Supported Housing
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
This has been a comprehensive debate with many good contributions from all parts of the House, if probably more so from the Opposition. There has been a cautious welcome for the Prime Minister’s announcement that there will not be a cap in relation to supported housing and LHA—an issue of real concern.
Among the 25 speakers were my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—the Chair of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government —and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods). A lot of people identified that it was completely inappropriate in the first place to propose that supported housing should be based on an LHA rate, given that it meets very different needs. Several key themes emerged. On the need for sustainability around the funding, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned the importance of ring-fencing it, and the need for greater co-operation between Departments. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who organised the Westminster Hall debate on this issue a few weeks ago, has probably contributed to the position that we are in now.
Many Members wanted to thank local providers and charities. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) said that what providers do is more of a vocation—that they do it out of love for it. However, we cannot take advantage of that, and we must recognise it in the support that we give them.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Welcome as the Government’s U-turn is, does my hon. Friend agree that their change of mind barely scratches the surface of the overall crisis in the provision of supported and affordable housing?
Debbie Abrahams
I will come on to that. Obviously, we look forward to seeing the detail next Tuesday, but yes, we must not underestimate what is happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) always makes very pertinent points, but I would like to pick out her comments about Government policy contributing to potentially driving people into refuges because they have no financial support through the single householder.
It is so important that we have had this debate on supported housing after years of uncertainty from this Government hanging over the heads of some of our most vulnerable tenants. The Government’s announcement earlier today is therefore welcome. I want to reaffirm a point that others have made in the course of the debate. The term “supported housing” covers accommodation for a number of different groups in our society, but one thing that binds them all is the degree of vulnerability of these tenants. This form of housing supports older people in sheltered accommodation, disabled people and those with learning disabilities, people at high risk of homelessness, and survivors of domestic violence and their children, as well as armed service veterans, care leavers, and ex-offenders. The importance of what is provided through supported housing cannot therefore be overestimated.
The Government have asked those groups to wait for nearly two years to find out whether their accommodation is secure. Although, as I say, we welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement today indicating that LHA will not be extended to the social or supported housing sectors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was exactly right to say that the devil is in the detail. He cautioned that whatever comes out of next week’s statement, it must recognise not just that there has been a two-year hiatus for the supported housing sector, but that cuts of half a billion pounds are coming down the line in 2021. We need to have the detail about those proposals, which were in the Red Book and autumn statement last year.
We wait with bated breath, alongside the 700,000 people currently using housing support, to see the adequacy of the supported housing deal. The new deal must recognise that the uncertainty has had an impact on the sector’s capacity by undermining providers’ ability to build. Government inaction has resulted in an 85% reduction in supported housing development, at a time when there is already a shortfall of nearly 17,000 supported housing units. That means that those who one day might need such provision will not have it. I recently visited a refuge that looks after women and children fleeing domestic abuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has said, people are being turned away. It is important that we recognise the inadequacy of current provision.
When the Government finally publish their statement on the new approach to supported housing next week, I hope that they will recognise the design flaws in universal credit, which make it totally incompatible with the needs of people who are reliant on supported housing. I am pleased that the Government are bringing to an end the uncertainty about supported housing. I hope that they will also think again about the many other universal credit issues and agree to pause it while we work to fix it.
Over a year ago, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and promised to help the worst-off among us, but there has not been a single achievement. In many cases, including this one, progress has stalled. We could point to the Government’s slashing of funding for affordable homes, the withdrawal of housing benefit from young people or the reductions in local housing allowance for private tenants, which are making sections of the country into places where low-income families simply cannot live. All those measures are short-term attempts to balance the books on the back of the most vulnerable. None of them addresses the root cause of the problem, which is the Government’s total failure to build enough affordable and social homes to meet people’s needs. That problem was recognised by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, although seemingly not by his Chancellor.
I am pleased that today’s statement suggests that the Government are considering the recommendations made jointly by the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on the future of supported housing. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on their contribution to that work.
After all, the independent Committees’ report, which was drafted and agreed by Members from all parties, found that supported housing delivered excellent value for money and significant cost savings to the wider public sector, while maximising quality of life. They agreed with us that the Government must introduce a long-term and sustainable funding settlement, but raised concerns about previous proposals to extend the LHA. The Committees jointly suggested that the local housing allowance rate is not an appropriate place to start when determining the funding settlement. There is no correlation, as we have heard, between the cost of providing supported housing and local housing allowances.
Labour supports the Committees’ calls to introduce a new supported housing allowance set at a rate higher than the current cap. Alongside that, we need a separate funding system to safeguard short-term and emergency accommodation, including women’s refuges, and we must ensure that any new funding model does not threaten future supply of supported housing. We will hold the Government to account on their delivery of a new funding model. The next steps are laid out before the Government, and I hope that in their statement next week, they will commit to taking those steps. They should end this two-year impasse now, or stand aside and allow a Labour Government to get on with the job.
Universal Credit Roll-out
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Government’s response to the decision of the House on pausing the Universal Credit full service roll-out.
Once again, Mr Speaker, I thank you for granting this emergency debate, which is so important to the people we represent. It is very important that we have this opportunity to return to the roll-out of universal credit, following last week’s Opposition day debate. Just to refresh everyone’s memory, the motion calling for a pause to the programme was unanimously approved by 299 votes to zero. Since then, we have heard nothing from the Government about what they intend to do, in response to the concerns raised last week, to fix universal credit. I always welcome the Minister for Employment to his place, but why is the Secretary of State not here to answer? Obviously I understand that emergencies do happen, but I did not get a satisfactory response from his office when I rang earlier, and apparently Downing Street is none the wiser either.
The press has reported that the Government are considering reducing the six-week wait for the first payment after making a claim. Will the Minister confirm whether that is correct and, if so, when will it happen? Will he also explain why his Government deem it acceptable to brief the media but not to make a statement to this House? Does he recognise the constitutional implications of his Government’s inaction to date?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Did my hon. Friend notice that virtually every Conservative, or Conservative representative of the Government, who spoke on this matter over the weekend seemed to suggest that the problems with universal credit were to do not with the policy but just its implementation? However, the six-week delay is actually a policy decision that was in place from the very beginning, and that is what is causing the poverty and the problems.
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be fair, some Conservative Members, and indeed a Conservative Assembly Member, have recognised the real problems with the structural design of universal credit, even saying that it is “indefensible”.
As it stands, there is overwhelming evidence of the harmful impacts of universal credit, including rising debt, rent arrears and even evictions. The Government must take action or face serious constitutional questions. They have had three sitting days to respond to the legislature but have failed to do so, keeping this House and the country waiting, along with the 7 million people who are expected to be using this programme.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The Government’s figures indicate that 90,000 families will be transitioned on to universal credit full service over the next 90 days. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that while the Government delay making a decision, about 1,000 more families each day, on average, will have to wait six weeks and get further into debt?
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why this debate is so urgent—we cannot wait. Although, yes, this is still a small proportion of the full number of people who will have universal credit rolled out to them, this amounts to a 63% increase in the number of people who will be on full service over the next six months.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that 50% of people who have received universal credit have actually received it early and applied for an advance payment?
Debbie Abrahams
As my hon. Friends are saying, it is a loan. I will return to that, but I want to make that important point.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Lady nailed it in a remark that she made a moment or so ago. There have been just three sitting days since the Opposition day debate. Were we to presuppose that Her Majesty’s Government would seek to respond to that debate—let us not presume that—would it be fair, in all honesty, to expect them to do so within three sitting days?
Debbie Abrahams
I will come on to that in a moment. The precedent was, unfortunately, set by the current Government.
As I said, the Government have had three sitting days to respond to the legislature. It might be useful to quote the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who is now First Secretary of State. At the last such defeat for a Government, in 2009, he raised an immediate point of order, in which he asked the then Deputy Speaker:
“In the wake of that devastating vote for the Government, have you had any indication that Ministers intend to come to the House and make an immediate statement about how they propose to change their policy, as the House has now spoken clearly?”—[Official Report, 29 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 931.]
Within three and a half hours, the then Government made a statement.
The right hon. Gentleman had changed his tune a bit by last Thursday, when he said that all
“governments have to abide by the rules of parliament. We’re a parliamentary democracy,”
but that
“as the Speaker said last night, motions like that are non-binding motions, so they don’t engage government activity particularly.”
He cannot have it both ways.
These events have raised a more fundamental constitutional question, given reports that the Government no longer intend to require Conservative Members to vote against Opposition day motions.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Lady said earlier that the up-front payment is, in her words, a loan. If it was not a loan, it would increase the overall quantum of benefit paid to recipients. Is that what she is proposing?
Debbie Abrahams
I will say exactly what I am proposing very shortly.
If the Government’s position is that Opposition day debate motions should have no binding effect on the actions of the Government, it fundamentally alters the relationship and balance of power between the Executive and Parliament. It would mean that apart from votes on legislation and matters of confidence, the Government could ignore the decisions and will of Parliament. This is very dangerous ground, and the situation needs to be seen in the context of the blatant power grab by the Executive that we witnessed on Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill last month.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
For the hon. Lady to accuse the Government in such a way is to suggest that there has been a change from precedent, but votes on Supply days have never been binding on the Government. That is a clear precedent going back many years, and the position was entrenched by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.
Debbie Abrahams
The point is that we need an urgent response to this really important issue. We are calling for a clear set of proposals from the Government that will reflect the will of the House and pause universal credit roll-out while the issues that I raised—and many more that I did not have time to raise—are fixed.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Is she as surprised as I am by Conservative Members’ denial of the seriousness of these issues? Their comments will give no succour to my constituents, such as the mother of three who is currently sleeping on her cousin’s floor after she was evicted from her home because of non-payment of rent that resulted from delays in universal credit. This is not about the Opposition versus the Government; it is about real people—our constituents—suffering.
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend raises an important case. It is absolutely shocking that in 2017, in the fifth richest economy in the world, such cases are brought to our surgeries day in, day out. Things are only going to get worse, and that is absolutely unacceptable.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The moment for pausing universal credit—this is determined by statutory instrument, as the hon. Lady knows—has passed, but there will be another opportunity to do so in January, when another one-month pause is built into the system. If we could find a compromise with the Government and make significant changes to the policy, such as reducing the six-week wait to four weeks, would that be acceptable to the Opposition?
Debbie Abrahams
Something needs to happen urgently. As the hon. Lady knows, full service is being rolled out to 55 areas this month. The cold months are upon us, and Christmas is just around the corner. We need an urgent response now.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
A number of cases have been brought to me. Last Christmas, one constituent waited for two months without any money to get redress. On the constitutional question, democracy can only work if everybody gets involved. It is no good the Government boycotting Parliament.
Debbie Abrahams
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We must have a responsive Government who listen to the will of the House and the people we represent. It is not good enough just to say that a motion is not binding—we need action.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need for a pause? In Wallasey, the roll-out will begin halfway through November. Six weeks later, it will be Christmas. The Department for Work and Pensions will not be open on Christmas day, which means that many of my constituents will have to wait until the new year for assistance. That is why our local food bank is looking to collect 15 tonnes of extra food to deal with demand. Does she agree that it is time that the Government listened to Parliament and acted to alleviate such obviously avoidable hardship?
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Food banks are running out of food as the scheme is being rolled out. What will happen to families who desperately need financial support?
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
One of my constituents who has severe mental health problems has been signed off as sick until December. We go on to universal credit in November, and he has been advised that if he does not prove that he is looking for work, he will be sanctioned and his benefits will be stopped. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is dangerous to have assessors overriding the views of registered doctors?
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the impact of in-work conditionality. There are about 1 million people on zero-hours contracts who may not know from one week to the next whether they will be able to work 35 hours each week, and we know how much harm universal credit will do to them. Those people are doing the right thing, but they may be sanctioned if they are deemed not to be working enough hours.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being generous with her time. During last week’s debate, I raised the reluctance of private sector landlords to rent properties to people who are on universal credit. Is she aware that social landlords frequently issue a notice indicating that they will seek possession of a property if the tenant is in arrears for only a week? Is it not scandalous that an ever-increasing number of people will approach the Christmas period with such a threat hanging over them?
Debbie Abrahams
Absolutely. Surely what is happening is not right, so we must stop this.
I will now make some progress, although I will take more interventions later. People might not have kept up with the hundreds of stories that we have heard from colleagues on both sides of the House, but we must make sure that the Government’s flagship programme is amended to take account of the real hardship that people are experiencing. We have heard about that hardship not just from claimants, but from charities that deal with claimants, as well as many other organisations.
There are three key issues with universal credit: the programme’s design flaws, which have been there from the outset, as I mentioned last week; the cuts that were introduced in 2015; and various implementation failures. First, I will talk about the programme’s flaws. The six-week wait before new claimants receive any payment is particularly draconian, and it is having real impacts. Four weeks of the waiting period are to provide that universal credit can be backdated, but an additional week’s wait was added as policy, and claimants must wait a further week for their payment to arrive. That is believed to be one of the primary drivers of the rise in debt and arrears.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady talks about a six-week delay before any payments are received, but she will be aware that up-front payments are made available at the initial stage, so does she accept that that is not quite the case?
Debbie Abrahams
No, I do not.
It is so important to stress that half of those in rent arrears under universal credit entered arrears after making a claim. We know that one in four is waiting more than six weeks, and one in 10 is waiting more than 10 weeks.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
There are 1.5 million people on housing benefit in the private rental sector, and private landlords do not have the flexibility or even the patience of housing associations and councils. Does the hon. Lady agree that if 50% of the 1.5 million people who will ultimately be on universal credit lose their homes, it would be an absolute catastrophe?
Debbie Abrahams
We know the real issues involved in the housing crisis at the moment, so the hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point.
The Government claim that the purpose of making payments once a month in arrears is to mimic the world of work, but that is not the case. Data published just yesterday by the Office for National Statistics shows that a quarter of the lowest-paid—those most likely to be on universal credit—are paid every week or fortnightly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) has said, given that nearly 400,000 more people are due to go on to universal credit over the winter, at this rate 80,000 people will be waiting more than six weeks for a payment, with 40,000 people waiting more than 10 weeks for their first payment.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend makes the very important point that these policies are not accidental consequences, but something that is baked into the universal credit system. That is why it is not unreasonable to ask the Government to respond within three sitting days of last week’s Opposition day debate. Does she share my concerns that universal credit payments will be made to only one member of a household and about the consequences of that policy for victims of domestic violence, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) has been campaigning?
Debbie Abrahams
Again, my hon. Friend makes a very important point. I will come on to all the different issues. I have raised the so-called advance payment, which is in fact, as I have said, a loan—it has to be paid back within six months.
Debbie Abrahams
No. I am sorry, but I am not going to take any more interventions.
Other design problems I mentioned last week include: the fact that payment is made to one member of the household—predominantly men—and that the second earners, who are predominantly women, face much reduced work incentives; the fact that severe disability premium payments were not incorporated into universal credit; the fact that rent is paid to the claimant rather than the landlord; the fact that self-employed people are subject to the punitive minimum income floor, which fails to reflect the reality of the peaks and troughs in their working hours; and the fact that in-work conditionality is coming down the track, meaning that 1 million working people will have to visit jobcentres while much of the Jobcentre Plus estate is being closed, and will face financial sanctions if they fail to work the hours their job coach deems they must work. On top of that, there are the real-time information flaws, which have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and the fact that there is no time limit on disputes, which will lead to more delays in payments. There is also, of course, the fact that the child element of universal credit has been reduced from 20 to 19 years.
I turn to the cuts made to the programme since its introduction. Universal credit was meant to simplify the system, but it was also meant to make work pay. We have always supported those principles, and we still do, but unfortunately the 2015 summer Budget slashed the work allowances, and the rate at which support is withdrawn was dramatically increased. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said in its response to the Budget, that meant the promise that work would always pay was lost. The cuts reduced the work allowances from £222 a month to £192 a month for a couple with two children claiming housing costs. It is estimated that that will result in an additional 340,000 people in poverty by 2020. Some families have been left as much as £2,600 a year worse off.
Families with three children face even greater difficulty, as the Government have decided that the state should play no role in supporting the life chances of the third child. A whole generation of children will be born without the support that was offered to their siblings, which is a break from the historical principle that the state should not punish children for the circumstances of their parents. Single parents have been hit particularly badly. In real terms, a single parent with two children who is working full time as a teacher will be £3,700 a year worse off.
That is even before we reach the Government’s freeze on social security rates, which the Joseph Rowntree Foundation predicts will push 500,000 more people over the poverty line. Its analysis shows that the freeze will mean that a family of four receiving universal credit will be over £800 a year worse off in 2020, and that is on top of the other cuts I have outlined. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue the freeze on social security payments, including universal credit, given that it was introduced when inflation was 0.3% but the rate is now 3%?
As I revealed last week, the Child Poverty Action Group’s forthcoming report estimates that these cuts will push 1 million more children into poverty, 300,000 of whom are under five. What does it say about this Government when their policies knowingly push children into poverty? The Secretary of State, the Minister for Employment and many other Conservative Members have tried to suggest that data apparently showing a 3% increase in employment outcomes under universal credit compared with the situation under the previous system is evidence that universal credit works to get people into work. However, they fail to add that the data is from 2015—before the cuts were implemented. Will the Minister now commit to updating the figures, and will he retract these particular statistics, which he has used numerous times?
It is worth pointing out that the most recent figures show an underspend—I repeat, an underspend—on tax credits of as much as 2.4% compared with the projections of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Will the Government provide an exact figure for the savings that that has created? Could not some of the underspend be put towards sorting out the problems that we are now encountering under the new programme? I will return to that point in a minute.
Debbie Abrahams
I am very sorry, but I will not give way now.
I turn to the implementation failures. Leaving aside the many changes to the programme’s schedule over the past few years, the most recent roll-out has been beset by problems. I was glad that the Government listened to Labour and will replace the high-cost phone line with a free one. Will the Minister give me a timetable of when that will happen? Will he also assure me that the free phone line will be funded not by the taxpayer but by Serco, the contractor?
Other implementation issues still remain, however, including the fact that people are denied prescriptions and dental treatment because pharmacies and dental practices do not know who is eligible for free treatment. People also do not know about advance payments or alternative payment arrangements.
I have been inundated with emails and calls from people telling me their UC horror stories. For example, a self-employed Oldham woman is worried that she will lose her business and home when she goes on to universal credit. I have received so many stories from self-employed people that you would not believe it, Mr Speaker. They are really concerned about what universal credit will mean for them. A private landlord is worried that three of his tenants are thousands of pounds in rent arrears under universal credit, although they had never previously been in rent arrears. Southwark Council estimates that such arrears will be an average of £1,700 per universal credit tenant. Disabled people are isolated and alone as the support of severe disability premiums disappears, along with other disability support. As I have mentioned, food banks are running out of food. Even current and former DWP advisers are expressing their deep concerns about the programme and the fate of claimants.
I come back to my asks. First, the Government must end the six-week wait. They should bring it forward by at least one week, but if it is to be brought forward by two weeks, as has been widely reported, that will make a huge difference to people. Secondly, they must ensure that alternative payment arrangements are offered to all claimants at the time of their claim. To suggest that this already happens is more than a little disingenuous. The DWP guidance is vague to say the least. The alternative payment arrangement options include fortnightly payments, split payments and payments directly to the landlord.
Debbie Abrahams
I will not; I am sorry.
My third ask is that the Government reconsider closing one in 10 jobcentres at the same time as they are rolling out the programme. It is nonsensical that those closures are happening at the same time.
Finally, given the latest assessment from the OBR, which shows a projected 5% underspend in tax credits, which is equivalent to £660 million, will the Government commit to investing that money back into the programme, for example to eliminate the two-child limit? I also remind the Minister of my earlier question about lifting the social security freeze.
All this is reason for the Government to respect the will of the House—this country’s elected representatives—and pause the universal credit full service roll-out. I stand ready to work with them in the national interest to address these problems and avert the disaster that is universal credit.
Debbie Abrahams
I start by thanking everyone who has spoken in this debate. I cannot express how disappointed I am that the Government do not seem to have heard the concerns raised by our constituents, charities and so many others, including some of their own Members, and how disappointed I am that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions did not come to the House today. What message does that send? It is profoundly disrespectful to this House and to the people we represent. I sincerely hope that we have not reached a constitutional impasse, as the Government seem to be refusing to act on the will of the House as expressed in last week’s vote.
This important constitutional debate is, however, little relief for those living in areas about to be placed under universal credit full service. They face the debt arrears and possible eviction that have occurred elsewhere. In my opening remarks, I made clear the areas on which Labour wishes to see improvement from the Government. Those areas fall under three broad headings: programme design flaws; reversing cuts to funding; and implementation failures. Our criticisms have been confirmed time and again by hon. Members throughout this emergency debate and last week.
What we have here is a rare case in which Members of all parties are agreed on the fundamental principles at stake, and we are willing to work together to ensure that universal credit is a success and supports people into work without fear of a loss of income. The Prime Minister stood on the steps of 10 Downing Street and told the nation that she would help those struggling to get by, that she would build a country for everyone. More than a year has passed now, and no conceivable action has been taken to alleviate the miserable effects of seven years of failing austerity upon those on the lowest incomes.
The House’s view is clear: the Government must act. Should they fail to do so, we will keep holding them to account. We will keep fighting on this vital issue, standing up for the 7 million people who will be affected, until change has been realised and we have built social security that is fit for purpose and is there for all of us in our time of need.
Mr Speaker
The Question is as on the Order Paper. I will say it again—[Interruption.] Order. Some people seem to need help. [Interruption.] Order. I do not need harrumphing from a sedentary position from a junior Whip, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler). It does not avail her, and it does not assist the service of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Government’s response to the decision of the House on pausing the Universal Credit full service roll-out.
Universal Credit Roll-out
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to pause the roll-out of Universal Credit full service.
I am delighted that we have secured this vital debate on universal credit, given the concerns across the country and among Members on both sides of the House. I am aware that some 90 people have put in to speak, so I will take only a few interventions from both sides of the House. I will try to get through my key points as quickly as I can.
Our motion calls on the Government to pause the roll-out of universal credit while the issues associated with this key social security programme are fixed. I genuinely offer to work with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to fix the many and varied issues associated with universal credit. To understand what needs fixing, we need to understand how we got here. When universal credit was first introduced in 2012, it had the underpinning principles that it would simplify the social security system, bringing together six payments for working-age people in and out of work, and that it would make work pay.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about the underpinning principles. Surely, one of those should be that our social security system should not drive people into debt, yet that is precisely what is happening to my constituents who are waiting months for payments.
Debbie Abrahams
Absolutely, and I will go on to make those points in a moment.
Getting back to the principles, we supported those then and we support them now. The Government wanted to pilot the implementation of UC, so they introduced a number of pathfinder areas, including my Oldham constituency, and planned a phased roll-out between 2013 and 2017.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
My constituency was also a pathfinder, and since the introduction of UC in 2012, the claimant count in my constituency has halved. Does the hon. Lady think the two issues are connected?
Debbie Abrahams
There may be many and varied reasons why the claimant count is down, not least the system of punitive sanctions the Government also introduced in 2012.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Newcastle was also a pathfinder constituency. As the local MP, I have seen at first hand the absolute misery and destitution that this system has forced many of my constituents into. Our Newcastle food bank was already the largest in the country, and now it regularly runs out of food as a direct consequence of this system. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister’s attitude at questions earlier today showed a total lack of understanding of the impact and of the destitution and suffering of so many of her citizens?
Debbie Abrahams
This is a real test for the Government; if there is a genuine desire to make life better for everybody across the country, UC is a key way in which we can respond. I am so sorry to hear about the issues in Newcastle as a consequence of the introduction of UC.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I can report to my hon. Friend that I have had exactly the same experience in my constituency, where people are being driven into destitution by the waits for UC. The local food bank, alongside the citizens advice bureau, has estimated that if this full roll-out goes ahead just six weeks before Christmas, leaving everybody destitute for Christmas day, it will have to collect 15 tonnes of extra food to deal with the demand that will be generated by these changes.
Debbie Abrahams
This is the reality that people are facing; this is happening in the areas my colleagues have mentioned, and our concern is that, as this is rolled out to 55 areas this month, the situation will get even worse.
Simon Hoare
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being enormously kind with her time. The motion calls for a pause in the roll-out. Is she going to tell us what the Labour party would do during that pause period?
Debbie Abrahams
The hon. Gentleman is pre-empting my speech, but I will happily propose exactly what we would like to do in conjunction with the current Government, whose programme this is.
From the start, there were a number of serious design flaws, which the Work and Pensions Committee, of which I was a member, raised in 2012. They included, first, the fact that UC applications would be “digital by default”; in other words, applications could only be made online. There are still several issues with that, not least the assumption that everyone is computer-literate or has ready access to getting online. We all remember the scene in “I, Daniel Blake” where somebody who had not used a computer before was trying to do so, and we saw the real stress and difficulties he found.
Debbie Abrahams
I am sorry but I am not going to give way again, as I must try to press on.
Secondly, there were concerns that UC payments would be made monthly, in arrears, and paid only to the main earner of each household, so women, as second earners, are automatically discriminated against in this process; it was also quite a radical change, with rental payments going directly to the household and not the landlord. Thirdly, there were considerable doubts about the use of so-called real-time information, which was meant to ensure that information from employers to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would allow the Department for Work and Pensions to calculate quickly what people in low-paid employment would be entitled to from UC. The reliability and validity of this data exchange was another key concern. I believe there is a DWP RTI issues group, so there are clearly still problems. Finally, the Government said that disabled people would not be financially worse off under UC, but because the severe disability premium payment has not been incorporated into UC, it is an effective loss of up to £62.45 a week for a single person—more than £3,200 a year.
All that was in 2012, but a number of other issues emerged in the following couple of years—universal jobmatch, ballooning costs and of course several delays. One of the most worrying issues revealed in the January 2015 UC regulations was that people in low-paid work on UC will now be subject to in-work conditionality. So, for example, someone who is one of 1 million or so people working on a low-paid, zero hours contract, with different hours from one week to the next, will have to demonstrate to their Jobcentre Plus adviser that they are trying to work 35 hours a week and if they fail to do that to that person’s satisfaction, they can and will be sanctioned. For Members who are unfamiliar with this concept, those people will have their social security payments stopped for a minimum of a month.
Fast forwarding to the 2015 summer Budget, the then Chancellor announced that cuts would be made to the so-called universal credit work allowances, which are how much someone can earn before UC support starts to be reduced. For example, a couple with two children claiming housing costs had their work allowances cut from £222 a month to £192 a month. In addition, approximately 900,000 families with more than two children could not receive support for third or subsequent children.
Debbie Abrahams
I am not going to give way again, as 90 people have put in to speak.
The UC equivalent of the family element in tax credits was also abolished. The Government’s equality analysis showed that women and people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities will be most adversely affected by these work allowances cuts. Let us recall what the principles of UC were and then consider that the Institute for Fiscal Studies stated at the time that the cuts to work allowances meant the principle of making sure work always pays was lost. The Government’s claim that UC is leading to more people getting into work is misleading, as it is based on 2015 data, before the work allowance cuts came into effect.
The current Chancellor’s attempt to redress some of the damage of these cuts by reducing the UC taper rate in last year’s autumn statement has had a marginal effect. Members may recall that he reduced the rate from 65% to 63%, so that for every £1 earned over the work allowance, 63p of UC support is withdrawn. That is a far cry from the 55p rate envisaged when UC was first being developed. On that basis, the Resolution Foundation estimated that some families will lose £2,600 a year because of these cuts.
Debbie Abrahams
I am sorry but I am not going to give way again, as I need to make progress, with 90 people having put in to speak.
This summer, the Library analysis that I commissioned showed the real-terms impacts on different family structures and for different income groups. It found that a single parent with two children working as a full-time teacher will be about £3,700 a year worse off in 2018-19 compared with 2011-12.
So where are we are up to now? The most recent statistics show that there are currently about 600,000 people claiming UC, over a third of whom are receiving support via the full service. The roll-out of UC over the next six months will see the overall case load rise to just under 1 million, which is a 63% increase. On average, 63,000 people a month may start a new UC claim before January 2018, and by 2022 we expect about 7 million people to be seeking support from the programme. We are at a turning point in the Government’s flagship programme, the roll-out of which is currently being ramped up dramatically.
On top of the design flaws and cuts that I have just mentioned, several other issues have emerged. Perhaps the most pressing is the Government’s decision to make new claimants wait six weeks before they receive any support. Four weeks of that is to allow universal credit to be backdated, plus there is an additional week, as policy, and then a further week waiting for payment to arrive. This “long hello”, as some have called it, is believed to be one of the primary drivers of the rising debt and arrears we are now seeing. Citizens Advice reports that 79% of indebted claimants
“have priority debts such a rent or council tax, putting them at greater risk of eviction, visits from bailiffs, being cut off from energy supplies and even prison”.
Debbie Abrahams
I am sorry, but I will not.
Half those in rent arrears under universal credit report that they entered into arrears after they made their claim. What is worse is that many claimants do not even receive support within the Government’s lengthy six-week deadline: one in four are waiting for longer than six weeks and one in 10 are waiting for more than 10 weeks. The Government’s so-called advance payment, which is meant to be available to those in need, is in fact a loan that has to be paid back within six months out of future social security payments. I recognise and welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement about speeding that up, but I will explain later in my speech exactly what we might need to tweak.
As we have heard, the measures I have outlined are pushing people into debt, rent arrears and even homelessness. Last year, the National Housing Federation warned that approximately 80% of tenants on universal credit were in rent arrears, with the six-week delay being attributed as the key cause. A few weeks ago, a nurse came into my surgery. She was a single mum who had transferred from tax credits to universal credit. She had the six-week wait, and as a result the arrears racked up. When she came to see me, she had just been served an eviction notice. As universal credit is rolled out, such stories will become more and more common.
The Mayor of Greater Manchester has warned that rough sleeping will double over the winter if the universal credit roll-out continues without its fundamental flaws being addressed. This is not scaremongering; it is based on estimates by local authorities in which universal credit has already been rolled out. Throughout Greater Manchester, the average arrears for people on UC in social housing is £824, compared with £451 for non-UC tenants. It is already having an impact on rising evictions and homelessness—and that is without even going into what is happening in the private rented sector. In addition, the increase in rent arrears for social housing landlords means that less money is available for investment in housing-stock maintenance or the building of new social housing, thereby adding to the existing housing crisis.
The increase in food bank use is another consequence of universal credit delays. Earlier this year, the Trussell Trust reported that referrals for emergency food parcels were significantly higher in a UC area, at nearly 17%, compared with the national average of just under 7%. The trust’s report also highlighted the impacts on the mental health of people on UC, who were described as stressed, anxious or depressed, as they worried about being unable to pay bills and falling into debt.
Who is most likely to be affected and why? Single parents are particularly vulnerable under universal credit. There are now 65,000 single parents on UC. Gingerbread has described how, through
“error in administration and the structure of the system itself, single parents have been threatened with eviction and jobs have been put at risk”.
Gingerbread told me about Laura, who lives with her two sons, one of whom is severely disabled. Laura had to apply for universal credit when her temporary contract at work ended. She had to wait eight weeks for support, and visited a food bank to feed her children. She was not told about advance payments and was struggling with rent arrears. Reflecting on her experience, Laura said:
“it’s very stressful, single parents quite often have enough stress and worry about money; and other things, bringing up your children to start with and it’s exacerbated by this very unfair, very unjust system”.
With child poverty among single parents forecast to increase sharply to 63% by the end of the Parliament, it is vital that we fix the social security system to ensure that it is working. In a forthcoming Child Poverty Action Group report analysing the cumulative effects of social security changes on child poverty since 2010, the section on universal credit highlights its design issues and, in particular, the detrimental impact on single parents. It states:
“Universal credit was designed to be more generous to couples than single people, with lone parents in particular expected to lose out compared with tax credits. This was a deliberate reaction to the decision, within tax credits, to boost support for lone parents in comparison with couples because of their higher risk of poverty and the greater difficulty of increasing earnings from work if you are a lone parent.”
The report goes on to say:
“Since its initial design, universal credit has been subject to a succession of changes and cuts which have substantially reduced its adequacy overall… As a result, it is now less generous than the system it is replacing, and no longer offers the promise of reducing poverty.”
Universal credit is not just affecting single parents; young families and families with more than two children will also fare much worse under UC. Young families going on to universal credit will be affected by the decision to introduce a lower under-25 rate of the standard allowance in universal credit, even for parents with children. As a result, young families will be at increasing risk of poverty, especially if they have a single earner or a second earner working part time. Of course, among other cuts, limiting the child element of support to only two children leaves families with more than three children worse off as well. The report reiterates that as well as being less generous and actually cutting family income, UC fails to incentivise people into work or to progress in work, which are fundamental principles of UC. Shockingly, it has been calculated that, because of the cuts, universal credit will push a million more children into poverty by 2020, with 300,000 of them under five.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last time that the Leader of the Opposition spoke on this issue, he made a series of entirely unsubstantiated factual claims about housing in Gloucester. Are these further unsubstantiated claims?
Mr Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order and it is an abuse of our proceedings. I strongly counsel the hon. Gentleman not to make the same foolish mistake again.
Debbie Abrahams
I wonder how that intervention will be seen by those people affected by these issues. Some 900,000 working-age adults will be pushed into poverty, while 900,000 children and 800,000 adults will be living in severe poverty.
Earlier, I mentioned the design issues that are affecting disabled people. This week, I heard from someone who has lost nearly £80 a week—a week—because of their transfer to universal credit after they moved house, ending their ESA claim. When UC was first launched, the Government said they wanted to
“simplify the current complex rules which have been prone to error and complex and confusing for disabled people”
and to replace
“seven different premiums with a simpler, two-tier system that focuses support on the most severely disabled people who are least able to work”.
However, subsequent social security changes, particularly the abolition of the UC limited-capability-for-work element from April 2017, have meant that, instead of a net gain, it is likely that there will be a net reduction of support for people with health conditions and disabilities.
Under this Government, we are seeing unprecedented cuts in support to disabled people, with the consequence that more and more disabled people are living in poverty. The number currently stands at more than 4.2 million; this cannot go on. This is exactly what the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities said is causing a “human catastrophe”.
Debbie Abrahams
I am sorry, but I will not. As I have said, I am conscious that 90 people wish to speak.
The self-employed are another group who are adversely affected by the Government’s changes to universal credit. We have seen a dramatic increase in self-employed people in recent years: they now make up 15% of the workforce—5 million in total—and account for 80% of the increase in employment since 2008. But 45% of them pay themselves less than the living wage.
As I have said many times, it is absolutely right that we try to design a social security system that can properly support self-employed people and that recognises the fluctuating nature of the labour market for those workers. Sadly, universal credit no longer does so, after the introduction of the minimum income floor, which is an assumed income for self-employed people, found by multiplying the minimum wage on the assumption that self-employed people are working 35 hours a week. One self-employed recipient who contacted me said:
“This system does not allow for the fluctuations in income that are experienced by the self-employed. Surely an assessment made on a year’s profits would be much fairer.”
They went on to say that universal credit will close down enterprise as a route to employment.
Importantly, the Department for Work and Pensions does not average incomes over a year, which leads to issues around holidays, such as Christmas, when the self-employed may take time off. They will be punished for doing so under the Government’s universal credit system. The Federation of Small Businesses has also expressed concerns, saying that it expects major problems for low-income self-employed people to set in at Christmas.
We need to build a social security system fit for the 21st century and to make sure that all workers, employed or self-employed, are afforded dignity and security as work demands fluctuate. We cannot allow the devastating impacts of universal credit roll-out to happen. I reiterate my genuine offer to work with the Government to address the very real concerns about universal credit, particularly its design flaws, the administrative issues and the cuts.
I welcome the Government’s announcement this morning that the so-called helpline will now be a Freephone line. Given Serco’s appalling performance over the past few years and the profit that it has made from the Government contract, it should be paying for the Freephone lines. It is unacceptable that people on the lowest incomes have been paying money that they do not have on phone calls to find out about their claims.
Action must be taken to improve call handler capacity and competence, so that people making inquiries on their claim are not kept on hold or passed from pillar to post. Another key ask is for alternative payment arrangements to be offered to all claimants at the time of their claims. That includes ending the one-week wait and enabling people to have fortnightly, instead of monthly, payments where appropriate with the option of the housing element to go directly to the landlord. Alternative arrangements have already been made available in Northern Ireland and will be introduced in Scotland, so there is no reason why they also should not be available to people in England and Wales.
We need to look at the advanced payments and make them more manageable. A repayment over six months is still creating huge issues for people on the lowest income.
Debbie Abrahams
I am sorry, but I will not give way.
These are relatively straightforward suggestions. I recognise that reinstating the original level of work allowances and reducing taper rates are less so, but if the Government and the Prime Minister are sincere about tackling injustice in this country and making sure that work pays, they must act. Once again, I commit to working with them on this. We must address the poverty and discrimination that universal credit is causing women, children, disabled people and black, Asian and minority ethnic communities now. This will only get worse as universal credit is rolled out.
This country is at a crossroads. Brexit must not blind this Government to other obligations to their citizens. We must all work together in the national interest to avert the disaster that is about to unfold if universal credit is rolled out without fixings its failings. I urge all MPs to vote with their conscience, stand with us and their constituents and pause and fix universal credit.
Debbie Abrahams
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a major defeat for the Government on their flagship social security programme. Conservative Whips and the Prime Minister have spent the day strong-arming Conservative MPs to vote against a pause in the roll-out of universal credit, while the Secretary of State has retreated on various aspects of his universal credit policy in a panicked attempt to appease Tory MPs who know that the policy is not fit for purpose.
Yet again, the Prime Minister and the Tories cannot command a majority in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister is in office but not in power. Mr Speaker, have you had an indication from the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State that they intend to come to the House and clarify how they will ensure that the Government implement the clearly expressed will of the House to pause the roll-out of universal credit?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The short answer is that I have received no indication as yet that any Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement on that matter, although it is of course open to colleagues to request such.
I should say the following in these relatively unusual—not unprecedented, but relatively unusual—circumstances. There is nothing disorderly about a recorded vote of the House in which there are no Members recorded as voting no. Members who shout “No” when the question is first put must not vote aye, but they are not and cannot be obliged to vote no. As Standing Order No. 39 states:
“A Member is not obliged to vote.”
A Division requires two Tellers on either side and that was the case.
I should add as follows. A resolution of the House of Commons is just that: an expression of the view of the nation’s elected representatives in the House of Commons. This is important and Members need to hear this part of what I have to say. Constitutionally, from my own experience but based also on procedural advice, and as clearly as what I said a few moments ago, the House cannot direct Ministers. It is for Ministers in the Government to decide how to respond to the clearly expressed view of the House. I feel confident that they will do so, bearing in mind the mood of the House expressed in the urgent debate, which I allowed just two weeks ago, on the need for Government respect for the proceedings of the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is an obligation on social landlords, given the source of income through universal credit, to work constructively with tenants. If a tenant has a reasonable expectation of receiving housing costs as part of their universal credit payment but has not yet received them, the landlord should not take action and the tenant should not face risk of eviction.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
As we have heard, universal credit is causing debt, rent arrears, and even homelessness up and down the country, with many claimants already in work. Given that housing associations are saying that over 80% of rent arrears are down to UC, and that the Mayor of Greater Manchester is predicting that rough sleeping will double as a result of UC roll-out, how many more families does the Minister estimate will be made homeless this winter as a result of the Government’s refusal to pause UC roll-out?
Mr Gauke
Let us be clear: no one needs to go six weeks without financial support when there is a system of advances in place. I make the point to all right hon. and hon. Members that if they are aware of constituents who have not received an advance, they can make it clear to them. Let us be realistic: the fact is that we are now moving towards a welfare system that does not put in place barriers to work and does enable people to make progress. It is no good Labour Members saying they are in favour of the principles, but then trying to obstruct the delivery of a reform that will give 250,000 more people a job.
Penny Mordaunt
One of the changes that we have recently made with both providers is that before they turn to the healthcare evidence and the other things that have traditionally formed part of the assessment, they talk with the individual about the impact of the condition on their day-to-day life. That, I think, has improved the assessment dramatically.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
PIP is causing misery for thousands of disabled people. Two disabled people who were in my surgery this Saturday are threatened with destitution because the money that they got as part of their lifetime award under the disability living allowance was stopped following their PIP assessment. The conditions they have had since birth have not and will not change. Why will the Government not exempt people with lifelong or progressive conditions from ongoing PIP assessments, as they are doing with the work capability assessments?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady is right that we have made that change in employment and support allowance. I give her one example: about 84% of people with motor neurone disease are on the highest rates for PIP, but 16% are not. It is therefore perfectly possible that someone will not be receiving the maximum amount of support but that as their condition progresses, they will need additional support. As I said earlier, we are trying to reduce the burden on individuals going through assessments, but some people will still need to have assessments for PIP because their need becomes greater.
Pensions
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for arranging to let me have sight of it 30 minutes ago.
Yesterday, the renowned expert on life expectancy, Professor Sir Michael Marmot, described how a century-long rise in life expectancy was
“pretty close to having ground to a halt”
since 2010, when this Government began their failing austerity programme. Last week, evidence from Public Health England showed how deep inequalities in healthy life expectancy remain, both regionally and between different groups in our society, including women, disabled people and black and minority ethnic groups. It is therefore astonishing that today this Government choose to implement their plans to speed up the state pension age increase to 68.
Most pensioners will now spend their retirement battling a toxic cocktail of ill health, with men expecting to drift into ill health at 63, five years earlier than this proposed quickened state pension age of 68, and women expecting to see signs of ill health at 64. This national picture masks even worse regional inequalities. Men who live in Nottingham are likely to suffer ill health from the age of 57, a full 11 years earlier, under this Government’s shortened plans, than a state pension age of 68. The Government talk about making Britain fairer, but their pensions policy, whether on the injustice that 1950s-born women are facing or on today’s proposal to increase the state pension age to 68, is anything but fair.
The Government claim that it is young people who will have to bear the burden of the state pension, but in fact it is the young who have to bear the burden of the cuts that they are facing already—cuts to education, housing and working age social security—as well as the Government’s endless extensions of the state pension age. Sadly, like much of the Conservatives’ policy platform, their approach to this matter appears to have changed little since their election manifesto. At that time, they promised to
“ensure that the state pension age reflects increases in life expectancy, while protecting each generation fairly.”
How does today’s statement meet the promise made in the manifesto, given the evidence on life expectancy that we have seen in the past week? What conversations has the Minister had with his new friends in the Democratic Unionist party, whose manifesto promised advocating
“for the interests of our older people”?
Perhaps, as the Pensions Minister astonishingly suggested in a debate earlier this month, the Government will force people in their mid-60s to seek out an apprenticeship. A constituent of mine, hearing that suggestion, visited our local jobcentre in Oldham, only to find that the adviser had no idea of any apprenticeship support or Government employment support available to a woman of her age. The Pensions Minister’s position was not one shared by Mr Cridland, who suggested that the social security system must be able to support those who find themselves unable to work. Perhaps Mr Cridland was unaware of the seven years of slash-and-burn policy on our social security system; the so-called “safety net” is increasingly inadequate, driving up pensioner poverty by 300,000.
Labour wants a different approach. In our manifesto, we committed to leaving the state pension age at 66 while we undertake a review into healthy life expectancy, arduous work and the potential of a flexible state pension age. We want an evidence-based approach to build a state pensions system that brings security for the many, not just the privileged few, so that we can all enjoy a healthy retirement.
Mr Gauke
Even by the standards of the Labour party, its approach to the state pension age is reckless, short-sighted and irresponsible. When the evidence in front of us shows that life expectancy will continue to increase by a little over one year every eight years that pass, fixing the state pension age at 66, as advocated by the Labour party, demonstrates a complete failure to appreciate the situation in front of us. Compared with the timetable set out by this Government, Labour’s approach will add £250 billion to national debt. Let us put that in context: it is almost twice as much as was disbursed into the financial sector following the financial crisis. Let us put it another way: spending in 2040 on the state pension would be £20 billion a year higher under Labour’s plans than under the plans we are setting out—that is almost twice the Home Office budget. Where on earth is this money coming from? Even the—[Interruption.]
Housing and Social Security
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place.
This has been an extensive debate. There were 24 speakers, and I want to thank them all. I congratulate all the new Members who made their maiden speeches, including the hon. Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), but I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), who spoke so movingly about the devastating effect of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I know that she will go from strength to strength, and will continue to represent her constituents in the fantastic way she has during the past week.
I, too, extend my condolences to everyone affected by the fire, and to all those affected by the terror attacks in Manchester and at London bridge and Finsbury Park. It seems to be a sign of our times that, in the space of just a few weeks, we should have faced these horrific events.
On behalf of the more than 50% of people who voted against austerity in the general election just two weeks ago, I want to express my profound disappointment at the content of the Gracious Speech. After delivering Brexit and building a stronger economy, it refers to making our country fairer, echoing the Prime Minister’s warm words on the steps of Downing Street about building a country for everyone. Frankly, this just does not stack up. As a result of seven years of austerity under this Government, we have escalating levels of poverty, including 7.4 million people who are in working households, 4 million children and 4.2 million disabled people, while one in seven of our pensioners are living in poverty, which is an increase of 300,000 since 2010. At the same time, there have been excesses in boardroom pay, with Britain’s top bosses being paid, on average, 312 times more than a care worker, 165 times more than a nurse, 140 times more than a teacher and 132 times more than a police officer. It is all right to praise the work of the emergency services, but let us give them a decent pay rise.
The richest 1,000 people own more wealth than the poorest 40%, and this Government’s tax and spending policies have reinforced, rather than addressed, such inequalities. The Conservative manifesto promised more of the same—carrying on regardless of the pain and suffering that so many people have endured and are still enduring. The Conservatives have broken promise after promise: there was no mention in the manifesto of raising living standards, in spite of real wages being at 2007 levels in real terms, and there was no reference to raising the national living wage, in spite of one in five workers being in low-paid jobs. Instead, it boasted that corporation tax will continue to be cut in spite of the fact that it is already the lowest in the G7. Shockingly, it pledged to erode further the social security safety net for older people by removing the winter fuel allowance for 10 million pensioners and the state pension triple lock, while promising a dementia tax that people, if they could not afford it and were unfortunate enough to need home care, would have to pay by selling their home. The Queen’s Speech mentioned none of those Tory manifesto promises, so I would be grateful to the Secretary of State if he confirmed that, given the position of their coalition partners on these issues, they will not now be delivered.
Given that the Government are currently in breach of their own Pensions Act 2014, will the Secretary of State confirm when they will respond to the Cridland report and guarantee that there will be no further increase in the state pension age? Further to that, there was no mention in the Queen’s Speech of the plight of the 2.6 million WASPI women, including the 4,000 in my constituency, who have been affected by the accelerated increase in their state pension age, many of whom had no notice of the increase and many of whom have been left destitute. I have heard cases of women in their 60s who have had to sell up everything and who are sofa-surfing. What will the Government do to address their plight? We are the fifth richest country in the world. Those women have contributed to society and it is scandalous that they are being treated in this way. The Government must act urgently to address the WASPI issue, reflect on the desperate circumstances that many WASPI women are in and put in place mitigation.
The Government seem oblivious to the escalation in child poverty over the past seven years, with 1 million more children expected to fall into poverty by 2020. They seem unconcerned by the direct and immediate effect that that is having on those children’s health and wellbeing, let alone their long-term life chances. The Tory manifesto pledged to cut free school meals. While I am pleased that that has been dropped, will the Secretary of State confirm what specific measures are in place to address the rise in child poverty and to ameliorate its effects? Will the Government agree to exempt lone parents with children under two from the benefit cap, given today’s High Court judgment? Where is the legislation or other measures to deal immediately with low-paid work and to ensure that work always pays, given that low pay is a key driver of worker and child poverty?
Universal credit, as we have heard in this debate, is failing, from its shambolic roll-out to the escalating costs and ludicrous design flaws, including the so-called “digital by default” and the six-week “long hello” before people get their first payment. During the election, I spoke to a constituent who was told she would have to wait six weeks and then had another four weeks added on top. That is not good enough. Of course, there is also the mess around having four-weekly as opposed to monthly payments. Some people have two payments in one month and then have to reapply because they reach the amount they are allowed.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Universal credit is being rolled out to all new claimants in my constituency from next month. Does the shadow Secretary of State share my worry about the interminable delays that are causing such problems in the claiming of universal credit?
Debbie Abrahams
As I say, it is an absolute mess and we have pledged to address it when we are in a position to do so.
The cuts to universal credit work allowances mean that 2.5 million families will be more than £2,000 a year worse off. Delays in UC and other social security support were a major cause of more than 1 million people relying on food banks last year. That problem is worse in UC areas. People are falling into debt, with eight out of 10 tenants being in rent arrears and homelessness rising. Again, why was this issue not in the manifesto or the Queen’s Speech and what will the Government do about it?
The treatment of disabled people by this Government over the past seven years has been nothing short of scandalous. The scale and range of cuts in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 alone is huge, with £28 billion of support cut for 3.7 million disabled people. Of course, it did not stop there. Disabled people are now feeling the impact of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, with cuts of £1,500 a year for half a million sick and disabled people in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group. The new work capability assessment, the introduction of the personal independence payment and its associated flawed assessment, and the new sanctions regime have all had profound detrimental impacts on disabled people. Even a United Nations inquiry found the Tories guilty of “grave” and “systematic violations” of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, yet there was still nothing in the manifesto and there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech. Why do disabled people not count in this Government’s so-called quest for a fairer society?
Why, when the Government affirmed their commitment to parity of esteem for people with mental health conditions, did the Prime Minister not extend that to PIP support? Her Government overturned the independent tribunal rulings and introduced PIP regulations in March without a vote or even a debate, which deprived people with mental health conditions of the higher rate of PIP. Why does parity of esteem not extend to ESA? According to the Government’s own figures this week, 200,000 people with mental health conditions will lose £345 million in ESA WRAG support.
The Government’s warm words about making our country fairer ring hollow. The Labour party made different choices in our manifesto, and we would most certainly have made different choices in an alternative Queen’s Speech. We would introduce a new social security Bill that would repeal the personal independence payment regulations, reverse the cuts for those in ESA WRAG and transform universal credit to make sure that work always pays. Fundamentally, we would transform our social security system. Like the NHS, it is there for every single one of us in our time of need, providing security, dignity and the basics in life should we become sick or disabled or fall on hard times.
We would not stop there, but I will move on, because I know the Secretary of State wants to respond. Specifically on pensions, in addition to committing to the triple lock and maintaining the winter fuel allowance, we would extend pension credit to WASPI women and affected men and define new additional transitional protections. We would also commission a review to report on options for a flexible retirement age policy and much more. The Government are in chaos—saying one thing and doing another. We have the policies, we have the commitment and we are ready to deliver for the many, not the few.
Employment and Support Allowance
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
Yes. I will come to that point shortly. I also briefly mention the social fund, which can help with non-work-related costs.
We looked at several ways of potentially ring-fencing funds to this group, but in all cases we felt that it would be subject to legal challenge, so this is by far the simplest thing to do. We can monitor how this is being used and see where the money is going. The flexible support fund and the social fund are the only real route to be able supply additional funding to help people, whether that funding is cost-related to work and moving closer towards getting into work, or whether it is other costs associated with the cost of living.
We have also looked at what we can do to reduce a person’s outgoings. I thank my officials, who have done a huge amount of work with telecoms and energy suppliers to establish what support is on offer, and to encourage new offers and some low tariffs. That work has concluded and the Department for Work and Pensions will signpost claimants—not just WRAG claimants, but others—to services that help to reduce those costs. For example, tariffs are available, particularly to those on ESA, that package up broadband, phone and other costs at a low tariff of £10 a month.
When work coaches meet claimants, they will be able to offer signposting to services that help claimants with budgeting and saving money on household bills. That will be supported by a fact sheet that can be given to claimants. The fact sheet is already in operation and has been distributed through our operations arm. It is a one-stop shop that has all the information in one place, as well as signposting to local services. That is a big step forward. The leaflet, “ESA40”, which is sent to all ESA claimants at the beginning of their claim journey now includes a link to the Money Advice Service and its free support on saving money and household bills. This links into the work that the Department has been doing to follow on from the Extra Costs Commission, and it is a big step forward for the Department.
When ESA was introduced by Labour in 2008 as “a radical reform package”, the work-related activity component was intended to act as an incentive to encourage people to participate in work-related activity and, therefore, return to work quicker.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I do not want to get the Minister up and down on her feet, but I refer her back to what she said about the additional support that will now be available. The Government’s own impact analysis estimated that half a million people would have £30 a week less—£1,500 a year less. What proportion of those 500,000 people will be in receipt of the additional support that her Department is making available, and to what extent?
Penny Mordaunt
That very much depends on an individual’s circumstances. We have looked at a range of circumstances that someone might find themselves in—for example, someone who might need also to apply for PIP. We have looked at the time lag between someone, for example, coming on to being a new claimant for ESA and their actually being able to access that benefit. We have looked at a range of scenarios that someone might find themselves in. However, this support is available to anyone in that circumstance. Indeed, some of it is available to all claimants—for example, the social tariffs, which is a big step forward for the Department.
Personal Independence Payment: Regulations
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered changes to Personal Independence Payment Regulations.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this vital debate on the new personal independence payment regulations. Although I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, it is highly regrettable that the Government have had to be dragged to the House to be held to account for this nasty piece of secondary legislation.
As the House will know, the Government have ignored two urgent questions on this matter, an early-day motion signed by 179 Members calling for these punitive regulations to be annulled, and a 38 Degrees petition, signed by more than 185,000 people, asking them not to make the changes. When pushed at business questions on Thursday, the Leader of the House said there would be a debate, but could not say when. Only late last night did it become clear that the debate has now been hastily scheduled for 19 April. What particular kind of arrogance or disregard for democracy are the Government revealing? This does not bode well for their accountability to this place in the future negotiations.
For the record, we should note that today’s debate does not allow for a substantive vote on the regulations. As the Government have failed to allow a debate before the EDM praying-against period comes to an end on 3 April, the regulations will not be automatically revoked, should the House vote against them on 19 April. I would be grateful to the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work if she explained why, given that we have risen early twice this week, the Government have been incapable of finding time for such a debate before the Easter recess. The Government are hoping that because they have delayed the debate, the objection to the regulations will be kicked into the long grass, but it will not be.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
On behalf of many of my constituents, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree that the very least we owe to people who find themselves, through no fault of their own, in the most difficult of circumstances is to tell them whether we have voted for decisions made in Parliament that are having an appalling impact on their incomes?
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is what we have been trying to do since the emergency regulations were laid before Parliament.
Let us remind ourselves how the emergency regulations were introduced and what they have changed. The regulations, which were laid before the House on 23 February and came into force two weeks ago, amended the legislation under which disabled people or people with a chronic condition are assessed for eligibility for personal independence payments. The new regulations followed two upper tribunal rulings. The first judgment on 28 November 2016 held that needing support to take medication and monitor a health condition should be scored in the same way as needing support to manage therapy, such as dialysis, undertaken at home. The second, also on 28 November, ruled that people who find it difficult to leave their house because of severe psychological distress should receive the enhanced rate of support under the mobility component of PIP.
In a letter to me last week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that he became aware of the rulings on 8 December. Two and a half months later, the Government laid their emergency legislation before Parliament. I am sure that the irony of something taking two and a half months in an “emergency” has not been lost on you, Mr Speaker. During those two and a half months, not only were the Government unable to bring the regulations before the House, but they also bypassed their own Social Security Advisory Committee. They have ignored SSAC’s recommendations on wider engagement, testing or piloting changes, and the analysis of impacts.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I note what the hon. Lady says about legal cases, but is not the point that those legal cases broadened the provisions, and that the regulations will simply restore the policy to what it has been and should be, which is one of targeting support at those who need it most?
Debbie Abrahams
I will come on to that in a moment, because I think Members have unfortunately been hoodwinked, and I will absolutely expose what the Government have said.
This move undermines and subverts not just our democracy, but independent tribunal judgments. It is unprecedented, and we should be concerned about future actions that the Government may take in relation to court cases that they lose. It is also highly unusual for such a fundamental change to be introduced by a statutory instrument under the negative procedure, bypassing debate and scrutiny in this House.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is clear to me, from the huge number of cases that I have dealt with, that the entire PIP system is fundamentally flawed. It results in the most appalling decisions and causes distress to thousands of disabled people and their families. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be an independent review of how PIP assessments are carried out, given the obvious failings in the system?
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are long-term issues with the PIP assessment process as a whole. I will address that later. It is interesting that the Government let out yesterday that they will make an announcement, following a recent review, tomorrow, just as we rise for recess.
On Monday, the other place debated and passed a regret motion tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock, asking the Government to reconsider the regulations urgently, but the elected House of Commons has been denied that opportunity during the vital praying-against period. As I have said, that is very worrying behaviour by the Government.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work claims that the changes restore PIP to its original policy intentions, but that does not hold water. During the PIP consultation in 2012, Ministers were quoted on numerous occasions saying that mental health conditions would be given parity with physical health conditions as part of the PIP assessment. For example, Esther McVey said that the PIP
“assessment is being designed to consider…physical, sensory, mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 147W.]
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The Samaritans produced a report earlier this year that points to a significant association between socioeconomic disadvantage and suicidal behaviour. The report cites Gunnell and Chang, who wrote:
“Those who are already vulnerable, such as individuals who are supported by social welfare or who have preexisting mental health problems are at greatest risk.”Is not it shocking that the Government have not looked at the risk of suicide among those who will be denied financial support for their mental health needs?
Debbie Abrahams
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) has given a very moving account of how one of her constituents was affected and, unfortunately, took their own life last week.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government seem to be in a place where the NHS is catching up with the need to treat mental health conditions properly, but other public services, whether they be the Department for Work and Pensions or the Prison Service, are simply stuck in the past, and that this must change?
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The situation makes an absolute mockery of the claim that there is parity of esteem. She rightly mentions what the NHS is trying to do, but sadly there are still issues with treatment for mental health conditions.
Debbie Abrahams
I will make some progress, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
The Government’s response to the PIP consultation reiterated that psychological distress would be included in the PIP assessment, as did the Government’s argument in the 2015 upper tribunal case of HL v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Ministers have also said that people with mental health disorders who suffer psychological distress would not lose out on PIP. However, the new guidelines for PIP assessors, issued on 16 March, state:
“Descriptors c, d and f under new mobility activity 1 are amended”,
and the
“effects of psychological distress are not relevant”.
The assessment cannot take into account the psychological distress that someone experiences. They cannot score the 12 points needed to get the enhanced PIP mobility rate, so instead of £57 a week, they will be able to get only £22 a week.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
In recent months, I have had 44 PIP cases in my constituency, with dozens going to appeal. Eight have already gone to appeal, and in every single one of those cases, the decision has been overturned. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a massive and inexcusable waste of time, money and resources?
Debbie Abrahams
Absolutely. It is very important to note the association between ill health and disability in former industrial areas, and as my hon. Friend rightly says, the impact of assessments that cannot be done right first time. Why is that? Why have the Government not been able to get assessments right first time?
Debbie Abrahams
If the hon. Gentleman will give me just two minutes, I will make a little bit more progress and come back to him.
Someone who experiences psychological distress because of a mental health condition can score a maximum of 10 points under “planning and following a journey”, unless they also have a cognitive, sensory or physical impairment. That falls short of the 12 points needed to qualify for the higher rate of the mobility component. In the 2016 case of MH v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the upper tribunal ruled that psychological distress by itself cannot satisfy descriptors under activity two unless the psychological distress causes a change in someone’s physical condition. It is therefore the regulations, not the tribunal rulings, that undermine the intention of the primary legislation by restricting the number of people whose mobility is severely limited by their mental health condition who are able to qualify for the enhanced mobility rate of PIP.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. It is very important that we get the regulations right, but does the shadow Minister accept that more people with mental health conditions qualify for support under PIP than under the old disability living allowance regulations?
Debbie Abrahams
No, I certainly do not agree with that at all. I will come on to this in a moment, but the mental health charity Mind has produced data, based on the Government’s own statistics, that show that 55% of DLA claimants with a mental health condition will receive either nothing or a reduced amount when they transfer to PIP. I am afraid this is another fallacy from the Government.
Mr Jayawardena
The hon. Lady might have suggested that Government Members are being hoodwinked, but I am sure that she was not suggesting that the Minister plays with anything other than a straight bat. The fact is that over a quarter of those on PIP receive the highest level of support, which is much more than the 15% of DLA working-age claimants who did so. Are the regulations not doing exactly what was originally intended: targeting resources at those who need them most?
Debbie Abrahams
I am sorry, but I do not see the hon. Gentleman’s logic. [Interruption.] Well, it does not make sense. I will come on to that in a bit more detail, because we must dispel the fallacies that the Government have come out with in the past few weeks.
Mr Jones
I advise my hon. Friend not to put much credence in planted Whips’ questions from Tory Back Benchers. Another element of concern relates to people whose mental health condition worsens when they have a failed assessment. In some cases, they end up going into hospital, which is another cost for the NHS.
Debbie Abrahams
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is such a relevant point, which, again, has not been factored into the Government’s silo approach.
The third justification the Government have used for bringing in the new regulations is that PIP is much more generous to people with mental health conditions—we have just been talking about that. The mental health charity Mind completely refutes that. Its data, based on Department for Work and Pensions statistics, reveal that 55% of people with mental health conditions previously supported by DLA get either reduced or no awards when they transfer to PIP. Indeed, the Government’s own data, when appropriately weighted, show that only 12% of people with a mental health disorder and another condition are on the enhanced mobility award.
These new regulations are nothing more than a shameful cut. Once again, this Government are trying to balance the books on the backs of the sick and disabled. The Government’s own analysis estimates that the new regulations will affect more than 160,000 people by 2023, the majority of whom will have mental health conditions. Many of these will be newer applicants, but the regulations will also affect those who are being reassessed, who will not be eligible for the full support to which they would have been entitled under the rulings of tribunals—an effective cut of £3.7 billion.
PIP helps disabled people to fund their living costs and, in particular, the additional costs that they face because of their condition. The disability charity Scope has estimated that these additional costs amount to approximately £550 a month, and are the key reason why disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people. For someone who might not be able to leave their home on their own, PIP would help with extra heating costs, or might pay for someone to assist them when they have to travel to medical appointments, for example. PIP is a vital source of income to prevent real hardship, yet to the shame of this Government, people are being denied this support.
Rachael Maskell
Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability to receive PIP funding can often be part of someone’s rehabilitation, helping them from their homes back into the workplace?
Debbie Abrahams
Absolutely, and I know that my hon. Friend has first-hand experience of that in a professional capacity.
I have been contacted by so many people telling me their stories of living with a severe mental health problem and how it affects them, including men and women from the armed and emergency services, so I would like to share Bob’s story. Bob started off in the police service in Liverpool, and then went into the Prison Service. After 20 years or so, he said he started to experience the need to escape from the cells and inmates by locking himself in the rest room for a few minutes. Over the years, this graduated to cluster headaches and then full-blown anxiety and panic attacks.
After a period of sick leave, Bob left the service, but the attacks continued and he eventually sought psychiatric treatment; he was then declared disabled by virtue of his debilitating anxiety attacks. The degree of disability fluctuated, but it was so severe at times that he would literally run from a shopping centre into his car, just to feel safe. Bob said that he wanted to work, but when he went for a job interview, he had an attack in the car, and by the time he got home, he could barely function at all: he was hyperventilating and completely unable to move. It is people such as Bob who will be denied support through these new regulations.
These changes to PIP have come on top of significant cuts to our social security system, with support for disabled people being particularly targeted. Scope has estimated that the Welfare Reform Act 2012 alone will have meant nearly £30 billion in cuts to support for 3.7 million disabled people. Next week, as we have heard, another £30 a week will be cut from disabled people who are found not fit for work in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group, and for those on universal credit’s limited capability for work component.
The disabled community are tired of this Government’s rhetoric; they want and need to be treated with dignity, not plunged further into poverty, yet plenty of new evidence shows that that is exactly what has happened since 2010. Will the Minister publish a cumulative impact assessment of all tax and social security changes, showing the impacts that they have had, and will continue to have, on disabled people?
For some time now, there has been growing concern about the way in which PIP is working. Wider systemic issues with PIP mean that 65% of those who appeal to a tribunal succeed. Over a quarter of all PIP assessments are challenged and referred for mandatory reconsideration, with the majority of the decisions being changed. Why can we not get these assessments right first time? More than 750 people a week are losing their Motability cars because of changes to entitlement when they move on to PIP. This is so counterproductive, because it makes it nigh-on impossible for so many disabled people to work, let alone live independently.
We should never forget that nine out of 10 disabilities are acquired; this could happen to any one of us. That is what our social security system is for—to provide support to any one of us in our time of need. Labour will stand with disabled people, who have already borne the brunt of seven years of austerity, in fighting this injustice. I do not believe that, given the choice, the British public would chose cuts in corporation tax over preventing disabled people from being pushed into destitution or worse.
It is exactly a week since the horrendous attack in Westminster, when four people, including our colleague PC Keith Palmer, were murdered, and 50 were injured. The following day, the Prime Minister rightly said that she was looking
“at what further support can be made available for victims in a wider sense, because there will be people who were not physically injured in the attack…but…for whom there may be other scars. It is important to provide that support.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 942.]
However, because of the new regulations, support for people suffering psychological distress is being restricted. Warm words need to be backed up by action. Let there be no more cuts in support for disabled people. Enough is enough.
Several hon. Members rose—
Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]
Debbie Abrahams ExcerptsWednesday 29th March 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2017 View all Pension Schemes Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 March 2017 - (29 Mar 2017)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
As we know, the passage of the Bill was interrupted this time last week as a result of the horrendous attack that took place just metres from this place. I echo the Minister’s remarks, and express my condolences to everyone who is grieving for a loved one, or who is recovering from their injuries. I also express my gratitude to the emergency services, and especially to the incredible support team working in and around this amazing place. I want to say how treasured they all are.
On to the Bill. I want to put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for his unstinting work on this Bill, to our colleagues in the other place, who, as has already been mentioned, kicked this whole process off, and to all our teams for all the hard work they put in to try to ensure that the Bill, which is about closing the gaps in the regulatory framework for master trusts and increasing protections for their savers, is as effective as possible.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that I regret that he has been a little intransigent in failing to accept our amendments. He might have been constrained, but I wish we could have done more, as it would have strengthened the Bill and protected savers further. However, the Bill as it stands goes some way to increasing protections for master trust savers, the vast majority of whom were automatically enrolled through their sponsoring employer.
This has not been the easiest Bill to scrutinise. The content is, of course, technical, and an unusual amount of legislation is left to secondary regulations, which is a concern. That is becoming a hallmark of this Government and is entirely regrettable. It has not only brought criticism to the Government from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, which has suggested that the Government are writing legislation in lieu of policy, but has made it difficult for this House to get a full picture of how the legislation will operate in practice.
Nevertheless, we are about to point out a number of significant gaps in the Government’s approach to the legislation, as well as some parts that we believe require further thought. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North mentioned last week, we tried to table amendments in Committee to enact our commitment to the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—women to extend pension credit to those worst affected, ensuring that hundreds of thousands of those women became eligible for up to £156 a week. Sadly, the amendments were not selected. It is a real disappointment that the Government did not use the Bill to address the plight of these women. Labour has a clear, costed plan targeted towards the most vulnerable women, and we are exploring further options to help as many as we can.
Given that we understand that this will be the only pensions Bill in this Parliament—the Pensions Minister can put me right on that—there are many other pensions issues that should have been included in a more comprehensive Bill. As we have said before, this was a wasted opportunity.
Let me move on to the specifics of the Bill. It is a shame that the Government did not heed the advice of our noble Friends in the other place and provide for a funder of last resort. Our amendment would have ensured that scheme members were protected in the event of a master trust becoming insolvent, and would have offered them a clear route for the drawdown of their savings. The Minister believes that the new regulatory framework provides sufficient protection to make this provision unnecessary, yet he seemed unwilling to give a guarantee that no future master trust would go bust. I am glad that he has such faith in the regulatory regime, and I genuinely hope, for the sake of scheme members, that his faith is justified.
We hope to improve the clauses relating to pause orders. Under the legislation, the regulator can step in following a triggering event to halt accumulation and decumulation from a failing master trust. The Government have made an exception for people getting divorced to allow them to access funds held under a pause order, but they did not see fit to offer the same opportunity to, for example, disabled people or those in ill health. This is likely to cause distress to those who desperately need to draw down their savings. The Government did little to consider what would happen to savers affected by a pause order who wished to continue putting aside contributions from their salary and their sponsoring employer for retirement. Our amendment suggested that the employer take responsibility for holding on to these savings until the pause order ended or a new master trust was found. The Government again unfortunately rejected this practical suggestion.
The lack of transparency of costs and charges is a scandal of the pensions industry, and there have been Government promises to tackle it for years. I remember, several years ago, as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, one of the Treasury Ministers in the last Parliament promising that this would be done, but we are still waiting. It is one of those issues that we are taking far too long to tackle. I appreciate that a review will be published at the end of the year, but that will be too late for legislation. Again, it will be up to the industry to determine what, how and when it will publish its costs.
The matter of charges is a real scandal. I wonder whether anybody here knows the charges on their pension scheme. The charges affecting all savers have been estimated at up to £120 billion a year. We need to decide whose side we are on. Are we going to look after savers or prop up the pensions industry? We tried to raise the issue of opaque costs and charges being applied to members’ savings pots by investment managers and brokers, but again, the Government failed to respond. For too long, people have been encouraged to put their faith and, more importantly, their money in a distant savings pot, with very little information about where that money is invested, the performance of their savings and, importantly, the costs and charges incurred on the investment. In short, neither the scheme trustees nor the scheme members have been able adequately to ascertain whether they are getting value for money on their investments. In almost every other market, people looking to purchase goods or services are provided with basic information about performance and cost in advance of their purchase. This is a necessary requirement to ensure that they are getting value for money, yet this basic principle is not operating in our pensions system.
Part 2 of the Bill makes a small step towards greater transparency regarding the charges applied for those hoping to make the most of pension freedoms and to remove their savings from a master trust, but we maintain that it is not enough. Much more could have been done to shine a light on transaction costs applied to investment returns. The Minister committed the Government to implementing the recommendations of the Financial Conduct Authority’s report on the asset management market. Surely this would have been a great opportunity for the Government to make a start.
There is a lot of work to be done to tackle the problem of opaque and excessive costs and charges being extracted from workers’ savings by investment managers. This Bill merely scratches the surface. The question of governance also remains unanswered by the Government, despite the Opposition’s attempts to clarify. We believe that the Bill should have increased member representation on trustee boards. Their money is being invested, and they should be involved. The Pensions Act 1995 introduced the requirement for company pension schemes to have member-nominated trustees. If the scheme’s sole trustee is a company including the employer, rather than an individual, scheme members will have the right to nominate directors to that company.
The Pensions Act 2004 enshrined the right to have at least a third of the trustees of a trust-based scheme nominated by scheme members. That stems from the basic democratic principle that those for whom decisions are being taken should have a say in those decisions. The Pensions Regulator agrees that master trusts are covered by that legislation, which is why some already have member-nominated trustees.
The regulator has, however, turned a blind eye to this matter, on the basis that having multiple sponsoring employers presents a barrier. That is not acceptable, and we have urged the Government to clarify and apply the law in this regard. Scheme members should be represented among the trustees of master trust funds—it is, as I said, their money, and they have a direct interest in ensuring there is a sound and sustainable investment strategy that delivers good value. It is disappointing that the Government did not take up this matter, which requires urgent action. Nor was a convincing argument given as to why master trusts should not have to meet their statutory requirements, especially in the light of the increased risk being borne by scheme members.
It is also disappointing that the Bill does nothing to build on the success of Labour’s policy on auto-enrolment by ensuring that saving into master trusts is accessible and encouraged for a number of groups that were excluded from auto-enrolment by the Government’s changes to the eligibility criteria. Throughout these debates, we have recognised that the Government have announced a review of auto-enrolment, but we have not yet heard an explanation of why it comes after the Bill. The self-employed, women, those working multiple jobs, carers and people on low incomes could all benefit hugely from an enhanced opportunity to save towards their retirement. Although the Government did not feel they could commit to a proper statutory basis for their review, we shall hold them to account in the review itself to ensure it properly serves excluded groups.
To conclude, we of course welcome legislation to strengthen the regulatory footing of master trusts. We have, however, tried throughout these debates to address a number of serious issues through pragmatic engagement with the Bill, and by highlighting its many gaps. One would think that the Government would have had time to include much more detail on this piece of primary legislation to allow for proper scrutiny in both Houses. It seems, however, that they were unable to get their act together on this aspect of pensions. [Interruption.] There is some chuntering from the Government Benches—I think there is dissent there. However, we hope that, through these debates, we have at least drawn attention to these important issues, and to the need to create further security and dignity in retirement for working families across the UK.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Green
I do, and the Government, of course, support that more widely. We are looking all the time at regulations that might hinder the growth of entrepreneurship and self-employment. The actions taken by my Department—for instance, the new enterprise allowance—actively encourage people into self-employment. Some 96,000 new businesses have been set up as a result of the NEA.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Government’s proposed increase to national insurance contributions for self-employed workers in this month’s Budget showed a scandalous detachment from the reality of the majority of self-employed workers’ lives, a failure to understand the boom in self-employment and a lack of the will to address the issues self-employed workers face, including the fact that one in three is concerned about becoming sick or being injured during their work. What discussions did the Secretary of State have with the Chancellor on this before the Budget, and is he concerned about the reliability of the minimum income floor calculation, given the Office for Budget Responsibility’s comment?
Damian Green
I am confident in the minimum income floor calculation. As the hon. Lady would expect, we have discussions all the time with the Treasury on a wide range of matters. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his letter subsequent to the Budget:
“It is very important…that we are compliant not just with the letter, but also the spirit, of the commitments that were made.”
That is why he decided not to proceed with the class 4 NIC measures set out in the Budget. Also—this is important—all the spending measures set out in the Budget, including on social care, technical education and new schools, will be delivered in full.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
We heard earlier about the cuts to PIP support for people with mental health conditions that were brought in 10 days ago. The Government estimate that they will affect 160,000 people. This time next week, half a million sick or disabled people who have been found not fit for work and have been placed in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group will start to see a cut in support of £1,500 a year. Given that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people and the recent analysis showing that that has increased significantly, how does the Secretary of State justify the cumulative cuts to disabled people?
Damian Green
First, when the hon. Lady talks about cuts to 160,000 people, she is of course wrong. Nobody’s original DWP award will receive a cut. She also asked me how I justify the changes to ESA, but disabled people and people with health conditions deserve better than the current system, under which only one in 100 ESA WRAG claimants leave benefit each month. I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who is cheering from a sedentary position, agrees with me that we need to change the system. That is why we are proposing a huge number of different types of help across the board, including financial help and advice, which will help them into work.