By Maeve McGoldrick
The previous few weeks have been a whirlwind of political debate and media coverage on all things welfare. The Welfare Reform Bill is reaching the end of its journey through parliament and the most contentious issues in the bill are, as we expected, causing a storm of rebellion against the coalition government.
The abolishment of the discretionary element of the social fund was debated the same day as our media coverage, but in the end the amendment was withdrawn. We’ve a new one for Third Reading making Local Authorities accountable for delivering this crucial service to the people in our communities who are in a crisis.
This Monday, the Government was defeated in a vote on its plans for a £26,000-a-year household benefit cap. Liberal Democrat, Labour and crossbench Peers backed The Bishop of Ripon andLeeds’ amendment that child benefit should not be included in the cap.
After a meeting with Lord Freud a few weeks ago, where we asked for Jobcentre Plus advisers to use proper guidance on discretion for issuing sanctions, Lord Freud said he would work collaboratively with us and other expert organisations to develop these. He ‘absolutely agreed’ with the need for clear guidance for officials, that decision making will be in line with the Westbury Principles, which we recommended, and decisions should take into account all relevant matters a person raises, including health and finances. Lord Freud went on to say-
“We must ensure that our training and guidance equips advisers and decisions-makers with the tools to understand the circumstances and needs of vulnerable claimants, such as homeless claimants and those with mental health conditions. We must also ensure that the notifications and explanations of decisions to impose sanctions or penalties are clear, straightforward and easy to understand. I accept that there is room for improvement here, and we will make that improvement. I assure noble Lords that, as I have just committed, we will work with stakeholders to ensure that guidance, communication products and decision-making processes are suitably tailored to meet the needs of the range of universal credit claimants.”
Despite a consensus on this policy, government asked for the amendment to be withdrawn because ‘we do not think there is a need to set out a general duty in primary legislation to take into account relevant considerations or to give reasons as part of the decision-making processes.’ They also refused to make changes to the introduction of a civil penalty (if a person doesn’t notify the jobcentre of mistakes immediately, even if it’s the Jobcentres error, they will get fined £50 automatically.)
The benefit cap, the abolition of the social fund, sanctions and a new civil penalty run the risk of hitting the more vulnerable, the poorest the most. Rather than embedding DWP accountability into all of these policies so they are delivered responsibly, government argues that people can always appeal the decisions if they are believed to be wrong.
Worryingly that will be even harder for many people as government is also cutting the main source of funding for advice agencies helping people to appeal. The Legal Aid Bill – only a step behind the Welfare Bill in the Parliamentary Process but intrinsically linked – will completely remove funding for legal advice on welfare benefit issues, including reviews and appeals. Legal aid pays for advice centres like Community Links and Citizens Advice Bureaux to provide the specialist help people need to challenge government decisions. Peers from all parties made clear their opposition to the move, but so far government have given no ground. They claim advice on welfare benefits is not a matter of ‘life, liberty, or homelessness’ and that the Ministry of Justice “do not propose to devote these limited public funds to less important cases on the basis that they could indirectly lead to more serious consequences for that person.”
For both Bills the next few weeks will be all important; we will need to take on government’s arguments and demonstrate public pressure to get continued support from opposition, crossbenchers and those that have rebelled. With such contentious issues that impact on the poorest the hardest and question the role of state support for society and for upholding the law, we urge Members of both Houses of Parliament to take their roles particularly seriously over the next few weeks, as these significant changes are passed into law.