Clause 16
Welfare Reform Bill
4:45 pm
Tim Boswell (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Daventry, Conservative)
I welcome you, Mr. Hood, back to the Committee. We are anxious to make progress and therefore I will not detain the Committee long.
Dealing with the generality of the clause—this is not a clause stand part debate, and I hope not to make a speech on that—we could interpret the amendment as being about the wording and the construction of the clause, as it would leave out one of its crucial subsections. We should probably impart one further dramatis persona to the Committee in the shape of Kafka, because the idea of prescribing something as capital or income that a person does not possess, or it is a disregard—income to be treated as capital, capital to be treated as income—is overtly in that vein. I would be more than delighted if I could make that particular case to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, but I am more concerned that it might catch the habit and start interpreting my tax schedules along those lines.
The explanatory notes on the clause are long and particularly helpful. I shall make one other obiter remark. The Bill is constructed rather like Beethoven’s symphonies: the odd-numbered clauses are weighty and important, whereas the even-numbered ones are lighter but nevertheless perfectly delightful.
We have good meaty explanatory notes, so I simply ask the Under-Secretary to assure the Committee—I think it is clear from the explanatory notes that everything in the provision is precedented and will be tied down in regulations—that in connection with the treatment of capital and income, the provision will not be some kind of arbitrary game, as I jocularly suggested, and that it will be precedented in relationto other benefits and tied down to particular circumstances, such as the wilful evacuation of capital assets, with which we are fairly familiar in respect of other benefits.
Having worked on the pension credit legislation some years ago, I know that most people do not think that the tariff for income is particularly generous to the claimant. I shall not reopen that issue, but perhaps the Under-Secretary could give the important assurance that she would anticipate that, unless there is good reason to the contrary, the same approach would be taken in relation to all benefits. This is like jobseeker’s allowance, but the capital tariff, or the notional income, is treated as if it were more or less the same as pension credit. It would be unfortunate for the Department’s business if those got out of line.
I want to reinforce what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said about voluntary work. It is an important pathway into employment, and it is important to encourage rather than discourage it. The level of notional income should be set with that in mind.
I have recently been in correspondence with the Princess Royal Trust for Carers about some exchanges that I had on other matters to do with the position of disabled people who have family responsibilities. I believe that currently nobody is treated as notionally in work because, notwithstanding their condition, they have some family caring responsibilities, although the Under-Secretary will be able to reassure the Committee on that. The issue has not been much mentioned.
I invite the Under-Secretary now or in response to a later clause, possibly in relation to private schemes, to reflect on the importance of disability employment advisers and personal advisers reviewing the situation not just of the person before them as the claimant but of their family. That will obviously influence how they are available for work, the kinds of things that theycan do, and the constraints that they are under. Understandably, and without prejudice to our earlier exchanges about work load, case load, box-ticking and the rest of it, people will often tend to consider the claimant’s situation without necessarily looking at the family in the round.
Several hon. Members properly raised the issue of child poverty. We will not unlock that problem unless the solutions for those now claiming the allowance are eased or accommodated as far as possible to meet their family circumstances. Having said that, the amendment is tabled in a certain spirit, and we are anxious to make progress. There is no essential difficulty with the clause, so I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) to discuss disregards in relation to a later amendment.