UNICEF: Child Poverty Rankings
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Again, the noble Lord raises an important point about children, who are the subject of this Question. The latest statistics show that, between 2020-21 and 2021-22, the number of people on absolute low income was virtually unchanged, and absolute poverty rates after housing costs were stable for children and working-age adults, with strong earnings growth offsetting the impact of the withdrawal of the unprecedented levels of government support, protecting those in jobs, which were provided during the pandemic.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentions various measures, but when it comes to international comparisons, the Government do not get to mark their own homework. Relative poverty is used because it is used internationally to measure poverty over time and across countries. The Minister may not like the way it was measured in other countries, but the UNICEF report card compares the UK’s performance in 2019-21 with its performance in 2012-14, and during that time, on those measures, child poverty in the UK clearly increased by 20%. During the same period, in Poland it fell by 38%, in Slovenia by 31% and in Canada by 23%. Does the Minister not accept that something is going badly wrong here?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I come back to the point that it is important to have statistics that are grounded. The noble Baroness will know that, over many years, we have used our own statistics for poverty, which are cross-government. The Government prefer to look at absolute poverty, as the noble Baroness knows, rather than relative poverty, as the latter can provide counterintuitive results. The absolute poverty line is fixed in real terms, so it will only ever worsen if people are getting poorer and will only ever improve if people are getting richer.
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2024
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order, and I thank all noble Lords who spoke. I say to my noble friend Lord Davies that, if I were ever to go on “Mastermind”, this would definitely not be my specialist subject. Every year I have to revise it afresh, and every year when I pick it up it is as though I have never seen it before. It is a little like the content of my physics A-level, which I could hold in my brain for the duration of the exam but which then disappeared, having left no discernible effect for the rest of my life. So I actually thought it was an incredibly clear explanation, and I commend the Minister and all those who helped him to present it—I am very impressed.
My idiot’s guide to what this does is that it tells pension schemes the percentage by which they need to uprate GMPs built up between 1988 and 1997. Some years, having done the reading, I dug deep into the technicalities of this, but this year I will ask just two rather simpler questions about it. First, I think I mostly followed the question about how much is the total benefit of uprating between different components, so how many, if any, pensioners will see below-inflation increases in their pensions as a result of the 3% cap?
Secondly, last year, I raised the way DWP deals with those who have GMPs who may have lost out when the new state pension was introduced in 2016. As we have discussed before at this stage, in 2019, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reported on its investigation of two complaints and said that the DWP had failed to provide clear and accurate information on the issue, despite being warned, with the result that some people were not aware that they might need to make alternative provision for their retirement. The ombudsman recommended that DWP should
“review and report back its learning from our investigations”
and that, in particular, it should improve its communications on the issue.
It was August 2021 when DWP finally produced a factsheet in response on GMP and the effect of the new state pension. Last year, I asked the Minister two questions about that. First, what was the DWP doing to draw the existence of the factsheet to the attention of those who might need to know it was there? Secondly, how many people had successfully applied, or indeed applied at all, for compensation since the ombudsman’s report? I did not get any answers, either on the day or in the letter afterwards—as far as I could see.
I have been back since and crawled through the correspondence between the Select Committee and successive Pensions Ministers, of whom there have been a number. I commend the committee for its diligence in this matter. Finally, in a letter from Paul Maynard, the Minister, to Sir Stephen Timms, dated 9 January this year, I found this sentence:
“We received 50 requests for further information (between 12 August 2021 and 31 December 2023) from people who responded to the GMP factsheet”.
There was then a breakdown of those requests. But how will those figures be updated in future? Does the Minister think that 50 requests in nearly two and a half years is enough, or does it perhaps suggest the need for more proactive communication, of the kind for which the Select Committee has been calling for some years?
With the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, I would like to ask a couple of questions more broadly relating to pensions. The first is a factual question. We were due to have the latest release of national statistics on the state pension two weeks ago. They came out as part of the quarterly DWP benefit statistics release, but they seem to have been suspended. Can the Minister explain why?
On the question of pensioner poverty, also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the Minister will know, because I say it periodically, that the last Labour Government saw a marked fall in pensioner poverty, which unfortunately then started to go into reverse when this Government came to power. Now, one in six pensioners are living in poverty. Our success was largely down to the introduction of pension credit, which ensures pensioners get a minimum level of income plus passported benefits.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said, take up is key. In January, statistics were published which looked at benefit take up. They suggest that for the financial year ending 2022, an estimated 63% of families entitled to pension credit received it. That was 3 percentage points lower than the financial year ending 2020. That suggests that there was a brief rise, but it has now gone back down to 2019 levels. Given that the Minister and his predecessor have got up and talked about how successful the pension credit take up campaign has been, have I read that correctly? Is the annual level of take up in fact going down? Please can the Minister explain that to me?
We also need to do what we can to boost the incomes of future pensioners. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, again mentioned the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No.2) Bill, which received Royal Assent with cross-party support, giving Ministers the power to abolish the lower earnings limit for contributions and reducing the age for being automatically enrolled from 22 to 18. On 18 September, the Minister told us that:
“If the House agrees to final passage today, the Government will look to play their part by consulting on how to implement the expansion of automatic enrolment at the earliest opportunity, which I hope gives some idea of the timescale to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. We hope it could be later this year. We will then report to Parliament about how we intend to proceed in accordance with the provisions in the Bill”.—[Official Report, 18/9/23; col. 1201.]
When these regulations were debated in the Commons on 31 January, my honourable friend Alison McGovern asked when this would be happening and when these provisions would be put in. The Minister Paul Maynard responded thus:
“I would love to give her a date for when she will see that; “in due course” is never a good answer to give at the Dispatch Box, but I am afraid that it is the answer at this stage. However, I am pursuing this within the Department, so she has my personal pledge I am pushing it as hard as I can”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/24; col. 949.]
Having pushed as hard to get that Bill through, with cross-party support, does this mean it has been kicked into the long grass? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I just want to understand that response. It does not sound like very many. I presume what the Minister is trying to say to the Committee is that, having looked at the denominator of how many people might expect to be eligible and how much they might get, that number does not feel disproportionate. Is that what he is saying?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes—that is absolutely right. Let me see whether there is any further information that I can get to the noble Baroness on this niche matter. If I am wrong, I will write, but I will certainly write anyway. I am coming towards the end of my remarks; I have only a couple more questions to answer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked where she might find the latest state pension statistics. As she may know, they are available on Stat-Xplore, but only up to May 2023. The release of updated statistics due to be published on Tuesday 13 February 2024 was suspended, as the noble Baroness alluded to in her remarks. This delay results from issues with the internal processing of state pension data after it was sent for analysis from the “Get your State Pension” system and has an impact only on statistics that are not yet published. State pension statistics previously published on Stat-Xplore in November 2023 remain reliable. Work is under way to remediate these issues, and we will publish the suspended state pension statistics as soon as we are able.
The noble Baroness also asked about the status of the auto-enrolment extension Act’s powers and the consultation. The Government remain committed to expanding the benefits of AE to younger people and helping all workers to save more for their retirement. This is why we supported the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023, to which the noble Baroness alluded. To cut to the quick, we intend to conduct a consultation on the detailed implementation of these measures at the right time and in the right way. That is probably not in line with what my colleague in the other place said—“in due course”—but our commitment stands to implement in the mid-2020s.
With those remarks, I will, as ever, check in Hansard that I have attempted to answer all the questions asked. The Committee should be reassured that, if I have not done so, I will write. In the meantime, I thank all three Peers for their interest.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2024
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, we too welcome the uprating of benefits and will support today’s SI but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, there are ever-rising numbers in poverty, as drawn to our attention by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s 2024 report on poverty, published a short while ago. According to its previous report, around 20% of the population were in poverty in 2020-21—around 13.4 million—of whom 7.9 million were working adults, 3.9 million were children and 1.7 million were pensioners. Poverty among people on universal credit remained high at the same time at 46%, it said,
“despite the temporary £20-a-week uplift and a resetting of Local Housing Allowance”
to better reflect the level of rents in an area. Poverty rates remained highest in the social and private rented sectors
“and much higher for households including a disabled person or an informal carer”.
The cost of living crisis is having a major effect on poorer families. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s cost of living tracker found the following shocking results in October 2022, across the poorest fifth of families: six in 10 families were unable to afford an unexpected expense; over half were in arrears; around a quarter were using credit to pay bills; and more than seven in 10 were going without essentials. The report found that there are elements in the benefit system that increase poverty, such as the two-child limit on income-related benefits, the benefit cap, the five-week wait for the first payment of universal credit and unrealistic debt repayment deductions. Will the Minister say what plans there are to reassess the impact of these measures? I have not been doing my job in this area for some time, yet I recall that, when I was, these measures were constantly raised as causes of poverty that need to be addressed.
The report finds that the level of benefits is inadequate for people to afford the basic essentials, which is a damning finding. It also urges a resetting of benefits that would ensure that income cannot fall below these levels through debt repayment deductions or repayment of advances. This is essential for people on benefits as a proper safety net, not just during the cost of living crisis but for anyone who is on benefits. When will a full assessment take place of the efficacy of universal credit as an adequate safety net for those who need it? What is the Minister’s response to these findings?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order and all noble Lords who have spoken. As he has explained, the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order will increase most working-age benefits in line with CPI. We too welcome this instrument, because of course we want to see social security keep pace with prices, particularly at a time of spiking inflation and economic instability. That used to be the norm among both Labour and Conservative Governments, of course, but the past decade has seen a marked change.
There were of course the years of shame between 2013 and 2020, when most working-age benefits and tax credits were either frozen or uprated by small amounts, such as just 1%. Although today we are back to uprating mostly by CPI and occasionally by earnings, as my noble friend Lady Lister said, once again that uprating has been preceded by a period of speculation, which is deeply unhelpful. I can assume only that this is driven from somewhere inside the Government, because it happens too regularly. The speculation suggests that maybe this year the uprating will not be by the full amount or maybe will not happen at all.
As my noble friend mentioned, that speculation causes real stress and worry for people who depend on benefits and tax credits to survive. I begin to wonder: is it a strategy to allow Ministers the option of either freezing benefits or not uprating them fully so that, if they then finally do the right thing, people are supposed to be suitably grateful? As my noble friend Lady Lister pointed out, it is good that benefits are being uprated, but it is not an act of unusual generosity; it is simply a decision not to cut the value of benefits during a cost of living crisis.
This instrument, as we have heard, also increases the state pension by earnings in line with the triple lock. I accept the distinction that my noble friend Lord Davies helpfully made. The rates of basic and new state pensions will rise by 8.5%, as will the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit and the higher rate of widows’ and widowers’ pensions in industrial death benefit. However, this does not apply to a number of the others. I will be interested in the Minister’s response to that. In particular, can he explain the position on the deferred state pension? If someone chooses to defer their state pension and the pattern is that the deferred amount is uprated by CPI rather than the triple lock, are they made aware of that? When people make a decision about deferral, do they understand the consequences?
I had some other questions on pensions and pensioners but I was entirely thrown by the decision to separate these two instruments this year. Most years, we do them together in a single block, so I wrote a wonderful speech waxing lyrical and weaving in pensioners and old age, but now here I am. I shall come back, if the Minister will indulge me, to a couple of more general questions on pensioners when we come to debate the next instrument.
The context for this year’s uprating, as my noble friend Lady Lister expounded in some detail—aided ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke—is absolutely brutal. I will not repeat the extensive critique that my noble friend made or her unpacking of the economic climate in which so many families are living, but it is brutal. The basic fact is that there are now more than 4 million children living in poverty. There are 400,000 more children living in poverty now than when Labour left office in 2010.
One of the things that bothers me about this is that, whenever somebody raises this, the Minister—I know it is in his brief—will at some point in the response use the line that the Government believe that work is the best route out of poverty. Yet, clearly, the facts speak for themselves: more than two-thirds of children who live in poverty have parents in work. Something in that picture does not work. It is something that all of us in politics must address.
We in Labour have been looking at what we would do. We have a plan to give people a better life, so that they are able to make ends meet and have a good start for their children. We are looking at making sure that there is a breakfast club in every primary school and at giving people access to cheaper energy and an insulated home. We will reform universal credit, jobcentres and employment support so that people can get a better job with better pay. We will also have a child poverty strategy. Can the Minister tell the Committee in his response what the Government’s strategy is? What is their plan to do that? Other than simply declaring that work is the best route out of poverty, what is the Government’s plan to deal with the challenge of child poverty today? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this short debate. Before I attend to the number of questions asked and subjects raised, I would like to say at the outset—I normally do this but, today, I give special feeling and meaning to it—that this Government really do fully recognise the challenges facing people across the country due to the higher cost of living.
Although inflation is trending in the right direction, with the Bank of England now forecasting a fall to a target rate of around 2% in three months’ time, I acknowledge that pressures on household budgets very much persist. I saw this for myself in a recent visit to the Earlsfield Foodbank. The Government are not complacent about such matters; I hope noble Lords will recognise that the Government have taken action on a number of fronts to address these concerns, which were raised by a number of Peers—four, to be precise—this afternoon. I may not be able to answer all the questions but I will do my very best.
Let me start at the outset—I do not think I have done this before—by saying that, although I acknowledge the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I am generally disappointed that every single item was a negative. I am disappointed that nothing she said seemed to support what we have done in these regulations or what we are trying to do. We really are trying. There was a long litany of faults coming from the Government: that the uprating was not enough; on the loss of the cost of living payments; on the freeze in the LHA, which is all for the future as we do not like where we stand on that yet; on the household support fund; and on the benefits cap review, including why it was not being done.
The noble Baroness is right to ask questions but I say gently that there is no mention of the genuine headwinds that all Governments have been facing. This Government have not been alone in the experiences of the pandemic and coming out of it, as well as of the war in Ukraine. There was no indication of these whatever. It is a bit disappointing. I know that the noble Baroness will understand why I have said these things but I thought it would be worth mentioning them.
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the first two instruments are of course welcome in providing the inflation-based uplift, particularly because the schemes do not require that from their inception, so it is certainly welcome that those payments will be made. I have only one question on that, which is to understand how the process of the change occurs around 1 April, as the Minister said would happen. Given the rate of inflation, the 6.7% is quite material.
I am curious to understand whether it is something that the claimant exercises some control over—in other words, if they decide to put in their claim in March, it will be at the lower rate; if they choose to wait until after 1 April, it will be the higher rate—or is there some other mechanism taking place that determines that it has to be before or after the uplift date? That will be a question for a lot of people now that we have the gap between approving the new rates and when those rates kick in. People will have questions about whether they control that or the department does. What is it that determines whether they get the old rate or this new rate, which is materially increased? I say that not to complain but to welcome it—it is extraordinarily welcome—but if somebody applied and found that by applying a week earlier, they had missed out on a significantly higher payment, it would be frustrating. I hope the Minister can deal with that.
On the final instrument, I again thank the Minister for the very clear and comprehensive explanation of how we got there. It touched on questions that I had when I read the instrument. I will play back to the Minister what I think I heard, and perhaps he can confirm in his closing remarks whether I have understood it correctly.
There are around 300 people a year in the category that we are talking about who were technically excluded from the old payment scheme. These people have been getting their money but, in effect, they have been getting it ultra vires. They should not have been getting it, technically; they have been getting it—that is not a complaint; it is extremely welcome if that is the case—but, in September last year, somebody spotted the fact that they should not have been getting it, and now we have 94 people sitting in the queue until we can fix that. Can the Minister confirm that that is the sort of number of people; that they have been getting the money and no one from the group that we are talking about was being turned away; and that it is just that from a technical, legislative point of view, we have been more generous than we should have been? If that is the case, that is great; I am happy to go with that.
I hope the Minister can just clear that up for us and confirm that, extending into the future, from the point of view of understanding whether someone is eligible, there is not a group of people who will not have applied because, under the prior definition, they thought they were ineligible. If it is the case that there is a group of people who are now eligible who were not previously eligible, I am keen to hear from the Minister how we are making sure that they are all made aware of that and encouraged to apply to the scheme.
On balance, these three instruments seem very welcome. They uplift a much-needed payment for people suffering from serious illness. The one question I have is around the mechanism for when that uplift kicks in between now and 1 April. On the third instrument, again, it is welcome, but I just seek reassurance that people in that category have not been turned away and that future claimants will be made aware of their eligibility effectively.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations to the Committee and all noble Lords who have spoken. As we have heard, the Government have decided to increase the lump sum awards payable under the 1979 Act scheme and the 2008 Act scheme by the 12-month CPI rate last September, namely 6.71%. That is obviously very welcome.
We also welcome the fact that the Government have decided to align the definitions of these diseases as set out in the 1979 Act scheme with those in the industrial injuries disablement benefit—it was helpful to get that background and the amplification from the noble Lord, Lord Allan—hence the need for the third instrument we are debating here. It will have the effect of expanding the pool of people who are definitely entitled to the lump sums payable under the 1979 Act to include those with unilateral diffuse pleural thickening and asbestos-related primary lung cancer. This expansion is welcome but, just to follow on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, for people who are in that queue and waiting for these regs to take effect in order to be able to get it, if they die before they take effect, are we in the position raised by my noble friends in terms of the differential between dependants and other schemes? Can the Minister comment on that?
The Minister is absolutely right that these schemes continue to provide crucial compensation to those who are suffering from these awful diseases and their families. Although money is obviously no substitute for a life, it can help with practical issues, especially if it is paid out fast.
Annual deaths from mesothelioma in Britain increased steeply over the past half-century, mainly due to the widespread industrial use of asbestos from about 1950 to about 1980. That accounts for the current high death rate among men over 70, whose younger working life coincided with the period of peak asbestos use. Thankfully, death rates for those below 65 have been falling. I looked through the latest statistics published by the HSE last July. They showed that there were 2,268 mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain in 2021, which is a fall of 302 from 2020 and below the average of the previous few years.
The HSE says that this reduction remains consistent with the earlier projections that the annual deaths would fall gradually during the 2020s and suggests that the variability in the figures for 2020 and 2021 may have been something to do with Covid, but it also says that predictions suggest that there will continue to be 400 to 500 deaths among females in the 2020s. If I am reading that right, that suggests that while male deaths will continue to fall, female deaths will not. Last year, in the same debate, I asked the Minister whether he could comment on that discrepancy. I did not get an answer. Can he help this year?
It occurred to me to wonder whether this had anything to do with asbestos being uncovered in schools and hospitals, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Blower and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. After all, there are reports that a lot of asbestos has been found in schools uncovering RAAC, which is not surprising given that that DfE has previously said that 81%, I think, of state schools have asbestos. I gather that attempts are being made to launch studies into the impact on teachers and students. Last year, the Guardian reported that official data had already shown that female former teachers born between 1935 and 1954 have a 40% increased rate of mesothelioma. It also reported that statisticians have now detected a rate of mesothelioma deaths that “borders on statistical significance” among teachers born between 1955 and 1974. I hope fervently that my noble friend Lady Blower will not turn out to be in this cohort.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, there is also a problem in hospitals, and I hope very much that she will not turn out to be caught up in this terrible situation. Last July, the Times reported on the death from mesothelioma of Guru Ghoorah, an NHS nurse, at the age of 45, leaving two children aged four and seven. Four NHS hospital trusts were ordered to make a combined compensation payment to him of £650,000. The thing that struck me about that report, apart from that tragedy, was that it noted that ONS figures state that 177 NHS staff died from mesothelioma between 2002 and 2015 and that occupations are not recorded if a person dies aged more than 75. Two-thirds of mesothelioma deaths occur after that age. Interestingly, the Times reported that a freedom of information request by Sheffield University to NHS Resolution found that, between 2013 and 2022, 360 asbestos-related mesothelioma claims were made against the NHS. Sadly, each of those will have resulted in a death. That suggests a rather higher death rate than the official ONS figures. Can the Minister comment on the risks of asbestos in these settings, which were raised by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, to which the HSE is presumably alert? What action is being taken to protect staff, students and patients? Does he think this will impact mortality rates in future?
Looking at the statistics I was struck again that the north-east always stands out in so many depressing tables. Three of the top 10 geographical areas for male deaths are in the north-east, the region I live in: North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Hartlepool; as are two of the top 10 for women: Newcastle and Sunderland. Of course, these diseases are a product of our industrial past. If my noble friend Lord Jones were here, he would talk about south Wales miners suffering from pneumoconiosis. This debate is an important annual reminder of the price paid by so many people for our industrial heritage, our infrastructure and the society we all benefit from, but it is also a reminder of the need for government and industry to take health and safety seriously. The link between mesothelioma and asbestos was found in the 1960s, but asbestos was still being used widely throughout the 1970s. The schemes that we have been debating today were needed because, as my late and much lamented friend Lord McKenzie of Luton reminded noble Lords in the past, some employers and some people involved in liability insurance did not act as they should have done with regard to their liabilities, hence the need to create these schemes, so this is a good annual prompt to be alert to new and emerging risks to health.
The position of dependants has been raised again by my noble friends Lady Donaghy and Lady Blower. I would be interested to know the Government’s current position on this. My noble friend Lady Blower mentioned the TUC’s figure of £1.5 million as the cost of equalisation. Do the Government agree with that figure? If not, will the Minister tell the Committee the figure the Government have for the cost of equalising payouts to dependants and victims?
Finally, I am sure that the Minister will have seen the reports in the news over the past few days about a new drug breakthrough to treat mesothelioma. Does he have any more information that he can share with us on that?
I am grateful to the staff who have worked on this, to the All-Party Parliamentary Group, to the charities and to all those who work in this space. It is incredibly important that we keep up the work on research, on campaigning and on support. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations so clearly; I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I agree with my noble friend Lady Drake; she need never worry about her questions being dry. When it comes to pensions, dry is good. Dry is where the detail is and, with pensions, detail is everything. I am grateful to the officials for providing some excellent briefing and for answering questions from us. It may not reduce the number of our questions but I hope that it makes them better questions, so that we are at least debating the right things here in Grand Committee.
As we have heard, the purpose of this instrument is to make technical amendments to the 2022 regulations and do, in essence, two things: clarify the provisions governing how reductions to member benefits in CDC schemes can be managed; and specify the categories of flex-access draw-down to which accrued rights can be transferred when the scheme has been wound up.
I will make one quick point before I get stuck into the dry detail. This instrument amends the 2022 regulations, which allow CDC schemes for single and connected employers to apply for authorisation from the regulator. It does not change the intention of those regulations, as the Minister has explained, and it is obviously not adapting to experience because no CDC schemes are in operation. For the record, can the Minister tell the Committee why the Government concluded that the amendments were needed? Were these issues that could have been picked up in the original drafting?
I am needling not just for the sake of it but because I have covered the DWP brief for quite a long time. In the past couple of years, we have debated quite a few instruments in this Room that have been necessary either to correct drafting problems in previous sets of legislation or to clarify things that were deemed not clear enough in previous drafts. Is there any broader systemic issue here that the Minister wants to pick up on? Does he want to give us some assurance on that front?
Turning to the dry detail, I want to look first at the change to the means of smoothing reductions to benefits in CDC schemes in order to reduce the immediate impact on members. The efficacy of that smoothing mechanism is really important—particularly given that, as my noble friend Lady Drake pointed out, the Government set their face against having a buffer fund in CDC schemes. We raised this during the passage of the original Bill but the Government were reluctant to engage with Members at that point either on the full implications of not having a buffer in a CDC scheme or on the detail of how proposed annual adjustments and smoothing would work.
The 2022 regulations require existing benefits in a CDC scheme to be adjusted annually—including being cut if necessary, as we have heard—to make sure that we keep the value of assets held and the projected costs of benefits in balance. Clearly, the intention was that, where a market recovered during a period of benefit reduction, increases in benefits resulting from a late evaluation could help offset those cuts. As my noble friend Lady Drake explained very clearly, any quick bounceback of asset values could help avoid unnecessary cuts, provided that assets and costs are always held in balance. However, the 2022 regulations seemingly do not allow that, hence the need for today’s instrument.
The consequential changes to Regulation 19 also address the information that actuarial valuations must contain and must be shared with the regulator, including details of any variation to a multiannual reduction as a result of the offsetting; the effect that the offsetting has on the remaining years of the multiannual reduction; and, where the offsetting has eliminated the planned reductions, when the reductions ceased to have effect and whether any remaining increase has been applied. Are the trustees of a CDC scheme required to get the approval of the regulator before implementing any offset? Are there any penalties for failing to provide all that information to the regulator? When applying the offset after a bounceback, can there be any retrospective calculation of when the reductions in benefits ceased to take effect—that is, pensioners getting retrospective increased payments?
I turn to Regulation 5, which amends Schedule 6 to the 2022 regulations; that is intended to protect members of a CDC scheme when it decides to wind up by ensuring that the process is agreed and monitored by the regulator. Among other things, the regulations make it clear that, during the winding up of a CDC scheme, the accrued rights of nominees, dependants and survivors of members or dependents can be transferred to authorised flexi-access draw-down arrangements, as we have heard. My noble friend Lady Drake asked an important question about the position of successors in that situation, especially in the period between notification and winding up. I will ask a more basic question: can the Minister clarify comprehensively who qualifies as a successor who has accrued rights to benefits that can be transferred to a flexi-access draw-down? If I was listening correctly, he gave some examples of who might fall into that category, but were they comprehensive?
The Minister may reply by saying that the regulations make this clear. In a way, they do. Regulation 5 amends Schedule 6 to the 2022 regulations in order to introduce a series of definitions. For example, Regulation 5(1) says:
“Schedule 6 (continuity option 1: transfer out and winding up) is amended as follows”.
Regulation 5(2) says:
“In paragraph 1(1) … (c) after the definition of ‘quantification’ insert … ‘successor’ has the meaning given in paragraph 27F of Schedule 28 to the Finance Act 2004 … ‘successors’ income withdrawal’ has the meaning given in paragraph 27J of Schedule 28 to the Finance Act 2004 … ‘successor’s flexi-access drawdown fund’ has the meaning given in paragraph 27K of Schedule 28 to the Finance Act 2004”.
My heart leapt when I saw a little hyperlink next to each of these insertions, which I clicked on. Alas, they took me a footnote telling me, for example:
“Paragraph 27K was inserted by the Taxation of Pensions Act 2014, section 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, paragraph 3(1), and amended by the Finance Act 2015, section 34, Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraphs 13(6)(a) and (b)”.
I understand that there may be a good policy reason to point to a definition in tax law, rather than make your own up here; otherwise, every time that changes, so does yours. However, as I have said before, when the DWP is bringing forward secondary legislation that is this layered, it would be nice to have a Keeling schedule. In the end, I dug down and found it, but it is quite a long way down. The Finance Act 2004 is many hundreds of pages long and it took me a while to get down to the right place. It would be helpful if the Minister could do that in future. I am also conscious that, given that we have had problems with drafting legislation, if this House is going to do a good scrutiny job, it would be nice to make it as easy as possible.
Workers (Economic Affairs Committee Report)
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, for introducing this debate and all members of the committee for their hard work. Having heard many of them in action, I think the noble Lord’s chairing skills must be fine indeed. I imagine it was a lively committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, described it—I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall at times.
I found the report fascinating. It had that combination of focus and sheer intellectual curiosity that characterises the best of the reports that come from this House. I hope it will prod the Government to take the opportunity to consider some of these things in a way and to a depth that they might not otherwise have done. It is a shame, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, it has taken us so long to discuss the report, because there is so much in it and it would have been even more helpful had we discussed it at the time.
“Where have all the workers gone?” is still a great question, and clearly still relevant. After all, employment levels in the UK have still not reached their pre-pandemic rates, unlike those in other countries—a point made by my noble friend Lord Chandos. Vacancies are still above pre-pandemic levels and so is economic inactivity. We will maybe get a better sense of things when the Labour Force Survey’s reweighted data come out, and I take the points made about the difficulties in getting good data. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is right that the report is at least pointing us in the right direction. If we look at what the ONS said this week about the likely impact of the reweighting, it is clearly pointing us towards the fact that we have a bigger, sicker workforce, and that our employment rate is even lower than previously thought. It also looks as though there are at least another 100,000 more people out of work due to long-term sickness than previously thought—and previously it was at a record high.
The committee’s report answers its own exam question by pointing to four drivers, each of which I will pick up briefly. First, I will pick up the point made mainly by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the DWP review into workforce participation. This was announced in the 2022 Autumn Statement and never mentioned again. It simply did not appear in the government response to the committee. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who did his best to track it down, having written to the Secretary of State to ask for an update and a publication date. The response from the Secretary of State, in his letter of May 2023 to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, was frankly extraordinary. Simply to point to a bunch of measures in the spring budget and declare that that
“represents the conclusion of my review”
is just astonishing.
Does the Minister not think it a touch unorthodox for a document such as the Autumn Statement to announce a review but for Ministers to then refuse to give any information about its terms of reference, its work or its findings, even to a committee of this House? When pressed on the matter, they simply pointed to a list of Budget measures and said, “Oh, that’s it”. Really? It ended up making a mockery of the committee’s recommendations, because, not unreasonably, it thought this was an ongoing piece of work. The committee made lots of recommendations pointing to a review, only to find that apparently it had happened and we had not noticed it. Can the Minister please explain to the House what is going on?
Having got that off my chest, I will come back now to the content of the report. On the issues around early retirement, there have been some very interesting comments both here and in the report. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Chandos, the committee seems to have gathered evidence around two broad explanations: that the Covid years gave people a taste for life beyond work, and that our flexible pension access arrangements, turbocharged by the recent pension freedoms, made this possible. In other words, Covid made people think they would like to retire and the pension situation meant that they could—or at least some of them could.
I take the points given for colour by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol that Covid had more complex relationships than we yet properly know. I suspect quite a lot of people were traumatised in ways that are only beginning to surface down the line. That may be having effects that we have not properly begun to understand. I also take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that one of the things that defines work and separates it from activities we choose is choice. That is pretty important to making such choices, and there is not a lot that the Government can do about that; nor, as the noble Lord said, can the Government stop people using their savings in general. However, the state has a legitimate interest in savings to which the taxpayer has contributed, by giving tax relief on pension contributions, so I am interested to hear what the Government have to say about that.
The Government response sounded as though they felt that the retirement issue was not that big of a deal. Certainly, the most recent September stats show a drop of 2.5% in those giving “retired” as the reason for leaving the labour market, but that still leaves almost a third of all those who are leaving. It is not insignificant, so I hope that is being thought about in some depth in DWP. I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that, above anything else, there is an apparent lack of curiosity on the part of the Government as to what is going on, and I find that disappointing. I hope the Minister can tell us where their thinking is on that.
Sickness as a cause of economic inactivity has been raised by many noble Lords. It is worrying that the number out of work due to long-term sickness is now either at an all-time high of 2.6 million or at an all-time high of 2.8 million, depending on which figure is picked. But it is big, and it is more than twice what it was in 2010-11. We also now have more people who cannot work fully. The Health Foundation reports that 3.7 million people in work have a health condition that limits either what they can do or how much work they can do. That is also up by 1.4 million over the last decade.
As my noble friend Lord Sikka said, we also have a healthcare problem, with waiting lists for hospital appointments spiking since the pandemic. We do not yet have clear data on causal relationships. However, when the ONS figures show that almost a fifth of those aged 50 to 64 who left work since the start of the pandemic reported that they were on a waiting list for NHS medical treatment—which is noticeably higher than the average—we ignore that at our peril.
There is also the question of disability, raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. Disabled people are almost twice as likely to be unemployed and three times as likely to be economically inactive as non-disabled people, and yet they are more likely to want a job. What are we doing to make that possible? The Access to Work programme is key to this, but the waiting list quadrupled in two years, and, by last September, over 22,000 people were waiting for their applications to be heard. Can the Minister tell us what is happening with that?
The final driver was changes in the structure of migration. I do not have time to discuss them in any detail, but they were addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and a number of other noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is right: we need a bigger debate on that as a matter by itself. Like others, I have received clear briefings about the impact on particular sectors, such as hospitality and agriculture, and it has been interesting today to listen to noble Lords describe the sectors they know. This issue is not just about the economy: most of us would like to drink the beer of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria; many of us will have pets that we would like to be treated by the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford; many people want to buy products from the SMEs described by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough; and, as a Church of England priest, I certainly want to know that my bishops are properly supported and that the right reverend Prelate can get the staff she needs in her diocese. Although this issue hits certain sectors, it is not just about economic growth but about the quality of life in our country.
This is so complicated; everything is connected to everything else. What you think is wrong depends on where you stand: the macroeconomists will tell us that we are not going macro enough, while people like me, the shadow DWP person, will inevitably focus on what is happening to employment. We have heard some interesting contributions—the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, made an interesting point on the supply side measures that need drilling down into more—but we need to know more. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, made a strong point: this is in essence a debate about economic growth. My noble friend Lord Layard said, interestingly, that when we talk about growth, we talk too often about things and not enough about people. While we are trying to work out what is going on, we should at least try to do what we can about that.
One of the questions is about making sure there are good enough jobs, a theme that has emerged repeatedly during today’s debate. Labour is committed to creating jobs that provide security, treat workers fairly and pay decent wages. I loved the little kick from the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, to the economists—which I would not dare to do—in saying that they always view work as a disutility, whereas in fact, for most people, work is much more than that. We are all looking for meaning and we find it in different ways, but we find it very much in connection and relationship with other people, as well as in wanting to be needed and in making a difference to our society—and work is a key part of that. But, as my noble friend Lord Davies, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and others have commented, it has to be work that makes us feel valued and fulfilled to want to carry on doing it.
This may all sound a bit bleak, and perhaps it is. I am sure the Minister will have come armed with a list of things that the Government will do—he has a big folder, and I can see that it is full of such ideas—but one of the questions is: is what has been done working? Despite the Government pouring money into their plans, the OBR is forecasting that the employment rate will stay static over the next five years at just over 60%, and that there will be 600,000 more people on health and disability benefits by 2028-29, with costs going up to somewhere around £33 billion.
I accept that it is complicated, but Labour has tried to set out what we would do, and I offer these ideas to the Minister in a spirit of co-operation, because we should be curious and look at everything going on here. We want to overhaul jobcentres so that they focus on tackling barriers to good jobs, to devolve new powers over employment support and to get collaborating with the NHS and other agencies. We want to give full-time employment support in young futures hubs and to change the benefit rules to help more sick and disabled people risk a new job without worrying about losing money or getting reassessed. We will provide money for an extra 2 million operations, scans and appointments a year to try to get people back to work. We will expand mental health support by recruiting 8,500 more staff and providing specialists in schools, because that is crucial, as many noble Lords have pointed out. I could go on for a long time, but I will not.
This important debate has focused attention in a very helpful way on one of the biggest challenges facing not just our economy but our country and who we are as a people. If nothing changes, things will carry on getting worse. But we can choose to try to get to the bottom of it and to take steps to restore hope and opportunity to millions of people who have been written off—and, in the process, give a much-needed injection to our labour market and economy. I urge the Government to seize the day.
Disability Action Plan
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Government for advance sight of the Statement, which came out yesterday. This is the latest in a series of moves on the part of the Government designed to improve the position of disabled people and to tackle societal barriers. I am sorry to say that I think disabled people would be the first to say that the track record so far does not inspire confidence.
First, there was the National Disability Strategy, which was announced in the 2019 Queen’s Speech but did not appear until 28 July 2021. It was then held up in a lengthy court case brought by disabled people who disputed the legality of the consultation process. Then came the health and disability White Paper, which set out plans to reform employment support and disability benefits. The centrepiece of that was the proposal to scrap the work capability assessment, but that has left many disabled people concerned that the benefits system will rely solely on the flawed PIP assessment process.
Now, we have the Disability Action Plan. There are some positives in the plan. It attempts to address some of the well-known barriers disabled people continue to face, through measures such as tackling guide dog refusals, raising the profile of assistive technology and increasing support for disabled people to take part in politics. However, it is impossible to ignore the very large hole at the centre of the action plan: there is little or nothing to address the top concern facing many disabled people at the moment—the cost of living crisis.
The Government know this is an issue, because paragraph 5.12 of the plan starts by saying:
“Another theme which ran through responses to the consultation was the long-term impact of the rising cost of living on disabled people, with respondents calling for greater support for disabled people. Research has shown that disabled people are significantly affected by rising costs”.
When the Government went out to consultation, the preliminary response of the RNIB was to say that
“it’s disappointing there’s no mention of any support measures to address the rising cost of living”.
It is still an issue today. Energy bills are still high, making life very expensive if people rely on specialist medical equipment, or need to heat their home more than the average household. As Scope has calculated, on average, disabled households face extra costs of £975 per month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households.
If the Government want to know how things are for disabled people at the moment, they need look only as far as the document Below Average Resources, published on 18 January. This was the very interesting update on the work the DWP is doing to look at developing a new poverty measure, named “below average resources”, or BAR. It compares the impact of measuring resources versus measuring income. It told us something quite interesting along the way about the position of disabled people. It says that in the financial year ending 2022,
“30% of individuals in families with a disabled person were in low resources, compared to 27% in low income. Of individuals in families without a disabled person 17% were in low resources in FYE 2022 compared to 19% in low income”.
That is quite a big gap by anybody’s measure.
However, the only commitment on this matter I could find in the action plan was action 30, which says that the disability unit
“will continue to engage across Government to highlight concerns related to disabled people and the cost of living, sharing insights from the Disability Action Plan consultation findings, stakeholder engagement and our broader disabled people’s experience panels”.
Does the Minister think that is enough on the single biggest issue facing so many disabled people right now?
There is also nothing in the plan on another challenge which is actually caused by the Government itself—the fact that our current social security system puts disabled people through multiple upsetting and dehumanising assessments. Too often, they are denied their legal entitlements unless they have the strength and support to go through the appeals process.
Let us look at the figures. Claimants who are turned down for PIP are not allowed to appeal until they have first been through the mandatory reconsideration of their claim by DWP officials, which, as of last October, was taking an average of 36 days. Last year, only 11% of claimants were successful. They are forced to go through this extra gateway and only 11% get through it. Only then can they go to a tribunal. But if they go to a tribunal, nearly 80% are awarded their enhancement. At this point, normally the Minister will say, “Ah, yes, but it is all new information”. In fact, in 2023, 55% of cases that had their decision overturned after a tribunal hearing listed
“Reached a different conclusion on substantially the same facts”
as the summary reason for the change in decision. Why is there nothing in the action plan about ensuring that DWP gets more decisions right first time?
Without addressing the fundamental problems, the actions today risk feeling like tinkering around the edges. Despite all the consultation, there is not enough action to deal with the major challenges faced by disabled people today. I think the Minister probably knows this, because the action plan says, at paragraph 4.2, that:
“Many respondents criticised the short-term focus of the plan, highlighting the need for longer term action”.
Does the Minister think the Government responded sufficiently to that critique? I look forward to his reply.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association. In that capacity, I am currently chairing the LGA disability forum for council officers and for members.
I am grateful to follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, partly because she summarises the issues about benefits so well. It also means that I do not have to say them again, because I completely agree with her concerns and her questions.
I am going to pick three or four things from the areas for action that give me real cause for concern that this new plan does not recognise the mess that the Government have got themselves into in the past. I want to start with the support for disabled people who want to be elected to public office. It says on page 15 of the Disability Action Plan that the coalition Government
“provided some financial support in the past, such as the Access to Elected Office Fund, which ran between 2012 and 2015”.
I wonder why it stopped in 2015. Who cancelled it? It was created by my noble friend Lady Featherstone when she was a Minister in the other place. It was cut the moment that we left government. The onus was put on political parties to provide it. That may be fine if you are the Conservative Party with millions and millions of pounds, but small parties do not have the capacity to fund the sort of things that are needed, such as BSL interpreters for a candidate. As far as I am aware, there has never been either a Member of Parliament or a Peer who uses BSL as their first language. That is because the barrier to get them into Parliament is too high for them to bear on their own. Action 2 in the Disability Action Plan states that the
“DU will develop and publish new guidance by summer”,
but until then the current arrangement will continue—so great words, but no change really.
The second action is another that has been raised in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions: disabled people’s needs in emergency and resilience planning. About a year ago, when we were concerned about energy prices and the shortage of energy as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I asked a Minister in the then BEIS to look at how we could ensure that significant power outages did not hurt the people who relied entirely on emergency support when the power went out for more than an hour or two once their own batteries had gone down. People such as our own colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, would be one of those affected.
The plan says:
“Government departments already consider disabled people’s needs in emergency and resilience planning, in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty”.
On 16 January, however, the Department for Health and Social Care—which, somehow, in the game of “Don’t sit down last,” ended up taking on responsibility from BEIS for the negotiations with the energy companies on what to do in power outages—wrote to John Pring of Disability News Service saying:
“We have concluded that, due to the specificity of individual needs and circumstances, individuals and their care teams are best placed to develop plans for how they can prepare for and respond to loss of power to their home”.
That is not government departments working together; it is worse than that. A year on, there is now no way that any disabled person who relies on power can go to anybody in government to say, “My energy company is not helping me”. My baby granddaughter, who was on a ventilator for the first three years of her life, had one such power outage in her area. Had she not been in a carrycot and been able to be brought out of the outage—which adults cannot do—she would have hit very serious problems, so, for me, this is a very personal matter.
The plan says that the Government were learning from previous events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the Grenfell Tower fire. I remind the House that we still do not have PEEPs post-Grenfell fire, which is a very serious issue if you are in a wheelchair and are trying to get down even five flights of stairs—let me put it more bluntly: even one flight of stairs. I am afraid that the actions on that are unworkable.
The section on families in which someone is disabled says the right words, but this Government have consistently starved local government of funding for children’s services, including for education, health and care plans. As a result, schools and the local authorities have zero money to be able to provide, which is why many children are not able to access the help that they are entitled to under the law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, mentioned issues relating to assistance dogs. Dr Amy Kavanagh, who is a blind activist, said today on social media:
“We don’t need to define assistance dogs. The law does this already. I would welcome an ADA ‘legal questions you can ask’ model. Is the dog supporting a disability?”—
what on earth does that mean? She continues:
“What tasks does the dog perform?”
Frankly, once somebody has an assistance dog, it should not be necessary for a taxi driver to say, “What task does your dog perform?” That is the point at which there is a problem, and the answer is very simple: it is illegal to stop it. Yes, the Government are right: we need to make sure that more businesses know what they are doing.
Katie Pennick, from Transport for All, said that there is:
“Nothing on transport, nothing on housing, nothing on social care, nothing on PIP, nothing on hate crime, nothing on urban planning, nothing on healthcare, nothing nothing nothing…”
Rachel Charlton-Dailey said that, this week:
“Many disabled people are once again missing out on the gov cost of living payment … those on personal independence payment (PIP) or its predecessor disability living allowance (DLA) have received … £300, while those on benefits such as universal credit, child tax credits and employment support allowance will have got £900”.
That is discrimination against disabled people who, as we have heard, have much higher energy costs.
I will not repeat the data mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, but I want to mention one final thing about the two Bills that are cited in the plan: the British Sign Language Act 2022 and the Down Syndrome Act 2022. When the Down Syndrome Act went through your Lordships’ House, we were promised that other genetic conditions would be looked at. Nobody understood why just one condition got the support. Nothing to date has happened. Worse than that, no funding has been allocated whatever, even under the terms of the Down Syndrome Act. It feels like everything else that I covered so far: warm words but no actual benefits to disabled people.
Engineered Stone and Silicosis
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The Health and Safety Executive recently carried out a post-implementation review, or PIR, of RIDDOR, which, as the noble Baroness will know, deal with the reporting of injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences, with a view to expanding that to include areas where HSE regulatory intervention can add value. HSE will start the process of reviewing the remaining recommendations—including the inclusion of pneumoconiosis, which is, in effect, silicosis—within the next business year.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the HSE’s own website says:
“Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos”.
As the Minister said, it is found in engineered stone which is used extensively in kitchens and bathrooms for counter-tops. The UK has a silica exposure limit of 0.1 milligrams per cubic metre. As I understand it, that is twice the legal limit in the United States and Germany, and four times that in Portugal. I ask the Minister: has this has been looked at recently? Is he aware that the first case of someone getting silicosis was in Australia in only 2015? Since then, hundreds more cases have come online. In Australia, this is being talked about as the asbestos of the 2020s. I urge the Government not to be complacent about it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I reassure the House that Great Britain has a very good record in this area and the European Union reflects our approach. For example, the silica limit in Great Britain—as the noble Baroness has pointed out—is 0.1 milligrams per metre cubed, which was set in 2006 and is now comparative across the world. The EU considered a lower limit, but it was not adopted due to uncertainties about the reliability of measuring techniques below the limit we are at.
Child Support (Management of Payments and Arrears and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of the whole system. He eventually got to the regulations in front of us, but he gave us a good idea of the various things that the Government are attempting to do; I thank him for that.
I come to the regulations themselves. The Minister will, I am sure, be pleased to know that I and my party agree with the removal of the £20 application fee; it has been my party’s policy in the past couple of manifestos. We would, however, make an additional change: in addition to removing the £20 charge, it is Liberal Democrat party policy to remove the 4% charge for receiving parents using the collect and pay service. I would appreciate his view on the possibility of this.
The Minister pointed out that the Government are trying to be pragmatic in dealing with the rest of the instrument. I welcome the suggestion that up to £7 of arrears could be written off but I hope that the Minister can clarify whether that would be a one-off £7 at the end—with which we would have no problem—or could apply to more than one item of £7. Is this meant to be a generous action or is it to save administration costs, or a bit of both? He did say that it was pragmatic. Who gains and loses on this £7? I read the provision through and was not quite sure—perhaps it is just me—whether the receiving parents loses £7 or that the Child Maintenance Service in some way writes it off internally. I am not calling for it to be increased but does the Minister have any information as to whether an increase in the write-off—let us say it was £10; I am just dealing with the theory of it—would have any administrative effect? Would we save money? If it is meant to save on administration, is £7 an appropriate cut-off? I think that it is, but it is worth asking.
I will move on in dealing with this £7 write-off. My reading of the statutory instrument is that time arrears will be written off in only these limited circumstances: maintenance arrangements have come to an end because the payee parent has requested it; the paying parent has died; the child has died; the child is no longer a child; the parents have been cohabiting for more than six months; a new arrangement has been put in place; or the parent has failed to pay anything for the final three months. Presumably, there would be only one £7 sum of arrears rather than a series of £7 sums that could be written off unless a new arrangement were later put in place—for instance, if the couple got back together, then broke up or the payee parent requested that a new arrangement be put in place—but subsequently ended again. However, that would be some months or years down the track and would not happen too often, I hope. It may seem fairly obvious to the Minister but I have read the SI and it really is not that specific. The ambiguity is such that I would appreciate, for the purposes of Hansard, it being set out.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his careful questioning on the £7 matter; I shall leave that entirely to him and commend him on getting into the weeds in which I normally pride myself on lurking with these sorts of regulations. I very much welcome him to this space.
I was surprised and delighted to find a Keeling schedule in the Explanatory Memorandum. Can the Minister convey my appreciation of that to those responsible? It is often quite hard to track back the way in which regulations apply, so I am grateful for that.
As we have heard, these regulations do two things: they remove the £20 upfront fee payable to all those who are not exempt; and they waive arrears below £7 in certain circumstances, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. The Government introduced both this upfront fee and the ongoing fees after they reformed the child support system in 2012. The ongoing fees are to be retained, but these regulations remove the upfront fee at a cost of roughly between £1 million and £2 million a year. I should say at the outset that we also support these changes. However, I want to ask some questions, particularly about the charging point.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I do not know whether it is too historic, but I possibly should have drawn the Committee’s attention to the fact that I have a historic pecuniary interest as a former director of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission; I just want to place that on record.
I am grateful for and appreciate the Minister’s thorough response. He mentioned that the Government are doing more research. Will that be published? He also mentioned an email campaign in relation to direct pay. How is that going?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
On the latter point, which is a good one, I shall certainly need to write to the noble Baroness. On the former one, it is fair to say that we will write as well. Those will be added to a number of other questions that I may have to answer.
Universal Credit
Baroness Sherlock Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed, the noble Lord raised an important point about carers, who play a vital role in our country. We are very alert to this; I will certainly take the point he raised back to the Treasury, but I am unable to comment on whether we can or cannot do it. In terms of carers, we have strong evidence that some carers would also like to take on some work if it is appropriate, so there is much work going on with job coaches, to encourage them to speak to carers to see whether it is possible for them to combine work as well as their caring responsibilities, if it is appropriate.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says that the Government are concerned about poverty, and he describes the things the Government have done, but we have to look at the results, because I am afraid that the Government do not get to mark their own homework. If the Minister does not like the Barnardo’s study cited by my noble friend, does he like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation finding that last year a million children experienced destitution? What about UNICEF, which found recently that the world’s worst rise in child poverty between 2012 and 2019 was in the UK—the worst of the 39 richest countries in the world? Is the Minister proud of that?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am certainly not proud of that, but, as I say, there are a number of reports that have come out, and some that have come out recently. I can only repeat again that we are aware of the pressures involved; some families find it difficult even with where they can find the next meal. We are very aware of and alert to that; I think the noble Baroness will know that we are particularly busy in looking at what more can be done to help those in absolute poverty. She will know from the Autumn Statement the measures we have taken forward, and I can only repeat again that we are very alert to this.