Welfare Reform Bill

I rise to speak to Amendments 71M, 71N, 71P, 72A and 73. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for kindly allowing me to speak a little earlier than I had planned because I have to leave the Committee briefly at 5 pm. I apologise to the Minister and the Bill team that I have not been able to attend the briefing sessions. They are a wonderful idea and I had hoped and assumed that I would attend every one, but life has not been quite like that. I also apologise for not having had quite the time I would have wished to prepare for this debate. Having said that, I have major concerns about the plan to limit entitlement to contributory ESA to one year. I understand from the CAB service that the DWP has estimated that, of those on contributory ESA and in the work-related activity group, 94 per cent will remain on the benefit from more than a year, so it is estimated that by 2015-16 700,000 people will be affected by limiting contributory ESA. Some will lose their entire benefit payment, currently worth £94.25 a week. I know that the Minister will correct me if that is wrong. It sounds astonishing. The rationale for this change is, I suppose, twofold. First, it is to give maximum incentive to people to return to work and, secondly, it is to save taxpayers’ money. I will refer to those two points briefly. It is particularly difficult to support the employment incentive argument at present, when even able-bodied people and remarkably highly skilled people are finding it very difficult to find work. As we said, we think that about 94 per cent of those with disabilities will remain on this benefit beyond their contributory entitlement. I would welcome the Minister’s views on the fairness of this provision in relation to an individual with—obviously in terms of my own concerns—ongoing and fluctuating symptoms. He is very keen to work and does not need any incentive, but no doubt he will be given lots of incentives through the mechanics of the work-related activity group. But the fact is that he cannot persuade an employer to take him on. I know that the Minister is aware that there are very large numbers of people on ESA who want to work and cannot persuade an employer to take them. In other words, these people are very much the deserving unemployed. They used to be called the deserving poor. I happen to know hundreds of people personally who fall into that category. I would be grateful for the Minister's views on that. If we consider for a moment the need to protect taxpayers’ money, I happen to believe that taxpayers would recognise that this group—people who are disabled and sick on benefits—should be entitled to their benefit, having contributed, many of them, for decades. Politically, I do not believe that this is something that one can possibly justify. It is very hard to argue that savings to taxpayers’ money should be made with this particular group—sick and disabled people—rather than at the expense of other groups in society with much broader shoulders. There are all sorts of cuts that a Government could make that would seem much fairer than this one. Amendment 71M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would at least be a great deal fairer. In a sense you could say that it is all rather arbitrary— 365 days or some other number of days. Really, it is just not justified to cut contributory benefit at any stage for many of these people, but I suppose that that would be better than the alternative. Another approach is that of Amendment 71N, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. In terms of cuts, squeezing and reducing expenditure, this would at least be a very cost-effective way forward, assuming one could identify certain groups who would clearly need ongoing support. I know that the Minister could perfectly well identify lots of groups of disabled or sick people who should be exempt from the 365-day provision. I do not think I need to challenge him on that; I know that he could do it. The added advantage of this approach is that it would cost less than the extension of 365 days to all. Certainly, there are some obvious groups. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, referred to cancer sufferers with a limited life expectancy, as did my noble friend Lord Patel. How can any Government justify terminating someone’s contributory benefit right towards the end of their life when they have contributed all their life and, as my noble friend Lord Patel said, will not even claim a pension? They are a terrific bargain to the state. I had not thought of that point but it is a powerful one about anyone whose life expectancy is limited and will not be claiming the pension to which they might have contributed for 40 years. I think we can all agree on that. I turn to my passion, although it is no greater than my passion for the groups I have already mentioned. Let us take just one case to illustrate the situation of those with mental health disorders. Again, there are groups within that category that you could pull out and say have to be exempt from this provision. Tom suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder and depression. He is almost entirely housebound. His condition leads him to perform daily rituals in which he constantly checks that electronic appliances are turned off and that doors and windows are shut and locked. He is compelled to clean surfaces in his home time and again, through the day and night. He gets very little sleep and has all sorts of resulting and related problems. Tom has support or treatment three times a week from his mental health community team. Anyone who receives support from a community mental health team three times a week is very severely ill. The resources do not run to that for almost anybody. No doubt a psychiatrist or psychologist could give a good estimate of the minimum length of time before which this person could not possibly be considered for employment. They probably could not give a maximum time but they could certainly give a minimum. For someone like this, my guess is that it is way beyond a year. I should like to ask the Minister whether the option of identifying groups for exemption from this provision has been given careful thought by the department. If this has not been done, might he take this back and have some work done to see whether some sensible decisions could be made in identifying such groups before we come back on Report? The other amendment to which I want briefly to refer is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, which raises a moral issue. The only possible rationale for making the introduction of a 365-day ESA entitlement limit retrospective is to save money. As the noble Baroness has argued, there is a very strong convention that no legislation should be retrospective. Is it not extraordinary that we should break that very strong convention to deprive sick and disabled people of money? I find this very difficult to take. I am sure that we will come back to this on Report. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.