Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Not only do the Government seem to be in a difficult position if we are to have wholesale repossession of Motability vehicles—I cannot believe, as others have said, that the Government really want to face that—but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, we do not know what scale of appeals will be driven by these arrangements and all that that will entail for the department. It is incumbent on the Government, at the very least, to commit to take this issue away tonight, to seriously address how they can help those tens of thousands of people who are at risk of losing their Motability vehicle in short order, the effect of which would be really quite devastating on lots of individual lives. I do not believe that the Government want that. Undertaking to address this issue and the transitional arrangements tonight would go some way to alleviating the concerns that many people have.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. In responding, first, I will address the points that I have put under the heading of “uprating” and then come to issues linked specifically to Motability and PIP. I want to make it clear, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, acknowledged, that this Bill, which is about capping the annual increases of certain benefits to 1%, does not include DLA or personal independence payments. It is really important that that is properly understood by everyone when we are discussing this matter.

If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Alton, correctly, having acknowledged that PIP is not part of this Bill, his amendment would seek to require the Secretary of State to consult Motability every year before he sets the annual rate of increase on PIP. However, I do not think that that is necessary. As I have said, PIP is excluded from this Bill and would be subject to a CPI increase. If there were any shortfall in the benefits over the course of a three-year lease and if the PIP annual uprating was to affect the level of benefit that a person was due to receive, any change in the rate of the enhanced mobility component would not impact on a claimant with a Motability lease directly because that would be borne by Motability as part of the risk to it of operating the lease.

Governments have worked with Motability for more than 30 years and, as I understand it, thus far we have never required protection for Motability leaseholders in the way that the amendment suggests. As noble Lords are well aware, the Motability lease is a private agreement between the claimant and Motability. It is entered into without any influence from the department. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, just under one-third of eligible claimants uses Motability.

That being said, I absolutely understand the points made in this debate about how those who take advantage of the Motability scheme value the vehicle provided. Therefore, it is essential that Motability remains available to those deemed eligible to receive it. Sometimes, as regards the way in which noble Lords talk about the changes that are being made, the impression could be given that the Motability scheme is coming to an end for everyone. We absolutely understand the importance of Motability. It is an important scheme and people must continue to have access to it, albeit that fewer numbers will have access than up to now.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

This is the Committee stage, not Report. The Minister said that we were suggesting in the way we talked about the numbers that this was in some sense a catastrophic activity—that the Motability scheme might come to a close, and so on. But on the figures that she has more or less confirmed for us, something like 600,000 people currently getting a higher rate of DLA will not get the enhanced rate of PIP. Just under 30% of all those on higher rate DLA turn that into a vehicle; that is just under one-third. So of the 600,000 people who lose the benefit, something like 185,000 or thereabouts of people who currently have a car will lose their car. That is not small beer.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I do not think that the noble Baroness heard me say that it was small beer. That is not the point that I am making at all; I am making the point that Motability is incredibly important to people, but it will still continue. Yes, some people will not be eligible for it in future, and I know that those who will be affected will feel it very strongly. However, I want to make the point that sometimes in the way in which this is talked about the impression can be given that we are removing Motability from everyone. That is clearly not what is happening.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I am sorry that the Minister feels that that impression is being given. It is certainly not the intention of myself or, I think, anyone else who has spoken in debates to suggest that everybody is going to lose Motability. But one problem that we face is that we are all debating in the dark, because the Government have not been able to provide figures to tell us how many people are likely to lose Motability. It would be extremely helpful for us to know that. Perhaps the noble Baroness could also confirm that in this year’s annual report Motability said that about £17 million was given by way of government aid, and that the Government will support the scheme by about the same amount during the next 12-month period. By what amount will it be reduced in the next four or five years? That will give us some hint of the reduction in the number of vehicles that will be available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I will have to write to the noble Lord on that question. I do not have that information in front of me.

I was going on to say that we are continuing to work closely with Motability to understand what impact PIP might have on the number of people who use the service and ensure that they are well placed to manage the introduction of the new benefit. Because Motability is based on an individual’s choice, it is difficult to predict the impact on Motability customer numbers from the introduction of PIP. Noble Lords have referred several times to what my noble friend Lord Freud said in response to other debates on this topic. I am not in a position to add to what he said at that time.

I understand that it would not be the noble Lord’s intention in pressing this amendment, but it is worth pointing out that one effect would be to give some kind of different treatment to those who had chosen to use Motability versus those who have not. We need to be careful that we do not run a risk of discriminating against those who have chosen not to use Motability. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intends, but it is worth making the point that there is a risk in that.

I move on to issues around Motability itself. As noble Lords have acknowledged there has been recently—only last week—an extensive debate in the House about the new regulations introducing PIP. The amendment does not address the issue of those eligible for PIP or the higher rate, once the transition is made from DLA to PIP. The amendment refers to the steps that the Secretary of State must take if someone who is a Motability leaseholder finds that they do not have sufficient sums to meet their obligations under the lease. In the case of someone who does not receive the enhanced rate of PIP, the amendment would not have an impact, as the person in question would not be eligible for a lease. That is an obvious point but it is worth mentioning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

On the point about the cost of purchasing, all the evidence suggests that a Motability car in effect acquires through its VAT exemptions and tax exemptions something like a 40% discount on what it would cost to hire a similar car in the private market, and that is before any adaptations. Given the level of income of disabled people and the poverty that we know so many of them face by being out of the labour market and having the additional costs of heating and so on associated with their disability, I cannot see how that would be a realistic option for all but a very few of them.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

All I am able to add to what I have already said is that the department is continuing its discussions with Motability to see what arrangements can be put in place to ease this burden on people as the process of replacing DLA with PIP comes on board. We expect Motability to have some measures in place by the autumn of this year. However, on the basis of this debate, I will certainly go back to the department and obtain further information about where we are with those discussions and what evidence is being examined as part of that process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, asked about advance payments that people make when leasing an expensive car with specialist adaptations and whether they lose that money if they lose eligibility, even if they are successful on appeal, as they will have lost the car. If someone loses their car as a result of PIP reassessment, any advance payment outstanding will be returned on a pro rata basis. I realise that that does not address the whole point, but I hope that it goes at least some way to addressing it.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, asked about the use of Motability cars for work and whether people who might not have access to a Motability car might be affected by this and lose their jobs. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said that in any case he thought that what my noble friend Lord Freud had said about the possibility of the use of access to work as a way of addressing some of these measures might not be an adequate response.

Although my noble friend had said that discussions were going on to see whether access to work was one way of addressing the concerns of some people who would lose Motability under PIP but who might be able to use access to work as a way of funding a car for use for work, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie correctly I think he said that this was not satisfactory because it would not address social issues. I understand what he is saying, but I think that none the less while not addressing all the issues he has raised this is an important facility that is available to disabled people to apply for. If there is a way of using that facility to help people to fund their Motability vehicles in the future, I hope it could be made possible. I would not want it to be diminished just because it does not address everything.

Finally, my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson, if I may call her my noble friend, also raised the issue of public transport, particularly outside London. I will not go into any great detail, but I am aware that the Department for Transport as recently as December published an accessibility action plan for public transport, particularly focusing on transport outside of London, and outlined what measures could be taken to improve facilities on public transport. If she would like more information on that, I will happily give it to her and put her in direct contact with the Department for Transport if she would find that helpful. I am sure the department would welcome hearing about the experiences she faces regularly on her extensive travel up and down the country.

I absolutely appreciate the concern that has been raised by noble Lords in the debate tonight that people want to see Motability remaining available for disabled people as an affordable scheme. The benefits in question are not part of this Bill, as I have already said, and I do not believe that there will be a shortfall between these benefit rates and the obligations that people have as part of an outstanding lease in the years in question. However, even if such a shortfall were to arise, Motability would absorb the cost, so the impact would not fall on the claimant. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness feel able not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

As we are in Committee, we can come back to the Minister as many times as we wish on this. I just want to pick her up on this, if I may. She has said nothing at all—unless I am being unfair to her, and I certainly do not mean to be—about the main thrust of all the arguments put by my noble friend Lord McKenzie, myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and, above all, the noble Lord, Lord Alton: that what is needed, at the very least, is a decent transitional period of grace. All that the noble Baroness has offered is the existing 28 days. That applies now, so there is no change. What movement, if any, is the Minister willing to offer us on the key point about having a transitional period of grace for those who will lose? Some 100,000 people—or 185,000, which is my crude estimate—could lose their cars in a relatively small space of time. Without a transitional period, there will be huge problems. What can the Minister tell us about that transitional period?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I regret that in the context of this Bill I am not in a position to be able to offer the noble Baroness the kind of response that I know she is looking for. I will, as I have promised, go back to the department and discuss further with colleagues and Ministers the issues that have been raised in the debate tonight. They are clearly important issues. I can see why people wanted to raise these concerns in the context of this Bill and I do not have any problem with the fact that this has been debated and discussed tonight. However, I am not in a position to offer the kind of assurance that the noble Baroness is looking for, but I will go back to the department and follow up in writing with further information, as I am able to, after I have had those discussions.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for her reply, and especially her assurance that she will ponder on some of the things that have been said in your Lordships’ House this evening and discuss them with officials and come back to us in writing. I also thank my noble friends Lady Grey-Thompson and Lord Low, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for their contributions to this evening’s debate.

The Minister is quite right that this would not be the ideal vehicle; it is not the ideal amendment. No pun is intended. But you have to take what you can in parliamentary life and this is the only Bill that is before Parliament at the present time that is capable of amendment on this crucial issue. I felt that it was incredibly unsatisfactory when we debated this issue last, when it was lumped in with a number of other unamendable regulations that we took one after another. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, rightly said, this is not an issue that has been given sufficient attention in either House during the progress of all the Bills and regulations that have been proceeding, yet it is one that causes great anxiety outside your Lordships’ House. If the estimate that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has given is correct—that 185,000 vehicles could be affected—that should give us all pause for thought. We should all stop and think about the implications for the owners and users of those vehicles. It will place limitations on their freedom of travel and their ability to get to work, schools, health appointments, shops, engage in social life, and all the other issues that have been raised during the debate.

It is also extraordinarily unfair on Motability, particularly on the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, who does such important work on behalf of disabled people throughout the country and who is held in such high esteem here in your Lordships’ House. It is unfair to expect people to operate in the unknown. I was surprised, therefore, that the noble Baroness was unable to confirm whether the £17 million mentioned in the annual report of Motability will be the figure for the following years. I am grateful to her for saying that she will establish what the figures are. That will give us some idea of where the balance of responsibility then truly lies. Obviously, we cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. If Motability has not been given adequate resources, it will not be its fault if vehicles then come to be repatriated.

I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said about the appeals process. I tabled some Written Questions just a week or so ago involving that issue, among others. I tabled four Questions and got eight lines by way of reply in which the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said that the Government have no plans to fast-track appeals to Motability customers or provide financial support to the Motability scheme to help those people who lose their vehicle through personal independence payments reassessment. It could not be clearer that not only will there be no resources made available if this position continues to apply but there will be no plans to fast-track appeals from Motability customers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, rightly told us, in the 28-day period that people will have it will simply not be possible to deal with the avalanche of appeals that will arrive.

The noble Baroness also said that there had never previously been a need to protect Motability users in the way that is set out in the amendment. However, never previously were there circumstances in which people’s Motability vehicles were going to be taken away from them. Never before were we confronted with the sequestration or repatriation of vehicles that were awarded to people as a result of a properly established process created by the department and indeed by Parliament.

The noble Baroness also said that the amendment discriminates in favour of those who have opted into the scheme. Of course, that is true. I would rather that everybody who will find their mobility allowance limited as a result of the changes will be assisted. However, simply because we cannot help every group, that is not a reason for not helping any of them. Not being able to solve the problems of the entire world is not a reason for not helping anyone.

My modest amendment simply sets out to help users of the scheme at the moment as they stand to lose their vehicles. I hope that we will address what will effectively be an even worse form of discrimination should that proceed. The amendment simply seeks to create what the noble Baroness referred to as a period of grace—the time in which the issue can be resolved. Nobody should be placed in the invidious position of being told that if they cannot afford to buy their vehicle—we are talking about vast numbers of people who by definition are living below the poverty line and so will not be in a position to buy, maintain and continue to run their vehicle—it will be taken away from them.

I do not believe that the Ministers who are sitting on the Front Bench are the sort of people who would happily or willingly see such a set of circumstances occur. That is why I hope that between now and Report it will not be left to my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson, me or others to bring forward an amendment that by definition the Government will say does not do this or that. I hope that the noble Baroness will use the Bill as an opportunity to put right something that will otherwise come back to haunt many people, including the Government, in ways that I do not believe they would wish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I support both these amendments. I have a question concerning Amendment 2. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I am slightly confused; I had understood that the rationale for not including, say, pensioners in the Bill was that that group could not be expected to make up the difference through paid work. Therefore, and in a sense this follows on from the noble Lord’s question, why are disabled people in the support group affected, albeit not as much as some other groups? According to the Disability Benefits Consortium, a person in the support group will be £138 per year worse off by 2015. That is a considerable sum for someone living on benefits, and of course the personal allowance element is larger than the element that is protected. Why does that principle of excluding groups that the Government expect to go into the labour market to somehow protect themselves not extend to people in the support group who, by virtue of being in that group, are not expected to look for paid work?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It is probably worth my summarising that the two amendments we are talking about seek to make changes to the ESA. Amendment 2 would remove from the Bill the 1% increases in the personal allowance for those in the support group, while Amendment 3 relates to those in the work-related activity group.

I understand why noble Lords have tabled these amendments and raised the points that they have in this debate. We all want to protect those who are furthest from the labour market, or who have additional costs because of disability, and that is what the Government are doing.

On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referring to the principles outlined by my noble friend Lord Freud during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act, I am clear that those principles—that we will target welfare spending to those most in need and ensure that we do not do anything to disincentivise people from pursuing work—remain intact via this Bill. We are prioritising those in greatest need.

It is right to say that there will still be some effects among disabled people through the Bill because we are including the personal allowance for both types of ESA as well as the additional element for those in the work-related activity group. However, we are ensuring that all those benefits that are paid specifically to cover the additional costs associated with disability are not included in the Bill. For example, the disability living allowance and the attendance allowance are protected, as are the disability premia in benefits such as income support, ESA, JSA and housing benefit, and we have excluded the disability elements of tax credits from the Bill.

In many cases, the basic rate of ESA is just one element of the total package of benefits received. Many people on ESA are also in receipt of other benefits, such as DLA, to which I have just referred, and housing benefit. It is worth noting that around 65% of people in the support group also claim DLA. The point I am trying to make here is that ESA is not the only benefit that most people are relying on. People in the support group receive a component worth £34.80 a week, as has already been said, and they are also automatically entitled to the enhanced disability premium of £14.80 a week if eligible for income-related ESA. We should not forget that some people will be eligible for the severe disability premium or the carer premium. All these are protected, like the support component. Income-related ESA households where a member of the couple is over pension age also receive a pensioner premium to ensure that the rate of benefit is the equivalent of the pension credit rate. This rate is also uprated as normal.

My noble friend Lord German asked in particular about the personal allowance aspect of ESA and why it is included in the Bill. It is important for me to be clear that the personal allowance is there to provide basic support. It is designed to meet the basic needs of all those on out-of-work income-related benefits. The personal allowance is consistent across all benefits which relate to those of working age. There is a standard amount. For single people, it is currently £71 a week. It is important that I am clear that this rate is common across all claimants who receive ESA, JSA, income support and housing benefit and reflects the fact that they perform a similar function of providing basic support for everyday needs. They do not reflect disability or the additional costs of disability, so therefore it is right that they are set at a standard rate. That is the rationale for including the personal allowance in this Bill and for the personal allowance to be subject to the 1% cap on annual increases. Treating one personal allowance rate differently from that in other benefits would mean that there would be no clear level of income at which state support is set and at which access to other help would be available across a wide range of services. It would also introduce an element of complexity in terms of the coherence of the benefit system which would introduce new challenges and be likely to add further costs to the running of the overall system.

As has been acknowledged, the support group component is protected, so it is not included in the Bill. It is the component element of ESA which differentiates the need based on the effects of a disability or a condition. That particular component relates to the effects of a specific disability. The support group component is paid in recognition of the fact that more severely disabled people are less likely to be able to increase their income by moving into work and may have additional needs. Therefore we pay those in the support group a higher increase than those in the work-related activity group.

It is worth making the point that for those in the work-related activity group, ESA is not like the old incapacity benefits that usually led to people being in receipt of that benefit for a long period. This is intended to be a short-term benefit for those in this group. Those who are placed in the work-related activity group are there because they have been found able to prepare for work. As such, they will be referred for appropriate support, training and provision to ensure that they get the help they need. ESA for people in that group is intended to be a short-term benefit and we expect these claimants to be closer to the labour market and be in a better position to prepare for work. Therefore, while they may not be looking for work immediately in receipt of that benefit, they have some ability to affect their own incomes. That is why it is right that the annual increase for those in the work-related activity group should—unlike that for those in the support group—be fully within the scope of the Bill.

In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, again referred to the alternative option of the Government bringing forward annual orders rather than introducing the Bill. It is important for me to stress heavily that a central purpose of the Bill, in addition to achieving savings, is to provide certainty. I will say that regularly throughout the passage of the Bill; it is an important aspect of what we are doing. I know that the noble Lord seeks to undermine that, but it is central to what we are trying to do. It is important that we recognise the long-term benefits of providing that certainty; that is how we retain the credibility of the Government’s fiscal policy.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can the Minister explain to me the certainty that is achieved for claimants on the real value of their benefits as a result of the Bill?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The point I am making, which the noble Lord is clear about, is that the Bill still provides annual increases in benefits, but at a reduced rate for some elements of those benefits. We are doing this in the way that we propose because it adds to the certainty. As I told the noble Lord when we were outside the Chamber, the IMF was very clear that to anchor market expectations, policymakers need to specify adequately detailed medium-term plans for lowering debt ratios, which must be backed by binding legislation or fiscal frameworks. This is part of what we are doing, and why it is important.

As I have said, despite the economic situation, which we have already discussed today at some length, we have found the resources to fund a 1% increase in working-age benefits and, in doing so, protected the incomes of disabled people as far as we can—especially those elements which are provided to cover the additional costs of disabled people.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said that it would not be hugely expensive to accept these amendments and to make this change. It is important that I make it clear to the Committee that accepting these amendments would mean a loss of £340 million in savings, which we would have to find elsewhere. Those in the work-related activity group are deemed able to prepare for work and, as such, are better placed to be able to improve their income levels. Therefore, we believe it right that the component is also within the scope of the Bill.

Personal allowance rates are common across the working-age benefit system, as I have already said, reflecting the fact that they perform the same function: to provide basic support for everyday needs. Accepting these amendments would therefore break away from that model and would create additional complexity in the benefits system. Our proposals are proportionate. Although I understand the concerns and points that have been raised in the debate—please believe me, I do—what is being proposed here is fair. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Meacher]

Are the Government more concerned about certainty for the Government or certainty for the claimant? If the Government are concerned about certainty for the claimant, would it not be better to say that benefits would be uprated to the extent of 1% or 2% less than inflation, for example? That way, the claimant would know that they would not have a cut in their income of more than 1% or 2% a year. That would provide a level of certainty for the claimant, whereas it seems that the Bill is after certainty for the Government. Is that correct?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness was not here at Second Reading when I laid out the purpose of the Bill and its wider context. In response to her question, my point is that this proposal is about certainty, so that in the long-term it will result in a better future for everyone. It is also about taking measures now which are difficult and will affect people but which have the sole purpose of helping us to achieve a stronger economy so that in future years all of us will benefit. That is what I mean when I talk about certainty.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, as the Minister will recall, that is not exactly what the impact analysis said nor exactly what she said at the pre-meeting on this Bill, which was very helpful. I am sure that we all appreciated it. She made the point that it was about certainty for the markets, certainty for the Government and certainty for the claimants. Many of us pressed her on the fact that certainty for the Government, the markets or the claimants depended not just on what the level of inflation would be but also on what the number of claimants would be in order to get some estimate of what spending would be. The Government had no way at all of forecasting two out of the three factors that went into giving themselves some comfort about their uncertainty.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The point that I was making at Second Reading and continue to make is that certainty is a means to an end. It is through certainty for the Government, certainty for the markets and certainty in these measures that we will achieve a stronger economy. That is what I am talking about.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, this simply will not give you certainty. The whole of the impact analysis brief was a set of mythological language. This will not do what the Government claim. I understand that they are seeking to cut possible expenditure demands but to say that this is about certainty is simply an abuse of language, if I may say so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I start by thanking the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester, for these amendments. I hope he will understand that, should he press them to a vote tonight, he would present us with a little difficulty. I doubt that will come as a surprise. The difficulty is that the strictures under which we are operating mean that we cannot at this stage make commitments in respect of the next Parliament. Clearly, an uprating in the tax year beginning 5 April 2015 would operate in the subsequent year, which crosses that particular line.

Having said that, there is much to support and sympathise with in the case made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. We on this side wish universal credit well and hope that it will deliver that which is promised for it. However, we know that there are a number of teething problems; we think the Government have been right to extend the introduction way beyond the original intention. It therefore seems to me that very important questions have been raised about why we should at this stage include universal credit within these provisions. We on these Benches want to see everything outside this Bill; we think that would be the right way forward, but certainly the universal credit would be a start.

The issue of work incentives is very important. Although we probably do not espouse it often enough, I think we have a shared view around this Chamber about the importance of work, which is the route out of poverty for most people. It generally seems to be better for their health and well-being and all those things. Therefore, it is crucial that any measures such as this support the proposition that we should try to get people into work when they can work, and help them get closer to the labour market when they cannot.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, widened the debate to discuss the broader impact of this Bill on child poverty. The figure of 200,000 is the one that was identified by the Minister in the other place. That comes on top of IFS figures, which suggest that another 800,000 children are going into poverty as a result of measures since 2010—in a sense, reversing the gains of the past decade for children and women, too. Therefore, without being able to support the wording of the amendment formally tonight, there is much for us to reflect on and support in the right reverend Prelate’s proposals. I hope that between now and Report—particularly picking up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—we could end up in a position where we were not only in sympathy but were marching through the same Lobby.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, we have covered a lot of ground with these amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. I will do my best to cover that ground. It is probably worth starting by noting some common issues raised by this group of amendments. They come under the headings of their impact on savings from the Bill, their impact on certainty—as I have already talked about—and the inclusion of in-work benefits. I will then refer to some of the points related to housing. Before I begin, however, I note that the right reverend Prelate has added his name to Amendment 13, which removes housing benefit and personal allowances from the schedule, but Amendment 13 is to be discussed later as part of a different group.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I should have said when I got up to speak that Amendment 13 was originally part of this group but unwittingly got moved to be grouped with two later housing benefit amendments in the names of my noble friends. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for that.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I was going to say that because Amendment 21, which inserts housing benefit and personal allowances into a different part of the schedule, and Amendment 5, which places a duty to uprate by at least prices, are reliant on Amendment 13, I will speak to the amendments in this group as if Amendment 13 were assumed. I hope that makes sense. Hopefully, we are all following each other in respect of these different amendments.

Noble Lords have already outlined the effects that the amendments would have on the Bill. In broad terms, the legislation would revert to the existing annual exercise of discretion by the Secretary of State. To remove these benefits and payments from the Bill would reduce savings by around £800 million in 2015-16: that is, around £600 million that year from removing universal credit, which would increase over time as more households moved to universal credit; around £160 million that year from removing working tax credits; and, under Amendment 13, around £60 million that year from removing housing benefit and personal allowances—in total, an £800 million reduction in the Bill’s savings in the final year, which is about 40% of the Bill’s savings.

I have to disagree with the right reverend Prelate and say that it would simply not be affordable to give up those savings. If we look at the two years of the Bill together, we are talking about a loss of £1.1 billion in savings. As I have said before, none of these decisions is easy, but we have to recognise that if we do not take the savings that this Bill provides in the way it does, this money will have to be found elsewhere.

While I am talking about general matters, it might be worth responding to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, either just now or in an earlier debate—I cannot remember—about the wide range of changes that the Government are introducing in welfare reform. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is not in her place, but she also made the point in an earlier debate. We are making a lot of changes to the welfare system. We absolutely believe in those changes; we think that we are doing the right thing and that those changes will result in a much more effective system. It is safe for me to say that in broad terms most of those changes have received support from the House. There has been recognition on all sides that the welfare system as it stood needed to be reformed. As we move into 2013-14, a lot of those changes will be implemented, so it will no longer be a discussion in theory; it will be real in practice. Of course, as we go through the implementation phase, we will ensure that all changes are implemented in a way that we designed them to be made and that they have the effect and the outcomes that we set out in the legislation. This is not something that we will not be closely involved in to make sure that things operate in the way that we intended.

While talking about general issues, it is perhaps worth responding to points raised about cumulative impacts and assessments. I know that my noble friend Lord Newby referred to this in his response to the first group of amendments, but the matter having been raised again it is worth making a couple of points. The Government introduced a new system of greater transparency around impacts and we publish the impacts of government policy every time there is a fiscal event. The last time we did this was in the Autumn Statement. That cumulative impact includes information about changes to all tax, welfare and public spending policy that can be modelled since the June Budget of 2010.

So far that analysis has not included universal credit, and a separate analysis shows that 75% of the gains from universal credit goes to the bottom 40% of the income distribution. It is worth adding that the IFS has acknowledged that the effects of reforms, such as those to DLA and housing benefit, cannot be precisely modelled, but as I say we are producing quite a lot of information. It is there and publicly available, but let us not forget that all those assessments are against the previous Government’s plans for this period—this Parliament, had they come into power—and we have acknowledged that those plans were not affordable. We are assessing something against a benchmark that we have already acknowledged we cannot afford.

A key principle of this Bill is the certainty that it gives as part of the Government’s fiscal plans. I have said that before, and said then that I hoped noble Lords would not tire of me saying it. I will not tire of saying it to the House as it is important. By taking these benefits out of the Bill and thereby restoring the annual exercise of discretion in relation to prices, the amendments would undermine the key principle of certainty. Amendments 4 and 5, if taken with the others, would make it a requirement to uprate universal credit, working tax credit elements and housing benefit personal allowances by at least prices. I am not sure whether that is the intention, but the amendments would take us further than existing legislation, while not giving a firm commitment to addressing the deficit that the Bill provides.

Noble Lords have talked about the inclusion of in-work benefits and questioned whether these should be included. We cannot escape the fact that some working households will be affected. I am not seeking to suggest for one moment that they will not. Tax credits, for example, account for around £30 billion of expenditure this year. Tax credit spending rocketed under the previous Government by an extraordinary 340% compared with the benefits they replaced. Eligibility for tax credits was extended to nine out of 10 families with children, so it would be unrealistic to exclude the benefits received by working people from these decisions that we are taking. For my part I think people understand that. There is a general recognition that this element of spending could not be excluded, particularly when those in work are facing tight restrictions, if not freezes, to their own pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

When the Minister talks about housing benefit, does she include local housing allowance? I think not.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

No, I do not. The Bill relates to the personal allowance element of housing benefit. The noble Baroness refers to another announcement in the Autumn Statement. This Bill concerns the personal allowance component of housing benefit.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

What about the personal allowance in local housing allowance?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I do not think that it is included, but I will check.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps the Minister would write to me.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I think I am clear that the Bill refers just to the personal allowance for housing benefit. If I am wrong, I will of course correct that.

As I said, if we were to change the personal allowance for housing benefit, we would introduce inconsistency to the way in which this part of in-work benefit is calculated. There would no longer be consistency between the different kinds of personal allowances that apply to different benefits. In addition to increasing the complexity of the system, this would lead to additional costs.

Before I conclude, I will respond to a question from my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, who asked about costing methodology. I confirm that costs have been modelled and presented in a way that is consistent with the Autumn Statement. I will be happy to provide further details to the noble Lord before Report.

The Government are supporting working households. One of the key ways in which we are doing that is by taking tough decisions to reduce public spending, reduce the deficit and restore economic growth. The amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, including Amendment 13, would reduce the savings of the Bill by about 40%—or £800 million—in 2015-16 alone. Not including in-work benefits in the Bill would be simply unaffordable. Therefore, I ask the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

Perhaps I might ask the Minister about work allowances, which were referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. The Minister’s response left me unsure whether, as time goes on, they will be increased in line with inflation. They are a major element of support for those who are in work.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am sorry, I should have been clearer. Work allowances will be increased by 1% in 2014-15 and in 2015-16. That was announced in the Autumn Statement.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to noble Lords who contributed to this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, underlined my concern about lone parents and reminded us that the effect of the Bill compounds the effect of so much other legislation that is going through at the moment. In particular he made the point that universal credit is the central architecture of welfare for the future and reminded us that, in his view, the savings are not worth the candle, and the effect of including universal credit in the uprating provisions will be to prejudice so much that is good about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, passionately expressed her concern about more children being tipped into poverty, and about the very wide margin by which it is now clear we will miss the 2020 children in poverty targets. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, indicated that his party shared concerns about universal credit and work allowances.

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. She reminded the House that my proposals for excluding universal credit simply cannot be afforded. I hope she will hear that it is very clear that many people in this House doubt whether the argument that we cannot as a nation afford to provide enough to keep the poorest out of destitution sits at all comfortably with the House. I continue to have many concerns about restricting the uprating of benefits to 1%, especially for families, children and the many in work who receive benefits. As others have said, I hope that the Government will continue to reflect carefully on the direction of the Bill, and I look forward to their response on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I thank noble Lords very much for this debate. I should say at the start that although Amendment 13 is caught in this group, as I covered quite a bit of it in the previous discussion I will not go over it again, except to say that since the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the personal allowance of housing benefit, it is worth me repeating this for clarity’s sake. First, eligible rent will continue to be wholly covered by housing benefit for those who continue to satisfy the income test for all income-related benefits, including housing benefit. Secondly, renters in low-paid work will still be better off than they would be on out-of-work benefits. Work will continue to pay. Although that relates to the previous discussion, I wanted to say that again because the noble Lord, Lord Best, had raised it.

I turn to Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and Amendment 12A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. As they have explained, their amendments seek to specify how the Government should monitor and review the uprating of local housing allowance. It is probably worth my saying from the outset that, as noble Lords know, I am new to this policy area and on housing I very much bow to the long-term experience and expertise of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I know that they have a huge amount of knowledge in this area.

Noble Lords should be aware that the uprating of local housing allowance is not covered by this Bill. Reference has been made to that; it is made under separate secondary legislation, providing independent rent officers with a remit to set rates under specified rules. None the less, I will try to respond fully to the issues that these amendments cover. Now might be a good point for me to reconfirm a point that I made in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about personal allowance in LHA. What I said to her in response to the previous debate is correct: the local housing allowance simply sets the local maximum for eligible rents, and calculation of housing benefit to meet that eligible rent is not part of the Bill.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the Minister help me on the point that she made slightly before saying that it was not covered by the Bill, et cetera? It is certainly the case, is it not, that housing benefit and local housing allowance in the forthcoming year will rise by CPI? It is not caught by the 1% figure that other benefits are but thereafter, for the following two years, it will be capped by 1%. Is the Minister saying that that will not happen, or that it will but that it will done through the route of looping it through advice or instructions to rent officers by regulations?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Absolutely; it is the second. I am not disputing the fact that it will be capped at 1% for 2014-15 and 2015-16, but that will not be done via this Bill. That is just a point of process.

As noble Lords will know, the total bill for housing benefit has doubled in cash terms over the past decade and if unreformed by 2014-15, it would cost us more than £25 billion. This is why we are taking a number of measures to reduce housing benefit expenditure, including limiting increases in the local housing allowance to 1% for two years from 2014-15, as we have just discussed. This change will make a crucial contribution to the essential deficit reduction strategy but it will do more than that. As the Government are a major player in the private rented market, it will also exert downward pressure on rents—a point made by my noble friend Lord Bates. Where rents are increasing rapidly, there should be no presumption that the taxpayer should pick up the bill.

Noble Lords referred to the need to monitor affordability of accommodation for benefit claimants during the period where the limits are in place. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Freud and his response when this matter was discussed during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill. I certainly agree with what she described; I also agree with his decision. That is why we have already put in place a strong monitoring and evaluation plan. I reassure noble Lords that this is in place in light of that discussion that took place during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill. My noble friend has honoured his commitment made at that time.

The Government have introduced a number of changes to the way that local housing allowance rates are calculated, including a cap on rates.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again but, before she goes on, she is saying that she confirms that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, made the commitment and that that commitment is now in the process of being delivered by a current review. Is she referring to the original review that was established by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is she saying that the terms of reference of that original review have been extended or, thirdly, is she saying that there is a further review for this particular aspect in order to deliver the pledge made by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, that he would keep under review any possibility of significant divergence between market trends and housing benefit?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I hope that as I continue to respond to the debate I will answer the question that the noble Baroness has just asked.

We have commissioned a consortium, led by Ian Cole of Sheffield University, to carry out an independent review of these changes. The interim report is due to be published in spring this year and the final report in early 2014. In addition, to monitor the specific effects of LHA uprating we have put in place a process for publishing on an annual basis a comparison of local housing allowance rates and the 30th percentile of market rents.

The first annual publication of these data took place in November last year and was carried out independently by the rent officers who set LHA rates and collect the most authoritative data on market rents. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked for some evidence. The published data show that only one-quarter of LHA rates have been subject to the CPI limit and more than one in 10 rates have actually fallen in line with local rents, to answer the point that my noble friend Lord Bates raised. At this moment we are not seeing a general divergence between LHA rates and market rents.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to several different potential outcomes from the changes that we have made. A couple of things were proposed, suggested or estimated during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act, one of them being a suggestion that 42% of landlords would scale back on housing benefit tenants. The reality is that the housing benefit caseload has actually risen in London by 5% in, I think, the past year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that no properties would be available to benefit claimants. Private sector landlords are not turning away housing benefit claimants. Since April 2011, when we introduced our first reforms of the LHA, the PRS caseload, as I just said, increased, and that includes London and the south-east.

The noble Baroness also made reference to rent control and suggested that that might be the way forward. We absolutely dispute that; we say that it would not make more homes available at rents that people could afford. We experienced regulated rents in the private sector some decades ago and they shrank from 55% of households in 1939 to 8% by the late 1980s.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I was not recommending rent control. I was merely saying that if you are not going to increase the supply and rents continue to rise—and all the evidence is that they are—then that is one possibility. It is not one that I support because I would much prefer the Government increasing the supply of stock.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I think that I have just provided the noble Baroness with some evidence to show that rents are not actually increasing in light of the changes that we have made. Rents are actually coming down. We are having some success in downward pressure on rents.

We have taken care to retain some flexibility to react if problems with affordability emerge along with the need to take action should significant divergences emerge between LHA rates and market rents. We have set aside £140 million over two years from 2014-15 to help people most affected by the new 1% limit. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred specifically to effects in London, and I can confirm that the funding that has been set aside will be there to address areas precisely such as London and the south-east. Our intention is to increase the local housing allowance rates by more than 1% in areas where rent increases are causing a shortage of affordable accommodation. Rather than specifying the details in legislation now, however, we plan to develop our approach in spring this year before making final details available in the autumn so that we can reflect the views of key stakeholders and take account of the most up-to-date evidence before making decisions.

Media and Creative Industries: Equality

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure cultural diversity and promotion of equality in the media and creative industries.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that equality is promoted in the media and creative industries in line with duties set out in legislation, including the Equality and Communications Acts. However, we do not have a role in influencing the content or output of these sectors, which must remain independent of government. Nevertheless, Ministers maintain a regular dialogue on issues relating to diversity and equality. Most recently, that has included increasing the media coverage of women in sport and the representation of disabled people.

[Baroness Benjamin]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. As Danny Boyle demonstrated in the Olympic opening ceremony, diversity throughout the creative industries is incredibly influential in how modern Britain is portrayed and represented. Unfortunately, at present there is no pan-industry system of monitoring diversity to hold television or other creative sectors accountable and ensure that they attract, retain and increase talent from a range of different backgrounds. What measures are in place to ensure that the creative industries are employing and fulfilling their diversity responsibilities, and does my noble friend agree that standardised monitoring would provide valuable data? Will she work with PACT, UK Music and others in identifying how such measuring systems could be introduced?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. We all want to see ourselves reflected in the media and for that reflection to be accurate in its portrayal. The Government certainly welcome the work by PACT, the Creative Diversity Network and broadcasters to devise a common system for monitoring diversity onscreen and offscreen. We understand that discussions are progressing well between these groups to consider how to standardise a system of diversity monitoring across the industry, and that the first pan-industry measurements are expected to be collected by the end of this year. However, we believe that it is absolutely right that the industry lead this initiative itself. While we look forward to hearing about this system and its results, we have no plans at present to mandate it because we believe most fundamentally in the independence of the media.

[Baroness King of Bow]

My Lords, I declare an interest as Channel 4’s diversity executive. Further to the earlier Question, I wondered if the Minister was aware of the lack of social diversity in terms of social mobility and social background in the media. Will she support broadcasters that are going out beyond non-traditional backgrounds, and particularly beyond non-media hubs, to find young people from those backgrounds who are not so much involved in the media industry at present?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I share the point that the noble Baroness has raised. I am aware that the BBC, which is the main public service broadcaster, has the largest responsibility to ensure that it is reaching out to new people in terms of its workforce. There are a couple of schemes that the noble Baroness may or may not be aware of. A BBC apprenticeship scheme has recruited over 50 apprentices in the past 18 to 20 months, 30% of whom were from the black and minority ethnic communities. The BBC’s work experience scheme has ensured since January 2011 that 60% are from BME backgrounds, and of those 21% have secured paid work at the BBC. The latter scheme has been recommended for an award for extending diversity in the workplace.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, do the Government accept that cultural diversity in the creative industries will have significant roots in school education? If so, will the Minister say what they are doing to encourage every child, whatever their background, to have the best possible education in art and design subjects?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Earl raises an important point about how we can ensure that people’s aspirations at school are broadened and increased to include areas which might not be most obvious to them. I certainly support that. I do not have a specific response to the noble Earl on his question, but I will see whether I can follow up in writing.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, following the question from the noble Baroness, Lady King, I wonder if the Minister is aware that not only the young but also the old need to be cared for. Is she aware that the media, and particularly the BBC, are very short of women over 50 at the moment? Does she not think that it is time that that was brought under control a bit more?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As I said in response to the first question, it is important for all of us to see ourselves reflected in the media, whether that means people who come from the area that we come from or people who are of a similar age. The most important point is that the broadcasters themselves should acknowledge the issue and take action. I was certainly heartened when the last director-general of the BBC was willing to acknowledge that there was a problem and took steps to improve the situation.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, does the Minister not think it would be a real contribution if the GREAT campaign, which has had such a success, were to include diversity as one of the issues that we celebrate in this country and promote to others to emulate?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble and learned Baroness raises a very interesting point and I would find it hard to disagree with what she suggests. I will certainly take back that recommendation to the department.

[Baroness Thornton]

The issue of older women in the media has already been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and she is quite right. I am sure that this House appreciates that the new generation of older women in the media does not fancy the idea of being written off and regarded as past it when they are 60, 50 or even 40. Can the Minister go into more detail about how the Government intend to monitor this situation and what they intend to do about it?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The system of monitoring that I referred to in answer to my noble friend Lady Benjamin’s Question, which the broadcasters are in discussion about at the moment, will include age as well as ethnic diversity. It is up to the broadcaster to gather that information and to make it transparent. We share the principle of transparency, which is why we have introduced the Think, Act, Report initiative about diversity in the workplace more generally.

Universal Credit Regulations 2013

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Recently I hosted a wonderful evening in the River Room on behalf of the CPAG during which Simon Callow gave a moving and illuminating talk on Charles Dickens’ anger over child poverty. Dickens would have recognised and condemned the mean spirit at work here all too well.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, this is a very important debate and I know that many noble Lords have contributions that they wish to make. However, it is worth reminding the House that although this is a Motion, the guidance in the Companion still stands in terms of the length of speeches. Some noble Lords have been brief and I am grateful to them. However, the Companion states that speeches are expected to be kept within 15 minutes as a maximum. We have exceeded that on a couple of occasions this afternoon.

Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2013

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the draft order laid before the House on 8 January be approved.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 7 February.

Motion agreed.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, the Bill before us is about securing a stronger economy for the future. Noble Lords are well aware of the challenge we currently face. We are dealing with a deficit which is unprecedented in peacetime. Back in 2010, we were borrowing £1 in every £4 that we spent, and interest payments were costing us £85 million a day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to my noble friend. Back in 2010, we were borrowing £1 in every £4 that we spent, and interest payments were costing us £85 million a day. We have begun to make progress on that deficit—it has since reduced by a quarter. But there are still difficult decisions to be taken if we want a stronger economy that delivers a better future for everyone. Let me be clear about that: everyone, all of us, whoever we are, deserves the chance to do the best for ourselves and our families.

Several commentators have said that we should look first to make savings from those with the broadest shoulders—the richest in society—and I am proud to say that we are. This Government’s plans increase the total tax contribution from the most well off. As a result of our actions, the richest pay more tax on capital gains, more stamp duty on their homes, more tax on their pensions and are less able to avoid or evade tax. The top 20% of households continue to make the greatest contribution towards reducing the deficit. The Autumn Statement raises more than £1 billion pounds a year from the richest and more than £8.5 billion over the forecast period. Overall, the richest will pay more in tax during this Parliament than under the previous Government’s tax plans.

However, as we seek to reduce the deficit and retain credibility with financial markets, we cannot ignore the welfare budget. From 1997 to 2010 spending on working age welfare increased by some 60% in real terms. Today, it accounts for £1 in every £8 that the Government spend. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:

“When cutting public spending dramatically to help reduce an unsustainable budget deficit it is almost inevitable that spending on benefits and tax credits—which account for 30% of the government’s total budget—will be targeted”.

But in seeking savings from welfare, we have always sought to strike a balance, and that is true of this Bill.

The Bill provides for most working-age benefits, tax credits and statutory payments to be subject to a 1% increase in 2014-15 and 2015-16. I will not go through the full list but it is set out in the Schedule to the Bill and the Explanatory Notes. As a result of this, the Bill will save £1.9 billion in 2015-16. We have also retained safeguards for a number of key benefits, which will not be subject to the provisions in the Bill.

For pensioners, we are maintaining our commitment to the triple lock, a commitment which will see the basic state pension rise by earnings, prices, or 2.5%, whichever is highest. In 2013-14, when both prices and earnings growth are below 2.5%, we will ensure that the poorest pensioners will see the same cash increase by over-indexing the guarantee element in pension credit, which would normally rise with earnings. In addition, for disabled people and carers, we have committed to uprating benefits covering additional needs to the costs that they incur because of their disabilities in line with inflation. The protection applies to disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carers allowance, the disability premiums in working age benefits, the disability elements in tax credits, the carer premium and the support component of the employment and support allowance. Those are not included in this Bill: they are protected. We have sought to find a balance between making necessary savings and protecting those who are least able to increase their spending power.

We have also sought to strike a balance between supporting those on benefits while containing the costs of the welfare system. Let us not forget that most people have faced significant pay restraint in recent years. Looking at average incomes over the past five years, including those in low-paid jobs, those in work saw their incomes rise half as quickly as those on out-of-work benefits, at a rate of 10% compared to 20%. Let us not forget that public sector workers have had their pay frozen and then increased by just 1%. Indeed, even with the 1% increase on these benefits, on current projections out-of-work benefits will still be at a higher level in 2015-16 than if they had been uprated by average earnings growth since the financial crisis began. While people want to know that the welfare system is there for them in hard times, when they need to draw on it, they also want to be confident that it reflects the budgeting decisions that people have to take in work and that it incentivises people to find and take work.

By setting out clear savings commitments in legislation, the Bill also seeks to give certainty, both to taxpayers and to the markets, that this Government are committed to securing fiscal credibility in the years ahead, and it is “the years ahead” that I am particularly concerned with. Investing in credibility and stability is an investment for the long term, and it is, of course, a means to an end. Yes, we have to rebalance the public finances, but not simply so that we can point to a nicely balanced budget in the ledger.

In my eyes, the real end is ensuring that the next generation can benefit from a stable and growing economy, one where they are able to secure a job, become productive members of society and get on in life. I do not believe we can achieve that end without taking these difficult decisions.

Noble Lords need not look far for reassurance that this Government’s approach is the right one. In Spain and Greece, one in every two young people in the labour force is unemployed. Italy and Portugal are not far behind. I do not pretend that unemployment is not a problem in this country, but the decisions that we have taken to restore the public finances and the credibility and stability we have secured with the financial markets have been key to securing the stability of our own labour market. Over the past year, the UK employment rate has grown faster than any other G7 country. Employment in the private sector is up by more than 1 million since the election, while the last quarter saw further improvement in youth unemployment, a fall in long-term unemployment and a fall in unemployment overall. For me, this underlines the critical importance of the Government’s fiscal plans. We are trying to repair a damaged economy so that we can secure something that makes a real difference to people’s lives—a sound economy backed by an expanding labour market for them and for future generations.

But a sound economy has to go hand in hand with a strong social settlement. We can get the economy going again, but we will have failed if we still have a welfare system which does not make work worth while. So at the same time as we are restoring the public finances, I would ask your Lordships to remember that we are working to restore the welfare system as well. This year will see the introduction of universal credit, an historic change that will create a welfare system that is simpler, more effective, and designed to ensure that work pays. We expect some 3.1 million households to gain from the move to universal credit, on average by £168 per month. This is a progressive reform. Around 75% of the households that gain are in the bottom 40% of the income distribution. Overall, we believe that universal credit could lead to the equivalent of up to 300,000 additional people in work through improved financial incentives alone.

It is important that we see this Bill in its broader context. It enables the Government to make savings that are crucial to reducing the deficit and to maintaining our credibility with the financial markets while protecting those on fixed incomes or with additional needs. But at its heart it is a Bill for the long term, one that plays a crucial role in repairing the public finances, and so one that is an investment in a sound and stable economy in the future, and a future that is better for everyone. It is on that basis that I commend this Bill to your Lordships’ House.

Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2013

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2013.

Relevant documents: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 provides a framework within which the UK can make and execute requests for mutual legal assistance. In an effort to further improve international co-operation, we are seeking to designate the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Chile and Ukraine as participating countries for the purpose of various sections of that Act. The designations that will be made under the order are necessary as these three countries have ratified the second additional protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959.

This convention is an important instrument as it forms the international basis for numerous incoming and outgoing requests. The second additional protocol is aimed at strengthening mutual legal assistance among parties and widening the scope of available mutual legal assistance. Under the 2003 Act, a state must fall within the definition of participating country contained in Section 51(2)(b) of the Act in order for the UK to seek and provide mutual legal assistance to a country in accordance with these provisions.

A country falls to be regarded as a participating country if it was a member state of the European Union on the date at which the relevant provisions of the 2003 Act were commenced or if it has been designated as a participating country by an order made by the Secretary of State. As Armenia, Chile and Ukraine are not EU member states, this order seeks to designate them as participating countries for the purpose of various sections of the Act.

The effect of the designations will be as follows. First, designation of the relevant states as participating countries for the purposes of Section 31 of, and paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to, the 2003 Act will allow the UK to execute requests for witnesses in this country to give evidence in foreign proceedings by telephone and ensure that where such evidence is given the process is supervised by a court in the participating country.

Secondly, designation of the relevant states as participating countries for the purposes of Section 47 will allow the temporary transfer of UK prisoners to that participating country to assist with investigations into an offence which was, or may have been, committed in the UK. Thirdly, designation for the purpose of Section 48 will allow the temporary transfer of prisoners from a participating country to the UK to assist with investigations into an offence which was, or may have been, committed in that participating country.

The UK is committed to improving the provision of mutual legal assistance, and this order will enhance the level of co-operation that the UK can offer to, and seek from, other countries. This is a key tool in combating cross-border crime and ensuring justice for British victims of crime. I commend the order to the Committee, and I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, it would probably be an exaggeration to say that there was an enormous amount of interest in this order. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for the explanation of the purpose of the order, which activates powers within the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 to add to the list of countries with which mutual legal assistance in criminal matters exists. The 2003 Act was enacted to implement ratification of the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 2000. The 2000 convention extended and improved the facilities for mutual legal assistance created under the earlier non-EU convention of 1959.

The 2000 EU convention requires participating member states to meet requests from each other to facilitate criminal investigations, including sharing of investigation documents, transmission of stolen objects, video conferencing of witnesses, covert investigations and interception of telecommunications.

Non-EU countries which have ratified the second additional protocol to the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters can be added to the list of EU member states that are required to participate, but this designation as a participating country must be done by order, and this order adds the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Chile and the Ukraine to the list of participating countries. The second additional protocol, to which I have referred, provides for hearings by teleconference, as the Minister has said, and for the temporary transfer of detained persons to another country.

In view of recent pronouncements, it is not clear whether the order we are being invited to approve will have a long shelf life. Last October, the Home Secretary announced that the Government planned to opt out of all 134 EU crime and policing measures negotiated prior to the Lisbon treaty through the UK’s prerogative under Protocol 36. That approach is, of course, in line with the apparent majority government view that the EU should be a free trade area and not much else beyond that.

The 2000 EU convention is now due to be amended by the directive on the European investigation order, which is currently waiting for adoption by the European Parliament. As I understand it, if the European investigation order directive is not adopted by the time the Government decide to exercise their opt-out from the 134 EU policing and crime measures, which the Government could do at any time before 31 May 2014, the EU 2000 Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance between the UK and EU member states on criminal investigation matters would cease to apply to the United Kingdom.

Other significant mutual agreements that would also be lost by the 2000 EU convention ceasing to apply to the UK include: the establishment of the European arrest warrant, which has seen 600 criminals returned to Britain to face justice, including terrorists, and, most recently, a teacher suspected of abduction; minimum standards across the EU for counterterrorism co-operation, skills and expertise; sharing of criminal records, which would include, for example, those of a known sex offender travelling to Britain from another EU member state; co-operation on the identification of laundered money; co-operation between member states in tracing and freezing criminal assets; agreements with Interpol on sharing intelligence; and agreements with the United States on the processing of passenger name records data by airlines.

Given that the Home Secretary has already indicated her preference to opt out of all 134 EU crime and policing measures, including, presumably, the 2000 EU convention, what is the Government’s purpose in seeking to add to the list of partner countries with which mutual assistance under the 2000 convention applies? Can the Minister say what will happen to the mutual assistance agreements with these three additional countries referred to in this order if the Government proceed with their declared wish to exercise their opt-out from the 134 EU crime and policing measures, including, presumably, the 2000 EU convention? Will we still have a mutual assistance agreement with the three countries referred to in this order or is the mutual assistance agreement with these three countries dependent on our not having opted out of the 134 EU crime and policing measures, including the 2000 EU convention, since the agreement with these three countries is not bilateral but through the European Union?

If the Government feel that there is merit in having mutual assistance agreements with the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Chile and the Ukraine, will the Minister say what effect the 2000 EU convention ceasing to apply to the United Kingdom would have in terms of our ability to pursue criminal investigations and bring to justice offenders based in these three additional participating countries?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Although he did not say it, I take it from his comments that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, supports the order. I am grateful to him for that.

On his broader point about the Government’s decision on opting out from the European justice and home affairs measures in the European Union, as he knows, discussions about this are taking place within the Government and an assessment is being made of the value of those arrangements to the UK. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said very clearly to Parliament, the Government’s current intention is to opt out of all measures and to seek to rejoin those where it is in the national interest to do so. The Government have committed to a vote in both Houses before a final decision is made. The priority is to ensure that the final decision is, as I say, in the UK’s national interest.

If the UK decides to opt out, en masse, of all 134 EU measures, we still have the Council of Europe convention of 1959. This is not an EU measure and so it does not fall within the scope of the 2014 opt-out decision. However, in light of the fact that, as the noble Lord said, there are no other noble Lords participating in the debate today, my answer to the point that he raised is clear: this order is necessary to allow the UK to continue to fulfil its international obligations and to ensure that the UK can successfully prosecute international crime and achieve justice for British victims of such crime. Again, I commend it to the Committee.

[Lord Rosser]

I am certainly not going to oppose the order but if the European Investigation Order directive is not adopted by the time the Government decide to exercise an opt-out from the 134 EU policing and crime measures—which they could do at any time before 31 May 2014—is it true that the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the UK and EU member states ceases to apply to the United Kingdom? If that is the case, what effect does it have on the mutual assistance agreements with the three countries referred to in the order?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As I have made clear, the Government’s intention is to opt out of the measures and seek to rejoin those where it is in the national interest to do so. That is clearly what the Home Secretary has said and that is what we will do.

[Lord Rosser]

I have asked a specific question. I do not mind if the Minister is not able directly to answer the question today—I do not expect her to be a walking encyclopaedia—and I will be happy if she undertakes to write to me with a response. That would be quite satisfactory.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As I understand it, we have already opted in to the European Investigation Order and have subscribed to that. Yes, it is in scope but, as I have already said to the noble Lord, our intention is to rejoin those measures where it is in the national interest to do so. I think I have now answered his question.

Motion agreed.

Public Bodies (Abolition of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board) Order 2013

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the draft order laid before the House on 15 October 2012 be approved.

Relevant documents: 12th and 15th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 29 January

Motion agreed.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

58GA: Clause 74, page 73, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert—
“(6) The regulations may provide for an employment tribunal to have power, where a person fails to comply with an order to carry out an equal pay audit, to order that person to pay a penalty to the Secretary of State of not more than an amount specified in the regulations.
(6A) The regulations may provide for that power—
(a) to be exercisable in prescribed circumstances; (b) to be exercisable more than once, if the failure to comply continues.(6B) The first regulations made by virtue of subsection (6) must not specify an amount of more than £5,000.
(6C) Sums received by the Secretary of State under the regulations must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

In moving Amendment 58GA, I will speak also to Amendments 58GB and 58GC, which together clarify three elements of Clause 74.

Clause 74 inserts a new Section 139A into the Equality Act 2010. This will enable Ministers to make regulations that will require employment tribunals to order employers to undertake an equal pay audit where they have been found to have broken sex discrimination law relating to pay. Each of these amendments responds to the three recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its 10th report published on 14 December 2012.

The first recommendation drew the attention of the House to the lack of clarity in subsection (6) about the intended means of enforcement of equal pay audit orders. The second recommendation asked the Government to address the scope of the duty in subsection (7), which provides an exemption for micro and start-up businesses in the first regulations made under this power. In practice, this means that they will not have to undertake equal pay audits in the event that they are found by an employment tribunal to have breached equal pay laws.

The third recommendation of the committee concerned the lack of an expressed requirement for the Minister bringing forward regulations to make them in concurrence, or in consultation, with the Minister with responsibility for employment tribunals at the time.

The Government are very grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its recommendations. We have considered them carefully and accept them; I hope that in the amendments I am moving today, we are able to address all the points that they raised. I will take them in turn.

Amendment 58GA outlines the enforcement regime referred to in subsection (6). It explains that the regulations will give an employment tribunal the power to ask an employer who fails to comply with its order to undertake an equal pay audit to pay a civil penalty that initially must not exceed £5,000. This civil penalty can be repeated if the employer’s noncompliance continues. All fines collected by the Secretary of State from noncompliant employers must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

Amendment 58GB replaces the reference to micro-businesses and start-up businesses in subsection (7) with a definition of the businesses to which the first regulations on equal pay audits must not apply. New subsections (7) and (8) outline what we mean by a micro-business and a start-up business. A micro-business must have fewer than 10 employees immediately before a period that will be set out in regulations. A start-up business, on the other hand, is a business that began during a period that will also be specified in regulations. This amendment also removes the phrase,

“unless further provision is made under this section”.

at the end of subsection (7), which the committee had criticised as lacking clarity.

Amendment 58GC inserts a requirement for the Minister of the Crown responsible for making regulations under the power in new Section 139A to first consult the,

“Minister of the Crown with responsibility for employment tribunals”.

This will ensure that any interdepartmental consultations do not exclude whichever government department has responsibility for employment tribunals whenever secondary legislation is made under this power.

We have found all the recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee helpful. We are grateful to it and are happy to propose and recommend the clarifying amendments we have made to this clause, which give effect to each of them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very clear explanation of these amendments; we welcome them. There is a general consensus that these amendments are welcome, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that we believe that the substantive issues needed to go further. I have a few questions to ask the Minister about the substantive issue of these subsections.

As the Minister will be aware, the EHRC advocates that time limits be imposed; the TUC contends, because of the difficulties that employees are likely to face in accessing pay information, that all employers should be required to carry out these orders, not just those taken to a tribunal. As my honourable friend Kate Green MP said on Report in the Commons,

“While the Government have made one or two grudging steps forward in relation to improving equalities, the proposal on equal pay audits is a watering down of our commitment to have such audits across the board for larger businesses, not only when they have been unsuccessful at tribunal”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/10/2012; col. 252.]

The reason why that is necessary is that recent evidence shows, as the Minister will be aware that gender pay gap continues to persist. The 2012 annual survey of hours and earnings found that the mean pay gap between men and women’s average hourly earnings, excluding overtime, was 14.9% for full-time workers and 7.9% for part-time workers. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s 2010 triennial view found that pay gaps also affect disabled people and some ethnic groups, and I am going to return to that in a moment. In its response to the modern workplace consultation carried out by the Government, the EHRC noted that the power to impose pay audits needs to be as robust as possible in order to have maximum effect.

It seems to us that the tests for this legislation are, first: will it help employers? Carrying out an equal pay audit should be viewed as a positive means of enabling the employer concerned to eliminate pay inequality and minimise the likelihood of facing future equal pay tribunal court claims, rather than as a penalty. Secondly, will it avoid the possibility that, if equal pay audits are seen as a penalty, there is a risk that employers will settle equal pay cases outside court to avoid that penalty? This could be particularly true of those firms that can afford to settle and are anxious to avoid negative publicity.

Does the Minister acknowledge that conducting an equal pay audit will not in itself eliminate a gender pay gap? It will, however, bring to light and enable employers to address any equal pay issues that are uncovered. Employers will still need to draft an action plan to rectify any unjustifiable pay gaps they find, implement changes and regularly monitor the outcomes. It seems to us that implementing and monitoring the necessary changes are the most important aspect of any equal pay audit. Employers will need to be made aware that there will be an expectation on them to do this. Will the Minister assure the Committee that this is indeed the case? Employers will also need to be made aware of the time limits that will be placed on them to conduct and action their equal pay audits and of what sanctions will be taken if they are breached.

Finally, what are the Minister’s views on progress on pay gaps for other strands of discrimination; for example, religion or belief, age, race, disability, and sexual orientation? Do the Government intend to do any research or take any action on those matters too, and if so, when?

I welcome this part of the Bill and the amendments which will improve it significantly, but I do not believe that any of us can rest on our laurels on this matter. I am sure the Minister will agree.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support of our amendments. The Government very much believe in and are strongly committed to equal pay and the important laws that already exist. If there were enough time, and perhaps on another occasion, I might recount some of the stories that my mother used to tell me about when she first arrived in Nottingham as a teenager and was working in big factories and was very miffed to find that the men were paid a lot more than she was paid for doing the same job.

Businesses should be encouraged to make progress on complying with these important laws. Where it is not necessary, we should avoid a statutory approach in terms of making them comply. I recognise the point that the noble Baroness was making about progress in this area. There has been progress, but clearly more needs to be done. That is why this Government have introduced some measures to increase transparency on how pay is reflected in organisations. There seems to be quite a positive response to those voluntary measures.

We think that equal pay is so important, so we also believe that it is right to introduce these mandatory equal pay audits for businesses that have failed to comply with the law. When the law has been broken, they need to be forced to address that. That is why we believe that this is the right approach to take.

The noble Baroness raised some questions for me to respond to. She asked why equal pay audits are not available as an automatic right. We believe that carrying out a systematic pay audit of staff can be burdensome, and we do not want to place unnecessary burdens on employers who have done nothing wrong. We also feel that some employers are already carrying out these equal pay audits on a periodic basis and are using them in a constructive and good way. We do not want them to feel that they are being unnecessarily penalised when they are already doing the right thing.

The noble Baroness asked whether we thought that, once this measure is in force, the equal pay audits will simply push employers to settle equal pay claims. Our view on that is that if any employer were facing a continuing claim against it on equal pay grounds, it would soon find that it would not be cost effective to keep settling those claims. I do not accept that that would be a consequence of this.

The noble Baroness asked why the equal pay audit would not cover other protected characteristics. As she and I have acknowledged, equal pay legislation for men and women has been in place for some 40 years. We think it is right to focus the audit on sex-based pay differentials alone as only there is there a specific right to equal pay, and the appropriate route of redress for discrimination due to any protected characteristic other than sex in matters relating to pay, is through the discrimination provisions in the Equality Act.

The noble Baroness also asked how the timeframe for carrying out an audit would be decided. New Section 139A of the Equality Act allows employment tribunals to be given discretion in,

“deciding whether its order has been complied with”.

I think those are all the questions that the noble Baroness—

[Baroness Thornton]

Perhaps the noble Baroness could write to me about what the time limits are, as that is quite important. I do not want to delay the Grand Committee on that matter, so I will accept an answer in handwriting.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I will follow that up in writing. It is worth making the point that there will be a second consultation on the detail of how equal pay audits are carried out. It is possible that that might be reflected in it, but I do not know for sure, so I will not try to guess any more on that matter. I shall confirm this in writing to the noble Baroness. I hope that I have covered all the points that she has raised with me today.

Amendment 58GA agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

58GB: Clause 74, page 73, leave out lines 37 to 41 and insert—
“(7) The first regulations under this section must specify an exemption period during which the requirement to order an equal pay audit does not apply in the case of a business that—
(a) had fewer than 10 employees immediately before a specified time, or(b) was begun as a new business in a specified period.(8) For the purposes of subsection (7)—
(a) “specified” means specified in the regulations, and(b) the number of employees a business had or the time when a business was begun as a new business is to be determined in accordance with the regulations.”

Employment and Support Allowance (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

These regulations are subject to the negative procedure, so the Motion to Take Note is an opportunity for us to bring some focus to these provisions. This follows on from the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 15th report, which draws the regulations to the special attention of the House on the grounds that they give rise to issues of public policy. Indeed they do.

ESA was introduced in 2008 as the replacement for incapacity benefit. It was designed to focus on what individuals could do rather than what they could not, placing emphasis on their functional capabilities. This was all part of the broad consensus concerning the importance of work and of helping people move nearer to the labour market. The introduction of ESA has not been without its challenges, although the basic concept has been validated, but with periodic reviews bringing improvements to the process. However, concerns remain about the process and the role of Atos, so perhaps we can use this opportunity to get an update on some of these matters.

Can the Minister give us an update for last year on how many appeals are entered against decisions, either to access the support group or to the work-related activity group rather than JSA? What is the current rate of success? I probe these points because the quantum of appeals on a success rate is clearly indicative of how effectively the system is making the judgments that it should. It is these judgments, made by DWP decision-makers, which drive the conditionality in the regime and the sanctions which flow from it.

The regulations under consideration introduced from 3 December 2012 a new sanctions and hardship regime. As the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, the rationale of the change is to align as far as possible the sanctions regime with the equivalent category under universal credit. For those claiming ESA, and in the work-related activity group, conditionality involves attendance at a work-focused interview and undertaking work-related activity. No conditionality of course applies to someone in the support group, but obviously greater conditionality applies to somebody placed on JSA rather than in the WRAG.

These new sanctions have an open-ended period which can be brought to an end when the claimant meets a claimant condition followed by a period of one, two or four weeks, depending upon the number of prior sanctions. The effective date of the sanctions to operate is to be brought forward in comparison with current arrangements. In addition, the amount of the sanction is to be increased; rather than 50% or 100% of the work-related activity component, which is currently some £28, the sanction will be 100% of the prescribed ESA amount, currently £71. This will leave the individual with only £28 plus any premiums to which they might be entitled.

We accept that the regime should involve conditionality and that this implies some form of sanction, but this level of sanction is frankly draconian and unacceptable. Our concerns are about not only the huge reduction of income that it entails but the risks of the system for vulnerable people. There is provision for hardship payments; we can ask about any differences between the regime which is being introduced by these regulations and the existing position in terms of eligibility for payment and the amount of any payment.

The Explanatory Note to the regulations says that in determining whether hardship payments are appropriate, a decision-maker will take the following matters into account: whether a member of the family satisfies the requirements for a disability premium or an element of child tax credit in respect of a disabled child or young person; the household’s likely resources without hardship payments, including whether the claimant can seek assistance from others, such as family and friends; the difference between the claimant’s likely resources and the amount of a hardship payment which can be made; the difference between the claimant’s likely resources and the amount of a hardship payment which could be made; the risk that the claimant’s household will not have access to essential items such as food, clothing or heating, or will have access to such essential items at considerably reduced levels without a hardship payment; and the length of time that these factors will continue.

To what extent does that description differ from the detail of the current regime? I am particularly interested in the suggestion that people have to go outside the household, not only to family but to friends, and that resources that friends may have are taken into account in whether or not the hardship payment is made. We need to know particularly about the protections built into this whole regime. As we have discussed on many occasions, individuals in the WRAG, even if properly judged to be capable of work-related activity, could suffer from a wide range of conditions. There are concerns in particular about those with a mental health condition, with fluctuating conditions, and indeed with hidden conditions. It was the prior intent that nobody with a mental health condition would be sanctioned without a face-to-face visit. Is this still the case?

Can the Minister say something about the process attached to these sanctions and the extent to which it differs from that attaching to JSA? Are the good cause rules identical to the current ones? My understanding is that the following still apply as constituting good cause: if there is any misunderstanding on a person’s part because of learning, literacy or language difficulties, or misleading information given by the benefit authority; attending a doctor’s or dentist’s appointment; difficulties with transport where no reasonable alternative was available; the practice of a religion that prevented attendance at a set time; attending a job interview; the need to work in a business if you are trying to become self-employed; if you or a person for whom you were caring had an accident, illness or relapse; attending the funeral of a close friend; a disability that makes attendance impracticable; and any other relevant data. Are those the rules that still apply? I want confirmation of the extent to which they differ, if at all, from those applying currently. The Explanatory Note makes reference to a comprehensive suite of products being developed for operational staff. This is welcome, provided that the DWP has the staffing resources to cope. For the latest year available, how many individuals in receipt of ESA were subject to a sanction, how many appealed, and what was the outcome of those appeals?

We will be watchful regarding these regulations. We note the monitoring review proposals. Finally, how soon will the revaluation of the JCP offer be forthcoming? I beg to move.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his Motion to Take Note, and for giving us the opportunity to discuss these new regulations. Standing back a bit, I think it is worth saying from the start that there is a widespread consensus that the welfare system in this country is in need of a great deal of change. Clearly some of that change is in the structural area, where we are bringing in universal credit, while some changes address the cost of welfare and the fact that the bill for welfare is unaffordable.

Under the heading of structural change, and building on what the previous Government did and on what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, referred to, we are putting the emphasis on helping people to get back into work, and on making sure that those who are able to work and those who have been diagnosed as being unable to work but who may be able to return to work at some point in the future have the support that they need in order to return to the workforce. That is what people want. When they are on benefits and find themselves in the very difficult situation of being out of work, particularly at the end of a long illness, they want to know that there is an opportunity for them, as there is for all of us. We proposed the tighter sanctions regime because we place so much importance on the requirements to help people back into work.

As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, these regulations came into force on 3 December last year. They provide for a more effective and proportionate ESA sanctions system, but they also preserve the important safeguards and clarity that are required to ensure a fair and balanced system. The regulations make no change to the assessment of who is eligible for ESA or to the requirements placed on ESA claimants. They form part of the wider package of reforms that move the employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance sanctions systems substantially closer to that intended for universal credit, helping staff and claimants to prepare for the new benefit.

ESA is designed to place greater emphasis on what the claimant can do, and on the importance and benefits of moving towards work. I will be clear that we never ask ESA claimants to apply for jobs—only to prepare for work if they are able to do so, and to meet their Jobcentre Plus or other trained advisers to discuss this. Most claimants value this support and meet the requirements placed upon them. It is only fair to those who meet the requirements that the sanctions system places due importance on these obligations and provides incentives for all claimants to meet them.

I will now set out how ESA works. Claimants in the work-related activity group have been assessed as having a limited capability for work and are required to attend work-focused interviews to meet a personal adviser and discuss the support available to help them to take steps towards employment. Claimants placed in this group can also be required to undertake work-related activity where this is appropriate in their personal circumstances, such as attending a training course or updating a CV. Whether these work-related activity requirements are imposed by a Jobcentre Plus adviser or a work programme adviser, they must be reasonable in the claimant’s circumstances and cannot include requirements for the claimant to look for work or undergo any form of medical treatment.

If claimants do not meet suitable work-related activity requirements and work-focused interview requirements without good reason, a sanction can and should be applied. This is not new. Sanctions have been a feature of ESA since the benefit was launched in 2008. The regulations we are discussing today did not change what the claimant is expected to do or who might be sanctioned. But until these regulations came into force, the financial consequences of the sanction did not give sufficient weight to the importance of the requirements they enforced. As the Social Security Advisory Committee found, claimants do not always realise that they have been sanctioned. If claimants are unaware that they are losing benefit as a result of a sanction, there is little incentive for recompliance.

An ESA award for single claimants who have been found to be capable of work-related activity is made up of two elements: the work-related activity component of £28.15 and the personal amount of £71. Until December 2012, when these regulations came into force, claimants who failed to attend a work-focused interview or to undertake work-related activity without good reason received an open-ended sanction that was lifted when they re-engaged. The effect of the sanction was to reduce the work-related activity component of their award—£28.15—by 50%, which meant that their award of £99.15 a week would decrease by £14.17. After four weeks of non-engagement, the sanction increased to a 100% reduction of the work-related activity component, so claimants lost the full amount of the £28 which was on top of the original £71.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley]

I will raise another question which has not been covered; it might give the Minister a little more time to get answers to the questions. On the information that has been given to me, it is noted that a full impact assessment has not been published for the instrument because it has no impact on the private sector or civil society organisations. I am surprised that this does not have some impact on civil society organisations. Many such organisations deal with the people who are impacted by these changes. I would be glad of some clarification, to know exactly when impact assessments are made and when they are not.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Lord on that one. I do not have the answer immediately in front of me.

I can at least respond to one of the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. On appeals against WCA outcomes—the decision as to whether to put somebody in the work-related activity group or the support group—42% of appeals heard by the tribunal in the first quarter of this financial year were successful. What I do not have is the number of actual appeals. Regrettably, I will have to follow up in writing to the noble Lord on the other question that he raised about appeals. That notwithstanding, I hope that I have been able to provide enough information to satisfy the Committee today that these new regulations, which introduce this new sanctions regime, as I stressed at the start, very much emphasise the importance of the requirements on people in the work-related activity group as to how they can return to the workforce at the right time. That is what most people in work-related activity definitely want. It is our responsibility to make sure that they are clear on their requirements and that those requirements help them in that regard.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, when the noble Baroness mentioned the evaluation review, she said that the department was looking at people’s satisfaction with the receipt of their benefits. Two major ME/CFS charities have done reviews with their clientele, amounting to well over 1,000 people in each case. Would the department be prepared to accept these reviews as part of its evidence?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am sure that if evidence is there that would be relevant to what we are doing, it would be very welcome.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and for dealing with quite a lot of detailed questions. There is not a difference between us on the importance of encouraging people into work and the difference that that can make to their lives as well as to the economy of our country. The key issue around these particular regulations is how these things operate for a range of people who might have a mental health condition, autism, learning disabilities or fluctuating conditions—a whole range of circumstances—where the approach needs to be particularly sensitive, particularly knowledgeable and sometimes very specific, if not individual. I do not think I got the flavour of that from the response.

The statistics for the appeal success rate, which I thought was going to be declining, are worrying because they seem to suggest that the process under way for people in the WRAG or support group, or left on JSA, is still not working as well and effectively as it should be. It has a chequered history. I think the approach is right—indeed we legislated for that approach—but how it works, and is working, in practice, particularly with Atos, remains a cause for concern. That point is not unrelated to these regulations—it is germane to the starting point, so I have residual concerns about that. Helping people to understand their obligations under the system to take advantage of facilities, work-focused interviews and work-related activity is fine. However, a sanction of £71 a week to concentrate the mind is, frankly, outrageous. For us, it is totally unacceptable.

Over the past 12 months, there have been sanctions for people on ESA, and one of the few questions that was not answered was the extent to which there have been appeals and the outcome of those appeals. That goes to the heart of the resources that the DWP will need to address this regime. I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness, in the fullness of time, could follow up on that. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made a very pertinent point about the impact assessment and the impact on civil society. Perhaps the noble Baroness will share her answer on that with Members of the Committee. Having said that, we have had one go at this and will keep it in our sights because it is of concern.