Hansard

I am pleased to be able to speak in this stage 1 debate. As members have pointed out, the bill is quite technical; as such, it will probably not get the attention that it may deserve. However, it is always worth mentioning as we make changes to such laws that we are dealing with significant changes to people’s lives.

In the short time that I have, I want to focus on section 1 of the bill, on appointees, which is pertinent to a young man whom I know, who is a coach. That young man’s foster parents, who have looked after him for nine years, are truly remarkable. I have nothing but admiration for the job that they have done in bringing up him and his sister. They introduced him to athletics and he has become an excellent athlete, winning a bronze medal at the European championships and qualifying for the world championships, with the goal of going next year to the Paralympics.

That young man and his sister have foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. If anyone met him, however, they would probably decide that he was an enthusiastic young man, always smiling—and always complaining, as it happens, about training. Sport is important to someone with that kind of condition, because it introduces a sense of order and commitment.

During the past nine years, his foster parents have done an incredible job—so much so that he is now studying at college and is doing exceptionally well. He has moved out of the family home, is living in a shared flat, and can cook and clean and do all the types of household chore at which I am particularly bad.

I can see how an assessment for benefits would be particularly problematic. However, his ability to handle money is in question. When he asked for his foster mother to be able to collect and look after his finances, that was turned down. He is smart enough to recognise that he has a weakness, but the system could not accommodate his request. The net result has been that, not having previously had to deal with that level of finance, he has struggled. For example, one of the first things that he did was to go out and buy himself a pair of £200 trainers—that certainly does not constitute good financial planning.

That highlights to me the need for the law to adapt to people in such circumstances. In giving people as much freedom as possible to live their lives, we must also be able to recognise that, in certain circumstances, there may be limitations that have to be taken into account.

That is why I think that section 1 is on the right lines, in its provision for appointing a person to receive benefits on someone else’s behalf, if the claimant agrees to that appointment; and in the enabling of an adult who does not have parental rights—which applied in the instance that I have mentioned—to manage a child’s benefits in those circumstances.

However, the bill would allow ministers to

“terminate an appointment at any time”,

and says that they “must” do so if the consent is withdrawn. That needs more careful consideration. Decisions that are made in a fit of pique are not always or necessarily in the best interests of the benefit recipient. That thought is probably for the next stage of the bill.

I do not quite understand the bill’s provision to allow “Ministers” to appoint. I am not sure that that is the right terminology.

There is much to consider about putting in place the correct checks and balances—a few members have mentioned that—but, for me, the bill takes the right direction of travel. As I have said, Conservative members will support the bill at decision time.