---

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

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the excellent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I absolutely concur with him that monitoring the fruits of these regulations is essential. If the Minister could say something about that in his response, it would assist me considerably. The House owes a considerable debt to my noble friend Lady Thomas. She has a reputation for being absolutely at the front end of all matters relating to debt advice and citizens’ advice, and she works extremely hard. The sincerity with which she made her case was certainly impressive. I also think that the Merits Committee has done the House a signal service. That committee is establishing itself as a powerful tool in pinpointing things that should command the attention of a wider audience. It has done that in an exemplary way and I am deeply grateful to it for drawing these regulations to our attention and suggesting some questions with which to tax the Government. They all have merit and I hope that the Government can respond to some of them. I also commend the Social Security Advisory Committee. An essential part of any ineffably complex benefits system requires experts to work out what is important. Had it not had the foresight and presence of mind to institute the consultation, the 75 or so responses, to which my noble friend rightly referred, would not have reached the public domain. That has enabled the debate this evening to be informed. I do not think that beneficial change for one group should ever be at the expense of other low income, disadvantaged groups. When we boil all this down, that is what happens under these regulations. The costings in the additional Explanatory Memorandum will take some £155 million out of the pension credit costs for the department in fiscal 2008-09 and £105 million fiscal 2008-09 out of the working age budget for the department. As my noble friend said in her introduction, this is absolutely the worst time to think about doing any such thing. It is true that the gestation of the regulations was more than a year ago—probably in the balmy summer of 2007 when things were different and the economic context was entirely more benign and beneficial. We are now on the brink of a Pre-Budget Statement when the Government are expected to reach deep into their pockets to help exactly the kind of people that these regulations affect by taking £155 million and £105 million respectively from the two groups involved. That is perverse. The left hand of government does not seem to know what the right hand is doing. The timing of the regulations is puzzling, except to say that the department has been trying to do this for a long time—probably more than 10 years. As well as the budgetary savings, which are perverse for the reasons I have explained, one of the real reasons behind the Government being forced to introduce the regulations is the administrative burden facing the department in the current comprehensive spending round. The pressure in Jobcentre Plus, the introduction of ESA, Welfare to Work, and all those changes with a much reduced staff complement is probably one of the drivers for this. I hope not because that would be completely unjustifiable. I have no evidence for that suspicion but I suspect that it is behind the provenance of these changes. My noble friend made powerful reference to the Government’s directives. Public Service Agreements 16 and 17 are two principal policy drivers for the current 2008-11 Comprehensive Spending Review period. The first, is entitled, PSA Delivery Agreement 16: Increase the proportion of socially excluded adults in settled accommodation and employment, education or training. The changes that the regulations introduce for the working-age population will do precisely the reverse. The second document refers to PSA Delivery Agreement 17: Tackle poverty and promote greater independence and wellbeing in later life, which is precisely what the regulations will not do. The Government are facing in the wrong direction even measured by their own policy objectives. Your Lordships’ House needs to weigh that in the balance when deciding whether the regulations should be revoked. I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, who criticised the fact that there had been no independent evaluation of some of the changes. Some administrative changes are welcome in terms of the ease with which people can make applications via call centres and the integration of the work of the department and local authorities. They are welcome but there is no way of knowing that just because that has happened, they will mitigate the effect of the savings that the Government are making in the regulations. Any self-respecting Government should have had some sort of evaluation so that people could make a judgment on the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Low, rightly said that this is a critical SSAC report. It is measured in everything that it does because it has a positive relationship with the department, and rightly so. In relation to the Government’s claim that this is a simplification measure, the SSAC report states on page 31 that that is ““entirely unconvincing””, which is a damning verdict. The SSAC does not reach such conclusions lightly. I have been reading SSAC reports since I was a boy—goodness help me—and this is one of the most critical that I have ever come across. The Government’s addendum to the Explanatory Memorandum rubs salt in the wound. It retrospectively adduces the increased uprating of 4.2 per cent for pension credit and a one-off additional winter fuel payment as part of this package. We were not told that this was part of the package when we got the 4.2 per cent uprating, which admittedly is over the legal limit that the Government are obliged to introduce. But we were not told at the time that some of this would be clawed back 12 months later as part of a package of simplification measures. If that is the kind of thing we will experience in future, we should be warned that Budget changes might be clawed back as part of a retrospective package some months later. I have another question coming from where I do. The Scottish local authority relationship with the department is not as straightforward as in England and Wales. I am not sure about Northern Ireland but I suspect that there may be some difficulties with the direct line of guidance and authority that runs from central government in Whitehall to local authorities. Some of the mitigating factors that the Government are founding on require more sensitive guidance and directions being sent to and implemented by local authorities. I have no confidence because I do not know whether that will be given effect to north of the border. Your Lordships’ House should bear that in mind. I am very concerned about the regulations. Of course simplification is a worthwhile goal. I do not believe that any of these simplification measures were ever considered as an outcome of the benefit simplification unit. We have a group of professionals in the department whose task is to come up with simplification schemes. I would bet a monkey to a mousetrap that these regulations were never anywhere near the benefit simplification unit, which gives the game away about whether this is a simplification or a cuts measure. The good cause rules are a very effective way of targeting resources. They are not easily overcome. Indeed, many good cause claims have to go to appeal before they are allowed. Good cause as part of a backdating regime is a perfectly sensible way to proceed. A simplification with a standardised approach across the whole benefits system could be a default back-claiming of three months and would allow people to go back the full 12 months on the basis of establishing good cause. That would be a bit more expensive but it is not easy if one is the claimant. As it applies the good cause test, it guarantees that it would target the money that we are careful about spending, and rightly so. Having said that, I welcome the temporary reprieve. The working age reprieve for another 12 months is sensible, but only because it gives us extra time. We must use that time to get the evaluation that noble Lords have called for. There is no way other than getting qualitative, quantitative or both types of research in order to drill into what that means. I do not believe that the Government will come back in a year’s time, because it will be shown that these changes are so retrogressive that they will not bother, but they will quietly shelve this proposal to complete the regulations in the next 12 months. We need to get research between now and then to try to pin down what the consequences will be. These regulations are counterproductive. They will tend to increase child poverty and homelessness, and they are more trouble than they are worth. I hope I can persuade my noble friend to press this to a Division, if she feels so minded. I shall certainty support her if she does so.