State Pension Age
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for repeating the Statement delivered in the other place. One of the matters that has characterised this Government’s approach to pensions—changes to both the state and private pensions—has been the lamentable approach to communicating change. This has manifested itself in the frustrations of the WASPI group; the misunderstandings over why only a minority of those retiring after 5 April this year will receive the full rate of the new state pension of £155 per week; and issues arising from the so-called new flexibilities.
What assurance will the Minister give about not repeating the mistakes of the past when the review that is being undertaken brings forward its recommendations? The terms of reference require consideration of what a suitable state pension age is in the immediate future and over the longer term. However, the government press release states—this is what the noble Baroness said—that the review will be focused on the longer term and will not cover the existing timetable to April 2028. So can the Minister please reconcile these two positions? It is a classic case of confused communication which fuels speculation about the Government’s true intent.
Do we take it that there is no intention of revisiting with some transitional relief the position of those in their mid-50s who are adamant that they received inadequate notice of the rise in their state pension age?
The review has to take a view on how changes to state pension age rises support affordability. I ask therefore whether the triple-lock is within its scope.
We accepted the 2014 provision which required a periodic review of the pension age. We know that life expectancy is generally increasing, but we know that this does not always equate to healthy years of life. We know also that health inequalities remain stubbornly persistent. How does the Minister consider that these factors should be reflected in a fair approach to the pension age? Can the review cover an assessment of the adequacy of social security arrangements for those who cannot sustain work before reaching an extended pension age?
We wish John Cridland well with his review: transparency, consultation and a clear recognition of the need for long-term notification of any changes will be vital.
Baroness Altmann
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I would like to request and invite all noble Lords to be in touch with the review, so that we can ensure lessons are learned. If noble Lords have any observations on issues relevant to the consideration of long-term changes to the state pension age and state pension age policy, this is the opportunity to do that. It will be an independent review which will consider all the relevant factors, and the reviewer will welcome such evidence. The review is about the state pension age. It is also about the longer term. I repeat that it will not consider any changes to the state pension age timetable that is already legislated for up to 2028.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If the Minister will forgive me, could we just clarify that point? The terms of reference—I have a copy here—say that the review will consider:
“What a suitable State Pension age is, in the immediate future and over the longer term”.
Baroness Altmann
The Government have made it clear that this is about the changes for the longer term and the appropriate framework for state pension age policy. No changes will be considered and the reviewer will not be looking at making or recommending any changes to the timetable before 2028.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, I would like to add a couple of broad points to this important debate on this significant subject. As far as I am concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Low, has done the House a great service in tabling his amendment. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, as a former Chief Whip; the amendment may well be defective, and I certainly do not want to go back into the territory covered by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. However, the noble Lord, Lord Low, is saying that the House of Commons has asserted its rights in the process of ping-pong but this is merely a Motion to ask for some extra time.
As one or two other colleagues have said in the debate, I would want that extra time, if for no other reason than—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—to look at the White Paper. The White Paper that is coming will be significant and I am looking forward to it; it is an opportunity to have a look at this whole important policy area again. Taking this decision this evening would be a retrograde step and might make it more difficult for us to take the proper opportunity that the White Paper represents. If this change were not to be introduced until May 2017, that would be a sensible pause. I take the Minister’s point about the difficulty and technicality of meeting the test set out in the amendment, but it would be perfectly possible to have a sensible stab at estimating the impact on this particularly vulnerable group of our fellow citizens—the DWP has hundreds of researchers who do this work all the time.
I want to draw a broader point from that: we would not need to be here if we had had a proper impact assessment in the first place. To make an even broader point, it is now deemed to be old-fashioned and not sensible to have White Papers, Green Papers and a pre-legislative process for our legislation because it all has to be done for the greater glorification of Chancellors at Budget time so that they can make ex cathedra statements and get plaudits in the Sun newspaper the next day, only for us to find a fortnight later that all is not as it seemed. There is a plea here and a lesson to be learned: we should be more deliberative about the consultation process in these specialist areas of policy in order to get this kind of thing done right in the first place.
I make a point in passing about universal credit that a number of colleagues have made: this strips out some of the many advantages that universal credit will have in future, and that is regrettable. I also make the point that the £640 million saving has to be measured against the £100 million. I accept that again the influence of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, on this has been entirely beneficial. No other Minister could have had the success he has had in refining in important but second and third-order ways when considered against the fact that we are spending a sixth of the savings we are making in support for people who are in the work-related activity group. That is not enough. If it had been 50:50 and the Government came forward to the House with the savings bill—and it is correct to bear in mind that we are facing austerity as you cannot ignore that either, but to put one-sixth of the saving into the support services that are necessary for people in the WRAG group is not a proper balance or the right judgment—the House would have been a bit more willing to listen if the balance had been a bit more even.
The other thing is that the personal independence payment provisions we have introduced will not survive the test of time. The assistance we give people who are in the support group is nearly absent, and we need to do far more to provide help for people in that group to find work in the longer term. Therefore the Government would be well advised to think again. The noble Lord, Lord Low, has brought forward an important amendment; if he presses it to a Division I shall certainly support him, and I hope that other Members of the House will do the same.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, as others have said, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for his focus on a number of initiatives that seek to ameliorate the problems created by withdrawal of the WRAG component for new claims after March 2017, whether those were intended or unintended. However, I will be clear up front: we do not consider that the Government’s package of proposals adequately deals with the consequences of that withdrawal.
I will start by addressing the specific points raised by the Minister. First is the commitment to increase the funding in 2017-18 for the flexible support fund with guidance to jobcentres to ensure that the additional funding is targeted specifically at those with limited capability for work. The sum of £15 million has been mentioned. Obviously, this is to be welcomed so far as it goes and it could be used to help with extra costs of expenditure on attending interviews, training courses, accessing the internet, and so on. The focus on those in the WRAG is important because at present, as the 57 pages—would you believe it?—of guidance to district managers makes clear, the fund can be used to support all Jobcentre Plus customers, including 16 and 17 year-olds. Does the Minister have any indication of the current annual application of the fund to those in the WRAG, and how many claimants in the WRAG is the new money expected to help? With half a million people in the WRAG, £15 million amounts to 50p a week on average.
As for those with progressive deteriorating conditions, increasing awareness of the right to seek reassessment is fine but is this not just what the system should deliver anyway? Perhaps the Minister can say a little more about how it works at present, what data there are on the numbers currently seeking reassessment from the WRAG, and what information there is on the timescales within which these assessment are delivered. If it is envisaged that this awareness-raising would lead to greater numbers of individuals being reassessed, what additional resource is being made available to cope with it all?
On permitted work, the proposition is that someone on ESA will in the future be able to undertake work for more than 52 weeks, which, as we have heard, is the current limit, as long as it is for fewer than 16 hours a week and earnings do not exceed £107.50. It is understood that such earnings would not be taken into account for benefit purposes, including housing benefit. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. Can he also say what the position will be in relation to council tax support schemes?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as the Minister has anticipated, we have a sense of déjà vu on this drafting. We have lost count of the number of amendments and changes the Government have made to their own legislation. Again, the Commons are disagreeing with an amendment that the Government themselves laid in your Lordships’ House and replacing it with an alternative. So confident are they now that they will get it right on this occasion that they have decided to address the point at hand in regulations.
However, the substantive point is serious and it is important that the legislation is right. It is understood that the issue is to properly identify those cases where the 1% per annum reduction will apply to only the rent and to where it will apply to rents and the amount of the service charge. The former will apply to rents determined by a formula social rent approach; the latter to what is known as affordable rents, which are determined on a percentage of market value. It is understood that the sector is content with this differentiation—the Minister has confirmed that—and so are we. We look forward to the regulations in due course. There will, doubtless, be various iterations of them.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for being merciful in his remarks. As I said at the start of this brief debate, this Motion has been tabled as a result of representations made by the providers—I confirm that again—and the regulator. We welcome their input, as the noble Lord does. I urge noble Lords to support this Motion.
State Pension (Amendment) Regulations 2016
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2016. In my view, the provisions in the order and the regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Together, these statutory instruments demonstrate the Government’s continuing commitment to support those who have worked hard all their lives, paid into the system and done the right thing to provide them with dignity and security in old age.
Let me first address the issue of those social security rates which are linked to the rise in prices. This includes the additional elements of the current state pension, working-age benefits, carer’s benefits and benefits which contribute to the extra costs that may arise as the result of a disability or health condition.
Last year, the relevant headline rate of inflation, the September consumer prices index, stood at -0.1%, which means that price-indexed benefits have retained their value in relation to the general level of prices. These benefit rates will therefore remain unchanged for 2016-17 and have not been included in the uprating order this year. For the same reason, the Government have not laid a draft guaranteed minimum pensions increase order.
I add that the Government intend to bring forward additional secondary legislation to adjust rates and thresholds within certain social security benefits that would usually be covered by an uprating order. These include adjustments to pensioner premiums within working-age benefits, pensioner amounts in housing benefit, the level of savings credit and non-dependent deductions. We will be laying these regulations, which will be subject to the negative procedure, before Parliament in due course.
As for those rates that are included in the uprating order, this Government continue to stand by their commitment to the triple-lock guarantee, by which the current basic state pension is uprated by the highest of earnings, prices or 2.5%. This year, the increase in average earnings has been 2.9%, more than inflation and more than 2.5%. This means that from April 2016 the rate of the basic state pension for a single person will increase by 2.9%—that is, £3.35, to £119.30 a week, the biggest real-terms increase of the basic state pension since 2001. Therefore, from April 2016 the full basic state pension will be more than £1,100 a year higher in 2016-17 compared to the start of the previous Parliament. We estimate that the basic state pension will be around 18.1% of average earnings, one of its highest levels relative to earnings for more than two decades and in contrast to the low of 15.8% which it reached in 2008-09.
This Government continue to protect the poorest pensioners. The pension credit standard minimum guarantee, the means-tested threshold below which pensioner income need not fall, will rise in line with average earnings at 2.9%, so that from April the single person threshold of this safety-net benefit will rise by £4.40 to £155.60 a week and will be the biggest real-terms increase since its introduction. Pensioner poverty now stands at one of its lowest rates since comparable records began. Despite the difficult economic decisions that we have had to take, I am pleased to say that this Government are spending an extra £2.1 billion in 2016-17 on supporting pensioners who have worked hard and done the right thing while continuing to protect the poorest pensioners.
The state pension regulations set the new state pension full rate that will apply from April 2016 at £155.65 per week, equivalent to more than £8,000 per year. This will mean that the new state pension will therefore stand at 23.6% of average earnings, and I am pleased to confirm that the triple lock will apply to this full rate for the remainder of this Parliament. Our reforms will see the complicated state pension system become clearer and fairer, providing a solid foundation on which people can build up their retirement savings. They will lift many more pensioner incomes above the basic means-tested threshold for the pension credit standard minimum guarantee.
The new state pension will see many groups better off than they would be on the current system. Around 650,000 women who reach state pension age in the first 10 years can expect to receive, on average, more than £400 a year more than under the current system. Around three-quarters of those reaching state pension age will be better off under the new system by 2030. Carers, lower-earners and self-employed people will also benefit under the reformed system. However, we are ensuring that the reforms in the new state pension cost no more than the present system.
In conclusion, these measures demonstrate the Government’s overall commitment to support current pensioners by increasing their basic state pension through the triple lock, to protect the poorest pensioners by raising their guaranteed minimum income and to reform the state pension system so that it is clearer and fairer for future pensioners. Despite the tough and difficult decisions we have had to take, the Government are rewarding pensioners who have worked hard by providing them with a secure and dignified retirement. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for her explanation of these regulations and the uprating order. I thank the Minister also for the follow-up communication dealing with some outstanding points from earlier regulations and note the efforts to be made to publicise the availability of national insurance credits for spouses and civil partners who accompany Armed Forces personnel on overseas postings.
As we have heard, the regulations set the full rate of the new state pension at £155.65. I will say more about this later. The uprating order covers the obligation under Section 150A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 for the Secretary of State to review certain benefits and uprate by reference to earnings if they do not maintain their value. We are advised that the annual growth in average weekly earnings for the quarter ending in July 2015 was 2.9%. This is therefore applied to relevant benefits.
As far as Section 150 of that Act is concerned, we are advised that the uprating order does not need to include any benefits because these benefits have maintained their value in relation to prices, given that the CPI for the 12-month period ending in September 2015—which was available from mid-October, I think—showed a marginal negative growth rate. This seems to overlap with the benefits freeze in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, a freeze that extended for four years the previously announced two-year restriction on certain working-age benefits. The Minister will be able to confirm that not all the benefits that are not uprated in this order have been the subject of the freeze provided for in the Bill. These include—I think the Minister referred to them—attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, DLA, ESA, statutory adoption pay, statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay, and PIP.
When we discussed these matters the Government made much of certain disability benefits being outside the freeze. The briefing note provided to us when we were considering the Bill—at a time when the CPI rate must have been known—nevertheless stated:
“To continue to ensure we protect the most vulnerable we are exempting benefits for pensioners, benefits relating to the additional costs of disability and care and statutory payments”.
In the event, many pensioner and disability costs are not to be uprated, for 2016-17 at least. Can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the appropriateness of using CPI as a measure of the additional costs incurred by those with a disability, so that the Government can be satisfied that the vulnerable are being protected?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his observations, and I would like to help set some of the record straight or clear up any confusion. He asked about what he called a “freeze”. The fact that some of the benefits are not changing is purely a reflection of the fact that they are linked to prices and prices fell. I assure him that uprating will continue as inflation picks up, so that these benefits will continue to increase in line with any rise in prices in the coming years. This is not a freeze on these particular benefits.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
It is not a freeze on these particular benefits, but they are not being uprated. How would the Minister describe that? That is the first point. On the perhaps more substantive point, which I recognise does not include the specific freeze in the Bill, what judgment have the Government made about the impact of not uprating and the extent to which CPI is relevant to the extra costs of those who claim DLA or PIP, not the generality of benefits?
Baroness Altmann
As I have said, benefits such as PIP, DLA and attendance allowance will be uprated in future years, when there is inflation, but prices have fallen over the past year. I can confirm, by the way, that SERPS, S2P and the other benefits are included in this. The official measure of inflation is CPI, and that is the measure required to be used for uprating benefits. CPI fell last year, so there is a 0.1% real-terms increase in these benefits, and as and when inflation increases in the future, these benefits will be increased to take account of the rise in prices, as is required. Earnings-linked benefits will rise in line with earnings or the triple lock, depending on the requirements of the benefit.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am sorry; I do not intend to get up again, unless really provoked. I think the Minister said that the benefits had to be uprated in line with CPI. If the Government judged that to be an insufficient uprating—zero, in this case—because of what had happened to the costs of those concerned, is she saying that the Government would be precluded from uprating further or beyond the zero? Are they bound by that?
Baroness Altmann
As the noble Lord is aware, the Government would have discretion to increase by more, but the judgment is that the appropriate requirement this year is that these benefits be changed in line with inflation, or slightly above the movement in prices over the past year. I reiterate that this is not a freeze. It is not part of any benefits freeze; it is purely a function of the fact that these particular benefits rise in line with the change in the price level, as measured by CPI, which is the Government’s official inflation measure. On his particular question, Section 150A of the Social Security Administration Act does not allow for inclusion of these rates in the order, so the rates that will be increased will be taken by alternative powers. There is nothing untoward or underhand in any way; it is merely a function of how the legislation is framed.
Turning to the new state pension, the noble Lord is absolutely correct: communication is very important. One of the big communication challenges we all face is the perception that if people are not getting what is called the full rate of the new state pension, they are losing out. That is a misperception, and it is important that we try to help correct and overcome that. It is important that we help people understand that the new state pension is a totally new system. The full rate will apply to those who are only in the new system, but for those who have built up state pension under the previous system—the existing system—an allowance will be made for years in which they did not pay full national insurance because they were building up a private pension with some of the rebate for national insurance they received.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the Minister tell me what happens after 2030? What are the projections?
Baroness Altmann
I am coming on to that because it is important to understand that these reforms are designed to make the state pension system affordable and sustainable over the long term. We have an ageing population and an increasing number of expected future pensioners, which is good news. The proposal and the overall framework of our pension reforms, taken together, are to ensure that the state pension system is sustainable. Over the years from 2030 and certainly from the 2040s onwards, the general level of the state pension will be set at a base of around £8,000 a year in today’s money. On top of that, people will be expected to have built up a private pension under the auto-enrolment reforms. It is true that in the 2030s and mainly from the 2040s onwards, the general level of the state pension will not be as generous as it would have been if the current system had been sustained. However, the current system is not sustainable. That is expected to be combined with a better private pension to ensure adequate pension provision—indeed, better pension provision—for more pensioners in future because the state pension system will not penalise private savings in the way it currently does for those who are going to end up in the bottom half of the pensioner income distribution in later life.
The new framework, with a base level of state pension that is not earnings-linked, topped up by a good private pension that comes from auto-enrolment, with help from the employer, which will be earnings-linked, is meant to make our system more sustainable and affordable. Having said that, as the noble Lord rightly said, there will be people who will need a safety net; for example, because they do not have the full 10 years required for any state pension and so end up with no state pension, or for other reasons. They will still have access to the means-tested pension credit, but that will be set below the full rate of the new state pension to maintain the incentive.
The question about the 5p differential between the pension credit minimum guarantee and the full rate of the new state pension was relevant to this point. We are committed to ensuring that the new state pension is above the pension credit standard minimum guarantee, but it is also important to remember that the 2012-13 illustrative rate for the new state pension was £144 a week, while the pension credit standard minimum guarantee for a single person was expected to be £142.70 a week. Since then, we have increased the pension credit standard minimum guarantee by the full cash increase given to the basic state pension, so that the poorest pensioners benefit from the triple lock as well. That means that the pension credit standard minimum guarantee has grown faster than the new state pension illustrative rate.
As far as the savings credit is concerned, it is true that the savings credit maximum rate is being reduced, but this should be more than offset by the increase in the basic state pension, and the triple lock. As well as being catered for, depending on what happens to each individual element of a pensioner’s income, the fact that the maximum savings credit is falling by approximately £2 a week will be more than offset by the £4 or £3.35 increase. Our forecasts are that pensioners will, on average, still be £2 a week better off in cash terms. I am assured that there will be absolutely no cash losers from this. The expectation is that the poorest pensioners will still see an increase in their overall income.
The noble Lord also asked about the rebate savings from contracting out. It is true that the additional national insurance revenue raised by the withdrawal of the contracting-out rebate will be received by the Government. However, it will be received by the Treasury; it will not flow to the DWP. It is not expected to be spent on the state pension; otherwise, it would mean that significantly more would be spent on new, rather than existing, pensioners, which was never the intention of these reforms. It is a matter for the Treasury how it allocates the departmental funds that it raises after the removal of the rebate and how that revenue is subsequently spent.
I think that that covers the points raised, if I am not mistaken.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for a very full response on most issues. Unless I missed it, I do not think she dealt with those who may have no entitlement to the equivalent of the basic state pension, or with transitional protection. We touched on those paying reduced national insurance contributions before 1977, which might be one category, but is that it? Is that all the transitional protection that will be available?
Baroness Altmann
I apologise. I thought that the noble Lord had, in a way, answered his own question by saying that there is transitional protection for those women who have paid the married women’s stamp—the reduced rate election. There is also protection for Armed Forces spouses, who will get credits in the system. It is also the case that some people might have inherited a pension from a spouse but no longer will under the new system because the new state pension will treat individuals in their own right. It is very difficult for us to predict who will become widowed. However, as the noble Lord rightly said, this will form an important part of the communications on the new state pension: to explain that in future most people—as I say, there will be exceptions for the Armed Forces and the married women’s stamp—will be treated for state pension purposes on the basis of their own record, rather than being assumed to be able to inherit or transport an entitlement from a partner.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Just to be clear on that point, my understanding is that the Government have estimated that up to 2030 some 290,000 people will be affected by the withdrawal of that opportunity. I understand what the Minister has said about those who paid reduced national insurance contributions before 1977 and those accompanying armed services personnel, but how many of those 290,000 people does that cater for? What is the level of the transitional protection likely to be for those who paid reduced national insurance contributions before 1977?
Baroness Altmann
I do not have the breakdown, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord with whatever figures we can give him to satisfy him on that particular request. Pension credit remains for anybody who does not have sufficient income to bring them up to the £155.60, which is usually far more than the pension that one would have inherited. Under the new state pension, widows or widowers will also inherit the protected payment that their previous partners would have been able to build up under the new state pension system rules.
I thank the noble Lord for his contribution to this important debate. This Government are taking the necessary steps to protect pensioners, many of whom have worked hard all their lives and are no longer in a position to increase their income through work. Our triple lock, our protections for the poorest pensioners and our new state pension reforms mean that we will be able to provide pensioners with dignity and security in their retirement.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
My Lords, the amendment to paragraph 3(5) of Schedule 2 is to address ambiguity in the drafting and clarify that, in a case where the tenancy begins after the beginning of the first relevant year but not at the beginning of the second or third relevant year, the rent should be calculated in the following relevant year. The amendment also removes a redundant cross-reference to paragraph 3(2), which is a drafting error we had regrettably not spotted previously.
I would like to inform the House that a number of social housing providers have alerted us to an unintended consequence of the government amendment brought forward on Report, which sought to enable continuation of existing policy that affordable rents are inclusive of service charge when determined on the percentage of market rent principle, but exclusive of service charge when determined on the social rent model. We have looked at this and agree there is an issue in the drafting that we need to address. The Government will therefore be seeking to do so during Commons consideration of Lords amendments. I thank the providers who raised that issue with us, and apologise to the House that this has come up at such a late stage, and that we are dealing with it in this way.
The Bill returns to the other place without the proposed changes to the ESA WRAG, and the limited capability for work element in universal credit. It also now places a requirement on the Government to publish and report on income measures of child poverty. In sending these amendments back, the Cross-Benchers, in particular, have sent a clear message and I will say only this: there will now be a process between the two Houses, as is conventional. We have discussed many other matters during the passage of the Bill. Many of them are important and we will continue to reflect on them and seek to obtain the best outcomes we can. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of Amendment 5. It makes the drafting of this area somewhat less impenetrable. I was going to say that it would be churlish, given the occasion, to point out that this is the third or fourth attempt to get this drafting right but clearly there will need to be a fourth or fifth, from what the Minister has said, and we welcome the point to which he has alerted us.
I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister’s action in deferring the impact of the rent reduction policy for a period and holding back on the local housing allowance. We will have to see where that leads. Of course, this point was pursued rigorously by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kerslake. My understanding is that this has not necessarily allayed the concerns of providers sufficiently and there is the risk of holding back on some key projects in relation to supported accommodation, which would be a great pity. So I think there is a task for the Government there.
With regard to the amendments that go back with the Bill to the other place, all we can do is urge the Minister to send it on its way with his wholehearted support.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, we broadly support Amendment 5. It is a positive change. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the very constructive way in which he has allowed us to meet him, because there have been great challenges in the Bill. It has been a very difficult Bill and he has been a master at defending a very difficult piece of legislation. I sensed at times that he himself felt, “My gosh, what are we doing here?”. I may be putting words in his mouth but that is the sense I got.
Obviously, there are significant financial cuts to some of the most vulnerable in our society. As the Minister is aware, I have been very concerned about the issues relating to the work allowance and the cuts that will affect working people. We have looked at the Bill through the prism of work. I am also very concerned about the cuts to employment allowances for people with disabilities and progressive illnesses. I state again that I really cannot understand how cutting £30 a week from the employment allowances for people in the ESA group is going to make them better and fitter and enable them to go back to work. I say to the Minister: this is going back to the House of Commons but please could the Government look at this? It is so important as a sign of a compassionate, caring society that we look after the most vulnerable. But I thank the Minister, and the Bill team, for the time he has given to the Bill and the very constructive dialogue he has held with us.
Pensions Act 2014 (Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) Order 2016
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction of these regulations and the order and note that the two Motions are to be taken en bloc.
The draft Explanatory Memorandum reminds us that this is the second tranche of affirmative legislation which is needed to support the introduction of the single-tier or new state pension on 6 April 2016, and there is more secondary legislation to come. We have been asked today about taking some SIs on 22 February. Is that it or is there still more to be scheduled?
We know that part of what is to come will cover national insurance credits for spouses and civil partners of Armed Forces personnel to cover past periods of accompanied service overseas. We obviously support this but recall that when we debated this before there were concerns, surprisingly, about the data. Perhaps the Minister will confirm how these have been satisfactorily addressed.
The scope of these regulations is a reminder of the complexity which is still very much a part of our pensions system—state and private—and whatever the promise of simplicity to come from the new state pension, that simplicity is, frankly, some way off. The need for effective communication could not be greater, especially as the change comes in the midst of other pension changes, including the accelerated changes to the state pension age, particularly hitting women, and the so-called flexibilities for private provision. This complexity also requires particular diligence in drafting. I am bound to say that slipping through regulations just before a Summer Recess, which have to be unpicked subsequently is not an efficient way to legislate. However, we acknowledge that eventually the new state pension will simplify matters and bring forward the point at which women get equivalent state pension outcomes to men, but not until the 2040s. We also note that the IFS concluded that in the long term the new pension will be less generous than the current system to almost everyone.
We have heard this afternoon that the regulations cover four main topics: deferral of the new state pension; transitional arrangements for inheriting graduated retirement benefit; pension uprating for those living abroad; and technical amendments relating to contracted-out occupational schemes. As we have heard, Regulation 3 deals with the deferral of the new state pension. The opportunity to do this exists, of course, under the current system and is something we support. It is an encouragement to those who wish to stay in the labour market and earning. However, the terms are to be less generous in the future, with the reduction in the accrual rate from 10.4% to 5.8% a year and no opportunity, outside transitional arrangements, to take a lump sum. Any increase is applied to the weekly rate of pension immediately before the end of the deferral period, but this is now to be reduced when there has been an increase other than through uprating. As regards what has been described as an anomaly, does this happen under the current system? What has changed in the need to back out these issues?
The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that the most likely cause of such upratings is where someone has inherited an amount on the death of a spouse or civil partner, so could the Minister please tell us what percentage of entitlements to inherited amounts on death accrue to women rather than men? What is the estimated saving to the Treasury from this measure? Although for those wholly in the new scheme there will not be opportunities to inherit a percentage of a late spouse or civil partner’s additional state pension, we can at least support the transitional arrangements that enable someone to qualify for a survivor’s pension in respect of additional state pension entitlement built up in the current scheme. We also support the new provisions introduced by Regulations 4 and 5 enabling the inheritance of graduated retirement benefit, including deferral payments. Even though amounts are likely to be small, as has been said, it is reasonable that the transitional arrangements are consistent.
With regard to the uprating of pensions paid abroad, I confirm that what the Minister said is correct: in government we, too, resisted calls to uprate the state pension payable abroad other than to those territories set out in the Explanatory Note. This, too, was largely on the grounds of cost, as well as the uprating factors. Carrying over these provisions to the new system is therefore reasonable. We note, however, that one small change is to include Sark in the reciprocal arrangements. Where on earth did that come from? Can the Minister tell us why and say what representations have been received and from whom in respect of this matter? The definition of an overseas resident is somebody,
“not ordinarily resident in the UK”.
But can the Minister confirm that a person could be ordinarily resident in the UK but still not domiciled in the UK? As we have heard, the substantive change to the arrangements relates to the deferral rights of overseas residents. It is understood that the position is to back out the uprating component of the deferral calculation to prevent a benefit being received which would otherwise not be available if there were no deferral. We have no problem with that.
We note that the legislation is deficient in other respects in not allowing a disapplication of uprating where a survivor’s benefit is not to be uprated because the deceased person’s pension was not to be uprated—perhaps the Minister could expand a little on those circumstances. So I ask: can we therefore look forward to another Pensions Act if that is what it is going to take? The provisions generally relating to contracted- out defined benefit occupational schemes, the GMP requirement and the right to convert to ordinary scheme benefits take us back to the challenges of the 2007 Act. What was essential for conversion was the need to enable a survivor to have benefits at least equivalent to the survivor’s GMP. This looks to have eventually been achieved under the new arrangements by paragraph (6) of these regulations and Regulation 27A of the 2015 Regulations. However, this reminds us that contracting out is no longer available from April 2016, with higher rates of national insurance contributions being payable by individuals as a consequence. We have probed before what this means in terms of extra tax and perhaps the Minister would like to take this opportunity to update us on precisely how much the Treasury expects to garner from the switching off of contracting out.
As far as the order is concerned, we support the provisions enabling credits for parental and caring responsibilities awarded after but relating to pre-6 April being included in a person’s “starting amount”. We wonder why HMRC has to take over the Secretary of State’s authority in connection with entitlement to credits but note that this is not a new provision. As for extending the factors that the Secretary of State can take into account to trigger auto-enrolment and set the band of earnings to include the full rate of the new state pension, can the Minister please explain what practical effect it is considered that this change will have?
Paragraph 9 of the Explanatory Note refers to the multichannel communications campaign. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how this is is going. Mention is made of a new online service to be rolled out in 2016, which will provide a projection of the new state pension at state pension age. Is this on schedule? What volume of inquiries is currently being experienced and what are the response times?
The regulations and order are complicated but we thank the Minister and officials for a very detailed Explanatory Memorandum. Overall, we judge that they contribute to making the new state pension work properly, and we will not oppose them.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution to this technical debate. He has raised several questions, and I will attempt to answer some of them. If he requires further answers, I will of course write to him.
It is indeed the case that the analysis conducted by the department shows that the majority of those reaching state pension age between now and 2013 will receive more from the new state pension than they would have done under the old system. In the long run, the aim is that the rollout of automatic enrolment will provide a supplement to that state pension for future generations of retirees. Therefore, in the long run, the overall amount paid out by the state may reduce, but that is to be offset by the impact of automatic enrolment.
Women will get more state pension, on average, under the new system than they would have done under the old one. Notwithstanding the equalising of state pension ages, over their lifetime women will on average get 10% more state pension in total than men of the same age. The idea that women are losing out needs to be modified by some of the data that we have already produced.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I was not suggesting that women were going to lose out. My point was that there is movement towards equalisation with men, although that is some time in the distance—I think that the 2040s has been the calculation.
Baroness Altmann
The equalisation between men and women of state pension payments may come in the future but, in the mean time, notwithstanding whether they get slightly less than men—the gender gap will be much narrower—over their lifetime they will get more, because the average woman lives longer than the average man. Once equalisation occurs, the gender favour to women will be even greater. In the mean time, the new state pension will put women in a much stronger position under the new state pension rules relative to the old ones. This is a significant improvement in the position of state pension payments for women on average, who, as we all know, have lost out in the past; we are remedying that to a large degree.
The noble Lord asked about contracting out. The idea of removing contracting out is not so much about cash flow or increasing the amount of money that comes to the state, because contracting out merely replaces what the state would have otherwise paid out in the state pension. By ending contracting out, the national insurance payments that are increasing will be offset over the long run. Indeed, depending on the average life expectancy, it could perhaps end up meaning that the Government pay out more in state pension as a consequence of ending contracting out than they do under the current system, where part of the state pension is contracted out to an employer who promises to replace the additional state pensions.
Therefore, it is not clear to me that there is a cost saving. It is clear to me that it is absolutely essential that we move to a simpler state pension system, which people can understand and deal with, because currently they cannot do so. At present, the existence of contracting out means that part of people’s state pension builds up in a private pension, which confuses the messages and the planning. Therefore, the principle of the new state pension is that everybody pays the same type of national insurance without some people being able to pay less than others because they are in a particular type of private pension scheme, and that everybody, regardless of their earnings, the type of credit they have or the type of national insurance contribution they pay, will be able to build up the same state pension each year as they accrue another year on their contracting-out record.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
In relation to the year we are just about to enter—2016-17—is the Minister saying that there will not be extra net revenue in the system that year from the abolition of contracting out?
Baroness Altmann
Of course that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we have to look at the state pension over the long term. National insurance is paid now but it relates to liabilities that will be paid over a long period of time, and Governments, quite rightly, have to plan for that with regard to the money flowing in now and the liabilities that will ensue from that over the longer term. As we know, the new state pension is expected to be cost-neutral to the taxpayer. Given that, I am not convinced that it is appropriate to consider contracting out as a money-saving exercise.
I am delighted that the noble Lord supports Regulations 4 and 5. Most of the measures that are being put in place here are indeed technical in nature and try to maintain the principles of the new state pension as well as protect people when we move from the old system into the new system—in particular, as we said, widows or widowers who inherit parts of the state pension entitlements that they would be able to inherit today.
The noble Lord also mentioned the importance of communications, and I completely agree with that sentiment. Indeed, as he alluded to, we are engaged in a widespread campaign to inform people and improve communications around state pensions. An enormous amount of time, effort and money has been put into this exercise, and we will continue that over the coming period. I assure the noble Lord that we have very much adopted the idea of communications being particularly important and will continue to work in that way.
The noble Lord also mentioned the complexity of the new state pension rules and some of the issues that have arisen with the drafting of the regulations. Of course it is a matter of regret that we had to come back with an affirmative regulation, which should have been done in the appropriate way in the first place. However, the debate is now taking place, as required.
We must not forget that the old state pension is what is so complicated. Dealing with past complexity is imposing difficulties when moving to a new state pension system. We have not been able to just sweep away the old system; we have to carry people into the new state pension system. That means carrying with it the complex rules and the many adjustments that were made over the many years for which it has existed. Once that new system is in place, the scale of complexity will be vastly reduced. For most people, it really will be a simple system, but we have to get from the old system into the new one, when it is fully up and running, and that will take some time before we can reconcile all the records as at April 2016 to know what everyone is starting the new system with.
As for national insurance credits for spouses and partners of people in the Armed Forces, we will be providing data when we bring forward those regulations. As the noble Lord said, we plan to have that debate on 22 February. We believe that we have reliable data that we can put before the House. Unfortunately, as I explained, the old system is very complicated. We need to bring in a huge number of moving parts from the current system to try to ensure that people do not lose out.
The noble Lord mentioned inheritance. In the new state pension system, widows will be able to inherit the additional pensions of their late spouses or partners. That inheritance currently exists and will be carried forward. I can reassure the noble Lord on that matter.
The noble Lord asked me about digital state pension statements. At the moment, they are in testing. The testing will be carried out over the next few weeks, and we will then be gradually rolling out the new digital statements, which will be much clearer and more helpful, so that people can see forecasts of what their new state pension will be able to give them.
As for the issue of deferral, as I said, the regulations will correct an anomaly that exists. The new state pension will ensure that the deferral for those who live in overseas countries which do not have a reciprocal arrangement with us, and those countries in which pensions are not uprated at the moment, will apply only to the pension at the date at which the person reached state pension age. That is the increment that will be added for deferral, rather than adding an increment to an increased state pension, which would otherwise give them a double benefit.
The debate has ranged rather widely—probably more widely than the provisions—so it may be helpful if I remind the Committee of what the regulations do. They enable a widowed person whose late partner was in the old state pension scheme to inherit the graduated retirement benefit. They provide for increments from state pension deferral to be based on the amount of new state pension the person would actually have been entitled to if they had been receiving their pension instead of deferring it. They maintain the long-standing policy of not uprating the state pension for people resident in certain countries overseas. They replicate a provision relating to survivor benefits that was in an old set of regulations in the new set that replaces them. The order simply makes consequential amendments that result from the introduction of the new state pension. I therefore commend the regulations and the order to the Grand Committee.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Would the Minister mind looking at the record after this and perhaps writing where she has not been able to cover matters this afternoon?
Baroness Altmann
Yes. As I said, I am more than happy, if there are issues that have not been covered, to write to the noble Lord.
Housing Benefit (Abolition of the Family Premium and Date of Claim Amendment) Regulations 2015
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. I will speak particularly on the backdating aspect of the regulations.
Limiting backdating of housing benefit payments to one month is likely to put vulnerable people at risk of rent arrears and subsequent eviction, and possibly homelessness. Crisis, the charity for single homeless people, wrote to tell me that it is concerned that the most vulnerable will be affected by this change, including those who have experienced homelessness. It says that many of the people it supports to find and sustain tenancies make successful backdating claims for housing benefit often for upward of 12 weeks. These are often the result of clients having additional support needs that make it difficult for them to navigate the benefits system. Consequently, they fail to claim the benefits to which they are entitled in time.
The Government dispute the suggestion that limiting the backdating period will lead to tenants falling into rent arrears but Crisis says that many of its clients accrue considerable arrears before they seek the support they need to backdate a claim. Backdating claims are often made following a change in circumstances that affect a person’s entitlement or because of failures in the system that lead to housing benefit not being paid. I will mention three examples of when people may need to make a backdated claim. There is where there are fluctuations in income. When someone finds a job their entitlement to housing benefit must be adjusted. If they enter casual work, such as on a zero-hours contract, their entitlement must be calculated on a weekly basis. This can lead to payments being stopped until the claimant can provide all necessary payslips. That causes delay and the need for a backdated claim. The ability to backdate by only one month may not be enough to cover that delay.
Housing benefit claim forms may be lost. Despite the best intentions of council staff, housing benefit claim forms can go missing or online submissions may not be received. I can empathise with this and can vouch for the fact that this kind of thing can happen through nobody’s fault. Today, I rang up to buy some more premium bonds, only to be told that I needed to provide a password. Apparently, one had been sent to me in the course of the last year but it never arrived. Getting back to housing benefit, resubmitting claim forms can cause serious delays at the beginning of a tenancy. We need a backdating period sufficient to cover such delays.
Again, housing benefit is sometimes stopped in error when someone is sanctioned. This can lead to arrears, particularly if the landlord is receiving direct payments and does not notify the tenant that the rent has not been paid.
The Social Security Advisory Committee advised that the case for this policy has not been made out and recommended that it should be possible to backdate housing benefit for at least three months. It says that inconsistencies between the rules attaching to different benefits are hard to defend and add to the complexity that claimants are required to navigate. For people whose rent is paid monthly or four-weekly in arrears, the proposal will mean that there is no slack in the current complex legacy benefit context for them to realise that there is a problem with their housing benefit entitlement and make a late claim. This presents a clear risk that the impact on landlord and tenant behaviour could result in upward pressure on homelessness among the more vulnerable, with attendant costs that could offset the projected savings. It is disappointing, the committee says, that there has been no cost-benefit analysis of these aspects. For people whose rent is paid monthly or four-weekly in arrears, the proposal will mean that the new rules will not provide sufficient time for a backdated claim to cover the delays that have taken place.
The fact that there has been no effective impact assessment makes it difficult to assess the effect of reducing backdating by different amounts from the current six months. Centrepoint undertook a survey of more than 800 young people using its services and found that 78% of those who made a late claim for housing benefit were not seeking backdating for longer than three months; the majority of backdating claims could therefore be accommodated within a three-month period, and reducing it further could have a financial impact on a sizeable group of vulnerable young people, potentially causing hardship to those least able to withstand it. The Committee highlighted the fact that the legacy benefits system is more complex than universal credit; that being the case, there is a strong case for maintaining a longer backdating period to account for these complexities. Removing the ability to back-date housing benefit claims for a sufficient period may deter landlords from letting to tenants in receipt of housing benefit. Landlords may be particularly reluctant to let to people who have experienced homelessness in the past, given that they may be vulnerable to falling into rent arrears, often through no fault of their own.
The committee concluded that the position faced by housing benefit legacy claimants, particularly the more vulnerable, is substantially different and more challenging than the position following migration on to universal credit. It added that in the absence of a robust impact assessment, the case for a simple alignment with a one-month backdating rule has not been made and that there is a significant risk of offsetting additional costs to the estimated one-year saving of £10 million if the proposal is pursued in this form. It therefore recommends that, if the Government still wish to make an early reduction in the backdating period, a three-month period would strike a better balance between the aim of securing an expenditure saving and recognition of the substantial differences between the housing benefit legacy and universal credit positions. With the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I would want to maintain that the three-month compromise is the one that we should go for, and the Government should rethink.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for giving us the opportunity to range over this issue this evening and to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his very extensive analysis of some of the risks around homelessness that these changes will create. Given the hour and the business to follow, I shall raise one or two brief questions.
On the family premium, the Explanatory Note with the regulations says:
“Removing the Family Premium helps to simplify the overly-complex HB system … and should therefore reduce administration costs”.
Can the Minister seriously tell me how much of a reduction in administration costs is anticipated just from removing this one component of what is and can be quite a complex calculation? It seems to me that it should be built into the system, so whether it is there or removed would make very little difference to the cost.
As for backdating, we have heard the arguments against the Government’s position that effectively we want to get equality with universal credit and if universal credit only needs one month’s backdating why does the housing benefit system need longer? I should have thought that it was recognised—and the noble Lord, Lord Low, has made it clear—that the housing benefit system is more complex. Indeed, is that not one of the boasts of the Government about universal credit, which we have supported—that it is an easier system whether you are in or out of work? You simply move up the scale; you do not have to come off one system of benefits and go on to another, or seek to return to them in due course.
We are in danger of overlooking a fundamental point here—that this is about backdating if there can be shown to be good cause. It is not something that is awarded willy-nilly. There are particular concerns around people with mental health conditions and the extent to which they are supported to make the right sort of decisions and judgments about their claim for benefits. That seems to sweep aside that issue.
There is one technical issue that the Minister may be able to help with. If somebody is awarded JSA after making a claim, they would be entitled to a three-month backdating of that benefit. The award of that benefit could automatically transport somebody on to maximum housing benefit—somebody who was not previously eligible for housing benefit. So we get somebody on JSA with a three-month backdating, which opens up the opportunity for housing benefit for somebody not previously entitled. There is something in the text that suggests that that backdating would apply to housing benefit as well, but I cannot quite see technically how that comes about. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that on the record tonight, because clearly there would be an anomaly with accessing one benefit opening up the opportunity for another benefit and giving rise to different backdating results, as a result particularly of these regulations.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, I shall be brief. Noble Lords can see very clearly what the issue is—it is technical and rather complicated. It is now late. If the Minister will give the assurance that he is happy to meet me and the Child Poverty Action Group so that we can discuss the amendment in greater detail, that will be really helpful and will save me having to go through a very complex explanation. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, in the spirit of comradeship and friendship with the Liberal Democrats, we are very happy to support that request.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
I think there were two parts involved in that question, so let me go through them. In answer to the first part, I will meet the noble Baroness and the CPAG. In answer to the second, I am happy to meet her and the CPAG.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the National Housing Federation. I speak in favour of Amendment 51, which seeks to protect schemes that house some of the most vulnerable people in the country from a damaging cut to their rents.
In answer to a question from me on Monday on the associated issue of the local housing allowance cap, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, referred to a review of the supported housing sector. That review was referred to again today in another place. Indeed, much has been said today in another place on both rent cuts and the LHA cap. It is only right that we fairly consider what has been said in another place and factor that into our discussions here. Referring to the review, the Government said that it would report urgently by the end of March. In addition, we have heard of a one-year delay in the implementation of the 1% rent cut for supported housing. This extra year’s delay is welcome, since it means that incomes will not be reduced as much as feared. Unfortunately, that is only at the margins when measured against the impact of the LHA cap on supported housing as announced in the spending review. This will have a much more significant and lasting impact, and is a threat to the very existence of much supported housing.
The National Housing Federation has been pressing the Government to urgently clarify that the LHA will apply only to working-age tenants in general needs accommodation. The Government have not done so. A survey of NHF members showed that this lack of certainty will result in 156,000 homes becoming unviable and being forced to close—41% of the sector—while 2,400 homes planned for development will now not be built. I find it hard to believe that it can be even remotely possible that it is the Government’s intention to put all this supported housing at risk. The impact on vulnerable people will be acute: on the elderly, people with disabilities, those fleeing domestic violence and those who served our country in the Armed Forces. The knock-on impact on public services in trying to pick up the pieces will be immense. These services desperately need a long-term commitment to safeguard their future.
The Government had the opportunity today in another place to set this right and clarify their intentions. They did not do it. The Government will carry out a review of how supported housing is funded—excellent. But surely the purpose of a review is to think first and only then act. Why create this level of uncertainty leaving housing association boards, which have to take decisions about future provision now, completely blind-sided about whether or when the cap may now be introduced? A one-year delay on the rent cut, welcome though it is, may not make much difference at all on this issue. The uncertainty is having a damaging and dangerous effect now. Tough decisions are being taken already: to close supported housing schemes; not to renew contracts; and to halt development of new schemes because there is not the certainty that they will be affordable in the near future, whether that be in two years or three. Protective redundancy notices are being prepared now. No provider can risk the cost of new building unless they are confident that the rent will cover that cost.
The announcement made by the Government today will do nothing to allay the fears on this issue of housing associations or the people living in these homes. I urge the Minister to think again and announce now that the LHA cap does not apply to supported and sheltered housing. I also urge the Government, through him, to work with the sector to develop a long-term sustainable funding model for supported housing.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we support each of the amendments set down in this group and have added our names to some of them. On Amendments 50, 51 and 52, we join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Best, on his negotiating skills—doubtless assisted in that endeavour by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake—and the Minister for listening and helping with at least a partial solution.
The deferral of the rent reduction programme is clearly welcome. The clarification on the comfort in respect of LHA caps is clearly important as well. The more that the Minister can say on that, the better. My noble friend Lady Warwick has outlined some of the problems because of the known existence of that aspiration. The Minister could, I hope, therefore go further. It is always the way that Ministers come forward with concessions, and then everybody piles in and wants just that little bit more, but this is a very important issue.
That raises the question of where that leaves the amendments, as the Minister’s proposition in his correspondence effectively covers co-operatives, almshouses and community land trusts, as well as housing associations. Are the Government going to accept the amendments, substitute something for them or simply rely on what is on the record of this debate?
The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, spoke to Amendments 53, 61 and 63, each of which we can support. He stressed the importance of an independent evaluation of what has gone on, in good time for rent policy for the subsequent period to be settled. In respect of Amendments 61 and 63, the noble Lord explained the importance of flexibility in respect of new-build, particularly for schemes of marginal feasibility. We had a very helpful meeting with members of the Bill team and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on this. Hopefully, embedded in this long list of government amendments is one that addresses that issue specifically. It may not necessarily have the breadth or flexibility the noble Lord is seeking, but I think it at least seeks to address the principle.
Amendment 59A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, proposes a report on local housing allowance rates. We debated this in Committee, but the Minister probably still owes us a reply. The purpose of that discussion was to recognise that, with the moratorium following the 1% limitation, LHA rates are increasingly going to move away from the reality of what renting in the private sector actually entails.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was clearly pleased with the outcome for almshouses. All in all, we should be grateful to the Minister for responding as he has—or hopefully will—at the Dispatch Box in confirming this. This is a real issue of substance which was worrying many people.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, is probably happy with the definition of supported housing that we have here, which is the broadest possible. I know there have been issues with specified support—what is in and what is out—but I take it from the correspondence and what has gone before that the moratorium is in respect of the widest definition of supported accommodation.
Lord Freud
I will start by picking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on unintended consequences. The House of Lords has done its job in alerting us to some unintended consequences in time for us to sort them out. I know that I rely on this House for that again and again, and in this case I express my gratitude to a number of noble Lords—with the noble Lord, Lord Best, leading the field—for enabling us to deal with these issues.
Let me now do the business on these amendments. Amendments 50 and 51 would exempt housing co- operatives, community land trusts and supported accommodation, while Amendment 52 would extend that exemption to almshouses. I will just make a few comments before I turn to the rent reductions in social housing. We face a challenge on the overall housing benefit bill and believe that social housing providers need to play their part in helping to bring that bill down. However, we also recognise the vital role that many housing providers play in supporting people who need the most help.
The Government have always made it clear that our policy will protect the most vulnerable members of society. To achieve that, the Bill has built into it the flexibility to except some social housing and provide exemptions for providers facing financial difficulty as a result of the reduction. We have also made several amendments to the Bill, including some today, which we believe will be helpful.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that quick but extensive exposition of what is in the amendments. Clearly there is a lot that we need to study in the record. I thank her for the notes we received in advance but we have had a limited time in which to absorb them. If we need to, perhaps we could take up the offer of a meeting between now and Third Reading, whenever that is. However, as a matter of prudence, we reserve the right to come back at Third Reading if anything proves to be contentious. We accept the proposition that these are enabling, protective or technical amendments and that that situation should not arise but, frankly, until we have had the chance to study them in detail—which we should have—I hope the Minister will accept that.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Indeed, it replicates part of an amendment moved in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. We know from the Government’s point of view that there is an article of faith here. Their starting point is that they overwhelmingly want and expect universal credit to be paid as a single monthly payment in arrears to the claimant. We know that there are opportunities for alternative payment arrangements and my noble friend Lady Sherlock set down our understanding in responding to the amendment in Committee.
The issue of eight weeks has been raised, but it is not eight weeks before you get to a solution. As I understand it, the guidance states that, when arrears reach one month’s rent, the DWP will review the situation—I am not sure how long it takes it to do that—following notification by the claimant or landlord. When they hit two months or eight weeks, either the landlord or the claimant can request an APA. Again, I think the point was raised about how long it takes the DWP to respond to those questions. Even then, there is no automatic right to one because the Government are still clinging to the concept that managing benefits should mirror choices in managing money which they say that those in work have to make.
The issue is one not only of having a nominal system in place under which alternative payments can be made, but of how those are put into practice and what realistic timescales are involved. Even if it were on the dot of eight weeks, that is a time for a landlord to wait. Some landlords might be left in a marginal economic situation.
A question was posed about what information we have about claimants of universal credit and other benefits being effectively denied access to properties available for rent. It might be quite hard to get hard statistics on that, but it would be interesting to know what the department has. The landlords fear, even if they may ultimately get paid, that they will have to wait eight weeks or even longer before they get their money.
My noble friend asked about what is happening with universal credit and how many people are in the system at the moment. At December 2015, there were 287,000 universal credit claims—I think that this is internal management information and therefore not fully verified—and some 37% of those payments included a housing element. Again only preliminary analysis showed that 19% of those had a managed payment to the landlord. I suppose that that gives a glimpse of something that is working to an extent, but clearly is not working in a sufficiently robust way to address the very real concerns that have been raised.
We debated this endlessly during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill. My noble friend will remember it, and jam-jar accounts have featured already this evening. The arguments were strongly made against not only monthly payments but the opportunity for direct payments, particularly in relation to housing. My noble friend Lady Hollis made an extremely important point that the fundamental is a roof over your head—pretty much everything else flows from that. How can you get a job if you do not have secure accommodation? How do the kids get to school if you do not have secure accommodation? It is a fundamental issue. Just a relatively small change to the system, giving people the choice of having direct payments, means the prospect of removing what is clearly a growing problem, as explained, and fixing it in an effective way, so we support the amendment.
Lord Freud
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow universal credit claimants to opt to have the housing cost element of their award paid direct to the landlord, irrespective of the reason. One key principle of UC is that the single, monthly payment mirrors the payment of monthly wages that most claimants would receive if they were in full-time employment. Whether they are receiving UC or are working, tenants need to make similar decisions on managing their money, including paying their own rent.
The Government understand that a move to a single, monthly household payment is a significant change for many claimants and that some will require help and support. Regulations came into force in February last year to allow DWP to inform social landlords whenever one of their tenants makes a claim for or is awarded universal credit with housing costs or when an existing universal credit claimant moves to one of their properties. This enables the social landlord to decide whether the claimant requires advice, support or assistance in budgeting so that they can manage their rental payments.
There will, of course, be instances where the claimant needs additional support and, to this end, the Secretary of State already has powers to pay all or some of a claimant’s UC entitlement to a third party through alternative payment arrangements—or APAs, in the trade. There are three APAs: paying rent directly to the landlord; making more frequent than monthly payments; or splitting the payment within the household. APAs can be considered by the Secretary of State at any point during the universal credit claim, whether at the outset or later on, if a claimant cannot manage the monthly payment arrangement.
Recent improvements allow the landlord to email their APA requests, which are dealt with in a matter of days as a priority—so some of the early teething problems as we started rolling out the system have been addressed to speed up that process. Wherever possible, these arrangements are time-limited and delivered with appropriate budgeting support to help claimants make the transition to monthly budgeting.
The arrangement also covers claimants who are in rent arrears, and managed payments to the landlord will be considered where claimants have arrears of at least one month due to repeated underpayment or where the claimant owes arrears of at least two months and is at risk of eviction. These protections, combined with the measures enabling landlords to recover arrears from a tenant’s UC award, already mitigate any impact on landlords’ income or on homelessness.
We are in fact making a series of initiatives in this area and one of the most interesting is the trusted partner trials, where we are working with local authorities so that they decide the people who should be put on an APA, at least initially, and then look to see the budgeting support that a person needs to run their own funding.
Picking up the point made by my noble friend Lord Cathcart on experience, in terms of arrears we did an elaborate direct payment project and we found that, in the early stages, the numbers who paid in full were running at 95.5%, compared with 99% of those where the state paid. However, by the 18th payment—these were weekly payments in the comparator in this project—the direct payments figure had risen to 99%. Interestingly, this happened when the removal of the spare room subsidy came in, and those tenants who had become used to managing their own rent handled the removal of the spare room subsidy better than the ones who had been on the state-managed payments system. That is not surprising because the managed payments system is not necessarily an easy option where there are reductions for non-dependants, the spare room subsidy and so on, because the claimant will still need to pay the shortfall to the landlord.
The other factor, which I am surprised that noble Lords have not clocked, is that a large number of the families on universal credit are in work. It is not like the old legacy system where you have one lot out of work and one lot in work; this is a blended group and people are moving from the out-of-work group into the in-work group. Therefore, the idea that you can be halfway down the taper—in the jargon—and have a managed payment would be incredibly hard for any organisation, including the DWP and the tenant, to manage. Two million households is equivalent to a quarter of the case load.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, since Committee I have spoken to a number of people with learning disabilities about their aspirations for work. I want to remind noble Lords that the proportion of people with learning disabilities in paid employment has remained stubbornly low, at around 7% of people known to social services. Most people that I have spoken to—and I think most people with learning disabilities—want to work. They do not want to be assessed to be in the support group. They really want help to find work. But the truth is that the vast majority of people with learning disabilities have never worked: back-to-work support is not what they need. Nor do they need a massive cut to their income, which will further marginalise and isolate them. Will the Minister specify exactly what evidence-based support is being planned for this group and how and where it will be delivered? It seems that personalised support in looking for suitable jobs and making written applications—recognising the low literacy levels among people with learning disabilities—and ongoing support to ensure they succeed in work in the longer term, might help a number of people to increase their chances. But will the Minister also acknowledge that people with learning disabilities will be particularly badly affected by a drop in income, given the difficulties they often have with financial management and making the most of a limited income? This group of people is going to be so adversely affected by this change that I feel the need to emphasise again and again that this policy has not been thought through for this group particularly and will affect it really badly.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, we have added our names to Amendments 41 and 44. Yet again, we have heard compelling arguments why Clauses 13 and 14 should be removed from the Bill.
I should say, compelling arguments bar one—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that if we pass these amendments today it is not tantamount to leaving things as they are. The task from now on in is to do something the Government have genuinely started to do: to look at and tackle the barriers that disabled people face when they are trying to get into work. Surely that should continue and accelerate if the closing of the disability employment gap is to be achieved. I think the noble Lord said it was axiomatic that the bigger the gap between income in work and income out of work, the bigger the incentive. If the noble Lord thinks about it, if you took that argument to its logical conclusion, you would not have any benefits at all, and that cannot be right.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, took us through some of the detail of the report: the hardship that these changes would cause; that somehow recouping the benefit by a few hours’ work simply is not practical for people who have been assessed as not fit for work; and the need to tackle the barriers to work, which was a strong strand of that report. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, made a very strong point when she said that we are doing this the wrong way round: we are cutting the benefit without addressing the issues that need to be addressed to help people into work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, reminded us that 50% of people with a mental health condition are in the WRAG. She raised the issue of people with progressive conditions—how on earth can we expect such individuals to access work? My noble friend Lady Lister, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Thomas, focused on the impact of Clause 14 and some of the extremely disagreeable consequences that could flow for people in work under universal credit. As has been said, that simply cannot be what the Government intended.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans reminded us that the disability employment gap is a stubborn one and we need to address it not in a generic way but in an individual, focused way. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, gave us just a glimpse of what the cuts to ESA will mean for people, pointing out that the extra expenses for disabled people are rising and are not effectively covered by DLA and PIP. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, focused on those people whom it has been particularly difficult to help into work—those with learning disabilities. These are fundamental parts of the analysis that underpins why these amendments are so important and why we should not allow these provisions to stay in the Bill.
Of course, the arguments have come not only from noble Lords today and in Committee but from a range of organisations that work day in, day out, with the very disabled people whom these clauses will hurt. Since Committee we have had more time to absorb the report, Halving the Gap, produced by the noble Lord, Lord Low, together with the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Grey-Thompson, which reviewed the Government’s proposals. The report could not have been clearer in concluding that,
“there is no relevant evidence setting out a convincing case that the ESA WRAG payment acts as a financial disincentive to claimants moving towards work, or that reducing the payment would incentivise people to seek work”.
Indeed, as we have heard, there are concerns that reducing the WRAG component would have the opposite effect and push people further away from the labour market. This is why we support Amendments 41 and 44. Frankly, we do not take lightly the prospect of removing whole sections of proposed legislation, but it would be no more significant than the effect these clauses will have on hundreds and thousands of disabled people.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I will contribute briefly to this debate in support of the amendment. The issue here is that we are in a very different benefits culture from the one we had maybe until 2010—I am not sure when exactly. The point is that the claimant commitment is the basis for sanctioning. If a parent fails to comply with a claimant commitment, that is when they will be sanctioned. If the claimant commitment is completely unrealistic and the parent cannot comply with it—for example, if it requires the parent to travel 90 minutes each way and they manage to have childcare for only five or six hours a day, or whatever it is—it will be physically impossible for them to satisfy that claimant commitment.
We know, certainly from the Fawcett Society inquiry I was involved with, that there is quite a need for training for these staff. That of course goes back for as long as I have ever been involved with welfare matters, which is probably some 40 years. Staff are very poorly paid, they tend to be rather inadequately trained and there is always a rapid turnover of staff, so you always have new staff who are trying to learn the rules, and so on. So this claimant commitment takes on a far greater significance in this day and age than it would have done 30 or 40 years ago.
That is why I ask the Government to take this very seriously. They need to accept that they have low-paid staff, a rapid turnover, poor training, and therefore that sanctions happen utterly inappropriately. The claimant commitments are wildly unrealistic in the experience of the inquiry I was involved with, which is very dangerous for the children. The parent goes along on a Friday to pick up their benefit and is told, “Oh, sorry”—or probably not even “sorry”—“your benefit has been stopped”. Is there any supper for the children? No, sorry, no food in the house—and so on. It is very serious for children affected by sanctions following the claimant commitment. That is why, although this sounds like a fairly innocuous amendment, believe me, it is very important.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with this amendment. It would be difficult to do otherwise because, as my noble friend reminded us, I moved a parallel amendment to what became the Welfare Reform Act 2009 when we were in government. When one looks back at legislation one has been responsible for there is always a moment of trepidation, but we are on safe ground in this case. Those were the days when the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Northbourne, were heavily involved in our debates. Having said that—and I underline the importance that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has placed on this amendment—it is slightly disconcerting to understand that one’s labours at the Dispatch Box all those years ago have lain dormant and fallow, so I press the Minister to say why it has not been introduced.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Manzoor, seeks to set into primary legislation a requirement for the Secretary of State, when preparing a claimant commitment, to have regard to the impact on any child affected by it. I fully support the principle that requirements should be adjusted according to individuals’ personal circumstances, including the well-being of any children for whom the claimant is responsible. However, this amendment proposes to unnecessarily prescribe the contents of the claimant commitment in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. During discussions with individuals, work coaches already take into account all the personal circumstances relevant to both claimant and child when agreeing work-related activities. We continually review the operation of the claimant commitment and will act on anything we find that can be improved. Claimants can request a review of their claimant commitment if they have concerns.
On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about Section 31 of the 2009 Act, it applies to JSA and ESA, not universal credit. As part of the claimant commitment, parents can input into the contents of the commitment within universal credit.
We are very clear about the importance of our responsibilities with regard to the well-being of children. Regulations 98 and 99 cover the circumstances in which all or some requirements should be suspended for a temporary period, which includes circumstances in which a parent has to spend time caring for a child in distress or if they are in the kind of situation which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about. The number of hours a claimant is expected to spend carrying out work-related activity is also tailored so as to be compatible with the claimant’s individual childcare responsibilities.
These reasonable requirements, including any limiting or lifting and the reasons for this, are recorded within the claimant commitment. The amendment does not specify that it applies to the responsible care of a child; it refers to “any child”, which would make it extremely difficult to determine which children are being referred to other than those within the claimant’s responsibility. This would make it difficult for jobcentres to effectively administer.
The key principle of the claimant commitment is that we treat people as individuals and tailor their requirements accordingly. We have chosen not to prescribe in legislation what a claimant commitment should take account of in order that we can reflect all the possible circumstances people can present with. It would be too prescriptive to single out one element—the well-being of a child—and legislate that claimant commitments must contain this information. It would not be practical to prescribe everything a claimant commitment should contain—we want to take account of a broad range of circumstances.
We know that developing a skilled workforce is key to realising the flexibilities that we have built into the legislative framework of universal credit. We want to empower our work coaches to use this broad discretion to make sound decisions that are right for the individual in front of them. As the noble Baroness said, I talked at length about the work under way to invest in learning and development of our front-line staff, including the work coach delivery model and accreditation. I did that because I wanted to stress the importance we place on making sure that work coaches are trained and that they use their discretion to the benefit of the families they work with. I emphasised that element because I wanted to stress to noble Lords that we take that very seriously.
Existing legislation already enables us to take account of the well-being of children when setting a claimant commitment; it is something that work coaches routinely do. Therefore we do not believe that it is necessary to set out this level of detail in primary legislation. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) After subsection (11) insert—
“( ) Persons who have been placed in temporary accommodation by a local authority which has found them to be in priority need as defined in section 189(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (priority need for accommodation) are exempted from the benefit cap.””
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 27 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock. This is also a rerun of an amendment that we moved in Committee, then part of a trio of similar amendments, so I will be brief.
The amendment would cause those families to be outwith the benefit cap if placed in temporary accommodation under the 1996 Housing Act. Regardless of whether the benefit cap has played a role, local authorities are legally obliged to rehouse families who are homeless through no fault of their own, are vulnerable in some way or are in priority need for rehousing. Families will be placed in temporary accommodation while a council decides whether it owes them a rehousing duty and then until a settled home can be found. The wait can be considerable, as can the costs. Invariably the temporary accommodation is leased by councils from the private sector, which charges the tenant a rent to cover these costs and expenses. These costs are commonly paid for by housing benefit with some top-up from DHPs.
Lord Freud
Amendment 27 seeks to exempt people in temporary accommodation from the benefit cap. I do not agree that it is appropriate to have a blanket exemption from the cap for people living in temporary accommodation. Rather, the best approach is to provide targeted support early so that people may better address their barriers to work. As I said in Committee, an exemption might, in fact, prolong a stay in temporary accommodation if it is likely that the cap will apply when a household moves to more permanent accommodation. That is an incentive both on the local authority and on the family.
I have already explained how £870 million in discretionary housing payments will be available for those households that need additional support in adjusting to the cap. Provision already exists to support the most vulnerable people who might be affected by the cap. Housing benefit paid to households in specified accommodation is disregarded from the benefit cap, and we included refuges within the definition of “specified accommodation”. While this does not mean that such households are exempt, by not including housing benefit in the calculation we expect that the vast majority of these cases will not be affected in practice by the benefit cap.
From April 2017, the weekly management fee in respect of temporary accommodation, currently £40 in London and £60 elsewhere, will be abolished and replaced with a grant that devolves this funding to local authorities. Unlike the existing management fee, this new grant will not count towards the benefit cap and that will help local authorities tackle homelessness more effectively. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for his reply. None of it was a surprise, and I will, of course, withdraw the amendment in due course. I would just like to ask the Minister a few questions. He said that if there were a blanket exemption, this would prolong the stay of people in temporary accommodation. What evidence is there for that? Is it not generally the case that temporary accommodation is not of the best quality, and some of it pretty grotty? Why would families not want to move out of temporary accommodation as soon as they could to put down their roots in a more permanent arrangement? In relation to the grant, that seems helpful in principle, but on what basis is that grant going to be made available? Is it going to be ring-fenced for these situations, or just generally devolved to local authorities and caught up in the morass of funding and cuts that they are having to face?
Lord Freud
One of the most worrying aspects about temporary accommodation is that many cases have not been temporary. There have been cases where people have been kept in temporary accommodation for months, stretching to years. One of the reasons for that was that the only way it could be extinguished was by going into social housing. People were quite keen on that route through. That was changed in the 2012 Act so that it can be extinguished by going into private housing. Nevertheless, we want to incentivise councils to move people into settled housing as quickly as they can. Indeed, I think that the limit is 13 weeks. There are just too many examples; I do not have the exact number, but there are too many cases where it has gone on too long.
On the fee, funding previously paid to local authorities will become an upfront payment no longer tied to households remaining in temporary accommodation. The fund will be administered by the DCLG and the devolved Administrations. We will be able to give further details of that process in due course. That is all I have at the moment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for that. I will read the record, but I am not sure that I would agree with the proposition about local authorities not wanting to move people into more permanent accommodation as quickly as they can, and away from temporary accommodation, which is expensive for them. Having said that, and given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(a) the rate of inflation, and(b) the national economic situation.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in moving Amendment 31 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock, I shall speak to our other amendments in this group. Noble Lords will be aware that this is also a rerun of the amendments discussed in Committee. We found the Government’s arguments on that occasion less than convincing. As they stand, Clauses 9 and 10 provide for the freezing of certain working-age benefits for four years until 2019-20. This would follow the 1% uprating imposed in 2013. Our amendments would require that these benefits instead be reviewed annually, taking account of inflation and the national economic situation.
We understand that the benefit freeze is designed to contribute to the Government’s cuts programme, and it is alarming that this measure will garner the Government some £3.5 billion in 2019-20, compared with a CPI uprating. This comes on top of benefit cuts and tax increases borne under the coalition, where the IFS reminds us—I raised this figure earlier—that, as a percentage of income, the poorest two deciles suffered the largest reductions. The End Child Poverty alliance reminds us that some 4.1 million families and 7.7 million children have already been affected by below-inflation rises over the last three years. As my noble friend Lady Lister pointed out in our previous debate, the inflation index does not properly capture the budgets of low-income families because they spend more on essentials, the costs of which have tended to rise faster than the average price index in recent years.
My noble friend Lady Sherlock articulated our major concern with the freeze, which is that it both cuts the link between prices and earnings and widens the gap between the income of the poorest and the living standards of the mainstream of society. It is part of a growing trend under this Government to uncouple eligibility for support from need. Our amendment would not preclude the Government freezing working-age benefits for four years, although it has manifesto cover for just two. It would at least cause the Government to confront the extent to which they are causing the poorest to miss out, and to account for their actions.
The Government’s rationale was that those on certain benefits—JSA was one—have done too well in the past few years in comparison with earnings and the minimum wage, and that the trend needed to be reversed. On 21 December, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, told noble Lords that the Government had struck,
“a balance between the needs of claimants and affordability”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2388.]
Perhaps we can hear how the needs of claimants have been assessed for these purposes. On what basis has it been determined that claimants can accommodate a real-terms reduction in their income for each of the next four years? What rate of inflation have the Government assumed in making this judgment? The noble Baroness told the House that 7% of global expenditure on social protection is spent in the UK, which has only 1% of the world’s population. Is it now the Government’s serious intent to benchmark UK social security spending against some of the poorest countries in the world?
So far as Amendment 32 is concerned, I look forward to hearing from my noble friend—and, indeed, namesake—but, so far as the support group is concerned, his amendment seeks to ensure that the full amount of the allowance is to be the subject of uprating, not just the support group addition. I wait to hear what he says, but it seems to me entirely reasonable, particularly since those in the support group are not able to work, so issues of work incentives have no application—but, equally, such individuals are generally unable to supplement their income. I support my noble friend’s amendment and I beg to move.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 31, 33 and 34 in the names of my noble friends Lady Sherlock and Lord McKenzie of Luton. However, I shall concentrate on Amendment 32, which is almost but not quite the same as an amendment tabled in my name in Committee. I regret and apologise that I was unable to be in the House on that day. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for moving that amendment on my behalf—more importantly, perhaps, on behalf of people with life-limiting illnesses such as motor neurone disease.
In speaking to that amendment, the right reverend Prelate reminded the Committee of the promises made by the Conservative Party in the run-up to the general election. I want to refer to that promise again, writ large in its manifesto, which was to always protect the benefits for the most disabled. Despite that promise, the Bill before us does not fully protect people with life-limiting illnesses such as motor neurone disease and other similar rapidly progressing ghastly conditions. Either the words in the manifesto say what they mean and mean what they say or they do not. As of this moment, these promises are not being kept. Going some of the way is what has happened in the Bill—and some of the way is not fully protecting, and is not always protecting, benefits for the most disabled. Unless this amendment is agreed, or the Government come forward at Third Reading with something to produce the same outcome, they will have failed to keep that manifesto promise. I do not believe that is good enough in a modern, civilised society, where people with life-limiting illnesses should not be expected to suffer any more financial hardship than is the inevitable consequence of their illness.
People with motor neurone disease frequently end up having to build bedrooms and wet rooms downstairs, adapt furniture and face all sorts of costs. Couples who may have been reasonably comfortably off rapidly find themselves in considerable debt. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham put it:
“Those whom we cannot reasonably expect to support themselves should not be expected to shoulder the burden of austerity”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2405.]
The most disabled will lose perhaps more than £250 per annum by 2020 because the basic rate of the employment and support allowance is not exempted. I appreciate that the amendment in my name is rather complicated, but it is a serious attempt to right a potential wrong. If it is too complicated, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of government to find another formula to produce a result that will give the full protection that is needed.
In Committee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham expressed the hope that Ministers would give the matter further and serious consideration. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, said in response that benefits,
“are designed to provide a basic standard of living to those who are not in work but at a level that does not disincentivise moving into work”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2406.]
People with life-limiting illnesses such as motor neurone disease are not disincentivised from going to work. They cannot go to work—would that they could. There is no behavioural change that people with these dreadful illnesses can make to get back into work. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, concluded by agreeing that,
“we absolutely must provide suitable protections for disabled people”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2407.]
However, she then did not support the amendment. The meaning of “suitable” is very different from the meaning of “full protection”, as was promised in the manifesto. A great many people with life-limiting illnesses, and their organisations such as the Motor Neurone Disease Association, take a great interest in what the Government will now do. I hope the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, will be able to say that he will bring something back at Third Reading along the lines of this amendment, which will honour the promise that the Government made in their manifesto in the run-up to the election.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I do not wish to spend too much time restating the same points that were made in Committee so I will keep my remarks brief. First, I address the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which replace the provisions in the freeze with a duty on the Secretary of State to review the benefits in question, having regard to inflation and the national economic situation.
I remind noble Lords that the provisions in Clauses 9 and 10 contribute £3.5 billion of the £12 billion of welfare savings by 2019-20 that the Government are committed to. The Government have a £35 billion consolidation plan, as the Chancellor set out in the summer Budget and the joint Autumn Statement and spending review, and we are on target to achieve a surplus of around £10 billion by 2019-20. The savings that the freeze provide therefore represent a significant proportion—10%—of the work that remains to be done through this Parliament to restore the nation’s finances.
Noble Lords have argued that these amendments would merely place a review on the freeze rather than remove it altogether, but they would remove the certainty provided by a legislated-for four-year freeze. This would lead to increased uncertainty about where the Government intend to find the necessary savings to restore the nation’s finances and could decrease market confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver their target surplus by 2019-20. Noble Lords have also raised concerns about the impact of this freeze. I reiterate that there are no cash losers to this policy and that inflation is still forecast, by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, to be relatively low over the next two years, providing time for benefit recipients to adjust their finances to compensate. Furthermore, OBR forecasts at the Autumn Statement projected average earnings growth of around 3.9% by 2020, higher than projected inflation at around 2%, meaning many working families can expect to see the impact of the freeze offset by their rise in earnings. The annual average income of the poorest fifth of households has risen by £300 in real terms, compared to 2007-8.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, regarding employment and support allowance. This amendment seeks to place into legislation a requirement for the support group component of ESA to be uprated by an additional amount above the amount it would otherwise be uprated by. This additional amount would be equal to the difference between the current main rate of ESA and that rate if it were uprated by inflation. I should remind noble Lords that, as said in Committee, those in the ESA support group receive an additional amount on top of the personal allowance—the support group component—which we have specifically exempted from the benefits freeze. Furthermore, the enhanced disability and severe disability premiums within ESA are also exempt from the freeze, as are benefits which contribute towards some of the additional costs of disability such as disability living allowance and personal independence payment.
Noble Lords will be aware that spending on main disability benefits went up by over £2 billion over the course of the last Parliament, and that the proportion of those in relative poverty who live in a family where someone is disabled has fallen since 2010. We believe that we are continuing to provide important protections for the most disabled through the exemptions we have from the freeze, and that this amendment is therefore not required.
In conclusion, the Government believe that the freeze strikes a necessary balance between making important welfare savings while having in place the protections for the most vulnerable and disabled. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. If the Government are to be in surplus in 2019-20, why is it necessary for any benefits freeze to extend into that year, whatever the rationale for earlier years? The noble Baroness said that there are no cash losers, but we know what that means: in real terms, people are going to miss out. Specifically, I refer the noble Baroness to my question about what she said in the previous debate about the balance being struck between—in her words—the needs of claimants and affordability. I ask again: how were the needs of claimants assessed in that determination?
The response to my noble friend, who made a compelling case, was deeply disappointing. In any reasonable understanding of language, the commitment made in the manifesto has not been met by how this issue has been dealt with this evening. I ask the noble Baroness to reflect again to see whether the Government could at least come back on the issue raised by my noble friend. As he outlined, those with life-limiting injuries are the most disadvantaged and are missing out. This is simply not fair.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said in relation to the disability element, we have exempted quite a number of elements from the freeze, so we believe that we are ensuring that disabled people continue to get support and that the most vulnerable are protected. In more broad terms, we need to ensure that benefit spending is sustainable in the long term.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Is that it? Given the hour, I think there is no point in pursuing this, except to ask whether, on that point, there is nothing further the Government wish to say to my noble friend Lord MacKenzie in relation to those people who find themselves in the support group and are undoubtedly short-changed by the way that the Government have dealt with this uprating.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, we are protecting certain elements of disability benefits. We understand the needs of disabled people which is why, as I set out in my response, a number of elements are being kept outside the freeze. Overall, we have increased spending on the disabled and will obviously continue to try to ensure that they have the support that they need.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we are clearly not going to make much further progress this evening. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment but it is deeply disappointing that this issue of the support group has been dealt with in this way.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. I thank the Minister for meeting some of us last week to talk about why we felt that this amendment was so important. I shall outline the four key themes from my perspective. I agree that we need consistency of approach, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Low. We need to monitor and evaluate progress on the target. This is the Government’s target and it is laudable and very welcome. However, do they really not want to measure it and evaluate improvement? One could perhaps think that the Government do not want to measure progress towards the target, and consider that it is easier to pick off low-hanging fruit than to assess the great variations in disability and tackle those, so that more people enter employment. As has already been said, this measure is not costly and will certainly help to identify the support that employers need to help people with disabilities.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, we support Amendment 1 for the reasons advanced with conviction by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and pretty much every other Peer who has spoken in this debate so far. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about the importance of proper reporting to the ability to deliver proper parliamentary scrutiny. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised the very important issue of the need to have data on different groups, otherwise there is a risk that targets will be achieved by dealing just with those closest to the labour market. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, reminded us about the impact of specific, detailed reports which come before Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that we can get full employment only if we make progress on the disability employment gap. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and other noble Lords, talked about the failure of the Work Programme at the moment—a running theme on these issues. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, touched on Amendments 42 and 43. That enables me, in the absence of my colleagues, to address those and I will do so in a minute. The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, made an important point about tackling the stigma around mental health which, sadly, still pertains in some communities.
We, too, welcome the Government’s commitment to halving the disability employment gap by 2020. We are grateful to the Minister for organising a meeting last week, together with his colleague, Justin Tomlinson MP, although the message delivered was that the amendment would be resisted by the Government. I hope there has been a change of heart in the interim. This is notwithstanding the generally encouraging noises and the promise of a White Paper. We know that the disability employment gap has stayed stubbornly persistent—the noble Lord, Lord Low, referred to it as intractable—for too long and cross-government effort will be needed to deliver on the commitment.
The reasons why we need regular reporting have also been summarised, too, by Leonard Cheshire in its briefing paper and these include, in particular, the incentive for action in that it will provide a departmental and cross-government focus on the gap. As the Minister himself has frequently opined, it is that which gets measured and reported on which gets government attention. That briefing highlighted the somewhat conflicting messages we have received from the Government. The Employment Minister in another place stated that the Government did not see the need to report on disability employment, as the measure was essential to achieving the wider commitment to full employment. However, the more enlightened Minister for Disabled People did promise that the annual report on progress to full employment would include an update on the Government’s progress towards halving the disability employment gap.
We need some clarification on this, particularly considering the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, in Committee, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, referred. The thrust of those comments was that the management information which this amendment seeks has not been built into the current plans and would not represent value for money, given the timeline to just 2020. Do the Government have no ambition after that? It would also disrupt the universal credit timeline, wherever that currently stands. If the Minister rejects the amendment, but promises regular reporting, will he make it clear what that will entail and what the sources of the data will be? The amendment is seeking not just aggregated data reporting but a proper analysis of progress over a range of conditions. If we do not have clarity on this and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, is minded to test the opinion of the House, we will support her.
Amendment 42, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, seeks, as we have heard, to add people with mental health problems to the list of groups which are exempt from the conditionality element of back-to-work support schemes. We have received a very helpful briefing from Mind which covers this and other issues. It is suggested that conditionality, with its threat of sanctions, has a negative impact on people with mental health problems, that it undermines the relationship between claimant and adviser, removes choice and control, and has no evidence to support it working for people with mental health problems. It seems to us that this is fundamentally about having the right sort of support for people with mental health problems. Mind and others point out that the mainstream back-to-work support is currently often generic, as we have heard today, untailored and does not address the barriers to work which disabled people face. The lack of specialist support is undermining the opportunities for individuals to access work. This is a constant complaint from those who engage with these issues, so perhaps the Minister will tell us how he is to address this in the context of halving the disability employment gap.
Amendment 43, in the name of my noble friend Lord Layard, refers us back to psychological therapies, as we have heard. I am grateful for the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, so that we can at least debate this a little today. On the matter of drafting, we need to reflect on the reference to “primary medical condition” given that entitlement to the WRAG is determined by a range of descriptors which can be for physical or mental health factors. Drafting aside, my noble friend's objective is to encourage and assist those with a mental health or behavioural disorder to access assessment and, if appropriate, treatment. This is an objective which we wholeheartedly support.
My noble friend Lord Layard has previously made a powerful case in identifying that nearly a million people are on ESA due to depression or anxiety disorders but that only about half are getting treatment. We have heard that improving access to psychological therapies can make a real difference, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, confirmed. The pilots that took place were 10 years ago. My noble friend has previously explained that around half of those treated under the programme last year recovered during treatment. Such results could obviously assist the path for people back to work and we know of the evidence that work—good work—is good for people’s health. His amendment does not mandate anyone for treatment—we have been down that path before—neither is it instructing the NHS to treat in a specific way a group of individuals. But it requires that those with a mental health problem be encouraged and assisted to be referred for assessment and treatment. There is no conditionality attached and no suggestion that such individuals should somehow jump the queue.
If assessment and treatment is key to making individuals well and helping them move closer to the labour market, is that not exactly what the system should be about? This of course begs the question of what the process should be. I hope that the Minister will accept the thrust of this amendment and follow up with my noble friend and others who have been engaged in the past. We used to have mental health champions in Jobcentre Plus; perhaps the Minister could tell us what has happened to this role.
I finish where I started: fundamentally, we are very happy to support Amendment 1, which is very important, and to help the noble Baroness test the opinion of the House if that is her decision.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 1 would build on Clause 1, which sets out the Government’s commitment to report to Parliament annually on the progress made towards full employment. Producing an annual report which illustrates progress towards full employment across the UK demonstrates this Government’s clear intention and continuing commitment to building a strong economy, growing business and ensuring labour market opportunities for all.
The purpose of this amendment is to require a further annual report to Parliament on the progress that has been made towards narrowing the disability employment gap. The amendment would also require the report to include how the Government have defined the disability employment gap, how they will assess whether progress has been sufficient and what remedial action will be taken if progress is insufficient. The amendment also requires that the report should include data on progress in increasing the employment rates of specific groups of disabled people, including people with autism, a learning disability, mental health problems and visual impairments.
I hereby formally commit the Government to report on our progress towards halving the disability employment gap in the annual report on full employment—no ifs, no buts. Halving the disability employment gap is a crucial part of achieving our full employment aspirations and a key priority for this Government in its own right. I hope also that, following my meeting with Peers on this very subject last week, they are assured of my commitment and that of my honourable friend, the Minister for Disabled People, who was also at that meeting.