Government urged to change ‘terrible’ name of Troubled Families initiative

The Government should consider changing the “terrible” name of its Troubled Families initiative to stop people feeling stigmatised, peers have said.

The programme aims to turn around the lives of thousands of families by tackling often interlinked problems like addiction, absence from school and anti-social behaviour.

But a number of peers believe the name is unhelpful.

Liberal Democrat Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope said: “We need another name for this programme.

“Troubled Families is a terrible name. I don’t know – we should have a competition. It might be too late. They are sadly more troubled for being called troubled.

“We really, really, really need to think carefully about this.”

Labour’s Lord Beecham said: “It does imply certain stigma and it would be better with a more neutral terminology applied to it.”

Labour’s Baroness Sherlock said families want help to get out of trouble and “not to be branded”.

The issue was discussed as the House of Lords debated the committee stage of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.

A number of amendments were tabled relating to the Troubled Families initiative, specifically on how the Government measures progress under the scheme, but they were subsequently withdrawn.

Responding for the Government, Baroness Evans of Bowes Park told the House that the Troubled Families initiative has a “track record of success”.

She said the original programme helped more than 100,000 families “struggling with a multitude of problems”.

“As with the original programme the Government has asked local authorities to provide information that will enable us to assess its impact.

“This includes understanding what is being spent on families and the savings that are being achieved through local cost benefit analysis.”

The Bishop of Durham suggested the welfare of children in the proposals should be given greater consideration.

The Rt Rev Paul Butler said: “Inevitably, whichever level the benefit cap is set at, it will affect children.

“So it’s surely essential that the secretary of state is required to consider the impact on children’s welfare rather than leave it to being a possible other matter considered relevant.

“Sadly, all of us in the business of economics, politics and high-level decision-making can lose sight of the child.

“I see it happening in the House of Bishops, in the General Synod of the Church of England, I see it happening in local authority decision-making and I see it in national decision-making.”

Work and pensions minister Lord Freud said the revised welfare cap of £23,000 a year in London and £20,000 outside the capital will create “a strong work incentive”, adding this will ensure “fairness”.

He said: “We consider the impacts with regard to all relevant legal obligations when formulating the provisions of this Bill.

“The welfare of children is at the heart of our reforms. It’s important children grow up recognising the value of work. Work provides purpose, responsibility and role models for children.”

Labour’s Baroness Drake sought to make the case for exempting kinship carers – where a child lives with a relative or family friend full-time because they are unable to live with their birth parents – from the Government’s benefit cap.

She said: “When we discussed this issue on the 7th of December I found the minister’s response on kinship care profoundly worrying.

“He was pressed on his failure to acknowledge that a family taking in other people’s children are not doing so by some concept of voluntary freedom of choice as normally understood, they are choosing to take on the responsibility of vulnerable children rather than abandon them.

“The minister, the noble Lord Freud, responded, ‘clearly there is a difference between the voluntary and involuntary taking on of children, whether they are your own or anyone else’s, that is what exemptions are for, we are seeking to draw the line between whether it is involuntary, as in the case of rape, and where it is not’.

“The impact of that statement shocked many in this House on that day because in effect the minister was saying if a kinship carer takes on responsibility for vulnerable and distressed children that decision was voluntary and therefore not worthy of state support.”

Lady Drake said she found that reasoning “quite extraordinary” and “quite dreadful”.

Lord Freud responded: “The Government does recognise the service that kinship carers and others provide and the Bill continues the current provisions for foster carers, kinship carers, family and friends carers.

“If they, or a child for which they are caring, are in receipt of an exempt benefit the cap will not apply.

“In addition, any payments received from the local authority for providing care will be disregarded from the benefit cap.

“Finally there is a nine-month grace period whereby the cap may not be applied to those who have recently left sustained employment.

“This will give time for kinship carers who may have had to leave employment to take on their additional caring responsibilities to adapt to their new circumstances.”

Peers also raised concerns over a four-year freeze on working-age benefits, with the Government dismissing calls for the policy to be reviewed annually to take into account changes in the economy – such as potential growth.

Lord Kirkwood said he found the four-year freeze to be “completely unjustified”, adding his generation live in an “austerity-free zone”.

He noted the Government argued it had a mandate for such a measure for the general election.

But the former MP said: “Well, certainly not in Scotland they don’t. I think the evidence for that is pretty clear.”

Lord Kirkwood said he worries about the consequences at the Scottish elections next year, adding: “This will not have escaped the notice of some of the more hardline nationalists north of the border, which is not in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom – and I’m sure of that.

“I feel really, really cut off at the knees in trying to explain to people north of the border what’s going on.”

“Of course, the Conservatives – and I understand this and it’s the difference between us – for people like us, the benefits system is perfect, there’s no problem about it, we can cope with it, we’ve got choices, we’ve got wealth to fall back on, we’ve got resilience, we’ve got family, we’ve got friends, we’ve got bank accounts.

“For the 10%, 15%, 20% lowest household income levels that people have to struggle with right now, never mind in 2020, it’s very, very different – not just difficult, but different.

“It’s different because they have no choices whatsoever and this is piling pressure upon pressure.”

He added: “I’m in the retired group. I’m sitting in a house that I bought for £12,000 in 1972, which is probably worth £600,000 or £700,000 and all I pay is a frozen community charge north of the border, which is de minimis.

“So my generation and people like us are sitting in an austerity-free zone as far as I’m concerned. That’s how I see it.

“And I meet people all the time who are getting hit left, right and centre in ways they cannot control and they’ve got no choices about avoiding.”

Peers were unable to discuss all amendments to the Bill proposed for debate during today’s committee stage sitting.

The legislation will undergo further scrutiny at a later date.

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2015, All Rights Reserved.