Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I think that the Minister was hoping for a Division during the previous discussion like I have never seen a Minister hope for a Division, but he was not saved by the Bell. We have two amendments in this group. Amendment 102ZA would allow for the person mainly responsible for meeting particular costs to receive that part of universal credit intended to meet such expenses. It would enable the main carer, who is primarily dealing with the costs of children and childcare, to receive the elements of support related to this, and the person responsible for meeting housing costs to receive the part of universal credit that relates to housing costs. Amendment 102B would allow for the elements of universal credit to be calculated in such a way that facilitated this aim, tapering away each element individually to enable a fair proportion of each component of universal credit to be paid to the relevant member of the household. The amendment is therefore the corollary of the earlier amendment, in that if the payment can be split between two recipients, it should also be withdrawn, whether for reason of the taper or of any benefit cap, in the same proportion, rather than be taken either from the childcare element or the housing element. Amendment 102ZA seeks to mitigate the risks associated with paying all universal credit to one person, in particular the risks for women if the current proposal goes ahead unamended. Concerns have been raised by a wide range of organisations, including the Women’s Budget Group, Oxfam, Platform 51, the Child Poverty Action Group, Women’s Aid, Daycare Trust and the Children’s Society. The current proposals are that the universal credit payments would not, except in exceptional circumstances, be split between a couple. The whole payment would be paid into one bank account. The DWP briefing note states that: "““We will assume that ordinarily the benefit will be given in a single monthly payment to a household. It will be for the family to decide who receives the benefit and for them to decide how to budget that money on rent and the needs of the household: encouraging payments to a joint bank account might allow both partners to have access to the money””." I note it says ““might”” allow rather than ““will”” allow. The DWP also notes that, "““the Government wishes to place responsibility for household budgeting with the household. It is not Government’s role to dictate how a household spends their money””." However, these amendments do not tell the households how they should spend their money but allows them to decide to whom the money should be paid in the first place. This is a long-established principle in social security policy. It allows households receiving child benefit to nominate a main carer, and households receiving working tax credit to receive child tax credit in the bank account of the main carer and working tax credit in the account of the other partner. As discussed earlier, it also allows households to choose to have their housing benefit paid directly to a landlord. For many couples who already share their finances a single payment of universal credit will not pose a problem. However, there is good reason to put in safeguards for those couples for whom it may cause difficulties, which our amendment seeks to do. The Children’s Society has given the example of a lone parent, perhaps living with her own parents, who is not responsible for any housing costs. She then moves in with a partner who currently receives support towards the rent for, let us say, a privately rented property. As the universal credit can be paid into only one bank account, either the mother would have to relinquish full control of the support she has been receiving for her children or her partner will have to relinquish full control of the support he has been receiving for housing. As the Children’s Society says, "““In such a case, having just moved in together, neither partner may be entirely happy to give up control of the support that they receive to their partner. This could put partners off moving in together and forming long term stable relationships””." The Government say that both partners, "““play an equal part in the claim””" for UC and that both have to fulfil any conditionality requirements—quite so—but mandating a single payment for a joint commitment does not quite seem to tally. There are single responsibilities but only a joint payment. To go back to a lone-parent example, the Committee may want to think about why such a lone parent, alongside many other women in couples, would be anxious about relinquishing control over the support provided for children. Oxfam, the Child Poverty Action Group, Platform 51 and others have given a comprehensive list of reasons. First, mothers usually take the main responsibility for meeting children’s day-to-day care needs, particularly in low- and moderate-income families. The Fawcett Society has shown that women tend to have responsibility for purchasing food and other items for children. They are therefore likely to need ready access to the money that is specifically aimed at helping them to do this. Moreover, we know that benefits that are labelled as being for children are more likely to be used for their intended purposes. Our amendment would enable the Government to make clear which elements of universal credit are to meet the costs of a child. Recent HMRC research shows that the child tax credit is widely identified as being for children and thus is more often spent on them. A recent IFS study on winter fuel allowance, although a different issue, similarly found, "““robust evidence of a behavioural effect of the labelling””." Where there is a choice about who should receive benefits, evidence shows that men tend to make claims on behalf of couples. Some 81 per cent of guaranteed pension credit claims in couples were made by men. More than 10,000 men, compared with 8,000 women, made the joint claim for income-based jobseeker’s allowance on behalf of a couple. Once money reaches the household, it is often unequally distributed, particularly in low-income households. A very recent Oxfam study of black minority ethnic women in low-income couples revealed cases where several women had so little access to money that their husbands were effectively in control of key aspects of their lives. Furthermore, benefits labelled for children are sometimes the sole source of independent income for vulnerable women. Women's Aid’s experience shows that the payment of child benefit to mothers has sometimes been the only money accessible to women to enable them to escape from violence and then seek assistance from refuges and/or outreach services. Will the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the impact of the payment proposal for universal credit on the prospects of women suffering from financial abuse? As the Women's Budget Group has pointed out, "““putting benefits together is key to the design of UC; paying it into one account is not. Indeed, it is already acknowledged that there will have to be many exceptions to a single payment of Universal Credit: benefit for rent will sometimes be paid to housing providers; it is not yet clear if support for mortgage interest will be paid to lenders; a sanctioned claimant could lose their UC, and the remainder could be paid to their partner””." So the idea of splitting is not completely novel. The DWP briefing note acknowledges that there may, however, be exceptional cases that require alternative arrangements to ensure safeguards. The Government intend to retain powers to split payments between members of a couple in joint claim cases. If those powers are there, why not use them to provide safeguards for all couples allowing them to make choices about who should receive which element of universal credit rather than increase the risk for families and individuals by forcing them to put all of their universal credit in one basket? If the Government want to increase the natural responsibility, surely allowing choice over the recipient is an early measure of that. We know that the Government are keen to encourage financial capability among all adults. This is also about couples deciding who gets which part of the universal credit. But more than that, it is also about ensuring that both members of the couple get experience in handling money. It is receiving as well as spending. If one partner gets no such experience, he or she will have no opportunity to learn, thus creating difficulties when they move into employment. That is enough to cope with let alone handling a cheque-book for the first time. A view has been discussed that should the Government refuse to budge on this, the default position should be that the whole of the universal credit payment should be to the main carer. I see the attraction in that, and would quite enjoy watching the Government explain it to the hordes of fathers. If under that default of money going to the main carer it went to the mother, the Minister would quickly find out why it was hard to sell. What he is doing, however, if he resists these amendments, is to accept an unofficial default position of the whole payment going to the man, whether or not he is the children’s father. The Government want universal credit to be paid in a way that is modern, and which mirrors how most people do things today. But paying the whole of a joint income into one account does not tally with most households’ arrangements. Where both couples work, their wages are not combined before receipt, and where child benefit is paid this goes to the main carer, not necessarily the main earner. There is often a purse and a wallet. These amendments seek to preserve this for claimant couples. I beg to move.