---

Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling these amendments, which clearly demonstrate her commitment to reducing pensioner poverty by addressing the poor take-up of council tax benefit among pensioners. We have already done much to tackle pensioner poverty. I have referred to the 900,000 pensioners whom we have helped out of poverty since 1998. We are committed to ensuring that pensioners receive the support to which they are entitled, which is why we have already simplified the claims process. Since November 2008, pensioners can claim housing benefit and council tax benefit with pension credit entirely over the phone. The claim is forwarded to the local authority without the need for a signed claim form. I should say to my noble friend Lady Hollis that the change of name should not impact on the passporting of benefits. It is too soon for some of the recent measures we have taken to have fed through into the latest take-up figures. Nevertheless we accept that there is scope to do more. We have engaged now in several debates on this matter. I set out the Government’s position at Report, last Tuesday. This is a change which we wholeheartedly support and a power that we intend to use. We have been convinced by the arguments so eloquently presented by the Royal British Legion and my noble friend in recent months and have demonstrated that we intend to make this small but significant change to help to remove a barrier so that pensioners take up the help they so richly deserve. The Government have already said that we intend to make this change. The amendment moved in this House last week, now Clause 35 of this Bill, provides an order-making power which will allow the name change from benefit to rebate to be made quickly when we have completed the essential work needed to successfully implement the change. We have listened to the debate and understand the strength of feeling so clearly expressed by noble Lords again today and by the Royal British Legion on this matter. Because of this, we want to go further. The amendment that I will move shortly will confirm that the order-making power can be used only to change the name of the entitlement to council tax rebate—a very clear commitment, I believe. In her amendments today, however, my noble friend has pushed us further, by seeking in Amendment 3 to substitute the word "may" with "shall". I appreciate that the use of one word over another can make a big difference, and could help to provide the further assurance that noble Lords are looking for on this matter. I am therefore happy to accept this amendment and state unequivocally in the Bill that the Government intend to make this change. I hope that this reassures my noble friend, and I am indebted to her for giving the Government the opportunity to make it crystal clear. I know that concerns remain over the timing of the change; we have heard those again this afternoon. My noble friend has proposed a further amendment to gain some more certainty of the date for implementation. I will, however, have to ask her to withdraw that amendment, as we just cannot commit to a timetable at this point. Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend, aims to firm up the timing of the change. It seeks to commit the Government to the laying of the first order before Parliament within three months of the coming into force of this Bill. It goes further in requiring approval by resolution of each House of Parliament for all orders made under the power—not just the first. I shall deal with that aspect later. Clause 59 provides for the commencement of the provisions of the Bill, and under it those provisions will therefore come into force on the day appointed by order made by the Secretary of State. As I have already made clear, the Government are committed to making the change as soon as is reasonably possible, but it is not possible to make any commitment to a timeframe at this stage without first completing the detailed work needed to assess the practicalities for local authorities and the precise costs involved. That will require reasonable time in which to properly consult them about the impact on their operational delivery of council tax and benefits, and on the best way to help customers take up the entitlement. It is of overwhelming importance to ensure that when we implement the change it is done properly and effectively, so that it can make the difference we all desire—to help customers understand what help they are entitled to, and not to be put off from applying for it. It will take time to get that right, and with the best will in the world, changes—even one that looks as straightforward as this—cannot happen in a short space of time. One element of it is taking the time and care to deliver subordinate legislation that is accurate and provides all the necessary safeguards for claimants. That will have to be informed by discussion with local authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that whatever is done, and whenever, is effective and workable. Three months is not a great amount of time to properly consult local authorities and to prepare regulations, but more important than the drafting process are the practical issues. I have already spoken about the extensive changes needed to computer systems. There are some 380 local authorities using several different systems. References to the benefit are embedded in IT systems used by each and every local authority, and in various parts of central government that link to those systems to facilitate easier claiming. All of those references will need to be changed. Local authorities must have at least six months lead-time for making changes involving IT, and some changes—even those that appear straightforward—take a lot longer, particularly when the effect is far-reaching. Changes will also be needed to DWP computer systems, including those that provide the essential link with pensioner customers at the point of claim. Programmes for changing IT in DWP are always heavily subscribed, and it is essential to allow adequate time so that a previously unplanned change of this scale can be accommodated without risking other scheduled changes. It is not only IT systems that are affected. References to council tax benefit are made in a wide range of forms and leaflets, not only those relating to claims to the benefit, but in other information issued. In response to our soundings, one local authority has submitted a list of 115 letters that would need to be changed. Moreover, local authorities and advisers must be in a position to effectively convey what this change means in order for it to have the impact that we all want. If we are to avoid confusing existing and potential customers, all of these references—in forms, leaflets and letters—will need to be changed. Simply telling people that we have changed the name while continuing to talk about council tax benefit in leaflets, forms and computer-generated letters would, I suggest, be a recipe for chaos. There is a danger that that confusion could actually reduce take-up. It is also likely to be critical that we should time the introduction of a new name with the start of the new financial year, so that arrangements can be made to send information of the change with new bills. That is the only sensible time to implement the change of name, and will be much more cost-effective than making a mid-year change. I want to assure noble Lords again that we will work closely with local authorities and key partners to carry out this work as quickly as possible. We have already begun that process, but I hope that noble Lords will understand and accept that it is simply not possible to set out a timetable at this stage. The second amendment tabled by the noble Baroness also provides that it should be not just the first use, but any subsequent change in use of the order-making power, which would require the approval of Parliament through the affirmative procedure. At Report, I drew the attention of the House to the Delegated Powers Committee recommendation on this matter, and I explained that we would return at Third Reading to amend the Bill accordingly. In fact, the government amendment that we have laid goes further, by amending the name to council tax rebate. This means that we no longer need to set out the circumstances under which any further change to the name would require the approval of Parliament by affirmative resolution. It will simply not be possible for there to be a subsequent change of name, and the circumstances covered by the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee will therefore never arise. Furthermore, I suggest to the House that Amendment 7, in the name of my noble friend, would, if moved, constrain disproportionately the Government and the House itself. We would want to introduce changes as soon as possible; to enable that to happen, one possibility might be to bring in an element of phasing to local authorities that were ready, or phasing by category of customer. If that were to be the case, we would not want to take up unnecessary parliamentary time by requiring Parliament to debate subsequent orders that did nothing more than rolling out the change to the remaining local authorities and customers. Noble Lords raised several additional points in their presentations. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, pressed me on the timeframe. I think that I have explained why we simply cannot give one, much as we would like to. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, we do intend to use this power. This is not about kicking matters into the long grass. Forgive me if I do not take the opportunity to comment on the prospects for a change in Government, or for David Cameron. I am sure that we shall have another opportunity to do that. My noble friend Lady Hollis asked about discounts on council tax for ex-service personnel. Discounts for particular categories of people are down to individual local authorities; that is the policy of Communities and Local Government, but I am happy to write further on that. As I explained, I am happy to accept the first amendment tabled by my noble friend, but I urge her not to proceed with the second as we simply cannot commit to a timeframe, and certainly not to a timetable of "within three months". That is simply not deliverable, and it would be quite wrong for me to stand here and suggest otherwise to noble Lords.