The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairmen:
Mr.
Jim Hood, †
Mr.
David Amess
†
Banks,
Gordon
(Ochil and South Perthshire)
(Lab)
†
Baron,
Mr. John
(Billericay)
(Con)
†
Clappison,
Mr. James
(Hertsmere)
(Con)
†
Harper,
Mr. Mark
(Forest of Dean)
(Con)
†
Howell,
John
(Henley) (Con)
†
Jones,
Helen
(Warrington, North)
(Lab)
†
Lilley,
Mr. Peter
(Hitchin and Harpenden)
(Con)
†
McKechin,
Ann
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Scotland)†
McNulty,
Mr. Tony
(Minister for Employment and Welfare
Reform)†
Mason,
John
(Glasgow, East)
(SNP)
†
Munn,
Meg
(Sheffield, Heeley)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
Plaskitt,
Mr. James
(Warwick and Leamington)
(Lab)
†
Robertson,
John
(Glasgow, North-West)
(Lab)
†
Rowen,
Paul
(Rochdale) (LD)
†
Shaw,
Jonathan
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions)†
Ussher,
Kitty
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions)Liam Laurence Smyth,
Committee Clerk
† attended
the Committee
Public
Bill Committee
Tuesday
3 March
2009
(Afternoon)
[Mr.
David Amess in the
Chair]
4
pm
The
Chairman: At the end of the morning, when I was only with
you in spirit, we had reached new clause 9, and
Mr. Robertson was in the process of moving his new
clause.
New Clause
9
Grandparents
national insurance
credit
‘(1) The Social
Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c. 4) is amended as
follows.
(2) In section
23A(3)(c) (Contributions credits for relevant parents and carers),
after first “in”, insert “unpaid care for
20 hours in that week or more of a grandchild under the age
of 12 or of an ill, frail or disabled family member, friend
or partner, or (d) otherwise in”.’.—(John
Robertson.)
Brought
up, read the First time, and motion made (this day),
That the clause be read a Second time.
John
Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): This is the first
time I have spoken under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. I
feel I should have something like in a Perry Mason court case, where
one can ask the stenographer to repeat the last sentence the last
person said. I was getting so enthusiastic about my speech that I
forgot to mark exactly where I did finish. I know you have missed the
whole thing, so perhaps I should start from the beginning—and
then again, perhaps I had better not. I suspect that people have heard
it before.
But let me
just recap what I was trying to say: “Government wrong, me
right” would be a short summary. Grandparents are most
important: as one myself, as I said earlier, I may have a vested
interest, but I think that interest has certainly opened my eyes to
something important. I was going to say that there is obviously a
question of fairness and equality to be looked
at.
When
a person is caring for a child in a family instead of working, whether
it is a parent or a grandparent, why should we discriminate in regard
to their pension? I know that has been said, but it should be repeated:
why do we discriminate against grandparents? Perhaps my right hon.
Friend the Minister will be able to tell me in his reply. This new
clause is not about paying someone for the care; after all, there is no
gain for someone who is already receiving the full state
pension.
The current
situation means that, if a mother stays at home to care for a child,
she will get a weekly credit toward her pension. But if she returns to
work and her own mother provides the child care, the grandmother will
get nothing. It is not clear to me why that should be the case, and I
hope my right hon. Friend will explain. The mother in that scenario is
in work, and will probably be paying tax and national insurance, and
not claiming. Working parents also help to raise the family’s
income and tackle child poverty, one of the Government’s
fundamental goals.
It might be
suggested that there is an element of double claim here. But
grandparental child care means that the mother will not be claiming
child care tax credit, because informal child care does not qualify. It
seems as though we have got the incentives wrong.
The Pensions
Act 2007 was groundbreaking, giving unpaid care the same status as paid
work for the first time. That was particularly welcome to women, who
bear the brunt of caring roles in our society. Only 35 per cent. of
women currently retire with the full basic state pension. That is a
shockingly low percentage, and I am glad to say that my Government and
my party are trying to do their best to alleviate the problem. This is
the kind of reform for which we sometimes do not receive the credit we
deserve. I am now looking for my Government and my party to pass this
new clause, in order to look after grandparents in the same way we look
after everybody else.
The
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform (Mr. Tony
McNulty): It is a great pleasure to welcome you in the
flesh as well as in the spirit, Mr. Amess, as I am sure you
were with us this morning. As my hon. Friend has said, new clause 9
seeks to give contribution credits to help people caring for a
grandchild under 12 to build up their state pension. It seeks also to
give similar rights to people caring for 20 hours a week for a partner,
relative or friend who is sick, frail or disabled, which is in fact
already Government policy.
I would say
to my hon. Friend in the nicest way possible that his new clause is
deficient in a number of ways on both counts—in terms of
grandparents and carers of the disabled. Let me explain why and review
them both in turns. As he said, a wide power exists in section 23A of
the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. That allows
regulations to be made to define people engaged in caring with a view
to awarding them credits. He also perfectly fairly said that
regulations are currently being drafted under the provision, which will
be laid before Parliament this year. We think those draft regulations
will go further than his new clause does in terms of the part about
caring for a sick or disabled person.
The
regulations propose that contribution credits be awarded to someone
caring for one or more persons for a total of 20 hours a week where
each person is receiving one of a range of attendance-related benefits,
or where the need for care is certified by a health or social care
professional. They also propose cover for periods when care ceases for
a time to allow for, among other things, holidays, respite care and
sickness. In that respect, therefore, the new clause offers nothing
more and will almost certainly restrict the conditions under which
credits can be given to someone caring for a sick or disabled
person.
I turn now to
the proposals to award credits to grandparents caring for a grandchild
under 12. We recognise the significant contribution—as my hon.
Friend has said—that grandparents make to the community.
However, they are not a homogeneous group. Many grandparents will be
over state pension age and unable to benefit from credits; many of the
younger grandparents will be combining caring with employment. We
sincerely believe, like my hon. Friend, that the improvements we have
already introduced will greatly increase the likelihood that those
younger grandparents will qualify for a full
basic state pension. In most cases they will have received home
responsibilities protection when bringing up their own children, and
that is to be converted to qualifying years of credit from 2010. That,
together with the reduction in the number of qualifying years for a
full basic state pension to 30, and the opportunity introduced in the
most recent Pensions Act to buy voluntary contributions for past
periods, will mean that very few grandparents will need additional
credits. It is estimated that by 2025 almost half a million extra women
over state pension age will be entitled to full basic state pension as
a result of these reforms. I will, therefore, ask my hon. Friend the
Member for Glasgow, North-West to withdraw the clause.
I am,
however, aware of the strength of opinion favouring some special
recognition for grandparents who may, in some cases, give up their own
prospects so that they can help their children. We are considering
whether any further provision is needed for them and we will not limit
that consideration to grandparents since similar care may equally be
given by aunts, uncles and older siblings. We are satisfied, though,
that if we do conclude that such provision is useful, there is already
scope to provide that within secondary legislation. I am happy to work
with my hon. Friend both on the forthcoming regulations and on any
consultations we make in terms of a special recognition of grandparents
and other groups. In that spirit I ask that he withdraw the new clause
but am happy to continue working with him on the matter because I agree
with the sentiment and thrust of his
argument.
John
Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his gracious
offer, which I am glad to take up. I will consider what he has said and
in the same spirit of helpfulness, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Clause,
by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
11
Claimants’
Charter and Employment Services
Ombudsman
‘(1) Regulations
under this section shall make provision for the extension of the powers
of the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman under the
Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13) to administer disputes
between claimants and bodies exercising powers under this Act, with
particular reference to the Claimants’ Charter as under
subsection (2) below.
(2)
Regulations under this section shall make provision for a
Claimants’ Charter to set out the rights and duties of Claimants
under the provisions of this
Act.
(3) Regulations under this
section must, in particular, make provision for the
following—
(a) a copy of
the Charter must be given to each claimant upon initial contact with
providers exercising powers under this Act, together with information
concerning the independent employment services
ombudsman,
(b) claimants not in
employment should not be forced to live below the poverty line which
shall be defined in further Regulations under this
section,
(c) claimants must be
treated with dignity and respect by all providers exercising powers
under this Act,
(d) claimants
must not be subject to degrading or discriminatory treatment in all of
their interactions with providers exercising powers under this
Act,
(e) following initial contact with providers
exercising powers under this Act claimants must be fully informed of,
and provided with written confirmation of, the conditions of their
benefit claim in addition to the consequences of failing to meet those
conditions,
(f)
provision of services by providers exercising powers under this Act
must be timely and
accurate,
(g) monitoring of
claims by claimants under this Act shall be available via telephone
services free of charge, if claimants have difficulties using telephone
services they must be entitled to face-to-face
services,
(h) claimants must
have an opportunity to appeal against any decision under this Act
leading to a reduction in benefits; clear advice to this end must be
provided to the claimant before a sanction is
applied,
(i) claimants are
entitled to high-quality, individually tailored support and must be
given access to services that will improve their ability to access
decent work, including education, training, condition management and
legal support in instances of employer
discrimination,
(j) claimants
must be made aware of, and advised on, all of the support for training,
childcare and transport to interview costs they are entitled to by
providers exercising powers under this
Act,
(k) no claimant shall be
required to participate in activity which would otherwise be a
condition of benefit entitlement under this Act if appropriate
childcare, or other reasonable support required to enable
participation, is not
available,
(l) no claimant
shall be required to take part in an activity under this Act for which
it would be reasonable to expect payment, unless they are in receipt of
compensation for that activity in line with the National Minimum Wage,
and
(m) claimants must be able
to access free, independent and appropriate advice in relation to all
aspects of the Act.’.—(Paul
Rowen.)
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Paul
Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): I beg to move, That the clause be
read a Second
time.
It
is a pleasure to see you here in the flesh, Mr. Amess, as
well as having you here in spirit this morning. Members will recall
that on Second Reading, the Secretary of State, in answer to a point by
another hon. Member, said that he would consider the idea of a claimant
charter. He
said:
“I
am aware that the idea has been suggested by Gingerbread, as well as by
my hon. Friend, and it has a lot of promise. We want to consider how we
can make sure that it is not restrictive and does not become a
lawyer’s charter. As I will argue, we want to move towards a
more flexible system based on personalised conditionality. If we are to
do so, we need to look at how individuals can know that they will be
treated fairly.”——[Official Report,
Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2009; c.
182.]
That
last statement from the Secretary of State is pertinent to the new
clause which has been prepared in conjunction with the Disability
Alliance, which includes Gingerbread, Citizens Advice and Child Poverty
Action Group. With the new clause, we seek to set out clearly the
rights and obligations of the jobcentre and the various private
providers and voluntary organisations that work under contract with
Jobcentre Plus. It would also set out clearly the claimant’s
rights and responsibilities.
I am sure
that the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform knows, from his
time at the Home Office, that when people arrive in or leave the UK,
they can see a clear charter on a board, at every Border and
Immigration Agency entry point, setting out what the
agency will and will not do, and how someone who is dissatisfied with
the service that it has provided can deal with those regrets. Many hon.
Members feel that, given the groundbreaking nature of the Bill, a
similar charter should be produced for claimants. Our probing new
clause, with which we hope to establish how far the Government are
prepared to consider these ideas, sets out our belief that claimants
should be handed a copy of the charter at the first stage, at their
first interview, so that they know what is involved. It should not
matter whether they are dealing with Jobcentre Plus or an independent
agency.
The
second provision concerns an issue that we have discussed this
morning—how any sanctions that are imposed might impinge on a
claimant’s ability to subsist. We think it important to set out
that sanctions should not force a person into a situation in which they
or their family are unable to subsist. If that happens, the sanction
system is not working.
The third
provision is about being treated with dignity and respect. That is the
kind of treatment that one should expect from JCP officers anyway, but
such expectations are clearly stated in most charters. Again, the next
provision states that claimants should not be subject to degrading or
discriminatory treatment. During these debates, we have discussed how
people with disabilities, and people with drug and alcohol problems,
might be treated. The Minister has assured us that agendas will be
personalised and will take account of such issues. If so, there should
be no problem with stating up front that that should
happen.
The
next provision is about what should happen after the initial meeting
and after the contract has been agreed. Once it has been set out what
must happen in the next few weeks, which of the three categories the
claimant might be put into, and what action is required, there should
be a clear, written statement setting out what will happen next. A big
and common complaint of people dealing with Government Departments is
that it takes an age for paperwork and agreements to be dealt with; I
am sure that other hon. Members have experienced that. What we are
saying is that once someone is registered and an agreement has been
made, they should be provided with timely and accurate information and
benefits, so that they do not end up in the situation that currently
occurs with benefits and other payments such as housing benefit, in
which applicants are forced to take out crisis loans because of delays.
Clearly, the system is not working if that situation
arises.
The
next provision is about monitoring the process. I know that it is
common practice for Government Departments and bodies such as Jobcentre
Plus to monitor and record phone calls. From my experience of dealing
with such issues, recording such calls has made it possible to resolve
disputes, so we want that to happen. One slight change is something
that I feel strongly about—the use of 0845 numbers. Currently,
people who need to phone up to get information about their benefits
spend disproportionate amounts of money getting through. The Government
are reviewing the use of freefone and 0845 numbers, but the new clause
states that such phone calls should be free, so that exercising a claim
or dealing with a query does not cost the claimant any
money.
4.15
pm
The
next provision is about an appeal against a decision—when the
claimant feels that the sanction or the agreement is unfair. Members of
the Disability Alliance want the establishment of a separate employment
services ombudsman, but we think that that would be a duplication. The
parliamentary ombudsman’s remit has this year been extended to
include health care issues, and when a claimant feels that they have
been hard done by they should be able to go to the parliamentary
ombudsman. She would be able to set out the situation clearly. The
ombudsman would not deal with day-to-day issues; they would be dealt
with through the internal appeals process.
I am sure
that the Minister will agree with the next measure, which would ensure
high-quality provision that was tailored to the individual’s
needs. During the passage of the Bill, we have raised many concerns
about the ability of JCP to deliver that high-quality, personalised
service, so the charter should say clearly, “This is the level
of service and this will take full account of your needs. If not, there
is a process through which you can go in order to
appeal.”
The next
provision in the charter would deal with the issues surrounding someone
who was involved in the process. Will there be adequate child care? On
the issue of including lone parents, we have voiced concerns to ensure
that there will be adequate child care with which the parent is happy,
not something that the Department imposes. If the parent has to travel
to an office, reasonable transport costs should be reimbursed, and the
measure sets out provisions for any interview costs that might be
incurred.
The next
provision deals with the situation when appropriate child care or
support is not in place. If the claimant is a carer, they should not be
forced into undertaking an activity that prevents them from discharging
their wider activities.
The next
point, which the TUC raised in its submission, refers to the situation
in which work experience becomes work. No one on work experience should
substitute for a real worker. If they do, they should receive the going
wage for that job. That is a reasonable point to build into a
claim.
Finally, the
claimant should be able to get free, independent and appropriate
advice. If a claimant were involved in drugs or had a mental health
problem, organisations such as Mind would be appropriate for the
provision of independent advice to the claimant. It often does so
already, and the claimant should get advice on where to go.
The
provisions of the charter are not fixed. I hope that the Minister will
accept the way in which the new clause has been introduced. Given the
Secretary of State’s willingness to consider a charter, I hope
that if the Minister is not able to accept the measure, he will advise
us how it will be put on the statute book, so that we have a clear
claimants charter that sets out those rights and responsibilities by
Report stage or by the time the Bill completes its stages in both
Houses and the scheme is in
operation.
Mr.
James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
rose—
