| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Turner of Camden: I support what has already been said so far as income support is concerned, particularly with reference to the clause stand part; I would support the Question to oppose it. The suggestion that income support should be removed should be opposed. The clauses give the Secretary of State powers to extend eligibility for jobseeker’s allowance to members of groups who cannot reasonably be expected to be available for employment, such as carers, as the noble Baroness referred to. She also emphasised that the people who benefit from income support are nearly
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC397
7.15 pm
The TUC has been in touch with me about this. It tells me that trades unions are determined to defend the Beveridge principle of providing a safety net to guarantee that no one will be left without a right to an income. Many people who learn that they are to be switched from income support to jobseeker’s allowance will worry that they will be required to be available for employment, even though that will not be practical for them. It is quite clear that this has already begun to worry a number of women. I am sure a number of us have, like me, received quite a lot of material from women’s organisations. It includes a letter from a woman who has a disabled child. She wrote:
“If I was told today that I had to go into waged work, it would be very difficult not only for me but especially for my child. I wouldn’t want to leave her in the care of someone else who may not have her needs at heart as her mother does or be as aware of her condition ... If I was in waged work I would have to leave suddenly if my daughter was ill — not a lot of jobs let you do that. And if my daughter was very ill I would have to leave the job and go back on benefits. I’m already working caring for my child but the work I’m doing is not paid, so now they are asking me to do paid work on top of all my unwaged caring work, which is devastating and exhausting”.
That is typical of letters from people who are on income support and fear that the provisions in the Bill will remove their right to it and that they will be expected to enter into some form of waged work or a work-related system that they feel they are not able to cope with.
Baroness Meacher: I support the amendment. Most people with mental health problems probably do not qualify for the various disability benefits that might support the carer in avoiding sanctions. If the Minister attended one of our carers’ groups, he would be aware of the tremendous strain that these people face day by day. Many of them barely cope, yet if they did not keep going, the mental health services in this country would not cope. We are incredibly dependent upon the contribution made by carers in that field. For that reason alone—I would not presume to contribute on any other disability issue about which I am less familiar—I hope that the Minister will take this amendment very seriously.
The Countess of Mar: There are mothers of almost grown up or, indeed, grown-up autistic children who are carers and there are mothers of children who are bed-bound with ME. To expect those people even to think that they might have to go out to work because of the title of the allowance that they will be given is wrong. If the Minister is going to come up with a new name for it, that may be acceptable, but let us hear what he has to say.
Lord Skelmersdale: I wonder whether there is a misconception here. No one is saying that the multitude of groups will be dealt with in a one-size-fits-all way.
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC398
I was also alarmed that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, suggested that the switch to income support would mean loss of benefit altogether. I cannot believe that of any Government of whatever persuasion. The noble Baroness will know full well that I do not share her Government’s persuasion 100 per cent of the time and perhaps not even 50 per cent of the time. That thought beggars belief.
Of course, Parliament will need to be satisfied that all these groups are being looked after before agreeing to regulations, which should not be allowed to be brushed aside unless a Member of either House notices as would have happened in years gone by. I do not believe that that is the case now because for some time we have had the assiduous services of your Lordships’ Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, on which we had a debate last Friday. Alas, I could not attend, although I should have liked to, due particularly to my small involvement in creating the committee, which was based on the frustration I felt as a long-term member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, whose standing orders have always precluded a discussion on the merits.
However, I digress slightly from the point that I was making. There now has to be a better reason than formerly to choose an affirmative procedure over a negative one. The final abolition of income support is definitely not of such importance as to warrant an affirmative instrument, as it will have withered on the vine by that stage. Of course I accept that each of the categories of people who will remain on income support after this Bill is up and running will need legislation to move them on to another benefit—perhaps JSA, the single benefit currently being investigated by the Government and the Official Opposition, or some other benefit which is yet to be invented. The conundrum, which I share with other Members of this Committee, is, first, when; secondly, how; and, perhaps thirdly, where, as regards what benefit is most appropriate. The only clue we have is to be found in the Raising Expectations White Paper regarding carers. Apparently, there are no plans to move carers on to JSA until the Government have finished their examination of long-term care and have what the Peers’ information pack calls a clear and detailed plan.
For the other categories, with the exception of the sick and disabled claimants who will I am sure migrate to ESA, the Government appear to be rather indecisive. Perhaps unhelpfully, the Peers’ information pack says that this might be appropriate for those on statutory sick pay, which I would have thought was inevitable and the right proposal. The Peers’ information pack goes on to say that the DWP currently plans to move all the other groups on to the modified form of JSA. This policy is being developed over a number of years.
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC399
However, I am not clear about how the JSA can be the catch-all for all those groups currently on income support. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain, not least because for many of these groups jobseeking has nothing to do with their circumstances. I am thinking, for example, again of people who are involved in long court cases. By definition, they are not even in the progression-to-work group. Would it not be better if the court system took care of them, for example?
To sum up, we need a progress report at regular intervals before income support is finally abolished. I think that we will get that because each of these categories will have a statutory instrument before they are allowed to be moved on to a new and different benefit. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that. I do not know whether they will be done in blocks of categories or if each category will have its own statutory instrument. The Minister probably cannot answer that yet, because he probably does not know. As I say, we are years ahead of actually achieving this. But when income support is finally abolished, we will have had a whole series of statutory instruments and reports—possibly reports from CSAC, on top of that—and maybe other information as well. We would then be satisfied that all the groups had been properly taken care of elsewhere in the social security system, so that when the time came, abolition by negative resolution would be the appropriate way in which to do it. I hope that that will help the Minister in what is likely to be rather a difficult response, given all noble Lords and the noble Baronesses who have spoken in support of the amendment.
The Countess of Mar: It strikes me that the noble Lord has just given a very good reason for Clause 7 being superfluous.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: This has been an important debate. In responding, I will have the opportunity to put on the record and try to allay some of the fears of most noble Lords who have spoken, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner, Lady Meacher and Lady Thomas, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar.
I shall make a couple of points to start with. To be clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, we are not taking away anybody’s right to an income by anything included in these provisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked about the timetable for bringing forward specific proposals on carers’ benefits. Our Green Paper on care and support is likely to be published before the Summer Recess. We have committed to retaining income support for as long as it is needed for carers.
Clause 7 sets out the conditions which are required before a decision to abolish income support can be taken. When these conditions exist, the clause will enable the Secretary of State to make an order which
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC400
I will deal with the issue of affirmative powers first. As noble Lords will be aware, the Delegated Powers Committee has looked carefully at the Bill and concluded that Clause 7 should be subject to affirmative procedure. Based on that advice, we will table a government amendment on Report to make Clause 7 subject to affirmative procedure. I hope that noble Lords will be satisfied at least on that point. The second part of the amendment would require the production of a report before the order can be made. I am not convinced that this is necessary, especially as we have now agreed that the order will be subject to affirmative procedure process. I know that noble Lords have been concerned about the position of carers when income support is abolished; I am happy to reiterate our commitment that carers will not be moved from income support until we have agreed a clear and detailed plan setting out how we will reform the benefit system over the longer term and how the particular needs of carers will be recognised. Invariably that process will involve consultation with carers themselves and their representative groups.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, have given notice that they intend to oppose that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 is important as it sets out how we will perform and simplify the structure of the benefit system. It provides the basis for a streamlined system in which there is no longer a separate benefit called “income support”. That may seem a very radical change but it is the logical step in a process which has been continuing for some time.
7.30 pm
When it was first introduced, income support was a catch-all benefit for everyone who satisfied an income test. Over the years, a number of new benefits have been introduced to provide support for different groups: income-based jobseeker’s allowance for unemployed people, pension credit for older people and, most recently, income-related employment and support allowance for sick and disabled people. In addition, lone parents with older children now receive jobseeker’s allowance rather than income support. Once those changes have come in, income support will serve a much narrower purpose than was intended; it will be a benefit mainly for lone parents with young children, carers and a number of much smaller groups, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to. In those circumstances we do not think it makes sense to retain income support as a separate benefit.
Of course, people who receive income support will still need help. In Clause 3 we are amending jobseeker’s allowance to ensure that they can get it. The amendments to Clause 3 will create a new form of jobseeker’s allowance which will, for all intents and purposes, provide the same comprehensive safety net currently provided by income support. Clause 7, therefore, provides
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC401
We shall need to look carefully at how the change will fit with other changes which are underway, in particular the transfer of sick and disabled people from income support to the employment and support allowance, but we believe that it is important to set out our clear intention to abolish income support and, thereby, move towards a system based on two main benefits for people of working age: employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance. That will be a significant step towards a simpler and more flexible system of benefits in which people are treated as individuals and not categorised by benefit labels. In the longer term, we may go further and get to a position where there is a single benefit for people of working age. However, reforms of that magnitude can only be taken in stages and removing income support is the obvious next step.
I hope that noble Lords agree that it is right for the Government to make their intentions to reform the benefit system clear and that making the provisions to abolish income support subject to the affirmative procedure will provide the necessary level of scrutiny. I hope that they will also agree that a report to Parliament will offer little in the way of additional scrutiny as the key discussions and decisions will already have taken place by the time a report is introduced.
A number of specific additional points were raised. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked whether we should change the name. Perhaps in the longer term we may move to an entirely new single working-age benefit and at that stage we may look at the title.
The Countess of Mar: The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, may correct me but one thing that we are worried about is that carers will not claim jobseeker’s allowance because it is called “jobseeker’s allowance” and they will not think that they fit into that category. The name is important.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I understand that not unreasonable point. We need to see where the carers’ strategy is heading. 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. On balance, we note that for most people on jobseeker’s allowance it would be the start of a journey towards work and towards seeking employment. It is important that we retain that component of our approach.
My noble friend Lady Turner expressed concern about removing the safety net which the benefit system provides for thousands of vulnerable people, reiterating the TUC's position on that as well as her own. To be clear, the Bill does not abolish income support but it provides a mechanism for abolishing it by order once it has been decided that there are no longer any groups that need it, but not before that. No decision has been taken about when that will happen.
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC402
Baroness Turner of Camden: It looks as though there is a great deal of fear among people who are now on income support, otherwise we would not receive letters from people who are afraid that their income support will be removed and that they will not have anything to replace it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I acknowledge that. This is why it is useful to have these exchanges. We need to reflect on how we can seek to address those fears genuinely and explain fully to people what is intended. I acknowledged that these can be sensitive times for people, particularly those who are vulnerable.
I have dealt with the point about the safety net. My noble friend Lady Turner also said that it was inevitable that we would use the powers in the Bill as a stepping stone to applying full JSA conditionality to all groups. I stress that this is not the case; we acknowledge that some groups on income support have significant responsibilities that should take priority over actively seeking work, and there is no intention to introduce full JSA conditionality for those groups until they are in a position to benefit from an increased level of activity.
I have dealt with the position of carers and the fundamental reason why we seek to support this provision. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment and that Clause 7 will stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I thank all those who have supported the amendment. It is significant that I was supported by three noble Baronesses. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, income support applies particularly to women and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made the same point. Women are particularly sensitive to the need for income support. I accept what the Minister said, but having a clause called “Abolition of income support” in the Bill has frightened a lot of people. There is a real failure to communicate what this will do. We all know what the situation is, but even the press do not. It is one of the complaints that the press make; if they talk about the Bill at all, and they are beginning to talk about it now, they just talk about the abolition of income support.
I am glad that we now know that the report on carers will be with us before the Summer Recess. That is very welcome. There is a real problem—the noble Countess, Lady Mar, touched on this—that a lot of groups worry about carers being put on jobseeker’s allowance, even if they are in the category of JSA that will not be expected to look for a job. That carries the wrong message. I understand in a sense why the Government are doing that, but it is a very cock-eyed way of doing it that has produced a great deal of misunderstanding.
I am pleased, though, that the Minister has said that the Government will abide by the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee and will make the affirmative procedure apply to any regulations made under this section of the Bill, which will allow us to have another debate on Report if necessary. If it had been a negative instrument it would have been the same, but we will get a report from the Social Security
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC403
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I am not sure that I would accept the comment that we simply plough on regardless, but perhaps the best that I can do is assure the noble Baroness that we would give due regard to the recommendations of the SSAC.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: With the five-bedroom cap, the Government did not follow the committee’s
22 Jun 2009 : Column GC404
Amendments 81 and 82 not moved.
Baroness Crawley: This may be a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee until Thursday at two o’clock.
Committee adjourned at 7.40 pm.
| Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |