Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, before we adjourned on Monday we had very significant contributions from noble Lords, as we have had today. We heard a powerful case from my noble friend Lady Lister against the principle of the cap, and, indeed, a brave speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, about why in his view these clauses are irredeemable, a point which was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, a moment ago. Nevertheless, I believe that we must try to amend Clauses 93 and 94, because to leave them unconstrained would leave some of the most vulnerable in our country subject to major injustice. This second group of amendments seeks to introduce exemptions from the cap, either for particular groups or for specific benefits. Amendment 99ZB, moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, and Amendment 99AD, to which we have added our names, exclude, in the first case, child benefit, and, in the second case, all elements paid with respect to children, from the calculation of total income from benefits for the purposes of the cap. As we have seen, at present the proposals have a disproportionate impact on children who can, of course, do nothing themselves to change their behaviour to escape from the impact of the cap. Moreover, as discussed, the cap is not only unfair but inconsistent in its treatment of these benefits which are included as income for those out of work but not in calculating the level of the cap. We support these amendments, and if the Minister is not able to do so, we would ask him exactly why these benefits are to be included in the calculation of the in-work but not the out-of-work income. Amendments 99A and 99AAA, spoken to respectively by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Tyler, create exemptions for, first, carers, and, secondly, family and friends as carers. They have had support from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Like them, we are keen to understand the Government’s thinking on this. The Government’s impact assessment says that the impact on those affected will be that they need to choose between taking up work—of course, the cap does not apply to those entitled to working tax credit—reducing their non-rent expenditure or moving to cheaper accommodation or area. Can the Minister tell us which of those options he expects families who are caring to take up? I believe that he should especially answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, about why he considers that carers do not fit the description of working hard and playing their full part in society. Amendments 99AB and 99D, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and to which we have added our names, provide an exemption from the cap for those in supported, sheltered or temporary accommodation. We know that those families may be particularly vulnerable and face real problems if forced to move due to a reduction in their housing benefit. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, families in temporary accommodation have not chosen to live in high-rent housing; they have been placed there due to there being no other options available. It seems particularly unfair to penalise them for a situation over which they have had little control. As Shelter, Crisis, Homeless Link and the National Housing Federation have stated, the caps for households in temporary accommodation create the prospect of a spiral of homelessness where households lose their income due to the overall benefit cap, but are unable to access accommodation under the main homelessness duty because they are still subject to benefit restrictions. Amendment 99AA and 99C create exemptions for those who have recently started claiming benefits because of job losses. At present, the benefit cap will penalise those who have just lost jobs for decisions about their rent level or family size taken while employed. If it achieves its intended effect of forcing families to move to cheaper accommodation, the benefit cap is likely to increase hugely the disruption caused by job loss for such families and reduce the chances of them finding employment rather than giving them the level of security that the benefit system was designed to provide for people who have lost their job. My noble friend Lady Drake spoke with some force, as did the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the traumatic situation facing people when they lose their jobs and at that very point confront what might be the further traumatic consequences of the benefit cap. As my noble friend declared, a modern welfare system is intended not only to incentivise people to work and to address benefit dependency but to support hard-working families with a clear work ethic in managing a flexible labour market. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he agrees. We are told that much of the thrust or motivation behind the Bill is to encourage people into work, to keep them there and to ensure that work is rewarded. The group of claimants who would be covered by the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Donaghy are exactly the people who do not need any such incentivisation. They have indeed been working, possibly for decades and perhaps in hazardous situations since all have been injured at work. It is part of our contract with employees, which goes back to some of the earliest social legislation of workmen’s compensation Acts, that those hurt in the course of their work should be compensated, ideally by the employer or, failing that, by the state. This benefit is paid to all who qualify regardless of whether they are in work. It therefore cannot ever act as a disincentive to earning as the recipient continues to receive this money regardless of whether they have other earnings. It is compensation for perhaps being less able to work, for finding work more tiring or for not being able to return to one’s original occupation, but it does not diminish the financial advantages of working as it is paid out alongside any earnings. The point made by my noble friend Lady Donaghy was that to save perhaps £1 million we hurt those who have already been hurt at work. Is that fairness? I do not think so. There remain some fundamental questions to be answered. I hope that the interlude since Monday will have given the Minister the opportunity to marshal his thoughts on some of those. We heard on Monday a reiteration of the Government’s position that households getting out-of-work benefits should not, "““receive a greater income from benefits than the average weekly net wage for working households””." Can the Minister say whether this policy overrides any cost implications? Should the reductions in benefit expenditure from the cap be less than costs engendered, be it through homelessness, reductions in the number of people being able to care, the extra expense of supporting disrupted vulnerable families or the costs of bureaucracy in administering the system, would the policy still be for the cap to prevail? The Minister stated on Monday: "““The benefit cap provides a clear, simple message that there has to be a maximum level of financial support that claimants can expect the state to provide””.—[Official Report, 21/11/11; col. GC 345.]" Yet, we heard the welcome news that childcare costs were to be excluded. So what is the principle—if any part of this policy could be described as principle—which determines those items of support that can potentially be received in excess of the cap and those which cannot? What is the policy? Perhaps the starkest example of an unfair element in the proposal is, as outlined by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, the treatment of child benefit. This is a non-means-tested benefit paid to all families whether in or out of work and has very high take-up rates. It is included in the total of benefits but not included in the comparative income level. My noble friend Lady Lister called this patently unjust, as it is. Where there is a demonstrable, illogical injustice of this nature which collides with the rhetoric and intent of the cap, on what basis is the argument for justice jettisoned in favour of the cap? Perhaps the Minister will explain that to us. The Minister is an enthusiast for the universal credit. This is the approach which merges in and out of work support, will be easily understood, will mean that it always pays to be in work rather than out of work and will change the paradigm of people’s attitudes to work. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, touched on that point. If all this is right, what remaining role is there for the benefit cap? Before we reach universal credit, the cap is apparently to be administered by local authorities’ deductions from housing benefit. Can the Minister tell us what happens if the housing benefit component is insufficient to cover that, possibly because of support for mortgage interest being included in the calculation rather than a rental housing benefit amount? Will universal credit mean a greater range of support is apparently at risk when it is introduced? Can the Minister tell us about the practicalities of all this when the housing benefit and council tax benefit service has been outsourced by so many councils? My noble friend Lady Hollis raised some very practical issues about the impact of this on housing associations. What will it actually mean? These are not theoretical questions but questions that will be faced, and faced in the near term. I do not believe that we have yet had the answer to the question posed by several noble Lords on Monday, that if most of the people to be affected by the cap are those for whom there is no full work conditionality, what is the change in behaviour that this policy is designed to achieve? We need to hear from the Minister on these points and on the whole range of other questions that were raised earlier.