Welfare Reform

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

He may be after my hon. Friend’s vote, in which case we will have to do some quiet talking. It is a ludicrous position to take. We now have a Labour party in opposition which prefers to defend the very wealthiest, and a coalition that wants to defend the worst off.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Universal child benefit is the most effective benefit for reaching the poorest children, more effective than means-tested benefits which are designed for them. Can the Secretary of State enlarge on the implications of his comments last week that child benefit will, in due course, be subsumed into his new universal credit? Should I therefore assume that there is no prospect, regrettably, of a universal payment being reinstated when the economy recovers?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady is right that child benefit has been and will continue to be a very effective mechanism to get money to the poorest families. We are not eradicating the universal benefit in the case of child benefit. We are capping it off at the higher rate. The rest—[Interruption.] Well, 85% of the public will get their child benefit. The hon. Lady asked specifically about the universal credit. I did not say that it would subsume child benefit. I said that as we reform the benefit system, and as the PAYE system is reformed, we should be able to look at these things long after the spending review and look for ways of getting rid of anomalies. Right now, in the spending review, there are no plans to make any such changes. We will do exactly as I said. Child benefit will be removed from families where there is at least one earner above the threshold.

Low-income Households

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing an important debate, which has been constructive and thoughtful thus far. From the long dealings I had with the Minister before I became a Member of Parliament, I know that she will want to think about the concerns that my hon. Friends and I have raised this morning. She will want the Government’s policies to be as effective and constructive as they possibly can be in meeting the needs of the poorest and most disadvantaged in society.

I shall focus on a number of the Government’s announcements so far where there seem to be a set of policies that work against the Government’s own objectives. A number of policies reveal contradictions, inconsistencies or discrepancies between what Ministers say they want to achieve and what their policies are likely to do. I highlight, in particular, Ministers’ objectives of increasing employment, simplifying the benefits system and making work pay.

The coalition Government have repeatedly, and I think unjustly, criticised Labour’s record on reducing poverty and inequality, but they have indicated none the less that they intend to do better and reduce poverty and inequality further. Ministers have emphasised that they are keen to encourage responsibility and self-reliance by encouraging people to save for the future and addressing problems associated with high levels of personal debt. They have talked about their wish to strengthen families and communities and build a big society, and many of us are trying to understand the details of some of that.

Those objectives have much to commend them. Indeed, they are similar to the objectives that Labour sought to promote when in government. However, many of the policies that have been announced so far are likely to take matters in the opposite direction. I am keen to give the Minister an opportunity to respond to those concerns and indicate where there might be some scope for Ministers to think again. I believe that the raft of changes to benefits and tax credits that have been announced so far will make the poorest worse off and will not meet Ministers’ goals.

Let us look at one of the most significant changes, the decision to link the future operation of benefits to the consumer prices index, which I believe will increase relative income poverty, particularly in a time of rising unemployment. Ministers are keen to emphasise their long-term vision of reduced unemployment as more people move into work in the private sector, but not all their ambition is supported by the projections of bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the TUC. Therefore, it is important that we accept, while seeking to promote increased employment, that a substantial number of people will be dependent for at least some time on safety-net benefits and that linking those benefits to the CPI will inevitably make the poorer worse off.

For families with children, child benefit is important. It is simple, straightforward and has an extremely high level of take-up. It is effective in reducing poverty and, because it is not means-tested, making work pay, but Ministers have decided to freeze it. That is a perverse move for a Government who say that protecting work incentives and strength in families is top of their list of priorities. Child tax credit, which my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North mentioned, acts as both an in-work and out-of-work benefit for families, but Ministers plan to remove the family element and sharpen the taper as income increases. That, too, is a work disincentive.

Refusing to go ahead with the free school meals pilots means a further disincentive. Many parents with low incomes say that the loss of free school meals is one of the biggest shocks to the household budget when they move into paid work. On paid employment, reducing the cushion for the recovery of tax credit overpayments from £25,000 of income to £5,000 will penalise people who return to work mid-year and add complexity to the system. Ministers are keen to reduce complexity, and rightly so.

My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) rightly drew attention to the concerns in London about the measures relating to housing benefit that have been announced. I can assure you, Ms Clark, that they cause just as much concern in Trafford, the borough in which my constituency sits. Reducing housing benefit for those who remain on jobseeker’s allowance for more than 12 months is a particularly punitive policy for those who might be doing as much as they possibly can to get into work but who are furthest from the labour market. Of all the announcements that we have heard on housing benefit, that is one on which, across the board, we strongly urge Ministers seriously to think again.

Reducing the rent that will be received by social landlords as a result of the introduction of the cap on housing benefit, and then reducing local housing allowance to the 30th percentile, means that social landlords will have fewer funds available to devote to social and employment programmes. Several social housing providers have already indicated that the loss of a couple of hundred thousand pounds from their budgets will mean that those employment programmes will have to go. Furthermore, we can certainly see that in some parts of the country people faced with those cuts in their housing benefit will be forced to move to lower-cost housing in other parts of the country, and those lower-cost areas are the least likely to have jobs available.

We can also expect a worrying increase in homelessness. In Trafford we already have 12,000 people on the housing waiting list, and we can expect the situation to become worse, particularly for larger families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North has mentioned, the measures, far from reducing costs to the Exchequer and to local authorities, will significantly increase costs by forcing greater use of costly temporary accommodation. We can also expect to see more families falling into arrears and debt, although it is Ministers’ stated intention to reduce the personal debt burden.

We should also be concerned about the impact on mixed communities, and Ministers have rightly spoken a great deal about their wish to protect and secure community cohesion. My hon. Friend touched on non-dependant deductions. With regard to supporting families, the decision to increase non-dependant deductions is likely, for example, to put families with young people still in the family home under great pressure to keep those young people in the family home and will penalise pensioners who may have adult children still living at home.

There are many concerns about the true impact of those measures, and they seem to work against Ministers’ stated goals. None of that is simplification. For example, why are the housing benefit changes, if they have to come in, being introduced in two stages next year? That is difficult for tenants and landlords to plan for. Surely it would make more sense to do everything later in the year after there has been proper time to prepare. Housing benefit has long been seen as a potential candidate for simplification through the creation of some sort of housing credit within a broader tax credits and benefits system, but the complexity that is now being introduced is likely to make that less achievable in the medium term, not more. A further example of complexity that Ministers are unnecessarily and inappropriately introducing into the system is medical testing for disability living allowance, a benefit that has nothing to do with a claimant’s medical needs.

I will also mention the policies that have been announced that seem to damage Ministers’ wish to create a savings culture. The axing of the savings gateway and the child trust fund seems absolutely to work against their wish to see low-income households seeking to save more. There are real concerns about how all that adds up to the big society. Not only will the cuts in public service spending put great pressure on communities and public services, but charities in my constituency are already expressing concern about how they will continue to fund the support they provide to the most disadvantaged. I know that will be a concern for the Minister, and I am anxious to hear from her on that.

Our concern is not only about the impact on the most disadvantaged families and the fact that the Budget fails the fairness test, but that many of those measures, since they are at odds with Ministers’ stated intentions, call into question the Government’s competence and the direction in which they truly seek to go. I strongly urge the Minister to think again about policies that seem to be taking us in the wrong direction, before the comprehensive spending review does more damage and takes us further away. I know that she will want to respond in full to those concerns and take note of them when formulating her thinking for the comprehensive spending review. It is important that we have the fullest and most constructive debate possible on that between today and 20 October.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorely Burt]

I am not sure that what I am saying is not relevant. I shall discuss the effects of the reductions that we will make, but I contest the hon. Lady’s claim that many of them are not fair. Well researched though her presentation was, there are things that she cannot know—a great deal is still to come from the Government.

Much of what has been presented has been based on speculation, and there is a great deal of scaremongering at present. Clearly, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) said, people are afraid. The time to become afraid is when we see what the Government are proposing. They are trying hard to make their proposals as fair as possible.

I want to make a second point about why we are doing this—it is the legacy. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said that we must take a grip of the existing situation. That would apply whatever party were in government. I am declining the invitation of the hon. Member for Westminster North because I want to talk about the issues that she wants to me to raise. She mentioned the report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I do not claim to be an expert, but it was selective in what it chose to raise, and it ignores some of the major parts of the Budget, including changes to tax credits, the increase in income tax personal allowance and freezes on council tax. It does not take account of the choices on which measures in previous Labour Budgets to continue and which to reverse, or the effect of future Budgets.

The debate on the effect of Government policy is legitimate, and all parties must be prepared to discuss that, but with respect, the debate is happening too soon. The way in which the vast majority of changes to Department for Work and Pensions policy and savings in the welfare budget will be implemented will not become clear until after the departmental spending review in October. Any debate before then is bound to be based on media speculation, of which we have had sufficient.

One reason for the consultation on departmental spending is to ensure that the difficult decisions are not made lightly, and that any cuts are made in a way that protects those on the lowest incomes. Alongside the cuts is a radical programme of core Liberal Democrat policies specifically targeted at people on low incomes—the income tax pledge, the pupil premium and the re-linking of the basic state pension to earnings. However, in the coming weeks and months, the Government must ensure that they focus on ensuring that those groups most likely to be on low incomes are protected, specifically disabled people, older people, young people and people who are long-term unemployed.

[Kate Green]

It is absolutely right to want to protect the most vulnerable, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning the disabled, but are we not already seeing increasing numbers of disabled people going through the new work capability test for employment and support allowance and being found to be ineligible for that benefit, and being pushed on to the lower level of jobseeker’s allowance? Can we expect that position to become even more of a problem as existing incapacity benefit claimants are put through the test and perhaps experience the same outcome? Is that not a cause for concern, particularly when there is an exceptionally high number of appeals against work capability tests, many of which are proving successful?

[Lorely Burt]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, but the issues to which she refers began under a Labour Government, which she supported. We must be sure that the tests that are imposed on people are absolutely fair.

Several hon. Members mentioned housing benefit. The proposals have not yet been fully created, and it is not yet possible to say what impact they will have on low-income households. However, any cap on maximum local housing allowance payments must ensure that those with large families are not unfairly discriminated against, and I hope the Minister will speak about that.

I shall conclude on a slightly more positive note, by mentioning some of the positive changes for low-income households. On the income tax threshold, we have increased the personal allowance by £1,000, so 880,000 people will come out of tax altogether and 23 million other taxpayers will benefit by £170 million a year.

We have discussed the child element of tax credits, and some hard decisions have been made so that the poorest families will benefit much more than those who can afford to bear the burden. In addition, the coalition Government will increase the personal allowance to £10,000 per annum, which the Liberal Democrats pledged in their manifesto, and will lift the poorest 3 million people out of income tax altogether.

The Government are consulting on the pupil premium to determine the exact figure for it. It will attach additional funding to children from low-income households and will dramatically improve the life chances of children from families that fell into a poverty cycle under the last Government.

With the re-linking of pensions to earnings, pensioners will finally receive a fair deal with no more 2p—or whatever it was—increases in their pension. Under the triple lock proposed by the Liberal Democrats, the basic state pension will rise in line with prices or inflation, or by 2.5% a year, whichever is highest.

The consultation is taking place. The theory and principle to which we adhere is that savings may be made on benefits through large-scale simplification. The consultation paper proposes a universal credit to replace the main three forms of benefit support—jobseeker’s allowance, employment support and income support—as well as other sorts of benefit. We will allow a uniform taper rate so that when people find work, benefits will be withdrawn in line with earnings. I agree that the previous Labour Government tried hard to resolve the poverty trap, and the taper may be a solution to ensure that it will always be profitable to go to work.

The division between rich and poor increased under the previous Labour Government. Throwing money at the problem has not provided the solutions that they and everyone wanted. I hope that in the dire financial straits facing the country, the present Government will be imaginative in creating a fairer way of ensuring that people achieve prosperity and work in the best possible way.

Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Anderson]

rose—

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Jackson]

No, I will not give way; I do not have time.

More than 6,000 of my constituents languish on disability living allowance and, most shockingly, more than 1,000 of them languished on that particular benefit for more than 12 years under the previous Labour Government.

We simply cannot go on as we are. I welcome the measures in the Budget. I believe that they seek to protect the vulnerable while rebalancing our efforts to generate a private sector-led recovery that will benefit everyone in the medium term. In that spirit, I particularly welcome the 50,000 extra apprenticeships, an increase in the child element of the child tax credit, the re-linking of pensions and the allowance increase of £1,000 for low and middle-income earners. I restate our commitment to Sure Start, to refocusing on the neediest families and to helping ensure that the 6 million carers in our country receive appropriate respite care. I welcome too the cuts in corporation tax, the £200 million increase in the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, the green investment bank and the green new deal.

I hope that the new fiscal rules that the Chancellor has outlined will mean that by 2016, if we have extra money as a result of the cyclically adjusted current balance being in surplus, we will be able to cut tax again for the lowest-paid working people in this country. It took courage in this Budget to tackle the entitlement culture and some of the shibboleths and sacred cows, but putting this country back on track will require further tough decisions, which are the right thing to do. We should also disregard the opportunism of Her Majesty’s Opposition. There is nothing inevitable about a double-dip recession, and I believe that it will not happen. The Budget is borne of desperate necessity, but is there any evidence that seeking to encourage private sector growth and reducing the size of the state to 39% of GDP in four years is a bad thing and will not create jobs, wealth and new markets for our goods and services?

The Chancellor was candid and straightforward last week, in contrast to the Labour years of subterfuge, stealth taxes and fictitious growth projections. Tough but fair, a progressive and forward-looking Budget; a Conservative Budget for the nation and not for narrow, sectional, vested interests and the core vote—it is for this reason that I commend the Budget to the House and my constituents. I will be voting for it tonight.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman is right. What he says about higher education is one reason why I am proud that the present Administration will provide more university places this year than were planned by the previous Administration. He makes a valid point. I remember the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) saying in the House some years ago that in his constituency, a person was seen to be weird if he or she stayed on in education past the age of 16. That underlines the challenge in communities where there is too little experience of educational achievement. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami): there is a need to break down the barriers and to raise aspirations.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that evidence also shows that children from the poorest families are unable to make the most of their education? At as early as 22 months, children from poorer backgrounds are doing less well than children from better-off backgrounds and that gap continues to widen as they go through the school system. Does he agree that efforts to address both educational attainment and aspiration and family incomes need to go hand in hand if children are to make the most of their schooling?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady has extremely extensive experience of these matters and she is absolutely right. We remain firmly of the view that early intervention is important. I mentioned parenting skills earlier; when talking about these matters, I always pay tribute to the charity Home-Start. Enabling people who have good parenting experience to mentor those who do not makes a valuable contribution to helping young people who grow up in more challenging environments to do better than they might otherwise have done. That is hugely important because we have massive divides within communities, between people living side by side.

Here in Westminster, for example, we have the largest difference in life expectancy of any London local authority. In areas such as Knightsbridge and Belgravia, people can expect to live into their mid-80s, but just up the road in Queens Park life expectancy is just over 70—a gap of nearly 15 years. For every two minutes on the tube between Knightsbridge and Queens Park, the life expectancy of the communities through which one travels drops by a year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As we prepare the Work programme, I shall seek to ensure that it includes scope for the voluntary sector organisations that specialise in local communities and individual groups in our society that can make a difference. Groups that best understand rural areas can make the biggest difference to ensure that we help people in rural communities into prosperous and successful working lives, and not leave them stranded on benefits. I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.

We have a moral duty, even in difficult times, to do what we can to break down the cycle of deprivation that affects many of those communities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and his team have committed years to identifying the challenges that face those deprived communities and how to solve them. We have demonstrated a willingness to look at ideas across the political spectrum. I am delighted that we can take advantage of the expertise of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead in his review. He is highly regarded in all parts of the House for the knowledge and insights that he has built up, and we look forward to seeing his conclusions, particularly on how we measure poverty and capture a more accurate understanding of it in all its forms. That work enables us to understand more clearly how to develop solutions for the problems that we face.

I hope that we can maintain dialogue with Members such as the hon. Member for Nottingham North, who is a leading thinker on how to use early intervention to tackle deprivation. He has worked closely with my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and we believe that this is an issue that should capture expertise wherever it lies. In addition, we have established for the first time a cross-departmental Cabinet Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend to ensure that we join up all the thinking and work that we do on social justice across government.

All of that will require radical reforms. It is about stimulating economic growth by moving more people into work; providing more effective routes into truly sustainable jobs; establishing clearer links between work and reward; and helping people to make responsible choices and save for their retirement. And ultimately, in these straitened times, we must ensure that we are using the money available to the best possible effect, both for those individuals and the taxpayer.

[Kate Green]

I agree strongly with the Secretary of State that leading people to, and enabling them to sustain, well-paid jobs is an important route out of poverty, but with only about 0.5 million vacancies—and, as his Government have said, about 5 million on inactive and unemployment benefits—can he confirm that an adequate safety net for people who cannot be in paid work will be sustained, and in particular, that there will be no freezing or cutting of benefits on which families who are out of work rely?

[Chris Grayling]

I am not going to announce the Budget today, but it will remain a Government commitment to provide a security or safety net for people who find themselves in difficulties. That safety net must not be a place in which people simply live their lives. No one benefits from sitting at home on benefits doing nothing, whether it is people with incapacities, people with disabilities or lone parents. There is general agreement—between ourselves, and between representative groups outside—that if we can help people into work it gives them a more fulfilling life, and it provides a job for their families. We regard breaking down the culture of worklessness as a huge priority.

The hon. Lady is right about the economic situation, but we must not make the mistake that has been made over the past 10 years. The previous Government presided over a situation in which jobs that were created tended to go not to people who were stranded on benefits in this country but to people moving here from overseas. That must not happen in the coming decade.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right. We have to make sure that people benefit financially from going back to work. We will do everything that we can as an Administration to ensure that people who do the right thing genuinely benefit from doing so, and that no one is incentivised to say, “There’s no point in getting a job. I’ll stay at home.” That does not do them, or any of us, any good whatsoever.

We are talking not just about individuals but about whole families: two or three generations of the same family who not only do not work but have never worked. That is not simply the result of a lack of opportunity. In many of our most deprived and challenged communities, the culture of dependency and the sense of exclusion from mainstream society has resulted in a sense of hopelessness and poverty of ambition, as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said, which we have to break down. We will do everything that we can to meet that challenge.

I want to set out five key areas that are central to helping people to escape from that poverty trap. First, all the evidence shows that early-years experiences are crucial in determining life chances. A stable home life can make a huge difference to the health and well-being of our children. Family breakdown has been linked to mental health problems, addiction and educational failure, and there is no doubt that the impact of families on life chances seems to be more pronounced in the UK than in neighbouring areas. The earning potential of a child in the UK is more closely related to that of their parents than it is in countries such as the United States, Germany or France. The rate of family breakdown is much higher in the UK than in other major countries, and we have one of the highest proportions of single-parent families in the OECD and the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the EU.

The reality of the links to poverty is clear: 34% of children in families with just one parent in their home were in poverty in 2008-09—a much higher proportion than the national average, which is 22%—and we know that a family with just one parent is twice as likely to have an income in the bottom 20% as families where there are two parents. We want to create a system that supports families, creates a stable environment for children and improves social mobility. That is why we will work to strengthen families by investing in effective early-years provision, including expanding the availability and accessibility of health visitors, so that all parents have access to expert support and advice in the crucial early days of a child’s life. We will recognise marriage in the tax system, and, as soon as we can we will tackle the couple penalty in tax credits. We will encourage shared parenting from the earliest stages of pregnancy, including the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave. We want to restore aspiration, allowing parents to hope for their children and children to dream for themselves. Education plays a central role in that, and it is the second key area that we wish to address.

Education is vital. We know that people with five or more GCSEs at grades A to C earn more than those without, and they are around 3% more likely to be in work. But we also know that of the 75,000 children who receive free school meals every year, almost half do not get a single grade C at GCSE—more than a thousand classrooms of children each year let down by the system. We have some of the most disadvantaged children in the UK. Of the 6,000 children leaving care every year, only 400 are in higher education by the age of 19. Children in care should be a particular priority for us. Every child should have access to good quality education. Too many of the poorest children are stuck in chaotic classrooms in bad schools, so we will give teachers more power over discipline, bring in a pupil premium and provide extra funding for the poorest children so that they go to the best schools, not the worst.

But we are concerned not only about preventing the next generation falling into a cycle of poverty and worklessness. We also have to deal with the challenges that are there right now. So the third area that we will address is the problem of worklessness and welfare dependency. Each week, if one includes tax credits and child benefits, 12 million working-age households receive benefits at a cost of around £85 billion a year. About 5 million people claim out-of-work benefits, and around half of those have spent at least half of the last 10 years on some form of benefit. We know that many of those on out-of-work benefits cannot work for reasons of health, but many with the right help could get back into work.

At its worst, the current system divides people and assigns support based on the type of benefit claimed rather than need. It fails to recognise people who need extra help and it refuses up-front support, allowing people to become so entrenched in the benefit system that they cannot see a way out. Many Members who represent some of the most challenged communities and talk to those people know that we must help them to break out of the environment in which they live, raising their aspirations and showing them that there is a better way forward.

During the last 10 years, an array of programmes was set up by the last Government. They believed that the answer was to create top-down, closely designed programmes, which they imposed on the system. That did not work, so we will do something different. When we introduce our single work programme next year, it will create an environment in which the support that we offer will be tailored to the needs of individuals, not designed in Whitehall by Ministers and officials. Everyone who can work should get the help and advice that they need to get a job and move into sustainable work. That will be our focus and those who deliver that support will be paid on the basis of the success that they have in delivering that support and getting people into work.

Britain is a nation of opportunity. It must be a nation of opportunity. As we tackle the deficit and get the economy back on its feet—I keep returning to this point—we must ensure that the jobs that are created in the next few years go to those who are in the most need, who can get off benefits and make more of their lives. We cannot make the same mistakes all over again. That is what our welfare reforms are all about.

I want to talk briefly about another group—those on incapacity benefits. More than 2 million people claim incapacity benefits, nearly half of whom have been out of work for the last 12 years. They, in particular, need fresh opportunities. Not all will be able to work, but very many can work, and very many would be much better off in work. All of those who work with people with incapacities and disabilities say that if we can get them into mainstream employment, return them to a normal working life, it will do them a power of good, improving their quality of life and making a real difference to them. That can and will be a big priority for us.

As we design the work programme, we will ensure that we have a system and a structure in place that encourages the people who deliver that programme to provide the specialised, tailored support that we need to steer those people who have been on incapacity benefit for so long down a better path and get them into employment. In particular, we recognise that the most disabled, those who have the biggest challenge in their life, will need additional help and support to get into work. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), will no doubt be talking later about some of the ways in which we hope to deliver the best possible support to those people.

[Kate Green]

Many disabled people would welcome the opportunity to be in paid employment. What efforts are being made not just to concentrate on supporting them to find suitable work, but to work with employers to ensure that they respond to the particular needs of disabled people in the workplace?

[Chris Grayling]

That is an important point. We must encourage and work with employers, and we should start at home. Whitehall and Government Departments and agencies should be at the forefront of finding the best ways to provide opportunities for people with disabilities, and that will be a priority for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. If we do not lead from the front, no one else will, and that is something that we certainly want to see happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the Child Poverty Act 2010, in which we extended the eligibility of free school meals—that was a proper action by a proper Labour Government.

I said earlier that in our 13 years we had a political objective of decreasing poverty together with the policies to make it happen. I welcome the fact that the coalition has said that it will maintain the objective of ending child poverty, and that those living in poverty will be protected as the Government deal with the deficit. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said:

“The test of a good society is how…you protect the poorest, the most vulnerable, the elderly, the frail.”

The Deputy Prime Minister has even said that the cuts will be “progressive”. Labour Members will hold them to that, but I have to say that the omens are not good.

[Kate Green]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Child Poverty Act has provided for the relative poverty measure to continue to be an element of the way in which we measure success and progress on poverty? Does she agree that that is the most meaningful measure for determining that we are ensuring that living standards for all, including the poorest, keep up as society’s wealth improves?

[Helen Goodman]

I certainly do; my hon. Friend anticipates one of the points that I was going to make.

As I was saying, the omens are not good, and I fear that the rhetoric is not matched by the reality. Only this morning, the independent Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development forecast a rise in unemployment to almost 3 million as public sector workers, mainly women and the low-paid, are thrown on to the dole. In fact, it is difficult to see exactly what the strategy of Her Majesty’s Government is. So far, the two coalition partners can agree on getting rid of the child trust fund and the future jobs fund, but what will be the effect of those cuts? The child trust fund was the first serious attempt to tackle intergenerational poverty by enabling low-income families to build up assets for their children. As the Minister said, it is vital to encourage a culture of savings, and it was designed to do precisely that, but it is going to go.

The coalition Government were also able to agree to cut the future jobs fund, despite the fact that before the election both coalition parties said they would continue it. That means that 80,000 young people will lose their chances of work this year, and perhaps 150,000 next year. The whole reason why we introduced the fund was that we saw the scarring effects of youth unemployment in the 1980s and ’90s. Because we took measures over the past 18 months during the recession, long-term youth unemployment is now one tenth of the level that it was then. However, the coalition parties have clearly learned nothing and care less. One must ask oneself why that is, so let us examine where the cuts in the future jobs fund will fall most heavily—the west midlands, the north-west, Wales and Scotland. The future jobs fund is about real jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair. It has also been a pleasure this afternoon to listen to so many eloquent maiden speeches. I made my maiden speech two days ago, and it is amazing how quickly one can feel like an old timer in this House.

I am delighted that we are having a debate so early in this new Parliament about the vital issue of poverty in this country. I think that there is agreement across the House about the damage that poverty does in blighting lives, the harm that it does to our community and the waste of potential that poverty amounts to.

I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for the tremendous work that he has done, and with and through the Centre for Social Justice, in drawing attention to the impact of poverty and the way in which it has destroyed and damaged so many lives. I pay tribute to the way in which he and colleagues have raised our awareness of the complexity of factors that contribute to poverty. I am pleased to welcome him and other Ministers who have a strong identity with the cause to their roles today.

It is important that we take care to disentangle the causes and consequences of poverty, and some of what I have heard from those on the Government Benches suggests a little confusion on that front. It is certainly true that lone parents face an exceptionally high risk of poverty, but it is also the case that poverty and the stress of trying to make ends meet can contribute to family and relationship breakdown. It is important that we help to sustain relationships and keep families together, and ensure that they have adequate resources to remove that stress and concern.

It is also important that we note who faces a particular risk of poverty, and why—disabled people and people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds; where one lives; unequal access to the labour market; and unequal access to and experience within the labour market. Those are the structural drivers of poverty that it is important public policy addresses.

I think we are all agreed that it is important to make work pay if work is to be a secure route out of poverty for as many people as possible. However, we do not make work incentives by making those out of work even worse off. The way to make work pay is to move to higher wages, and I particularly endorse the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for a move towards the living wage. We make work pay by ensuring that the support is in place to enable people to get into work and then to progress and upskill to improve their prospects at work. We make work pay by improving incentives, and I welcome the attention that the Government offer to pay to addressing the high marginal deduction rates faced by some people as they move into or increase hours of work on low pay.

However, it is also important that we acknowledge that life for those out of work and on benefits is not a life of luxury. I challenge all hon. Members to consider how any of us would manage on a disposable income of £65.45 a week. It is not just my contention that benefits in this country and the relative poverty line at 60% of median income force people into a lifestyle that is beyond sustainable; it is the contention of the research of the highly respected Joseph Rowntree Foundation and its work on minimum income standards, which reflects the wide public perception of what individuals and families need to live. That perception and the work on minimum income standards show clearly that in setting our aspiration at a relative poverty line of 60% of median income, we fall some way short of what the public themselves believe is adequate in order to raise a family and make ends meet.

I also say to Government Members that when evolving policy it is important that we learn from what has and has not worked. I am sure that they will want to do that. During the 1980s and 1990s child poverty doubled, but since 1999 the number of children in poverty has been reduced by 500,000, and that is not by accident. Child poverty has gone down in the years in which Governments have invested in family incomes, through benefits and tax credits, and it has increased in the years in which Governments have not made that investment. The Labour Government’s policy of seeking to reduce poverty through increases in tax credits and benefits is not a failed policy; on the contrary, if we had had more of it we might have been further ahead than we are today.

I therefore caution Ministers to consider carefully what the evidence tells them, and to take careful account of the significant expertise that exists outside the House. I was pleased by the almost entirely cross-party support that the Child Poverty Bill secured during its passage through the previous Parliament. The Child Poverty Act 2010, as it became, put in place a recognition of the need to sustain the poverty targets, confirmed the importance of the relative income poverty target and set it once more at the 60% median line. Picking up a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made earlier, I note that the Act also acknowledged that, in seeking to set a realistic target, we should take account of what our European and international neighbours are able to achieve. Some of us who were not Members at the time ventured to suggest that the target could have been a little more ambitious, but we have a realistic and achievable target. We know that, because other countries are able to achieve it, and we must do so, too.

I look forward to the creation of the child poverty commission, for which the Act has made provision, and to the strategy that the Government have committed to bring forward by March next year in order to demonstrate the progress that they intend to make so that they can bring about the achievement of those targets. That strategy must focus on good jobs, holistic support and adequate incomes for all. We have learned enough to know that those are the ingredients of a successful anti-poverty strategy, and I look forward to the proposals that the Government bring to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

The shadow Secretary of State fails to point out that the previous Government completely failed to tackle the level of poverty in this country in the way that they set out that they would, and they did not hit their child poverty targets. They have left us to put in place a firm strategy to address that issue. The right hon. Lady should not be too selective with her facts.

It could not be clearer that we need fresh ideas if we are to reverse the dreadful situation that we face; and it could not be clearer that, if new approaches to tackling poverty are to have any effect, they require new, clear thinking. That is exactly what our coalition Government are able to offer: a new vision and a new strategy to tackle the root causes of poverty. Family breakdown, educational failure, addiction, debt, worklessness and economic dependency are the pathways to poverty and the underlying problems that can lead to a lifetime—even generations—of worklessness and welfare dependency.

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Miller]

I am sorry, but I cannot. I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I need to comment on a number of maiden speeches.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, such a multi-faceted problem demands an holistic solution, and many contributors echoed that point. The problem requires supporting families in order to give children the right start at home and in education; it requires the reform of our welfare system, by simplifying it and removing disincentives to work; it requires supporting disabled people effectively to give those who need it the specialist support that will help to prepare them for work; it requires supporting a savings culture, helping those who try to get back on their feet and encouraging families to take responsibility for their debt; and it requires all of us throughout all Departments, the Government and the House to work together.

Before I pick up on today’s maiden speeches, I shall draw the House’s attention to a couple of other contributions. I am sure that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland did not mean to sound complacent about Labour’s record on poverty, but she did, and she needs to think about that if she is to rebuild Labour’s credibility in the eyes of the country. She picked up on several issues, including the future jobs fund and free school meals, on which I should like to give her some clarity.

All pupils who currently qualify for free school meals will continue to be eligible, and we will continue with pilots in Newham, Durham and Wolverhampton to see whether there is a robust case for extending free school meals. Taxpayers would expect us to do that. On the future jobs fund, recent statistics show that only 9,000 out of the 25,000 jobs that were promised are being delivered. The Government want long-term job opportunities and sustained employment, and that is why we are putting our faith in 50,000 new apprenticeships and the Work programme that will help to fill that gap.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) made an important contribution to the debate, and I congratulate her on her new role as Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee. I look forward—at least I think I do—to having detailed conversations with her, including in the Committee’s sittings, I am sure. I would have liked to pick up on some of the issues that she raised, and particularly on Sure Start and its effectiveness, but I fear that time does not allow me. Suffice to say, I hope that she will look at the Office for National Statistics data on Sure Start and, in particular, at how we can make that programme much more effective at tackling poverty.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who is not in his place because of a prior engagement, spoke with great authority about the importance of the non-financial support that we give children and families who live in the most difficult circumstances, and I look forward to his independent report and the contribution that he will undoubtedly make to this debate in the coming months.

The maiden speeches were, in the great tradition of this House, independent and spirited. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) spoke powerfully about the importance of supporting excluded children. He also stressed the fact that he will be an independent-minded Member, and I am sure that the Whips will have taken special note of that.

The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) spoke about her co-operative roots and the pride that she has in her community and, particularly, its multicultural heritage. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) paid tribute to Sir Michael Spicer, and I echo the tribute that she paid to a man who made a great contribution to the House. She also noted the damage that has been done to the pensions industry over the past decade, and I am sure that, with her considerable financial expertise, she will contribute to the coalition Government’s work on that.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) has the prize for the constituency name that is most likely to stump Ministers, and he will forgive me if I did not pronounce it very well. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) made a very humorous contribution to the debate and drew on the colourful characters who have previously represented his part of the country, as well as discussing its brewing heritage; I think that perhaps the two things are not unconnected.

I know how highly regarded my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) already is in her constituency, because I have been there and visited her local Sure Start centres. Its residents have a great Member of Parliament in her. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) spoke of famous past residents, including Lewis Carroll. He referred to Alice in his quote from Lewis Carroll’s work. I would perhaps have referred to the Mad Hatter’s tea party, because it can often feel like that in this place; he will know what I mean shortly, I am sure.

The contribution by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) challenged the House’s tradition of listening in silence to maiden speeches. I apologise if I joined some other Members in exclaiming at some of the things that he said. I will not pick up on those points in detail now, but perhaps we can talk in the Tea Room.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) made a fluid and assured speech in which she drew the House’s attention to the excellent support that forces families receive in the United States through the Veterans Administration. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends who deal with defence issues will study her comments closely. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) spoke of the grit and determination of her constituents. I am sure that the House will benefit from her 23 years’ experience of working in a citizens advice bureau.

Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), I clearly remember his moment of victory on general election night—it was something that stood out. In his maiden speech, the House caught a glimpse of the intellectual, analytical and, above all, compassionate approach that he will have to his job. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) reminded us that her constituency is the birthplace of the Arsenal football team. I will remind my sons of that, as they are great fans.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) gave us a thoughtful account of his feelings about poverty and the fact that it affects all parts of the country in many different ways. The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) spoke movingly about the working poor and the role of Sure Start. She also mentioned the future jobs fund. I would merely say to her that under that programme 100,000 jobs have been granted to the successful bidders.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) drew our attention to the fact that hers is a new constituency, and I know that it will benefit from her extensive experience. She spoke movingly about opening the eyes of the next generation in her constituency to poverty in Africa; that is something that will have helped them.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) talked about his bit of Swindon being the new Disneyland. He also said that Swindon is famous for roundabouts. Speaking as the Member of Parliament for Basingstoke, I think that we are more famous for roundabouts—I will challenge him on that one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) spoke with pride and passion about the part of the country that he represents, and reminded the House that we all have to improve the life chances of looked-after children. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) reminded us that her part of the world is the new silicon valley of west London. Importantly, she pointed out that she will put country before party, in the best spirit of this coalition Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) was getting us all booking our holidays to Bury this summer when he talked about the wonderful part of the country that he represents. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) reminded us that he represents the home town of the late Larry Grayson. He also spoke movingly about the role that inter-generational poverty can have in the context of this debate.

I very much welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) to the House. I know that she will contribute greatly to the work of this place. She will be a dedicated and effective voice for us, drawing on her extensive experience before coming here.

My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), reminded us where his constituency is and also of the importance of the entrepreneurial spirit in Hampshire, which is alive and well among the backyard brewers of his constituency. We were all pleased to hear that.

Last but absolutely by no means least, I think the House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) spoke eloquently about the history and heritage of her constituency. I reassure her that football shorts would not really be in the dress code of this place—well, not at the moment. Maybe we are far too conservative in such things and should change that.

This has been an important debate. It was important that we put the issue of poverty before the House early on in this Parliament to explain how we as a Government will tackle it. Members have heard in the comments of the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, and myself about this Government’s commitment to tackling poverty throughout the country. Poverty comes with a host of other problems that have a visible and measurable effect on families across the country. If we fail to address those challenges, we will fail many of those families and their children.

Opposition Members who contributed to the debate of course tried to explain what they feel the previous Government achieved, but they also have to listen carefully to what is said about the areas in which they did not make progress. If we are trying to draw together a more consensual Government who build together for a future of success, we need to ensure that we work together on matters such as this. Through the newly established Cabinet Committee that will consider these issues, we will draw up a child poverty strategy in line with the Child Poverty Act 2010. I hope that Opposition Members will be able to contribute to that strategy so that it enjoys the support of all Members.

We must take steps to deal with the underlying problems that have made poverty such a corrosive issue in this country for too many years. Through radical welfare reform, we will reinforce fairness and encourage responsibility, and I believe that we will start to build a stronger community for a better Britain. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House can come together to deliver that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling poverty in the UK.