Baroness Thomas challenges shortening of backdating period for benefits. (Knowsley Liberal Democrats)

Baroness Thomas challenges shortening of backdating period for benefits.

November 11, 2008 2:24 PM
Originally published by UK Liberal Democrats

Baroness Thomas presented a strongly worded motion to the House of Lords yesterday, challenging social security changes that cut the backdating period for a range of benefits from 12 months to 3.

"This House deplores the way that the Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2008, laid before the House on 15 September, cut the backdating period for pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit in most cases from 12 months to three months, and were:

(a) presented with inadequate evidence to support the policy; and

(b) laid during the Summer Recess to come into force on the day Parliament returned, thus not allowing Parliament to consider them before they came into effect; and

calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the regulations because they are likely to increase the number of evictions, and cause particular hardship to older pensioners and those with mental health impairments (SI 2008/2424)."

Pension credits, housing benefits and council tax benefits were all affected by the changes to Social Security regulations. Baroness Thomas explained the reasons for the initial longer backdating period:

"The rationale...was that it was a new benefit that was only brought in five years ago and was not widely known about. The Government believe that this is no longer the case. However, there are still many pensioners, possibly as many as four out of 10, living in poverty who are not claiming pension credit, in spite of government efforts to reach people who may have an entitlement. That is something the Government themselves have admitted. They also admit that the change in backdating rules could affect older claimants more and those with mental health problems or physical disabilities."

She stressed that, even during the short consultation period permitted, the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) had been highly critical of the measure, as had a number of well-respected organisations:

"Citizens Advice says that it is often called in when pensioners are literally running out of savings for everyday living, and it says that the 12-month backdating can be a lifeline for such people. There are two other groups of pensioners whose circumstances mean they do not immediately engage with the benefits system when they could be eligible; those whose partner dies, with all the upheavals that brings, and those who suddenly find themselves looking after grandchildren, perhaps following a family break-up. In the last instance, unless the new backdating rules are abandoned, this will almost certainly lead to more child poverty."

Lord Kirkwood pointed out that the reduction of the backdating period conflicted with wider government policy:

"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 manner in which the regulations were implemented was also criticised. The amendment was laid down during the summer recess of Parliament and came into force on the first day Parliament came back. Commented Baroness Thomas:

"...one cannot help feeling that they were trying to sneak it in under the radar. Tabling a controversial statutory instrument during a parliamentary recess to come into force on the day that Parliament returns makes a mockery of one of the main purposes of Parliament, and certainly of opposition parties, which is rigorous scrutiny of the Executive."

Baroness Thomas cited the SSAC's dismissal of government claims that the changes simplified benefits procedure:

"We have concluded that the department has offered neither adequate evidence to support its case for change nor a convincing proposal for mitigation of the potential negative impacts of the change".

The motion to revoke the regulations was defeated by 54 votes to 84.

Read Baroness Thomas' speech in full here

Read Lord Kirkwood's speech in full here

Knowsley Liberal Democrats