Universal Credit
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
On 22 November last year I was privileged to launch in the Chamber a Work and Pensions Committee report entitled “Universal Credit implementation: meeting the needs of vulnerable claimants”. That day I was the only one officially allowed to speak. As a result there are a number of hon. Members who are—I was going to say frustrated—itching to speak. I hope they will have the opportunity to do so now.
That day showed that there was huge interest in various aspects of universal credit and its implementation, so it is excellent that we have the chance to have this debate today, especially as the Government have now published their response to that report and we can look in more detail at the issues raised by the Select Committee. I expect hon. Members will also raise their own issues that we did not examine. It is a good time to revisit the findings of our report to see whether, three and a half months on, the Government have made progress in addressing some of our concerns. This has become more urgent because the first claimants in the pathfinder areas will begin to be assessed for universal credit in just over a month, and the roll-out for new claimants begins in October this year.
Universal credit is the Government’s flagship welfare reform. Everyone of working age who claims one or more of the many income-related benefits will, over the next four years, be moved on to universal credit. Some 8.3 million households will be affected once it is fully rolled out. Not all of them will be on the new universal credit, but they will be affected in some way, so if universal credit does not work in the way that it is designed to do or if the IT fails to deliver, it has the potential to cause a great deal of stress and anxiety in families who depend on the state for some or all of their income.
The size of the Government’s ambition in introducing universal credit became clear to the Select Committee as we began to receive evidence. Such a large-scale reform of the benefits system has so many aspects to it that we realised we would not be able to cover all the provisions in detail. We did not have time to explore fully all the incentives and disincentives to see which families would be better off and which would be worse off, who would lose money and who would manage to survive. Other questions were raised with us that we did not deal with in as much detail. Would families with high child care costs be better or worse off, for instance?
We did not have time to interrogate properly how robust the Government’s often repeated assertion is that under universal credit all people would be better off in work than not in work under all circumstances. Some doubt has been cast on whether that will be true. We know that under the system there will be notional losers, although the Government have promised that there will be some cash protection. We were aware, for instance, that second earners in the family may not mean that the family is better off under universal credit. We were aware also that families with particularly high child care costs might not be better off once those are factored in.
The reason it is often very difficult to reform a complex welfare system, of the kind we have in this country, is that there can often be unintended consequences, and I am sure UC will be no different. I am fairly sure that Ministers will admit that that is bound to be the case. Even if everything goes incredibly well, there will be unintended consequences. The real test for the Government will be how adept and quick the Department for Work and Pensions is in dealing with the inevitable blips; how it irons out the kinks, how it ensures that families do not face difficulties while it sorts out any problems and how quickly it responds when the inevitable difficulties arise.
It would have been impossible for the Committee to give detailed consideration to every aspect of universal credit, so we decided to concentrate on its implications for vulnerable claimants, which explains the report’s title. Not all benefit claimants are vulnerable; far from it. It is worth remembering that most people of working age who receive benefits are in work and are not dependent on the benefits system for all their income. However, it is probably true to say that all vulnerable people are benefit claimants. It is therefore imperative that the Department takes account of that and does not design a system that can be accessed only by people who can manage their lives fairly well. It must also be easy to navigate for someone who finds life a struggle. I mean someone who struggles to pay their bills, struggles to follow basic written instructions, struggles with poor health, struggles to use public transport, struggles to heat their home or struggles to put a nutritious meal on the table—someone who just struggles with daily living. Those are the people who face a complete overhaul of the benefits they receive. It was to those who might find the introduction of universal credit a real challenge that the Committee paid most attention.
The biggest barrier a vulnerable claimant might face is making a claim in the first place, because the Government are determined that universal credit will be an online benefit—“digital by default” is the phrase they use. The application will be made online, any change in circumstances or other information will have to be reported online, as will any change of earnings, but the sting in the tail is that the information might come from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so obviously the information has to get from HMRC to the DWP computers.
The most important aspect of universal credit’s delivery will be the IT. If it goes wrong, the whole system will grind to a halt. However, a digital system, in order to work, requires users—in this case the claimants—to have access to, and be able to use, the internet. There is still great concern that the people who need to apply for universal credit will not have access to the internet, or indeed to a computer, in order to make the claim in the first place and that, for those who are not computer literate, there might not be sufficient help for them in the right place.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The hon. Lady makes an important point about accessibility. Does she share my concern that 36% of low-income households in Scotland do not have internet access at home?
Dame Anne Begg
The figures the Committee received vary greatly. We were told that as many as 80% of claimants might struggle with some of the IT and that as few as 20% would not have internet access. Although some people might be able to use Facebook and other social media sites, that is quite different from making a claim that, by its nature, has to include very personal information. Many people who do not have a computer at home might not be able to use computers in the public domain, such as those in internet cafes, because of security issues. There are many questions about access to computers and IT.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this estimates day debate on universal credit, and to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) for ensuring that we had this debate, as it is a really significant one that affects millions of our fellow citizens.
I shall concentrate entirely on the issue of online applications, in respect of which I think the Government are heading for some really big problems. The Department for Work and Pensions has been far too sanguine about the extraordinarily ambitious target to get 80% of people online by 2017. Shelter, in looking at the issue, says that it is
“not convinced that half of our current face-to-face service users could fully transfer to our digital services”.
I am convinced that the DWP will not be able to transfer them in the way suggested by the Minister. Let me explain to him why I take this view.
First, according to Booz & Company, which did a report for Go ON UK, 10.8 million people in this country do not use the internet. The D-E social group has the lowest percentage of households accessing the internet, with more than 40% of them unable to do so. According to Go ON UK, the group brought together by the industry to promote online skills, more than 16 million people lack basic online skills. They might have used the internet at some point, but they do not know how to do all the different things necessary to fill out an online form.
It is often assumed that it is simply older people who do not use the internet. In an interesting study in the Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, however, Dick Stroud has conducted a thorough and forensic exploration of who these people are. I urge the Minister and his officials to look at this opinion piece published last year. It shows that, of the digitally excluded, 1.2 million people are young and excluded—in their early 20s and earning less than £10,000 a year. Another excluded group of 1.5 million people who earn less than £20,000 range in age from about 25 to 50. Then we have a group of 2.2 million people in late middle age who are uncertain, but open to persuasion that going online would be a good idea. These are large numbers of people, and they are precisely the people who will be making applications for universal credit. The crossover between the digitally excluded and the universal credit applicant is absolutely huge.
Furthermore, the Minister should converse with his colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Ofcom has reported today that 10% of the population—2.6 million households—cannot access broadband speeds above 2 megabits per second, and those are mainly in the countryside. The picture of the digitally excluded shows not people scattered evenly throughout the community, but people concentrated in particular socio-economic groups and geographical areas.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Lady is making a very astute point. Some of my constituents do not have access to the internet, and those who do so often end up paying significantly more for it because of their geographical position. However, it is low-income families, wherever they live, who find it hardest to justify an internet connection in their homes, and at a time when libraries are being closed in areas of all kinds, it is increasingly difficult for those with low incomes to go online.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Lady echoes precisely my own thoughts. I urge the Minister to make a plan, and to look at the geography. He might then begin to be in a position to make a more accurate assessment of the problems that the Department will face, and to develop a more effective strategy for dealing with them than the Government seem to have at present.
Of course there are questions to be asked about whether the Government’s IT system will be up to scratch—we all remember the problems that arose with child support and tax credits—but the question in this instance relates to the capabilities of the population, and that is the other issue that the Government are completely ignoring. The last Labour Government spent more than £400 million on digital inclusion. Between 1999 and 2003, £396 million from the capital modernisation fund and the New Opportunities Fund was spent on enabling people to go online, and in our latter years in government we invested £30 million over three years in UK online centres, which enabled a further 1 million people to do so.
If 5 million or 10 million more people need to be enabled to go online, the Government ought to consider investing serious resources in a digital inclusion programme, but the DWP is spending £1.5 million, as are the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the NHS. There are 5 million or 10 million people whom we need to help, and we have a budget of £4 million—just for 2013-14; it does not cover later years. Given the rate at which this seems to work, that will help about 125,000 people. The level of resources and the extent of the focus on the problem are not remotely commensurate with the scale of it.
I am glad that today is an estimates day, because I want to ask the Minister about the motion on the Order Paper. How much of the £507 million “for current purposes” will be spent on extra support in jobcentres to help people who are not skilled, and how much of the £97.5 million “for capital purposes” will be spent on the computers that will be in the jobcentres to help people who do not have computers at home? I have tabled a number of written questions to DWP Ministers, but I have not had any clear answers. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), merely said that his
“survey of working age benefit and tax credit recipients found that 78% already use the internet.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 491W.]
There is clearly a mismatch between what the Minister is being told by his officials and what people in the technology sector are saying. I have also written to the Minister’s noble Friend Lord Freud asking about the Government’s strategy, but I have still not received a reply.
If we are to help those who are digitally excluded, we need to think about why they are excluded. Is it because, like 2.5 million households in the countryside, they cannot get broadband, or is because they are “self-excluding”? According to the surveys that have been conducted, about 50% of people say that they are not interested. Perhaps Ministers think that their “digital by default” programme will enable them to make people interested and to motivate them. I can hardly think of a worse learning environment than someone facing the stressful situation of their family’s income depending on whether they succeed or fail in the test. I can hardly conceive of a worse way of motivating people. People learn best when they are relaxed and are enjoying themselves in a friendly, warm environment. That is not what Ministers are doing. They are going to put extremely vulnerable people under this pressure.
Another issue is cost. Some 25% of people who do not use the internet say that is because of the cost. Half of them say it is because of the cost of access. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, an internet connection costs between £3 and £5 a week. People on jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance will be receiving a benefit of £71.70, and after the bedroom tax they will be left with £23 a week; we know that because it is what our constituents tell us. The Minister is looking puzzled. That is what they will be left with once the cost of all their utilities has been stripped out. Based on what my constituents tell me utilities cost them, I have taken away £20 for heating, £10 for electricity, £6 for water rates and £4 for bus fare. That leaves them with £23. I have not included any money for a mobile phone or telephone connection or for a television licence. They also have to pay for things like washing-up liquid, loo paper and perhaps a pair of shoes once a year—a pair of trainers from Sport Direct.
These people will be forced to live on tiny amounts of money once the bedroom tax is introduced. If someone’s food budget is £18 a week, which is what my constituents are facing, I submit they will not want to spend £5 a week on an internet connection, as that would not be compatible with their way of life. There is also the cost of equipment. The cheapest equipment people can get costs £150. Ministers are therefore setting up a lot of people to fail. This is not a reasonable way to treat them.
I urge the Minister to look again at this. Exactly where across the country does he think the problem is going to arise? Will he publish a strategy? What kit is he putting into jobcentres? How much time is he expecting his staff to be offering people to support them? As Members have made clear, filling in one of these forms will take at least half an hour. In my constituency about 3,000 people will be eligible for universal credit. Although it is being phased in so that things will not happen all at once, if we say half of them can manage on the new system but the other half cannot, we will end up in a couple of years with 1,500 people needing help. If the Minister has put three computers into the local jobcentre and they are all operating for 50 hours a week, which would be an amazing feat, it would take 10 weeks for all those people to get their online applications made. The resources Ministers seem to be putting into this are not commensurate with the number of people who are going to need help.
I urge the Minister to look again at this. The Government are heading for a very significant train crash and, unfortunately, those on board the train will be the most vulnerable people in the community.
Sheila Gilmore
There is undoubtedly a reduction in resources. Many of the advice agencies that I have contact with are having to tell people that they cannot get an appointment for three weeks, or even four.
Dr Whiteford
Does the hon. Lady welcome the fact that in Scotland Citizens Advice has had an increase of £5.7 million in recent weeks to cope with that situation?
Sheila Gilmore
I certainly do, although I rather regret that that money was so long in the coming given that it was available to be paid out some couple of years ago—but better late than never.
Finally, I want to discuss a particular group—single parents. Some of the problems I am going to consider do not necessarily result from universal credit as such, but they will not be cured by universal credit and may even be made worse. For many single parents, getting back into work is not easy. There is a great deal of evidence that many of them, when they do find work, find that it is low-paid and low-skilled work. There is a high level of churn because of the type of work or because of the practical difficulties that can arise. They may find that arranging child care is unexpectedly expensive or difficult—for instance, when they run into the summer holiday problem. All these things can lead to a single parent who wants to work finding a job and doing it for a period, but then having to leave and go back to the beginning again. Skilling up is particularly important.
Over the past few years, including under the previous Government, there have been several changes to the rules for single parents, particularly about their registering for work once their children reached certain ages. Considerable flexibilities were built into the system whereby, for example, a single parent would not be required to apply for a job, go for a job interview or take a job where it would not fit with their child care responsibilities. There are several such flexibilities, none of which, bar one, are in the new regulations that have been produced for universal credit. They are in guidance, but the problem is that guidance is not legally binding and these matters are at the discretion of an individual adviser.
There are currently 12 flexibilities, only one of which has been migrated into the new regulations in its entirety; the other 11 are not there or have been very much qualified. For example, under the regulations a single parent is still able to restrict the hours they work, but only if they can demonstrate that there are jobs with those hours available locally. If there are not, they cannot have that flexibility, so presumably they will have to look for a job that does not accord with their child care responsibilities or look for one outwith their area, which creates a whole new set of difficulties. Anyone who has had to pick up their child from nursery at a fixed time and has experienced the reception they get when they arrive back late because the bus has been delayed will know that working a long distance away is not easy.
It is not at all clear why these changes are being made. They might make it more difficult for single parents to get back into work. If the flexibilities are not there, the other problem that arises is sanctions. If people do not have those flexibilities, they may be required to take on a job—or to refuse a job—that does not meet their needs. If they refuse to take the job, they can be sanctioned. The level of sanctions was increased substantially in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the number of people who are being sanctioned is increasing. We are all seeing those people already. I would like the Minister to explain why the decision has been taken not to put the flexibilities for single parents into the regulations.
Gingerbread, which represents single parents, feels that getting skilled has been made more difficult of late. Again, there does not seem to be anything in universal credit that will help that situation. Previously, a single parent with a very young child who was on income support got a fee remission if they did a college course. That fee remission has been removed, so although a single parent with a child under five can still do a college course if they can fit it in around everything else that they are doing, they have to pay for it. When they hit the requirement to sign on for JSA, they will get fee remission for a course, but if a job offer comes up that they have to accept, they will either have to drop the course, which they might be part-way through, or continue the course and be sanctioned. That is not the way to upskill people. Gingerbread has proposed that a single parent who is undertaking a further education course, up to and including level 3,
“should be treated as fulfilling work search and work availability requirements”
until their youngest child reaches the age of seven or the course ends. That is a practical proposal.
There is serious concern that the structure of universal credit, far from enabling single parents to work, will not be of great assistance and might even be harmful. The Gingerbread report, “Struggling to make ends meet”, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, points out that a single parent who is earning the minimum wage cannot expect their disposable income to increase by much once they start working 10 hours or more. We are talking about very short hours. For anyone who does not understand, we are not talking about 10 hours a day, but 10 hours a week. Somebody who works only three, four, five, six or seven hours a week will be better off under universal credit, but because of the structure of it, once they are working 10 hours a week or more, they will not be much better off. For all that has been said about universal credit making people much better off and encouraging them to go into work, the structure is not quite as good as has been made out.
Mr Hoban
I want to return to the question of support and advice agencies, because the need to support people on to universal credit is an important issue that has been raised. Before I do that, let me talk about a couple of other issues that people have raised in this debate.
A number of hon. Members have raised the issue of online access. We should recognise that digital exclusion is a major issue affecting communities and individuals. It acts as a barrier to employment, as well to claiming universal credit. We need to lift that barrier and make it easier for people not just to claim universal credit, but to get the online and digital skills they need to get into work. Universal credit gives us an opportunity to move people online.
Mr Hoban
I have only just started making this point, so let me make a bit more progress.
Research suggests that 92% of advertised vacancies require applicants to have basic IT skills. Therefore, those without such skills are considerably limited in their employment prospects. By using the digital channel as the default, we will be able to identify individuals who are struggling to manage or who lack the basic skills to use online systems. In doing so, we will be able to target support so that they can learn these essential skills, thus improving their prospects of finding work. Work done by the Cabinet Office on internet usage demonstrates that 78% of existing benefits and tax credits recipients already use the internet. Our latest figures show that more than 51% of jobseeker’s allowance claims received by the Department are now made online. I think that that demonstrates that people will be able to do it. We need to encourage more people to go online and find ways to give that support. For those who cannot use the internet, telephony and face-to-face access will be available. Rather than accepting that people cannot use the internet, we should try to help them get on to it and use telephony and face-to-face access as a fall-back mechanism.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said that 10% of people do not have access to superfast broadband with a speed of more than 2 megabits per second. She will be pleased to know that people will not require broadband at that speed in order to access universal credit and make claims.
Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House deplores and opposes the Government’s introduction of the housing benefit under-occupancy penalty; believes it to be unjust and unworkable; notes growing public anger at its introduction; believes that the Government is showing a reckless lack of care and attention to the consequences of its introduction for low-income households affected by disability; further believes that it will adversely affect, amongst others, families of service personnel, foster families and those struggling with the effects of family breakdown; notes that some parts of the UK will be disproportionately hit because of the mismatch between the available social housing stock and the needs of tenants; further notes that according to the Department for Work and Pensions’ Equality Impact Assessment, 63 per cent of the 660,000 claimants affected by the under-occupancy penalty or their partners are disabled; believes that the measure unfairly penalises tenants in rural and inner-city areas; further believes the under-occupancy penalty will fail to meet its stated objectives; and calls on the Government to abandon this policy immediately.
In just a few weeks’ time the Government’s notorious under-occupancy penalty, or bedroom tax, is set to come into effect. Across the UK, it is going to cut for tenants by an average of £14 a week, or over £700 a year, the housing benefit of an estimated 660,000 low-income households who are deemed to be living in a home bigger than their needs require. The measure is causing anxiety and anger in equal measure. It follows hard on the heels of punitive cuts to tax credits that have already slashed the budgets of low-income families, and it compounds the real-terms cut to the safety net of social protection for people who are unable to work because of sickness or disability, and for those rendered unemployed or under-employed by economic circumstances well beyond their control. This bedroom tax is a further assault on the precarious finances of the people who are already bearing the brunt of the Government’s austerity measures, which, as we have seen this week, simply are not working. The under-occupancy penalty is inherently unfair and inherently unworkable.
When we discussed this issue in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago in a debate led by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), not a single Government Back Bencher rose to defend the policy, and it is deeply disappointing that they are so thin on the ground today. I can only assume that too many MPs have been lured by the charms of Eastleigh, but I am not really surprised that they are reluctant to put their heads over this parapet.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady see any justification for treating tenants on housing benefit in social housing any differently from tenants on housing benefit in the private rented sector? The previous Government introduced exactly the same changes for tenants on housing benefit in the private rented sector. Did the Scottish National party or Plaid Cymru object or call a debate when those changes were made? If not, why not, and what is their logical justification for opposing these changes today?
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman has exposed at this early stage one of the big red herrings in this debate, namely the argument that the private rented sector is comparable to the social rented sector. We already spend significantly more on supporting people in the private sector than on those in socially rented accommodation, which is significantly cheaper. I hope to return to that point later, but it is very helpful to have been able to nip that argument in the bud at the outset of this debate.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I am glad that the hon. Lady has exposed the fundamental flaw in the argument of the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). One form of accommodation is based on size and the other on price—it is like comparing apples and pears.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The key thing is that the under-occupancy penalty will hit hundreds or thousands of people in every constituency. We will all meet constituents affected by it, many of them among the most disadvantaged members of the community. Let us make no mistake: the people on the front line of this policy are the disabled and those who care for them.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Did the hon. Lady, like me, hear the Prime Minister say during Prime Minister’s questions that he would personally look at cases brought to his attention? Will she join me in urging all those people in this country who are faced by this to write individually to the Prime Minister?
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Just a few minutes ago the Prime Minister said that he would look carefully at individual cases. I feel a little bit sorry for whoever keeps his correspondence in check, because the Department of Work and Pensions equality impact assessment shows that two thirds—66%—of the households affected by the bedroom tax are home to someone with a disability under the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
A higher proportion of those who might write to Dave will be people from rural areas who will simply have nowhere else to go. This iniquitous, unfair, disastrous tax will do for the Conservative party what the poll tax did for it.
Dr Whiteford
My hon. Friend makes a very important point on the differential impact between rural and urban areas. I hope I will be able to address that later.
Perhaps it should not surprise us that sick and disabled people are over-represented among those who rely on housing benefit, given that many of them will have been assessed as unfit for work, while others who are in work are more likely to be working part-time or in low-paid and insecure jobs. The numbers are a damning indictment on the Government’s attempts to balance the books on the back of disadvantaged people. In Scotland the picture is even more stark—79% of disadvantaged people in Scotland affected by the bedroom tax are either disabled or living in a house with someone who is disabled.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Is the hon. Lady aware of Govan Law Centre’s petition to the Scottish Government to amend section 16 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 to ensure that people subjected to the bedroom tax will not be evicted due to those arrears?
Dr Whiteford
I am aware of it and I intend to turn later to the specifics of the situation for social landlords and for Scotland.
Dr Whiteford
Not just now, but I will in a moment.
Last week the chief executives of seven charities—Carers UK, Disability Rights UK, Contact a Family, the Carers Trust, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Mencap and Macmillan Cancer Support—wrote to the Chancellor to ask him to exempt carers and disabled people from the bedroom tax in recognition of the contribution that carers already make and in order to protect them from further financial hardship. In response, the Work and Pensions Secretary said that he would look again at the impact of the policy on disabled people, but having considered the wholly disproportionate impact on disabled people and their families, he is ploughing on regardless. It is callous and reckless and will cause untold distress and hardship. The Government really need to think again.
Dr Whiteford
I will give way to the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara).
Mr Vara
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she accept that, with 2 million households on social housing waiting lists in England alone and 250,000 families living in overcrowded accommodation, it is simply unfair for people to live in houses larger than their needs?
Dr Whiteford
The problem of under-occupation will not be solved by shuffling people around. That will do absolutely nothing to resolve the underlying problems, which I think we all know are related to the supply of affordable housing.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady and her colleagues on their choice of subject for this Opposition day debate. Does she agree that one of the problems is the complete mismatch between the stock that housing association and councils have and what people need, and that there are simply not enough properties for people to move to?
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Lady is absolutely right—her point is at the core of the debate. Before I turn to that point I want to say more about the issues facing disabled people.
Mr Rob Wilson
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. I have been listening carefully to her comments on those in social housing, but what does she have to say to the 2,000 people on waiting lists in Reading who hope to get into social housing?
Dr Whiteford
I say to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps those people in Reading would like to look north of the border, where building social housing has been the long-term solution to tackling the lack of affordable housing. This problem will not be solved by taking housing away from one needy group and giving it to another. As I have said, there will be a disproportionate impact on disabled people and most of the people affected by this policy are already among the most disadvantaged in our communities.
Dr Whiteford
No, I want to make some progress. I say to the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) that the real challenge for local authorities is how to house people who are likely to be on very low incomes. If people who are older or who suffer from ill health are moved out of their homes, that will create another headache and push people into more expensive private rented accommodation.
Dr Whiteford
I am keen to make some progress; I will take interventions later.
To return to the point made by the respected charities, one of which I used to work for, they make a compelling case that exposes just how socially destructive and counter-productive the bedroom tax will be for disabled people and their families. The Government’s stated objectives for the under-occupancy penalty include incentivising tenants to move to smaller homes. Moving house is stressful and expensive for everyone, even when it is a welcome move. How much more stressful and difficult must it be for disabled people with very little money?
Pressuring people to relocate will not just move disabled people away from their informal support networks—the friends and neighbours who help them live in the community—but it will potentially move them away from support services provided by their local authority. Moving to a new house in a new area may require a new assessment of needs, delays in providing replacement services or, indeed, changes to the eligibility for services. That all creates unnecessary disruption and expense that could quite easily be avoided.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is right to call this bedroom tax callous and reckless. It is also heartless. Does she agree that the Prime Minister is wrong to hide behind the fig leaf of the discretionary payments fund, as he did earlier today? The National Housing Federation says that £50 million will help make up the shortfall for only 73,000 disabled people, leaving more than half of those on disability living allowance who are affected without any support at all.
Dr Whiteford
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who makes a very important point. I have no doubt that, in some cases, the under-occupancy penalty will jeopardise the arrangement that unpaid family carers have made to allow them to continue to care for a loved one in their own home.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
Is my hon. Friend also aware that the homes of people who have had them adapted to meet specific needs may now be deemed too large, so they may be forced to move out and a social landlord might have to pay to adapt another house for them? Is that not a daft way to proceed?
Dr Whiteford
It is utterly daft. I have seen cases in my own constituency where relatively minor changes to local authority support services have destabilised the balancing act performed by families who provide care while juggling work and family commitments. I have met far too many family carers who are already at the end of their endurance, compromising their own health and well-being to continue to care. When carers cannot cope any more or their own health breaks down, the human cost is immense and the financial cost of primary health care spending and the need for expensive care packages are incalculable. The bedroom tax undermines the ability of families to continue to care.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Given that this policy will lead to greater homelessness and evictions, which are not only massively painful, but massively costly, does the hon. Lady agree that it is not just cruel, but counter-productive and another attack by this Government on the poor?
Dr Whiteford
The policy is not only counter-productive; it is just not thought through.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a really good speech and she has support from across the Opposition Benches. In my view, the policy is thought through. However, it is not about fitting people in according to their housing needs or about under-occupation; it is about cutting people’s benefits by ensuring that people pay the difference. The Government know that people will have to pay the difference because they cannot move.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
It is helpful to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr Weir) about homes that have been adapted. We estimate that at least 16,000 homes in Scotland that are affected by the bedroom tax have been adapted. We are told by the Government repeatedly that an extra £50 million in discretionary housing payment has been allocated to local authorities to plug the shortfall in rent so that those in adapted homes do not have to move.
Let us do the sums. The additional discretionary housing payment amounts to only 6% of the total shortfall across the UK. In Scotland, it amounts to a paltry 4% of the shortfall. That means that even if Scotland’s entire discretionary housing allocation—not just the extra bit, but the entire allocation—was focused solely on those disabled people living in adapted homes, it would not cover the gap in tenants’ incomes left by the bedroom tax. This is a shameless attempt to penalise physically disabled people. They are being asked to carry the can for this dog’s breakfast of a policy.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does she not think that it is appalling that the architect of this pernicious tax, this equivalent of the poll tax, the Secretary of State, is not replying to this debate, but is leaving it to his Liberal apparatchik? The Secretary of State should get to his feet in this debate to defend this ridiculous tax. Why is he not doing so?
Dr Whiteford
I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment that the Government have not listened to the pleas of disabled people and carers’ organisations. The problem is that the policy has not been properly costed or thought through and will cause chaos, hardship and distress.
Dr Whiteford
I want to make a little more progress, because time is wearing on.
The disabled people in adapted homes who are forced to move into the private sector will undoubtedly find it hard to find accessible properties. Landlords in the private sector may also be less than happy about adaptations being made to their property, whether they be handrails, ramps, stair-lifts or bathroom alterations. What an unnecessary waste of public money at a time when local authorities are struggling to meet demand.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. She made a very good point about the cost of private rentals compared with social rentals. Is it not time that we started to regulate private rentals in Scotland so that we are not subsidising landlords, which is the route to increases in housing benefit?
Dr Whiteford
It is clear that rents in Scotland are not out of control as they are in London. Many of the problems with housing benefit have been fuelled by the vast over-inflation of the rental market in London and the south-east.
It is important that we remember that some of the disabled people who are subject to the bedroom tax are the same people who will lose their disability living allowance when it becomes the personal independence payment or whose support will be reduced significantly, and that some may lose their employment and support allowance, particularly if it is time-limited. Nevertheless, all those people will still have to deal with the same impairment or long-term health condition that they had before, and will still face the same physical, economic, attitudinal and communication barriers when they attempt to access the labour market and get on with their daily lives.
The Government have paid no heed to the cumulative impact of their measures on disabled people—a cumulative impact that will have disastrous consequences for thousands of people.
Guy Opperman
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. May I draw her back to fundamental principles? I am listening to the argument that she is making with interest, but there is one fundamental point that the architects of the motion do not address. Is it accepted that the housing benefit bill, which is rising, needs to come down—yes or no?
Dr Whiteford
The reason that the housing benefit bill is so high is that we have had a recession that has pushed people out of employment. One of the trite suggestions that we have heard repeatedly from the Government in trying to defend this indefensible tax is that people should just pick up a few extra hours’ work here or there to meet the bedroom tax. Since the start of the financial crisis, underemployment has soared. Millions of people have seen the prospect of overtime vanish and their working hours cut. According to the TUC, there are 3.3 million people across the UK who are working part time, but who want to be working full time. That is twice the pre-recession level. When we look at the steep rise in housing benefit, we therefore have to look at the inflation in the housing market in some parts of the country and at the underlying economic drivers of unemployment and poor economic performance.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) spoke about saving money. He appears not to realise, as I am sure does my hon. Friend, that if there was a proper balance of property, with those who are over-housed and those who are under-housed getting an appropriately sized property, the Government would save not one penny. He is therefore wrong. This policy is not about saving money, other than by directly punishing the poor.
Dr Whiteford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The under-occupancy penalty will apply to people who are in work and people who are out of work. It takes no account of the fact that a large proportion of the people affected are simply not available for work. The people who move into the low-rent homes may or may not be paying the rent, but it will certainly not save any money.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Has it occurred to the hon. Lady during her excellent speech that not a single Government Member has criticised the bedroom tax in any way? Does that not reflect the manner in which the Government are conducting themselves towards the most vulnerable people in society?
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman is right. As I said earlier, it is deeply disappointing that there are not more people here to defend the Government’s policy and to debate the issues.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I applaud the strength with which the hon. Lady is setting out the case for the victims of this drive-by hit on the housing benefit budget throughout the UK. Does she recognise that there is an added complication in Northern Ireland? Given the geo-communal tensions and difficulties in Northern Ireland, a measure that sends out the message, “You shouldn’t be living there, you should move,” is fundamentally unsettling, not just for individual communities, but for community relations.
Dr Whiteford
As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point. The disproportionate impact of the measure on different parts of the UK has not been thought through. The impacts on Northern Ireland clearly deserve a great deal more attention—certainly more attention than I am able to pay them this afternoon.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady and her colleagues on bringing forward this timely motion. The divisions referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) have been deepened because the Minister for Social Development in Northern Ireland handed back £15 million in the last monitoring round, rather than investing it in the provision of new-build social housing. That contrasts with what my party did when it held that portfolio.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is helpful that the Secretary of State is here to hear it. I hope that he will look again at the implications of the policy for Northern Ireland.
Foster carers are also likely to be adversely impacted by the bedroom tax. Foster carers are not routinely included in housing needs assessments, and the allowance that they are paid to cover the costs of meeting a child’s needs does not include a component for housing costs. The Government expect local authorities to support foster carers out of the heavily over-subscribed discretionary housing payments pot. However, as we have already seen, that money will not even cover the most pressing needs of disabled people in specially adapted homes.
Foster carers do an important and difficult job. Children requiring foster care have, almost by definition, been through traumatic experiences and are likely to require more intensive care and attention than other children. For that reason, many fostering services insist that foster carers do not take on other work outside the home. Moreover, more than half of foster carers do not receive a fee for fostering. The Fostering Network is afraid that the bedroom tax will exacerbate existing difficulties in recruiting foster parents. Given the already extreme shortage of foster carers, the Government need to look again at how the system will work in practice.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. On Monday evening, the House debated the Children and Families Bill, which contains some good measures on speeding up and streamlining adoption. One point raised was that unless the fostering section is reconsidered, the whole thing will collapse. Once again we see that this measure has not been properly thought through.
Dr Whiteford
My right hon. Friend makes a timely point given the debate that took place in the House earlier in the week.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a wonderful speech on this dreadful bedroom tax. Perhaps she will also consider another group involved in caring for children—parents who have split up. Access agreements made by the court for two people in my constituency are based on the fact that they have an extra bedroom. The Government are essentially saying to them, “Find the money for the extra bedroom or lose access to your children.”
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Families going through a break-up often face some of the most complex and difficult situations for people to resolve, and we know that the cost of children growing up without a parent can be considerable both in social terms and because of the impact on the individual who is separated from a parent. This legislation will make it more difficult for non-resident parents to stay in touch and maintain proper contact with their children, and that is reprehensible.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that because of variations in unemployment rates and the composition of the housing stock, and because the characteristics of tenants vary between areas and the other considerations hon. Members have raised, this issue should be one of local discretion based on local conditions and phased in only when matched by a programme of social house building?
Dr Whiteford
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to make a speech to set out that case later this afternoon. I would like to see decisions on these policies, including the budgets, devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s contribution about what works well for England.
Katy Clark
Will the hon. Lady use her eloquence and influence with the Scottish Government to ensure that they have a no-evictions policy?
Dr Whiteford
Again, I will come to that and consider some of the structural issues in a moment. First, however, I want to mention pensioners who so far have been excluded from the under-occupancy rules. That is important because many older people who are technically under-occupying are extremely anxious about the bedroom tax and frightened that it will force them to move. We must make it clear that they will not have to do so at this stage. Once universal credit is introduced, however, people of pension age who have a younger partner of working age will be subject to the bedroom tax, and again, they will be forced to move into smaller, more expensive, and often less suitable homes. That is a false economy for the Government and will have a great human cost for older couples.
Dr Whiteford
I will not give way; I am hoping to make some progress and I want to consider the structural issues we face.
Amid all the soundbites about spare bedrooms, there has been a failure to acknowledge the underlying shortage in affordable housing across the UK and the backdrop of changing population demographics. What makes the Government’s under-occupancy rules fundamentally unworkable is the mismatch between available social housing stock and the needs of tenants and prospective tenants. The scale of the problem varies across the UK, but in Scotland, for example, only 26% of homes available for social rent are one-bedroom properties yet 60% of tenants affected by this measure require a one-bedroom home. According to the National Housing Federation, in England there are twice as many people under-occupying two-bedroom homes than the number of one-bedroom properties that became available last year. No matter how we shuffle people around, not enough homes of the right size are available for affordable rent. That mismatch is entirely outside the control of tenants yet they are being punished for a structural problem not of their making.
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady is being most generous and I am grateful. Does she accept that it is important in this debate to ensure that the facts are clear? Under the previous Labour Government house building was at its lowest since the 1920s, and in the 10 years before this Government came to power social housing costs doubled. Does she accept that that system simply cannot continue?
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman is having a go at the record of the previous Government but he cannot abdicate all responsibility from previous Tory Governments who made it impossible for local authorities to build houses without them being sold off at below market value to tenants who bought them at knock-down prices. That underpins the whole shortage of supply and Government Members cannot pass off responsibility for having created the problem in the first place.
Housing in the social rented sector is by far the cheapest option for people on low incomes. In my constituency, a three-bedroom council house can be rented more cheaply than most one-bedroom flats. People who live in council houses already have limited choice about where they live and what sort or size of house they are offered. Councils and housing associations already go to great lengths to match tenants with a house of the right size, but they do not have enough one-bedroom properties to go round. Many councils allocate homes on a points-based system, which is the most transparent and fair approach, but they require considerable flexibility from prospective tenants in terms of the size, location and type of property they will accept. Demand exceeds supply. Anyone who knocks back the offer of a house because it has two bedrooms when ideally they need one bedroom may not get another offer. People cannot be picky and must take what is available.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
I absolutely agree with the points that the hon. Lady is putting to the Government. Is she aware that 83% of the Government’s cuts have been passed directly to councils by the Scottish Government and that councils are having to deal with the sharp end of this measure? That amount of money that is being taken out of Scottish councils at this extraordinarily difficult time—[Interruption.]
Dr Whiteford
Colleagues from Wales are saying that there the Labour Government have passed on 100% of the cuts. Surely it is better that the Scottish Government have tried to mitigate the impact of those cuts on households, rather than passing them on wholesale. We must remember that most of our social housing was built in an era when people had much larger families and different housing needs. Existing housing simply does not match today’s demographics.
Dr Whiteford
I will not at the moment.
The great irony of the bedroom tax is that it will not save any money. As I pointed out early in the debate, it already costs more on average to house people on low incomes in the private sector than to house them in the social rented sector. Last year, the average housing benefit payment in the social rented sector was £80.71 a week, but in the private sector it was £107.35. Rent paid to social landlords tends to be reinvested in social housing, which in my view represents better value for money for us all. All the bedroom tax will do is cause upheaval, distress and expense to people on low incomes, most of whom, as we have heard, are battling health problems.
Dr Whiteford
I will not give way.
Although the mismatch between the housing stock and tenants’ needs is the glaring flaw in this ill-thought-through and unworkable policy, the under-occupancy penalty will have serious unintended consequences for social landlords who depend on reliable and steady flows of rent to maintain their credit rating, keep rents low, and reinvest in new and existing properties. I have repeatedly raised with Ministers the impact of welfare reform on social landlords, but to date Ministers have repeatedly failed to take seriously the concerns of housing associations and others about the impact that the bedroom tax and the shift to universal credit will have on social landlords’ finances. Last week, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that he had met social housing providers in Scotland and satisfied the concerns of housing associations and local authorities. However, since then, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations have written to him to make it abundantly clear that they are not satisfied, and that their concerns have in no way been assuaged. The president of COSLA has made it absolutely clear to the Government that all local authorities in Scotland continue to have deep concerns about the 14% and 25% penalties associated with under-occupying. Those key stakeholders recognise that the bedroom tax penalises people on low incomes who cannot move to smaller properties. They are concerned that no safeguards are in place to protect the finances should tenants fall into arrears.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is right to point out the mismatch between housing stock and housing need. Many people who are building houses in both the private and social sectors build two-bedroom or larger houses because that makes more sense economically than building one-bedroom properties. What are the Scottish Government doing to encourage house builders in Scotland to build one-bedroom properties to address that mismatch?
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Lady makes a good point about the practicalities of building one-bedroom houses as opposed to two-bedroom houses. On the Scottish Government’s record on building houses, 19% of the socially affordable houses built in the UK in the past five years have been built in Scotland. The Scottish Government have built 34,000 affordable homes since they came to power. Given the lack of progress in the past, that is important.
Stewart Hosie
My hon. Friend makes a good and extremely important point on the balance between the number of properties and the number of bedrooms. However, the real solution is not changing the number of one, two or three-bedroom properties that are built, but scrapping the measure.
Dr Whiteford
My hon. Friend makes the most fundamental point in the debate. I am pleased that so many Scottish MPs are in the Chamber to contribute to the debate, but 82% of Scottish MPs did not vote for the measure, and we should stand in resolute opposition to it.
Dr Whiteford
I am delighted to give way to one of the small minority of Scottish MPs who did vote for—
Mr Reid
Yes, the hon. Lady is correct. I did vote against the measure. She makes an eloquent speech, but I am puzzled by one thing. Why was she unable to persuade half of Scottish National party Members, including her party leader, to turn up on a Wednesday afternoon to vote against the measure?
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman makes a really spurious point. Given the impact that the measure will have on his constituents, he would be better sticking to the real issue, which is the fact that the measure will not work and will harm people across Scotland.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) voted for the measure.
Mr Speaker
Whether putting the record straight is in order or not, the hon. Gentleman has just done it.
Dr Whiteford
Hon. Members can unite on the fundamental opposition to the bedroom tax. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to work to address the problems.
We can and should do a number of things to mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax. For example, the Scottish Government have moved to strengthen protections for tenants in Scotland against eviction for rent arrears. The new pre-action measures that came into force in August last year will ensure that eviction is an absolute last resort, and that tenants have access to advice and every opportunity to agree a repayment plan that is affordable for them and reasonable for the landlord.
Dr Whiteford
I will not give way.
We should also look carefully at the loopholes in the bedroom tax regulations. Apparently, the meaning of “bedroom” is not clearly defined in the legislation. I heard yesterday that one large housing association in England—the Knowsley Housing Trust—has reclassified 600 properties to protect tenants. That obviously comes at a cost to the housing association, but it is nevertheless a brave and socially responsible move. I am sure that social landlords are also seriously considering bricking up windows or taking down walls.
Other housing associations in England—the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) referred to this—have called for two-bedroom properties to be exempted from the rules. They argue that it makes no sense for them to build inflexible one-bedroom homes, because they want to encourage long-term tenants who are integrated in the community, not transient short-term tenancies.
Another potential mitigation measure that might help in urban areas is for housing associations to co-ordinate most effectively their waiting and transfer lists, as we have seen on Merseyside. Obviously, that will not work so well in more rural and dispersed areas, but it might help in cities. There is a range of options, and it is important that we look closely at all of them.
To return to a question posed earlier, social landlords need to be consistent in how they deal with arrears. I am not sure we can draw a distinction between someone who falls into arrears because of the bedroom tax and someone who is not under-occupying but falls into arrears because their employment and support allowance has been cut, because their tax credits have been reduced, because they lose their job or because they have fallen sick. The danger is that if some people have their arrears written off and others do not, that will quickly cause resentment between tenants, all of whom are likely to be living on tight budgets and in danger of experiencing significant increases in rent across the board if housing associations budgets come under strain.
Mr Weir
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The proposal in the petition to amend section 16 could help current tenants to avoid eviction, which is a good thing, but it will not extinguish debt, which can be chased by other means, such as arrestment of wages or money from bank accounts. We know that from the experience of the poll tax. How many years after the poll tax died were people being pursued for arrears?
Dr Whiteford
My hon. Friend’s legal expertise helps him to make a compelling point. Social landlords are aware that more people will be at risk of arrears and that they are being proactive in trying to prevent that from happening, but they are clear that their ability to provide affordable homes depends on their ability to collect rents from tenants. The real problem is that the under-occupancy penalty is unfair and unworkable. Instead of trying to mitigate its worst effects, we should concentrate on changing the underlying problems and abandoning the bedroom tax. In Scotland, we clearly have an opportunity to do that by bringing decision-making powers back to the Scottish Parliament.
Housing associations have historically been seen by lenders as relatively stable, and have been able to borrow money at competitive rates. Mary Taylor, chief executive of the SFHA, has pointed out to Ministers that
“already it is proving harder for landlords to borrow from banks, whether to build or to fund major repair and retrofit programmes. And where they can borrow it is invariably at a higher cost than before, even though interest rates generally remain low and stable. According to Housing Associations, lenders are pointing to the lack of security of rental income arising from Welfare Reform as a key factor in these rising costs. Lenders have to assess risk—and they recognise the very real risks, even if the Government is stubbornly refusing to do so. I believe the Council of Mortgage Lenders raised these issues with the Government over a year ago, but we are still to see action.”
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Lady agree that many councils have rightly, historically and naturally built two and three-bedroom homes for families? If councils choose to evict people from that stock as families grow up, they will end up with a massive void. The choice will be between having not quite enough rent and having no rent, which is financially absurd.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—some housing associations already contend with that problem. If they are to continue to invest in their existing properties and continue to build the new smaller properties that we need to meet our changing demographics, they need to be able to borrow, and to do so cheaply. Any increase to the costs of borrowing will have only an inflationary pressure on rents and service charges. That pressure falls back on the low-income households in the social rented sector, who can ill afford it. There is no doubt in my mind that the problems for social landlords, caused by the shortfalls in housing benefit for people affected by the under-occupancy penalty, will be further compounded by the end of direct payments under universal credit.
Dr Whiteford
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The bedroom tax is a nasty, vindictive and unnecessary measure. The under-occupancy penalty is manifestly unfair. It puts disabled people on low incomes right at the front of the austerity agenda, and asks people on the lowest incomes to pay the price for the structural problems affecting the supply of affordable housing. However, the bedroom tax is also unworkable: instead of addressing the underlying problems, it undermines the ability of social landlords to invest in the kind of affordable housing that is so badly needed, and it fails to tackle the excessive private sector rents in London and surrounding areas that have fuelled inflation in the housing benefit bill.
The Secretary of State needs to get a grip. The bedroom tax will not save any money, but it will cause chaos for tenants and social landlords alike. It will cause untold distress for those forced to leave their homes and communities, or for those who find themselves grappling with spiralling debt. It is not too late for the Government to think again. I urge Ministers to reconsider: scrap this crazy measure, or at the very least look again at exempting households affected by disability; look again at the budget for discretionary housing payments; offer local authorities support commensurate with the identified needs of disabled people and foster carers; and look again at whether it is reasonable to consider two-bedroom homes as under-occupied at all. I would have more respect for the Government if the Secretary of State postponed this measure and listened.
Mr Speaker
These are matters of judgment for right hon. and hon. Members. Certainly, discretion in the use of such devices is to be encouraged, but I can say only that I had not noticed the matter. Therefore, so far as I was concerned, there was nothing outré about the behaviour of the Secretary of State. However, I note the point. Probably, the Secretary of State has noted it too, and we will leave it there.
Dr Whiteford
The 660,000 people affected by this measure will note exactly what the Secretary of State is doing during this debate. I urge him at this late stage to turn back and scrap the policy, or, at the very least, offer the mitigation measures that would make such a difference to disabled people’s lives.
In Scotland, we have a choice ahead of us. With the power to make our own democratic decisions, we could, should and must do things differently. We would never make disabled people the fall guys for Government failure. In the meantime, I hope Members across the House who care about this issue will support our motion today. I call time on this unfair and unworkable bedroom tax.
Sheila Gilmore
That is an important point. The council tax freeze which has been going on for nearly six years now—people in England will share the joys as well—has resulted in local councils being unable to go to their populations and say that they would like to put up council tax, so that they can perhaps borrow money to build more council houses. Of course, the people who do not benefit in any way from the council tax freeze are those on the lowest incomes, who do not pay council tax directly because they receive council tax benefit, but they are the very people who will be affected by the bedroom tax. For the lowest earners, the council tax freeze is not a blessing; it has reduced the services they received and hamstrung a lot of councils. I hope the Scottish Government will look again at the policy, which might appear populist but does not benefit the lowest paid.
Sheila Gilmore
I am not going to give way, because I have done so several times already.
If councils are going to put their money into this policy, by increasing discretionary housing payments, or trying to acquire or build more houses, they must be given support. In Scotland, as in England, sadly, we are seeing a substantial reduction in the building of affordable homes. In Scotland, the number of such homes was boosted briefly, but it has gone down from 7,900 two years ago to only 3,400 this year. Some of those homes are for mid market rent, which has its role but is expensive, so it could lead to higher housing benefit payments. The outcome of more mid market rent housing is similar to what is happening in England. We have heard people on the Government Benches saying that the Government will ensure that more affordable houses are built, but I thought they had made it clear that those so-called affordable houses were going to be at up to 80% of market rent, which is expensive. In Edinburgh, a council one-bedroom property is £275 per month, but a mid market one-bedroom property is currently being advertised at £439 per month. Mid market is no substitute for low-cost affordable housing.
The high housing benefit bill will be reduced not by measures such as the bedroom tax, but by measures that address the supply of housing and the huge cost of the private rented sector. A couple came to see me who, after six years, had got the two-bedroom wheelchair-accessible house that they need. It is no use saying to them, “You can apply for a discretionary housing payment.” In a Westminster Hall debate recently, the Minister said that discretionary housing payments might have to become permanent in such cases, but that couple will still have to apply every year, and will have uncertainty, and that is not fair to them. If such payments have to be permanent, where is the saving? Why not have an exemption?
Pensions and Social Security
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Webb
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, whose individual circumstances I do not know. Disability living allowance has not yet been reformed by this Government, so we have changed nothing about DLA. If his constituent believes that she has been wrongly assessed, I hope that she will have his support in appealing against that decision.
On working-age benefits, as the International Monetary Fund has said, strong fiscal consolidation is under way, and reducing the high structural deficit over the medium term remains essential. As we continue to face pressure on our national economy, we have had to take some tough decisions. There was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) has suggested, speculation about benefit freezes. It is true that we cannot afford to be as generous this year as we have been in the past. However, in the exercise of his discretion in the uprating of certain benefits, having regard to the national economic situation, the Secretary of State has found sufficient money to pay a 1% increase to those of working age on the main rate of jobseeker’s allowance or income support, as well as for housing benefit and the main rate and work-related activity component of employment and support allowance.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Has today’s news that inflation is set to stay very high for the next few years encouraged the Minister to rethink in any way this real-terms cut in working benefits?
Steve Webb
The rate of CPI has been 2.7% for four consecutive months. We were aware of the level of inflation when we made these judgments about 2013. Clearly, there are things we can do to help ourselves with the cost of living. For example, the cost of petrol is 10p a litre lower than it would have been if we had implemented the previous Government’s escalator; council tax bills, which are a huge cost of living for many people, have been frozen in many places for three years; and people in low-wage work will receive a substantial income tax cut in April. Those measures will all help people with the cost of living.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the other Back-Bench contributions in this somewhat sparsely attended debate, particularly the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who always speaks with consistency and clarity on these issues. Like him, I very much regret that the motions have been grouped in such a way that voting against the egregious real-terms cut in working-age benefits would potentially jeopardise the essential support to some of the most disadvantaged people in our society. I regret that it is not possible to vote against part of the measures.
When we debated the issue a few weeks ago, I raised a number of concerns. What I have heard this evening has done nothing to assuage those concerns. A below-inflation rise and a real-terms cut over three years will do nothing except pile on the pain for low and middle-income households that are already paying the price of the recession. The cap of 1% on the uprating of working-age benefits will drive low-income families into real hardship, increase levels of deprivation, and accentuate the gross inequalities that plague our society. It will hit parents especially hard, particularly those in low-paid or part-time work. Given the extremely short time that we had to debate this a few weeks ago, with strict time limits, it would be utterly wrong to allow this debate to end without challenging those points and reiterating the key issues.
It is fair to say that low-paid workers have already borne the brunt of the economic downturn. Many people have seen their working hours cut. Increasingly, we find people, especially women, working part-time when they really want a full-time job. Those who have child care and caring responsibilities, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) mentioned a moment ago, often find themselves in seasonal, temporary, part-time, insecure and sometimes zero hour contract work. It is extremely difficult for them to juggle the competing demands on their time if they have caring responsibilities or children to look after.
We should not forget that unemployment is still unacceptably high and concentrated geographically in certain parts of the UK. It is neither fair nor accurate to lay responsibility for high unemployment solely on people who are unemployed. Although it may be easier for us to abdicate responsibility for economic policies and political decisions and blame unemployed people for their own plight, we should acknowledge the role of the wider economy, the climate we are living in, our political response to it and the inadequacies of that in creating the present high levels of unemployment.
The key point is that it is not just the unemployed who are hit by a freeze and a cut in working-age benefits—it is people in work who will pay the highest price. The Resolution Foundation has said that around 60% of the cuts will fall on people in work. It is important to see the impact of the autumn statement in the round, looking at the freeze on benefits alongside other measures. According to Citizens Advice, a family of two parents both working in full-time low-paid jobs, with two children, paying a modest rent of £130 a week, will be more than £12 a week worse off by 2015. A similar family with one full-time earner on minimum wage will be about £13 a week worse off by 2015.
A disabled lone parent of two children receiving the support component of employment and support allowance will see a comparable net loss of income in real terms. This does not take account of the cuts that such families have already experienced through last year’s changes to the tax credit system and child care support. The distributional analysis of the Government’s own impact assessment shows that the Government’s reforms will hit the lower half of the income spectrum hard. The analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the pain of the austerity measures is being felt in the lower five income deciles, with the biggest losses in the lowest deciles.
The point that I have made previously in debates on this subject is that although these distributional analyses can be helpful, they do not tell the human story. More than that, they do not show the disproportional impact that the rising cost of living has on low-income households. In the context of today’s inflation forecasts that show that high inflation is set to be with us for several years, this point becomes even more acute. Whether it is hikes in domestic fuel prices or rises in the price of staple foods, it is the things that lower income households most depend on that are going up in price most quickly. I have said before that I do not think the retail prices index or the consumer prices index is a particularly good measure for assessing the experience of inflation in lower-income households, but the CPI for sure underestimates the real impact of those real-term cuts in support.
This is not just abstract economic theory. We are talking today about the difference between a 1% rise of about 71p and an inflationary rise of a meagre £1.50 a week. It is important that we bear in mind what we are doing. Abandoning any link with earnings or prices sends a strong signal that the Government are abandoning any support for citizens going through tough times. It undermines the social contract that most of us thought we had.
The 4% cut in real terms to low and middle-income families will have material consequences for thousands of families right across the UK. These are deeply regressive measures. They are mean and miserable. They will affect 30% of all households in Scotland. They will affect the vast majority of families with children. Given the importance of the issue, the consequences that it will have for our constituents, and the lack of time that we have had to debate it, it is a scandal that the Government Benches are so empty this evening. No one has risen from the Back Benches to defend this egregious policy. I urge the Government to think again.
Dr Whiteford
I am just concluding, and the hon. Gentleman was absent for most of the debate, so I do not think it is fitting that he should try to get in at the last gasp.
Oral Answers to Questions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
1. What estimate he has made of the number of households in Scotland affected by the new under-occupancy rules for housing benefit.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
The social sector size criteria, which will be introduced from April, will align housing benefit rules for those living in social sector accommodation with those already applied to claimants living in the private rented sector. We estimate that around 80,000 households in Scotland could be affected.
Dr Whiteford
The vast majority of tenants affected by this policy have no realistic prospect of finding a smaller, cheaper house. It also has many implications for devolved policy areas. Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to show his respect for the Scottish Parliament by appearing in person before its Welfare Reform Committee?
Steve Webb
Obviously, the impact of housing benefit policy, which is a matter for the UK Parliament, will be different in different parts of the country. I have been to the Scottish Parliament and talked to the Deputy First Minister about welfare reform and we keep a dialogue open with our colleagues in Scotland.
Housing Benefit Entitlement
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on bringing such an important issue before us. It will have huge unintended and unpredictable consequences for at least 80,000 people in Scotland, some of whom are among the most economically impoverished in our community.
The problem with the way in which the Government have sought to frame the debate on changes to the occupancy rules is that it fails to acknowledge that that debate takes place against the backdrop of changing population demographics and underlying problems in the supply of affordable housing. It is also being implemented against the backdrop of a labour market in which jobseekers far outnumber vacancies, and increasing numbers of jobs are seasonal, temporary or based on zero-hours contracts. All this talk about subsidised spare bedrooms is yet another attempt to vilify people on low incomes in a vain effort to justify their having to pay the price for the financial crisis and the double-dip recession.
To debate this issue properly, we need to acknowledge that there is a fundamental mismatch between the social housing stock available and the needs of tenants and prospective tenants. Most of our social housing stock was built at a time when families were much larger and the population was less mobile. Across Scotland, about 44% of social tenants require a one-bedroom home, but only 24% of the homes available are that size. In other words, many tenants have no choice but to live in a home that is larger than they need. An estimated 69,000 tenants in Scotland cannot currently be accommodated in a suitably sized house in the social rented sector.
In Aberdeenshire—my own patch—we have a growing population and a depleted stock of public sector housing, and there is a chronic shortage of affordable property to rent. There are more than 7,000 people on the waiting list. Many of them have little prospect of being offered a house any time soon. Although Aberdeenshire has a much higher percentage of one-bedroom properties than most local authorities, it still does not meet demand. People desperate for a house will take any house offered, whether or not it is the appropriate size.
The main issue I want to talk about is the unintended consequences of the bedroom tax on individuals, social landlords and the wider economy. It is hard to predict how tenants in receipt of housing benefit will respond to the cuts, bearing in mind that the real-terms cut in working-age benefits will also put the finances of most of them under considerable strain. We can probably assume that some of those who can move, will move. Some might seek to absorb the cuts within their existing finances, while some might take out loans to cover the gap between their rent and their income, which is a risky short-term strategy. It is highly unlikely that housing association tenants will mitigate the impact by taking in lodgers, because many are explicitly prevented from doing so by the terms of their tenancy agreements. We have to face the fact that some tenants will fall into arrears. When we consider the bedroom tax in tandem with the move away from direct payments to landlords and other benefit cuts, we have a recipe for significant problems with rent arrears, and a possible rise in evictions in the social and private rented sectors.
Housing associations fear that financial instability and cash-flow problems could affect their credit ratings, and I echo the point made by the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg). Social landlords need to be able to borrow to invest in new properties and maintain their existing properties. If lenders start to see them as a higher risk, their borrowing costs will rise, which will inevitably put inflationary pressures on the rents of existing tenants and thwart the investment that is so badly needed.
The bedroom tax threatens to undermine the progress that has been made in Scotland over recent years in introducing new, affordable social housing to deal with rising demand. It is a mean and miserable measure that will cause real financial hardship to people on low incomes. It will drive people into rent arrears and into debts they will struggle to repay. It will also drive people from their homes and uproot them from their communities. Too many of the people affected by the measure are moving in and out of low-paid, insecure, temporary short-term work. Because of the bedroom tax, not only will they have no job security; they will lose housing stability as well. Coming hard on the heels of real-terms cuts in financial support for low-income households, the changes will exacerbate our existing economic malaise, by taking money out of the very communities that need it most. They will make it more difficult for non-governmental actors to invest in quality, affordable housing.
I urge Ministers to think again and to look at the Benches that are empty of people prepared to defend the policy. If Ministers are devoid of empathy, I encourage them to take a hard-headed look at the unintended economic impact of the bedroom tax, and to consider the unacceptable social costs.
Steve Webb
Again, the hon. Lady is talking from a sedentary position. She cannot control herself. On the day that we have published yet another set of figures showing another fall in unemployment and record growth in employment, she asks, “Where is the work?” The myth that there are no jobs available when we have more people in employment than ever before needs to be countered.
For some people, taking a job or working extra hours is an important part of the solution. It has been mentioned that taking in a lodger or a sub-tenant is not an option for some people, but for many it will be. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said that that might be an issue. In general, housing associations and social landlords should allow orderly sub-tenancies—a person cannot just take someone in and tell the landlord after the event. There has to be a strong reason to refuse such an option. The presumption is that it can be done, so it is part of the mix.
I had a constituent who was a single person living in a three-bedroom social housing accommodation. She had a letter about under-occupation, so she phoned me up. She said that she had a brother and sister-in-law who could live with her. That is a better use of the housing stock; it meets their housing need and covers the shortfall. Such improved use of the housing stock benefits us all.
I want to address discretionary housing payments, which were raised by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) in her thoughtful contribution. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) also mentioned discretion. We are being asked to do contradictory things here. Where people have identified groups such as foster carers or people with major disability adaptations to their property, rather than central Government defining exactly what that means in every case, we have allocated the money that we think is needed to deal with the problem and given it to local authorities to respond on a case-by-case basis.
We think that such local discretion is right, but we have been asked to give local discretion, except in every such case also to have an absolute right to make a discretionary housing payment or to exempt people. That is the tension. There are all sorts of individuals whom we might think should be exempt. Trying to sit down and write a regulation or a statutory instrument to define exactly who all those people are does not work, which is why we have allocated discretionary housing payments—this year of £60 million and next year of £155 million—to local authorities. Let me take as an example Durham’s local authority. Last year, it had £177,000 of DHPs. Next year, it will be £880,000 of DHPs to respond to the sorts of people whom hon. Members have mentioned.
I want to respond to the issue about service personnel. I assume that the things that have been said are based on ignorance, rather than on an intent to mislead. Let us take the example of a married serviceman or woman. If one goes away, it does not matter, because there is still a one-bedroom need, so married service personnel are not an issue. Service personnel who live in service accommodation are also not an issue, because they are not social tenants on housing benefit.
We are talking here about service personnel who live in social rented accommodation with their parents and who are on housing benefit, so we are getting to narrower and narrower groups. If a member of the armed forces who is on a wage is living at home with his mum and dad, the benefit system says, “Ah, there is somebody in the house on a wage.” We expect that person to pay up to £70 a week towards the rent—it is called a non-dependant reduction. When the serviceman or woman goes to the front line, and if they are away for a long period, we no longer treat them as a non-dependant in the household, so we no longer deduct £70 from the housing benefit. When a young person goes away to fight for a long period, the parents’ housing benefit will in general go up. That is not the story that the Labour party has been putting out today.
We have been asked about foster carers. We think that the discretionary housing money that we have made available will assist around 5,000 foster carers. Let us bear in mind, though, that this is not all foster carers. I am talking about foster carers who might be in social rented accommodation, on housing benefit and in need of a spare bedroom, so a subset of all fosterers. Of course the fostering organisations would prefer a total exemption; I accept that. Failing that, their estimate is that these are about the right numbers of people, and we have had meetings and discussions with the fostering organisations.
The important issue of children was raised. The majority of people who are affected by this measure do not have dependent children. We are generally talking about older people. None the less, the position of families with children is important. It was suggested that two teenagers of the same gender should not be expected to share a bedroom. I do not follow that argument. I shared a bedroom with my brother until we were 18, and I do not think that it did us any harm. At a time when we have a great shortage of affordable accommodation, I cannot see what the problem is with older teenagers of the same gender sharing a bedroom.
An important question has been asked about whether DHPs are temporary or permanent. In the past, DHPs were a temporary fix. If someone had a short-term problem, they needed a bit of DHP to bail them out and then they moved or did something about it. Under the new system, DHPs can be for the long term, because some situations will not change. If someone lives in a house that has been substantially adapted, that will not change. Local authorities are getting revised guidance and will have to think about DHPs differently, because some people need longer-term certainty, as has been properly said.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that we had a size mismatch, and indeed we do. When a council is doing something about it—building houses to match the housing need—the hon. Lady asks how I can possibly think that that is a good thing.
Steve Webb
I have just 60 seconds to go. When councils build houses of the right size to match housing need, they should be applauded and not condemned.
The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) said that we need to manage over-occupation and under-occupation. We have had decades to do something about that, but nothing has happened. Some housing associations have welcomed the opportunity to look at the housing allocations to make better use of the precious resource of social housing. I fully accept that there will be disruption as a result of this measure, which is why we have a two-year programme looking at all this work, evaluating the impact and publishing the research. If we need to make changes to the system as we go because there are perhaps groups or impacts that we have not thought of, we will be in a position to do that. The matter will be thoroughly researched, and we will publish the results. At a time when we need to save money, being fairer to people in the social sector and the private sector and tackling overcrowding as well as under-occupation is a fair way to reduce the spending deficit that we were handed by the Opposition.
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bain
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own contribution later, and that he will recognise that I have been generous in giving way to him once already.
Long-term unemployment in Scotland has risen by 385% since 2008. I welcomed the presence of Scottish National party Members in the Division Lobby with Labour Members the other week, voting for our reasoned amendment to the Bill relating to the jobs guarantee, and I hope that it will not be too much longer before the Scottish Government follow Labour’s lead and introduce a jobs guarantee for those most in need of work in Scotland. They could easily do that. I hope that they will look at the example set by Glasgow city council in introducing a successful jobs fund for the young jobless, because such a measure would supersede the measures in clause 1. Countries such as Sweden, which many in the Scottish Government often ask people in Scotland to emulate, have used jobs guarantee policies very successfully indeed for nearly two decades, while reducing their deficit at the same time.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman also welcome the Scottish Government’s efforts to ensure that every 16 to 19-year-old in Scotland be guaranteed an educational or training place?
Mr Bain
I would welcome any measures from any tier of Government that would increase the level of training and skills provided to my constituents and those in other Scottish constituencies. I have to say to the hon. Lady, however, that I have two major colleges in my constituency—North Glasgow college and John Wheatley college—which have seen staggering levels of cuts introduced by the Scottish Government. That is driving more young people in my constituency into unemployment and creating the very figures that allow those on the Treasury Bench to produce measures such as those in clause 1.
Even in constituencies such as mine, it is still the case that people move in and out of unemployment. The calculated framing of this debate by the Government, based on the fabricated and manufactured premise that there is a monolithic army of the permanently idle, unwilling even to open their curtains, and defrauding the system, wilfully ignores that fact. Fraud in the benefit system is only 0.7%, and many unemployed people, including many of my constituents, are struggling hugely on just £71.40 a week. Unemployment benefit as a proportion of average income has fallen from 22% in 1979 to a mere 15% now, so the argument from those on the Treasury Bench that unemployment benefit is somehow unaffordable and that it cannot continue into the decades to come is simply a false premise to put to the Committee tonight.
Dr Whiteford
I start by paying tribute to the work of the Scottish Campaign on Welfare Reform, which has done so much to draw attention to the impact of the measures in the Bill. It speaks volumes that more than 60 charities, Churches, other faith groups and trade unions have come together to speak with one voice to express their concerns about this heartless Bill and to support amendments that might mitigate some of its most adverse impacts.
The problem with what we are debating tonight is that an uprating cap of 1% is entirely arbitrary. It will inevitably cause hardship not just to those on low incomes but to those on middle incomes. I want to try to focus on amendment 7, which was supported so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). It is important that we try to restore a link to prices this evening. The problem with a below-inflation flat-rate uprating of benefits is that it represents a real-terms cut in the incomes and living standards of those who already live in the most straitened circumstances and will continue to do so for the next three years. Some 70% of those who are adversely affected are families with children and an estimated two thirds of the savings derived will be taken from the pockets of people in low-paid or part-time work.
Tonight, we have repeatedly heard, not least from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), that it is unfair, when people in work may be receiving below-inflation rises, not to impose a real-terms freeze in the uprating of benefits. That is a particularly facile argument, which we rehearsed on Second Reading. It goes without saying that whereas someone with a job with average pay would receive £200 or £300 for a 1% increase, depending on whether they were a man or a woman, a person on benefits of £70 a week would see an annual increase of £36. That probably would not even take me beyond the boundaries of my own constituency. It is wrong to pretend that 1% of not very much is equivalent to 1% of an average salary—or, indeed, of the very generous salary that so many people in this place enjoy.
As others have highlighted, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the Bill. If inflation stays in line with OBR predictions, the Government’s approach will result in a 4% real-terms cut in tax credits and benefits by 2015. That is a very big “if”, though: the OBR’s crystal ball has not been very effective to date and it has certainly not been good at predicting inflation—or, pretty much anything else. If inflation is higher than the guesstimates from the OBR, the impact on low and average-income households will be greater than we predict today. That is why we must preserve the link between social protection payments and the cost of living.
The Government’s distributional analysis of the impact of the autumn statement shows that next year the people in the five lowest income deciles will be worse off as a consequence of the cumulative impact of the Government’s changes to the tax and benefits system, and the least affluent will be the most affected. In contrast, three out of five people on average incomes and above will be better off. That exposes the truth of the matter: the Government have set themselves priorities and made choices that make those on low and average incomes pay for the tax breaks for the very wealthy. The poorer half of our society is being asked to carry the can for a financial crisis and a failure of political leadership that is not of its making, rather than seeing that burden shared across society.
The other key point that I want to make this evening—again, one that I made on Second Reading—echoes points made by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) earlier today. It is that the measures of inflation that we use are not especially good at measuring the impact of inflation on lower income households. We know that low income households spend a far greater proportion of their resources on essentials such as food and domestic fuel. In the past five years, food prices have risen by around 30%, and the prices of some staple foods, such as potatoes, have risen by 40%. Projections for next year are for rising prices for a number of staple commodities because of poor harvests in north America and many parts of Europe, not least in our own country. Thrifty shoppers, as we know, are adept at switching to cheaper brands when money is tight, but when global prices are on an upward trajectory there is often nowhere to hide.
The other disproportionate expense for low income families is domestic energy, which is another area where prices have soared and fluctuated in recent years. The 20% increases in gas prices announced before Christmas are just the latest in a series of cumulative hikes in the price of fuel in recent years. There is snow on the ground outside today; that may be unusual here in London, but it is just normal winter weather in my constituency. In such conditions, families, especially families with young children, need to heat their homes adequately.
Although neither the consumer prices index nor the retail prices index captures the full impact of inflation on the lowest income households, the retail prices index includes some housing costs and is more likely to reflect the actual inflation that poor people experience. The Bill will cause tangible hardship, quantifiable in real money terms and in practical ways for people on low incomes. Hundreds of thousands of people who are disabled, who are carers, who are lone parents, will be particularly hard hit. It will hit families, whether they are in or out of work, dealing with the added expense of bringing up children. It will not cut the deficit—indeed, it will take money out of local economies and inhibit recovery at a time when we should be trying to get local economies going. On the basis of the Government’s own assessment, 200,000 more children will be pushed into poverty by this part of the Bill alone. We know that the long-term cost of child poverty cannot be measured only in financial terms. The long-term implications for children who grow up in deprivation are well quantified. The results are devastating and store up problems for the future, some of which we are still dealing with from the last period of austerity and the last poverty measures back in the 1980s and 1990s.
Dickens has been mentioned several times today. Whereas some speakers have talked of “A Christmas Carol” and the days of Scrooge, I was set thinking of “A Tale of Two Cities”, and indeed a tale of two countries. Today the Scottish Government announced an extra £5.7 million for advice services to support people who have to face the problems associated with these welfare cuts. It is a sad state of affairs when people are using food banks; it is a sad state of affairs when disabled people who, through no fault of their own, cannot persuade an employer to give them a job, are being pushed further into poverty and are being blamed and vilified for the state of the wider economy. People in Scotland have a choice and I look forward to the day they will get to make that choice in a referendum on their future governance, because never again will they have to take the Tory policies that they did not vote for.
Amendment 7 would make this deeply flawed Bill slightly less iniquitous and slightly less unfair, and would ensure that the very poorest families do not carry a disproportionate share of the burden in tough economic times. I urge Members across the Chamber to support us this evening when we push it to a vote.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise, Mr Amess, for persisting in seeking to speak at this late hour. I sat through the five hours of Second Reading and time did not permit me to be called then, and I have tabled an amendment tonight which we will not reach. One could become paranoid at times. I wanted the opportunity to set out my views briefly on this core element of the Bill for my own constituents.
I will vote for every amendment that seeks to ameliorate the Bill. That includes the amendments that have been tabled from both sides, including by my own party. I feel there is a moral imperative to do so. There was a consensus for a time in our country about how we dealt with welfare benefit upratings: they would increase on the basis of either earnings or inflation, whichever was the higher. That consensus was achieved because there was a moral commitment to protect the poorest in our society—in a civilised society. It went alongside a steady rise in wages at the time. What we have seen recently—it has impacted on my constituents particularly—is wage cuts and wage freezes across the public sector and in some parts of the private sector. I opposed the wage freeze in the public sector that was supported by my own party.
In the past 12 or 15 months we have seen a succession of measures—more than a dozen key measures—that have cut the income of my constituents. The Bill is the last straw. People in my constituency are suffering and will suffer more as a result of this measure. As I mentioned in a recent debate in Westminster Hall, there is a gulf between the views and experiences of some Members of the House and the experiences of many of our constituents and the way that they suffer. I thought that might be particular to my community—a working-class multicultural community that is taking a battering at present—but I looked at some of the statistics in the briefings that were prepared for this debate.
The Government’s own household survey of those living below the average wage identified 11% of families in that category who cannot keep their homes warm. I looked at the Save the Children survey, which found that 14% of children do not have a warm coat this winter. I looked at the survey undertaken by Contact a Family, the charity that works with families who care for disabled children. It was an extensive survey which found one in six families going without food, one in five without heating, one in four without the specialist adaptations that they need, and a third taking out a loan to pay for food and heating.
I looked at the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust work that has been undertaken by the Centre for Research in Social Policy, which demonstrated how the basic income from benefits has decreased in relation to the inflationary impact on basics such as food, heating and rents. I also looked at the work it had done on nutrition for expectant mothers and the concern, which was echoed some time ago by the Minister himself, about the incidence of poor maternal nutrition resulting in low birth weight.
The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) expressed his fear that this was, effectively, dog-whistle politics, that the poor were being used as a political football between the parties. I share those fears. I wish I did not. That was the tenor of the debate that was opened up in the budgetary statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the reference to curtains, and the debate that has gone on in the media about skivers and strivers. I have more faith in the British people. I do not believe that they accept the terms of that debate. I think the British people have a sense of fairness and a sense of moral commitment to people less fortunate than themselves. That is why I do not think there is majority support for the measure. I think that, as a result of this debate, understanding is overcoming prejudice. Prejudice will be defeated by humanity; there will be an upsurge of popular support for those of us across the House who will oppose this legislation tonight and are calling for the Government to think again about the whole trajectory of their welfare cuts.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has done immensely important work about interventions to tackle deprivation. There is a whole range of them, and they are not just about income. However, his work has found that those interventions are impeded from the outset if people are struggling simply to put food on the table, heat their homes and have some kind of decent standard of living.
Clause 1 is a major setback for large numbers of people right the way across our country. It undermines their standard of living and diminishes the whole of our society. It will have repercussions for a long time to come, unless we defeat it tonight.
Atos Work Capability Assessments
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Today we have heard a litany of problems with the work capability assessment, not least the problem that it persistently reaches the wrong outcomes in assessing people’s ability to work.
Aberdeenshire was part of the pilot scheme for the work capability assessment, so ever since I was elected, I have faced a steady stream of sick and disabled constituents, distraught, worried and in some cases angry about the process that they have had to endure. These are not anecdotal or isolated instances. The citizens advice bureau has kept close track of the issues brought by clients over many years, and it has documented the sharp increase in demand for advice and help on matters related to work capability assessments. In the past year alone the Turriff citizens advice bureau in my constituency has seen a 60% increase in this type of case, on top of a sharp increase last year. I suspect that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg.
In spite of three reviews by Professor Harrington, the work capability assessment still is not working well enough. Too many decisions are being appealed, and 38% of those appeals are successful, rising to a 70% success rate when people are supported by the CAB and other advocacy groups. That system failure is costly not only in financial terms, but in human terms.
One of the things that has disturbed me most over the past couple of years is the way in which disabled people have found the process an assault on their dignity. I am also disturbed by the failure of the Government to take remedial action and manage the contract with Atos more effectively. Public money is being spent on these assessments. There is a substantial body of evidence to show that they are failing to deliver, yet the Government continue to hide behind commercial confidentiality in declining to make public the details of their relationship with Atos. That lack of accountability is not good enough.
As an MP, I am dealing with increasing numbers of constituents who are distressed and desperate because they have been told that they are fit for work when they manifestly are not. The very first constituent who came to me for help and who had been found fit for work was a man who could not climb the stairs in his own house to go to the toilet. He came to one of my surgeries which had disabled access, but he needed help from relatives to do so and it was quite an ordeal. His GP rather euphemistically told me that the man had “a poor prognosis”, and the man has absolutely no prospect of getting back into the labour market. He successfully appealed against the decision, but it emerged in that process that no account had been taken of his GP’s documentation or of the evidence supplied by his hospital consultant.
I have encountered incontinent patients being asked to make four-hour round trips on public transport. I have also encountered constituents who have had to make very long journeys by public transport only to find that their appointment is not double-booked, but triple-booked. My biggest ongoing worry, though, is about people who have found themselves placed in the work-related activity group with very little realistic prospect of finding a job. I think of one constituent, disabled since birth, who has wanted nothing more than a job since she left her special school. Now in her 30s, she has been on endless training courses. She has enthusiastically embraced work placements but she has never had a mainstream job, despite her efforts. Possibly, she could work, with the right support in place.
In Aberdeenshire we enjoy levels of employment much higher than the average. It is probably easier to find a job there than anywhere else in Scotland, but jobs still do not grow on trees. Many of the jobs that new entrants to the labour market might have a chance of getting are physically demanding. They require strength, dexterity, co-ordination and a degree of endurance. My constituent could not stand on a food production line. She does not have the balance or the motor skills to work in a retail outlet. Her speech impairment would make telecommunications work difficult. She can type, but not nearly fast enough for a modern office. She will lose her benefit in a few months, even though she has always sought work, and is just looking for someone to give her a chance.
I worry that, instead of becoming independent, my constituent is going to become even more dependent on her ageing parents, who are themselves in failing health. They are not a wealthy family. Bringing up a disabled child often impairs a family’s wealth and erodes their assets and their ability to cope with setbacks. I am worried about the impact of increased caring on her family and on their health and financial well-being.
Finally, I want to say a quick word about the situation facing people with serious mental health problems and long-term fluctuating conditions. There is a world of difference between being potentially fit for work, given the right support, and being an attractive prospect to a potential employer. The elephant in the Chamber today is the fact that many employers will think very long and hard before taking on a member of staff with a serious long-term or fluctuating health condition. Anyone with a chequered work history knows that they are perceived as a risk to prospective employers. Many employers will admit this in private but will not come out and say it publicly. I do not think the Government are being realistic enough about the stigma attached, for example, to degenerative conditions or mental illness. These hurdles are not insurmountable, but we must admit that they exist if we are to challenge them. I hope that today’s debate will inject a dose of realism into the Government and that they will stop hounding and persecuting disabled and sick people for their disabilities.
Remploy Marine Fife
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Brown
Of course. The cutting equipment that is necessary for the raw materials that produce the manufactured goods in Fife is in Dundee. If a rescue is going to work, there must be some relationship between what happens in Leven and Cowdenbeath and in Dundee. We will follow up my hon. Friend’s suggestion about a meeting between Fife and Dundee.
I urge the Government to agree to hold a meeting, preferably in Fife, with representatives of the Government, the Scottish Administration, who have agreed that they will attend such a meeting, and Fife council, who will be there, to see whether the combination of what is on offer in employment support can achieve the financial viability over a short period of time that is essential if this product is to be produced in Britain. It will be sold and made somewhere, so the only question is whether it will be produced in Britain and not, as is likely, in Asia or elsewhere in the world.
The price of failure is that 50 or more Remploy factories will move from privatisation to liquidation. If they do not move to liquidation, it will mean the decimation of the work force. I know that large numbers of people employed in Fife will never work again, despite the employment support that is available. We will be throwing away the opportunity to make a viable product, which with help to make it financially viable is one that people will be prepared to buy not just in this country but around the world.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing the issue to the House. I highlight not just the £5,000 the Scottish Government have committed over and above the support from the Department for Work and Pensions, but also the support through Scottish Enterprise for potential bidders. There could be a whole package of measures if people work together.
Mr Brown
I hope there is financial support from Scottish Enterprise. I have not yet seen it. An 18-month subsidy will not be adequate to bridge the gap between the losses incurred at the moment and financial viability.
The price of failure is that large numbers of people will lose their jobs, but success could be achieved by all the parties working together—the UK Government, the Scottish Administration and the Labour-led council. That could mean that at least two of the units that at the moment most people would say are more likely to fail than succeed could be brought into viability to extend their output and create more jobs in a community that desperately needs them. I hope that the Minister will also listen to my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes and for Dunfermline and West Fife.
State Pension Reform
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Webb
I had the great pleasure of joining my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at Asda this morning—when he caught up on a bit of his shopping—and meeting shop workers who had just been automatically enrolled by Asda. It was fascinating talking to them, because some were in the scheme already, but many were not. Those who had been auto-enrolled were going to stay in, and one said, “It’s not that much money. To be honest, I drink more than that in the pub over a month.” People are being brought into workplace pensions. We do not want them opening their newspapers and being told, “Don’t bother saving, because you’re just going to be means-tested.” We believe that we have dealt with that problem today, which will make auto-enrolment work as well as state pension reform.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said today that the proposals will mean
“a cut in pension entitlements for most people in the long run.”
I am also concerned that they touch on public sector pensions and other areas of devolved competence. Will the Minister ensure that his Department engages in constructive technical discussions with the Scottish Government on the transitional process?
Steve Webb
I have written to the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament about our announcement today. On the hon. Lady’s question about costings, let me say that for the next couple of decades or so we will be spending pretty much the same as now—it is within the same cost envelope—but we will be getting the bill down for younger workers by the middle of the century. It will not be down relative to today—the share of national income going on pensions will be substantially bigger than today—but it will not be rising quite as fast. We are ensuring that workers in their 20s will be automatically enrolled so that they have a savings culture as well as state pension.
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I am sorry that we are so pressed for time, because these are issues of real public interest, and I think that they deserve more scrutiny than we are able to give them this evening.
I believe that the 1% cap on the uprating of working-age benefits is an inherently regressive measure. It will make people on low incomes even poorer, will increase deprivation, and will widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots in our communities. It will particularly hit parents in low-paid or part-time work who are already struggling to make ends meet because of the wider economic climate.
I shall oppose the Bill’s Second Reading. Labour’s amendment proposes that the House should decline it a Second Reading, and posits a guaranteed job offer for those who have been out of work for a long time. On the basis that that is a laudable aim, I am prepared to support it, albeit with a caveat. I have listened carefully to the debate, but I have heard no details of how such a proposal could be put into effect in any realistic way. I would not want to endorse any particular scheme until I had seen whether it was workable and fundable in practice.
The Bill will hit those who are working, especially those who are supporting and bringing up children, especially hard. Many people in lower-paid private sector jobs have seen their hours cut recently, and many who are working part-time want to work full-time but cannot find full-time jobs or pick up extra hours. Meanwhile, they are struggling to juggle work with child care.
As others have said, notably the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), we all need to take responsibility for the way in which we portray people who are unemployed. We need to recognise that those who are jobless should not necessarily be blamed for their joblessness, and that the rises and falls in unemployment are caused by wider economic factors more than by individuals’ aspirations. We also need to recognise that the greater part of the savings made here will be taken from people who are working, often in very physically demanding and fairly unrewarding jobs.
Like the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), I was struck by the comments of the Citizens Advice Bureau on the impact assessment. We had seen no impact assessment until this afternoon, and we have still seen no equality impact assessment. According to the CAB’s calculations, a family consisting of two full-time workers earning the minimum wage with two children, living in private rented accommodation, will be losing £12 a week by 2015. Disabled lone parents will suffer, as will families with a single earner. What those examples mask, however, is the disproportionate impact of the rising cost of living on households with very low incomes. The worst of the cold winter weather is probably still ahead of us, but the rises in domestic fuel bills will cause a very nasty hangover in the spring.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Lady talks of the impact on low-income families. Is she aware that, as a result of the Chancellor’s autumn statement last year, some 1,400 people in her constituency are being taken out of tax, and 30,000-odd are better off in tax?
Dr Whiteford
I am delighted to be able to respond to that point. What has been shown by the monitoring of the Citizens Advice Bureau and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and by the Government’s own impact assessment—which we received very belatedly—is that the combination of the tax and benefit changes will hit the lowest deciles of the income spectrum much harder than the middle and upper deciles. The lowest five deciles are hit hardest, and within that the lowest three are hit worst of all. Many of those are hard-working people and they deserve more. We have heard much criticism of the tax credit system this afternoon, but the Government have failed to address the reason why we need a tax system when people who are working full-time in demanding jobs cannot afford to bring up their children without depending on extra support from the state. That is the underlying issue, and until we have heard how the Government plan to address poverty for working people, we should not even be talking about a below-inflation rise in benefits.
The other issue that should be taken into account, which has been raised by other Members, is that food prices are rising. That is to do with the bad harvest that we have had here due to the very wet summer but, more importantly at a global level, bad harvests in the US and Russia have put the prices of basic commodities way up. In the past year potatoes, probably the great staple of our own food economy, have gone up in price by more than 40%. That is having a disproportionate impact on very poor people, compared to people like us. A 1% increase in an MP’s salary would give us an extra £600 a year. The increase of 71p or 72p for a jobseeker does not compare. There is a quantitative, material difference.
The cap means that there would be a 4% cumulative cut in support to low and middle income families, which will increase material deprivation. The Government have got their priorities all wrong. Asking low and middle income families to bear the brunt of cuts while insulating the very richest is the wrong choice to make, and I look forward to the day when in Scotland we can make these decisions for ourselves.