimed within three months but that in terms of the basic amount, they had a full year. The simple answer is that for monthly payments it is appropriate to have a cut off that is shorter than for the lump sum. I do not believe—this is the important thing—that there is much ignorance, once people are bereaved, about benefits of this sort. Certainly the evidence we have and the evidence we have had in the past, which implies a very high take up of this benefit, seems to suggest that most people get to know about it very quickly. It is one of those things that, for example, I am sure undertakers know about and will advise on, as will others.
I hope that, with the assurance that I may find that there are one or two points I have not answered, the Committee will accept the regulations.
Motion agreed.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2017
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of this order and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and I gather around this time every year—sometimes to decreasing effect, it feels—and we miss my noble friend Lady Lister, who is usually with us on these occasions. In the absence of her enormous knowledge, I will do my best to fight the good fight for these Benches.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that he is not out of order because the order increases the disability premium and some elements of working-age benefits. Therefore his area of comment is wholly in order for addressing these questions today. It was a comment in which I have an interest because I am about to do the same thing.
While obviously not objecting to the 1% uprating of the benefits that are covered, the triple lock or in-line-with-earnings increases as described by the Minister, we have serious concern about the increasing impact of the Government’s approach to benefit uprating on the millions of people who rely on benefits to look after themselves and their families. The real action here, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, pointed out, is happening offstage. It applies to the many benefits that should be on this list and are not.
The summer Budget 2015 listed a series of working-age benefits that would be frozen for four years from 2016-17 to 2019-20. We should remember that they had had only 1% uprating from 2013 and that there was the massive effect, described by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, of the shift from RPI to CPI as the measure for increasing benefits. That list includes child benefit, JSA, ESA, income support, housing benefit under women’s state pension age, LHA rates, child tax credit, working tax credit, universal credit and bereavement support payment. Many of these benefits affect working people and working families, but they all affect people who are dependent on benefits to survive. It is good that the disability and other premiums paid with these benefits are being increased by 1%, and I am glad to see that.
The freeze to the other levels of social security payments are having a detrimental impact on those who depend upon them. Between 2008 and 2014, the prices of essentials rose three times faster than wages. Combined with the period of 1% uprating and then the freeze, low-income households have seen a significant deterioration in their income. Now that inflation is starting to pick up, we need to be reassured by the Government about how they are going to ensure that Parliament can understand the degree to which households are protected from the consequences of those changes in ways that we could reasonably expect them to do.
The 1% uprating is based on the rate of CPI prevailing in the year to September 2016, which was reported at 1%. However, since then, inflation is clearly on the rise. Last week, we saw the release of the latest figures which showed that the consumer prices index rose by 1.8% in the year to January 2017. Last week we also saw the Bank of England inflation report which said:
“In the central projection, conditioned on market yields that are somewhat higher than in November, inflation is expected to increase to 2.8% in the first half of 2018, before falling back gradually to 2.4% in three years’ time”.
As the Resolution Foundation pointed out in a report entitled Under New Management in November 2016, the effect of rising inflation is that this policy is saving the Treasury rather more money than it expected. The report estimates that rather than the £3.6 billion the policy was due to save the Exchequer by 2020-21, the savings would rise to £4.6 billion. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether that £4.6 billion figure is accurate and, if not, what is the value of the savings now estimated to be according to his department or the Treasury?
On the other hand, the effect of these changes on households in receipt of benefits is also far greater than Parliament expected at the time when the decision was made to freeze benefits, and people on the lowest incomes are least able to withstand the effects of inflation because they have the least disposable income and in most cases they have little or no savings to depend on as a cushion. That is why Parliament has traditionally protected them from these risks by inflation-proofing benefits. As the IFS puts it:
“This policy represented a significant takeaway from a large number of working age households. But it also represented a shifting of risk from the Government to benefit recipients. Previously, higher inflation was a risk to the public finances, increasing cash spending on benefits. Now the risk is borne by low-income households: unless policy changes higher inflation will reduce their real incomes”.
That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. The IFS also points out that, as of last March,
“the freeze represented a 4% cut in the value of those benefits … relative to previous plans”.
Last October, the IFS, based on its inflation forecasts at that point, produced some other observations on the impact on claimants, saying:
“As a result, 11.5 million families were expected to lose an average of £260 a year, saving the government £3.0 billion in 2019-20. Given the latest inflation forecasts from the IMF, the policy now represents a 6% cut to affected benefits. The same 11.5 million families are now expected to lose an average of £360 a year (£100 a year more than expected in March), saving the government £4.2 billion in 2019-20 (i.e. an additional £1.2 billion on top of what was expected back in March). Greater losses are found among families—typically those on lower incomes—who receive more in benefits”,
so,
“8.3 million families affected now expected to lose an average of £470 a year”.
The Minister might claim, truthfully, that his party had a manifesto commitment that the working-age benefit system should be made less generous over this Parliament, but as the IFS pointed out,
“it is hard to see why the appropriate size of cut should be arbitrarily determined by the impact of movements in sterling on prices”.
Quite, but if the Minister does not want to listen to the Resolution Foundation or the IFS, or the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, or the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, or, unaccountably, even me, perhaps he might be persuaded by the following comments, reported in the Independent from another parliamentarian:
“When the original benefit freeze was set it was set against an estimate of a much lower rise in inflation … Therefore I’m sure the Treasury will want to look at to keep that under review because the purpose was not to have such a dramatic effect on incomes against a forecast of rising inflation … I’m sure the Treasury will want to look at that and keep that under review so that doesn’t actually happen and make it adverse in a way that it was not completely intended”.
That was Iain Duncan Smith, speaking to an event in Westminster, reported in the Independent on 8 November last, and that was before inflation hit the heights that we saw last week.
My questions for the Minister are simple. First, can he tell the Committee the latest estimate of the savings to the Exchequer of this four-year benefit freeze, as against CPI uprating, over and above the amount originally scored? Secondly, how big would the gap have to be between projected and actual impact on claimants of this freeze before the Government would revisit it? Finally, to echo the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, whom I commend for his determination to come back to this matter on behalf of all parliamentarians every time we discuss it, what is the mechanism for Parliament to revisit the issue and be assured of the adequacy of social security benefits in the absence of any appropriate annual mechanism?
Lord Henley
My Lords, again, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, spoke about his experience of uprating statements going back to, I think he said, 1983. I feel a mere child in these matters going back only to the 1989 uprating statement. I did a few after that, but I do not think that I have quite the assiduous record that the noble Lord has in these matters.
The noble Lord also talked about the process by which we go through these matters, and asked whether it is still the case that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State sits down and considers what uprating is necessary. I assure him that, within the confines of current legislation, he does and that he takes note of comments received in both Houses. I assure the noble Lord that I shall report back to my right honourable friend and others about the course of this debate.
Obviously, we have to make very difficult decisions on welfare spending. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is aware of that, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. We also know very well that work, not welfare, is the best route out of poverty and that anything that can encourage people into work will be good for them in all possible ways. That is why our welfare reforms are designed to incentivise work for those who can and go wider than just the benefit system. They include such things as the national living wage, which will be up to £9 an hour by 2020, cutting income tax for more than 30 million people and the rollout of universal credit. At the same time, we remain committed to protecting all those who need support. That is why we made the reforms we did. As someone coming back to this world after some years out of it and having had some experience of seeing benefit offices, it is gratifying to see the rollout as it begins and to hear the comments of those making use of it. I am sure it is going to be a success. Anyway, I can give an assurance that my right honourable friend sits down and considers these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, talked about the change from using CPI as opposed to RPI, an issue also touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I appreciate that there is no ideal measure of inflation, and there never will be, but we certainly think that CPI is a better measure than the old RPI. I understand that the ONS is making changes to RPI, and it may be that some improvements can come forward in due course. However, at the moment, we are committed to CPI, which we think is a better measure and is the target rate used by the Bank of England. It also takes better account of how behaviour changes in response to price changes, using a methodology in line with international standards, and better reflects benefit recipients’ and pensioners’ experience of inflation by excluding mortgage payments. Again, we have to recognise that all the measures of inflation affect different people in different ways. I think all would agree that there is no ideal measure that we can use. CPI is the best and using the September-to-September measure is the only practical way in which to introduce the change in April the following year. I am sure that the noble Baroness would accept the difficulties of having to use a figure some months ahead, but any subsequent inflation will be taken into account in following years, so there is a catch-up designed into the system for future years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is not happy about the whole subject of freezing benefits, which goes wider than the uprating statement we are debating today. As she is aware, we have by statute frozen working-age benefits for a number of years—until the end of this Parliament, if I remember the dates correctly. It is not a matter for discussion today, but I repeat what I have said: we are dealing not merely with benefits but with work, which is the best route to get people out of poverty. As I said in response to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, we want to incentivise work for those who can work, while supporting those who cannot. The noble Baroness then asked a number of detailed questions about our estimate of the savings and cited estimates made by this or that group and ending up with the comments made by my right honourable friend Mr Duncan Smith. I shall not comment on any of those estimates at the moment; this is not necessarily the right and proper place to have that debate. If we have some appropriate figures that I think the noble Baroness will find useful, I am more than happy to make them available to her.
Lord Henley
I will have to write to the noble Baroness to assure her on that point.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, would prefer a greater and longer debate on freezing benefits. As I said, I do not think that this is either the time or the place.
Baroness Sherlock
I confess to being disappointed by both the content and the tone of the Minister’s response to the questions put not just by me but by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. I wonder whether he could tell me two things. First, does he accept that a number of the benefits being frozen are in-work benefits? Secondly, if this is not the occasion on which Parliament can expect to hold the Government to account to find out what in fact will be the impact of a measure which now looks to be much more expensive to benefit- claiming families than they were assured in the first place, what is?
Lord Henley
My Lords, this is the occasion to deal with the uprating of those benefits which are being uprated. Parliament debated on another occasion, during the passage of the 2014 Bill, the freezing of benefits. The noble Baroness will not find it hard to find other occasions to raise the subject. When we are debating those benefits which we are uprating, it is not the time to pursue the question of the freezing of benefits.
Brexit: Disabled People
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, this fascinating brief debate serves to highlight the enormity of the task facing both the Government and Parliament in the months and years ahead, as we seek to understand and then deal with all the implications of the decision to leave the EU. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government propose to enable us to scrutinise the issues as they start to emerge? Will there be pre-legislative scrutiny of the great repeal Bill to ensure Parliament is sighted on the areas where the Government are unable or unwilling simply to transfer current provision across, or where, as various noble Lords have mentioned, there is a need for some regulatory or enforcement mechanism that is currently Europe-wide?
Like my noble friend Lord McKenzie, I read the White Paper carefully—I even searched the electronic version—and I could not find the words “disabled”, “disabled people” or “disability” anywhere in it. Will the Minister tell the House how much thinking the Government have begun to do on the impact on disabled people of the decision to leave the EU? Has his department developed a strategy to engage with key stakeholders in the field and, through those stakeholders, directly with disabled people, both to consult them and to reassure them that it is engaged with the issues? My noble friend Lord McKenzie made some important points about the commitment to enshrining long-term protections for disabled people in our law. Will the Minister also commit to enshrining in law those protections for disabled people that currently derive not from EU legislation but, for example, from judgments of the European Courts?
The question of transport was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thomas of Winchester, and the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Low, among others. I should be very interested in the answers about blue badge recognition and accessible transport, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Low.
The matter of health and social care is absolutely crucial. Disabled people have a higher than average need to access health and social care. We have heard already about how many disabled people will be accessing health services in other EU nations and are very anxious about what will happen next. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned the EHIC. What are the Government doing about that? Are they beginning negotiations on this—how high on their priority list will it be? If not, what will they do to enable disabled people to obtain appropriate insurance care? Have they begun discussions with the insurance industry or representative bodies in the financial services sector?
The question of social care is the one that exercised noble Lords most. We have heard all kinds of figures. The one I drew out from the Skills for Care website suggests that there are currently 90,000 EU nationals working in adult social care in England alone—some 7% of the workforce. Can the Minister give the House a definitive figure for how many non-UK EU nationals are working in social care, and tell us what he intends to do to ensure that that workforce is protected? Do the Government have a plan to enable those people to carry on working? Obviously, I think they should allow all EU residents who are settled here to carry on, but what are the Government doing specifically about social care?
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, who always takes these issues and gives them such a clear reality when she describes her own experience of what it means in practice for one after another EU national to come in. The point she made is crucial. This is not a technicality but the difference between disabled people living independent lives and not living independent lives. The Minister should hear how concerned people around the House are about this. What do the Government plan to do?
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised the really important question of social security entitlements. What do the Government plan to do about the entitlement to benefits of disabled EU nationals who have been resident in the UK? Conversely, do Ministers have a plan for dealing with the benefit entitlement of disabled UK citizens who have been ordinarily resident in another EU state? If they suddenly have to return to the UK, will they be entitled to full support? What comes through crediting towards benefit entitlement if time is spent in another EU country?
I would be interested to hear the answer to the question on ESF funding, and how disability organisations will be protected in the longer term, past 2020. We have only just begun to scratch the surface. The House needs to hear from the Minister today, first, some hard answers to questions. The Government have had seven months to think about these issues, and we look forward to hearing what they have to say. Secondly, we want to know that the Government are taking this seriously. It is not just a question of each department looking at regulations in silos. Who in government is taking responsibility for having a strategic look at the impact of Brexit on disabled people as a whole, making sure that nothing is missed and, ideally, doing what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said and showing that the UK can be a leader in this field? That is the very least we deserve to hear.
Child Poverty Unit
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am very grateful to see the right reverend Prelate; in fact I am very grateful to see quite so many most reverend Primates and right reverend Prelates on this occasion. May I assure the right reverend Prelate that we are committed to tackling poverty? We accept that no child has a choice in this matter, but we also say that we have joined-up government on this matter. We have the Social Mobility Commission secretariat based in the Department for Education, which looks at these issues cross-party. We have a social reform Cabinet Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, that includes all the other crucial members of the Cabinet. As the right reverend Prelate and the whole House will know, the Prime Minister herself has made clear her commitment to dealing with such matters.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I have one very quick question. The Minister said that when the Government abolished our child poverty targets, they were going to replace them, the Prime Minister then said, with a life chances strategy. We finally discovered in December that it had died before it was even born, the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, notwithstanding. Now the Minister mentions a social justice Green Paper in the new year. Can he tell me two things: when will we get it and what is he going to do in the meantime about the scandal of child poverty in Britain?
Universal Credit
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, to the House. It was a real pleasure to work with him in the Treasury, albeit of course in wiser and gentler days. It was a characteristically thoughtful and measured maiden speech. Perhaps his long view enables us to look on something like the developments in social security today as evolution rather than revolution. If he is right, I fear that the students of the world will have to tear down their pictures of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, which had previously replaced the ones of Che Guevara and perhaps look at something in future that is a little more Darwinian in evolution. I cannot tell noble Lords how frustrating it is to have three minutes to talk about universal credit: I could talk for 33 minutes, but I will not. I have three brief comments and will then say a word about the noble Lord.
First, on the principles and architecture, we on these Benches have long supported the idea of universal credit and a combined benefit. It is in the end not a principle, but a delivery mechanism to get money to households based on need and circumstance. Its key advantage should be the ability to smooth transitions in and out of work, while having a single taper can be used to ensure that work pays and that claimants benefit from any increase in pay or hours. But there are some structural issues that still need addressing. The key one is that it was a real mistake to let the DCLG take council tax benefit outside universal credit. Doing that and then cutting it and localising it means not least that the DWP cannot ensure that work pays because it does not know how much council tax support any individual will get, especially if they get disability benefits. That was flagged up during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act as were other issues that are now causing problems. We have heard about paying monthly in arrears leading to six-week delays and real hardship and the decision to pay rent direct to the landlord causing real problems for tenants and some landlords. There were also significant issues for second earners for whom work is disincentivised, for self-employed people and real issues around in-work conditionality. But all of that could be changed: it is not structural, so I hope that it will be.
Secondly, the levels of UC payments are a problem. They were cut before it was even implemented and have been repeatedly since. Universal credit was meant to be more generous than the tax credits that it replaced, but it is now a net gain to the Treasury, which may explain its more recent enthusiasm for it. UC was of course designed to lift 350,000 children out of poverty, but it now cannot do that, because if levels simply are not high enough to raise people out of poverty, it cannot do that job. Crucially, it was meant to make work pay. Instead, the taper-free work allowance has been halved unlike with tax credits. Reducing the taper from 65% to 63% does not begin to compensate. The original taper was meant to be 55%, which really could have made work pay. Sadly, I am sorry to say that the Treasury axe has so damaged universal credit that at the moment it cannot do the job that it was born to do. Work is no longer the route out of poverty and simply saying it does not make it so.
UC is a great idea, but only if it is deliverable. If it cannot be delivered, it is a terrible idea, so I am afraid that I have to say a word about delivery. I feel really mean going on about this during the swansong of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, but it has to be said. I cannot allow a debate on universal credit to go through without mentioning that it is years late, that hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on IT disasters, that there are widespread complaints about delays and errors, and that sanction rates are sky high—and all this is before current claimants with complex cases and repeat changes of circumstances move across. I fear that it could then get worse. I hope very much that the new Minister will find an opportunity for us to discuss these issues at greater length when we come back in the new year. Universal credit can and should make work pay and tackle poverty, but it will not do so without change.
But that is not for the noble Lord, Lord Freud, to worry about. His job is done and the House should acknowledge his absolute determination to get the structures of universal credit in place, including his willingness to stand his ground and to fight his own department, the Treasury and the DCLG when necessary. My friends used to report to me periodically about turning on the television to find footage of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and I doing battle on late night Parliament TV, and they would often say, “Why do you keep shouting at that nice man?”. It is true that we have battled over various policies for many years, from the bedroom tax to disability benefits. Some issues we must flat out disagree on, but with others such as the cuts to universal credit, and I suspect the two-child policy, I always thought that the Minister’s heart was not really in his arguments.
But whatever the issue, some things may not be evident from outside the House: that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, has been unfailingly courteous to me and to all of us on these Benches. He has been generous in giving us access to his officials and he has done the House the courtesy of almost always coming here himself to defend his policies rather than sending a Whip. He usually seeks to defend his arguments by engaging with us and using evidence rather than just repeating the government line. When we convinced him in debate, he would go back to his department, push, and then sometimes return with real concessions. We may disagree on policy and I think that we will carry on doing so, but the noble Lord, Lord Freud, has been a loyal public servant of integrity. The House and the country should be grateful to him. I hope that we will see him in the House again very soon, but only after he has had a well-earned sabbatical.
Social Security: Claimants
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Countess for that question. We have been working on this issue with her and her group for some years now, and I am under the impression that we have made a lot of progress on ensuring that the illness is thoroughly recognised.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the film shows people being sanctioned for a number of reasons which are clearly not serious. For example Katie, a single mum, is moved to Newcastle when she is made homeless and because she is a few minutes late in getting to the jobcentre, because she cannot find it in a new city, her benefits are sanctioned. Can the Minister tell the House that that would not happen in real life? He normally comes here and tells us that sanctions are very rare and a last resort but we discovered from today’s NAO report that over the last five years, 24% of all JSA claimants were sanctioned. Is it any wonder that our food banks are filling up with people using them who are sanctioned for trivial or unjust reasons? Is this not a disgrace?
Lord Freud
There were a whole load of statements there that are simply not true. In the example which the noble Baroness uses, there would clearly be a good reason for someone not being able to fathom the transport in a new place. There are an enormous number of protections for people in the sanctioning process, which has about seven or eight steps: there is a check by the work coach; it goes to the decision-maker; there is provision of information back to the person, who can challenge it with the decision-maker; it can go to dispute resolution, mandatory consideration and then the tribunal. This is not the easy process that is implied. Sanctions are treated very seriously. They are an integral part of the system and are treated with all due seriousness.
Child Poverty
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for tabling this debate and all noble Lords for their contributions. As I listened to the debate, I was struck not only by how many interesting ideas we have about poverty but by how many of those who spoke are directly involved in doing something. The noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Mawson, with their social enterprises and the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who is reaching out by giving holidays to poorer children. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is a braver man than I in teaching people to ski and to skate, which is amazing, and there is the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in her council. I am very inspired by this and I am grateful to noble Lords for sharing their experience.
As we have heard, the context of today’s debate is that child poverty in Britain is simply far too high. Whatever measure we use—I am old-fashioned and go with the international standard of 60% of median household income—we are talking about 3.9 million children living in poverty in the UK in 2014-15, and as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans mentioned, the figure is rising by 200,000 year on year. Some two-thirds of children growing up in poverty live in a family where an adult is in work. That is one of the key things I want to talk about today. We heard from the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and others about the scarring effect in later life of poverty and I have been reminded by the North East Child Poverty Commission about the critical state of the damage being caused at the moment by, for example, food poverty and food insecurity.
In September the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a detailed report entitled UK Poverty: Causes, Costs and Solutions. In her foreword, CEO Julia Unwin said:
“You can blame individuals for the bad decisions they make, and fool yourself into believing it could never happen to you. Or you can blame national structures—if only the system of tax and benefits could be fundamentally redesigned, and structural inequality abolished, then poverty could be ended”.
She goes on to point out that neither of these is the answer and that structures and choices must be considered together for policy to be effective. I am absolutely with all those noble Lords who talked about the importance of learning from people living in poor communities, looking at the assets they have and working with those assets—but I also think that there are structural questions which cannot be ignored. The JRF report highlighted five key causes that need priority action: low wages, insecure jobs and unemployment; a lack of skills; family problems; an inadequate benefits system; and high costs, including housing.
The Government’s strategy identifies—sort of—two and a half of those. They want to address educational attainment and family breakdown, although I do not think that they map fully on to these drivers, and they want to deal with workless households. They also highlight problem debt and addiction. All of those are important. But I worry that the Government’s strategy refuses to address the other half of the picture because they are the dimensions that relate to the structural causes of poverty and they cannot be ignored.
The JRF report highlights the changes to the kinds of jobs available to many people in the UK, including the problems caused by firms,
“whose commercial strategies depend on low-paid, low-skilled, insecure work that does not provide a stepping stone to something better”.
If work cannot lift a family out of poverty, just tackling worklessness will not solve the problem. We have to accept that before we go any further.
The report then notes that the benefits system does not make work easy or safe and states:
“The level of welfare benefits for some—those in work, seeking work or unable to work because of health or care issues—is simply not high enough to avoid poverty, when combined with other resources and high costs”.
It is not surprising, given what has happened. Billions of pounds have been taken away from the pockets of low-income families. The Welfare Reform and Work Act alone, by reducing the benefit cap, has hit almost 250,000 children in low-income families and it has frozen the level of most benefits and tax credits for four years, which the Children’s Society estimates will affect some 7.5 million children in 4 million families, nearly two-thirds of them in work.
Then there are the high costs. The JRF report points out that between 2008 and 2014 the cost of essentials increased three times faster than average wages, adding to a widespread sense of insecurity. This is a toxic cocktail of high costs and rents, low wages, unpredictable and insecure jobs, unaffordable childcare and cuts to in-work benefits. Those are government failures. Ministers cannot just blame individuals for their poverty when they have set them up to fail by refusing to address these structural shortcomings.
I have no doubt that these benefit cuts were forced on a reluctant DWP by George Osborne’s Treasury, but now that we are living under a new dispensation I encourage the Minister to beat a well-worn path to the Treasury and urge his Government, as the right reverend Prelate said, immediately to reverse the drastic and counterproductive cuts to the work allowance and to universal credit which have stopped making work pay in the way it should. They should also return to increasing benefits and tax credits by the rate of inflation so that poor families do not simply get poorer year on year.
The other key change in the Act was to shift the Government’s focus from poverty to social mobility and life chances. I have read a great book on life chances published yesterday by the CPAG which makes some brilliant connections between money and non-financial issues in policy. I declare an interest as one of those terrible advisers to government whom the noble Lord, Lord Bird, berates, but when the Labour Government increased the spending capacity of low-income families in the early 2000s, they found that as income rose, spending patterns changed. Families spent more on fruit and vegetables, children’s clothes, toys and books, and less on alcohol and cigarettes.
Kitty Stewart and Kerris Cooper have looked at the impact of household income on children’s outcomes and found out, as the right reverend Prelate said, how much of a difference is made to educational attainment when income is increased. That means not only staying on at school but attainment levels in maths and reading, and in examination results. All of this improves as income improves. Likewise, parenting and family environment: there is very clear evidence of much stronger parenting where income can be increased.
The problem with social mobility is that, done properly in our economy, it is a game of snakes and ladders. If more poor kids do well, some rich kids will have to do less well. We cannot have a board with only ladders. We cannot all be QCs and surgeons; someone has got to be at the bottom and I am so grateful that they are because in our current environment we have people out there caring for disabled and older people, sweeping the streets and working as teaching assistants who are often being paid the minimum wage. That means that I do not just want social mobility. I do not want a country where our children are better equipped to fight each other for a spot at the top. I want one where all of our children can flourish wherever they end up on the board. They deserve no less.
Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit) (Amendment) Regulations 2016
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for his introduction to it and to all noble Lords who have contributed.
First, the good news. I am certainly glad to welcome the good bit of the regulations. As one of a number of concessions won by hard work in this House across the Benches, the regulations exempt from the benefit cap people claiming guardian’s allowance, carer’s allowance and the carer’s element of universal credit.
I have a couple of practical questions for the Minister before I move on. I understand that, because the regulations took effect yesterday, anyone in receipt of one of those benefits will be automatically exempted from the cap. That means that any such person who is already capped will have it automatically lifted, and their next payment will reflect that fact. Similarly, anyone whose case is flagged up as otherwise being caught by the new lower cap but who is in receipt of, or entitled to, one of those benefits will automatically be exempt. Can the Minister confirm that that automatic exemption is the case, and that the claimant will not have to do anything to ensure that they are exempted when they should be? Will he also confirm that his department has communicated with those claimants to let them know what is happening, so that they will understand the change in their circumstances?
On to the bad news. I will not rehearse the arguments made eloquently by many noble Lords about the impact on housing and homelessness—points made very well by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Shipley—and on children, a point made by my noble friend Lady Lister and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. His predecessor the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds and I made an attempt right at the beginning to exempt child benefit from the cap. Sadly, we were unsuccessful, but I am glad to see the right reverend Prelate keeping up a fine tradition of speaking up for the children of Leeds; I hope that one day, he will not have to. If his sermons are as commendable, pointed and brief as his speeches here, may people flock to his cathedral in time to come.
As has been pointed out, the cap will change significantly. We heard about the large number of people who have been brought into it, but there is also the size of the losses. Households already capped could lose another £3,000 a year in London, or £6,000 elsewhere. The Government estimate that newly capped households will lose an average of £2,000 a year. The profile will change dramatically. No longer can Ministers pretend that the problem is people living in Mayfair or having 17 children; the problem will now be right across the country, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. That was never really the issue, but in future, just 22% of affected households will be in London, whereas the figure had been 42%.
For me, the telling point is that in the north-east, where I live, the number of households affected will jump from 600 to 4,000. There are not that many very expensive properties in the north-east—certainly not that benefits pay for. This is now being spread right across the country. Nor can the Minister complain that it is just about large families. Under the new cap, a single mum with two young children sharing a room will be capped if she is living, not in Mayfair, but in 19% of areas in the country, including Basingstoke or Reading. If those two children are in different rooms, we are talking about a third of the areas in England. This is becoming really significant.
What is it about? Is it about saving money? Points were made by a number of noble Lords. I have been through the impact assessment again, and it is now clear that the savings from these regulations will be £540 million in total over five years. Over that period the Government will spend £870 million in discretionary housing payments. Clearly, not all of that will go on the benefit cap. It also has to cover the impact of the bedroom tax, LHA cuts and the general misery caused by the Government’s social security policy. In the current year, more than a quarter of DHP money went on the benefit cap victims, and we know that the number will go up significantly—more than threefold. Can the Minister tell us how much the Government expect to save from these regulations after deducting an appropriate proportion of the costs of discretionary housing payment money?
We have heard that the options for somebody who is capped are to accept the cut, move somewhere cheaper or get a job for at least 16 hours a week. Let me run through those very briefly. These are cash cuts and they come in overnight. If a family faces an annual benefit cut of £6,000 a year, can the Minister say whether that means it is possible that someone’s housing benefit could be cut by £115 a week from one housing benefit payment to the next? If that is the case, how could anyone absorb that kind of cut?
Another option is to move somewhere cheaper. But where can they move to? The cap spreads right across the country, so what will happen? There are no cheaper places to move to, and the only reason for the handful of places that are cheaper is that they are the kind of areas where there are no jobs and there is no transport to get there even if there were jobs. What is the point of sending people to live there?
The third option is to get a job. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Damian Green, has said that the benefit cap is a real success. Based on the fact that the IFS found only 5% of people in the past who had got a job, the Minister may have to work on defining his terms. Let us look at what happens now. The Government think that if they cut it far enough, eventually people will get a job, but let us see who is being affected. I am particularly concerned about the effect on parents with young children. The benefit cap has already particularly affected single parents with very young kids. Most of those capped have a child aged nought to four. DWP statistics show that 11% of households affected by the current cap are single parents with a child under one. I want to look at that a bit more.
Let us imagine a single mother with young twins who are six months old, living in Basingstoke on basic out-of-work benefits. Let us call her Susan. Susan will be hit by this new cap. If she cannot find a cheaper flat—and she will not, because the housing benefit limits have been pushed down so far that she is already at rock bottom—the only way to escape the cap is to work 16 hours a week. The Government have been getting tougher and tougher on conditionality on single parents, but even they do not require parents of babies to work If you have children of that age you would not be required by the DWP to work.
Even if Susan wanted to leave the babies and go out to work, she would have to find a suitable job. She is not eligible for any of the job search programmes because she is not required to work. I understand that government guidelines to local authorities on the implementation of the benefit cap is that someone who is already capped and will be hit again by the lower cap will be entitled to 40 minutes in total with a work coach to help them to find a job. Can the Minister tell me if that is correct? What help will be provided to a single parent being capped for the first time?
Secondly, where will Susan get childcare from to be able to go out to work? A survey just out from the Family and Childcare Trust found a huge problem of insufficient childcare in many local authority areas. Fewer than half of local authorities in Great Britain reported having sufficient childcare for nought to two year-olds. The Minister will probably talk about the Government’s free childcare offer, but let us remember that that is only for three and four year-olds. It is only 15 hours a week which is not enough to enable parents to get the kids to a nursery, get to a job for 16 hours and back again. The much-vaunted extension of that will not come until next April whereas the cap is already in place. Evidence shows that there is not enough childcare provision now, never mind when it is extended.
Parents like Susan, with children under three, have no entitlement to free childcare at all. They could claim help within tax credits or universal credit, but the limit of how much you can get is so small now, as it has not been raised for so long, that it falls way short of actual childcare costs. The Family and Childcare Trust says,
“there are 11 local authorities where the average cost of part-time childcare exceeds”,
the working tax support cap completely,
“leaving the poorest working parents having to pay an average of”,
£81 a week out of their own pocket. Where is Susan going to get that kind of money? Care for babies is especially expensive. Even if she could find somewhere suitable and a suitable job, she may not even be able to afford the deposit on the first month’s nursery fees, which are usually required upfront. Can the Minister at least assure the House that any parent of young children, who has to take a job because they are capped, can claim the full costs of the deposit for childcare from the flexible support fund his department operates? I ask that because Gingerbread has been getting reports that job centres do not want to use this fund, which is meant to remove barriers to work for childcare, even though childcare is a really obvious barrier. Can he reassure us on that point?
However, let us remember that these are parents whom the DWP does not normally require to work. The only reason that that mum is having to go to work—despite the fact she has only two kids, does not live in an expensive area and her only income is basic benefits and tax credits—is because her rent, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said, is at a level where she cannot reasonably pay it without help from benefits. There are Susans all over the country.
As the IFS has pointed out:
“It is possible for the benefit cap to quickly affect many more out-of-work families in an area, once its level falls below the sum of the HB cap in that area for the family type in question and the other (nationally-set) benefit entitlements”.
Once it happens, all those families are going to be chasing the handful of cheaper accommodation and none of them will be able to cope. What do the Government think will happen? Where are these families going to live? The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is that this is driven primarily by a housing crisis. Is not the problem that the Government have failed to invest in housing and are therefore simply trying effectively to shift the problem on to the poor, who are the victims of the rent rise which they have not been able to address?
I am sure the Minister does not want to see parents of young children plunged into crisis. He knows that discretionary housing payments cannot be relied upon because they are discretionary and councils have too many demands on them for help. At the very least, will the Minister pledge to look at how his department can protect parents of young children from the impact of the reduction in the cap? I very much back my noble friend Lady Lister who is pressing the Government to address the question of the family test. Perhaps in doing that, the Minister could also guarantee to report back to Parliament on the impact of this change on families with young children. That is the very least we can expect.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, this Government believe that those out of work should not receive more in benefits than many working families are able to earn. We introduced a benefit cap to encourage people to find work and that is exactly what has happened. The new benefit cap levels continue to provide a clear incentive to work, helping to reduce long-term welfare dependency and ensuring fairness for working households.
Since the original benefit cap was introduced in April 2013, 23,500 capped households have found work. Evaluation has found—this is in response to the query of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell—that capped households are 41% more likely to go into work than similar uncapped households, and that 38% of those capped said they were doing more to find work. A number of noble Lords have argued that the benefit cap is flawed, but it was a manifesto commitment and was extensively debated in this House and in another House.
One aspect that I would like to point out to noble Lords is that there has been a culture change around the importance of going to work. Whatever particular policy has been driving that is difficult to assess, but the figures are astonishingly dramatic. The number of children in workless households now stands at 1.35 million. That is the lowest ever since these statistics started to be collected in 1996. It compares well with the figure at the height of the boom: it is more than 400,000 lower. It was 1.79 million in 2008. It is much lower—almost 1 million lower than it was in 1997.
So there has been a dramatic change in attitudes. We see it in various statistics, including the number of people in social housing now going back to work, which they never did. So there is a structural change. I do not pin it directly on this policy. But I do say that there seems to have been a real change, and that is one of the aspects of it.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, expresses concern that we have not,
“made additional support available to those individuals affected by the benefit cap to find work”.
Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence that the success that the cap has had in helping people into work is partly a reflection of the strong support offer we have in place in both jobcentres and local authorities, which we continue to improve. We have contacted claimants potentially affected by the cap well in advance, giving them an idea what the impact might be on their household income and offering them support to adjust their circumstances. We have also ensured that jobcentres and local authorities are equipped and funded to provide that support.
Baroness Sherlock
If you introduce this, there will be a change for somebody who is already capped; or they may have previously been told and made a decision not to make an application because they knew of the impact of the cap. I presume the Government have communicated at some point. It was a serious point.
Lord Freud
I am sorry. I did not mean not to be serious. My best understanding of this is that where someone has been capped and will no longer be capped then we will inform them of the change. If that is not the case, I will write to the noble Baroness; if it is, I will not. However, I am pretty sure that it is the case.
To pick up on the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, regarding the point made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the committee wrote to my colleague the Minister for Welfare Delivery to express concern about the equality analysis. I imagine that the noble Lord saw that letter. Ministers fully considered the equality analysis at the same time as the regulations were made but there was simply a delay in publishing it. Perhaps noble Lords can cast their minds back to the peculiar period in our history following the June referendum, when the machinery of government perhaps was not working quite as smooth as it usually—or always—is.
On evaluation and the Ipsos MORI survey that the noble Lord talked about, the numbers came about because it was a longitudinal survey to understand what was happening; a lot of different levels of analysis went on, which looked at different outcomes, some of which were done on a quantitative basis, others on a qualitative basis; that was a qualitative one. We are committed to go on evaluating it and now we are developing the plans to understand behaviours and attitudes. The quarterly benefit cap statistics will continue to be produced, and the May 2017 release will be the first to show the impact of the lower levels.
I hope I have reassured the House that the Government have put in place measures that provide significant additional support to claimants affected by this policy to help them adjust, and wherever possible to move into work.
Universal Credit
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
We do publicise them. In UC, we probably do not publicise the advances available enough, and I am looking at making that information more available on screen and automatic, rather than through a conversation—so that is a good point.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
You certainly do not publish them very well. In 2010-11, more than 1 million people applied for crisis loans. In the year to September 2015, that was down to 140,000 people applying for the equivalent advances.
Did the Minister see the research out today by the IFS which showed what the House has been telling him for a long time: two-thirds of the poor are now in households where somebody is in work? If those people are paid weekly, they are already poor. If they lose their job and apply for universal credit, they have to wait six weeks before they get a penny. As my noble friend said, they get nothing for the first week. Can the Minister not see that that is setting them up to fail?
Lord Freud
As I said, I am looking at this area. It is not as simple as some of the figures might make you think. I, too, read the IFS research with great interest. Inequality among children has fallen very steeply since the mid-1990s, most of it post the recession. Whenever the IFS says anything nice, I really appreciate it. It said that the important reason was a remarkable fall in the share of children in workless households. Indeed, we have half a million fewer since 2010.
Universal Credit: Rent Arrears
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
I congratulate the noble Baroness on her timing with that question. I will not answer it. I am not in a position, however, to commission major research on mental health today.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, exactly a year ago today this House voted for a Motion in my name, urging the Government to delay the enactment of the Universal Credit (Waiting Days) (Amendment) Regulations until UC was rolled out. The Government ignored that, enacted the regulations and, as a result, 79% of people are now in arrears, because when you make a claim for UC, you wait six weeks to get any money and now the first week is missed completely, without any payment at all. On that day, the Minister refused to make a statement but he said that,
“I will come back to the House at the appropriate time”.—[Official Report, 13/7/15; col. 438.]
A year down the road, does he feel that that time has now arrived, and what is he going to do about it?
Lord Freud
I have said to the House that I am looking at this, and I hope that later this year we will have some data. I urge the House not to expect too much certainty on this. This is quite a complicated situation—there is a lot happening under this—and I am hopeful that I will be able to explain some of this to noble Lords to their satisfaction.