Autumn Statement Distributional Analysis, Universal Credit and ESA

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

It most certainly is not. The reason for the rise in inflation—to something between 2% and 3% next year, according to commentators—is, quite simply, that the pound has crashed, and the reason the pound has crashed is that investors do not have confidence in the UK economy, and who caused that? It is a direct consequence of Brexit, through the referendum, which was the misjudgment of the previous Prime Minister.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not see an inconsistency in his argument, given that only a few years ago, his party was campaigning to leave the United Kingdom and, by virtue of doing so, the EU?

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Gentleman has made a gross misjudgment. When we were campaigning for independence for Scotland, it was about securing Scotland’s future as a European nation. Those in the Better Together campaign continually told the people of Scotland that our European future would be secured only by staying with the UK. Well how has that worked out? I am glad that the Scottish Parliament has given a mandate to the Government of Scotland to make sure we protect Scotland’s position as a European nation and remain within the single market, and, through that, to ensure we protect the prosperity and jobs of the people of our country.

Let me come back, if I may, to the subject we are supposed to be discussing.

Universal Credit Work Allowance

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whiteford]

They were certainly showing a fair bit of dynamism yesterday morning. I was really glad that I did not have to work with them. I partly agree with the hon. Gentleman. The insecurity of the modern labour market means that people move in and out of part-time work more often that they did in the past. It is important that we create a system that responds to that. My problem is that the Government are undermining their own process with their transitional arrangements, but I will say more about that in a second or two.

There are people all over my constituency—and in everybody’s constituency—who work extremely hard already in low-paid, tiring and not exactly pleasant jobs that are neither interesting nor glamorous. They are often doing that while they are juggling family responsibilities, looking after children or, increasingly, elderly and infirm relatives. For many of them, taking on extra hours depends on that work not just being available, but being available at a time when they have access to childcare. Let us face it, young children cannot get themselves out to school in the morning. They may not be able to walk there safely on their own. They cannot just be left unattended at home for several hours after school or get their own tea. Many working parents have to juggle work and family commitments. Indeed, one reason why so many women are trapped in low-paid, low-skilled jobs, even when they have high-level skills and qualifications, is that they are the primary carer in their household and they are trying to fit work around their family responsibilities. The Catch-22, of course, is that it is a lot easier to do that juggling if they are in a well-paid job.

I have a very serious question for the Government that echoes the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West. Many of those who work in low-paid jobs in Government Departments, including in the DWP, receive tax credits or universal credit. Will their employer offer them a few wee extra hours to compensate them for the loss of their work allowance? Will the DWP specifically—I hope that Ministers can answer this one—offer extra hours to its own staff who are set to lose out, or will it impose in-work conditionality on them instead? If the Government cannot or will not commit today to supporting their own staff, they have no business putting the onus on other employers to miraculously conjure up extra work for people.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

No—I have moved on, so I am going to keep making progress.

It is important that we understand that new claimants for universal credit will be significantly disadvantaged compared with those still claiming under the old tax credits regime. We have been told that there will be transitional protections for those being migrated from the old system to the new, but my understanding is that the transitional protections for existing claimants will evaporate if there is a significant change to their circumstances such as a new job, having a baby, or the breakdown of a relationship. The difference will be enormous. In the coming financial year, a one-earner couple with two children will take home nearly £800 a year more on the old tax credit system than they will if they have been moved on to universal credit. That is a huge disincentive to change one’s circumstances. People who are already on very tight budgets will be very reluctant to increase their hours or take a promotion if it might leave them worse off. Once again, this undermines work incentives, and it will make people reluctant to take promotion, change their hours, or move to a different employer. To come back to the point raised earlier, it will erode the dynamism of the system by which the Government have set such store today.

I think these disparities are going to cause real ill feeling in our communities. Co-workers who are doing the same job alongside each other, earning the same salary and living in similar family circumstances, could be receiving wildly differing levels of support. I do not know how the Government plan to sell that to people in low-paid work. I certainly would not want to have to try to justify it to my constituents; it is manifestly unfair. What is also deeply problematic is that some parts of the UK have been transitioning to universal credit before others, so there will inevitably be regional disparities in the areas where a higher proportion of claimants have been migrated. Why should people living in Hammersmith, Rugby, Inverness, Harrogate, Bath and Shotton—the areas where universal credit has been rolled out first—receive less support, on average, than those in the towns and cities that are last in the queue? The Government admit that at least 700,000 people will still be on the old system by the end of next year. That is a recipe for discontent among those who have served as the guinea pigs.

Cutting work allowances will not achieve the outcomes the Government claim. The way to reduce social security spending is to fix the economy—to create jobs and boost productivity. That reduces the need for spending on social security and raises tax receipts. We need to name the cuts to the work allowance as what they are—an assault on people in low-paid work as part of a failed, needless, ideologically driven austerity programme that has held back economic recovery and stifled productivity. The Government have made the wrong choice. They have a chance today to rethink these cuts, which will reduce work incentives and trap low-paid families in poverty. There is an alternative to austerity. Their short-sighted, counter-productive cutting of work allowances will hurt working people. I hope that the Conservative Members who expressed reservations about the tax credit proposals will understand that this cut will hit many of the same people in much the same way as they move on to universal credit, and that they will join us in the Lobby this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

It must surely be a fact that Members in all parts of the House want to see more people in good jobs. This must be a central focus of any Government. There is a pragmatic economic argument for this, as well as a social and moral argument. Labour’s policies in this area were no doubt well intentioned, but proved to be expensive, bureaucratic and in some cases—too many cases—counterproductive.

The growth in job vacancies in the UK economy today is a reflection of the success of this Government’s policies and provides opportunities for people currently out of work and people who want a better job. Some 2 million more people are now in work, which means that we are creating 1,000 jobs every day. Estimates vary, but there are between 750,000 and 1.2 million more vacancies in the economy than before the recession. On a parochial note, I welcome the latest figures showing that the number of people in my constituency, Braintree, claiming jobseeker’s allowance or universal credit fell by 110 in 2015. There has been a staggering 59% drop since the economic and welfare reforms that the Government introduced in 2010.

However, looking forward, we have to ask why we have so many vacancies, yet so many people under-employed. Surely the past welfare system must be a contributory factor. We can recognise the impact of perverse incentives without vilifying the unemployed or the under-employed. At no point in this debate have I heard the word “scroungers” uttered from the Government Benches, but many times from the Opposition Benches. That is unfortunate.

We have all had people in our surgeries saying something along the lines of “I am working my 16 hours.” How on earth have we come to this? If taking more work brings extra paperwork, extra uncertainty but little extra money, is it any wonder that so many people decide not to do it? This is fundamentally wrong and must be rectified if we are serious about dealing with long-term under-employment.

Universal credit extends financial incentives to people working less than 16 hours per week and removes the limit on the number of hours that some people can work. The single 65% taper helps claimants clearly understand the advantages of working and planning for the long term. As a Conservative, I want to give people real choices in life. A life trapped on welfare is a life without choices. It is our duty to change this and give people a well-deserved chance to make the very best of themselves and their families. The financial imperative is important, but just as important is the fact that universal credit is a means of getting more people into work and more people into good work.

I have listened to the contributions from Opposition Members. Their arguments are all based on people not changing their circumstances. This fundamentally misses the point of universal credit. I want people to change their circumstances. If they are trapped in low-paid part-time jobs, I want them to change their circumstances. If their employers will not invest in their training because they are only on 16 hours a week, I want them to change their circumstances. If they are stuck on the minimum wage, I want to see them able and confident to get better jobs and therefore change their circumstances. Universal credit will be a game changer. I welcome it and I commend it to the House.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That will indeed be the subject of one of our amendments, because at the moment carers who do not live with the person they are caring for are caught by the cap, and they should not be.

I want to turn to the impact of the Budget changes on tax credits and on universal credit, some of which are in the Bill and some not. Of course the increase in the minimum wage is welcome, but it does not make up for the measures in the Budget, though mostly not in the Bill, that cut tax credits for working families. The claim that they do make up for it—the Secretary of State repeated it in his speech—is, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, “arithmetically impossible”. The problem will be especially bad in the next couple of years. The increase in the national minimum wage is phased in over five years, but big tax credit cuts hit immediately next year. Over 3 million working families will lose over £1,000 a year on average, and work incentives will be cut. That is the reason we voted against the Budget. When the Government bring forward the statutory instruments to implement those huge cuts to the incomes of working families, we will vigorously and fiercely oppose them.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Do Labour Members not understand the fundamental idea that being in work should always make people better off than being out of work? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman lead his party through the Lobby in support of the proposals in this Bill that make people better off for being in work?

[Stephen Timms]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman did not understand the Budget. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Budget reduced the income of 3 million working families by over £1,000 a year on average, and in many cases it lessens the incentive for the first person in a household to go into work. He need only read the very clear analysis of that point by the IFS.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

James Cleverly Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I shall give way in a moment; I just want to talk about the other deficit: the current account deficit, where our trade gap with the EU has worsened and our balance of payments problems have set alarm bells ringing at the Bank of England. The Chancellor’s priority should be to build up the productive capacity of our economy so we can pay our way in the world, but we are still too vulnerable to external turbulence. It should not be neglected in this way. Britain’s current account deficit has widened to 5.9% of GDP, which the OBR states is

“the largest annual peacetime deficit since at least 1830”.

The OBR also reveals that the Chancellor is £367 billion short of his £1 trillion goal on exports that he promised by the end of this Parliament.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has said several times that he is willing to support sensible measures to reduce the welfare bill. Can he assure the House that that comment will survive the imminent leadership elections in his party? [Interruption.]

[Chris Leslie]

Is the hon. Gentleman talking about the imminent leadership elections in the Conservative party or the Labour party? I do not know what is going to happen in the Conservative party leadership contest. There were of course a few little jokes about the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), and we will see how that pans out. I know that other Cabinet Ministers are a little concerned about the way that the Budget panned out for them; it is going to be difficult for them over the next few years.

This was the Chancellor’s second Budget in four months. He said in March that that was his Budget for the longer term, yet four months on he has delivered a different plan to a different agenda. He has been chopping and changing, with three different sets of figures in the past nine months alone—so much for his consistency. We learned more about the Chancellor and the nature of this Government in one hour of his Budget speech than we learned in the months of the election campaign. In March, when the Work and Pensions Secretary was pressed about where their £12 billion of welfare cuts would fall, he said:

“As and when the time is right, we will make it very clear what our position is.”

Is it any coincidence that the time is right for these Conservatives two months after an election rather than two months before it?

Before the election, the Conservative manifesto assured us that there would be only a two-year freeze in working benefits, but yesterday the Chancellor doubled that to a four-year freeze in most working-age benefits which will take £4 billion from households by 2020-21. That is one of the fastest-broken promises in political history. [Interruption.] There is an awful lot of noise from Conservative Members. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) because he has been trying to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We have the spending review to address such issues. In my Department here in London I took on contractors about paying the London living wage, and I faced exactly the same debates and arguments about how it was not feasible and how they would face high costs. I insisted that they went away and looked at their productivity. My Department in London instituted the London living wage. Not one job was lost and productivity has improved. I would consider the matter carefully before we take those official statements as the reality.

[James Cleverly]

Is there an economic imperative and also—perhaps more importantly—a moral imperative that, in the relationship between employer and employee, the employer ensures that the employee receives a salary on which they can live? It is not right that the Government make up the shortfall between employer and employee.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree that the principle behind the tax credit system has instituted a non-progression period for people locked in low incomes, and I will return to that in a moment.