13 Feb 2013 : Column 649

House of Lords

Wednesday, 13 February 2013.

3 pm

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

3.06 pm

Viscount Ridley took the oath, following the by-election under Standing Order 9.

Ministerial Code


3.07 pm

Asked by Baroness Miller of Hendon

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the constitutional convention of Cabinet collective responsibility, as confirmed in the Ministerial Code, remains in force.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, yes.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Lord for his very helpful and complete reply. However, as noble Lords are doubtless aware, in the votes that took place last month in both Houses, none of the Liberal Democrats who are members of the Government supported the proposals of the independent Electoral Commission to ensure fair voting by making equal, even-sized constituencies. What are the current sanctions available to the Prime Minister against Ministers who vote against government legislation?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, perhaps I may read from paragraph 1 of the Ministerial Code:

“The principle of collective responsibility, save where it is explicitly set aside, applies to all Government Ministers”.

Three sentences before that, it states:

“The Ministerial Code should be read alongside the Coalition agreement”.

Lord Kakkar: My Lords, in coalition government, does the application of sanctions against Ministers who fail to respect the convention of collective responsibility lie with the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this is, as the noble Lord said, a convention. I am sure he recalls that it was developed in the 1780s as a way to protect the Cabinet as a whole against the monarch, who wished to call Cabinet Ministers in one by one to ask them what they personally thought; it was not originally concerned with Parliament at all. There is a very useful document with which noble Lords may not be familiar, which accompanied the coalition agreement, entitled the Coalition Agreement for Stability and Reform, which states:

“There is no constitutional difference between a Coalition Government and a single party Government, but working practices need to adapt to reflect the fact that the UK has not had a Coalition in modern times”.

13 Feb 2013 : Column 650

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that, apart from the words as written down in the paper, there is much more to collective responsibility? Does not a moral judgment apply here? Should it not be a matter of honour, or does the story that there is honour among thieves not apply in this case?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, if one compares this Government with the previous Government, there has been much less briefing by Ministers against other Ministers than there was between 1997 and 2010. If I may cite my favourite senior official, this coalition Government are rather easier for officials to work with than their predecessors because, “You have to have your discussions out in the open rather than in secret”.

Lord Mawhinney: My Lords, given that collective responsibility exists, how can the Minister stand there and answer as he has, with a straight face, as if we are expected to believe what he is telling us? Will he do me the honour of personally asking the Prime Minister what disciplinary action he intends to take against Lib Dem Ministers at both ends of the Corridor, and then do me the courtesy of writing to tell me what reply he got?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I am happy to write to the noble Lord but I reiterate: this is a coalition Government. Working practices have to adapt to accept that this is a coalition Government. That is what was formed in 2010; that is what I trust will continue until 2015.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, does the agreement between the coalition include that one party should be whipped to vote against the coalition?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we proceed case by case as we move ahead. There are a number of issues on which it is agreed that neither party will be whipped. As on the question of same-sex marriage, some issues are not whipped; however, the programme Motion in the Commons was whipped. One takes it case by case and on particularly sensitive social issues we do not have a Whip at all.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the coalition agreement does indeed make the point about collective responsibility, where the two parties agreed that on certain issues they might not be able to vote together. I have two points. First, does the noble Lord not acknowledge that the coalition agreement has had no endorsement from the British public and that it is very odd for the current Government just to set aside what the Ministerial Code says, of their own volition? More specifically, can he tell the House where in that agreement there was a specific set-aside on the issue of the vote that took place a couple of weeks ago when his own party—and he as a Minister—did not support the Government?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The Minister did.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Where was that explicitly set aside?

13 Feb 2013 : Column 651

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, points out, I was in Berlin at the time so I was not involved in that particular dimension. I recall some time ago being asked by the noble Baroness, when she was on a committee, whether I felt that one could operate as a Government against the mandate of the manifesto. I pointed out that the strongest mandate in the 1997 Labour manifesto was a commitment that the Labour Government never fulfilled, so there is a degree of flexibility in all these issues.

Lord Tyler: Does my noble friend accept that on the specific occasion to which the noble Baroness referred, the Prime Minister himself accepted that there could not be collective responsibility where there had not been collective agreement? That was explicit in the coalition agreement and, as with Leveson, which we will refer to later, there are disagreements that are accepted. In a grown-up society, it is surely right to be transparent about that rather than covering up artificial disagreements, as in the previous Administration, where collective responsibility was disguised.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: As the opening paragraph of the coalition’s working agreement also stresses:

“In the working of the Coalition, the principle of balance will underpin both the Coalition Parties’ approaches to all aspects of the conduct of the Government’s business”.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, of course we hate to intrude on private grief, but will the Minister tell us whether we will have one response on the charter or two?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, that question is currently under discussion, although of course the doctrine of collective responsibility prevents my telling the House exactly where those discussions are at present.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, did the Liberal Democrat Ministers change their minds as well as their votes, bearing in mind the Deputy Prime Minister’s earlier firm agreement to boundary changes?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, coalition government is a matter of constant negotiation and discussion. Unfortunately, we have not managed to deliver much of the political reform agenda that we agreed to in the coalition agreement. All three parties bear some responsibility for failing to deliver that agenda.

Health: Healthcare Assistance


3.15 pm

Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will reconsider the decision not to regulate healthcare assistance in the light of the Health and Care Professions Council’s preliminary finding, published in December 2012, that there are significant shortcomings in a voluntary register.

13 Feb 2013 : Column 652

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and refer noble Lords to my interests in the register.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): The department notes the Health and Care Professions Council’s findings. Levels of assurance are already in place for healthcare assistants, including supervision by regulated professionals and registration of their employer with the Care Quality Commission. In addition, new training and conduct standards for healthcare assistants will be published shortly. We will review the need for further assurance of healthcare assistants in light of the recommendations of the Francis inquiry.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful for that response. Does the Minister agree that the significance of the council’s report is that in relation to social care assistants it has concluded that a voluntary register is not sufficient? Does he agree that the same argument applies very much to healthcare assistants? With regard to the Francis inquiry recommendations, will he undertake for the Government to seriously consider reversing their policy on this matter?

Earl Howe: My Lords, we have made it clear that each and every one of Robert Francis’s recommendations will be considered extremely carefully, including the recommendation in relation to healthcare assistants. However, it is worth noting that while the Health and Care Professions Council has signalled some potential limitations to a statutory regulator holding a voluntary register, and we take account of that, nevertheless that does not mean that these potential limitations would apply to other organisations wanting to set up a voluntary register. Our view is that that avenue should be explored. The HCPC also flagged up some major limitations in attempting to regulate healthcare assistance. Those messages bear thinking about.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I ask the Minister again—I have asked him this so many times—whether he will ask the Nursing and Midwifery Council to look again at some intermediate training level, which I think is sadly needed since the abolition of the SENs, for which you could qualify without having to have academic university entrance.

Earl Howe: My Lords, the policy on nursing is clear: there is general acceptance that nursing should be a graduate profession. The problem with giving responsibility to the NMC for healthcare assistance is that that is not currently within its remit, and I think it would say that it has enough on its plate to deal with, without that added dimension as well.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what does the Minister think of the care assistant who posed as a nurse for four years, working in four different surgeries, before she was found out? She did several hundred vaccinations and cancer smears on patients.

13 Feb 2013 : Column 653

Earl Howe: That story bears out the importance of employers fulfilling their responsibility to those who are in their care and ensuring that those whom they employ have the competences and skills that are required for the job. I do not want to prejudge that case, but there are systems in place that should ensure that patients are protected. We must deplore cases of this kind but they should not happen—safeguards are already in place.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, many members of the public find it difficult to understand why healthcare support workers who deal with patients every day are not regulated and registered and do not have to be fully trained in order to take up a job. I, too, am puzzled. Will the Minister tell us whether it is purely a matter of finance?

Earl Howe: No, my Lords, it is not purely a matter of finance. Our view is that what really matters in this context is the competence and training of the individual involved. We are not oblivious to the concerns in this area. That is why we have already announced a number of further measures to support healthcare assistants. For example, we have just created an innovation fund of £13 million for the training and education of unregulated health professionals. The Care Quality Commission will undertake a review of inductions for care staff to make sure that nobody can provide unsupervised help without an appropriate level of training, and we have the work currently being done by Skills for Health and Skills for Care. Their report has now been received and embodies suggestions for a code of conduct and induction standards for health and social care workers.

Baroness Emerton: The Minister mentioned supervision. The voluntary register does not necessarily cover the total safety of patients unless they are supervised. There is an issue about the minimum levels of registered nurses who can supervise support workers. When will the Government look at minimum standards for the registered nurses to enable sufficient supervision? The evidence base is that effective care and cost-effective care are reliant on the number of registered nurses who can supervise support workers.

Earl Howe: The noble Baroness as ever raises an important issue. She will know that the code of conduct for nurses specifically covers supervision where necessary. My department has instigated a number of measures to support local decision-making to get skill mix profiles right. They include the QIPP programme, which is a key driver for getting the skill mix right through producing tools and programmes in that area. The NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement supplies case studies and other resources to help NHS provider organisations deliver their QIPP strategies, and NHS employers also deliver guidance and support to help employers better plan their workforce.

Baroness Maddock:My Lords, given that the Care Quality Commission has highlighted the problems of people having too many different carers and of them not arriving at the right time—I can vouch for that; my mother is nearly 94 and has care twice a day—does

13 Feb 2013 : Column 654

he agree that managers of rosters need better training to enable them to make much better provision for carers and those they care for?

Earl Howe: I agree with my noble friend. It is an extremely important issue. Part of this relates to employers, part of it relates to those who are charged with supervising healthcare assistants, but part relates to induction training. The Prime Minister announced on 4 January that the CQC will undertake a review of induction training for care staff to ensure that nobody can provide unsupervised help without an appropriate level of training.

Airports: Heathrow


3.23 pm

Asked by Lord Spicer

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been the average daily spare capacity at Heathrow Airport over the last six months.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the day-to-day monitoring and management of Heathrow’s capacity is a commercial matter for the airport operator. However, I can confirm that the declared daily runway scheduling limit at Heathrow, published by Airport Coordination Limited for the winter season 2012-13, is for up to 656 arrivals and 678 departures, a total of 1,334 movements per day. There is an annual planning limit of 480,000 air transport movements at the airport.

Lord Spicer: My Lords, most people think that Heathrow is now pretty well full up. What would a third runway do for capacity at Heathrow and what would it do for the economic growth of our country?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I certainly agree that Heathrow is to all intents and purposes full up. The answer to the noble Lord’s question about the third runway is a matter for the Airports Commission. Coalition policy is currently that there will be no third runway at Heathrow or any of the other London airports.

Lord Soley: The Minister’s comments were rather good and quite encouraging. However, whatever Sir Howard Davies is likely to recommend, it is unlikely to be an alternative hub airport somewhere else in the near future—at least in the next 15 or 20 years. Therefore, would it not be wise to allow Heathrow fully to prepare for the likely decision to go ahead with a third runway, even if only in the short term, because otherwise we will be shutting ourselves out of the global economy? Will the Minister take that back to his department? People are increasingly turning to Frankfurt and Amsterdam, particularly international investors. We really do have to take it more seriously.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has strong feelings on this matter, but I am afraid that he should take no encouragement from what I have just said at all. We will have to wait until the Airports

13 Feb 2013 : Column 655

Commission reports. However, Heathrow is well connected at the moment, and compares very well with our European partners.

Baroness Valentine: As chief executive of London First, I hear daily of businesses’ frustration that capacity constraints are not being tackled more urgently. In the mean time, recent trials at Heathrow using both runways to land and take off appear to have reduced the number of stacking planes and to have improved punctuality. If the Government are satisfied with these trials, when do they intend to make the practice permanent?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point about the operational freedoms trials which arose from the south-east airports taskforce, chaired by my right honourable friend Theresa Villiers. We are in the second phase of the trials. They are not yet complete, so we do not yet have the complete answer. We will just have to see the results, but we are making good progress on the trials.

On stacking, the Civil Aviation Authority is undertaking a study on the future airspace strategy. One of the objectives is to reduce stacking of aircraft, because of the noise, emission and cost.

Lord Bradshaw: Most people have been worried by the awful trouble caused when there is bad winter weather at Heathrow. As the allocation of flights is, as the Minister put it in his Answer, a commercial matter, will he consider asking the CAA whether there should be a regulatory decision which would actually make airlines cancel flights in order that they can stop the horrors that happened at Heathrow two or three weeks ago?

Earl Attlee: My noble friend raises an important point. In the event of bad weather, a committee, HADACAB, determines whether it is desirable to reduce the number of flights so that Heathrow, or any other airport, is not running at maximum capacity and time is provided for the runway to be cleared.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Is not the truth of the situation that the Government have made up their mind, despite evidence to the contrary, that Heathrow has to be ruled out? Is there any alternative? What do the Government propose? Is not time of the essence?

Earl Attlee: The noble Lord will know that this is an extremely difficult issue. For every suggestion that the noble Lord could make about what we should do about this problem, I could tell your Lordships what the difficulty is. We have set an extremely difficult exam question for the Airports Commission, and we will just have to wait and see what it advises.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I declare an interest: it took two and a quarter hours to get from Glasgow to Heathrow on Monday, most of that time being spent on the tarmac at either airport. How long are we going to continue with the disgrace that is Heathrow? Is it not obvious for a Government with no money that if there is a proposal to create a privately

13 Feb 2013 : Column 656

funded third runway—up and running and providing jobs—and we want growth, then we should get on with it?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I understand noble Lords’ passion about the problem with Heathrow, but we must also recognise that there are over 200,000 people around Heathrow adversely affected by the noise of airport operations.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, although people are saying that Heathrow is full up, nearly saturated or working at 98% capacity, is it not true that that in reality is in good weather? During bad weather when the time between landings is extended significantly, considerable delay is caused. It really is time that we should respond to this because it is totally detrimental to the UK that other nations should see that we are incapable of operating an efficient transport system.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I believe that we are responding and that we have handled the bad weather better by proactively cancelling flights in advance in order to reduce the activity at the airport so that the runways can be cleared. It is interesting that at Gatwick, which does not run at 100% capacity, it is much easier to keep the runways clear. Gatwick has the time to do it without having to cancel aircraft.

Monetary Policy Committee: Inflation


3.30 pm

Asked by Lord Barnett

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the proposal by Mark Carney that the Monetary Policy Committee’s inflation target should be flexible.

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton): My Lords, the Chancellor set the remit for the Monetary Policy Committee at Budget 2012 to target inflation of 2% as measured by the 12-month increase in the consumer prices index. Inflation targeting has served the UK economy very well.

Lord Barnett: The Minister did not quite answer my Question, my Lords. He will know that Mark Carney, the new governor, has said that,

“flexible inflation targeting offered the best chance of boosting growth while maintaining price stability”.

Does the Chancellor agree with his new governor, who he has said is the best in the world?

Lord Deighton: My Lords, if I did not quite answer the Question directly it was because the Question implies that we currently do not have flexible inflation targeting, but I believe that that is precisely what we have already. The remit given to the MPC actually lays out the conditions which provide for adjustments, given what may happen with shocks and disturbances, so that we can take a longer time to reach the inflation target. To my mind, that is a definition of flexibility.

13 Feb 2013 : Column 657

Lord Peston: Dare I say to the Minister that he is mistaken? The word flexibility does not appear anywhere in the Bank of England Act. He is entirely right that the Monetary Policy Committee behaves as if it does have a flexible inflation target—the trouble is that it does not, and therefore it is acting illegally. For a great many years my noble friend Lord Barnett and I have been trying to get the Bank of England Act modified so that what the MPC is doing—which, as the Minister says, is quite right—turns out also to be legal.

Lord Deighton: I do not really want to get into a semantic argument about the definition of flexibility, and I do not know whether it appears in the original Act. However, to my simple understanding, the remit and the MPC’s behaviour clearly demonstrate significant flexibility, which is what you would expect in a policy tool to cope with our difficult and challenging economic circumstances.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: I support my noble friend the Minister in everything that he said and I greatly look forward to the court case which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is about to bring against the Bank of England. I am sure that that will give us great entertainment value. Is my noble friend aware that to jettison the inflation target at this time or at any other time would mean a loss of financial market credibility and a loss of political credibility for no gain whatever?

Lord Deighton: I thank my noble friend for his expert endorsement. He is absolutely right: our inflation target has served this economy extremely well. The Chancellor and the incoming governor as well as the existing governor have been clear that it would take a very high hurdle to climb over to find a better structure than the one that we currently have.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, particularly after the bad experiences of previous decades, this—like any—Government should always bear in mind that if we again lost control of inflation, the consequences would be impoverishing, divisive and altogether malign.

Lord Deighton: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord’s observation. There is nothing more insidious than inflation, which is why sticking to our inflation-targeting mandate, which the independent Monetary Policy Committee pursues with great skill and judgment, is absolutely the right thing to do.

Lord Davidson of Glen Clova: My Lords, given the objective that the MPC is set by Her Majesty’s Treasury, how does the Treasury propose to modify the inflation rate target, since it appears that it needs to accommodate Mr Carney’s new desire for flexibility? Or—harking back to something that has already been said—is it that the flexibility already exists because it accommodates the Bank of England’s failure for more than two years to meet its statutory inflation target?

Lord Deighton: My Lords, it is extremely clear from the MPC’s own minutes how it treats that trade-off. With the House’s indulgence, I will read the most appropriate lines:

“The Committee discussed the appropriate policy response to the combination of the weakness in the economy and the prospect

13 Feb 2013 : Column 658

of a further prolonged period of above-target inflation. It agreed that, as long as domestic cost and price pressures remained consistent with inflation returning to the target in the medium term, it was appropriate to look through the temporary, albeit protracted, period of above-target inflation”.

That is the perfect mandate for flexible inflation targeting.

Lord Flight: My Lords, how credible does the Minister think it is that the Bank of England could unwind £380 billion of QE and sell £380 billion of gilts, in the event of velocity of circulation recovering and the economy picking up, so as to stabilise the money supply?

Lord Deighton: My noble friend raises an important question: the technical unwind of the quantitative easing strategy, which is not something which would appear imminent. However when it does take place it will be done in full consultation with the Debt Management Office to ensure that we minimise any volatility to the gilt markets.

Lord Stern of Brentford: The Minister sees virtue in flexibility in monetary policy. Will he comment on the virtue of flexibility in fiscal policy?

Lord Deighton: The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that there is an array of policy tools at our disposal. The unfortunate reality with respect to fiscal policy is that, given the enormous debts and deficit which we have had to contend with and have sought to consolidate, our room for manoeuvre is significantly diminished.

Press Regulation


3.38 pm

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat the answer to an Urgent Question made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

“Mr Speaker, I must make clear that following the publication of Lord Justice Leveson’s report, cross-party talks have been exploring different ways of implementing the tough self-regulatory system for the press that he recommended. As colleagues will know, there are already several press Bills in the public domain which have been published by various organisations. The draft royal charter published by my party yesterday is outside the normal arrangements for collective agreement and does not reflect an agreed position between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.

I made clear to this House on 3 December that we would,

“send a loud message to the press of this country, and that message is that the status quo is not an option”.—[

Official Report

, Commons, 3/12/12; col. 594.]

Both the Prime Minister and I wholeheartedly support a tough new system of independent self-regulation as outlined by Lord Justice Leveson. We knew that any new model must restore public confidence and ensure that the abuses of the past could not happen again,

13 Feb 2013 : Column 659

but we continue to have grave reservations about statutory underpinning and, as such, we have concerns about implementing a press Bill. The royal charter that I have published would put in place Leveson’s recommendations without the need for statutory underpinning. It would see the toughest press regulation this country has ever seen without compromising press freedom.

The royal charter implements the principles of Leveson in a practical fashion and is the Conservative Party’s alternative to Lord Justice Leveson’s suggested use of Ofcom as a verifying body. All parties now agree with us that handing further powers to an already powerful body would not be appropriate. There is a distinction between the regulatory body being set up by the press and the verifying or overseeing body for which we suggest a royal charter is used. Let us be clear: the charter does not create a regulator, rather it establishes the body that will oversee it. The regulatory system that the royal charter body will oversee will be tough and the regulator will have the power to: investigate serious or systemic breaches of the press code; impose up to £1 million fines; and require corrections and other remedies, including prominent apologies. The royal charter body will provide tough oversight and ensure that the new regulatory body is efficient and effective.

We have also published draft clauses for exemplary damages that would provide very real incentives for the industry to join the regulator and ensure that there are serious consequences for those that do not. This is tough regulation, a tough package, that delivers the principles of Leveson. Lord Justice Leveson’s report was almost 2,000 pages long. I do not think that anyone is really suggesting that it would be possible to pick it up and implement in full. There were areas raised within the report which all political parties have expressed very real concerns about; Ofcom is but one example. All political parties expressed serious reservations around data protection proposals and their potential impact on investigative journalism. There were also concerns about whether it would be appropriate for the Information Commissioner to investigate and then decide on public interest.

The royal charter reflects a principled way forward proposed from the Conservative side of the coalition. We are clear that this is a workable solution, but it is only a draft. We will continue to debate it as part of the cross-party talks and we will seek to secure agreement. We are all committed to the Leveson principles, and this is not about implementing or not implementing Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations; this is about taking the Leveson report and making sure it can be practically implemented. The challenge before all of us is to find an agreement. The victims deserve nothing less”.

3.42 pm

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made as a UQ in the other place. Given that what we are addressing are, indeed, the Conservative Party’s belated Leveson implementation proposals, can he confirm that he is on this occasion speaking on behalf of his party and not on behalf of the Government?

13 Feb 2013 : Column 660

It is almost three months since the Leveson report was published. Most people, particularly the victims, are getting fed up with the delay and obfuscation being perpetrated by those who profess that they agree with the Leveson principles but who seem to be ready to do anything but implement his ingenious and effective recommendations. Yesterday’s YouGov poll commissioned by the Media Standards Trust found that 74% of people believe that the Government should implement Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations, 82% believe that if the status quo continues there will be a return to unethical and illegal practices and only 35% would have confidence in a press regulator set up voluntarily by newspapers and backed by a royal charter.

Given these figures, does the Minister agree with me that what Leveson proposes is fair and reasonable, as it protects free speech as well as protecting people from abuse and harassment by the press, and that there is no justification for watering it down? What we want is Leveson, not Leveson-lite. Does he also accept that the most straightforward way of implementing Leveson is by statute rather than the rather archaic and cumbersome proposals we have before us today, which are neither fish nor fowl—a royal charter plus parliamentary safeguards and a separate statute? Does he agree that Leveson has given Parliament the opportunity once and for all to clean up the practices and behaviours of the press that have made a misery of the lives of the Dowlers, the McCanns, Abigail Witchalls’ family and so many others, and that history will judge us harshly if we fail in our duty and do not implement Leveson now?

3.45 pm

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, perhaps I may start by addressing the issue of the victims because the task of all political parties is to ensure that we have a long-standing arrangement whereby what has happened before never happens again. That is the number one priority in all our endeavours.

There is no intention or suggestion of the status quo remaining. I have to say to the noble Lord that what is on the table, the draft royal charter, is not a government document; it is an offering to the cross-party talks that are continuing tomorrow, and I very much hope that politicians of all sides and of good will can have a good discussion on this. However, there is absolutely no suggestion that this proposal is about a dilution of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. This is about bringing forward, yes, a royal charter and not statutory legislation in the way that the noble Lord has put, but it is not a cumbersome mechanism. Indeed, if we are talking about speed, which is very much one of the issues that a lot of noble Lords and many people are concerned about, the route of the royal charter will, in fact, lead to a more speedy conclusion to what we all want in this regard.

3.46 pm

Lord Fowler: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend’s words about the victims would have more force had not the victims rejected the particular course being proposed. The original objection of government Ministers—or perhaps I should say, some government Ministers—to

13 Feb 2013 : Column 661

the Leveson proposals was that it required legislation. Now the impression is given that under the royal charter no legislation is required. However, is it not the case that legislation, and quite controversial legislation at that, is required both on costs and on damages to make the royal charter work? As that is the case, would we not have been better to have agreed to Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals and added the very modest statutory underpinning that he proposed?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I understand and know that my noble friend has a long-standing view about legislation. The point about the royal charter is that it is, in fact, the most speedy way in which we could address this matter and come to a conclusion, and I understand and very much hope that the cross-party talks tomorrow are going to discuss the detail of the royal charter. This is a draft, and copies of the papers are in the Printed Paper Office. I am starting to look through them because there is much merit in this avenue to deal with the concerns that have been expressed. I very much commend the detail of the royal charter, which is very different from many of the royal charters that noble Lords are aware of. On a range of issues, from the BBC to professional bodies, it is a different sort of proposal.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, the BBC is governed by royal charter. It did not seem to me to assist the BBC or, particularly, Lord McAlpine some months ago when there were great difficulties with the BBC. Can the Minister convince me in a few short words as to how a royal charter will improve the workings of the newspaper industry and protect individuals who the newspapers potentially are going to highlight?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I have looked into the number of organisations that have a royal charter. They range from the Scout Association to the RSPB, and from professional bodies to universities and colleges. I emphasise to the noble Baroness that the proposals in this particular royal charter are very clear and distinct. The way in which the appointments panel, the recognition criteria and the recognition body are constituted will, on reading, reassure the noble Baroness that this is a serious proposal. It is in draft, and I do not think that drafts are always the final or perfect version, but they are certainly the beginning, I hope, of the opportunity for some serious discussions across the parties.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, the Minister said that there was no suggestion of a dilution of the proposals. Does that mean that he has not yet had time to read the analysis published by Hacked Off, which calculates that of the 30 recommendations that constitute Leveson’s recognition criteria, just five are adequately represented in the royal charter, with 23 breached or caveated and two unclear?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I understand particularly the points made by Hacked Off. Clearly, we need to ensure that as many concerns as possible are allayed. As I say, the royal charter document is a draft. I am sure that there will be commentary on it by the political parties and I am sure that the point made

13 Feb 2013 : Column 662

by the noble Lord will be part of those discussions. In those cross-party talks it is important to have a formal structure from which we can take forward the very legitimate points that Hacked Off and other organisations have made.

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, although welcoming the publication of the Conservative’s proposals for a royal charter, we on these Benches have always been clear that our preferred option is the implementation of Leveson. In view of what my noble friend has said, will he encourage the Secretary of State to work through cross-party talks, which he says are happening tomorrow, to produce a royal charter that achieves Leveson’s recommendations in full, which this, quite frankly, does not? Specifically, will she bring forward provisions that prevent it being amended or abolished by future Governments?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: My Lords, I very much hope that tomorrow’s discussions—obviously, I will not be party to them—will take forward an understanding of the parties’ positions. The royal charter provides an opportunity to have those discussions. I understand that there is considerable good will on all sides. My noble friend has made a point about the future of a royal charter and the importance of no one tampering with it. The detail of the royal charter includes how the appointments process is constituted; how the recognition body cannot change itself without a triple lock, which includes a unanimous decision by the recognition body; the written agreement of all the leaders of the three main political parties; and a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Parliament. With all those matters drawn into this draft, I believe that this royal charter has a very strong chance of considerable success.

Of course, no Government can bind a successor Government. That is one of the principles of the fine way in which we conduct our business. No Parliament can bind its successors.

Prisons (Property) Bill

Third Reading

3.53 pm

Bill passed.

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Motion to Approve

3.53 pm

Moved by Lord De Mauley

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8 January be approved.

Relevant document: 16th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 7 February.

Motion agreed.

13 Feb 2013 : Column 663

Local Authorities (Public Health Functions and Entry to Premises by Local Healthwatch Representatives) Regulations 2012

Motion to Approve

3.53 pm

Moved by Earl Howe

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10 December 2012 be approved.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 7 February.

Motion agreed.

Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (Council Tax Increases) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) Regulations 2013

Local Government Finance Act 2012 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2013

Motions to Approve

3.54 pm

Moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

That the draft regulations and order laid before the House on 8 and 10 January be approved.

Relevant documents: 15th, 16th and 17th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 7 February.

Motions agreed.


3.55 pm

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, before we move to the main business of the day, perhaps I may point out that there seems to have been a mistake in the timing of the Urgent Question debate. My understanding was that there would be 10 minutes after the contributions from the Front Benches on both sides. On this occasion that was not the case, and a number of Back-Benchers who wanted to get in were not able to do so. Will the Leader of the House confirm that after the Question repeated by the Front Bench and the reply from our Front Bench, we should then have 10 minutes for Back-Bench questions?

Lord Newby: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is mistaken. The rule is that the Minister repeats the Question and the clock then starts. The 10 minutes will include all questions, including those from the opposition Front Bench.

13 Feb 2013 : Column 664

Lord Martin of Springburn: My Lords, that is rather unfair on Back-Benchers. Perhaps the rule could be examined. It would be fairer if the minutes that the Front Bench took up could be disregarded as far as concerns the 10 minutes, so there could be a full 10 minutes for Back-Benchers.

Lord Newby: My Lords, this is a new procedure, agreed by the Procedure Committee. One way of dealing with the noble Lord’s point is for the Opposition to keep their initial comments and questions brief.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, perhaps I might intervene following the statement from the Government’s Deputy Chief Whip. Clearly this is a new procedure. It is probably here for a trial period over a short time. Very valid comments have been made on the Floor of the House today. When this matter goes back to the Procedure Committee and then to the House, it is clear that we must take these comments into consideration.

Universal Credit Regulations 2013

Motion to Approve

3.57 pm

Moved by Lord Freud

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10 December 2012 be approved.

Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument), 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): My Lords, I shall speak also to the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2013. This is the first of our debates this afternoon on a series of welfare reform regulations that together will bring forward fundamental changes to the welfare state.

First I will say how grateful I am to the many Members of this House who have taken a close interest in these reforms. Many noble Lords have attended various briefing sessions intended to explain and debate key policy details, keeping up the dialogue that started during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. This House has been, and will continue to be, invaluable in shaping our reforms, whether on PIP or universal credit.

While some areas of the regulations are necessarily quite technical and detailed, at the core of our reforms we are creating a new relationship between the individual and the state. These regulations will introduce the universal credit that lies at the heart of our welfare reform programme—a single, income-related benefit for working-age adults.

Universal credit is intended to be radically simpler than the complex web of tax credits and benefits that it replaces. We have made a deliberate choice in this. It would be all too easy to replicate the current system in

13 Feb 2013 : Column 665

all its complexity. Some noble Lords have criticised us for relying too heavily on a rational model of human behaviour. We know that incentives work only if people can understand them and can see that with each and every hour of extra earnings they will be better off. Therefore, these regulations deliver a single taper of 65% instead of multiple and sometimes overlapping tapers, and an end to people cycling between different benefits and tax credits when their circumstances change.

Given the undoubted importance of these reforms, when draft regulations were ready in June last year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State invited the Social Security Advisory Committee to undertake a special exercise to scrutinise them. The committee undertook a public consultation exercise as part of its review and produced a very helpful report. In our response, published on 10 December, we accepted most of the committee’s 36 recommendations and welcomed the acknowledgement that the Government’s proposals for simplifying the benefit system have the broad support of a significant number of consultation respondents.

4 pm

At the same time, the department undertook extensive stakeholder engagement in workshops and smaller meetings with individual bodies. As a result of this valued input, the policies expressed in these regulations take account of the views of many interested parties. I will give a couple of practical examples of where we have listened. We discovered that claimants found the phrase “earnings disregard” incomprehensible, so I can announce that this phrase has been abolished. I suspect that the only people who understood it are in this Chamber today. Noble Lords will be pleased to note that the regulations now provide for “work allowances”. With regard to self-employment, the Government have decided that where a claimant has been self-employed for fewer than 12 months, a start-up period will be granted. This means that claimants will not be required to satisfy work search or availability requirements, and the minimum income floor will not be applied, giving them time to concentrate on developing their business. The Government have also decided to allow further start-up periods for self-employed claimants —one new start-up period every five years. I can further announce today that when we migrate people over to universal credit who are already running their own business, we will provide a similar six-month grace period before they need to make any adjustments under universal credit. In addition, the regulations now provide that 100% of contributions to an occupational or personal pension scheme will be disregarded when calculating earnings.

The Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations will enable the universal credit pathfinder to be launched from 29 April 2013. That is six months earlier than we previously said universal credit would start, so we are not just on time but, in this case, ahead of time. However, it is important to stress that the pathfinder is a deliberately limited first step. Its purpose is to enable us to test basic processes and systems, and to make sure that the core around which universal credit is built is working effectively before being rolled out nationally. That is a sensible approach to such a

13 Feb 2013 : Column 666

large-scale programme of change. It is an approach that we have planned for and have always intended to take. Many noble Lords have urged that we do not rush into implementing reforms on this scale, and organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group have made a similar point. I am pleased that we all agree on that.

During the pathfinder, a restricted group of people will be able to apply for universal credit, limited to the more straightforward cases. The Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations specify those cases in detail. Broadly speaking, we will accept claims from jobseekers, including people with very low earnings, who are single and fit for work and who have no children, are not homeowners and do not have any awards of existing benefits or tax credits. The pathfinder will operate in four local authority areas in Greater Manchester and Cheshire: Oldham, Tameside, Warrington and Wigan. Noble Lords will have noticed that the regulations do not include those locations. That is because the order commencing the relevant provisions of the Act will do so.

We anticipate that we will accept around 9,000 claims for universal credit during the pathfinder. That will be our first step towards our phased approach to the national rollout. From October, we will see the scope of universal credit extending beyond the pathfinder in three ways. First, a wider group of people will be eligible to apply. We will also extend incrementally the geographical scope of universal credit, and we will extend and enhance the capabilities of the online service. We will make adjustments and refine our plans as we learn lessons from each stage of the rollout from the pathfinder onwards. That means that we will make further sets of transitional regulations as we move through the delivery phases. Later this year, therefore, regulations providing for the national launch will be laid in good time before it starts in October.

I turn now to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013. These set out provisions for universal credit including entitlement, elements of the award, calculation of income and capital, and claimant responsibilities. For claimants in paid employment, the automated link to the real-time information on earnings from the HMRC PAYE computer system is a key innovation. DWP and HMRC officials have worked closely together on the requirements and delivery of RTI and its support for universal credit. The RTI pilot is going well. HMRC is on track to expand the pilot and expects to have around 6 million individuals’ records reported in real time by March 2013.

The department published an updated impact assessment on universal credit in December 2012. An estimated 3.1 million households will be better off by an average of £168 a month under universal credit. This includes an expected improvement in the take-up of benefits where people do not currently claim all their entitlements. Potentially, the equivalent of up to 300,000 additional people will be in work from the improved financial incentives. The extra investment with childcare costs to people working fewer than 16 hours per week is now expected to help 100,000 additional families at a cost of £200 million. We are investing £2 billion upfront on the development and delivery—for example,

13 Feb 2013 : Column 667

on new IT—of universal credit in this spending review. Over the longer term, this will help to deliver annual administrative savings estimated at £200 million per year.

There is rightly a lot of interest in guidance to decision-makers. I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its report on the Universal Credit Regulations which drew this to the attention of the House. On 31 January, I placed sections of the draft guidance in the Library of the House. These cover key aspects including childcare, the claimant commitment, good reason, hardship payments, and exempt and temporary accommodation. My officials have worked with stakeholders to produce the guidance and, having consulted the Social Security Advisory Committee, have taken into account its feedback. We were also pleased that the Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee supports the principles of universal credit, and we welcome the work it has done in its recent report.

The main route to accessing universal credit will be through digital channels. Supporting channels such as telephony will continue and face-to-face support will still be available to claimants locally. The department has worked closely with HMRC and local authorities to develop these arrangements, and on 11 February we published details of the local support services framework. Universal credit will generally be just one monthly payment per household, making it easier for people to understand their entitlement and to take responsibility for managing their own finances, but in order to support people in vulnerable situations we have developed a payments exception service. This service includes budgeting support and the facility to pay some people on a fortnightly basis, with a view to moving over time to monthly payments. I know there is a good deal of interest in this House about how the arrangements will work for claimants with the most challenging circumstances. Let me reassure noble Lords that the guidance sets out the factors we will consider, such as where someone has a history of rent arrears, a drug, alcohol or gambling addiction, or mental health issues. It places securing the rent payment to the landlord, where necessary, as the first priority. Crucially, it also explains that we will offer help to people to become financially independent wherever possible.

In the Government’s view, the regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the House may wish to take note of paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum with regard to the judgment in the case of Burnip and others, which sets out the position pending the Secretary of State’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

I commend the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 and the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2013 to the House and ask noble Lords for their approval.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by Baroness Sherlock

At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the regulations will not achieve their aim of making work pay for all and in fact will provide lower work

13 Feb 2013 : Column 668

incentives for 2.1 million households; will have the effect of penalising savers; will result in a cut in childcare support for working families; will result in cuts to the income of some of the poorest and most vulnerable in the country and will have a disproportionate impact on women and lone parent families; do not meet the needs of disabled people; do not provide adequate treatment of small businesses and the self-employed; and risk pushing many families into arrears and homelessness”.

Baroness Sherlock: My Lords, in rising to move an amendment to the Motion, I thank the Minister for his co-operation and for the work that he and his officials have done to help us to understand the very complex regulations we have had to work through in preparation for today.

I believe that this is probably one of the most important set of regulations your Lordships will debate this Session. The main Universal Credit Regulations operationalise the workings of the new system of means- tested benefits for most working-age people. This is huge. They constitute the framework which supports the huge tent that is universal credit, into which millions of people will be moved over time. The Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations provide the detail of how people will move into the tent. In working through this considerable amount of material, I have been impressed by and grateful for the detailed work done by many stakeholder organisations, including the Children’s Society, Citizens Advice and many others. We on these Benches also broadly support the principle of a single structure for working-age support, but we have always said that the design and implementation are all. These regulations are too important to the many citizens who depend on the money that the state provides to them for us not to go over them in detail.

Now that we have most of the regulations and some, but not all, of the guidance, what was a pile of canvas on the floor is starting to take shape as a tent. It raises some very significant concerns, the first of which is money. In the Second Reading of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill on Monday, we heard of the huge losses already being faced by many low and middle-income families, with more to come. We are about to find that significant numbers of people are going to be worse off as a result of universal credit. The impact assessment states that,

“3.1 million households will have higher household entitlement under Universal Credit”,

than now; but that 2.8 million will have a lower entitlement and that 300,000 households will lose more than £300 a month. These are significant sums. There is of course transitional protection at the point of moving across if someone is actively moved on to the new system. However, if someone claims universal credit because they have lost their job or had a baby, they will not get any protection. As the Welfare Reform Bill went through both Houses of Parliament, we were repeatedly assured that the new system would make sure that work always paid and that more work would pay more. I have been struggling to reconcile those assurances with the views of many experts outside the House who have made representations to most of your Lordships.

13 Feb 2013 : Column 669

Regulation 22 sets out the way in which income from work will be treated for the purposes of withdrawing universal credit. To understand what that will mean in practice, we have to go through the impact assessment, which contains details of what are called “participation tax rates”—which reflect how much a claimant would gain from moving into work—and “marginal deduction rates”, which reflect how much better off they would be from increasing their earnings once they were in work. When I read this, I was astonished to find that more people will see their marginal deduction rates rise than fall; so some people will get to keep more of every pound that they earn than now, but more people will get to keep less of every pound that they earn than now. Some 1.8 million first earners will have higher marginal deduction rates under universal credit and 1.3 million will have lower ones. Similarly, most second earners will face higher marginal deduction rates than now, and couples with children are generally likely to see an increase rather than a decrease in those marginal deduction rates. How can this be in a system that is designed, surely, to make work pay? I think the culprits are found in different places.

First, there is childcare. Currently, the childcare element of working tax credit covers up to 70% of childcare costs for children in working families. However, many low-income working families can currently get up to 96% of their childcare costs covered through the tax and benefits system. The extra 26% comes through an allowance within housing benefit and council tax benefit. Around 100,000 families—about 20%—who get help with childcare through the system get this extra money. But under universal credit, that will not be around. The Children’s Society estimates that this will leave some of the lowest-income working families paying more than seven times as much out of their own pockets.

Barnardo’s did some detailed figures and discovered a whole series of circumstances in which parents could be worse off by doing more work—precisely what the system is not meant to do. For example, a lone parent with two young children ends up in effect paying to work once she starts having to use paid childcare rather than free childcare. Does the Minister accept that there is a problem in making work pay for parents who pay for childcare?

4.15 pm

The second area is mortgage interest. The regulations provide for claimants to receive help with mortgage interest in certain circumstances. But paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 states that once that claimant does any paid work at all, all help with mortgage interest stops immediately; at present they can get help if they do up to 16 hours’ work a week. Aside from being rather ungenerous, this creates a huge cliff edge for someone wanting to move into work and goes against the grain of making sure that under universal credit work—even a few hours—will always pay. The new work allowances are little or no help if you want to do only a few hours’ work.

This is not just an issue for rich people who own houses. I spent some years running a charity working with single parents, which has now merged with Gingerbread. Over the years I met many women who

13 Feb 2013 : Column 670

had to give up their jobs when their partner left because all the childcare arrangements had been predicated around having two people to look after the children. They were usually desperate to stay in the marital home for a time to try to give the children some stability when they had just lost one parent, but when that single parent began to try to get a foot back into work she would instantly lose all the help with her mortgage, which could put her home at risk. Surely that does not make any sense. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will think again on that? In particular, can he reassure the House that in those circumstances somebody would be deemed as having what is called “good cause” in the regulations not to take a job if the result was that, for the sake of a few hours’ work, they could lose their home?

The third area is the self-employed. I believe that my noble friend Lady Donaghy will once again take up the cudgel on behalf of the self-employed people of Britain, for which I am sure they are enormously grateful. We have been very impressed by her in this. I will not linger, given that she will do that. I am very grateful that the Minister has made some concessions but it is still the case that the way universal credit treats the self-employed is really very problematic. It could create serious disincentives to starting a business. Given the lack of growth in the economy, we should not be doing anything to discourage anyone from starting a business or trying to develop it.

The Social Security Advisory Committee recommended that the Government review their approach to self-employment, including introducing more flexibility. In particular, it noted:

“The inability to roll forward losses from an earlier assessment period is likely to disadvantage unfairly those self employed individuals and small businesses whose income flows are irregular and/or seasonal. The Committee recommends that this is looked at again”.

Can the Minister tell the House if this is one of the things on which the Government have moved and, if so, how that will work in future?

The next area is disability. There have been some very harsh consequences of the way the Government have chosen to distribute the money available for disability through universal credit. The details and likely effects were catalogued in great detail in Holes in the Safety Net: The Impact of Universal Credit on Disabled People and Their Families, the report of the inquiry chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Now that the regulations have given us the final details of the levels of entitlement, it is clear that a great many disabled people stand to lose often significant sums. I am sure that other noble Lords will comment on this, but does the Minister accept the figure in the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that 230,000 severely disabled people who do not have another adult to assist them could lose up to £58 a week as a result of the abolition of the severe disability premium and the failure of universal credit to provide a counterpart to this?

Then there is housing. Regulation 26 and Schedule 4 contain details of the new size criteria for social housing—the much criticised bedroom tax, which will penalise some 660,000 households, two-thirds of which have a disability. Despite the Government claiming that this

13 Feb 2013 : Column 671

was about freeing up larger housing, we all know that smaller properties do not exist, a point underscored by the original impact assessment, which made clear that the Government were assuming that most people would stay put and just take the hit in their benefit. People could lose an average of £14 a week. I know that this is something to which my noble friend Lady Hollis intends to return.

When reading the regulations, I was disappointed to find that the Government had not responded to any of the specific hardships that were highlighted during the passage of the Bill. Has the Minister addressed the problem of foster carers, who need a spare bedroom to be able to undertake emergency fostering, or of families with disabled children?

On work incentives, it is impossible to know whether anybody will be better off until we know what will happen to passported benefits in universal credit. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions indicated at the start of proceedings on the Welfare Reform Bill in another place that he would announce proposals on eligibility for free school meals before that committee finished its work. We are still waiting. Can the Minister tell the House what is happening with passported benefits and can he assure us that the new regime will protect the incomes and work incentives of claimants?

Then there is conditionality. The regulations seem on the face of it to contain a serious tightening of the conditionality rules applying to single parents. I shall give just a few examples. At present, a single parent with a dependent child aged 13 or over can limit the hours that he or she is available for work according to their caring responsibilities. Under the regulations, they can do so only if they can show that they have reasonable prospects of finding work. How will that work? If I were a single parent in that circumstance and the only jobs in my area were night shifts in a petrol station, would I be required to take that job? Or would the fact that I could not leave my 13 year-old at home alone be definitely good cause for my being allowed to turn that job down? What would happen to a single parent whose child was excluded from school or who was made the subject of a parenting order? At the moment, the regulations provide that a lone parent is allowed to limit her work-search requirements in those circumstances in the interests of the child but, again, there is no such counterpart in the regulations. What if she could not afford or find suitable childcare? Again, the current regulations could give her protection; the new ones do not. A single parent who refused to take a job for any of those reasons could be sanctioned for three or six months, or even three years, of her benefit.

The Minister will say that this is all in guidance, but guidance is not legally binding. It is entirely down to the discretion of the individual Jobcentre Plus worker. We have seen some very bad cases in the past where, even with the existing regulations, Jobcentre Plus advisers have made decisions that are against the spirit of the regulations. Will, even at this last moment, the Minister reconsider this? If not, will he confirm for the record that no single parent will be sanctioned for the reasons that I have cited? Will he agree to guarantee that all the flexibilities currently in regulations for single parents

13 Feb 2013 : Column 672

seeking work will at least be spelt out in the claimant commitment, so that both the adviser and the lone parent can see together what she is or is not required to do?

Finally on conditionality, Regulation 32(2)(b) states that claimants who become sick and receive statutory sick pay can be treated as meeting the work condition for receiving universal credit, but self-employed people cannot claim SSP. Can the Minister confirm what happens to them?

I turn briefly to the transitional provision regulations. The Minister will be aware that there has been much concern about the timetable, but I am delighted to hear today that all is going to time. There have been concerns also about logistics. When the regulations were debated in another place, my right honourable friend Mr Stephen Timms asked the Minister how the IT was going. In particular, he asked whether the universal credit IT had been taken off the “at risk” list maintained in the Treasury. He did not get an answer, but I know that the Minister here is the man who will know, so I look forward to hearing all about that.

Will everyone in the pathfinders make their applications for universal credit online? If someone in the pathfinder is employed but her employer is not in the real-time information system, how does she get her monthly income information to the DWP to support a universal credit application?

We have heard from the Minister and read in the regulations who will be able to get universal credit in the transitional stage when the tent first opens its flaps for business. There are to be four pathfinder areas, but you really have to be very special to get through that flap in the first place. The Minister mentioned a few criteria but, in fact, you have to be between 18 and 60.5, single, British, and not pregnant or just have given birth. You must declare that you are fit for work and not be entitled to any existing benefit or tax credit. You must not have children or young people living with you; not be liable to pay maintenance under the CSA; not be a carer; have no self-employed earnings; not be in education or training; not be awaiting a decision on entitlement to a relevant benefit; not be deemed not to have mental capacity; and be deemed fit for work. Your capital must exceed £6,000; your earned income in the next month must not exceed £270 for those aged under 25 or £330 for those aged over 25; you must not be homeless and you must be living at your normal address. You should not be in supported or temporary housing and you should have a national insurance number and a bank account. I think I know him, his name is Mr Smith; perhaps I could introduce him to the Government. I am glad to hear that there are 8,999 other Mr Smiths, but how much does the Minister believe will be learnt from this?

It is true that universal credit is opening ahead of time, but not for many people. When will the Government be able to test that those systems work well with claimants who are inconsiderate enough not to meet all those criteria? That could be important. For example, how many people will be in the system by, say, next April? How fast will this progress?

13 Feb 2013 : Column 673

Finally, I have a specific question. Regulation 13 covers what happens if a claimant makes a mistake filling in the form, is invited into the pathfinder and then discovers, not unreasonably, that they did not meet one of the conditions and therefore should not be included at all. They can then go off to claim another means-tested benefit or tax credit, but the new system is very ungenerous on backdating. I understand that DWP will deem the claim as having been made on the date that the universal credit claim was made, provided that it is not more than a month later. Will the claim definitely be processed in a month? Although that sounds a small point, if for some reason it takes longer than a month to process the claim, can the Minister guarantee that someone would have their claim backdated to the date that the universal credit claim was made?

There is so much more that I want to ask, but I know that other noble Lords want to speak and we have much to get through. There are some major questions to be answered about the way that the regulations operationalise universal credit. Is the IT up and running? Will work pay for all? Will doing more hours always pay? Will claimants be sanctioned for not being able to find decent childcare? Can disabled people afford to work? There is so much more. I very much look forward to questions from other noble Lords and to the Minister’s answers. I beg to move.

Lord German: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on asking a broad range of questions. I was going to ask some of them myself and so I will not repeat them. A lot of other questions need to be raised. I am grateful also to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which advised us:

“We … hope that DWP will ensure that sufficient time is allowed for members to absorb fully the content”,

of the regulations,

“prior to the debate”.

My absorption rate may be generally high, but having received about an hour ago a further five and a half pages of information, I am doing my very best. We have had so much material to look at and so it is very important that we discover very swiftly the intentions of the regulations.

The support that we as Liberal Democrats give to the introduction of universal credit is constant, but the architecture now being put in place raises a large number of questions about much of the detail. I appreciate that much of it has been in guidance rather than in the regulations themselves. We do not have all the guidance at present and some of it is stamped “Not official” but is guidance for guidance that may well become official in days to come.

I start with the back end of the regulations, which is monitoring and evaluation. Noble Lords who sat through the process of the Welfare Reform Bill becoming an Act will know that that is an issue with which we vexed ourselves greatly at the time. I am pleased to have received the programme produced by the Government, which tells us that we will be engaged in what is called the theory of change model. How far does that proposal vary from the traditional route for evaluation methodologies used by the Department for Work and Pensions—in fact, used by the Government as a whole—particularly in respect of behavioural change? If there

13 Feb 2013 : Column 674

is one thing that we must learn from the regulations, it is that they need to be continually reviewed and changed. I am pleased that the guidance on some of the sets of regulations that we are debating today says that they will be continually updated. However, we need to know what the process is for that and particularly to have some sense of a timeline and of how Parliament can be engaged with the outcomes, and not just in the set-piece debates and milestones that have been the fairly traditional route for this Parliament to deal with these matters.

4.30 pm

I may be starting at the rear end but there are a number of very important questions, some of which were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I start with the question of the claimant commitment. I must ask my noble friend what the effect is on universal credit of the new regulations that were laid last night and the court ruling which preceded them. It seems that on the regulations which the court ruled to be not in accordance with the primary legislation, that was not about the content but rather in respect of the primary legislation to which they related. I should be grateful if my noble friend could reassure us that these regulations in no way impact on that court decision or on the new regulations which were laid last night by the Government and are now in effect.

More importantly, in respect of the claimant commitment and the worked examples, which I found very useful indeed, is there not clearly a difference between commitment and a contract? They do not appear as a contract but do appear to be very much a commitment by the claimant, without any recognition of what level of support Jobcentre Plus, and the Government as a whole, will provide for that claimant. I wonder whether there might be an element of expression of the sorts of services that a claimant could rightly expect to receive to assist a claimant through the process laid out in the claimant commitment.

I turn to the sanctions regime, on which we have now had some detail. The guidance we have received refers to “good reason” as opposed to good cause. The guidance on good reason says that it is not defined in law but that good cause has been considered in case law. I wonder whether there is a deliberate reason for choosing those different words because that might then avoid the case law, which has already been gone through, in order to provide what might cause a reasonable person to act as they did. The guidance itself seems to draw heavily on the good cause experience as provided through the courts. I wonder whether there are significant differences within the guidance provided on how good reason might be shown and how good cause can be shown under the current legislative procedures.

The issue of monthly awards has concerned many Members of your Lordships’ House as has the issue of direct payments to landlords. On the monthly awards, there is clearly a need for extensive money advice. I looked at the guidance we were given on the local support services framework. It states in outline only that it starts to draw up a programme for a relationship between central and local government on welfare issues. I wonder how far that debate has gone and what the

13 Feb 2013 : Column 675

Government’s intentions are in order to be able to deal with, and react swiftly to, difficulties which individuals may have. We could think of many examples where it might be necessary either to shift payment between one claimant and another in a household or to move to a more frequent system on a time-limited basis. I wonder whether there is pressure in the guidance on the decision-makers to be able to implement that fairly rapidly.

We have also been given a set of criteria that are the factors to consider for alternative payment arrangements. There are tier one, which is headed with a red bar, and tier two, which is headed with a green bar, but no weightings are given to those factors. For transparency purposes, I wonder whether my noble friend would like to outline some of the weightings that are to be given to those factors so that people would know when it might be appropriate for them to be able to find exceptions to the monthly awards and direct payments regime.

My noble friend made strong play, and I think he was supported very widely, of finding new financial products to be able to help people to manage their money on a monthly basis. We have frequently talked about jam jars and jam-jar accounts, and about the difference between prepayments and direct debits. The evidence at paragraph 57 in the response from the Government to the SSAC was that 1.3 million potential new universal credit claimants do not use a transactional bank account. I should like to hear some more today on what is going to happen to these new products. Are we going to see them in time for the pathfinders, and certainly for the rollout in October, to be able to take advantage of them?

On direct payments to landlords, an issue that I know many social housing associations are concerned about, the pilot studies so far show that 92% of the due rent has been collected on time—but of course that means that 8% has not been collected on time. When the pilots end in June, which is not far short of the October introduction and full rollout, will my noble friend be publishing the final arrangements as close to the June date as possible so that there will be some speed of engagement with individuals’ difficulties? Will he be indicating how third parties, such as landlords and so on, will be able to make an intervention as swiftly as possible to ensure that rent is paid and collected?

In his introduction, my noble friend mentioned compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. This relates, of course, to the additional bedroom for a disabled child and overnight carer, and to paragraphs 10, 25 and 36 of Schedule 4 to the Universal Credit Regulations before us. Guidance will be relied on to supplement these regulations, but the guidance states that local authorities under the current regime, which is the one where the legal case stands, may wish to consider suspending the part of the housing benefit relating to the additional room. Does my noble friend accept that that puts people in a very difficult position as some local authorities may decide, as it is purely advisory and it is a consideration that they can make, that they should pay for an additional bedroom for a disabled child? That is what is being challenged by the Government but it is the current legislative position that they find themselves in. Some local authorities

13 Feb 2013 : Column 676

may provide the cash and others may not, but they are obliged to consider it. Therefore, it might be in the award but not paid or it might be in the award and paid.

I notice from the Explanatory Memorandum that new guidance is to be issued, with the Government saying that all this will not be decided for some time. With regard to the timescales that my noble friend often provides to your Lordships’ House, when late autumn often becomes Christmas and early spring often becomes summer, the words “decided for some time” mean that it may be some years before the courts reach their final conclusion on this matter. I wonder whether we need to have that certainty now in regulations, or certainly in the guidance, to support those issues.

I shall conclude with the issues about digital. The Government are persuaded, of course, that “digital by default” is where we should be for applications and submissions regarding universal credit. I understand that only 14% of main benefit claimants currently put in a new claim online—that is in the local government briefing—but 45% said that they would need help or support to apply online in future. That is a very substantial number of people. The arrangements for supporting people are crucially going to be conducted through agencies, including local government. I notice that the Government have been working with the Local Government Association, the Scottish local government association and the Welsh Local Government Association to find a route forward on these matters. The document that the Government have provided us with, Universal CreditLocal Support Services Framework, states:

“This framework is the start of a conversation”.

Can my noble friend say when the conversation is likely to end and when local government is likely to know how much money it will get in order to be able to provide those services? It seems to me that those supportive services need to be in place in advance of a rollout so that people know where to turn. For example, on online applications, where libraries will be the obvious place for undertaking such work, I wonder whether the conversation needs to come to a rapid conclusion. Will my noble friend indicate when that might be? There are also data transfer and data protection issues because people will need to be able to share information between one group and another.

That may all sound very negative, but the thrust of these regulations is in the right direction. However, when we are having such an enormous change to the structure of our welfare system, it is crucial that the necessary architecture is in place. I hope that my noble friend will be able at least to provide us with some indication of how Parliament can engage in the journey that is likely to take place over the next two years to ensure that we get the best out of the universal credit. That is the ambition we all want to achieve.

4.45 pm

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like my noble friend, I thank the Minister and the Box for the papers and seminars that we have found so helpful. I congratulate my noble friend on her powerful scrutiny of some very extensive regulations that effectively took 17 days in Committee to debate.

13 Feb 2013 : Column 677

The noble Lord, Lord Freud, admitted that the regulations assume economic rationality. As a result, they are heavy on sanctions—in my view, appallingly heavy sanctions in Regulation 102 lasting for up to three years—believing that they can sanction people into the behaviour they want. However, as abundant research shows—I am sure that the Minister is familiar with it—and as the Trussell food bank network confirms, most people do not know why they have been sanctioned. It is as though it has happened to them. They live chaotic and confusing lives, to the intense irritation of the benefits staff. The CAB says that the claimant does not understand the responsibilities and the adviser does not understand the claimant. The personalised claimant commitment will, we hope, introduce an essential flexibility and headspace into the regulations, but I fear that the very clarity produces a yes/no, either/or approach to regulations and guidance that is not reflected in real life. Some of these issues have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord German.

The second issue is that we face major delivery problems, an issue perhaps associated with transitional arrangements. I want UC to work. I fear that on delivery we will be heading for a train crash. At one and the same time, the Minister is rightly introducing a new benefit architecture that will, however, confuse most people with its new rules, new conditionality, new sanctions, new tapers and new backdating rules and that has most benefits in, but some, from DLA to council tax benefit, out. That is the first thing that is happening.

Then, on top of that, come the cuts. Some benefits, such as HB, will be cut because of the bedroom tax. Claimants will think that it is DWP error and will go frantic trying to correct it. Thirdly, in the past they will have received their benefits weekly or fortnightly, but now it will be monthly in arrears. As nearly half of those in the bottom two quintiles are in work paid weekly, many will not cope and debt will grow.

Fourthly, for the first time, they will find their housing benefit paid to them and not to their landlord. Inevitably, on a monthly basis, it will be raided before the month is out to meet other bills. The DWP’s demonstration projects show that 40% of tenants will find it difficult, and a quarter will need substantial, long-term support. The chief executive of Wakefield, one of the pilot areas, is reported to have said that people are now ceasing to pay their rent at all. That is from a pilot area where tenants have had considerable support. It is worth reminding ourselves that this demonstration project showed that 40% of tenants were in debt, already excluding rent arrears. Over 90% had no savings as a buffer. Over a third had sought help from the CAB.

Fifthly, these arrangements come as a single electronic payment, paid probably to him, leaving her and the children potentially vulnerable, when claimants have been used the past to separate flows of benefit, particularly to the one with children, and to a cash economy for food. And all the claims are online, although 30% of the poorest have no access to IT at all. Citizens Advice, which would have helped them, has lost nearly half its grant thanks to coalition Government cuts. Claiming benefits online would certainly terrify me. However,

13 Feb 2013 : Column 678

in exceptional cases, there will be face-to-face support. Will the Minister tell us what percentage of people he expects to take up that proposal? As these tenants do not have and cannot afford a word processor at home, their benefit claims cannot be interactive. They go to a community centre and fill in their forms online with the help of someone present, and then they go home. And then what? How do they get any interactive dialogue going should there be any query over, or error in, their submission? How will DWP manage this?

I greatly welcome the local support service, but the obvious hard questions are how many centres there will be, how many claimants there will be and how much new money there will be. Or is it another slice off the HB under-occupancy test for someone else? It cannot be left to district managers to decide, as is proposed. As it is, my housing association will be employing and paying new staff out of tenants’ rents to provide the self-same welfare advice that, hitherto, trained CAB volunteers offered for free.

The delivery of any one of these seven major changes to benefits would need careful implementation. To bring in all seven at the same time seems like folly. I think that we are setting up UC to fail, and causing much misery in the process—and that is before the IT plays up and falls over.

UC is for the benefit of claimants. I fear that most of the delivery changes which I have listed will destabilise it and are for the benefit of the department, making UC harder for claimants to embrace and understand. I have been through ambitious change programmes, but nothing as ambitious as this. I beg the Minister to sequence these seven changes properly—to introduce them incrementally on an agreed timeline so as to take people with him. Yes, claimants will come across in manageable cohorts; that is entirely right. However, once in UC, they face all these seven delivery changes simultaneously. Those changes need to be phased in, as well as the claimants themselves.

I beg the Minister to consider, even at this late stage, a transitional year for claimants to be able to opt for fortnightly payments, split payments within couples and direct housing benefit payment to their landlord, while the claimants get their heads around UC and learn to work IT—itself a big enough challenge over the course of a year. At the very least, we should ensure that those who are treated as exceptional or vulnerable for the purposes of housing benefit payment are passported to the exceptional payment grounds within UC and vice versa. What estimate has the Minister made of the percentage of people who will be protected in this way under the heading of “exceptional or vulnerable”?

Finally, the regulations that worry me most are sanctions, hardship and housing. First, as regards sanctions and Regulation 102, if you are economically rational, as the Minister surely is, you also surely reward people who become compliant. You reward them for good behaviour. With three-year sanctions, what is the point of the claimant changing his behaviour if nothing happens as a result and he continues to be sanctioned? What message does the Minister think he is sending? The concession on holding down a job for six months is empty in this situation. Will the Minister

13 Feb 2013 : Column 679

at least follow the SSAC recommendation that when a claimant has complied, the sanction should be suspended? That is the message to get across. It then can be reimposed if the claimant breaches his conditionality subsequently. Otherwise, I expect this to be judicially reviewed. Will the Minister also ensure that when one person in a couple—for these purposes, I will assume that it is a male—is sanctioned, the payment is automatically switched to the main carer to protect the children?

Secondly, I should like to make a few comments on hardship and Regulation 116. The guidance is really helpful and very worrying. I believe that there are three problems. At the moment, you are automatically entitled to hardship payments if you are vulnerable—for example, if you have children—but you will not be entitled in future. All expenditure is to be scrutinised to see if the family is truly and deeply in hardship. Should they return the TV? What about smokers, Christmas presents, or train fares to attend granny’s funeral? None of those is covered in the four basic criteria of health, housing, hygiene, food and so on that the Minister has put into regulations and guidance.

Iain Duncan Smith, I think, believes that poverty is primarily a moral failing. Like the Victorians, he is insisting that the poor must always live in the light and display their income and behaviour for scrutiny by their betters; that is, young, local office staff with often little experience of difficult lives. The intrusiveness of it all appals me. What is worse is that the hardship handouts will be, as far as I know for the first time ever, clawed back. A hardship handout now is a loan and not a reduced benefit entitlement secured for the vulnerable. Paying it back will in future cut the UC a claimant gets and will further increase debt, which is one of the major problems that all claimants will face.

Most disgraceful of all is that under Regulation 116 (1)(b), households get hardship payments for the vulnerable only if they have met compliance conditions. So why are we still sanctioning them? Why do they need to claim hardship payments at all? We have never made hardship payments conditional in this way, nor should we. Hardship payments meet needs—above all, those of children. They are a safety net. Instead, in these regulations, they are being treated as another lever to make sanctions and compliance bite. It is ugly and indecent. Are we going to refuse hardship payments to a lone parent where she and the decision-maker disagree about her availability for work given the age and vulnerability of her children? That is the sort of example that my noble friend Lady Sherlock described so effectively. The lone parent is sanctioned and is not compliant. She is refused hardship money. I hope and expect that this will also be judicially reviewed.

Finally, on housing benefit and Schedule 4, we now find that the bedroom tax may affect one-third of working-age tenants. They will be fined—because they cannot move—£14 a week for accepting the home which was offered to them in good faith a decade previously, which is where they have brought up their family. As a result, unable to pay that £14—they have no savings—they will go into debt, arrears, be evicted, bed and breakfasted, children traumatised. Then they will be rehoused, either in the private sector at higher

13 Feb 2013 : Column 680

housing benefit costs or back again in the same size accommodation that they left, since that is all that we have. This is simply because the DWP and the coalition have so decided. The issue of overcrowding, which the noble Lord sometimes quotes, is, as my noble friend said, utterly irrelevant because they are in different places.

So why are the Government appealing the Court of Appeal judgment in the Burnip case, which allowed disabled children to have their own bedroom? A decent coalition Government would not fight on. If they lose, as I fervently hope—we will not know until December—what estimate have they made of the numbers who will then be protected? What are the implications for middle-aged couples, whose ill-health requires separate bedrooms, or do we need to judicially review that as well? Will the Minister tell us what level of disability aids and adaptions have to be fitted into a property and at what approximate cost before the Government accept that it makes no sense for the household to move and to refit another, but smaller, property in its place? Housing bodies need to know to make sensible forecasts. Foster carers have been mentioned and I am sure that the Minister will respond.

Turning to another issue, following bereavement the Minister is allowing only three months’ grace if someone is required to move house. I think that I am resilient, but I could not have coped with finding a house, packing up and moving within three months of my bereavement. I was wiped out. The distress of a forced, speedy move from the home built together is like being bereaved twice over. SSAC called for 12 months’ grace, not three months. Will the Minister, in all decency and compassion, please agree?

I have one final housing point. At the moment, households where an unemployed person under 25 years old lives at home getting £56 a week JSA do not incur non-dependant adult deductions. In future, they will lose £68 a month, the same as those on higher benefits or in work. That seems grossly unfair. If he is economically rational, as no doubt he is, he will increase the HB bill by finding separate accommodation of his own and leaving home.

We have more regulations to come in October and, I am sure, amending regulations of regulations. We are already starting to see them. We also have negative regulations, some of which I am sure we shall pray against. However, we cannot amend these regulations. Will the Minister at least attend to some of the concerns being expressed all around this House in regulations that we have yet to examine?

Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I have one small point to raise under these regulations, which I expect the House will welcome. Before I do that, whatever we think of the detail of these regulations I pay tribute to the Minister and his staff in the DWP, who have worked absolutely non-stop to get out these regulations and all the guidance. We might complain about having so many piles of paper, but somebody has had to prepare them. It has been a tremendous effort, so I thank him very much.

Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that the one matter I address in these regulations is a success story. It is possibly the end of a long road leading to the

13 Feb 2013 : Column 681

better treatment of all those service users and carers who are involved in helping to improve health and social care services. This is about having their expenses disregarded for benefits.

There is one matter to ask my noble friend about: the word “consult”. When service users and carers report their involvement to Jobcentre Plus, they are likely to do so by using the terms that are used by the health and social care organisation that has asked for their help rather than the term “consult”, which is used by the DWP in these regulations. We were told that the lawyers insisted on this word. In order to avoid misunderstandings in Jobcentre Plus offices, it would be helpful to explain that service user and carer consultation may be described as “involvement” or “participation” and “co-production” by the Department of Health. Other health and social care organisations also use the expressions “experts by experience” and “acting together”. Will my noble friend ensure that the guidance for Jobcentre Plus staff will include an explanation about the terminology likely to be used? This will prevent a great deal of misunderstanding and I am sure will reap dividends.

5 pm

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I propose to confine myself to Part 5 of these regulations on the capability for work or work-related activity. The Minister will recall many occasions when he has assured me that people with ME/CFS are judged on what they can and cannot do in their condition. Memo DMG 1/13, entitled, ESA: LCW and LCWRA Changes, has been brought to my notice very recently. Part 16 of these changes, which I will read out completely so that we understand them, states:

“DMG 42114 advises that a claimant’s LCW must be due to a specific bodily disease, mental illness or disablement. This means that a claimant could satisfy the mental, cognitive and intellectual function descriptors if they had a physical health condition, without having a mental health condition. The law is amended to make it clear that physical descriptors can only be satisfied by a person with a physical health condition, and mental descriptors can only be satisfied by a person with a mental health condition”.

The document then indicates the difference between limited capability for work and limited capability for work-related activity. Both the sections are the same, so I will just read out one:

“when assessing the extent of the claimant’s LCWRA, it is a condition that the claimant’s inability to perform


1. physical descriptors2 arises”—

I assume the figures refer to the notes—

“1. 1.1 from a specific bodily (i.e. physical) disease or disablement or

2. 1.2 as a direct result of treatment by a registered medical practitioner for such a condition and

2. mental descriptors



1. 2.1 from a specific mental illness or disablement or

2. 2.2 as a direct result of treatment by a registered medical practitioner”.

In view of the fact that these regulations are running parallel with the ESA regulations—Part 4 and Part 5 —will the Minister please explain why this change has occurred? These people obviously have to have a mental or a physical condition, on a medical certificate presumably, before they can be judged to have one or

13 Feb 2013 : Column 682

other of the conditions that I have mentioned. We have a particular difficulty with ME/CFS, as the Minister knows, because many of these people will not have seen a doctor for years and cannot get a medical certificate. I would be grateful if the Minister could clear that up for me.

Also on these paragraphs, Citizen Advice states in its briefing that Regulations 39 and 40 in Part 5 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, to which I have referred, set out,

“who is entitled to the Limited Capability for Work element and the Limited Capability for Work Related Activity elements. Regulations 89 to 91 set out who apart from those with LCW or LCWRA will have full work related requirements. Under Universal Credit, claimants with a disability and/or a health condition can be required to undertake ‘all work-related requirements’ before the outcome of their claim for the equivalent of income-related Employment Allowance … has been decided, and whilst they are appealing that decision. ESA regulations (2013) Regulation 26 maintain current protection for those applying for contribution-based ESA … This means that claimants with an equivalent disability and/or health condition applying for ESA … (or the equivalent in UC) will face different work-related conditions through the assessment phase and any appeal, to those applying for ESA”.

Will the Minister kindly clear that one up as well, please?

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief comment, but first I must apologise to noble Lords. It is quite clear from all those who have spoken that there is a great deal of expertise and deep knowledge of the subject and, as will become immediately clear, I cannot live up to those standards. However, there is one matter on which I wish to make a brief point. Before doing so, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the clarity with which he introduced this subject and on the immense work that has clearly been done on it.

I have one worry, which is that these are enormous and complex changes that will impact on and affect many people who by definition are extremely vulnerable. While I very much support the aim and objective of what the Minister is proposing, and I hope that the pathfinder work is a success, I worry about the implementation of such complex proposals in practice. I share quite a lot of the sentiments expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Hollis, and others.

It is therefore most important—perhaps this can be enshrined in guidelines—that those who will be advising the potential beneficiaries of the change are fully and adequately trained and fully understand what they will be talking about. More importantly, when it comes to actually carrying out the whole process of changeover, those who are at the decision-making end should exercise supreme patience and understanding. For me, patience is all important.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, many people will not have online access. I know, being of advanced years myself, how difficult it is to understand everything that is going on. I am reasonably but not fully conversant with all the complexities of new technology and new systems of communicating. I can often sense the impatience at the other end of the line in people younger than me, for whom it is second nature to handle these things. It is not so for everyone and it is

13 Feb 2013 : Column 683

most important that those who are in a commanding position assist potential beneficiaries to understand the process of changeover, and do so with extreme patience.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eden, said that he is not an expert but sometimes it is the non-expert who puts his finger on the key points, as the noble Lord did. I apologise to noble Lords in advance for the length of my speech but there are a lot of areas to cover, although I shall be leaving out a lot of important issues, including monthly assessment. I shall return to that, in case the Minister thinks he is getting off lightly.

I shall start with three general points. First, I add my thanks to the noble Lord for the work done by him and his team in providing us with so much information. It is only right to draw your Lordships’ attention to the 17th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has reported these regulations for four instances of defective drafting. Although the DWP acknowledges each of those defects, as I understand it, it did nothing to put them right before these regulations came before both Houses of Parliament. I am told that that is unprecedented.

My second general point was made by CPAG—I declare an interest as its honorary president—in its evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee and concerns simplification. That goes back to the point made by the noble Lord. This is a raison d’être of universal credit, as the Minister made clear in his introductory remarks. CPAG, having acknowledged that of course simplification is a worthy goal which we all support, warns that it is very difficult to achieve in a heavily means-tested and conditionality-based system such as universal credit. Noble Lords who have been grappling with these draft regulations will no doubt nod wryly in recognition of that fact. CPAG points out that many complexities will remain and new complications will be introduced with the advent of universal credit.

The draft regulations reveal that many of the rules that currently cause great confusion will simply be imported into universal credit, despite what the Minister said earlier. The group warns that without good advice, many claimants will struggle to comprehend either their entitlement or the new obligation that universal credit places on them. As a result, the Government’s expectation that universal credit will be taken up more widely than the existing benefits could be misplaced, which also means that its estimates for the number of gainers could be inflated. The group argues that it is essential that the Government provide support for the advice sector as an integral part of the design, piloting and rollout of universal credit. That point is emphasised also by the Work and Pensions Committee, which calls for sufficient additional resources to be available to the advice sector to support a successful transition to the new system.

During the last major reform of social security in the 1980s—noble Lords who have been around a while will remember that time—welfare rights advice services were flourishing in local authorities and in the voluntary sector. Today they are a shadow of their former selves

13 Feb 2013 : Column 684

as the cuts take their toll. Could the Minister tell the House what resources will be made available to the advice sector?

My third general point concerns the very heavy reliance on guidance to put into effect the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Gingerbread, for example, argues that transferring details from regulations to guidance removes important safeguards, erodes accountability and transparency in decision-making and increases uncertainty for claimants. It has a particular concern about the over-reliance on guidance to put into effect the flexibilities available to job-seeking lone parents. My noble friend Lady Sherlock has touched on this already and I shall try not to repeat what she said in her able opening statement.

I raised this issue during Report stage of the Bill, late at night on 23 January 2012. The debate was very rushed for procedural reasons, but I thought that I had achieved something when the Minister assured your Lordships’ House that,

“advisers will take childcare responsibilities into account when setting work-related requirements, and we intend to set out some specific safeguards on this issue in regulations”.—[

Official Report

, 23/1/12; col. 915.]

He then referred to the right of claimants with a child under 13 to limit their work search to jobs that would fit around their children’s school hours. He rightly emphasised that the best way to prevent the inappropriate application of sanctions was to ensure that the requirements were reasonable in the first instance. It is therefore incredibly disappointing that the regulations do not adequately reflect this wise principle.

5.15 pm

Regulation 88(2)(b) stipulates that where the claimant is a responsible carer for a child under the age of 13, she can restrict her work availability to her child’s normal school hours, including normal travelling time. A Parliamentary Answer in the other place confirmed that, as now, this group of lone parents will not have to show reasonable prospects of finding work. However, the new regulation does not say this, whereas the present regulations do.

Nor do the regulations provide the same protection against sanctions that the current regulations do—for instance, where there is no affordable or appropriate childcare available, or such childcare is not available in school holidays. I am sure that I do not have to tell noble Lords of the problems still faced by those trying to find affordable and appropriate childcare, in particular in rural areas or for disabled children. The guidance makes reference to such factors, but not in the same clear-cut way that the current regulations do.

These are just some of the 11 examples of instances where current flexibilities set out in regulations have not been fully transposed to the new regulations. Only one has been. Will the Minister explain why these crucial safeguards have been removed from the regulations, despite his assurances to me in your Lordships’ House?

I did not find the justifications provided in the answers to questions circulated recently—for which I was grateful—at all convincing. They stated that the avoidance of detail was deliberate in order to support better decision-making by allowing advisers to consider

13 Feb 2013 : Column 685

the merits of each case rather than applying a tick-box approach. Of course, no one ever wants a tick-box approach. Gingerbread’s response is that the current flexibilities in the regulations are not cumbersome to administer, and that multiple evaluations by the DWP have never suggested that they are anything but appropriate. The persistent problem has been a lack of adviser awareness, as well as inadequate training and performance. Again, that refers to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eden.

This will not be addressed by making rights discretionary, thereby increasing uncertainty and weakening decision-making standards further. There are enough examples already of those safeguards being disregarded, even when they are in regulations. I fear that there will be many more examples when the safeguards no longer constitute clear rights. Although Gingerbread is pleased that the draft guidance has been strengthened in response to feedback, in order to provide greater clarity with regard to restricting work availability for lone parents with children aged between five and 12, it considers that the situation for those with older children, as set out in paragraphs WR064 and WR066 in particular, remain opaque and confusing. Will the Minister give a commitment further to review the guidance in consultation with stakeholders such as Gingerbread?

As well as the relegation of certain safeguards into guidance, there are a couple of examples of new regulations being more restrictive than the current ones. My noble friend Lady Sherlock referred to one of them, which concerned lone parents of children aged 13 or over who have no reasonable prospect of finding work. The second example is that lone parents will be allowed only 48 hours to attend a job interview, taking into account alternative childcare arrangements, whereas at present they are allowed up to one week, which does not seem unreasonable. Will the Minister explain why this provision has been made more restrictive?

Unfortunately, we are unable to amend regulations, so we must look to the Minister to ensure that the guidance provides adequate safeguards to protect lone parents with caring responsibilities; that these safeguards are written into the claimant commitment for lone parents; that advisers are properly trained to administer the flexibilities; that their ability to do so is included in the performance management framework; and that there will be adequate monitoring of the impact of the loss of regulatory flexibilities on the ability of lone parents to adhere successfully to the conditionality regime, and to find and remain in paid work. I would welcome the Minister’s assurances on these matters, in the hope that they will be more meaningful than those with which he provided me on 23 January last year. It is all the more important that we get these matters right, because with universal credit we face a further ratcheting up in the conditionality regime and associated sanctions.

In relation to this, I want to raise three points, building on the powerful arguments that my noble friend Lady Hollis has already made. The first concerns a claimant commitment and couples, and it is a slight variation on her argument. There is a tension between the personalised individual conditionality, which requires

13 Feb 2013 : Column 686

both members of a couple to sign and adhere to a claimant commitment, and the refusal to allow both members of a couple to receive some benefit in their own right. We will no doubt return to the latter point when we debate the claims and payments regulations, when we would no doubt pray against them. In the mean time, I wish to raise my concerns that, according to the Explanatory Memorandum,

“if either eligible adult in a couple refuses to accept their claimant commitment, the claim for the other eligible adult will also end”.

In the spirit of individual conditionality, should not the partner who accepts the commitment be entitled to benefit for themselves? This is one of the few issues to which the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee draws attention, advising that, because of the volume of legislation, its usual degree of analysis was not possible.

Secondly, the Social Security Advisory Committee pointed out that in-work conditionality,

“is clearly different to the kinds of conditions that will be placed on claimants who are out of work”.

It therefore suggested that it should be dealt with in a separate regulation in order to clarify the difference. The DWP rejected the suggestion, leaving the issue to guidance. Barnardo’s,

“remains concerned that this could result in cases of unreasonable demands being placed on parents to apply for new and different employment even if the new employment does not suit them for other reasons”.

I, too, remain concerned, and I would welcome assurances that the Minister will review this matter in the light of the piloting that is very sensibly proposed for in-work conditionality. The Minister started by referring to a new relationship between the individual and the state. I fear that this is not going to be a very happy relationship for many individuals in work, who are not used to being brought under conditionality regimes. This has become clear from the research that the department has already done with users. So the Minister stands warned.

My other main concern relates to the treatment of hardship payments. The CPAG points out in its evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee that,

“such payments will be both more restricted and recoverable”,

under universal credit. It goes on to say:

“Reclaiming hardship payments will mean that sanctioned claimants will continue to receive a reduced rate of UC for significant periods after the sanction expires”.

This is itself likely to cause hardship, which does not make sense when the point of the payment is to prevent hardship, even with the concession that recovery will be suspended if the claimant is in work and earning above the conditionality threshold. Could the Minister please explain why the rules are changing on this? As my noble friend Lady Hollis has said, one of the main concerns about hardship payments, raised with SSAC, was the introduction of conditionality into them. SSAC cites Barnardo's in particular:

“Hardship payments ought to operate as a safety net to prevent families from entering destitution and ensure that children are provided with a minimum standard of living even when their parents refuse to engage with the system—imposing conditions on families could seriously risk the welfare of children”.

13 Feb 2013 : Column 687

SSAC suggested that,

“the government may wish to reflect further”,

on this. Unfortunately, they do not appear to have done so and make no reference to these concerns in their response to SSAC’s report. I had a wry smile when my noble friend Lady Hollis kept saying how a judicial review would be used. I am not sure whether she is aware that the Government propose at present to limit the use of judicial review. I wonder whether that is a coincidence.

However, what I find most outrageous is the requirement that in order to qualify for a hardship payment, claimants must make,

“every effort to cease to incur any expenditure which does not relate to … their immediate and most basic needs”.

Those are defined as accommodation, heating, food and hygiene. That may sound innocuous to some noble Lords, but when I first saw a reference to it in an early briefing, it conjured up images of officials checking what claimants have spent their money on in ways that are resonant of the 1930s means test. When some of us expressed our dismay at such a prospect in the briefing session, the Minister seemed to be surprised, but I had understood that he would look at it again. However, it is still here. The provision shows no understanding of the social nature of needs.

When the Minister of State in the other place was questioned about this in relation to the Social Security (Loss of Benefit) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, he appeared to confirm that claimants would not be allowed to buy Christmas or birthday presents, or presumably incur expenditure in celebrating other religious festivals, and he seemed to find this perfectly acceptable. I do not. I would remind the Minister of what Seebohm Rowntree wrote back in 1937 in The Human Needs of Labour. Rowntree is of course associated with an absolute understanding of poverty, yet he showed a greater understanding of human needs than do the present Government, who profess to accept that poverty is relative. He asked why poor people spend their inadequate incomes on social recreational activities instead of food. The explanation is that “working people”—I think it is reasonable to include people who are not in paid work—

“are just as human as those with more money—they cannot live on a fodder basis … they crave for relaxation and recreation just as the rest of us do”.

But they can only do so by going short of something that is essential to physical fitness, and so they go short. There will be no social or recreational activities that cost money for today’s poor who fall foul of these regulations. I would be interested to know whether the noble Lord agrees or disagrees with Seebohm Rowntree. Could he also explain exactly how this pernicious rule will work in practice? Having read the guidance I am not clear as to what proof will be required. Will claimants have to provide receipts for everything they have bought in the previous week? Will they be visited by officials to check on what is in their cupboards and the fridge? While food is allowed, will there be restrictions on what is permitted? We know that children often

13 Feb 2013 : Column 688

make it difficult to stick to the cheapest options by refusing to eat certain foods; will that be taken into account? Are children to be allowed no little treats?

Recently I hosted a wonderful evening in the River Room on behalf of the CPAG during which Simon Callow gave a moving and illuminating talk on Charles Dickens’ anger over child poverty. Dickens would have recognised and condemned the mean spirit at work here all too well.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, this is a very important debate and I know that many noble Lords have contributions that they wish to make. However, it is worth reminding the House that although this is a Motion, the guidance in the Companion still stands in terms of the length of speeches. Some noble Lords have been brief and I am grateful to them. However, the Companion states that speeches are expected to be kept within 15 minutes as a maximum. We have exceeded that on a couple of occasions this afternoon.

5.30 pm

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: I am grateful to my noble friend for that advice which I will try to take into account. As always it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Her speeches repay careful study and I am sure that colleagues will do that. I yield to no one in the pleasure I get from reading social security regulations. Nothing makes my weekend more than a wet towel around my head and a glass of malt whisky in my hand, but I will make my first plea to the Minister a simple one: can we have August off this year? The consultative process has consulted me all out, so I am just going to make some general remarks about what I think we need to watch out for carefully in these regulations.

I am absolutely supportive of the general political direction of these reforms, but they are very ambitious, so we have to be careful about how we implement them. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was also correct to say that whether we like it or not, the financial austerity we are experiencing may prejudice the outcome of what I think is an essential and necessary architectural change. We have to be careful that we do not spoil the public’s understanding of what is trying to be achieved here in the short term. I know the Minister is alive to that but we need to continue to be alive to it.

These regulations put us in a position of having fewer unknown unknowns, but there are still quite a lot of known unknowns. The question that I really want to ask more than anything else this evening is a process one, about how we can be sure that we use the expertise in this House and, indeed, some of its self-confessed non-expertise. The latter is just as effective, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eden, was very refreshing and welcome in that regard. We in this House need to be sure that we have an ongoing and positive relationship that allows us to encourage the Government to continue to be flexible in the roll-out of this programme. It will take 10 years to get to a steady state in universal credit and for it to be really bedded in so that people are comfortable about it. We must hasten slowly to get the introduction of this policy correct.

13 Feb 2013 : Column 689

I am very pleased that the Social Security Advisory Committee is so engaged. I remember getting quite a long look down a ministerial nose when I suggested that this might happen. However, to be fair to the Minister, he does listen and changed his mind. The SSAC report gives me more comfort than I would otherwise have had, so I thank him for that, as I do for some of the other flexibilities he has introduced. He has to persuade his ministerial colleagues, some of them in other departments, that some flexibility needs to be retained. Unless we do that, we will prejudice the implementation of this very important new area of public policy.

It is quite difficult to get the balance right with the next thing I want to say to the Minister. I believe what he says to me and understand that the Government’s position is that the digital implementation—the agile computing process that has been deployed in this case, which is new, innovative and gives us better functionality, in theory—is all on track and that everything is under control. I have to say to him that that is not the signal that I am getting from sources close to the development of the project who are not Ministers. It is so important to make sure that we get the computer-based system—not just the digital application process but the underlying framework of ICT provision—to work. I believe it can be done but am very nervous about the timetable—a point that I think was made by the Delegated Legislation Committee—because I bear the scars of the Child Support Agency and many other horrors. There have been one or two successes but the experience has not been great. I hear the assurances that I am getting officially, but would just like to make sure that if things start to become unstitched, or the timing slips, that adult ways will be found to deal with that. If things start to go wrong, we need to know about it. There is nothing worse than Ministers covering up. I am not suggesting for a moment that that is being done, but if things go wrong, my plea is that the Minister comes and looks me in the eye and says, “Look, there’s a glitch here, we’re going to lose six months”, or whatever it is. I would much rather have that than find suddenly that the whole project is in jeopardy because of the computers going wrong. I hope that he will take that message to heart.

I will just make a point in passing about pathfinders. There is a spatial dimension to the pathfinders as we roll this out. Coming from, and having formerly represented, a rural area, I know that the differences between the communities that this programme will serve are very important. In the evaluation of the pathfinders, I hope that my noble friend will pay very careful attention to the different types of communities that we are seeking to serve.

I want to make a very quick point in passing. The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Sherlock, both made a point about guidance suddenly becoming a substitute for regulation. I say this in a considered way, but I was horrified by what Mr Mark Hoban said on Monday when the First Delegated Legislation Committee was discussing these regulations. He said:

“We think that it is more appropriate to rely on the discretion and judgment of our advisers to make the right decision for families. We will monitor that situation quite carefully and there will be training in place”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 11/2/13; col. 23.]

13 Feb 2013 : Column 690

That is dismissing the qualitative difference between the essential protection that regulations provide and slipping into guidance. If this is to be part of the new system, I think he will come up against serious objection in this place if not in the House of Commons—to be fair, Mr Stephen Timms made the point powerfully. That is something that I will certainly share with other colleagues in watching like a hawk.

My final point is about the importance of the exceptions service and the evaluation framework. We have just seen some encouraging signs that the exceptions service will be deployed properly. It will need money but if it is done in the way that I understand it will be done, I would be satisfied with that. However, there is always a risk that it falls down in the deployment because it does not have the capacity to meet the demand. Frankly, it is very hard to assess the level of the demand that it will be expected to meet, certainly in the early months and years of this rollout.

I am very encouraged by the members of the expert group that is looking at the evaluation framework. I have been looking at the evaluation framework very carefully. This brings me back to where I came in: the way in which we monitor and evaluate this implementation will be absolutely crucial. My plea is for honesty and a continuing relationship with this House because I am long enough in the tooth to know that things get much better consideration here than anywhere else. If we do that, we have a much better chance of getting this system in place in time and in a way that benefits the kind of people we are trying to serve.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I welcome the introduction of universal credit. I think it is a very important step forward. Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for all the work that he and his colleagues have put into the regulations before us today.

However, I am concerned about the inadvertent hardship that might be caused to some of the most vulnerable in our society. The report of the inquiry led by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, Holes in the Safety Net: The Impact of Universal Credit on Disabled People and Their Families, has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. It clearly sets out the concerns of disability charities and the millions of people they represent. I want briefly to highlight one of the issues about which I feel concern: the impact on families with disabled children.

As I understand it, the regulations laid before us today propose to reduce the level of financial support to most disabled children from £57 a week under the current system to just £28 a week, or £124 a month—a reduction of nearly £30 a week. According to the Government’s own estimates, 100,000 disabled children will be affected. Only the most severely disabled children who are on high-rate care components of the disability living allowance or registered blind will be unaffected.

Many parents of disabled children already struggle to find the money to cover the extra costs of having a disabled child, such as specialist adaptations to their home, access to disability-friendly services and higher travel and childcare expenses. Already, 28% of households with a disabled child are living in poverty, and this rises to around 50% if the additional costs associated with being disabled are taken into account.

13 Feb 2013 : Column 691

For those affected by this further reduction in their income, the impact could be very serious. Two-thirds of them say that they will have to cut back on spending on food and more than half say that they will get into debt, yet on Monday we heard in the debate on the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill that the lower disability addition of universal credit, as well as being cut in half, will be now uprated by just 1% a year in 2014 and 2015, well below the expected rate of inflation. That is why one of my colleagues on these Benches will support an amendment to remove the child disability elements of universal credit from the 1% cap.

I highlight to your Lordships the serious concerns raised in the report on these and other areas produced by the inquiry headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I urge the Minister to review and monitor the impact of universal credit on disabled people, and in particular on families with disabled children so that this policy can better meet its aims of supporting those in greatest need constructively.

Lord Touhig: My Lords, we have had a very good debate and I do not want to spoil it, so I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. As the Minister knows, I am supportive of the whole idea of universal credit, but have concerns about the IT system that will be essential to make it work. To be fair to the Minister, I have had some very helpful conversations with him about universal credit and I have tabled a number of Questions which he has answered, although I am not entirely happy with some of the Answers.

The implementation of universal credit has been described by Margaret Hodge, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, as a train crash waiting to happen, a point made by my noble friend Lady Hollis a little earlier. Having served on the Public Accounts Committee when I was in the other place, I can testify that no major government IT project in 20 years has been successful. Every one has gone massively over budget and or been years behind in its date of implementation.

I share the concerns of those who are worried about the implementation of the IT system to support universal credit. As I understand it, it will require two separate IT projects to piggyback on a third. That is a real challenge if ever there was one. I am also given to understand that, to make universal credit work, at least 80% of claims have to be made online. When I discovered this, I also discovered that the only benefit that was then claimable online was jobseeker’s allowance, which only 17% of claimants were claiming online.

As my noble friend Lady Hollis pointed out, 30% of the poorest families in this country do not have a computer and I presume that these are the people who need benefit support. What happens if 80% of claimants do not access the system and claim online? What happens to those who are unable to access the system on the computer? To make the system work effectively, it will require every employer to inform HMRC every month of how much they have paid every single employee and how much that employee has paid in tax. If any of those employers’ staff are on benefits and the employer

13 Feb 2013 : Column 692

fails to file the information by the due date that universal credit requires, there will be real problems for that person’s benefit because it is paid in real time.

I tabled a number of Questions about this. I asked the Minister,

“what assistance will be available to people receiving universal credit if their payments are wrong as a result of their employer failing to notify Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of their pay and tax details”.

In response, the Minister said:

“If earnings are not reported … for any reason, claimants will be requested to declare their earnings to DWP through the universal credit interface”.—[Official Report, 19/11/12; col. WA330.]

I then asked how the universal credit interface would operate. The Minister replied:

“The universal credit … will allow claimants to provide … details via a self-reporting tool”.—[Official Report, 26/11/12; col. WA24.]

That tool is the telephone. It does seem a bit Heath Robinson if that is how it is going to operate.

There are then widespread concerns about the cost of the IT project for universal credit. We are told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put it on the Treasury’s “at risk” list. That “at risk” status is given to projects that will go over budget or be late in delivery. I have asked a number of questions on this. Perhaps I may ask the Minister three brief questions about the cost of the IT project. First, of the £105 million total cost of universal credit in 2012, how much supported information technology development? I cannot seem to get answers to that point. Secondly, can the Minister give us exact figures for expenditure on developing universal credit’s information technology for the years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15? Finally, how does the current total cost estimate for universal credit’s information technology project compare with the Government’s original estimate? All these questions are relevant to making universal credit work. All across the House, people want it to work, but if the IT project is wrong, it simply will not and people will lose out as a consequence.

5.45 pm

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I shall share some concerns with your Lordships about the regulations but, first, I underline my support for the principle behind the introduction of universal credit. I recall, when I first entered this House, the work of Louise Casey, who was then the rough sleepers’ tsar, appointed by the then Prime Minister. A key part of her successful programme in reducing the number of rough sleepers on the streets was to find purposeful activity for those who had been homeless. It seems to me such a curse that many people are not finding useful things to do with their time and are allowed to fester, sometimes for generations, without being actively involved and engaged in productive work on a daily basis. I welcome the fact that the legislation will make that more possible for more people.

My concern is about vulnerable families. I recall for your Lordships what my chemistry teacher used to say to me. He talked about dynamic equilibriums. I suggest that vulnerable families are subject to a dynamic equilibrium. If they are given the right support, they can thrive and do well. We saw that recently again with

13 Feb 2013 : Column 693

the work of Louise Casey, who has been tasked by the right honourable gentleman Iain Duncan Smith, I think—or at least by the Government—with looking at the 120,000 most troubled families and making a difference in their lives. Through her work supporting those 120,000 families, she has managed to decrease significantly the level of domestic violence in their homes and to increase significantly the number of their children attending school on a regular basis. It is possible to act on the positive side of that equilibrium and make a difference to families.

On the other hand, one can see that if one puts those families under too much stress, they can fail. I was reminded recently of that experience when I visited Feltham young offender institution and spoke to prison officers. I had not visited for 10 years, but the same theme came through: so many of the young men with whom they were dealing had never known their fathers—had never had fathers—and the officers found that they had to adopt that role for those young men.

It is critical to support those vulnerable families in the best way that we can. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eden, for his speech. In this extremely difficult time, when local authority funding is being cut by 28%—and there will be further cuts to services—which is impacting very heavily on services for vulnerable families and their children, a complex change such as this has to be carefully considered to minimise any adverse impact on those families.

So I welcome the principle, but I have concerns about various issues. They have all been raised this afternoon, so I need not go into detail. I was grateful for what the Minister said about the monthly payment of housing benefit to families. There is the payment exemption scheme, which he described, and he is paying particular attention to drug and alcohol misusing families and those with gambling problems. I welcome that, but I share the continuing concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that that may well not go far enough. I found what she said very persuasive: there is a danger of underestimating the chaos in many of those families and their inability to manage their finances in the way that we and the Minister would like.

With regard to childcare, important questions have been raised about significant increases in the cost of childcare to families. The changes to housing benefit and the limit on the number of bedrooms that families can have is clearly putting a lot of stress on some of our most vulnerable families and may cause some of them to have to uproot and move to new areas and communities in which they know no one. They may easily feel isolated and, again, are at risk of collapse. I am particularly concerned about the ability of foster carers to keep a room open for a fostered child. In the past, the Minister has gone quite a long way in reassuring me on that point but I would be grateful if he could go further in reiterating that today.

Finally, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester and others alluded to the concern raised by the Children’s Society, and by my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson in her report, about how this all impacts on children with a disability. He was concerned that these are often the poorest families, struggling to

13 Feb 2013 : Column 694

make ends meet. Given that 100,000 of these children will be up to £28 worse off under the new arrangements, that is a very real cause for concern. I hope that the Minister can say something about how he will monitor the situation for these children carefully and that he will go as far as he can in offering me reassurance on this point.

To conclude, in my experience vulnerable families exist in a dynamic equilibrium. Given the right support, many of them can do a lot better and their children may perhaps break through the generational failure that that family may have experienced. Without the right support, however, particularly in such difficult times, one will often find that their children will fail and possibly end up at Feltham young offender institution, costing the public purse well over £40,000 or £50,000 a year to maintain them there. It is crucial that we get this right and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Lord Freud: My Lords, I give really sincere thanks to everyone who has spoken because I do not often hear a debate where people have worked quite so hard to understand the issues. I might not agree with everything that people have said but the quality of debate has been pretty extraordinary, given the complexity of the issues we are dealing with. I hope that your Lordships all know now that I listen very hard—and I steal or plagiarise as much as I can—so a lot of what your Lordships have said has fallen on fertile ground.

Let me deal with the amendment proposed by the noble Lady, Baroness Sherlock. There are some serious misconceptions in it about what universal credit will do. First, on work incentives, the fact is that universal credit will change them out of all recognition—and manifestly for the better because it will reduce participation tax rates and take away some of the scandalously high rates under the current system, which may be 91% or even 100% in some cases. There are some losers but they are losing, on average, a rather modest 4 percentage points. In many cases, the increased marginal deduction rate is because people are being brought into entitlement for UC, so they are actually better off. They may have a higher marginal deduction rate but have become better off because they have been brought into universal credit.

I do not agree that universal credit penalises savers. In practice, it corrects an overgenerosity in the current tax credit system. It must be right to focus our resources on those households with the fewest resources. Under universal credit, claimants will be able to save up to £6,000 without any impact on their entitlement, in contrast to the typical working-age household, which has £300 in savings.

We are not cutting childcare support; we are investing an additional £200 million in it when we remove the 16-hour rule, which we think will help an additional 100,000 families. The combination of childcare support, higher work allowances and a single taper rate will provide a clear financial incentive that rewards work.

We estimate that around 3.1 million households will have a higher entitlement as a result of universal credit. It is true that, on a static analysis, some households will receive less benefit; however, in practice, we expect that people will adjust their working patterns where

13 Feb 2013 : Column 695

they can and will be able to gain—as they can under universal credit. I cannot agree that universal credit is bad for women and lone parents. We know from the experience of tax credits that, in practice, lone parents are among the groups most likely to respond to the financial incentives in the system. In any case, even on a static analysis, in the 3.1 million households that gain there are 2.6 million women. Lone parents will on average gain around £5 per month.

Throughout the passage of the welfare Bill and in recent months, we have debated at length the support for disabled people. We recognise the concern about the impact of the severe disability premium but our aim here is to target additional support on those who have the most severe disabilities or health conditions and who are unable to work, or to work full-time. On average, disabled households will gain by £8 a month. Responsibility for assessing and meeting significant care needs sits with local government. This week, we have set out proposals to put the longer-term funding of such care on a better footing. However, I put on record again my personal commitment to ensuring that we carefully monitor and evaluate the impacts of UC on disabled people.

Universal credit provides appropriate support to self-employed people but only in so far as self-employment is the best route for them to become self-sufficient. As I said in my opening remarks, we have carried out extensive engagement with groups representing businesses and the self-employed, and have responded to their concerns.

In relation to housing, universal credit provides fairness and responsiveness to the housing choices that working families faced already. The best protection against homelessness is a job. Universal credit will provide work incentives and support people in moving into work. Discretionary housing payments are available to help those at risk of being homeless.