Oral Answers to Questions

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I am glad that the Secretary of State has expressed concern for my hon. Friends’ constituents. He is keen to explain just how much money the Government are spending, but let us look at what the results of 12 years of Conservative Government mean for the money in people’s pockets, especially those on low incomes. We have double-digit inflation and 2.5 million working-age adults out of work, and more than 2 million emergency food parcels were handed out in this country last year. Could that be the reason that the public in Chester looked at the Government’s record and gave the Tories their worst result in that seat since 1832?

[Mel Stride]

I am rather surprised that the hon. Lady raises unemployment, in particular. Under Labour, we saw unemployment rise by nearly half a million; female unemployment go up by a quarter; youth unemployment rise by 44%; the number of households with no one working in them double; and 1.4 million people spending most of their last decade on out-of-work benefits. That is not a record to be proud of.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Secretary of State and all the new Ministers to their positions. We have heard Conservative Ministers, not least the many Prime Ministers we have had in recent months, crowing about low unemployment, but the new Secretary of State will know from his time chairing the Treasury Committee that sometimes it is important to look at the figures yourself. There are 1.2 million people unemployed in our country, but also 1.8 million inactive people who say they want a job. Taken together, that is a disaster for our country. I want to know what it is about years and years of Tory misrule that always leaves 3 million people on the scrapheap.

[Mel Stride]

I have taken a personal vow not to engage in too much Punch and Judy politics with the hon. Lady during Question Time, so I will not talk about what happens to unemployment when different parties get into power; I will leave that for another day. She is absolutely right about the key challenge around economic inactivity. That is why the Department doubled the number of new work coaches in the last two years; there are an additional 13,500 people working to support the exact people whom she rightly identified as needing that assistance to get into work. As I said, I intend to put considerably more energy into the whole issue of economic inactivity, and to bring announcements on the subject to the House in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Minister to her role. She joins the Government at a unique and special time. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies). I do not agree with her very much on employment, but I know how hard she worked and that many people in the Department will miss her greatly.

As the Minister is new, I will ask her an easy question—all I am looking for is a single number. By the time she leaves office, how many of the 1 million people who are estimated to have left the labour market will be back to work?

[Julie Marson]

It seems churlish, on day one, to mention the Labour party’s record on jobs. Every time it has left power, it has left more people unemployed than when it started.

Universal Basic Income

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on securing the debate, which has been good, although slightly interrupted. Her argument against financial insecurity was a very good one. It is stressful to tackle poverty. A family that does not have enough will almost certainly experience significant mental health challenges and will not lead the kind of life that we would wish for them.

The hon. Lady also made a good argument for what has gone wrong in the Department for Work and Pensions since 2010. There are numerous examples where the actions of Government have caused simply unnecessary stress and pressures. All hon. Members argued against poverty and for a universalist approach for a United Kingdom where no one is left behind. That is where we agree. But I was not clear what the hon. Member was arguing for. She mentioned several times that it is not possible to give full details and that is why UK Government should do more research, or that somehow we need to progress this, and then there might be information about what would be available under a universal basic income. However, we need some simple facts in order to make the case for such a radical change to our system. Those facts are how much the universal income might be and how it would be paid for.

[Ronnie Cowan]

Is the hon. Member aware that Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, is pushing for a basic income to be trialled in the Greater Manchester area? He seems to understand that by trialling these things and learning from them, we will all be better informed.

[Alison McGovern]

I will go on to say why universal basic income is not the Labour party’s policy.

Basic facts are important. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East could tell us more about the situation in Scotland. She mentioned the experience of the Scottish Government, and I think she could make her argument by giving some more basic facts. It is difficult to see exactly what she wants the change in system to do when we do not know exactly what is being proposed.

The hon. Lady mentioned supporting the idea of a minimum income guarantee, as did several Members. That, however, is not the same as a universal basic income. A minimum income guarantee is about a standard below which no one should fall, whereas a universal basic income—as I understand it from her—is about a universal payment for everyone, regardless of circumstances.

We need to think about this from first principles. Our social security system has two purposes: first, to smooth incomes over a person’s lifetime. We therefore have universal aspects to our system that we all agree with, such as the idea of the state pension being universal on the basis of age. Other aspects of our social security system, such as child benefit, are paid on the basis that children have limited possibilities to generate income. In fact, we absolutely think that children ought to be supported, though we could have a long debate about the two-child policy and the fact that it rather contravenes the principle. That smoothing of income over a lifetime is exactly as Beveridge envisaged the system would work.

Secondly, our social security system addresses the needs that people have in order to enable their full participation in society—so, those who have extra costs, the obvious example of which is people who have a disability .

[Angela Crawley]

The hon. Member has made it very clear that the Labour party does not support universal basic income, which I find profoundly fascinating. However, that is not the point that I want to make. She also said quite clearly that she felt the benefit system had started to change since 2010. What lessons have been learned by the Labour party, which itself had a system that was far less than perfect, and what exactly is she proposing to ensure that those living on the lowest incomes can at least have the basic subsistence that is required?

[Alison McGovern]

I will come to that point, because I will set out shortly, if I may, what I think is the important way in which we should take our country forward.

[Hywel Williams]

I remind the hon. Lady that there are three particular principles of social security and the support that we give to each other. One is income replacement, the second is addressing particular needs, such as childcare or whatever it is, and the third one, which is important for those of us in this part of the Chamber, is the need to promote solidarity and cohesion, using the system to ensure that we all realise that we are all in this together, as it were. In that sense, the system should be generous—indeed, much more generous than it is at the moment.

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the universality of the system, which we all pay into and we all take out of when we need to. That is the contributory principle—the principle that we are all part of the same system.

This is where I think there is an important point that is at risk of being missed, because the contributory principle—the idea that we are all a part of this system—is failed when people are left behind. Beveridge and Eleanor Rathbone—whose history you know well, Chair—created a system of social security that was not in isolation from the other work that they did in analysing the problems that had happened in the 1930s and assessing which institutions were needed for a good economy that would leave no one behind and in which people could pay into the social security system when they were able to, through working, and take out of it when they needed to. Their point was to ensure that work would help to support families and that the social security system would be there to provide a minimum level of income, as needed, to support a family.

The Beveridge report required two other things to be in existence to support the system of social security. The first was the creation of the NHS and the second was the assumption of full employment—a labour market where everybody could take part and where work would provide enough to help to support a family.

As various Members have already said, that is what is going wrong right now. The Prime Minister crows about jobs, but he does so in the middle of a crisis of huge price rises while wages are falling. For me, that is the definition of a broken jobs market.

[Beth Winter]

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, prior to the 2019 Labour manifesto, the then shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), commissioned Guy Standing to undertake a research project on a pilot of basic income. A document was produced, which I expect she has read, that proposed a UBI pilot and piloting UBI was included in the 2019 manifesto. Is that something we continue to support?

[Alison McGovern]

I will set out the rest of my argument about what I think we should do to help to improve people’s incomes. And I will do so very quickly, Ms McVey.

People have mentioned the various pieces of research, which are important, because they tell us about how people respond to different systems. However, I think that this broken jobs market that we now face, whereby businesses are crying out for staff and there are vacancies left, right and centre, but too many people are stuck in work that is far too low-paid, shows exactly what is going wrong.

The problem with what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) said about work having been proven to be the best route out of poverty is that, for the past decade, the Tory Government have set out on a mission to prove that that is not the case. We need a social security system that does what it was designed to do—help people through different life stages when they need it, and help lift people out of disadvantage and into the dignity of work. There will always be people who are unable to work, but the vast majority of people want to be in work.

It is not obvious to me that there is a proposal on the table that does either of those things. Labour’s approach will be different. We need to change jobcentres—

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. I need to hurry you along, because we still need to hear from the Minister and have the wind-up at the end.

[Alison McGovern]

My apologies, Ms McVey.

We need to change jobcentres to help people move on and move up in work, and progress our country to real full employment that involves disabled people and everybody in our country. That would be a plan towards progress.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Minister, will you be mindful of the need to leave a minute at the end for the Member in charge to wind up the debate?

Child Maintenance Service: Reform

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing this debate. All of us constituency MPs deal with child maintenance cases on a regular basis, and we owe her a debt of service for bringing this extremely important debate. To pay back a little bit, I am going to be brief, because she set out the case for reform very well, as did other Members who have contributed. I want to make three very brief points on behalf of the Opposition to ask the Minister a few questions. I know that we will all be keen and enthusiastic to hear what the Minister has to say. The case for change is broadly accepted and has been well made.

I will briefly respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He says that he is a traditionalist; I am a progressive. We differ on very many things, but I feel sure that we agree, as will every Member of this House, that what matters in this discussion is the children who should be supported by this money. I am sure that we will all put them first.

First, hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have been right to highlight the connection between being a single parent and the risk of poverty. We know that that is true. It has held true for a very long time in this country. That is why we believe that children are entitled to support from both parents, and that the Government ought to play their role in making sure that that happens, but also that children should not grow up poor in this country. It is anathema to all of us that there has been an increase in children needing support via food banks and other emergency charities. Every pound we can get into the pockets of their parents helps, whether it comes from this source or the welfare state.

This debate matters because this country should have a mission to end child poverty. Many of us still believe that. What we do with the Child Maintenance Service can make a real contribution to that. I put on the record my thanks to Gingerbread and two other charities that work very hard, year round, to stand up for single parents and make sure that the specific and different challenges they face as families are recognised in the system. As the NAO report pointed out, in the quarter ending September 2021, paying parents moving from direct pay on to collect and pay owed an average of £1,100—around five months of maintenance. Given the price hike of basics such as bread, putting petrol in the car or buying bus tickets, I can only imagine what that £1,000 means to a single-parent family. It is huge. Single parents are at the frontline of making ends meet in this country. We must put this debate in the right context, which is about stopping families from suffering the inequity and indignity of poverty.

Secondly, as other Members have already said, every Member of Parliament knows only too well what happens when the service goes wrong. The problems in my own case load have two features: the time taken to resolve issues is simply too long, as people find the length of time they are waiting incredibly stressful, and the enforcement action taken by the service is often not effective—a point that has been very well and amply made. That is frustrating and, as has been said, often dissuades people from using the service at all. I cannot believe that a Government of any colour or hue would want an important public service such as this one to put people off.

I am anxious to hear from the Minister about the plans for reform. I hope that we can move quickly to get a better service, not least given that the NAO found that it could take years before payments are made. The NAO also uncovered the issue of enforcement, and said that it

“has not been properly built into the Universal Credit system”.

I think the Government will want to address that.

Finally, I agree with fellow Members on the issue of domestic abuse. Unfortunately, I know only too well from my own constituents that parents who are victims of domestic abuse often see that abuse continued via the officers of the state. Again, I do not believe that a Government of any kind would wish their own services or operations to be used by perpetrators of abuse to continue their abuse once a relationship has come to an end. I simply do not believe that any Government would want that.

We are learning much more about how this continuation of abuse is done and how institutions of the state can protect against that. As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, it is crucial that we have a trauma-informed service in every function of DWP work and that we continually look to reform, given that we now know more about how domestic abuse is perpetrated. I hope the Minister will respond to those three points about poverty, improving the service so that it actually does what we want it to and making sure that it is informed by the suffering and trauma of victims of domestic abuse, and I look forward to listening to what he has to say.

Working Tax Credit and Universal Credit: Two-Child Limit

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Westminster Hall

[David Rutley]

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the national minimum wage has gone up to £9.50—[Interruption.] There is a bit of head-shaking going on; it is very disturbing. The national minimum wage is now £9.50 and is projected by many to reach £10. The £9.50 figure is a 6.6% increase, which is very welcome. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming that significant increase.

A few things have been said about the non-consensual conception exemption. We recognise that it is a difficult and sensitive issue, and we have put in place procedures that are mindful of the sensitivities involved. Third-party professionals include healthcare professionals, registered social workers and relevant specialist charities, which can also signpost claimants to further support, so claimants will get the support that they need and be assisted through the light-touch processes in challenging circumstances. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central made a point about rape conviction rates. I reassure her—I think she knows this, but let me put it on the record—that the criteria for the non-consensual conception exemption is much wider than just conviction. The third-party professionals can assist in those circumstances as well.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I think everybody in this Chamber loves, highlighted many situations—nearly all of them, actually. I agree with him that there are a few exceptions, but clearly, we will have differences of opinion on this point. He and I share a love of ensuring that people can express their faith freely—that is a fundamental part of our democracy—and the policy does not seek to get in the way of that vital democratic right and freedom that we all cherish. The Government have published an impact assessment noting that ethnic minority households may be more likely to be impacted by the policy because they are, on average, more likely to be in receipt of child tax credit or universal credit, or to have larger families. That could also be the case for households of a particular religion, but the DWP has insufficient data to confirm that. I highlight that the Supreme Court found that the two-child policy was lawful and not in breach of the European convention on human rights.

Points have been made about abortion and fertility rates. The Nuffield Foundation’s research consortium on larger families has this month published a report outlining that fertility rates for those claiming, or eligible to claim, benefits have changed very little since the introduction of the policy. That would seem to refute the evidence from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service that was discussed earlier. The policy was never designed to affect fertility rates; it is fundamentally about seeking to provide fairness with those who are unable to access benefits, when it comes to the choices that they have to make.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central also asked the question—

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Rutley]

I do not think that the hon. Member was here for the whole debate. I will take interventions from others, who have had the courtesy to be here for the whole debate, but I will carry on for now.

On the point about monitoring, we are keeping all our policies under review, but this policy seeks to strike the right balance between supporting those in need and fairness for taxpayers and those who support themselves primarily through work, who do not see their incomes rise when they have more children.

The hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) made some points about poverty and whether this policy is impacting it. I am sure they are assiduously following the latest households below average income statistics, which show that the support we put in place around benefits and incentives for people to get into work—creating a vibrant labour market so that people can get into work and progress—means that 1.2 million fewer people were in absolute low income, before housing costs, in 2020-21, compared with 2009-10. That included 200,000 fewer children and 500,000 fewer working-age adults. Furthermore, there are now nearly 1 million fewer workless households and, very importantly, almost 540,000 fewer children living in such households than in 2010.

Universal Credit and Jobseeker’s Allowance (Work Search and Work Availability Requirements @0017 Limitations (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2022 General Committees

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Universal Credit and Jobseeker’s Allowance (Work Search and Work Availability Requirements – limitations) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, (S.I. 2022, No. 108).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott.

The Opposition do not support the statutory instrument. I will say briefly why. This is a simple piece of legislation, but its effect could be widespread and damaging. To summarise, the explanatory memorandum puts it clearly:

“Existing regulations give discretion to allow jobseekers to look for work in their chosen field for up to 13 weeks. This is known as the ‘permitted period’…These Regulations will reduce the maximum permitted period to 4 weeks.”

Before I get to the substance of my argument, I want to make a procedural point, in that the regulations are being introduced under an urgency provision. The Government claim that they are urgent, but it is hard to understand why, when every other aspect of the Government argument about the pandemic is that we have moved beyond that period, yet here the Government are using urgency provisions to make substantial changes to social security arrangements.

The memorandum also explains that the Department is looking to undertake the Social Security Advisory Committee engagement retrospectively. What is the point of asking for advice on something that it has already done? Surely the Government’s credibility turns on asking for advice and being seen to take it seriously, rather than retrospectively. That is why we will vote against the motion on whether we have discussed the regulations. It is evident that the process is being rushed, and does not follow the standard procedure for scrutiny of Government changes to social security.

I do not want to detain everyone for long. I will make three simple objections to what the Government are doing. As I understand it, the Government’s argument is that the best way to help people’s income is to get them into any job in the hope that that might get them a better job at some point down the line. If we were facing a massive unemployment crisis, as this country has faced before—due to an external or internal shock, a huge number of people are out of work—the evidence shows that it is better for people to be in a job, because long periods of unemployment cost workers in the long term. However, that is not the situation that we face. The Government know that and anyone who takes a cursory look at the data knows that. What we have is a vacancy crisis.

The fundamental role of jobcentres in this country is to facilitate Jobmatch. I apologise if I am explaining basics to colleagues, but the idea is that people who need a job go to the jobcentre and are enabled to find a good job that will support them. Forcing people into their less preferred job, however, makes for a worse match between applicants and the occupations that they are seeking to fill. I do not think that employers or people looking for new or better jobs will want that change. In fact, a survey of businesses in the UK found that they do not like it either. Such rule changes mean that they get huge numbers of job applications that are completely inappropriate. People need to be supported to find a job that is going to be a fulfilling and well-paying career, not be told that they must just get any job.

That is what is true about today’s labour market. One in five people in this country is currently working below their skill level. That figure is one in five, 20%, at a time when businesses are crying out for staff. Our problem is not people sitting around doing nothing; our problem is not enough help and support for people to move on and move up in work. We can add to that the 1 million people who have left the labour market since the pandemic. There are complex and different reasons for that. We do not yet understand some of them fully—for example, we do not understand properly the impact of long covid—but what we do know about this country is that it has a huge number of people with onerous caring responsibilities and a large number of people with mental health difficulties. Our attention, through the Department for Work and Pensions, jobcentres and the work of work coaches up and down the country, would be far better directed towards dealing with the actual economic problem that we face, rather than this policy.

That leads me to my second point, which is that this is a waste. We will end up wasting huge amounts of time for work coaches in the DWP. They will end up bringing people in to see them in jobcentres for what may well be relatively short periods of time and offering them no real support, but a huge amount of paperwork. Work coaches could be doing much more substantial and important work to help those people who face the biggest barriers, whether that is because they have suffered a period of long-term unemployment, because they have a disability or because they are a lone parent. That is the true value of the DWP and the work that could be done. There is a massive opportunity cost to this policy.

My final point is this. I have to be honest with the Minister and say that I hear what my constituents say about jobcentres and, although I know the dedicated staff who work in them, the reputation of jobcentres is not what it was. They are not seen always as places where people get help. I said that I would be honest with the Minister, and I am going to be. I think that we can do far more to build the reputation of jobcentres as a place where people can truly get help, where they can move on and move up in work, where they can enhance their skills, where we can support businesses to make the transition that we need towards a more highly skilled labour market and where we can really support people to get a better job, which will pay them more, which will deal with the cost of living crisis. I think that that is the change that people want to see. I think that this approach is completely misjudged for the labour market that we face, and that we will see over time that it has been a waste of effort.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott, and to have the opportunity to discuss the regulations in detail.

The regulations are part of an innovative intervention that we have at the Department for Work and Pensions: the Way to Work campaign. Let me explain why they were introduced. They are important to the Government’s ambition to build back better and move more people into work. The hon. Member for Wirral South raises concern about the urgency of those interventions. As the UK Employment Minister for the last three years, I have met employers who are desperately keen to fill vacancies with the talent that they have down the road. I think it is right that we step up and deliver. As regards our engagement with the SSAC, we continue to work and engage with it.

This has been an incredibly challenging year for everyone, especially those whose career or sector has been specifically impacted by the pandemic. We at DWP have been conscious of the damaging effect of being out of the labour market for a prolonged period of time. That is exactly why we introduced the Way to Work campaign. It is a specific drive to help 500,000 people into new jobs by the summer. The Government know how to introduce labour market interventions that really work. I am incredibly proud of the plan for jobs and the other interventions. Kickstart has offered us the opportunity to build on the success of job matching, disrupting the way people are recruited and making sure that it is quicker and much easier for people to get into work.

[Alison McGovern]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mims Davies]

I will make some progress. We at the DWP have monitored the labour market incredibly closely throughout the pandemic and put in that package of interventions through the plan for jobs to protect livelihoods and, above all, boost employment. The labour market context, which we cannot take for granted, absolutely illustrates the impact of the positive measures that we have put in place. It created a staggeringly positive effect.

In fact, unemployment levels are at 3.8%, and—despite the pandemic—they have not been lower since 1974, which was, it pleases me to say, before I was born, just about. The combination of the end of plan B covid measures and almost 1.3 million vacancies meant the scope that jobcentres had at the same time to return to full face-to-face activity presented us a unique opportunity to address the shortages and critical vacancies in particular sectors and help the labour market to grow faster. People who may have been waiting for their chance before the pandemic would have faced another two years of being held back had we not acted. To address that, we developed the Way to Work campaign, including the key policy objective secured by the regulations, working across Government ahead of the Prime Minister’s announcement on 26 January. The DWP has used the strength of the jobs market—I repeat, there are 1.3 million vacancies—to build on kickstart. It has meant we can work directly in our open jobcentres with employers to get claimants into those vacancies quicker, as well as strengthening our core support for jobseekers so that they can progress sooner.

Two things have happened in the labour market during the pandemic: people have wanted to transition and try new things, and in some sectors they have stepped up and helped in times of need. I make no apologies for any job, better job, career. The longer a person is out of the labour market, the harder it is for them to move forward, and it is absolutely right that we give people the chance to step back in, grow their confidence, and move on from there.

[Alison McGovern]

There are many surveys out there and a lot of information from businesses that say they do not support the Government’s approach for the reasons I mentioned. If the Minister can provide the Committee with some evidence that businesses support it, I invite her to do so. When the Minister mentions 500,000 people, is she talking about the 1 million people who have left the labour market? Unless we have an offer for those people, we will not get anywhere near dealing with the vacancies crisis.

[Mims Davies]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about the evidence and why employers want more people to apply for their jobs who normally would have ruled themselves out. On labour market figures day last Tuesday, I was at a job fair at one of our 190-plus new jobcentres, just outside Gatwick airport. They have 5,000 vacancies at the jobcentre there, and I spoke to representatives of Gatwick airport and local supply chains who were delighted to be meeting claimants who were looking to change and move into the sector, to help reinvigorate and bring back tourism and aviation. Those people had perhaps done different things before the pandemic, or were looking to progress and do something else. I can give the hon. Lady plenty of examples of employers, going beyond surveys. This is about real people—it is beyond statistics. It is about jobs, livelihoods, and real people progressing.

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was wondering why this is suddenly an issue. According to my records, he has not been to his local jobcentre since 2017, so perhaps if he popped down to that jobcentre and spoke to the work coaches, he would see it in action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend, because that is exactly what the initiative is about; that is our total intent.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West mentioned the Select Committee session this morning. The regulations are absolutely about tailored support for the right opportunity down the road. They are meant to help people to become more self-reliant and to enjoy the improvements in their wellbeing from being in work and all that it has to offer. In doing that, claimants can take the next step of building a more secure future and being more prosperous and, of course, they are helping our economy to recover.

The effects of the regulations are that jobseekers with a strong work history and who are capable of work will be expected to search more widely for suitable jobs earlier in their claim.

[Alison McGovern]

rose—

[Mims Davies]

I think this point is important for people to understand, so let me just reiterate it. The effects of the regulations will be that jobseekers with a strong work history and who are capable of work will be expected to search more widely for suitable available jobs earlier in their claim because of the shortening of the permitted period. The permitted period is the time in which claimants can narrow their work search within their usual sector. I must add that this is not applicable to all claimants who make a new claim. These regulations reduce the permitted period from 13 weeks to four weeks. We believe that reducing the permitted period could aid claimants’ chances of finding work more quickly and seeing more options that are available to them sooner.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous. There is clearly a disagreement about what the evidence may or may not show about the efficacy of the policy, so will the Minister be good enough to make public or put in the Library of the House of Commons the analysis that supports that?

[Mims Davies]

I will write to the hon. Lady with further details covering some of that, but I would like to reiterate something about the history of the permitted period. Perhaps this will help her. The permitted period was formulated as a policy as part of the Social Security Act 1989 and was originally set at 13 weeks, which was considered reasonable in the context of the labour market at that time. The end of the permitted period is not a deadline to move into work. It marks the point where a claimant needs to agree commitments that will help them to seize the record opportunities in the current labour market. Good work coaches tailor their ask of their claimants, listen to their needs and give them advice about how they can transition and take up more roles, by listening and engaging. This is not about putting people into jobs that are not right for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding on the Opposition Benches about what our work coaches do and how we are helping people to progress and move forward. The hon. Member for Wirral South made some comments earlier about jobcentres and our work coaches—

[Alison McGovern]

No.

[Mims Davies]

I can say that the feedback consistently is that they are a continually positive place to be. It is important that when people make comments—including about jobcentres wanting to sanction people more and being negative places to be—they do it from a position of understanding their strength.

At the heart of the debate is the perception that we are just trying to sanction people more. The reality is completely the opposite. We are trying to get people into work quicker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I do not think I have ever spoken about the reluctance of our claimants to be tenacious and open-minded and to move forward. In fact, that is what the relationship that we build among work coaches, local employers and sector-based work academies, and our approach that we have developed through the plan for jobs, has really brought out. Given the transitions and opportunities and our 50-plus choices and 50-plus champions, I often remind people that the latter part of their careers, when they have great choices, can be the most fulfilling of their working lives. In fact, that is 25% of a working life. The hon. Member for Wirral South mentioned those who fall into economic inactivity, which is something we are focused on.

[Alison McGovern]

indicated dissent.

[Mims Davies]

I think the hon. Lady spoke about people leaving the labour market—that is the point I was making.

With regard to the regulations, it is important to mention the evaluation, which will help the Committee, and then I will conclude. We will reflect on the evidence and what the Way to Work campaign has brought forward. The evidence shows that, as we have discussed, how hard it is to secure a job is often based on how long it takes to return to the labour market. With Way to Work, we are giving new claimants more time with their work coach and making sure that we bring local employers into the jobcentres with sectors and opportunities that perhaps people would never have found otherwise. That will help more claimants move into work quicker, and we will be routinely reassessing the impact of the changes on universal credit claimants more generally.

It is important to reiterate that we know that the longer people are out of employment, the harder it is, so intensive support sooner from DWP is what this is about. It will mean that claimants who are expected to broaden their job search will take advantage of the additional vacancies out there. To be clear, we do not expect claimants to move into work that is not right for them. The Committee should be clear on that. Our work coaches are specifically trained to direct claimants to suitable opportunities, where they are appropriate and tailored to their personal needs and circumstances.

Given my comments, I trust the Committee understands both the need for the change in the regulations and why we felt it important to deliver at pace, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell. The change is designed to build on the success of our plan for jobs. I hope I have reassured the Committee about the measures. We are committed to seeing the jobs filled quickly for progression in every community. People can succeed by working with us at DWP to find their next career at any age or any stage.

[Alison McGovern]

I will keep it exceedingly snappy and make just two points in closing.

First, anecdote is one thing; evidence and analysis about the economy, and about the labour market and how it works, is a completely different thing. I look forward to seeing the full analysis of why the DWP thinks this is going to work.

Secondly, the Minister said that I said that work coaches were no good. The opposite is the truth. I have sat alongside work coaches and spoken to them about the things they are doing, and I think that work coaches up and down this country are, by and large, fantastic people who do a great job. The problem with the DWP is not work coaches; it is what is going on on Whitehall and policies like this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

The Minister has just accepted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) that far too many people in this country are stuck in low-paid work. Last month the Secretary of State told me that she was the block to the Government’s response to the report on in-work progression, and last week the Minister told me it would be coming soon. It looks like nothing is happening, so may I give the Minister one last chance: when will the Government respond to the report they commissioned last year on in-work progression?

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me one last chance at the Dispatch Box—that sounded rather ominous. In-work progression is absolutely vital; from April we will, as was just mentioned, have more work coaches supporting people who have got stuck, as some people have—there might be things going on in their lives which mean they need more skills or confidence. The Secretary of State and I are working on this response and will be bringing it forward very shortly.

In-work Poverty

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for, and congratulate him on, securing this debate in Westminster Hall. The passionate contributions from all, particularly Opposition Members, have made it clear that this is a crucial discussion. At the heart of the debate is a simple truth: we all want to get on in life. Many of us know the feeling of receiving our first pay packet—that sense of finally releasing our parents from the stress of having to afford us and from that worry about money. There is a feeling of ease—not of great wealth, but of having enough—and that is what we want every person in our country to feel. With hard work, that should be available to all. The truth, however, as we heard in so many countless examples, is that that feeling is not available to everyone.

The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) described the simple law of economics that a high number of vacancies increases wages. If that were the case, real wages ought to be shooting up, but they are not. The fact is that economics does not have simple laws—if it did, a lot of economists would be out of work.

Things do not work like that; they are much more problematic. This is the challenge: there is a rocketing number of vacancies, but people are not able to get on in life. That is the problem. The Government themselves know that that is the case. They know we have a problem. They commissioned the in-work progression review by Ruby McGregor-Smith.

[Peter Gibson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alison McGovern]

As I mentioned the hon. Gentleman, I will give way to him.

[Peter Gibson]

As a former employer of a substantial number of people in a very competitive industry, I frequently had to recruit people when demand was greater than the supply available. It was often the case that employers such as myself had to increase wages to make those jobs attractive and to bring people in from other employers. I was speaking from my own experience. Having spoken to employers in my own constituency who have vacancies, I know that they too are increasing their wages to attract people.

[Alison McGovern]

Perhaps the hon. Member could ask those other employers why real wages are not increasing, because that is what the data tells us is happening. Unfortunately, it turns out that the rules of supply and demand are not so simple when an economy has as many problems as those experienced in Britain.

The Government themselves—the hon. Member’s own Government—know that this is a problem. They know that people are stuck in low pay, because they got Ruby McGregor-Smith to investigate and ask why people are simply not able to get on in life, earn a better pay packet and look after their family. She found that there were myriad issues with the cost of childcare and transport, and that people are unable to get the right skills to move on and move up. In certain professions, including care, a culture of low pay means that people are not able to move on and get a well-paid job to look after themselves and their family.

Last February, the Secretary of State told me that she was the reason that the response to Ruby McGregor-Smith’s report was being held up. My first question for the Minister is: when will the Government respond to that report? When will practical steps be taken to help working people get better pay? As the review found, there are myriad reasons why it is not a simple matter of supply and demand. It also showed that single parents have only so many hours in a day, and that if someone lives in a town whose bus service is so chronically bad that it limits their job choices, it is not their fault that they cannot get a better paid job. We need the Government to reply to that report.

My second question to the Minister is time-sensitive. Working people are facing a national insurance rise. If ever there were a time for such a tax rise, it is not now. People are dealing with truly horrific increases in energy bills and other costs. The Government really must rethink this. I want to quote an organisation that has spoken on this issue and on the underlying reason why this tax increase on workers is being brough about. It said:

“There is a large, unjustified and problematic bias against employment and labour incomes”.

That quote comes not from Marxism Today, but from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The Government must rethink their whole approach to working people and how we make sure that people have decent pay.

To conclude, I want to come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Darlington about the iron law. As I have said to him on several occasions, it is not a matter of simple supply and demand. We only need to look around the economy today in Britain to realise that we can have rocketing vacancies while real pay does not go up. That is what is happening now. I ask myself what could possibly have gone wrong. The economics textbooks say it should work. What could have possibly gotten in the way of working people and a decent income?

Since 2010, the Tories have done the following: presided over a massive increase in zero and short-hours contracts; overseen a pandemic of low pay in key professions such as social care, which has driven chronic staff shortages; put charges on employment tribunals, so that working people find it much harder to get their rights confirmed; put roadblocks and bans in the way of trade unions, so that organising is harder; got rid of Unionlearn, which helped many working people get on; and overseen a labour market with a skills crisis and in which 20% of people have to work below their skill level, making it impossible for them to get on.

Rishi Sunak has put taxes up more times in two years than Gordon Brown did in 10 years, and he is landing working people with a devastating tax rise at the worst possible time. We have seen child poverty rise and food bank use explode, and 1 million experienced destitution in 2019. That is the problem. It has been a decade of doom for people trying to get on in life—a Labour Government is required.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee he will also realise that we are experiencing record levels of fraud, and we are absolutely determined to bear down on that. We need to get the balance right, because it is taxpayers’ money that we are talking about.

[Alison McGovern]

Just to remind the Minister, when will the Government respond to the in-work progression report?

[David Rutley]

Of course, we recognise that we need to do more on in-work progression. The hon. Member is right to highlight that and we will respond shortly, and the response will be important. We are already taking action in this area, and I did not focus on that today because it was focused on in a previous debate. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) wanted to know what we were doing differently on progression, and I confirmed then and confirm now that we are working to put in place progression champions across the country who will make connections between employers, local authorities and skills providers and help more people to progress in work, which all of us across this Chamber want to achieve.

I believe passionately that we need to help people to see the opportunities before them and realise their potential. The plan for jobs helps people into work and also provides lots of mechanisms to enable people to progress in work. The progression work coaches will be a vital tool to help with that agenda. We know there is more to be done, and we are working hard to deliver on it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

As my hon. Friend is my neighbour, I am conscious of the opportunities in his constituency thanks to the Government investment, alongside that of private investors, in our progress to net zero. I do not agree with him that we need to reshape student finance in such a way; that is not the purpose of universal credit, and only a limited number of people can undertake that training. I assure him that Train and Progress, which I mentioned, the lifetime skills guarantee and the opening up of access, as well as apprenticeships to get into a sector in the first place, are better ways to make sure that we help people to get on in work.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I similarly associate myself and all my colleagues with your remarks before questions, Mr Speaker.

The Government know that, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) suggests, there is a problem with progression out of low pay, because they commissioned the Ruby McGregor-Smith review, which reported in July last year. In January this year, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), told me that the Government would publish their response “shortly”. Meanwhile, kickstart has failed to deliver and, as the journalist Ed Conway pointed out this afternoon, in the past year the average house has earned more than the average 18 to 29-year-old in this country. That is a disgrace. Will the Secretary of State announce today when she will at last publish the Government’s response to the Ruby McGregor-Smith review of low pay? Will she say how the Government propose to make progress on two key issues that the review identified: public transport and childcare?

[Dr Coffey]

I reject the hon. Lady’s assertion that kickstart is not working. More than 130,000 young people have now had access to a proper job in which they have gained employability skills, so it has been an effective response. At the same time, she will be aware that there are more people in work on payroll than there were before the pandemic. People are making good progress in that regard.

The review is important. I will be candid and say that I am the person who has held it up, because I want to make sure we have got all the questions answered as best we can. Meanwhile, we continue to work across Government on some of the hurdles that people are trying to get over, such as childcare and similar issues. I hope that the response will be published shortly.