John
Mason: I thank the Minster for generously giving way
again. Would she agree with me—I am trying not to be too party
political—that the whole question of where the children stay is
incredibly difficult? We do not have a lot of success in
Glasgow—I stand to be corrected elsewhere—with the
council putting people into children’s homes or short fostering
care and so on. We should be reluctant to take children away from their
parents.
Ann
McKechin: I entirely agree. That is why we need to
encourage people to go on to rehabilitation plans and to take
treatment, because it is the best way to help them and their
families.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 9
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
3Claimants
dependent on Drugs
etc. Question
proposed, That the schedule be the Third schedule to the
Bill. John
Howell (Henley) (Con): I have one question relating to
schedule 3 which the Minister may be able to answer. In schedule 3,
paragraph 2, you introduce schedule A1 to the Jobseekers Act 1995. In
paragraph 2, you establish a good principle in relation to those
benefit claimants who are looking for, or having to go through an
assessment—that this should only be done where there is a
reasonable view that they are drug abusers. However, when we come to
the first part of that—undertaking the initial
questions—it is clear from page 48, paragraph 65 of the
regulation book you provided this morning that you are already making a
distinction between JSA
claimants—
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use the word
“you”. That refers to the
Chair.
John
Howell: The Minister has already put it down to my
youthful membership of the House.
The Minister,
in paragraph 165, is already making a distinction between JSA
claimants, for whom regulations will require that they answer questions
at the discretion
of a personal adviser, and ESA claimants, for whom it is mandatory.
Would the Minister explain why there is a difference between the
two? 6.15
pm
Ann
McKechin: Obviously, the JSA is assessing whether people
are actually ready for work, while the ESA system is assessing how
their health condition affects their ability to work. The question was
raised as that is specifically a health-related benefit. We could have
a case where a recreational drug user presents him or herself for
JSA—under the standard JSA conditions that would not necessarily
be a health barrier to their actively seeking work. Due to the
different criteria used, there has to be an element of discretion in
JSA. However, in ESA we have to assess the entire health condition
because people may have multiple issues—they may have mental
health issues or physical disabilities as well as the drug
use—which is why we need to look at all of the health conditions
that affect them so that we can make an assessment under
ESA.
John
Howell: I thank the Minister for that explanation. In both
the assessment and the questions, the second part of the reason for
asking those questions is the same regardless of the benefit a person
may be on. That is
that “any
such dependency or propensity is a factor affecting their prospects of
obtaining or remaining in
work.” Even
where one has a JSA claim, the assessment may be that they are nearer
work than an ESA claimant. That element still comes into the assessment
and does not justify in my mind the difference between the
two.
Ann
McKechin: As I said, JSA is not specifically a
health-related assessment, whereas ESA is. It is important with ESA
that all relevant medical conditions are disclosed, so that a proper
assessment can be made by medical advisers. Following that assessment,
when decisions are made about who carries out the treatment and whether
the person consents to invasive treatment, the same rules would
apply. Question
put and agreed
to. Schedule
3 accordingly agreed
to.
Clause
10Conditions
for contributory jobseeker’s
allowance Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Paul
Rowen: If I may, I should like to address a few remarks to
clauses 10 and 11, both of which deal with the contributory conditions
for JSA and ESA. It would save time if I could speak to
both. These
clauses amend the existing legislation so that new claimants, who would
normally have to have paid, or be treated as having paid, 26 weeks of
class 1 national insurance contributions in one of the last two years
prior to the claim, could qualify for ESA. In the July 2008 Green
Paper, the Government said:
“We
will retain existing protections that allow disadvantaged groups such
as carers and young disabled people to qualify for
ESA.” I
seek an assurance from the Minister that that still applies. In the
impact assessment an assessment was given that there would be
approximately 20,000 fewer people claiming ESA and 5,000 fewer people
claiming JSA by 2013-14. I should like to ask the Minister what will
happen to those people. What will they be claiming instead of the
contributions? Do we have a guarantee that they will not be losing
income? The Child Poverty Action Group said in its response to the
Green
Paper: “The
proposals on reforming the contribution conditions will reduce the
number of claimants who qualify for contributory ESA and JSA. Those who
find they no longer qualify will either have reduced income or be
reliant on the means-tested element of either
benefit.”
What estimate has been
made of those 25,000 people who may not submit a claim? Has any
calculation been done to say what the impact is in terms of their
losing income? Does the assurance that was given in the Green Paper
about disadvantaged groups still
apply?
Mr.
McNulty: It is very kind of you to invite me to speak to
the Committee, Mr. Hood, but I was not going to. I have
spent the whole day giving assurances and guarantees that are already
extant and I am getting fed up with it.
Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
11 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
12Maternity
allowance and carer’s
allowance
Paul
Rowen: I beg to move amendment 56, in
clause 12, page 16, line 43, leave
out subsection
(b). The
amendment would remove the adult dependency increase for carer’s
allowance. The proposal in the Bill will allow the removal of adult
dependency increases for the state pension from 2010. Existing
claimants will continue to receive the adult dependency increase, but
that will be phased out from 2010 to 2020. What effect will that have
on those affected by the change? The impact assessment says that some
carer’s allowance customers will receive £30.20 per week
less in benefit income than they would under existing rules. That is
£1,570 per year for 17,400 people currently receiving adult
dependency increases. About half of the new claimants would also
receive income support or pension credit. The Government say that
carers who lose their adult dependency increases in 2020 would
potentially see a reduction in their income if they were not receiving
IS or pension credit. However, the Government say that they are
committed to ensuring that future support will be tailored to meet the
needs of individuals.
I know that
the Minister may think that he is getting fed up of having to give
assurances. When I dealt with a statutory instrument a few weeks ago, I
learned that an assurance was given by the Minister during the last
welfare reform Bill that those on contributory ESA
schemes would not lose out. That ESA scheme was
introduced last October, no changes have been made, and those people
now have a reduced income. So I believe that it is a fair question to
ask: given that there will be a loss of income and that 17,400 people
are affected, the Minister should place it on the record, and hopefully
act on it and ensure that these people do not lose
out. Mr.
Harper: Sit down, Minister. He did not want to do all
those assurances but now he seems keen to do another one.
I do not want
to support the amendment. I just have some questions for the Minister;
I am not asking for assurances. The justifications for getting rid of
the adult dependency increases for carer’s allowance are not
primarily based around saving money, although they do. They are
primarily based around recognising the changes to assumptions about
family life that were in place when this element was introduced in
1948. Looking at the list of justifications, it is not about saving
money. Given that the Government estimate a net annual
saving from abolishing adult dependency increases for
carer’s allowance, and taking account of compensating increases
in means-tested benefits—£3 million in 2010-11, rising to
£17 million in 2014-15—it would be interesting to know
whether they plan to use any of those savings for those who will, as
the hon. Member for Rochdale said, lose out.
The
Government have acknowledged that some households will lose out. The
Department’s view is that those on lower incomes will receive
additional support in their means-tested benefits, but it is not
entirely clear whether the Government expect that to be full
compensation, and it does not take account of those who are not on
means-tested benefits. It would be interesting to know whether the
Department believes that there is any way of compensating them in a
different way that would be simple and straightforward, or whether it
is just one of those things that to make the system simpler some people
must lose
out. My
second question concerns the effectiveness of the information that is
given to carers about the change. The Government argue that the
negative impact of abolishing the adult dependency increases for
carer’s allowance can at least be mitigated by ensuring that
adequate information is available in the run-up to the change, and that
there is greater awareness of income support and pension credit to
ensure that those on lower incomes take advantage of those. It would
help if the Minister would tell the Committee what arrangements are in
place, or are planned, to ensure that carers who receive carer’s
allowance are given the information and that it is made as easy as
possible for those who lose out to receive extra support from income
support or pension credit, acknowledging that the complexity of both
benefits and the fact that they are means-tested means that a
significant number of people who are entitled to them do not claim
them. If
the Government put in place a good regime, at least those on lower
incomes will be compensated. How many people will lose out and will not
be compensated
because they are on lower incomes and will receive other means-tested
benefits, and what arrangements does the Department have in place, or
will it put in place to ensure that people are fully informed about the
change? Mr.
McNulty: I fully take on board the hon. Gentleman’s
statement that those who will be directly affected by such changes
should have as much information and awareness as possible at the
earliest opportunity, and I shall ensure that that happens. If
information is already available, I will certainly pass it
on. As
the hon. Member for Rochdale said, the change has a 10-year transition
period, and the average length of awards is about six years. Although
no new awards will be made from April 2010, we will not end existing
awards until April 2020. As has been alluded to, some 4 per
cent. of the total carer’s allowance payments to some 17,400
people include an adult dependency increase. As the hon. Gentleman
said, about half of carers who receive the increase are no better off
because it reduces the income-related benefit payable to them in other
ways.
There is a
lot to be said for the simplification, and the hon. Gentleman alluded
to that in terms of income support and pension credit. Using savings
from the change in that regard would pre-empt what we are trying to do
with the income taskforce, and all that we are doing for carers, but it
would be a useful element to consider. As the hon. Member for Forest of
Dean said, allowances for carers were introduced in 1948, and even the
densest Members of the House—I am sure that there are none in
the Committee—would agree that family patterns have moved on
ever so slightly since then. That is as may be, but the point about
taking something away from people without them knowing is a fair one.
None the less, simplification for all the individuals concerned and the
ability of the poorest to access other benefits outweigh the concerns
of a small number of people who potentially, depending on the length of
the award, could lose out. In that context—along with the
clearer picture on the ADI for maternity
allowance—simplification is a public policy goal to which
everyone should
agree. 6.30
pm
Paul
Rowen: I did not hear an assurance from the Minister, so I
will press the amendment to a
Division. Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes
9.
Division
No.
3] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 12
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
