Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I am pleased to rise in support of the vital amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and in opposition to the Question that Clause 51 stand part of the Bill. I am afraid that this will be another of my rather long speeches but this is such an important issue that it is essential that we spend time on it. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, speaks from his considerable experience as a clinician, particularly with regard to cancer patients. The cause of cancer patients has also been well served by Macmillan Cancer Support, which has done so much to bring this issue to public attention and to brief noble Lords. I shall not focus on this particular group because I cannot possibly bring to the matter the same level of expertise as that of the noble Lord. Instead, I shall discuss some of the wider implications for our social security system, including the gender implications of relying on income-related ESA as an alternative to contributory ESA. In the other place, the Minister of State told the Public Bill Committee: "““It is a long-standing principle of our contributory system and the JSA system that we allow those who have paid in to draw back out money for a period of time, but that there is a limit to the amount that they can draw out again””." He continued: "““There has been an enormous inconsistency between JSA and ESA and its predecessors, in that somebody who manages to get themselves on to our sickness benefits is there indefinitely, whereas somebody who is on JSA is there only temporarily. That creates a perverse incentive in the system””.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Committee, 3/5/11; col. 650.]" It is also a long-standing principle of our contributory system that those unable to take paid work because of sickness or disability should be able to rely on the contributory benefit system so long as they are in that position. That support was never intended to be temporary. The impact assessment tells us that time-limiting is about: "““Embedding a culture that ESA is a temporary benefit for the majority of claimants””." Yet, as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the Government’s own figures show that the great majority of recipients in the WRAG will still need ESA after a year. Surely the point of ESA is to address the perverse incentive mentioned by Mr Grayling, in so far as it exists, through the separation out into the support group and WRAG, and the transfer of those able to work immediately to JSA through the work capability assessment. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, spoke about that. The additional imposition of an arbitrary time limit on top of the work capability assessment is a form of double jeopardy. Moreover, it was my understanding that those not eligible for income-related ESA would no longer be able to access the support to find work through the work programme provided through contributory ESA. At the briefing that we received, I was told that they could access that help voluntarily, although it is possible that I misunderstood. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that people who lose all entitlement will be able to access the work programme, should they so wish. If not, that is surely a perverse outcome unless the Government do not care that this group’s chances of finding work could be diminished if they no longer have to provide benefit for them. Also, can the Minister clarify the situation with regard to credited contributions for those who cease to have any entitlement to ESA at all? I remind noble Lords of another long-standing principle in our social security system, the contributory principle. That principle was reviewed by the Social Security Select Committee in the other place in 2000; I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, will remember the report well as he was the much respected chair of that committee at the time. It started with the observation that the contributory principle, "““was the cornerstone of the post-war social security settlement, intended to provide social protection for all through a collective fund to which everyone contributed””." The report continued: "““Today that system is being eroded””," and the committee’s investigation, "““grew out of an unease that the system of National Insurance is disappearing by default””." Clause 51 represents a significant further stage in that process in this the centenary year of the National Insurance Act 1911, which first established the contributory principle in this country. Universal credit policy briefing note 4 acknowledges that: "““Claimants recognise and strongly support the contributory principle and the Government believes it is right that people are able to access support after paying into the system””." Yet they are now reneging on the contract made with citizens through the national insurance system. The conclusion to the Social Security Select Committee’s report was couched in terms of the purpose of social security and what it is trying to achieve. It stated that, "““social security has a wider role than simply providing a safety net for the poor… as social insurance””," it, "““should help protect individuals against the adverse consequences, including a drift into poverty, as a result of unexpected life events such as illness or injury””." The more policy talks about, "““targeting support on the poorest””," as the impact assessment does with reference to the policy objectives behind the measure, the more social security’s wider role is undermined. In Committee in the other place, the Minister of State explained that the decision to impose a time limit after a year was, "““not based on an estimate of a typical recovery time””." Here we have a clear admission that the policy was not based on medical evidence. Instead it was based, "““on the principle that these are people who have other means of financial support””.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Committee, 3/5/11; col. 652.]" I am not quite sure that that is a principle, but never mind. So much for the social protection that the contributory system was supposed to provide. At Second Reading, I quoted from a letter that I had received from a disabled woman who said that she felt, "““desperately worried and frightened for my future””." She was happy for me to use anything that she said anonymously as, she said, "““it would make me feel as though I, and all of us, have a voice””." I cannot be that voice but I can do my best to act as a conduit for it and the voices of some of the other disabled people who have written to me and, I know, to other noble Lords. This woman asked, ““What do we do then””, once the time limit is applied? The Government’s answer, of course, is to claim income-related ESA but, as the gender impact assessment shows, about a third of men and 46 per cent of women—nearly half—will not be eligible. It reassures us that these women, "““will generally either have a working partner or capital over £16,000 so will not be left without income””." However, where they have to depend on a partner, they will be left without an independent income. These women, and quite a few men, will have their financial autonomy eroded. As I said at Second Reading, this matters to people. An individual benefit paid in one’s own right provides women with a degree of economic power and control. Citizenship rights which come at second hand, via a partner, are compromised. As an aside, I am alarmed at hints—fuelled by a recent Written Answer in the other place to Karen Buck MP—that in some cases any contributory benefit entitlement might be paid through the universal credit because this could mean that a woman's contributory benefit, for which she has paid contributions, is paid to her partner. I would be very grateful if the Minister could say categorically today that this will not happen. I return to the matter in hand. Mind argues that non-means tested benefits, "““for people with long-term mental health problems are an essential part of the system. Many such people rely on personal and emotional support from partners to be able to live in the community. Making partners wholly responsible for their financial support as well seems both unjust and self-defeating””." It goes on to say: "““It seems highly likely that the change would result in family breakdown in many cases and increased rates of hospitalisation and institutionalisation””." Among letters I have received from disabled people who are extremely anxious about this change are two which are illustrative of cases that are supposedly unproblematic because of the presence of a working spouse—in these instances, the wife. One is from the wife of a 49 year-old man who has been in full-time employment for over 30 years. She is 45 and has also been in employment for nearly 30 years. Last year her husband was diagnosed with a slow-growing brain tumour and a benign tumour in the ear. Following an operation, he has been unable to return to his former employment as a pipe-organ builder because, she says, the illness, "““limits his strength and stamina and overall capability of the use of machinery and scaffolding””." He has applied for countless part-time jobs and is helping out at the local Barnardo's shop and animal sanctuary, "““to preserve his work ethic and to gain new experience with the hope of maybe gaining employment in a less physical position””." Her husband has received the famous—or infamous—letter informing him that his ESA may stop in April 2012. She writes: "““We were shocked at this time limit””," because someone who, as in her husband's case, "““has contributed all his adult life, is given such a short time to get his life back on track after such a serious illness. I may add an illness that is never going to get better; he has just got to learn to adapt his life to living with his condition and … doing his utmost to battle through this and get back to some ‘normality’. If this plan goes through, my husband and I am sure many like him will lose his ESA and because I myself am””," in full-time employment, "““he will not be able to make a claim on earnings based””—" I think that she means income-related, of course— "““thus adding to his problems and no doubt putting back his recovery””." The second letter is from a blind man, who is married with a seven year-old daughter and who used to work as a psychiatric nurse. He sees no prospect of finding work at present. He writes that, "““removing my benefit will affect my whole family placing a greater financial burden on my wife. It will also damage me as an individual. If I lose this benefit I have concerns about my family's ability to continue to pay””," household bills, "““and the cost of raising a child. At best, I will become totally dependent on others. I would actually be better off financially living alone. Over recent months benefits have been referred to as a trap, in my case this is far from the truth. It is a much needed part of my family's income. This situation is causing unnecessary stress to me and other blind people. I hope you can use your position as a member of the House of Lords to stop these proposed changes going through””." Amendment 75A, which we will hear about in a moment, should help people in this position, but it will not address the concerns raised by another person who I have heard from whom I want to quote. I received a long letter from a woman who described herself as, "““a disabled person with a long term mental illness””." She wrote that the news of the time limit, "““came as a massive shock to me. I have found it so hard to come to terms with the fact that the government can be so cruel””." She said that, "““throughout the length of time I have been in receipt of incapacity benefit, I have tried my utmost (and so far succeeded) to survive without recourse to means tested benefits. This has included, in the past, paying the whole of my rent … It is of the utmost importance to me not to have to rely on means-tested benefits because my housing and support needs are complex””." This is a 50-year old woman with complex mental health problems which she has been advised will last her lifetime. She clearly gets stressed very easily— Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.