---

Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2008

My Lords, I have grave reservations about these regulations and believe that it is entirely right for the House to ask the Government to think again about them. The regulations have provoked strong opposition from those involved in the sector. The evidence base for saying that they will achieve their objective is weak. No impact assessment has been conducted. The DWP has not even consulted on them. In default of the department’s doing so, the Social Security Advisory Committee carried out a consultation, which, although it lasted only a month, attracted an unprecedented number of responses. As a result, in an unusually critical report, the committee argued that the changes would cause hardship to the most vulnerable in society. To cap it all, as we have been told, the Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments expressed its disappointment with the way in which the DWP presented its proposals and with the fact that an evidently controversial measure was laid during the Recess and came into effect on the day that the House returned. In other words, the measure has effectively been slid through while everyone was looking the other way. I welcome government initiatives to simplify the benefits system and to improve the administration of benefits, when such reforms work to the advantage of people claiming benefit or, at any rate, do not actively work against them. One would imagine that reducing the number of benefits claimed by disadvantaged individuals and placed on overworked staff could only be a good thing. However, this attempt at simplification, which reduces the capacity for individuals to secure backdated pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit, appears to benefit only the administration and seems actually to work to the detriment of those experiencing difficulties with making benefit claims. That cannot be a good thing. Evidence-based policy making should lie at the heart of government reforms, yet with these regulations the Government appear intent on ignoring both expert advice from the Social Security Advisory Committee and the unprecedented number of representations from organisations and individuals who have expressed concern about the impact of the regulations on vulnerable groups, as well as the Government’s own targets to reduce poverty. For older people, removing the ability to claim back 12 months’ pension credit, if they are eligible and choose to do so, conflicts directly with the aim of reducing pensioner poverty. Figures in the Social Security Advisory Committee’s report indicate that in 2006-07 40 per cent of new claims were backdated for more than three months and 25 per cent of the total—some 70,000 claims in all—were backdated for 12 months. Although that is only a small proportion of the total, it is still a significant number. The Government state that people claiming means-tested benefits should claim as soon as they become, or think that they may be, entitled to benefit, rather than wait to claim, but that rather misses the point that many people find out that they can claim only some way down the line. With more than 20 per cent of eligible older people still not claiming their entitlement to pension credit, one would have hoped that highlighting the possibility of an increased income through claiming pension credit, along with the possibility of 12 months’ arrears where applicable, would serve to promote take-up and significantly improve this situation. It is clear that many older people delay in making claims for pension credit for a variety of legitimate reasons, whether it is from a lack of knowledge, a lack of confidence or a simple lack of information. In these circumstances, removing their ability to request backdating is simply a recipe for increased pensioner poverty. The DWP’s own data demonstrate that the reduction in backdating will particularly affect older pensioners—those who are 75 and older—and the Merits Committee refers to anecdotal evidence that suggests that those with certain disabilities, such as mental health impairments or communication difficulties, are more likely to have benefited from the longer backdating period. The Merits Committee states that the objective of the instrument is unclear. It goes on: "““We are not clear how this fits with the Department’s overarching aim of working to end poverty in all forms””." Moreover, the committee questions the fitness for purpose of the regulations, even in pursuing the department’s own narrower departmental interests. It says: "““We note that, although paragraph 8.2 of the EM””—" the Explanatory Memorandum— "““accompanying the instrument states that these changes will reduce public sector administration costs for both DWP and local authorities, this is not supported by an Impact Assessment””." With the housing benefit regulations, I can at least welcome the Government’s change of heart in allowing six months’ backdating as against their original intention to reduce this to three. However, this is stated to be only a temporary measure before a further reduction is imposed, so this must remain a real concern. The Social Security Advisory Committee argues that housing benefit is unlike other social security benefits in that a significant number of applicants claim it only after they have become badly in arrears with their rent and are threatened with eviction. In difficult economic conditions, such as we are currently experiencing, introducing measures that many respondents to the Social Security Advisory Committee consultation predict will increase homelessness cannot possibly be justified. The Government say that they want to avoid complacency among people in vulnerable groups but, if complacency is suspected as being the reason for a person not making a claim, then their claim for backdated housing benefit can simply be disallowed. People need to demonstrate good cause for not having claimed earlier. Very often there will be good cause, which may be related to things such as domestic violence or other traumatic life events, mental health problems, a lack of appropriate support and so on. Until we are convinced that vulnerable groups are able to access early interventions and effective advice and support services, these regulations will have serious and long-lasting consequences detrimental to the Government’s poverty pledges and welfare-to-work strategies, which rely on people having security of tenure and the certainty of a home to enable them properly to engage with the system and improve their circumstances. I support the Motion calling on the Government to revoke these regulations.