Welfare Reform Bill

moved Amendment No. 1: 1: Clause 1 , page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1) The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 17, 103 and 18. What a select band we are in this Room this afternoon. It is particularly nice to see the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, in his place among us, because he so often puts his parliamentary duties before his health. Clearly his health is such that he can be with us today; I am delighted with that, because he has enormous experience in the area that we are about to discuss. The first amendment in this group may seem to many Members of the Committee rather aggressive. It is not meant to be. My noble friend and I tabled it to get an early opportunity to hear the Government’s response to some very basic questions. We have heard a great deal, all of which I entirely agree with, about the benefits that we have seen in another place, and I hope will see here, concerning a consensual approach to the difficult issues to be debated, and I hope resolved, during our discussions on the Bill. Unfortunately, some of the largest issues that I hope to be debate are difficult to introduce, as they revolve around what is not in the Bill rather than what is. Members of the Committee with a better knowledge of Latin than me may remember that Caesar, in his Commentaries on the Gallic Wars—perhaps in volume one or two—commented that men worry more about what they cannot see than about what they can. The Government have been unusually co-operative in laying before your Lordships draft copies of many of the regulations that the Bill will empower, along with extensive explanatory material. I am sure that all Members of the Committee are as grateful as I am for that. Although those have been extremely helpful, the Government have been silent on one of the most important questions that the Bill has raised; namely, what the new benefit levels will be. I hope that Members of the Committee will bear with me as I go through the many questions that arise out of that, which the Minister must surely appreciate. The basic question obviously has a significant impact on not only new claimants of ESA, but those who must eventually migrate from the old system to the new. The Government have promised that the basic allowance plus the support component will be greater than long-term incapacity benefit. However, I have failed to ascertain whether that is with or without premiums. The notes on the draft regulations suggest that they will continue. If so, for how long? I observe that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, is as confused on the matter as I am, otherwise he would not have tabled Amendment No. 18. Next—I may be jumping the gun a little—Iam particularly concerned about two words inparagraphs 5(2)(a) and 6(2) of Schedule 4. The schedule states that: "““Regulations may … make provision for the purpose of securing that an award of an employment and support allowance that falls to be made on matching terms is made on terms which match in whole or part the award that would have been made in pursuance of a further claim to the existing benefit””." I would be grateful for an explanation of what ““in … part”” means in that context. It has been taken by many of the lobby groups as basing all future levels of ESA benefit on the lowest possible measure of the old. For example, it seems that the assessment phase level is set against the lowest level possible of JSA, and that the support benefit is set against incapacity benefit, both being stripped of all premiums, which in reality are significant elements of both benefits. That is especially relevant to the group of disabled people aged 16 to 24. Let us assume that the first day of operation of ESA is 1 April—before noble Lords reach for their diaries, I am well aware that this year1 April falls on a Saturday but I ask them to bear with me—and let us further assume that it is a Monday. Will a young person on IB on 31 March get the same or less than the equivalent young person who starts his claim on 1 April and, as is hoped, has it completed 12 weeks later? These questions, in particular, are vital when it comes to migration. This is the area where the Government have given us the least information and I hope that they will be able to remedy that over the next few sittings. There has been much debate over how long migration is expected to take. ““As resources allow””—words that are whistling round Whitehall at the moment—is a similarly flexible phrase. There is also much confusion over how claimants will be treated during migration. I understand that those currently claiming IB will not be moved to the lower assessment phase benefit as this will represent a significant loss of benefit for those 13 weeks. However, can the Government clarify whether these migrants will have to undergo a PCA to confirm to which group they will finally be assigned? After all, it is not impossible that the new descriptors will lead to many people currently on the higher level long-term IB being newly assessed as not being limited for work-related activity. Another complication here is the application of linking rules. A correspondent whom I mentioned on Second Reading has raised concerns over how these will apply. The situation is clear enough with those who are on ESA, but what of migrants? Let us suppose that a current claimant on long-term IB manages to find employment, so comes off the benefit just as ESA is rolled out under him. On losing that job within two years, he should return to a similar level of benefit, presumably as a support component under the new regime. Can the Minister explain whether he will remain free from conditionality, as is the case for new claimants receiving that level of benefit? Then, to complicate the story even further, let us suppose that after a time he again finds himself employed—again, for less than two years. Will he continue to be returned to the support group? When do the Government intend to require PCAs from these migrants? I suppose that here it is appropriate to mention the employment grant of £40 a month for those coming into work. Will they get several dollops of this, or will it be limited to a 24-month working period or what? I repeat that I am referring to someone who is in and out of work. There is also the possibility of self-migration. In other words, can the Minister confirm that current claimants who are actively seeking to migrate—particularly those with mental health and learning disabilities, who have available greater support, such as personal advisers—are also able to migrate, as the notes on regulations suggest? Moving away from questions surrounding migration, I return to the issue of where levels will be set. I understand that the basic allowance, as awarded during the assessment phase, will be similar to the basic jobseeker’s allowance—so similar, in fact, that it will be less for young people over the age of 25 but more if they are a couple. Can the Minister explain why these distinctions are being continued into the assessment period when they have been rejected for the period afterwards? That seems illogical. Why, indeed, do the Government want it both ways? Surely it would be clearer and cleaner for them to decide whether a distinction is or is not to be made on the grounds of age. Another surprise on reading the material is that the Government are planning to continue so many premiums into this new regime for the income-related ESA. Severe disability is mentioned as an example; this seems an unnecessary complication given that the new benefit already has a more generous payment to the severely disabled or ill claimants in the form of the support component. Why does that benefit not already encompass that premium? I should also like clarification on whether these premiums, presumably along with passported benefits such as free prescriptions, will be extended over the assessment phase for new claimants. The explanatory material seems to suggest that they do, but how will that be managed? Claimants will not yet have been assessed as to the need of any benefits relating to their disability at that point. There is also the question of child-related premiums and passported benefits, such as the enhanced disability premium or free school meals. Of course, I can understand the need to continue with the premiums while that area is reformed, but I hope that the Minister can reassure me that premiums will be withdrawn as soon as possible and absorbed instead into what is undoubtedly—or will seem so, when I have had the explanations that I have asked for—a new, simpler benefit. I appreciate that this is a very long list of somewhat disparate questions, but a complete set of answers will save much time later, which is in everybody’s interest—always supposing that I remember the answers given by the Minister. I beg to move.