| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Minister made it clear that income support would not be abolished until there was no one left who needed it. The safeguards, however, are a bit too flimsy for our liking and for all those who advise us. There are just two safeguards: that income will finally be abolished by the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, and only after the Social Security Advisory Committee has produced a report. There are problems with both these propositions. First, no affirmative instrument is amendable, and votes on affirmative instruments are very rare, although they must always come before the House. Secondly, even if the SSAC produces a damming report, the Government do not always act on its advice; so the safeguards are really not worth very much at all.
As the Minister knows, there is a lot of fear that not everyone who is currently on income support will be swept up in the two major benefit groups: the claimants of the jobseeker’s allowance and the employment and support allowance. The Green Paper on social care failed to give a clear lead over the long-term reform of the benefits system as it will affect carers, so their future is still uncertain. Other groups of people who may continue to need income support include couples with a child under seven; people who are awaiting transfer to the ESA but are currently on income
22 Oct 2009 : Column 897
These groups of people have highly specific needs, but the Government have not yet explained what will happen to their claims. A clear road map is needed for each of the affected claimant groups that tells them what benefit they should claim when they lose their income support entitlement; what the income consequences will be; what passported benefits will be protected or lost—a very important matter that is not well understood by those outside the benefits system; whether they will be subject to conditionality; whether the new “good cause” provisions in the Bill will apply to them in decisions on sanctions; and, finally, what restrictions apply to the income-based JSA that do not apply to income support. For example, a person in full-time education may be able to claim income support, but much stricter rules relate to income-based JSA. Some of the groups who may have to claim JSA without job seeking may need to acquire further skills and qualifications, and carers may have to claim JSA without having to job seek.
In Committee, it was made clear that the very title, income support, is understood, whereas jobseeker’s allowance does not sound as though it encompasses anyone other than someone who is looking for a job. The Minister said:
“It is fair to say that people may be switched off from claiming just by the title, but I am sure that there are ways in which we can address that”.—[Official Report, 22/6/09; col. GC 401.]
That sounds vague in the extreme. It is little wonder that there is a great deal of worry about this clause.
We are looking for a clear and detailed plan from the Government of the benefits those currently entitled to income support will have when it is abolished. Parliament should be able to scrutinise the provisions before then. I hope that the Minister may be able to give us a bit more comfort about this than he did in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, perhaps I may make a short intervention and concur with my noble friend. However, I take a different view of the criticism. This clause is completely unnecessary. I am puzzled as to why Ministers have allowed a department to bring this potential cancellation of a benefit in the indeterminate future without any more justification than anything I have heard to date.
Income support is a fundamental benefit. I was around when the then Mr Norman Fowler, now the distinguished noble Lord, Lord Fowler, spent 18 months arguing in the run-up to producing a Green Paper to get the Social Security Act 1986, which introduced income support, on the statute book. It was an absolutely textbook example of what public consultation should be. The fact that I was totally opposed to everything that was being done at the time is incidental to my argument. However, whatever view you took, you could not possibly be in any doubt about what was happening when we moved from supplementary benefit to income support.
22 Oct 2009 : Column 898
We have a back-to-work White Paper in gestation, which is about to be published. In my experience, a White Paper normally leads to a Bill being published shortly thereafter, based on the contents of the White Paper. And here we go: although we do not know when, we might abolish income support. It is a dangerous precedent for this House to accept willy-nilly from the department, at the hands of Ministers, benefits of this significance being abolished on an affirmative order and then have the additional difficulty of putting all these welcome assurances. Assurances go some way to dealing with the incoming fire from people who are certainly disconcerted by any such prospect of this benefit being abolished.
The whole thing is an otiose contrivance. It sets a very bad parliamentary precedent. If Ministers start bringing forward benefits that they might think about abolishing in the future, we will continue to reject the clauses that purport to do any such thing. Income support is part of the new Labour Government’s policy about work for those who can and the vast majority of this Bill is about that. Equally important is that it is supposed to underscore support for those who cannot work, and income support does that. It will continue to do that for hundreds of thousands, or at least thousands, of our citizens into the indeterminate future and certainly long past the next election. Yet the House is being asked to abolish a benefit on an affirmative order at some future point. It is bad practice and wholly wrong, and it is not making good use of Parliament. I think the House should reject it. I can see no purpose whatever for the clause because it is just causing trouble. I welcome the assurances we have had because they will alleviate some of the anxiety, but this is rank bad practice.
5 pm
Lord Freud: The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has raised concerns about the operation of Clause 7, which is rather baldly entitled “Abolition of income support”. That looks most alarming, but on reading the clause we see that it is basically a power for the Secretary of State to abolish a structure once no one is making any use of it. One could argue, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, has so eloquently, that it is a slightly previous piece of legislation.
We agree that the Government could state their case more clearly. We have heard the concerns caused by this clause, whose description may be strictly accurate, but for someone leafing through the Bill without reading the legalistic jargon, it has clearly proved to be quite an eye-opener. Perhaps it would help if the Minister took this opportunity to put on the record exactly what the process will be and reassure us that no one will find income support abolished while they are still on it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, we have had another interesting canter around Clause 7 and all its ramifications. It can reasonably be ascertained from his contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is not particularly enamoured of this provision. I am also interested in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, that people casually reading the then Welfare
22 Oct 2009 : Column 899
Clause 7 introduces our proposals to abolish income support, and in another place it was referred to as “a very big step” and “a wide-ranging power”. In previous debates in your Lordships’ House, it has been said that abolishing income support might take away the safety net that guarantees everyone an income. However, while I understand these real and genuine concerns, I reiterate what I said in Grand Committee and indeed repeated earlier this afternoon: this clause does not abolish income support immediately. It simply provides a mechanism for abolishing it once there are no longer any groups of people who need it. That point is central to the Government’s thinking. We are not removing the safety net or undermining the role of the benefit system to support those who most need it. Provision is being made elsewhere in the Bill to ensure that when people move to other benefits, they will not receive less money as a result and they will not be subject to the requirements placed on those who are required to look for work.
I make it categorically and absolutely clear once again that it is not our intention to move carers off income support until we have looked carefully at their position as part of our work on long-term care, and until we have a clear and detailed plan for the longer term which includes the right provision for carers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, is absolutely right that when we move forward on this, of course we must set out a clear route map and destinations for the benefits that people are going to receive as an alternative, so that the protections are in place. However, we are not at that stage now because we are not that close to doing it.
The complexity of the current benefit system has been the subject of much debate in the past and I believe there is a consensus that change needs to be made. That is why this clause is so important. It will enable us to simplify and streamline the benefit system while ensuring that the change is delivered in a way that achieves both simplification and a better system for customers as well as staff. A system that allows lone parents, for example, to move through the different levels of conditionality without changing benefit will be much easier than a system which requires them to switch benefits when their youngest child reaches the age of seven, with all the complexities and problems that that can involve. Surely the noble Lord would accept that point.
During Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, questioned why we were taking the powers now to abolish a benefit when people would still be claiming it for years. It is true that we have no definitive date to finally abolish income support. This is partly because of the need for flexibility to ensure that all groups are properly provided for, but also because we firmly believe that major changes to the benefits system have to be made in stages. It is the only way to ensure safe delivery and to minimise disruption for our customers. However, we still believe it is important to set out in this Bill a clear intention to abolish income support. It
22 Oct 2009 : Column 900
By providing these reassurances and putting in place the safeguards I have detailed, I hope I have provided the reassurances the noble Baroness seeks. I suspect they will not assuage the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, on this issue, but that is where we are.
There is a long-held aspiration of heading for a single working-age benefit, with all the personalisation and benefits that will come with it. It would be a step along the way to have two working age benefits rather than three, and that is an achievement for which we should strive. Clearly removing income support at an appropriate time, when no one is on it and we have dealt with all the benefit claimants in another way, is right. I hope the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and my noble friend Lord Kirkwood for his passionate speech in support of my amendment.
It is perhaps ironic that, of all the complications in the benefits system, the one benefit that is not complicated to those who receive it and is well understood is income support—yet this is the one that is to be abolished. I understand that the Minister has said that it will not be abolished until no one needs it, so it could be a structure with no one hanging off it. However, it has not convinced all those who advise us and who deal with the most complex problems. It is bad practice. We do not want future Governments to abolish something before its replacement is clear and in place.
The Minister and the House will be pleased to know that at this hour on a Thursday afternoon it would not be sensible to vote. Although there are some outside who would like us to, we would not get very far. I thank the Minister for his further remarks and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 8 : Power to direct claimant to undertake specific work-related activity
36: Clause 8, page 14, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) But a direction under subsection (1) may not specify medical or surgical treatment as the only activity which, in any person’s case, is to be regarded as being work-related activity.”
22 Oct 2009 : Column 901
37: Clause 8, page 14, line 15, at end insert—
“(3) Before the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (1) to a person with a fluctuating condition he must assess that person’s condition over a period of time. For the purposes of this section a “fluctuating condition” is one in which the period of illness resulting in limitations associated with the physical or mental condition of a person are episodic in nature.”
Baroness Meacher: My Lords, Amendment 37 makes provision for the assessment of fluctuating conditions over a period of time so that the capability for work of a claimant with a fluctuating condition can be properly assessed and documented. I understand that work capability assessments are generally undertaken on a single day—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—but someone with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, for example, who happened to be having a good day on the day of their assessment might well be deemed capable of work when an assessment a week or a month later would find serious problems that would rule out any return to work for the foreseeable future.
I know that the Minister understands perfectly well the particular needs of claimants with mental health disorders. We debated these issues at length in Committee and I certainly shall not repeat the arguments that I put forward then. Our concerns are exacerbated by the fact that, as I understand it, the assessments are turning away about 50 per cent of people who might have become eligible for employment and support allowance. How many of those claimants have fluctuating disorders? I do not know whether the Minister has any information on that. These people will become jobseeker’s allowance claimants and thus subject to much more rigorous jobseeking requirements.
If people with mental health problems find their benefits sanctioned due to an inaccurate assessment, it could have very serious consequences. I speak as a chair of a mental health trust. It does not take much to knock many of our service users over the edge. If somebody who is struggling to cope on benefits and to pay their rent, council tax and bills suddenly finds that they have less money available, they will no longer be able to pay. They then receive an eviction order and they then find that they are being turned out of their home. This is not melodramatic; it is what goes on. Our social services staff spend a large proportion of their time dealing with precisely those crises of potential eviction, trying to prevent a person from losing their home. We have a unit of four staff in our housing department who do nothing else but try to make sure that our service users remain in their homes. It does not take much imagination to realise that, if a person loses their home, their first step is on to the streets and their second into one of our in-patient beds. For the whole of east London, we have something like 600 in-patient beds and some 30,000 potential in-patients. You need only a small percentage increase in the proportion of potential patients who become in-patients to create a massive problem. We simply would not cope.
I know that the aim of the Government is to ensure that claimants who are well and can work are enabled and helped to find jobs. I know that it is not their
22 Oct 2009 : Column 902
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has tabled this amendment, because it gives us a chance to flag up the fact that, as she said, many work capability assessments are now being “failed”. These are people who find that they do not have enough points not to be required to seek work. Even people with quite severe impairments are being failed, including many with fluctuating conditions. How many representations has the DWP received about this? I have received a lot of complaints.
One provider of pathways that I visited in the summer was very concerned about the people now in the employment group of ESA. Following a work capability assessment, a lot of them are being told that they will be ready for work in six months. In some cases, the providers know that the person will need longer in the progression-to-work group before they are thrown in at the deep end of the JSA regime. If Amendment 37 was in place, a one-off snapshot by a healthcare professional would not be the only medical assessment of somebody with a fluctuating condition. I support the noble Baroness’s amendment.
5.15 pm
Baroness Turner of Camden: I, too, support the noble Baroness’s amendment. We talked earlier in the day about employment of older people. It is very often older people who are affected by fluctuating conditions. It is appropriate that consideration should be given to this amendment, which adequately expresses a situation in which someone has a condition that is, generally, a reasonable one, but who ever so often has fluctuating symptoms, which may be attributed to advancing years. They may still be able to do some form of work, but not always. It would be reasonable to expect that that should be taken into account.
Lord Freud: We sympathise with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, which raises the specific problem of those suffering from episodic, fluctuating conditions. Many examples have been given of conditions such as ME and rheumatoid arthritis, which seriously affect people’s ability to work who are otherwise very capable and willing and would not have any problem complying with the regime. It is our hope that the system now being put into place should be flexible enough to meet the requirements of those individuals.
While the noble Baroness is correct to draw your Lordships’ attention to this issue, I question whether the amendment is, strictly speaking, necessary. New
22 Oct 2009 : Column 903
One very much hopes that, if circumstances include a fluctuating health condition, that will naturally be taken into account. Perhaps that is yet another area in which we must turn to the Minister to give us guidance on how he will ensure that any direction made under subsection (1) will take into account the needs of individuals who suffer from the conditions that the noble Baroness described.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for this amendment, which touches on an issue about which she feels passionately and on which she has long pressed the Government. I agree that it is extremely important, when issuing directions to undertake work-related activities, that personal advisers have regard to a customer’s medical condition. That would include taking into account whether the condition is likely to fluctuate and the impact that this may have on the customer’s ability to carry out—
Baroness Meacher: The Minister referred to the adviser taking account of the medical condition. My understanding is that, under the new regime, the whole idea is that people’s medical conditions will not be assessed. The whole point is that it is simply ability to work that is assessed. That is one of my concerns. With a condition such as schizophrenia, red lights will flash immediately; you would hope that advisers would be aware that it is a fluctuating condition and that they needed to revisit that person on a number of occasions. Am I right that those advisers will be looking not at conditions but at ability to work?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, we are mostly dealing here with people who would be on the employment and support allowance, or would seek to access the benefit system via that route. If that is their route, there is obviously an engagement of healthcare professionals along the way.
Baroness Meacher: Am I wrong, then, to have understood that even the healthcare professionals were supposed to be assessing the capabilities to work, rather than saying, “This person has condition X”? Perhaps the Minister will correct me.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: The noble Baroness is right; the work capability assessment is looking at how their condition impacts on their function, and what they can do. I do not know whether that helps the noble Baroness, but from that the judgment is whether somebody should be in the support group with no conditionality attached or in the work-related activity group—or, whether their circumstances are such that JSA is the more appropriate route for them. That is what the work capability drives. The noble Baroness will be aware of how that assessment process replaced the PCA when we debated what is now the Welfare Reform Act 2007, and of all the research that went into that. In a sense, that is what is being tested, because the employment and support allowance has just come to the end of its first year.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |