Welfare Reform and Work Bill — Report (1st Day) (Continued)

House of Lords, 25 January 2016.

Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench)

My Lords, in moving Amendment 3 I shall speak also to Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14, which are all to Clause 4 of the Bill. Indeed, they are all amendments in effect to the Child Poverty Act 2010. They represent a repetition of amendments that I tabled in Committee about the annual reporting on health and well-being and on children aged five, as opposed to at key stage 4. For very logical reasons, the Public Bill Office has put Amendment 3 before my old amendment, which is now Amendment 5, because maternal nutrition obviously comes before children who have already been born. Therefore, I shall speak first to Amendments 5 and 6 to amplify what I said in Committee, on which I had a discussion with the Minister before Christmas following the rather inconclusive conclusion to our debate that evening, following timing problems in the House. I particularly want to talk about the link between extreme poverty and mental health, particularly of children, which was highlighted in the previous amendment.

In any situation, it is grossly inefficient to tax people who cannot pay. Local government has been quite right to draw the Government’s attention to the inability of councils in England and Wales to collect the £1 billion in three years that they were instructed to start taxing in April 2013. Of course, as has been said many times during the passage of the Bill, there is a cumulative impact on the health and well-being of residents when the benefits provided by central government for survival are being reduced in value as the rents that they have to pay rise. Therefore, in fact, we are talking about the cumulative effects of a great number of issues that are not in themselves all the responsibility of the Department of Health, or, indeed, the Department for Communities and Local Government, which have to deal with the outcomes.

The economic and social costs of mental health provision, which is the subject of this amendment, have been calculated by the Centre for Mental Health, in which I declare an interest as a vice president, as being £105 billion in 2009-10, which is reckoned to be an underestimate. That is a huge amount of money and a great deal of that is caused by the conditions that we have been discussing in this Bill. It is of interest that Dr Angela Donkin, who is a deputy director at the Institute of Health Equity, has said that the national audit in 2010 found that 82% of homeless people had at least one physical health problem, and 72% had at least one mental health problem. So there is a huge cost to all this poverty.

Some 10.4% of those in fuel poverty, living therefore in extremely cold houses, showed higher levels of respiratory conditions, cardiovascular disease and poor mental health as the result of the conditions in which they lived. You then add food poverty, which has been mentioned—and, again, the lack of proteins, iron and the correct vitamins, minerals and fatty acids leave a higher susceptibility to illness and infection and heart and lung complications. It is said that preventing low birth weight should be an absolute must for all public health officials, but all their efforts will be hampered by inefficient incomes, which mean that people cannot buy what is required to produce that high birth weight. Finally, there are many mental disorders, particularly evident in women who, in addition to handling the family budget, suffer from maternal depression, which is bound to impact on the children and their social development.

As I mentioned before, we have a situation here where the Chancellor is apparently directing, without ever taking evidence from such as the Barrow Cadbury Trust, whose evidence was used by the Mayor of London to calculate the London living wage—and also, I fear, there is a lack of tie-up between the Treasury, the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions as well as the Department for Communities and Local Government. There is too much silo working. My amendments aim collectively to ensure that the collection of evidence by one ministry or another should be made available to all the others so that they have an aggregated picture on which to make their judgments.

Amendment 3 would introduce reporting on maternal nutrition—an addition to what I tabled in Committee. Also, it has been taken forward considerably since we debated it in December, particularly in a speech by the Prime Minister on 11 January, when he announced his life chances strategy. In addition to maternal nutrition, he also endorsed what was in my previous Amendment 4: the suggestion that reporting on children should not be left until key stage 4, at the end of schooling, but should be done at the age of five, because we would then have some chance of taking remedial action based on something that we had found early, thus increasing life chances. It is interesting that in his speech on 11 January, the Prime Minister said that,

“we must think much more radically about improving family life and the early years”.

He called that a “life cycle approach”—one that takes people from their earliest years through schooling and through adolescent and adult life.

This strategy clearly points to the importance of early child development and getting children ready for school, thus endorsing the assessment currently done of every child by the age of two, which I mentioned in Committee. Without measuring a child’s progress at the age of five, the Government cannot know how successful or otherwise any remedial treatment initiated following the health visitor assessment at two has actually been in preparing children for school.

I also mentioned in Committee that the All-Party Group on Speech and Language Difficulties, which I co-chair, in a report on the links between disadvantage and speech, language and communication needs, found that children with a low IQ from advantaged families overtook children with a higher IQ from disadvantaged families by the age of five. That is a terrible factor to consider: that overtaking will happen unless remedial action is taken. Therefore, I strongly believe that tackling child poverty and improving children’s life chances—the right reverend Prelate has just spoken about this, and we have just voted on it—is a national endeavour and responsibility. My amendment is designed to present the Government with the opportunity, through the evidence produced every year, to learn about what is actually happening to our children, and then to enable all the departments involved, not just the Department for Work and Pensions, to use the information to improve life chances, and thus to invest the nation’s money in its future—our children—more wisely.

My other amendments—Amendments 7, 9, 10 and 12 to 14—are textual adjustments to reflect the content of Amendments 3 to 6. I beg to move.

Baroness Meacher (Crossbench)

My Lords, I strongly support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham. The main amendments in this group are of fundamental importance if the Government are to make a success of their own DWP policy. The Government want to focus upon the life chances of children rather than upon poverty alone—but I do not believe we should lose sight of the significance of poverty, particularly when the levels of poverty will worsen so severely in the coming years. I was relieved to hear the Minister assure the House that the Government will continue monitoring poverty as before, whatever becomes of the amendment on which the House has just voted when it gets to the other place.

Of course, there is a lot more to successful parenting and the life chances of children than income alone. As we all know, sufficient income is a necessary but certainly not a sufficient condition for a successful childhood. Parents’ mental and physical health and well-being are essential to successful parenting. If a mother is malnourished, she is most unlikely to provide for her child’s mental and physical needs. If she is depressed, she may not be able to look after her child at all until her mental health improves.

As my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham reminded us, the Prime Minister himself has highlighted the early years as one of four areas in which to anchor the Government's approach to life chances. The Government’s life chances strategy can, in my view, set a course for improving school readiness for the poorest and most disadvantaged children—but only, of course, if it is introduced across the country and is adequately funded. But only by monitoring progress in improving the health and well-being of children in workless households, particularly during the early years, is there any hope that policies will be developed and adjusted over time to ensure that they help rather than hinder the life chances of those children. Any Government will need to learn from their mistakes over time—and as we all know, Governments certainly make mistakes.

I was a member of the Marmot Commission on Social Determinants of Health. That commission made it clear that parenting in the early years is a key determinant of the school readiness of any child. If a child starts school at a significant disadvantage, that failure will dog them throughout their school life and throughout their entire adult life. We need to understand why a child is not school-ready on their first day at school, so all the information that the Government can gather is imperative—absolutely essential. It is concerning that only 58% of children from the most deprived communities reach a good level of development, compared with 77% in the better-off areas. That gap of nearly 20% is utterly disgraceful. Monitoring, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, will enable better targeting of the most successful programmes on those who can benefit most.

While so much is being cut back, the Government have made vital investments in the health and development of young children in recent years. I applaud their investment in expanding the health visiting programme by nearly 50% in four years, increasing the numbers by more than 4,000 health visitors. These health visitors could contribute to the monitoring of maternal nutrition and mental health. I am sure that they already do a lot of that, but an obvious thing to do would be for the Government to systematise the information and gather it nationally. Health visitors can also monitor the health and well-being of the children of workless households. We need to understand which interventions really help a child and which have little or no effect. Resources are going to be incredibly scarce in the coming years. We need them to be smartly focused.

The free early education for the most deprived two year-olds is welcome. But the Marmot Commission pointed to the importance of parents’ involvement with their child’s learning—such as reading stories at bedtime and other basic activities, which some parents may lack the confidence to do. The monitoring and reporting required in these amendments will make sure that the policies are really working. It may be that investing in two year-olds’ education will achieve little unless we go the extra mile and help parents become involved, if necessary by offering them some help with basic skills. I regard these amendments as non-political but essential for a Government of any complexion.

Earl of Listowel (Crossbench)

I support these amendments. I too am most grateful to the Prime Minister for his recent announcements on maternal depression during and after pregnancy. I attended the launch last year of the Maternal Mental Health Alliance report on maternal depression and other mental ill-health issues. It found that the nation loses about £1 billion a year through maternal perinatal mental ill health. The main cost is incurred because the relationship between mother and child is impoverished by the mother’s mental ill health. I therefore strongly support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Baroness Manzoor (Liberal Democrat)

I too support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, particularly Amendment 4. I tabled an amendment in Committee on reporting on attainment at key stage 1. I felt that was imperative, because that is the age at which early measurement of children, when they are going to school, can take place. I do not want to say any more now, because we had a very full debate in Committee; I just want to lend my support to these amendments. As an ex-health visitor—that was many years ago, I hasten to add—I recognise the importance of the health and well-being of both mothers and children. Measuring those factors in children at the age of five is imperative, rather than leaving the measurement of educational attainment, as the Bill now does, until the age of 16. We on these Benches therefore support the amendment.

Baroness Hollins (Crossbench)

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 5 and 6. I remind noble Lords that the terms of reference of the health and well-being boards, established through the Health and Social Care Act 2012, require them to report on local efforts in reducing health inequalities and improving the well-being of their population, so it should not be too difficult to find a way to report on health and well-being, as suggested by my noble friend. On Amendment 3, the evidence is enormous that the nutritional status of women both before and during pregnancy can have an important influence on foetal, infant and maternal health outcomes. I remind noble Lords of the enormous parliamentary and public interest in the manifesto

The 1001 Critical Days

and the work that goes on in thinking about the first two years from conception to age two, and how nutrition is such a key part of improving the life chances of children and young people.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)

My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. If I heard correctly from each of the speakers, the thrust of it is that government should be entitled to a whole range of information that will best inform it across the piece as to how to tackle a range of issues. Specifically, the group of amendments seeks to add to the reporting requirements to Parliament: the progress of children at five in areas of cognitive, personal, social, emotional and physical development—likewise for children living in disadvantaged households; the health and well-being of children living in workless and long-term workless households; and maternal nutrition in workless and long-term workless households.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to a range of matters. In particular he spoke about the collection of disadvantage that you get: homelessness, mental health, fuel poverty and low income—it is that collection of issues which makes more difficult the life chances of individuals. A number of speakers emphasised the importance of education—the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, picked up again the point she made in Committee about key stage 1 for education, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, spoke about the importance of health and well-being boards. I understand that the Office for National Statistics produces data on national well-being and on the well-being of children; I think it reported in 2014 and again just last year. It is interesting that a whole range of data goes into those measures. It is said with regard to children that there are something like seven domains and 30-odd measures of children’s well-being, which is a whole collection of stuff to have to handle and deal with.

At the end of the day, government ought to welcome the information that this collection of amendments seeks to be reported on, which is a range of information across the piece. The key issue that flows from it is what you do with it, or what strategies or interventions will flow from that collection of data which will make a difference to the life chances of young people—which is the thrust of this.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made the point that we do not have a collective figure for the consequences of all the changes in the tax and benefit system in recent times. I know that the IFS did a calculation of what had happened under the coalition Government with regard to tax and benefit changes and concluded that if you look at those changes—the percentage of the income of various groups of people—the lowest two percentiles bore the greatest burden. If you look at it in terms of absolute amounts, the top 10% bore the most, but if you look at it as a percentage of income, the poorest have had the worst outcome from all these changes the Government have introduced—and that is before we get into ones that are reflected in the Bill we have debated to date.

When we talk about health and well-being, we need to be clearer about our distinctions. We have the national statistics data and the background to that, which is a very broad measure. The issue around health and well-being boards’ and local authorities’ responsibility is a slightly different focus, but important nevertheless. So far as we are concerned, we can see the benefits of this range of amendments, which try to encourage the bringing-forward of data to underline just what the consequences of these policies are. I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked a moment ago about how it is all too easy for us in this Chamber to see this in perhaps rather abstract terms and not the reality. People out there have to face the reality of what these policies mean, and the collection of data of which noble Lords speak will help bring that home to government as well as to campaigners generally, so that those who bear the largest burden feel that that is understood, reflected and challenged—which is our job here.

Lord Freud (Conservative)

My Lords, these amendments on Clause 4 have been grouped together quite widely. I will start by making a general point about adding to the reporting duties that the Government have already set out. The best way of securing progress by government is to have a focused set of measures. I echo the implication of what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said. The more you have, the more likely you are to have a diluted effort and distraction from the key issues, which in this case the evidence tells us are worklessness and educational attainment. Of course many factors contribute to these headline measures. For example, we know that children’s health is an important factor in their educational attainment. Tackling health at work will help ensure that more adults are able to work. Therefore delivering on worklessness and educational attainment calls for a wide set of actions. However, it is important that we focus government on its core objectives that will tackle the root causes of child poverty.

First, with regard to additional statutory reporting duties, I turn to Amendment 3. With this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, seeks to introduce an additional reporting duty on the Secretary of State. The report must contain data on maternal nutrition in workless and long-term workless households in England. I have already set out that our evidence review published in 2014 makes it clear that worklessness and educational attainment are the factors that have the biggest impact on child poverty and children’s life chances. We are committed to supporting families at the earliest stage and to helping parents move into work and earn more through universal credit or investment in childcare, the national living wage and increases to the personal allowance in the tax system. This is the best way to secure children’s life chances and ensure that parents are able to care for themselves, too.

I cannot overstate the importance of ensuring that we focus on measures that tackle the root causes of child poverty and not be distracted by others that do not do so. Of course, the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is important. The Government take action. They provide advice for parents on maternal and infant nutrition via NHS Choices and Start4Life. Government also operates the Healthy Start vouchers scheme, which provides low-income people with vouchers that can be spent on milk, plain fresh and frozen fruit and vegetables, and infant formula. It already publishes the results from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, which includes results by age and gender. There are a variety of reasons why adults have poor diets, and it is important that we look at the whole picture, which gives us valuable information and helps shape interventions. I therefore cannot support this amendment.

Through Amendment 4, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, seeks to expand the duty placed on the Secretary of State to include a duty to report on the progress of children and disadvantaged children living in England at age five in their cognitive, personal, social, emotional and physical development. It is vital that all pupils thrive and develop in their early years. Monitoring children’s personal development is already a core function of every education setting. This monitoring then enables teachers to tailor their support based on how each individual is progressing. I assure your Lordships that we do not take this issue lightly. As the Prime Minister said during his speech about children’s life chances—quoted by noble Lords—we want,

“stable families and good parenting, because we know the importance of those early years in setting children up for a good life”.

There are two key issues at the heart of the life chances reforms—action on work and action on education. Lives can be transformed by focusing on these two most significant drivers of poverty. The Bill will start to realise the vision set out by the Prime Minister when he said that,

“we can rescue a generation from poverty and extend life chances right across our country”.

We all know that the end of key stage 4 is a vital juncture in a young person’s education. It represents the culmination of primary and secondary schooling and provides a consistent point at which to measure attainment across all young people. Pupils who fail to achieve at the end of key stage 4 are at high risk of not being in employment, education or training, so the Secretary of State is committed, through the life chances measures in the Bill—

Baroness Manzoor (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I get what the Minister is trying to say but unless there is a comparator at key stage 1, by key stage 4 it will be too late—the children will be 16 years old. If the Government really are to assess the development of children from the ages of five to 16, there is a need for that assessment to start at key stage 1. If there is an issue, they can be given support much sooner so that they have much better outcomes at 16. That will not happen if we do not have information from key stage 1.

Lord Freud (Conservative)

As the noble Baroness knows, we have a lot of information about how pupils progress. The point is that it is necessary to have something that absorbs all that rather than having detailed measures at each point. The earlier processes have to be right to attain the achievements at the key target date. I have spoken in this House before about “targetitis”. If you give hospitals 220 different targets, for instance, which is what happened a decade ago, nobody knows what on earth they are looking at, whereas if you focus on the two things that really matter and not on the culmination of a lot of measures, you drive coherent behaviour through the targets that are set, and that is exactly what this strategy does.

I have already made the House aware that the measures that we have include key stages 1 and 2. Annual reporting at different stages of primary schooling already provides significant detail of the progress and attainment of disadvantaged pupils. Monitoring personal development in the way that the noble Lord suggests—

Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench)

My Lords, these reports include the Department for Education and the Department of Health, as well as the Department for Work and Pensions. Who is making these reports and to whom are they going?

Lord Freud (Conservative)

The whole point is that these reports are published. It is a forcing mechanism to make sure that the relevant Secretaries of State and the relevant departments of government work together to tackle the fundamentals that produce these outcomes.

Returning to the educational issue, if we made this change to the Bill, it would increase the burden on primary schools and send a signal to schools that Parliament does not trust them to carry out their core functions. That is why I cannot support this amendment.

Amendments 5 and 6 look to expand the reporting duty placed on the Secretary of State so that his annual report containing data on children living in workless households and long-term workless households in England must include data on the health and well-being of these children.

It goes without saying that the Government want the best for our children. We want all children to have the opportunity to have fulfilling lives and to realise their potential, and clearly their health and well-being is an integral part of that. However, we can achieve this aim, which is one that we all share, only by tackling the root causes of child poverty, and I will not parrot what I have already said on this point. Our evidence review shows clearly that worklessness and educational attainment are the two factors that have the biggest impact.

We recognise that, as the evidence review pointed out, child ill-health is also a driver of poverty. We are absolutely committed to reducing health inequalities in terms of access and outcomes, and we are working across government to ensure that ill health does not hold our children back from fulfilling their potential. The Government have already put in place a well-developed reporting framework—the public health outcomes framework—that supports health improvement and protection at all stages of life, especially in the early years. The framework includes a large number of indicators on children and young people’s health and, along with the NHS outcomes framework, sets a clear direction for children’s health that allows anyone to hold us to account.

We are committed to improving access to better services and to promoting early intervention to address children and young people’s mental health issues before they worsen. We are investing £1.4 billion in that over the next five years, and we have invested more than £120 million to introduce waiting time standards for mental health services—the first time that we have done that.

If we concentrate our actions and resources on the root causes of child poverty, such as worklessness and education, that will be the springboard from which everything else will follow. While the Government recognise the importance of tackling child ill-health, these amendments would ultimately distract the Government’s focus and finite resources from what is most important for our children’s future life chances. For these reasons, I cannot support the amendments of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.

Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, would require separate reports for measures of worklessness and educational attainment. We are already committed to reporting on these measures and believe that it is sensible to deal with them together as they are jointly fundamental to improving life chances.

Amendments 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 are consequential on Amendment 7 and therefore, in the Government’s view, unnecessary.

Once again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions but, on the basis of what I have said, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Earl of Listowel (Crossbench)

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he reassure the House about the future of health visitors? Clearly, they have a very important role in the welcome things that he has just said. The Government have done a great job in recruiting and developing the workforce, but now that responsibility for health visitors has been moved to local authorities, which must fund them, there has to be a concern that in the current atmosphere for local authorities we may go backwards and health visitors will not be commissioned to do the work that is so necessary in relation to what we have just been discussing. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider writing to noble Lords who are interested in this area about the mechanisms that exist to ensure that that does not happen.

Lord Freud (Conservative)

I shall be happy to write.

Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench)

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to this short debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for summing up what people said.

I listened very carefully to what the Minister said, and I am grateful to him for repeating what he has said before about the Government’s concentration on worklessness and educational achievement as being the main causes. However, I do not think that they are unique causes. The health and well-being, not just of the children but also of the families, and particularly the mother, is something that is a huge cause of the subject that we are looking at, and it ought to be added to worklessness and educational attainment.

It is all very well saying that we are going to do a great deal and going to improve the child mental health treatment processes in the National Health Service, but that comes at an enormous cost. The National Health Service cannot afford to do all this at present; otherwise, it would already have done it. I am very concerned that health and well-being in particular are being excluded from the terms of the Bill. They ought to be before everyone who is considering the issues of which the Bill is made up, particularly tackling the problems of worklessness and educational attainment, both of which have mental health as one reason—not the only reason—that they are there.

I am in something of a quandary. In many ways, I would like to test the opinion of the House on each of these three amendments, because I think that they are each important. However, if I may, I would like to withdraw Amendment 3 and not move 4 and test the opinion of the House on Amendments 5 and 6, which deal with health and well-being, which are, I think, the guts of all this issue.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Amendment 4 not moved.

Amendment 5

Moved by Lord Ramsbotham

5: Clause 4, page 4, line 36, at beginning insert “the health and wellbeing of”

Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench)

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

My Lords, in moving Amendment 8 I shall speak also to Amendment 11. Once more I have the support of my de facto noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. I am also grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who expressed his support when moving his amendment. These amendments bring up the rear of his amendment but complement and cement it. We do not know what will happen to his amendment in the other place but, because it is partly based on the need to take account of what is happening to children in working families as well as in workless families, it is important that we still debate it.

The purpose of these amendments is to balance the obligation introduced by Clause 4 to report data on children in workless households with a similar obligation in regard to children in low-income working households. As I argued in Committee, whether the primary concern is life chances, as in the Bill, or child poverty, which Ministers assure us they are still committed to eliminating, it cannot make sense to exclude from reporting obligations the two-thirds of children living in poverty in households where at least one parent is in paid work. Indeed, in the mean time the Prime Minister has repeated his welcome pledge of an “all-out assault on poverty”. Surely an all-out assault has to include this group. It is therefore appropriate that the poverty and disadvantage experienced by families with a wage earner should be included in the life chances reporting obligations.

The fundamental importance of the issue to the Government’s life chances strategy and assault on poverty is one of the reasons I return to it on Report. Its importance is underlined by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission in its latest State of the Nation report. It states:

“A One Nation country would be one where work offered a guaranteed path out of poverty”,

and it documents how it fails to do so. As I said in Committee, the amendment has the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and End Child Poverty.

The other reason I am returning to this issue is that I was not satisfied with the Minister’s response to the arguments put in Committee. For instance, I specifically asked him to answer a question posed by my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham at Second Reading: how will the Government account for the poverty among children of working families? His response had been to refer to the continued publication of the HBAI statistics, which was welcome, but he did not give an explanation for the lack of any reporting obligation on this matter to ensure accountability with regard to in-work poverty. He still did not provide a satisfactory explanation under questioning in Committee.

The Minister pointed out that the current situation of the majority of children in relative poverty living in a family where at least one parent is in paid work,

“has developed over the past couple of decades due to the improved progress in tackling poverty in workless families”.—[ Official Report , 9/12/15; col. 1586.].

That is fair enough up to a point but is no answer to the question in hand, nor is the fact that the risk of child poverty remains higher among workless households. Whatever the trend or the reasons for it, and whatever the relative risks, it does not absolve the Government of the responsibility for reporting to Parliament and the country about what is happening to children in poverty, regardless of their parents’ employment status.

If the Government are reporting only on children in workless households, they will distort the overall life chances picture and the policy responses. Given that paid work is held out as the route out of poverty and the universal credit’s objectives, surely the Government will want to know what is happening to those who have set out on this route and to analyse any obstacles they encounter.

In Committee, we engaged in a textual analysis of the Government’s own publication An Evidence Review of the Drivers of Child Poverty worthy of an academic seminar. In the end, it all seemed to come down to whether, in its reference to “low earnings”—I note that the Minister carefully omitted reference to that part of the report yet again in his earlier responses—as a key factor, along with worklessness, that impacts on children’s life chances, “low earnings” was in brackets. The Minister seemed to suggest that, because it was in brackets, that meant low earnings “out of worklessness”. I was not sure what he meant by that. I have gone back to the original source and it is clear that the key passages contain no brackets.

To recap, the table on page 6 listing “Relative influence of factors on length of child poverty spell” is headed by “Long-term worklessness & low earnings”. The review spells out that,

“lack of sufficient income from parental employment … is not just about worklessness, but also working insufficient hours and/or low pay”.

Page 9 states:

“The key factor for child poverty now is parental worklessness and low earnings”.

Page 56 summarises the key finding:

“Long-term worklessness and low-earnings are principal drivers of child poverty and the key transfer mechanism through which the majority of other influential factors act”.

Note the “and” and the “and” and the “and”.

The significance of what we, in shorthand, call “in-work poverty” is not surprising, given the nature of the contemporary labour market. A new analysis of the Poverty and Social Exclusion survey by Professor Nick Bailey of Glasgow University shows that,

“one in three adults in paid work is in poverty, or in insecure or poor quality employment”.

Using various measures of in-work poverty, he found:

“one in six is in poverty on the low income measure, one in three on the deprivation measure”—

we spoke on a previous amendment about the measures being about deprivation as well as low income—

“and one in six on the combined PSE poverty measure”.

Professor Bailey wrote:

“It is particularly striking that a large minority of the working poor are working full time and/or live in a household with near full work intensity so that it is hard to see how more work can be the solution to their problems”.

He also notes that, for a substantial minority, what he terms “exclusionary employment” is an “enduring condition”.

Surely this is the kind of analysis the Government would want to draw on to balance and contextualise its focus on worklessness, not least given the extent to which parents on low income move in and out of paid work and worklessness in what has come to be known as the “low pay, no pay cycle”. Indeed, the fluidity of the dividing line between paid work and worklessness, which universal credit in effect recognises, makes a nonsense of a life-chances measure that ignores one side of the disadvantaged labour market position of low-income parents.

When I withdrew my amendment in Committee and warned that I might return to it on Report, I finished by saying that perhaps by then the Minister will have come up with some more convincing arguments than he had done hitherto. However, I realise that I was being rather unfair to him, because I do not believe that there are any convincing arguments, so how could he be expected to do so? Instead, it would be refreshing and welcome if he were able now to accept this amendment—which, after all, allows the Government to define their terms—or, if he prefers, to undertake to bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading to achieve the same end. I beg to move.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I support the case that has been powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. We have been discussing for what seems like years what should be done to help low-income families in work, and she has made a very good case. I cannot understand why the Government do not see the force of monitoring carefully the circumstances and environment in which these children will live, admittedly in England, in low-income households.

The Minister referred—and I know the work well—to the Waddell and Burton concepts of the sustainability and well-being that derive from work. That study was done in the early 2000s, and it was a changing experience for me as well—it was new to me. He also referred to the work that he then went on to do with the Labour Government in his important report. It all suggests that low-income working families are struggling to get to the kind of rewards that Waddell and Burton were talking about in their biopsychosocial model, which was so instructive in changing the terms of the debate.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that the evidence is that we are in a very precarious employment environment. It is particularly true, and becoming more so, of self-employment. Single-parent families in low-paid work suffer increased and increasing stress, and all the other well-known elements that lead to deprivation in terms of the indicators of disability, large households and some ethnic groups that have historically had challenges relating to making work not just something that pays a wage but leads to a fulfilling life. This whole area will become more, rather than less, important in future, as the precarious employment environment increases.

There are big regional differences to which, as policymakers, we are at the moment blind. There are geographical areas and differences within England—as the amendment refers only to England—that would be instructive for policymakers looking at children in low-income working families and to which we do not have access at the moment. We could so easily have it if this amendment were adopted by the Government.

Finally, the universal credit change that is coming in this direction is quite new. It requires families on universal credit under the claimant commitment not only to get themselves ready and able for work but, once within work, they are under pressure under the new system to go for longer hours and higher-level wage contracts of employments. That is all backed by sanctions. That is something that, once universal credit eventually rolls out across 7.7 million households, we will have to watch very carefully in relation to the trends. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with trying to get people into higher-level jobs, because that is important for low-income families, but that element of universal credit is quite new, to me certainly, in relation to how the social security and social protection systems that we have in the United Kingdom work.

I would be much more comfortable if the Government were to agree to these amendments. We would be better informed and, as legislators in the future, we would be in a much better position to protect the interests of children in low-income families who struggle with poverty in this country. It is time that we tried to do something about that.

Earl of Listowel (Crossbench)

My Lords, I support these two amendments. In the family to which I referred earlier, Ms Lorna Sculley has three children; the oldest and youngest sons have a disability, and she is a working mother. She works 16 hours a week as a dinner lady at the First Love Foundation—the food bank—and she discussed the prospect of getting more work. She calculated that if she worked seven more hours a week, she might get only another six pounds. It just was not worth her while to progress along a work route. I welcome very much what the Government have said about introducing the new, much higher, minimum wage, but the actual effect on families’ incomes might not be as positive as we would all hope, so I hope the Minister will consider accepting this proposal.

I would like to raise another point about a further complication for Ms Sculley. She depends on housing benefit and lives in Tower Hamlets. Her benefit has not been sufficient to pay her rent, so she has to subsidise it from her other income. She says that she cannot move from where she is because of her eldest son’s disability: he is at a school that is good at meeting his needs. That is what I understood from what she said, so that is perhaps relevant to others in our discussion.

My final point in relation to Ms Sculley is that she was offered a parenting class because of her two sons’ disabilities, but it took place on a Thursday, which is when she has to work at the school. She is therefore, in a way, disadvantaged by being in work because she cannot take up the opportunity of attending the parenting class. There is a lot to be said for these two amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Before I finish, however, I would like to thank him for the time that he took last week—an hour—to speak on the needs of children as they relate to this Bill. I certainly appreciate that very much.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

My Lords, I very much support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Lister, which was supported so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. I will be puzzled if the Government propose to resist the thrust of this amendment. The Government know perfectly well that, although the incidence or percentage of poverty among workless families is high, and higher than that among working families because the number of working families is so much greater than the number of workless families, as has been mentioned already, two-thirds of children who are in poverty live in a family where an adult is in work. Part of that might be that the parent, if a lone parent, has restricted hours, but we know that, with insecure contracts and the minimum wage and so on, the key lever to get that family out of poverty is not just to get the single adult into work, but where there are two adults, to get the second adult into work as well. We know that that is a function of the age of the youngest child and the size of the family. Child poverty might well be a temporary period until the second earner—let us say, for this purpose, the mother—is able to go back into the labour market along with her husband or partner in order to amplify the family income. The need to support those children may be a temporary issue.

Given that the Minister today has put so much weight on the strain being carried by the new minimum wage and given that he will want to know, as we will all want to know, the interaction of that with the benefit bill, and the extent to which, therefore, that helps to address the levers of child poverty, above all of which is getting the second earner into part-time work, I do not understand why he would not want to track the information that my noble friend has called for. We all support the Government’s move to increase the national minimum wage. If he is right, this hopefully will have repercussions that we would all accept and support for the benefits system. But do we need to do more than that? We do not know. It may be about the size of sibling groups or the need for a second earner. We need to know what levers to pull. Unless the Government track that information, we will not know. I am sure that the Minister does want to know, so I hope that he will think very carefully about this amendment.

Baroness Manzoor (Liberal Democrat)

We totally support this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I also totally agree with my noble friend Lord Kirkwood who has amply identified the arguments as to why it should be supported. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, rightly said that we need levers. If we do not have such levers, how are we to address the issues about people who work, those who are not in work and in-work benefits? We will talk about the universal work allowances and the implications and ramifications of that. I hope that the Minister is listening very carefully. If the amendment is called to a vote, we on these Benches will support it.

Baroness Sherlock (Labour)

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for tabling this amendment and for introducing it so well. In Committee, she made a very compelling case and I share her view that the Minister’s response was more than usually unpersuasive. In fact, she may have identified the reason for that and may be on to something. It is not as though we lack evidence. We have heard that two-thirds of children in poor households have a parent in work. I think we all accept that the risk of poverty is lower in families where parents are working and that the risk rises as the hours worked do not. But that does not change the fact that today large numbers of children are in poverty even though their parents are in work.

My noble friend Lady Lister and I clearly had the same weekend reading. How sad am I? I, too, dug out the State of the Nation 2015 report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission and the original evidence command paper from 2014. The commission put it really clearly. It states that,

“today 1.5 million children are in poverty because their working parents do not earn enough to secure a basic standard of living and the risk of absolute poverty for working families after housing costs has increased over the last decade”.

We clearly have a problem. In their command paper, from which my noble friend Lady Lister quoted, the Government analysed what drove how long a child stayed in poverty. They state:

“The main factor is lack of sufficient income from parental employment … this is not just about worklessness, but also about working insufficient hours and/or low pay”.

They did not mention something which was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood— namely, that another crucial determinant is the nature and level of in-work benefits and the way in which they apply. But the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission did raise that. In its 2015 report, it commented:

“Many families will find it very difficult to increase their earnings enough to make good the cuts in state support even if they benefit from the welcome introduction of the National Living Wage … we recommend that the Government should, as the public finances improve, revitalise employment incentives in Universal Credit”.

However, as we know, things are going in the opposite direction. The Government have done real damage to work incentives—the very thing that UC was designed to tackle—by cutting work allowances. In this Bill, they are cutting the value of the main in-work benefits through the benefits freeze. They are abolishing the family premium in universal credit for all families and significantly cutting child tax credit for families with more than two children, both of which will hit working families with kids. On Saturday, the Times reported that cost-cutting means that 240,000 families will be denied the free childcare promised to them in the Conservative manifesto.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, argued strongly against targets on relative poverty because he believes that they drive government decisions on allocation of resources and he does not like the way they do it. He got his way on that, if not on measurement. But the information should at least be recorded. The risk of failing to measure and to discuss the trends in in-work poverty is that the Government will not do anything about it because it somehow legitimises the idea that poverty is not about money but about worklessness, as though, by definition, children with working parents could not be poor. If we do not focus on that, it could distort policy-making too.

If the Government are focused only on worklessness, they could end up pursuing policies that just move children from being poor in households where they see their parents a lot to being poor in households where they do not see their parents very often because they are out working unsocial hours in order to be able to make ends meet. With all the consequent damage to family life that that does, that is not the answer. I live in hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, having been persuaded by the brilliant arguments of my noble friend Lady Lister, but just in case, unaccountably, he is not going to do that, will he tell the House one very specific thing? Does he accept that it is possible to be poor if your parents are in work and you are a kid? If so, what are the Government going to do about it?

Lord Freud (Conservative)

My Lords, let me go straight to that question while it is fresh in my mind. It is, of course, possible to be poor while both parents are in work, particularly under the present legacy system. That is why we are bringing in universal credit—to make that much harder. We are not arguing about the level of poverty; it is about what is likely to happen to the life chances of that child compared to both parents being at that level of income and out of work and in work. That is the argument I have been trying to make all afternoon, with, I think, some resistance.

Under Amendments 8 and 11, noble Lords seek to expand the reporting duty placed on the Secretary of State so that his annual report to Parliament must include data on children living in low-income families where one or both parents are in work. Their amendments would add the terms “low income” and “in work” to the list of terms to be defined in the annual report.

I have already gone on enough about the centrality of worklessness and educational attainment. Alongside these statutory measures, the Prime Minister has announced that we are committed to publishing a life chances strategy in the spring, which will set out a comprehensive plan to fight disadvantage and extend opportunity, including a wider set of non-statutory measures on the root causes of child poverty such as family breakdown, problem debt, and drug and alcohol addiction.

I have said before that work is the best route out of poverty but I want to restate our arguments about the centrality of tackling worklessness. The risk of a child being poor is dramatically reduced if at least one parent works. According to the latest statistics, the risk of being in relative poverty for a child in a working family is 13%, compared to 37% for a child in a workless family. So a child in a workless family is almost three times as likely to be in poverty as a child living in a family where at least one adult works. Perhaps those are the figures for which the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, was asking.

Last year, we published an analysis on the transitions into and out of poverty. What we found was staggering, although some might say that it was obvious. Of the children who are in poor workless families, 74% will leave poverty altogether if their parents move into full employment. The analysis also made clear that the more work parents do, the more likely they are to leave poverty, with 75% of children from poor families in part-time employment leaving poverty if their parents enter full-time employment. I remind noble Lords that we have a package of reforms to encourage people to work. These policies include the national living wage and changes to the personal tax allowance, which will allow people to keep more of what they earn. Furthermore, over 30 million individuals will see a tax cut as a result of the changes we will make in this Parliament. Some 570,000 individuals will be lifted out of income tax altogether by 2016-17 and, as a result of the introduction of universal credit, more people will enter work due to improved financial incentives. We have a vibrant and growing economy, and last year real pay grew by 2.1%.

On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on support for women, we are supporting families through the national living wage, which is expected to have a stronger positive impact on the female workforce, boosting the wages of three in 10 female employees by 2020. Our childcare reforms will provide support to women who want to find employment, helping them to increase their income.

We have discussed before that two-thirds of children in relative poverty are from working families, but let me go over my argument. I am not convinced that it will convince the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, but I must try. It is correct that the latest figures published in the HBAI show that 64% of children in relative poverty are from a family where at least one adult is in work. This proportion has grown over the last couple of decades due to the improved progress in tackling poverty in workless families. In 1996-97—the earliest period for which data are available—around 60% of children in relative poverty were from workless families, which is around 2 million children, and around 40% of them were in working families, which is around 1.5 million children. During the 2000s, there was progress in reducing the number in poverty in workless families by focusing spending on tax credits, but this had the unintended consequence of weakening work incentives that resulted in hardly any change in the number of children in in-work poverty, which stood at 1.3 million in 2009-10.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

My Lords, if the Minister will allow me to say this, he is misrepresenting the statistics. It may be a statement about children in poverty, but in particular the number of lone parents in that period who were in work went up from barely 50% to some 65%. Therefore, tax credits made work pay for them.

Lord Freud (Conservative)

It may have made work pay for some people, but it had the effect that, while it was possible, through income transfers, to drive down the out-of-work poverty of children, which is what they were designed to do, it had virtually no impact on in-work poverty. That brought that policy to a reductio ad absurdum: you could not do it without undermining your work incentives because you were raising the level of the benefit structure and it was beginning to knock up the income scale. That was the problem; that is what the data show.

In-work poverty, combined with falling levels of children in poverty from workless families, led to a greater proportion of children in poverty being from those workless families. This meant that, from 1996-97 until the end of the last decade, the proportion of children in poverty from working families actually went up from four in 10 to six in 10. That is the reality of the situation today. I can see that there is some ideological difference to be found over that analysis.

The evidence review, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, highlighted the importance of low earnings, but emphasised the impact of working a lower number of hours, rather than the impact of low-paid work. On the question of how we will know about the levels of poverty—in work and out of work—I reassure her, as I already have, that we will have that data in the HBAI. It will continue to be available. Indeed, those in-work poverty figures in the HBAI can always be broken down by whether the family is in full-time or part-time employment.

I described why having two separate systems worked so poorly. We are introducing universal credit exactly to address those disincentives. I can tell noble Lords that I have spent the most enormous amount of personal time trying to get this structure so that we do not have these odd disincentives, which are really undermining for society. Universal credit is the best way to give people the incentive to enter work: it reduces poverty by making work pay and making sure that people do not lose out as they start to earn more, which is the terrible discontinuity in the legacy system. It provides an effective route out of poverty, while supporting the most vulnerable households. We already see the evidence under universal credit that people are working more and are better off in work.

As with Amendment 2, which we discussed earlier, these amendments would reintroduce an income-based relative poverty measure, which, as I have tried my best to explain—perhaps not as successfully as I might—do not tackle the root causes of child poverty. The Government are concerned with focusing our efforts and attention on those areas that will make a real difference to children’s lives, and concentrating on those root causes.

Resources are finite. It is crucial that we prioritise our actions to make the biggest difference for children. Statutory income measures cause the Government to focus their action and resources on direct and incremental increases to family income, but that does not necessarily drive any real change and is detrimental to the things that we think are vital—noble Lords know what I think they are.

Let us focus on the things that matter and drive the actions that will give our children the future they deserve. Let us not be distracted by measures that detract from that aim. As I said, we will continue to publish the HBAI figures so that we will know exactly what is happening. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister, who at least went into more detail. As he expected, I was not convinced by his arguments, because I still have not really heard a convincing explanation of why there should be no accountability for what is happening. He said that we must focus on the things that matter, but surely what is happening to, for instance, the lady referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, matters? My noble friend Lady Sherlock talked about those who work such long hours that they do not see their children. We know from research at Bath University that children care about that. It talked about children and lone mothers in particular: they are glad when their mother gets paid work, but it affects them. They hardly see their mother. That time squeeze on such families is important. These things matter as well.

I do not necessarily think that this is ideological, as the Minister said. At the beginning he said that it is not the level of poverty that matters, but what is likely to happen to the life chances of children—as if these were totally separate things. The whole point, as the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission and the driver analysis said, is that life chances are affected by income poverty. Therefore, we need to know what is happening to the life chances of children, regardless of the employment status of their parents. I will not go into the detail of the trends; it is pretty much what the Minister said in Committee. I do not think that that is the point; the point is that there should be government accountability about what is happening to those who, as the Minister likes to say, are “doing the right thing”—although I am not so sure it is always doing the right thing—and who are in paid work.

I am disappointed. What the Minister said at the end suggests, if we are focusing on what matters and we do not focus on the poverty of those whose parents are in paid work, that that therefore does not matter. That says volumes. I do not suppose that low-paid parents are sitting at home watching this debate—they are probably out there working—but if they read about it or hear about it, they would say, “Don’t we matter? Don’t the hours I am putting in for little pay matter? Don’t the Government want to report on what is happening to people like me? Doesn’t it matter?”. I think that it matters enormously. However, I will not push our luck and test the opinion of the House, so, regretfully, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Amendments 9 to 14 not moved.

Clause 5: Social Mobility Commission

Amendment 15

Moved by Baroness Lister of Burtersett

15: Clause 5, page 5, line 23, leave out “Social Mobility” and insert “Life Chances”

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 15 to 23. I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for adding his name to them.

The amendments would rename the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission the Life Chances Commission, rather than the Social Mobility Commission, as in the Bill, so as to align the commission’s remit with the new focus on life chances introduced in the Bill and about which the Minister has spoken a lot this evening. I still think that the removal of the words “child poverty” from the commission’s title—after all, it was originally named just the Child Poverty Commission—is sending a message that the Government no longer care about child poverty, which is surely not their intention given that they assure us of their continued commitment to the elimination of child poverty. However, in the spirit of compromise, I realise that the inclusion of the “CP” words might be sensitive, so I have not included them. I return to this amendment because, as

I put it in Committee, I was “desperately disappointed” by the Minister’s response, or rather lack of response, to the case we had made.

To recap that case: the amendment would, in my view, better capture the spirit of the new focus on life chances enshrined in the Bill. Thus I was, and remain, genuinely puzzled about why the Government did not use this opportunity to rename the commission the Life Chances Commission. As I said in Committee:

“At Second Reading the Minister underlined that the Government’s new approach is the life chances one, focused on transforming lives through tackling the root causes of child poverty, and he referred to the new statutory measures as key life chances measures”.—[Official Report, 9/12/15; cols. 1592-3.]

This stance was reinforced by the Prime Minister’s recent speech in which he sketched out the principles underlying the Government’s planned life chances strategy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred earlier, as did the Minister. The strategy that the Prime Minister sketched emphasises, as he put it, “a more social approach” that moves “beyond the economics” and develops “a richer picture”. In other words, it seems to me that the Prime Minister understands that a life chances agenda is less economistic and is richer than a social mobility agenda. Indeed, I suggest that social mobility is an example of the 20th century thinking—that is, old thinking—that he argues we need to move beyond.

Therefore, I welcome the Government’s introduction of the concept of life chances, even if I argue that they should pay more attention to the importance of material resources, as the current commission recognises. As I explained in Committee, I believe that it is richer than the narrower, meritocratic notion of social mobility. I drew on the work of the Fabian Commission on Life Chances and Child Poverty—chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who is no longer in his place—of which I was a member. As a good academic, I will define my terms. The commission defined “life chances” simply as referring to the likelihood of a child achieving a range of important outcomes which occur at successive stages of the life course. Again, the Prime Minister talked about a life-cycle approach.

Therefore, the emphasis is on a range of outcomes, including health and well-being, as well as those associated with social mobility. Children must be given the chance to enjoy a happy, flourishing childhood, and to continue to thrive as they grow up. Thus, as I explained, it is about caring about children as beings as well as “becomings”, both of which can be damaged by child poverty. I suggest that, again, this chimes with the Prime Minister’s speech, which for instance emphasised factors such as mental health and character and talked about cultural disenfranchisement.

The commission preferred the concept of life chances over the narrower one of social mobility because the latter reflects the kind of economistic thinking rejected by the Prime Minister and does not embrace the idea of ensuring that everyone has the chance to live a full and flourishing life. Moreover, it ignores what happens to those who are not able, or may not want, to climb the education and career ladder. In Committee, I gave the example of someone who devotes their life to caring for others—undervalued, be it on a paid or unpaid basis. As I asked, do we want to say to children that it is an ignoble ambition to care for others instead of climbing the economic ladder? To these arguments the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham added a perhaps even stronger one—that the notion of life chances resonates with children themselves in a way that social mobility never would. I hope that he will expand on that in a moment.

In his response, the Minister maintained that the reformed commission would be able to focus more single-mindedly on social mobility, and that its remit on social mobility would be expanded. However, its overall remit is, of course, being narrowed in a way that I argue is out of line with the much broader life chances approach outlined by the Prime Minister. It also apparently excludes child poverty, which, as the current commission makes clear, undermines social mobility and restricts life chances. I believe that this will diminish the commission’s role and the value of its work. What the Minister did not do was explain why the Government believe that it is better to focus the commission’s remit on social mobility when the whole thrust of the Government’s thinking, as otherwise enshrined in the Bill, is life chances. Therefore, I was left even more puzzled at the end of our debate than at the beginning.

I know that the Minister takes our debates seriously and goes away and thinks about what has been said. Therefore, I end on a note perhaps more of hope than expectation, but I am hoping that he has done so with regard to this amendment and realised that what I am proposing is helpful to the Government’s cause and, indeed, would be welcomed by people in the field, including many who are otherwise critical of what the Government are doing in the Bill, and, indeed, as the right reverend Prelate indicated, perhaps by children themselves. I beg to move.

Bishop of Durham (Bishop)

My Lords, I support this amendment. Yesterday, I spent a delightful evening with a small number of academics after preaching at Evensong in an Oxford college—Worcester College. It was a very pleasant evening. However, as I sat there, I kept coming back in my mind to today’s debate because I was reminded of the extraordinary privilege of being in an Oxford college and the elite nature of it. This is not to criticise it or put it down; I had the privilege of studying in a private hall in Oxford when I trained for my ordination. However, I found myself thinking about the vast number of children and young people I meet in schools and colleges around the north-east, and have met in other parts of the country over the years, for whom such privilege is not their aim. Most of those I meet do not talk or think about being socially mobile. They do talk, however, about wanting a decent home and growing up and finding a good job on a decent wage. They also talk about having a stable, loving family through their childhood and wanting to create stable, loving families in the future. Those are the hopes and dreams of most of them. I believe that we have a lot more work to do on aspiration levels. I would love more of them to dream that one day they could go to Oxford or Cambridge, and that they can be significant players in their own communities and transform them, because that is where most will do it. Of course, we all know people who make huge impacts on their local community because they believe in it.

Social mobility is simply too narrow a focus. I absolutely support the move to the term “life chances” as a better expression of a broader base on which to think about these matters. I am not a great sociologist, but I went back to Max Weber, who was the first person I could find who talked about life chances and who introduced the concept of social mobility. In that, he talks quite clearly about social mobility being only one of the factors. He also talks about social stability, social cohesion and social integration. These are at least as significant and, for large numbers of people, they matter as much as, if not more than, social mobility.

Life chances around worklessness, educational attainment and, indeed, income are a broader-based way of assessing poverty. They will tell us more about the health of society than simple social mobility. Changing the name of the commission will absolutely reflect more closely the intention of the Government and offer a way of monitoring progress and feeding into it through the commission’s work. It matters and it would be nice to have a commission with a title that children themselves recognise, understand and could talk about and debate in their schools. How much they would, I do not know, but the idea of a title that they relate to is very valuable. This is intended to be helpful. To call the commission the Life Chances Commission fits absolutely with what the Government are aiming at and will help serve that aim better than the simple, narrow focus of social mobility.

Earl of Listowel (Crossbench)

In listening to this debate, I find myself sympathetic to the notion of social mobility but I also think of the play “Macbeth” and of Macbeth and his wife. There is a risk, I suppose, if one puts too much weight on social mobility, of a society which is red in tooth and claw. The addition of the words “Life Chances” balances that. Your Lordships may also remember the series “Seven Up!”, which I think started in the 1970s and followed 10 children through their lives into adulthood. To my mind, the happiest life in the group was that of a young black boy who grew up in foster care and then went on to become a butcher, marry and have a family. He seemed the most contented of the lot. To be able to achieve a stable and loving family is also important to society, so it would also be helpful to measure that.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)

My Lords, this amendment has been moved very comprehensively by my noble friend Lady Lister and spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, to whom I should say that the closest I got to Oxford on Sunday night was watching “Endeavour” on television. This is a re-run of an amendment moved in Committee as part of a wider group covering life-chances strategies. The Minister’s response then, as reported in col. 1598 of Hansard on 9 December 2015, was clear on a commitment to publish a life-chances strategy, as well as the annual report as set out in the Clause 4 obligations, but there was no commitment to make this a statutory obligation. As my noble friend Lady Lister has argued, the concern which has been expressed about the commission is that, for the future, it has no obligation explicitly to promote the tackling of child poverty. Although there is a commitment to report on life-chances data, and a statement on the record that there will be a life-chances strategy, the role of the Social Mobility Commission seems somewhat removed from this.

As my noble friend Lady Lister pointed out in Committee, promoting social mobility is a narrower ambition than tackling poverty and promoting life chances: it is not a substitute. It is, of course, a not unreasonable ambition, but a commission focused on life chances would naturally encompass the prospects of social mobility. The reverse is not the case. We therefore support my noble friend’s amendment. It seems odd that the Government are keen to have a commission reporting on progress on improving social mobility but not on life chances.

Lord Freud (Conservative)

These amendments seek to rename the reformed commission as the Life Chances Commission, rather than the Social Mobility Commission, and to amend the duties placed on the commission to promote and improve life chances instead of social mobility. The two concepts—social mobility and life chances—are different although there are, of course, areas of overlap between the two. The Prime Minister’s speech earlier this month demonstrated the importance this Government places on improving children’s life chances. The statutory measures of worklessness and educational attainment and the Government’s life-chances strategy will drive action that will make the biggest difference to children’s life chances. Together, they will provide transparency and enable anyone to hold the Government to account.

The Government also place great importance on improving social mobility and providing equality of opportunity for all citizens. Our proposals for the reformed commission will enable it to have a single-minded focus on social mobility and play a crucial role in its scrutiny and advancement. That is about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to realise their potential in life, regardless of their background. Perhaps those in Oxford do not need quite as much looking after as others. The commission will also have a new duty to promote social mobility in England, enabling it to engage with a wide range of partners, including government, business and the third sector. This will be crucial to tackling the institutional biases and cultures that prevent individuals fulfilling their potential. Through our new statutory life-chances measures and strategies and the reformed Social Mobility Commission, the Government will drive action and enable scrutiny on these two vital issues. I therefore urge noble the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken. I feel slightly embarrassed; I am supposed to be the sociologist but it was the right reverend Prelate who quoted Max Weber. I had better go back and read my old sociology textbooks. I still do not feel that the Minister has given a true explanation. He seems to be making a distinction: the way he and the Prime Minister see it, life chances are about children’s life chances, while social mobility is about everyone—children and adults. However, children become adults and I see life chances as being about the whole life course, from cradle to grave. If that is the case, and the distinction lies in the commission’s focus being more on what is happening to adults, that worries me even more. Let us remember that this started life as a child poverty commission. In the Welfare Reform Act 2012, it became the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission and some of us were a bit worried about that at the time. Were we not right to be worried? Now it is not just child poverty that has been dropped, but children, too. Apparently it is not now supposed to be interested in children at all. I am not so much puzzled now as quite worried about what this means for the commission, because the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission has produced very valuable reports about what is happening to children in this country. The Government no longer have a statutory obligation to report on children in poverty, other than in relation to worklessness and educational attainment. We do not know what will happen to the Child Poverty Unit. It is as though children—and children in poverty—are just disappearing.

I am less puzzled than really upset about what has happened here. The complete shift of focus away from children in this commission is disgraceful. I am not going to push it now, for obvious reasons, but I hope there may be some other way that we can come back to this, though I do not know at what point this can happen or what scope there will be for the commission to try and expand its remit. I find what the Minister is saying quite extraordinary. As he himself has said, we want to focus on what matters: he is saying that children do not matter. I leave it there and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Amendments 16 to 23 not moved.

Clause 7: Benefit cap

Amendment 24

Moved by Baroness Pitkeathley

24: Clause 7, page 9, leave out lines 5 and 6

Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour)

My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to remove carer’s allowance from the list of qualifying benefits for the benefit cap. It would also remove an injustice.

While an exemption for households including a disability living allowance or personal independence payment claimant exists, this does not protect all families affected by disability or all carers from the cap. This is due to the way that a household is defined by the benefit system, as your Lordships will know. For the purposes of that system, a household is considered to be an adult, their partner, if they have one, and the children that they have who are under 18. If any other adult relatives—for example, older parents, brothers and sisters or even adult children—live in the same house, they are considered to be part of a different benefits household or unit, even though they live together. This means that while carers looking after disabled partners and disabled children under 18 are exempt from the cap, those caring for adult disabled children, siblings or elderly parents are subject to it. Currently, about 1,400 households containing carers are affected by the benefit cap—please remember that figure, as it is a relatively small number.

The Government’s stated objective for the cap is to encourage more households to move into work. A new lower-tiered cap has been designed to strengthen the work incentives for those on benefits. That is a perfectly respectable aim but if it is designed to be fair to individuals who are working hard and contributing to society, it cannot be right that it is applied to carers. There are two main reasons.

First, carers contribute an enormous amount to society; your Lordships will be familiar with this. The value of unpaid carers’ support to the economy is £132 billion every year—the cost of a second health service. Indeed without the support from carers, health and social care systems would simply collapse. There is no doubt that carers are a major contributor to society. Secondly, carers cannot mitigate the impact of the cap in the way that the Government suggest. In Committee in the Commons, the Minister, Priti Patel, said:

“We all acknowledge the important role that carers provide, but we do not accept that carers are unable to work. Although seeking work is not a condition for receiving carer’s allowance, many carers are nevertheless able to and combine work with caring responsibilities”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform and Work Bill Public Committee, 17/9/15; col. 237.]

The Minister is quite right but your Lordships should remember that to receive carer’s allowance, carers must be caring for a minimum of 35 hours a week, the equivalent of a full working week.

While it is true that some carers combine work and care, for the majority the intensity of their caring role means that this is simply not possible. For those who combine heavy caring with significant work, the prospect of reaching breaking point, where carers suffer exhaustion and physical and mental breakdown, is greatly increased. The latest survey from Carers UK about carers at breaking point shows that six in 10 people caring for an older, disabled or seriously-ill loved one have reached that breaking point at some time.

The cap is applied unequally to carers. While the exemption for households in receipt of PIP or DLA is very welcome it means that carers who are considered not in the same household are penalised, although they may be living in the same house as the person they care for. This means that of two carers who are caring for exactly the same amount of time with the same income, one would be subjected to the cap and one would not. Surely subjecting those who provide unpaid care to the benefit cap is unfair, counterproductive and inconsistent with the Government’s stated aims for their policy.

Hearing me say those things, your Lordships may think, “Well, she would say that, wouldn’t she?”, but they are very much reinforced by the recent High Court decision. On 26 November, the High Court ruled—

Lord Freud (Conservative)

It might be worth my intervening on the noble Baroness, I think, in the interests of not hearing too much more vituperation—there is only a certain amount that I can take.

Lord Freud (Conservative)

Amendment 24 seeks to remove carer’s allowance from the list of benefits that are included within the benefit cap. As written, the effect is that recipients of carer’s allowance with a benefit income above cap levels would still be included in the cap but their carer’s allowance payment would be disregarded from the cap. That is the way that this amendment works.

I emphasise to the noble Baroness, and to your Lordships, that this Government value the contribution which carers make to society, and shall outline the further steps that we are taking to support carers. As I indicated earlier in the process, the Government have been carefully considering the position of carers and the people who they care for in relation to the benefit cap. I am grateful for the patience which noble Lords have shown while we completed this consideration. I know that your Lordships have been keen to hear where we would come out but it is necessary to look at these things in detail and take the right time to do so. We keep all these policies under review and have been looking at support for carers with particular attention—that is, across the piece and not just here. In relation to the benefit cap, the position of carers cannot be considered in isolation from wider policy aims. Our strategy is to support and invest in carers. We have therefore looked at the evidence and considered the best way to continue to support carers in the context of wider government strategy.

We do not consider that the disregard which this amendment would create is the right approach. We want to go further; we will be exempting all recipients of carer’s allowance from the benefit cap, whether they are single or part of a couple. This approach fits within the wider government strategy to support and invest in carers. Many carers wish to enter paid employment and many have done so while sustaining the role. We recognise that in some cases, it is beneficial for both the cared-for person and the social care system if people are cared for at home. It continues to be the case that some paid employment, alongside caring, will be right for many carers. But our strategy to support carers through the Care Act and through wider investment strategies provides new, targeted opportunities for help and encouragement, where appropriate, to remain close to paid employment.

As I say, we will be exempting recipients of carer’s allowance from the benefit cap. This is of course complex and we will need to get it right. But with my assurance that to support this exemption we will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading, and then appropriate regulations in due course, I therefore ask the noble Baroness, if she has finished moving her amendment, to withdraw it.

Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour)

I am always happy to spare the Minister more vituperation, as he pleaded for. I am of course delighted with what he said, with the recognition that the Government have given to the contribution which carers make and to their inability to mitigate the effect of the cap in other ways. Certainly, some carers combine paid work with caring but, as I have said, for many their caring responsibilities are too heavy for them to do that without enormous stress. I am very glad that the Minister has taken account of that, and that the Government have taken account of the very strong wording of the High Court judgment. The wording was extremely well put but extremely firm. It would have been very difficult to understand if the Government had not heeded the very strong words of that High Court judgment. At the time, it seemed that there was neither logic nor justice in the Government’s position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.30 pm.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

My Lords, Amendment 25 would remove child benefit and child tax credits from the benefit cap. I return to this amendment, which raises an important point of principle together with children’s rights questions, partly because in Committee it was grouped with various other exemptions from the cap, but, more importantly, because—and at the risk of being accused of being vituperative—once again, the response from the Minister was inadequate. He was challenged a number of times to justify why these benefits should be subject to the cap for those out of work when they are received by those in work, so that the cap is premised on a comparison between earnings in work and income out of work, but he failed to do so.

The argument boils down to what we believe is fair. According to the impact assessment, the clause promotes even greater fairness between those on out-of-work benefits and taxpayers in employment. Our view is that fairness requires that old cliché of the level playing field, on which, if you ignore the child benefit received by all taxpayers in employment on wages of £20,000 to £23,000 and the child tax credits received by a good proportion of them—how many and how much the Government refuse to say—you must ignore it when calculating the income of those on out-of-work benefits.

The exchange between my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham and the Minister on this point could have come straight out of a pantomime: “Oh, yes, it’s earnings”, “Oh, no, it’s income”; or that old song, “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off”: “I say income, you say earnings”. But whereas my noble friend, as you would expect, offered argument, the Minister offered only assertion. He just kept repeating:

“We are looking at the level of earnings”,

without ever saying why, other than, as my noble friend put it, “Because I say so”. Therefore, I thought it only right to give him the opportunity to offer an argument today in justification so that noble Lords can decide whether it is indeed fair to base the policy on such an uneven playing field.

Other arguments that did not get addressed properly by the Minister concerned the impact on children. How did the policy fare against the family test, which was not even mentioned in the income assessment? He assured me that the family test was applied, but, as he could not,

“recall what was in it”,—[ Official Report , 21/12/15; col. 2378.]

he promised to write to me with the details. I do not believe that I have received them, so perhaps he could provide them now. What is the likely impact on child poverty? That was conveniently circumvented on the spurious ground that it is all too difficult to estimate the likely dynamic effects of the policy. There is no reply to the argument that the policy has a disproportionate impact on children.

In the judgment in the recent Supreme Court case on the cap, which we spent some time debating in Committee, Lord Justice Carnwath made the point that the inclusion of child benefit and child tax credits in the cap raises the question as to why,

“the viability of a scheme, whose avowed purpose is directed at the parents not their children, is so disproportionately dependent on child related benefits”,

and said:

“The cap has the effect that for the first time some children will lose these benefits, for reasons which have nothing to do with their own needs, but are related solely to the circumstances of their parents”.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, observed that, as a result, the children affected,

“suffer from a situation which is none of their making and which they themselves can do nothing about”.

This brings me to the children’s and human rights implications of the policy, which, as the Equality and Human Rights Commission has complained, were dealt with inadequately in the Government’s human rights assessment and the impact assessment. What is at issue is whether the inclusion of children’s benefits in the cap is in the best interests of the child in line with Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In the human rights memorandum, the Government note the Supreme Court’s decision and assert that they have fully considered their obligations to treat the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. However, their analysis of the,

“best interests of the child”,

seems to rest on this proposition:

“The best interests of children overall is to have parents in work and work remains the surest route out of poverty”.

As the EHRC observes, this betrays,

“a particular lack of understanding regarding compliance with the UNCRC”.

It may well be in the best interests of many children for parents to find work, but it will depend on the work available, the circumstances and the durability of any work found. Moreover, this bald statement ignores the fact that the great majority of those already subject to the cap did not find work as a result. Is it really in the best interests of their children to have their standard of living reduced even further when a survey reported in the first-year review of the operation of the cap found that over a third of those affected had already had to cut back on household essentials and many had incurred debt, which the Government identify as a root cause of poverty? In fact, the Government’s position pretty much ignores the judgment of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that they,

“misunderstand what article 3(1) of the UNCRC requires. It requires that first consideration be given to the best interests, not only of children in general, but also of the particular child or children directly affected by the decision in question. It cannot possibly be in the best interests of the children affected by the cap to deprive them of the means to provide them with adequate food, clothing, warmth and housing, the basic necessities of life. It is not enough that children in general, now or in the future, may benefit by a shift in welfare culture if these are also the consequences. Insofar as the Secretary of State relies upon this as an answer to article 3(1), he has misdirected himself”.

In his response, the Minister did not address the substance of these arguments, but took refuge behind what he called the “sterling work” of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, whom he described as “utterly masterful” on the legal aspects and who he said had certainly taught him a lot. I am no lawyer, and I am sure the Minister will not consider me masterful on the subject. I am diffident about getting involved in legal disputation once more, but I am assured by the CPAG’s solicitor, to whom I am grateful—I make my usual declaration as the group’s honorary president—that the interpretation by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is open to challenge. The Minister’s law lesson might, therefore, need some revision. It is not the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asserted, that the Supreme Court found the Government to have been “perfectly correct” when they were taken to court on not implementing the UNCRC, nor that five of the noble judges ruled, in the Government’s favour, that the benefits cap was not contrary to the rights of the child. Rather, the court found, by a majority of three to two, that the benefit cap regulations are in breach of Article 3(1). It is true that they went on to find that, as the convention is not incorporated into domestic UK law, it should be for Parliament, not the courts, to decide how to remedy the breach. Lord Justice Carnwath advised that the court’s concerns about the rights of the child would need to be addressed in the political arena. In other words, the court was looking to us—to Parliament—to find a way to ensure that the Government upheld the UK’s obligations under international law with regard to the cap.

That is what the amendment seeks to do. Just because the UN convention is not directly enforceable in UK courts, the Government cannot simply ignore it when their claims to have complied with it are challenged by the Supreme Court. It must concern us that, far from responding to the Supreme Court’s ruling and to the specific recommendation of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, that the Government consider removing children’s benefits from the cap, the Government are now compounding the infringement of children’s rights by reducing the cap to below median earnings, thereby bringing many more families into its net. I suspect that it is only a matter of time before the matter is before the courts again, as this could now mean that the cap is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights because of its disproportionate impact.

On grounds of both fairness and the rights of children, I believe there is a strong case for the exclusion of children’s benefits from the cap. I hope that today the Minister will actually engage with the arguments, rather than continue with the “because I say so” approach. Given that that approach tends to be used when there is not a valid case to be made, better still, he should accept the amendment on grounds of both fairness and children’s rights. I beg to move.

Baroness Sherlock (Labour)

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for the way she has introduced the amendment and for her persistence and expertise on this subject. My noble friend raised this issue in Committee but did not get an adequate answer. One of the things I find most depressing about the debates on the benefit cap is that Ministers increasingly lump all benefits together as just welfare payments. No distinction is made between the various kinds of benefit we have traditionally had in the British social security system: between contributory and non-contributory benefits or between income-replacement benefits and those designed to compensate for extra costs. The failure to make such distinctions tends to demonise recipients. It also muddies the policy-making waters, because Government are reduced to making fairly broad claims for the behavioural impacts of benefits the purposes of which are, in fact, quite distinct from each other.

Child benefit is a good case in point. It has traditionally been a universal benefit and is still available to all but the highest-earning households. In effect, it is a horizontal transfer from taxpayers as a whole, including those who do not have children, to those who have children. Originally, it replaced an allowance in the tax system and it is there because, as a society, we recognise that children are a public as well as a private good. We all have a stake in ensuring that parents can afford to raise the next generation healthily. Child benefit goes to parents in and out of work, of course, as does child tax credit—the two benefits that are the subject of this amendment.

We heard at earlier stages of the Bill about the impact on children of the lowering of the benefit cap: that twice as many children as adults are affected and that 230,000 children have been affected. We have also heard in previous sessions from charities working with children about how worried they are that children and families could be left without sufficient income to meet their basic needs. The House has a right to know whether the Government have considered sufficiently the impact of this change on children.

My noble friend Lady Lister mentioned her exchange in Committee on 21 December, in relation to the family test, when the Minister said:

“We did apply the family test; I had better write to the noble Baroness with the details because I cannot recall what was in it. There was quite a lot of material going through in a short time”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2378.]

I can assure my noble friend that the Minister did in fact reply, but unfortunately not until last Thursday and admittedly not at any great length or utility. I will not have to delay the House unduly by quoting his reply in full on this subject. It said exactly this:

“The Government has fully considered the family test criteria as an integral part of the policy development process. The published assessment of impacts of the measures in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill incorporates these considerations”.

That is it, in its entirety. Your Lordships will search in vain the impact assessment on the lowering of the benefit cap for any account of the impact on families with children. Yet the DWP has actually published guidance for other government departments on the application of the family test. The guidance says:

“It is important that the application of the Family Test is documented in an appropriate way as part of the policy making process … Departments should consider publishing assessments where they are carried out”.

So, where is the documented DWP family test assessment for this policy, or indeed for the Bill? Why has the DWP not published it when it is advising other departments to publish theirs? Why does it yet again refer my noble friend to the impact assessment when Ministers must know that the answers she seeks will not be found therein?

I would be very grateful if the Minister would tell us three things. What was in the family test assessment? Why did DWP not publish it, and what are the Government going to do to monitor and mitigate the impact on children if the level of the cap is reduced as proposed?

Lord Freud (Conservative)

My Lords, Amendment 25 seeks to remove child benefit and child tax credit from the list of those benefits included within the benefit cap, so that they are disregarded when calculating the total amount of benefits that a household can receive before the cap is applied. This amendment undermines the fundamental principle that we established when we introduced the cap: that there has to be a clear limit to the amount of benefits that an out-of-work family can receive. This principle has gained very broad support across the country.

The benefit cap is just one part of our suite of welfare reforms, which are restoring work incentives and fairness to the benefits system. The previous system was not fair on working taxpayers, nor on claimants who were trapped in a life where it was more worthwhile claiming benefits than working. Our welfare reforms are about moving from dependence to independence and the benefit cap is helping people to take that important step into work. Indeed, the evidence shows that the cap is working, with capped households 41% more likely to go into work than similar uncapped households. In fact, more than 18,000 households have entered work since the cap was introduced.

However, we have always accepted that there should be some exemptions from the benefit cap which support the cap aims of incentivising work and bringing greater fairness to the welfare system, while supporting the most vulnerable. To incentivise work, the cap does not apply to those households which qualify for the in-work exemption in universal credit. Nor does it apply to those households in receipt of working tax credit. For lone parents, this is just 16 hours of work per week; for couples with children it is 24 hours of work per week. In recognition of the extra costs that disability can bring, households which include a member who is in receipt of attendance allowance, disability living allowance, the personal independence payment and the Armed Forces personal independence payment are exempt. Those who have limited capability for work and receive the support component of employment and support allowance, or the universal credit limited capability for work- related activity element, are exempt. Furthermore, war widows and widowers are also exempt. Noble Lords should also not forget that if the claimant, their partner or a child for whom they are caring is in receipt of an exempt benefit, the cap will not apply.

As well as promoting fairness for those families who are in work, the welfare reforms are about transforming life chances. Since the cap was introduced in April 2013, nearly 9,400 capped lone parents have moved into work and claimed working tax credits, joining the 1.26 million lone parents in employment in the UK. By going out to work, parents show their children the importance of a strong work ethic and reinforce the message that work is the best route out of poverty, while improving their longer-term life chances.

As to the ECHR criticism about the rights of the child, the interests of children are best served by doing everything possible to get their parents into work and providing the right support to remove the barriers to work, such as employment support, training, budgeting advice and free childcare. DHPs are available to assist in hard cases, and the Government will make £870 million available in that area over the next five years.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised the family test, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, was kind enough to remind her that I managed to get a letter to her saying that the family test had been applied when considering the benefit cap changes. The way that the test works on the whole is that the department thinks carefully how the new policy can support family relationships. We have been very clear, as I have been this evening, that it is important that children grow up in households that are in work. The cap is a key way of delivering this particular policy and this particular change.

Like other welfare benefits, child-related benefits are provided and funded by the state, and it is therefore right that they are taken into account along with other state benefits when applying the cap. It is only fair that households receiving benefits should make the same choices that families in work do. The cap levels are equivalent to annual pre-tax incomes of £29,000 and £25,000. These are still considerable incomes, with around four in 10 households earning these sums in London and the rest of the country respectively.

It is a simple matter of fairness for those families with children who are in work to set the cap at these levels and to include child-related benefits within its scope. To be clear, households who go out to work and qualify for the in-work exemption in universal credit or for working tax credits will be entirely exempt from the cap and will receive all of these benefits over the cap level. For those households who need additional support in adjusting to the cap, DHPs are available: £800 million has already been made available and a further £70 million was added to that figure in the Autumn Statement.

There is of course a nine-month grace period in which the cap may not be applied to those have recently left sustained employment. This gives households, including those people who are receiving child benefit and child tax credit and who may have had to leave employment, time to adapt to their new circumstances or find work before the cap is applied to them.

For the reasons I have explained, I do not agree that we should remove child benefit and child tax credit from the cap, as would be the result if this amendment, as drafted, was passed. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sherlock and to the Minister. I never received the letter last Thursday, although I recall there was another letter when we raised the question of the family test in relation to the policy we will be discussing on Wednesday about families with two or more children. That said exactly the same thing—I think it was almost the same sentence.

When I was preparing this over the weekend, I realised I had never received a letter about our fourth day in Committee, so I emailed the Minister’s office to ask whether there had been such a letter, and I have not had a reply yet. Perhaps the letter about our fourth day could be re-sent, because I have certainly not received it. Anyway, it sounded horribly familiar—that is, it did not tell us very much at all, as my noble friend said.

I did not really expect we would agree on this. The Minister has certainly not satisfied me that it is fair when we are not comparing like with like. That is really the nub of the argument. On the rights of the child, he simply repeated the very argument that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, had pretty much destroyed in the Supreme Court judgment. He brought up the old DHPs again—many moons ago I said this was the loaves and fishes argument. DHPs have to be extended to cover everything and they do not provide anyone with any kind of right because they are discretionary. Clearly we are not going to make progress on this but it is important that we at least keep maintaining why we believe that this is not fair. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 25 withdrawn.

Amendment 26

Moved by Baroness Hollis of Heigham

26: Clause 7, page 9, leave out lines 15 and 16

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

My Lords, guardian’s allowance is not separately listed in the Chancellor’s Excel sheets of benefits and budgets in the Autumn Statement. It is invisible. However, it emerges from obscurity to be included in the benefit cap.

What does guardian’s allowance do? Why does it matter and why should it be exempt? Guardian’s allowance supports those at the sharpest end of kinship care, not where parental care is extremely neglectful or unstable, as it is for many children in kinship care, but where no parental care is possible at all. It goes to those caring for orphans. Usually they are physical orphans whose parents have died but, very occasionally, they are what the Victorians would call moral orphans—the father is in jail and the mother is an addict or on the game, sectioned or imprisoned.

More usually, the mother has died and the father is missing, not known or not registered on the birth certificate. There is no known parent. Sometimes, sadly, both parents have died in a car crash. In one case, a lorry lost its load and killed both parents in the car behind it. In another instance, an 82 year-old grandparent, not of course herself affected by the cap, learned that her daughter had died of an overdose and 24 hours later her son-in-law followed suit. At 82, she was asked to be guardian to four children. Guardian’s allowance is worth just £16.55 a child on top of child benefit. It goes to those caring for those children: the maternal grandparent, sometimes an aunt, often the close friend of the child’s dead mother. Their guardian receives the allowance until the children leave school.

Why do they need it? The children come to them following an extreme, often unexpected and irreversible emergency, and they come for life. This is not revolving-door temporary care. They immediately need extra bunk beds and bedding and, depending on the home from which they have come, clothes, shoes and toys. There are no grants and no social fund for this. They may need a larger home with higher rent and therefore more housing benefit. They will be the most distressed and traumatised of children and usually it is distressed and traumatised adults who will be caring for them, having themselves lost their daughter, sister or best friend. Such guardians, if in work, usually have to give it up.

Few people know about guardian’s allowance. Government certainly seem to discourage any take-up of it among kinship carers, although I am sure that kindly staff do their best. The result is that only around 2,500 people receive guardian payments each year, a figure that has been stable since my time in DWP. No one can find out the total cost because the Chancellor does not seem to publish it. However, I estimate—and I could be wrong—it is in total perhaps £3 million to £4 million a year.

Most guardians will not be affected by the benefit cap. The maternal grandmother may be of pension age, although with women becoming a grandparent at the age of 51 and the raising of the state pension age, many other grandparents will be trapped.

Other guardians may be in a household where an adult works and is therefore not caught by the cap, but there will be some of those 2,500—perhaps 500 or 1,000—who will be caught by the benefit cap because they too, like the children’s dead mother before them, are in straitened circumstances. They will be her mother, her sister, her friend. They may be on benefit themselves. They probably have children themselves. If they are on benefit, have children of their own and become guardians, they will probably be caught three times over. First, they will be caught by the two-child policy: no additional child tax credit payments for them for cherishing these bereaved, traumatised children. Secondly, if they are in the private rented sector, they will be caught by the various housing benefit caps: no larger home for them, but more children cramped into the same tiny bedrooms as their birth children. Thirdly, if they are near or at the benefit cap, there will be no extra child tax credit, no child benefit and no guardian’s allowance either.

Children already deeply traumatised will also bring with them as their dowry greater poverty for every other member of the family which has taken on their guardianship. The same income at the benefit cap must now be stretched to cover them as well. Stretch and you tear. The orphaned children often have to be split up because of financial pressure. Having lost their parents, they lose their brothers and sisters as well and cry their way into their future.

Guardian’s allowance is not itself a means-tested benefit and currently does not count against tax credits or tax, so somewhat better-off families will receive it in full. They are better off, and they will rightly get the lot. Poorer families whose needs are greater, who are pushing at the benefit cap, may get nothing at all. That is palpably wrong. We offer more money to the better off and deny it to the poorest when they are doing the self-same selfless job of caring for grieving children. Decent social policy would seek to do the exact opposite: prioritise those in greatest need. Unless, of course, we think that poorer families are not up to being kinship carers and that these bereaved children should be removed from their family and community roots for the fault of being orphaned. I am sure that that is not what the Government intend, but that may be the effect.

You might think that this policy was essential to give the Chancellor big-ticket welfare savings, but it is to save what? I calculate that it saves perhaps £500,000 or £750,000 a year by removing guardian’s allowance from the benefit cap. I stand to be corrected, because I have been unable over a week to find the statistics.

Do we want kinship care? Do we want loving friends and family, themselves and their birth children already on benefit, to provide a lifeline and lifetime care for these additional traumatised children whose parents have died? Do we want them not to live in severely overcrowded homes as a result of the cap? Do we want such children to have the best possible chance of recovering from the unimaginable tragedy of their young lives by being wrapped in love and care and so making a decent life of their own?

If so—and I am sure that everyone in this House wants this, certainly everyone on the Government Benches—why in heaven’s name are we including guardian’s allowance in the cap? Why are we punishing the poorest for undertaking some of the hardest, most generous and selfless care of other people’s children in our society for the sake of saving less—possibly quite a lot less—than £1 million a year?

On the contrary, we should be increasing this amount, widening its eligibility and encouraging more kinship carers who qualify to apply for it. We should as a society be for ever grateful for the loving duty that they have so generously undertaken. I beg to move.

Baroness Sherlock (Labour)

My Lords, the amendment would exclude guardian’s allowance from the cap. I shall briefly set out the regulations on exactly who gets guardian’s allowance, because I think it is worth doing. You can get it only if you are caring for somebody else’s child, you are entitled to child benefit for the child and both of the child’s parents are dead, or one of the child’s parents is dead and at that time the whereabouts of the other parent is unknown and you have made all reasonable efforts to find them, or one of the child’s parents is dead and the other is in prison with a minimum sentence of two years remaining to serve, following the death of the other parent. People do not get this allowance lightly. It is not paid to foster parents or prospective adopters. My noble friend Lady Hollis, with a precision and a lyricism that I could not begin to match, set out the effects of taking this away from a group of people who are reaching out to some of the most vulnerable children in our country. I hope that that has persuaded the Minister how important this is. But given those effects, and given how few these people are in number, and given how vulnerable the children are, I would like the Minister to explain why they do not fit into the category that he described under the last amendment, when he said that the Government wanted to incentivise work but also to protect the most vulnerable. Why do they not count as the most vulnerable?

In Committee on 21 December I asked the Minister what behavioural incentives the Government were seeking by including guardian’s allowance in the cap. He said:

“Recipients of maternity allowance and guardian’s allowance will be affected by the benefit cap only if they are in receipt of a significant amount of other welfare payments”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2378.]

That is not a justification. Either it is right to include guardian’s allowance in the cap or it is not; it cannot be right because you get other benefits as well. So if the Government believe that it is right, can the Minister please tell the House what behavioural response the Government are looking for from people who receive guardian’s allowance as a result of the cap? If he cannot provide one, will he accept that the fact that they will be affected by the cap only if other benefits are also received is not a good argument for guardian’s allowance itself to be counted towards the cap? That argument could be made for any benefit. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation.

Lord Freud (Conservative)

Amendment 26 seeks to remove guardian’s allowance from the list of those that are included within the benefit cap, so that it is disregarded when calculating the total amount of benefits a household can receive before the cap is applied. Guardian’s allowance is paid to those who are responsible for a child or young person and either both parents or in some circumstance one parent have died. The Government recognise the crucial and valuable role that recipients play in helping children to recover from the loss of their parents, but I do not agree that it should be excluded from the benefit cap. That is about the principle that there is a clear limit to the amount of benefits that an out-of-work family can receive.

In the interests of time, I shall not repeat my previous arguments, but will provide the best information that we have, which is that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is right to say that this affects very few people. On our sums, the inclusion of the guardian’s allowance within the cap affects fewer than 50 claimants—those are the figures that I have. Rather than a blanket exclusion of this benefit, it is better that targeted support is offered to those who need it. That is where the discretionary housing payments of £870 million come into play. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

First, I thank my noble friend who spelled out the devastating situation in which these children find themselves, and how those who care for them—on kinship care, usually—are therefore entitled to receive guardian’s allowance.

The Minister made two points. First, he said that the principle was that there is a clear limit to benefits that out-of-work families can receive, even when that out-of-work family has taken on the joyless but essential and necessary task of caring for another family’s children. Why does the Minister not consider that therefore they are entitled morally—I am not saying practically, but morally—to benefits for two families, because that is what they are doing? We are not talking about families of their own children; we can argue for that, as my noble friend did, and she was absolutely right to do so.

I am talking about a situation at the extreme end of kinship care, when somebody has taken on responsibility for another family’s children. To say that, on principle, that out-of-work family should not get additional money for doing that—that is not a principle. A principle usually has some sort of moral quality to it. That, I am afraid, is a Treasury statement. I cannot believe that the Minister believes that it is the right policy to uphold in this situation. We should be hugging those kinship carers who are entitled to guardian’s allowance and giving them every support we can. Instead, what we do is to make them poorer.

The Minister’s second point was that he reckoned there were 50 families. I would love to see how he got to that figure. I could not work it out—obviously, because I could not work out how many people were grandparents, how many were in-work families and how many were below the limit, and therefore exempt, because they did not already have children of their own.

If we are really talking about 50 families, why on earth are the Government not conceding? How much does the Minister think this will cost? Let us assume that the average number of children taken on by a guardian is one and a half—in some cases one child, in others two children, and in a few cases three or more. I estimate that that would work out at about £1,000 to £1,200 a year. For 50 families that would be about £50,000 to £60,000 a year. The Minister cannot find £60,000 a year—or £65,000, if we push it—to address this problem? I am going to sit down and ask him whether, in the light of the information he has so far given, he is willing to reconsider his position.

Lord Freud (Conservative)

No, I am not in a position to reconsider at this stage.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

What does that mean—“at this stage”? Is the Minister willing to come back at Third Reading with a little amendment just taking out this group of people, who are among the poorest of the poor, who are taking on the hardest of hard tasks—caring for bereaved and traumatised children—at a time when they themselves are probably also bereft?

Lord Freud (Conservative)

Regrettably, as I said, I am not in a position to make any kind of commitment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

I guess it is my fault. I should have brought this up in Committee and perhaps given the Minister more time to think about it. Perhaps he will look back on today’s proceedings. He absolutely rightly responded to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley on a situation that we all recognised it was important that he should respect and meet—and not just because of the court case. I suggest to him that this is another such case—and I think he may wish to do otherwise. Obviously I shall withdraw the amendment now, but I would hope, none the less, that on reflection he will feel able, for 60,000 quid a year, to take guardian’s allowance, at the extreme end of kinship care, out of the benefit cap. He will not even notice it—but they will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

Amendment 26A

Moved by Baroness Hollis of Heigham

26A: Clause 7, page 9, line 37, at end insert—

“except in the case of persons who are at least 29 weeks pregnant or who are responsible for the care of a child aged under nine months, in respect of whom “welfare benefit” means any prescribed benefit, allowance, payment or credit.”

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

My Lords, this amendment relates to a situation that we touched on earlier, when we were debating the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Gingerbread reports that if a single parent with two primary school children is expecting a baby next month, just at the time when her needs increase she will lose £32 in housing benefit because of the benefit cap. The amendment is tightly targeted and would exclude women in late pregnancy—at 29 weeks or beyond—and for nine months following the birth of a child, from the benefit cap.

There are three reasons for this, which I hope the Minister will address. The first is parity with the rights of women in work, the second is consistency with the DWP’s own benefit conditionality rules, which do not apply when a child is under two, and the third is concern for the health and well-being of mother and baby.

On parity, the Government want parents on benefit to face the same choices as parents in work. The Minister has repeated that several times today. Yet when those in work—better-off people—enter late pregnancy or care for a newborn, they rightly get protection and income that reflect their situation. Those on benefit may instead face a benefit cap and therefore an income cut. Parents in work have pregnancy and maternity rights. They can commence maternity leave at 29 weeks, at which point a mother will be eligible for statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance, both of which run for 39 weeks; maternity leave is of course for 52 weeks.

Women in late pregnancy or with a small baby, who are on benefit and faced with the cap, have just two options. First, they can move to cheaper housing to cut their outgoings. That is almost impossible, yet they do not qualify for DHPs. I know that the Minister places such huge reliance on DHPs, but I know from experience of local authorities that they do not look anywhere near the groups of people the Minister believes they should cover; the numbers are too large. Those people, too, will not qualify for DHPs to help with the rent shortfall.

The other option is to seek work at 29 weeks’ pregnancy. Is that reasonable? Do we think that a woman in late-stage pregnancy or who has a tiny baby whom she is perhaps still breastfeeding or who is recovering from a caesarean should seek a part-time job to get around the benefit cap? Even if she wanted to and was up to it, and could, those jobs are not there. Gingerbread has given me the stats. As of August 2015, two-thirds of those facing the benefit cap were lone parents. Of those, three-quarters had a child under five, half had a child under two and 10% had a child under one. On DWP’s Universal Jobmatch only 5% of jobs were part-time—and, even if such jobs existed, there is no entitlement to free childcare for a child under two.

So DWP recognises that a woman with a child under two does not come into work conditionality and is not expected to get a job, and it does not provide free childcare for her if she did. So in all consistency it should exempt such women from the cap. As it does not expect her to work, it should not punish her with a benefit cap as a crude way of pushing her back into the labour market, when its own policies say that this is not appropriate. If a woman, either heavily pregnant or with a small baby, is not expected to work, and if government accepts that it is reasonable for her to go on income support rather than JSA at that stage, which it does, why is she being benefit-capped when she can do absolutely nothing to change her situation and remove the cap?

As I say, in an earlier debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, we talked about the implications of maternal deprivation of nutrition, heating and eating. Is this what the Government would recommend to expectant mothers and those on benefit with newborns? No woman, mother or parent who has been in that situation could believe that that is what the Government want them to do: cut back their income, outgoings, food and heating to cope. That would be ugly beyond belief. In which case the Government must come up with an alternative strategy for her and accept this amendment.

What would it cost? Given that 10% of those affected by the benefit cap are lone parents with a child under one, I estimate that the cost would be less than £10 million a year for each year’s cohort. I repeat that this is a very targeted amendment, focused on women and babies at their most vulnerable.

There is one ray of hope. Given that if she is wise she will probably choose rent arrears rather than risk the health of her newborn by cutting back on heating or eating—that is what I would do—she may well end up in temporary accommodation, where, according to Shelter, over a quarter of capped households currently live. That number will soar as a result of the benefit cap. Hopefully, however, at least she will then have the cash to feed and keep warm her baby and any other children she may have. Of course, this will cost the local authority far more, DWP will export its costs on to the local authority, and her children may in consequence may not be school-ready and, because they are in temporary accommodation, may suffer developmental delays; we all know those early years findings. But no—DWP will have saved some £8 million to £10 million a year. Does the Minister really think it is worth it? I beg to move.

Baroness Sherlock (Labour)

My Lords, this amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis, would exempt from the cap women who are at least 29 weeks pregnant or responsible for a child under nine months of age. I thank my noble friend for making it clear to the House just what a perilous situation these women will find themselves in if things proceed as planned.

Some very strong arguments were made to me by Gingerbread as to why this particular group ought to be excluded. It suggests, first, that the group will find it most difficult to move into work to escape the cap and therefore will simply be pushed deeper into poverty. Of course, that is the last thing that it wants for a woman who is pregnant or has a very young child. Secondly, it points out that the Government want families on benefits to make the same choices as those who are in work. Parents in work have pregnancy and maternity rights, including an expectation that they will have some time away from work both when they are in the later stages of pregnancy and in the first months of their child’s life, so this exemption would mirror the rights of working families.

As my noble friend Lady Hollis pointed out, pregnant women and those with very young children are not listed as a priority group for discretionary housing payments, despite the complex challenges that they face as they move into work, and therefore they cannot have that to fall back on as other vulnerable groups might. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to these challenges.

In Committee, I tabled an amendment that would have excluded maternity allowance from the cap. I did so to probe the Government’s reasoning and particularly to try to find out what behavioural responses the Government were expecting of pregnant women. However, as I explained earlier, I could not get an answer from the Minister. The only thing that I got on maternity allowance was the same as for the guardian’s allowance: the response was that people would not be affected unless the household was also getting other benefits. As I have said, that is not an answer.

This amendment from my noble friend seeks to protect a very narrow group of people at a very vulnerable time. The Government’s usual response is that if someone wants to escape the cap, they should either get a job or move house. Can the Minister explain to the House what he thinks the chances are of a woman who is 29 weeks pregnant getting a job? How strong does he think her chances will be out there in the job market if she has not worked previously? Secondly, if that is not a practical thing for her to try to do, maybe he thinks she should move house. I do not know whether he has ever had to help a very heavily pregnant woman move house, but would he really suggest to her that moving house when she is very heavily pregnant or has a brand new baby is either desirable or practical, unless of course she is forced into it in the circumstances described by my noble friend because she ends up being evicted for rent arrears?

I just want to get the Minister to address the practicalities of this situation. This is a very narrow group of people. What do the Government expect them to do if they find themselves hit by the cap? Will he please tell the House?

Lord Freud (Conservative)

My Lords, as I have already set out, those with a sustained work history benefit from a nine-month grace period before the cap is applied to them. Therefore, those households that have been in employment for at least 50 out of 52 weeks will be exempt from the cap. This gives time for households, including those with a new child, to adapt to their new circumstances before the cap is applied to them.

Households in receipt of working tax credits or which meet the UC earnings threshold will be entirely exempt from the cap. Although some single mothers will not be immediately able to move into work, for those households consisting of couples, the partner need work only 24 hours a week for the household to qualify for the exemption. Around 45% of households that include a maternity allowance claimant who will be affected by the new cap levels are households consisting of a couple, meaning that a partner can help to exempt a household from the cap through work. Households that include a claimant in receipt of maternity allowance may also be entitled to working tax credits and so be exempt from the cap.

Although I am grateful to the noble Baroness for speaking on this issue and for the research that she has put into it, I am not sure that the amendment would do what is intended. It would not create a disregard or exemption from the cap for the specified group; it would, however, appear to make the group subject to a different prescribed list of benefits to be defined by the Government in regulations. That would of course go against the approach that the Bill adopts of providing certainty about the capped benefits by including them in the Bill. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

I thank my noble friend Lady Sherlock. The Minister’s answer is that if a woman has a partner, he can increase his hours and she will be okay; if she does not, the amendment is technically deficient and so she cannot be helped. Is that a fair summary of what the Minister has argued? I think it rather is. But what about the situation of a deserted mum? She has one or two children already, she is now pregnant and the man has swanned off.

What then? She has no partner who can increase his hours, she already has the care of children and she is up to or at the point of the benefit cap. She is now 29 weeks pregnant and trying to manage a budget, given she is in the private sector, that means she is probably unable to follow the nutritional guidelines and all the rest of it that is heavily recommended for her at this stage. I ask the Minister the same question that my noble friend asked: what is she supposed to do—apart from find another man?

Lord Freud (Conservative)

One of the things we have tested rather thoroughly through the courts is the role of discretionary housing payments for the kind of hard cases that the noble Baroness is so adept at finding. This is precisely where one would anticipate that provision, which is quite substantial, being used. The courts have found, again and again, that it is appropriate to use those payments for such cases because they are so hard to define in statute. Because of that difficulty, the flexibility of the DHP is the way to address the issue.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

In that case, why do such women not fall within the Government’s guidelines as having high priority for DHPs? As my noble friend says, they do not. Although I have not been able to verify it myself, I understand that, as a result of that, in most local authorities they do not get such money because the money is not there. They certainly, I suspect, would not get it for nine months after and up to two months before, or something like 11 months’ continuous payment, because local authorities cannot run it. They use DHPs to deal with temporary, immediate emergencies. Therefore, if the Minister means what he says, he should be giving guidance to local authorities that this should be a priority consideration and he should back that with the necessary money, which is not there at the moment, to do so. However, I see that he is standing up, perhaps to respond to that.

Lord Freud (Conservative)

I just want to make the point that DHPs can be used for the long term. They are not just a temporary thing and the guidance says that very precisely.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)

I do not know how many local authorities the Minister has spoken to about their use of DHPs, but that is not my experience. Obviously, I have not been able to test the opinion of the entire local authority movement, but certainly this is what I am assured. I have crawled over some of the priority considerations of certain local authorities and can assure the Minister that what he is saying does not hold good: there is simply not enough money.

As far as I can see, the only advice the Minister is offering is that these women should throw themselves on the mercy of non-existent DHPs from local authorities whose money is already spent, cross their fingers and hope. I do not think that is a policy. I do not even think it is appropriate for the Minister to possibly suggest that that is what they should rely on. However, at this point, and given the time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 26A withdrawn.

Amendment 27

Moved by Lord McKenzie of Luton

27: Clause 7, page 9, line 39, at end insert—

“( ) After subsection (11) insert—

“( ) Persons who have been placed in temporary accommodation by a local authority which has found them to be in priority need as defined in section 189(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (priority need for accommodation) are exempted from the benefit cap.””

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)

My Lords, Amendment 27 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock. This is also a rerun of an amendment that we moved in Committee, then part of a trio of similar amendments, so I will be brief.

The amendment would cause those families to be outwith the benefit cap if placed in temporary accommodation under the 1996 Housing Act. Regardless of whether the benefit cap has played a role, local authorities are legally obliged to rehouse families who are homeless through no fault of their own, are vulnerable in some way or are in priority need for rehousing. Families will be placed in temporary accommodation while a council decides whether it owes them a rehousing duty and then until a settled home can be found. The wait can be considerable, as can the costs. Invariably the temporary accommodation is leased by councils from the private sector, which charges the tenant a rent to cover these costs and expenses. These costs are commonly paid for by housing benefit with some top-up from DHPs.

Temporary accommodation is generally leased at a premium, placing a considerable burden on local authorities. We know that councils are already struggling to secure enough temporary accommodation as a result of the combined effect of limited funding and a shortage of self-contained accommodation. This is already leading to an increase in bed and breakfast use or people being rehoused away from their local area. The lower benefit cap will increase demand for homelessness services and exacerbate the pressure on the local authority supply of temporary accommodation. With more families affected by the cap, local authorities are likely to be forced into further subsidising the cost of such temporary accommodation. This will be difficult for cash-strapped councils, increasing the incentive to place families in the cheapest areas, far away from their support networks.

It will also make it harder permanently to rehouse homeless families, as the benefit cap will make alternative housing options unaffordable. For larger families, even social housing will be subject to the cap. The policy therefore risks the perverse scenario in which families are made homeless because of the benefit cap and trapped in the limbo of temporary accommodation by the benefit cap at the expense of the public purse. The amount that can be reimbursed through the local housing allowance is limited, which means that other costs over and above that amount must be met by local authorities. In some cases this will come from funding for discretionary housing payments but increasingly that seems to have been allocated—just this evening my noble friend has used a chunk of it—and it is a diminishing fund.

Our amendment would exempt newly homeless households from the benefit cap. This will allow councils to continue to procure nearby temporary accommodation and make it easier for them to move households into affordable accommodation. It will also help councils focus their DHPs and their own budgets on homelessness prevention. If the Government are serious about cutting back on public expenditure associated with the benefits system, and in targeting the benefit cap at families in a position to make choices about where they can afford to live, it is hard to see why they should argue against exempting homeless families being housed in temporary accommodation.

The Government resisted this approach previously because they said there would be no incentives for families to move into work; that they would stay put in their temporary accommodation and avoid the cap. What is the evidence for asserting that families would react in this way? Why would not families do their best to move out of temporary accommodation and move to more settled, better quality accommodation with more secure arrangements for as long as they are available, where a family could put down its roots? It is almost as though the Government are seeking to take advantage of people who find themselves homeless and consequently face an increase in benefit entitlement which draws them into the cap with work the only route out. They will be trying to find work at the same time as looking for permanent accommodation, potentially in an unfamiliar area.

It is not that households are making extravagant choices about their accommodation—they have to take what is on offer—and surely exempting these situations from the benefit cap is the fair thing to do. I beg to move.

Lord Freud (Conservative)

Amendment 27 seeks to exempt people in temporary accommodation from the benefit cap. I do not agree that it is appropriate to have a blanket exemption from the cap for people living in temporary accommodation. Rather, the best approach is to provide targeted support early so that people may better address their barriers to work. As I said in Committee, an exemption might, in fact, prolong a stay in temporary accommodation if it is likely that the cap will apply when a household moves to more permanent accommodation. That is an incentive both on the local authority and on the family.

I have already explained how £870 million in discretionary housing payments will be available for those households that need additional support in adjusting to the cap. Provision already exists to support the most vulnerable people who might be affected by the cap. Housing benefit paid to households in specified accommodation is disregarded from the benefit cap, and we included refuges within the definition of “specified accommodation”. While this does not mean that such households are exempt, by not including housing benefit in the calculation we expect that the vast majority of these cases will not be affected in practice by the benefit cap.

From April 2017, the weekly management fee in respect of temporary accommodation, currently £40 in London and £60 elsewhere, will be abolished and replaced with a grant that devolves this funding to local authorities. Unlike the existing management fee, this new grant will not count towards the benefit cap and that will help local authorities tackle homelessness more effectively. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)

I thank the Minister for his reply. None of it was a surprise, and I will, of course, withdraw the amendment in due course. I would just like to ask the Minister a few questions. He said that if there were a blanket exemption, this would prolong the stay of people in temporary accommodation. What evidence is there for that? Is it not generally the case that temporary accommodation is not of the best quality, and some of it pretty grotty? Why would families not want to move out of temporary accommodation as soon as they could to put down their roots in a more permanent arrangement? In relation to the grant, that seems helpful in principle, but on what basis is that grant going to be made available? Is it going to be ring-fenced for these situations, or just generally devolved to local authorities and caught up in the morass of funding and cuts that they are having to face?

Lord Freud (Conservative)

One of the most worrying aspects about temporary accommodation is that many cases have not been temporary. There have been cases where people have been kept in temporary accommodation for months, stretching to years. One of the reasons for that was that the only way it could be extinguished was by going into social housing. People were quite keen on that route through. That was changed in the 2012 Act so that it can be extinguished by going into private housing. Nevertheless, we want to incentivise councils to move people into settled housing as quickly as they can. Indeed, I think that the limit is 13 weeks. There are just too many examples; I do not have the exact number, but there are too many cases where it has gone on too long.

On the fee, funding previously paid to local authorities will become an upfront payment no longer tied to households remaining in temporary accommodation. The fund will be administered by the DCLG and the devolved Administrations. We will be able to give further details of that process in due course. That is all I have at the moment.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)

I am grateful to the Minister for that. I will read the record, but I am not sure that I would agree with the proposition about local authorities not wanting to move people into more permanent accommodation as quickly as they can, and away from temporary accommodation, which is expensive for them. Having said that, and given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

Amendment 28

Moved by Lord Freud

28: Clause 7, page 9, line 41, at end insert—

“(b) in subsection (4), omit “other”.”

Lord Freud (Conservative)

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended in its report of 23 November a number of amendments to the benefit cap clauses in the Bill. Amendments 29 and 30 are technical and consequential amendments as a result of the committee’s recommendations. Amendment 28 is a tidying amendment and not as a result of the committee’s recommendations.

Before I do that, I would like to explain that, although the committee recommended that Clause 7 should be amended so that new Section 96, which it inserts into the Welfare Reform Act 2012, should reference single persons, couples and lone parents, and provide for the meaning of those terms to be specified in regulations, the Government do not consider this to be necessary. Redrafting the provision in the way suggested would overly complicate the legislation. The Government have been very clear in debates and briefings that the higher tier of the cap levels will apply to lone parents and couples, and that the lower-tier levels will apply to single people without children. I am happy to formally put on record again here today that this is the policy.

Turning to the amendments that are being taken forward, the committee recommended that the affirmative procedure should apply to any regulations amending the level of the benefit cap, using the power introduced in new Section 96A of the 2012 Welfare Reform Act to be inserted by Clause 8. As currently drafted, the affirmative procedure is applied only if the level of the cap is lowered. The amendments to Clause 8 mean that any change to the levels of the cap will be subject to parliamentary debate in line with the committee’s recommendation. This is a considerable level of extra parliamentary scrutiny for these future decisions. I am sure that these amendments to Clause 8 will reassure noble Lords’ concerns that for any future review of the cap this House and the other place will have the opportunity to have the decision explained and debated, and to agree it.

The committee also highlighted that currently regulations pertaining to the benefit cap are not required to be referred to SSAC. It has recommended that an amendment be made to provide that regulations pertaining to the cap must be referred to SSAC. After careful consideration, the Government accept this recommendation in principle and will table an amendment at Third Reading to reflect this. However, the Government do not accept that regulations relating solely to the level of the cap should be referred to SSAC, as that is a matter for Parliament.

A consequential amendment to Clause 7 has been identified. It has arisen as a result of the removal of Section 97(3) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Section 97(3) provided that the first set of regulations made under Section 96 were affirmative. As the first set of regulations has been made, the removal of the word “other” from Section 97(4) is purely consequential on that. I beg to move.

Baroness Sherlock (Labour)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. We welcome the move to affirmative regulations and are happy to accept his assurance that the other amendments are technical and consequential. I look forward to his returning at Third Reading with details of the amendments relating to SSAC. I would like to ask him to come to Third Reading armed with some specific information. If the Government are not minded to make reference to SSAC in relation to the level of the cap, and given that all the benefits affected by the cap are now in the Bill, will the Minister come back and detail for us precisely what those regulations might refer to that are still available to be sent to SSAC? Will he come back at that point and give a better explanation, of appropriate length—I am not blaming him for not doing it now—as to why the Government do not think that the level of the cap should be referred to SSAC, given that that is probably the single biggest determinant of the impact on those affected by it?

Amendment 28 agreed.

Clause 8: Review of benefit cap

Amendments 29 and 30

Moved by Lord Freud

29: Clause 8, page 11, line 21, leave out from “subsection” to “may” in line 23 and insert “(4) insert—

“(4A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 96A”

30: Clause 8, page 11, line 26, leave out subsection (6)

Amendments 29 and 30 agreed.

Clause 9: Freeze of certain social security benefits for four tax years

Amendment 31

Moved by Lord McKenzie of Luton

31: Clause 9, page 11, line 32, leave out from “to” to end of line 33 and insert “be reviewed annually by the Secretary of State having regard to—

(a) the rate of inflation, and

(b) the national economic situation.”

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)

My Lords, in moving Amendment 31 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock, I shall speak to our other amendments in this group. Noble Lords will be aware that this is also a rerun of the amendments discussed in Committee. We found the Government’s arguments on that occasion less than convincing. As they stand, Clauses 9 and 10 provide for the freezing of certain working-age benefits for four years until 2019-20. This would follow the 1% uprating imposed in 2013. Our amendments would require that these benefits instead be reviewed annually, taking account of inflation and the national economic situation.

We understand that the benefit freeze is designed to contribute to the Government’s cuts programme, and it is alarming that this measure will garner the Government some £3.5 billion in 2019-20, compared with a CPI uprating. This comes on top of benefit cuts and tax increases borne under the coalition, where the IFS reminds us—I raised this figure earlier—that, as a percentage of income, the poorest two deciles suffered the largest reductions. The End Child Poverty alliance reminds us that some 4.1 million families and 7.7 million children have already been affected by below-inflation rises over the last three years. As my noble friend Lady Lister pointed out in our previous debate, the inflation index does not properly capture the budgets of low-income families because they spend more on essentials, the costs of which have tended to rise faster than the average price index in recent years.

My noble friend Lady Sherlock articulated our major concern with the freeze, which is that it both cuts the link between prices and earnings and widens the gap between the income of the poorest and the living standards of the mainstream of society. It is part of a growing trend under this Government to uncouple eligibility for support from need. Our amendment would not preclude the Government freezing working-age benefits for four years, although it has manifesto cover for just two. It would at least cause the Government to confront the extent to which they are causing the poorest to miss out, and to account for their actions.

The Government’s rationale was that those on certain benefits—JSA was one—have done too well in the past few years in comparison with earnings and the minimum wage, and that the trend needed to be reversed. On 21 December, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, told noble Lords that the Government had struck,

“a balance between the needs of claimants and affordability”.—[ Official Report , 21/12/15; col. 2388.]

Perhaps we can hear how the needs of claimants have been assessed for these purposes. On what basis has it been determined that claimants can accommodate a real-terms reduction in their income for each of the next four years? What rate of inflation have the Government assumed in making this judgment? The noble Baroness told the House that 7% of global expenditure on social protection is spent in the UK, which has only 1% of the world’s population. Is it now the Government’s serious intent to benchmark UK social security spending against some of the poorest countries in the world?

So far as Amendment 32 is concerned, I look forward to hearing from my noble friend—and, indeed, namesake—but, so far as the support group is concerned, his amendment seeks to ensure that the full amount of the allowance is to be the subject of uprating, not just the support group addition. I wait to hear what he says, but it seems to me entirely reasonable, particularly since those in the support group are not able to work, so issues of work incentives have no application—but, equally, such individuals are generally unable to supplement their income. I support my noble friend’s amendment and I beg to move.

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein (Labour)

My Lords, I support Amendments 31, 33 and 34 in the names of my noble friends Lady Sherlock and Lord McKenzie of Luton. However, I shall concentrate on Amendment 32, which is almost but not quite the same as an amendment tabled in my name in Committee. I regret and apologise that I was unable to be in the House on that day. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for moving that amendment on my behalf—more importantly, perhaps, on behalf of people with life-limiting illnesses such as motor neurone disease.

In speaking to that amendment, the right reverend Prelate reminded the Committee of the promises made by the Conservative Party in the run-up to the general election. I want to refer to that promise again, writ large in its manifesto, which was to always protect the benefits for the most disabled. Despite that promise, the Bill before us does not fully protect people with life-limiting illnesses such as motor neurone disease and other similar rapidly progressing ghastly conditions. Either the words in the manifesto say what they mean and mean what they say or they do not. As of this moment, these promises are not being kept. Going some of the way is what has happened in the Bill—and some of the way is not fully protecting, and is not always protecting, benefits for the most disabled. Unless this amendment is agreed, or the Government come forward at Third Reading with something to produce the same outcome, they will have failed to keep that manifesto promise. I do not believe that is good enough in a modern, civilised society, where people with life-limiting illnesses should not be expected to suffer any more financial hardship than is the inevitable consequence of their illness.

People with motor neurone disease frequently end up having to build bedrooms and wet rooms downstairs, adapt furniture and face all sorts of costs. Couples who may have been reasonably comfortably off rapidly find themselves in considerable debt. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham put it:

“Those whom we cannot reasonably expect to support themselves should not be expected to shoulder the burden of austerity”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2405.]

The most disabled will lose perhaps more than £250 per annum by 2020 because the basic rate of the employment and support allowance is not exempted. I appreciate that the amendment in my name is rather complicated, but it is a serious attempt to right a potential wrong. If it is too complicated, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of government to find another formula to produce a result that will give the full protection that is needed.

In Committee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham expressed the hope that Ministers would give the matter further and serious consideration. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, said in response that benefits,

“are designed to provide a basic standard of living to those who are not in work but at a level that does not disincentivise moving into work”.—[ Official Report , 21/12/15; col. 2406.]

People with life-limiting illnesses such as motor neurone disease are not disincentivised from going to work. They cannot go to work—would that they could. There is no behavioural change that people with these dreadful illnesses can make to get back into work. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, concluded by agreeing that,

“we absolutely must provide suitable protections for disabled people”.—[ Official Report , 21/12/15; col. 2407.]

However, she then did not support the amendment. The meaning of “suitable” is very different from the meaning of “full protection”, as was promised in the manifesto. A great many people with life-limiting illnesses, and their organisations such as the Motor Neurone Disease Association, take a great interest in what the Government will now do. I hope the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, will be able to say that he will bring something back at Third Reading along the lines of this amendment, which will honour the promise that the Government made in their manifesto in the run-up to the election.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)

I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I do not wish to spend too much time restating the same points that were made in Committee so I will keep my remarks brief. First, I address the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which replace the provisions in the freeze with a duty on the Secretary of State to review the benefits in question, having regard to inflation and the national economic situation.

I remind noble Lords that the provisions in Clauses 9 and 10 contribute £3.5 billion of the £12 billion of welfare savings by 2019-20 that the Government are committed to. The Government have a £35 billion consolidation plan, as the Chancellor set out in the summer Budget and the joint Autumn Statement and spending review, and we are on target to achieve a surplus of around £10 billion by 2019-20. The savings that the freeze provide therefore represent a significant proportion—10%—of the work that remains to be done through this Parliament to restore the nation’s finances.

Noble Lords have argued that these amendments would merely place a review on the freeze rather than remove it altogether, but they would remove the certainty provided by a legislated-for four-year freeze. This would lead to increased uncertainty about where the Government intend to find the necessary savings to restore the nation’s finances and could decrease market confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver their target surplus by 2019-20. Noble Lords have also raised concerns about the impact of this freeze. I reiterate that there are no cash losers to this policy and that inflation is still forecast, by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, to be relatively low over the next two years, providing time for benefit recipients to adjust their finances to compensate. Furthermore, OBR forecasts at the Autumn Statement projected average earnings growth of around 3.9% by 2020, higher than projected inflation at around 2%, meaning many working families can expect to see the impact of the freeze offset by their rise in earnings. The annual average income of the poorest fifth of households has risen by £300 in real terms, compared to 2007-8.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, regarding employment and support allowance. This amendment seeks to place into legislation a requirement for the support group component of ESA to be uprated by an additional amount above the amount it would otherwise be uprated by. This additional amount would be equal to the difference between the current main rate of ESA and that rate if it were uprated by inflation. I should remind noble Lords that, as said in Committee, those in the ESA support group receive an additional amount on top of the personal allowance—the support group component—which we have specifically exempted from the benefits freeze. Furthermore, the enhanced disability and severe disability premiums within ESA are also exempt from the freeze, as are benefits which contribute towards some of the additional costs of disability such as disability living allowance and personal independence payment.

Noble Lords will be aware that spending on main disability benefits went up by over £2 billion over the course of the last Parliament, and that the proportion of those in relative poverty who live in a family where someone is disabled has fallen since 2010. We believe that we are continuing to provide important protections for the most disabled through the exemptions we have from the freeze, and that this amendment is therefore not required.

In conclusion, the Government believe that the freeze strikes a necessary balance between making important welfare savings while having in place the protections for the most vulnerable and disabled. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. If the Government are to be in surplus in 2019-20, why is it necessary for any benefits freeze to extend into that year, whatever the rationale for earlier years? The noble Baroness said that there are no cash losers, but we know what that means: in real terms, people are going to miss out. Specifically, I refer the noble Baroness to my question about what she said in the previous debate about the balance being struck between—in her words—the needs of claimants and affordability. I ask again: how were the needs of claimants assessed in that determination?

The response to my noble friend, who made a compelling case, was deeply disappointing. In any reasonable understanding of language, the commitment made in the manifesto has not been met by how this issue has been dealt with this evening. I ask the noble Baroness to reflect again to see whether the Government could at least come back on the issue raised by my noble friend. As he outlined, those with life-limiting injuries are the most disadvantaged and are missing out. This is simply not fair.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)

As I said in relation to the disability element, we have exempted quite a number of elements from the freeze, so we believe that we are ensuring that disabled people continue to get support and that the most vulnerable are protected. In more broad terms, we need to ensure that benefit spending is sustainable in the long term.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)

Is that it? Given the hour I think there is no point in pursuing this, except to ask whether, on that point, there is nothing further the Government wish to say to my noble friend Lord MacKenzie in relation to those people who find themselves in the support group and are undoubtedly short-changed by the way that the Government have dealt with this uprating.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)

As I have said, we are protecting certain elements of disability benefits. We understand the needs of disabled people which is why, as I set out in my response, a number of elements are being kept outside the freeze. Overall, we have increased spending on the disabled and will obviously continue to try to ensure that they have the support that they need.

Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)

My Lords, we are clearly not going to make much further progress this evening. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment but it is deeply disappointing that this issue of the support group has been dealt with in this way.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

Amendment 32

Tabled by Lord MacKenzie of Culkein

32: Clause 9, page 11, line 33, at end insert—

“( ) For each of the tax years ending with 5 April 2017, 5 April 2018, 5 April 2019 and 5 April 2020, the amount of the support group component of employment and support allowance is to be up-rated in accordance with Part X of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (review and alteration of benefits) plus an additional sum equal to the difference between the value of the basic allowance of employment and support allowance as subject to subsection (1) and what the value of the basic allowance of employment and support allowance would have been had it been adjusted for inflation for the specified year.”

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein (Labour)

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton I find it deeply disappointing that the Government cannot take this away and give it some further consideration. It reminds me of the days when I used to be lead negotiator for Britain’s nurses and midwives. The management side across the table used to give us answers which I knew were not theirs but those of the Treasury. I think that is the case here again tonight. We are dealing with the dead hand of the Treasury but, unfortunately, they are not across the table where we can negotiate with them. I am sorry that we have reached this sad situation on behalf of people with these life-limiting illnesses.

Amendment 32 not moved.

Amendment 33 not moved.

Clause 10: Freeze of certain tax credit amounts for four tax years

Amendment 34 not moved.

Consideration on Report adjourned.