My Lords, this amendment relates to a situation that we touched on earlier, when we were debating the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Gingerbread reports that if a single parent with two primary school children is expecting a baby next month, just at the time when her needs increase she will lose £32 in housing benefit because of the benefit cap. The amendment is tightly targeted and would exclude women in late pregnancy—at 29 weeks or beyond—and for nine months following the birth of a child, from the benefit cap.
There are three reasons for this, which I hope the Minister will address. The first is parity with the rights of women in work, the second is consistency with the DWP’s own benefit conditionality rules, which do not apply when a child is under two, and the third is concern for the health and well-being of mother and baby.
On parity, the Government want parents on benefit to face the same choices as parents in work. The Minister has repeated that several times today. Yet when those in work—better-off people—enter late pregnancy or care for a newborn, they rightly get protection and income that reflect their situation. Those on benefit may instead face a benefit cap and therefore an income cut. Parents in work have pregnancy
and maternity rights. They can commence maternity leave at 29 weeks, at which point a mother will be eligible for statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance, both of which run for 39 weeks; maternity leave is of course for 52 weeks.
Women in late pregnancy or with a small baby, who are on benefit and faced with the cap, have just two options. First, they can move to cheaper housing to cut their outgoings. That is almost impossible, yet they do not qualify for DHPs. I know that the Minister places such huge reliance on DHPs, but I know from experience of local authorities that they do not look anywhere near the groups of people the Minister believes they should cover; the numbers are too large. Those people, too, will not qualify for DHPs to help with the rent shortfall.
The other option is to seek work at 29 weeks’ pregnancy. Is that reasonable? Do we think that a woman in late-stage pregnancy or who has a tiny baby whom she is perhaps still breastfeeding or who is recovering from a caesarean should seek a part-time job to get around the benefit cap? Even if she wanted to and was up to it, and could, those jobs are not there. Gingerbread has given me the stats. As of August 2015, two-thirds of those facing the benefit cap were lone parents. Of those, three-quarters had a child under five, half had a child under two and 10% had a child under one. On DWP’s Universal Jobmatch only 5% of jobs were part-time—and, even if such jobs existed, there is no entitlement to free childcare for a child under two.
So DWP recognises that a woman with a child under two does not come into work conditionality and is not expected to get a job, and it does not provide free childcare for her if she did. So in all consistency it should exempt such women from the cap. As it does not expect her to work, it should not punish her with a benefit cap as a crude way of pushing her back into the labour market, when its own policies say that this is not appropriate. If a woman, either heavily pregnant or with a small baby, is not expected to work, and if government accepts that it is reasonable for her to go on income support rather than JSA at that stage, which it does, why is she being benefit-capped when she can do absolutely nothing to change her situation and remove the cap?
As I say, in an earlier debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, we talked about the implications of maternal deprivation of nutrition, heating and eating. Is this what the Government would recommend to expectant mothers and those on benefit with newborns? No woman, mother or parent who has been in that situation could believe that that is what the Government want them to do: cut back their income, outgoings, food and heating to cope. That would be ugly beyond belief. In which case the Government must come up with an alternative strategy for her and accept this amendment.
What would it cost? Given that 10% of those affected by the benefit cap are lone parents with a child under one, I estimate that the cost would be less than £10 million a year for each year’s cohort. I repeat that this is a very targeted amendment, focused on women and babies at their most vulnerable.
There is one ray of hope. Given that if she is wise she will probably choose rent arrears rather than risk the health of her newborn by cutting back on heating or eating—that is what I would do—she may well end up in temporary accommodation, where, according to Shelter, over a quarter of capped households currently live. That number will soar as a result of the benefit cap. Hopefully, however, at least she will then have the cash to feed and keep warm her baby and any other children she may have. Of course, this will cost the local authority far more, DWP will export its costs on to the local authority, and her children may in consequence may not be school-ready and, because they are in temporary accommodation, may suffer developmental delays; we all know those early years findings. But no—DWP will have saved some £8 million to £10 million a year. Does the Minister really think it is worth it? I beg to move.