Universal Credit Roll-out: Nottingham
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(5 years, 6 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
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) gave us an interesting contribution, and we heard interventions from a number of colleagues. I will respond to those, but I start by putting into context where we are in terms of job figures.
I suspect we all agree that ultimately we want a welfare system that supports individuals, is fair to taxpayers and helps people into work. Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics published employment statistics that showed more people in work now than at any time. The rate of women in work is at a near record high. The employment rate for people with ethnic minority backgrounds is at a record high. Youth unemployment has halved since 2010. Since 2013, almost an extra 1 million people with disabilities have come into the workforce.
Some 3.3 million jobs have been created since 2010. There is always a discussion about what kind of jobs those are. Some people suggest that they are low-paid jobs that are not permanent, but that is not the case: 75% of the jobs created since 2010 are full time, permanent and in higher-level occupations that attract higher salaries—not my statistics, but those of the Office for National Statistics.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that in a half-hour debate, interventions from the Front Bench are not permitted.
Draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the Minister for explaining the regulations. As hon. Members know, much of the detailed work of the House goes on in legislative Committees such as this one, away from the political knockabout of the Chamber. It is vital that the Opposition take the chance to scrutinise proposals and identify concerns, issues and improvements. We hope to do that today, because parts of the regulations cause concern and could be modified, but on an issue such as the one before us, it is important that we do so in a considered and constructive manner. We must not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about children and families, so when we hold the Government to account on the proposals, we do so with the sole aim and objective of ensuring that money reaches children and families in a fair and timely manner. It is right for the Opposition to highlight where the Government could make improvements and where their actions and approach have fallen short in relation to child maintenance policy.
We recognise that some of the challenges that we face have their roots in the actions of successive Governments over the years. The question is this: how do we make the system work effectively? On this issue, we do not believe that the current approach is delivering, and we and others have a number of concerns. As my good friend Baroness Sherlock has identified elsewhere, although some people believe that there is a case for writing off some historical debt and introducing new compliance measures, we have to ask the following questions. Are the proposals likely to achieve the objective of getting more money to children, and do they do that in a fair way? As the Opposition, we have further questions. First, before we consider new measures, it is incumbent on the Department for Work and Pensions to show that, in relation to current child maintenance liabilities, there is effective enforcement. If there is not, writing off historical debt risks sending a message to parents who have not paid to support their children that if they just do not pay, the Government will eventually give up.
No Government have a perfect record in this area but, like many other hon. Members in the room, I know from my own case load that many children and families are losing out as a result of the failure by some parents to pay what they owe. Arrears are rising under the new service. Only 62% of paying parents on Collect and Pay paid something in the quarter ending in June 2018, and 44% of all maintenance due under Collect and Pay still had to be paid in that quarter, so there is some way to go before we will be confident that everything that can be done is being done.
We also have concerns about parts of the proposals in relation to debt that is considered too expensive to collect. We recognise that there is some logic to this. Some debts may be perceived to be uncollectable, and others will cost more to collect than will be gained by retrieval. However, the regulations give rise to a number of concerns. For example, they allow wide discretion for caseworkers to decide whether a case is worth pursuing. They place the onus on receiving parents to make representations so that the DWP continues to try to collect the maintenance owed. The cash thresholds disproportionately affect those parents who are least well off. A sum of less than £500 may be a lot of money to someone managing on a very low income. The DWP says that it expects to collect historical debts in only 10% of outstanding cases and less than one fifth of the total amount of outstanding debt. As a result, many parents may lose out—the responsibility is not theirs but the system’s. When that happens, the Minister needs to answer the following question. Will parents be able to claim compensation in cases in which the outstanding debt was due to the failings of the DWP system?
Additionally, when looking at this area, we must do more than a simple profit-and-loss calculation. As with any policy, we have to consider the message that it sends and the effectiveness of the manner in which it is applied. The explanatory memorandum says that there are uncollected arrears of £3.7 billion, of which £2.5 billion is owed to parents and £1.2 billion to Government. The Department for Work and Pensions says that it would be too expensive to try to collect it all, so there are proposals to try to split hairs and claw back some of the unpaid debt. Crucially, the benchmarks, as the Minister stated, are where there has not been a payment in the last three months or, in certain cases, where the DWP asks clients if they want to try to collect the debt. If no representations are received, or the collection of the debt is not possible, it may be written off.
As my colleague Baroness Sherlock has said elsewhere, we need to ask how representations will be sought and whether each parent to whom the money is owed will be written to individually. In addition, where there has been no payment in the last three months, the case started on or before 1 November 2008 and the debt is less than £1000, or the case started after 1 November 2008 and the debt is less than £500, or the debt was less than £65 when it started, the debt can be written off without asking the parents at all.
That is where there is concern about the three-month cut-off point. When the DWP contacts parents to notify them that a debt will be written off unless they make representations, it places the onus on receiving parents to ensure that the case is pursued. We are concerned that that risks sending a message to parents who have not paid to support their children that, if they just do not pay, the Government will eventually give up. We fear that a tiny minority of parents who deliberately refuse to comply will try their luck for three months if it means they will no longer have to pay at all. That is morally and practically wrong. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that.
We also note that the regulations create new powers of enforcement and extend the kinds of income taken into account when assessing the child maintenance that a parent should pay. Again, in principle, we support greater enforcement powers and a better approach to how ability to pay is defined. Many of us will know from our case load that there can be differences between declared assets, income and apparent lifestyle. When that happens, it is often children who lose out; in some cases they are living in poverty as a result. Why therefore did the Government reject reintroducing the lifestyle variation? Will the assets that will now come within the scope for calculating maintenance include just the UK, or also assets outside the UK?
Once again, we ask whether any new powers will have a major impact, since the CMS does not seem to be using its existing powers of enforcement effectively. Charities such as Gingerbread are concerned that even new regulations could leave loopholes via which people could transfer money elsewhere to avoid their responsibilities. Why would a non-payer fear enforcement action, if they are already getting away with not paying their fair share under the current system? We need to ask how much additional child maintenance the Government expect to collect as a result of these changes, and whether they will set a clear target for improving compliance. Getting the existing house in order must be a priority.
We also have concerns about the charges. These new regulations fail to address the fact that the Government actively dissuade parents from accessing CMS through charges: first, through a £20 application fee to enter the services and secondly, if the collection service is needed due to the other parent not paying. The Government believe that charges encourage compliance, but without evidence of compliance under direct payment, we cannot know. There is no information available on amounts paid under direct pay or for those who paid in full under Collect and Pay. DWP’s own research published in 2016 showed that many charges are ineffective, and in cases where there is domestic violence direct pay arrangements are likely to be inappropriate.
However, charges are likely to deter parents from using Collect and Pay. The Department for Work and Pensions should be much more transparent about it, so that an informed judgment can be made about whether charges incentivise behaviour as the Government intend. In our view, there is a major question about that, and it is incumbent on the Government to answer it.
Finally, we cannot consider the proposals entirely in isolation. They come at a time when many children are feeling the effects of other changes in social security, with more to come—lone parents will be particularly affected—and they bring into sharp focus the importance of ensuring that child maintenance money goes, as intended, to the child. We believe that that must be the focus of the proposals.
We accept that the regulations are made in good faith, but much more needs to be done to ensure that there is compliance within the current system, if people are to believe that the powers will be more effective. Many others will see the writing-off of money that was destined for children, often resulting in children living in poverty, as a bitter pill when the Department is failing effectively to tackle non-payment under the current CMS. It is hard not to see that as an acceptance of failure and, worse, a failure whose consequences are borne by those who did nothing to cause it—children.
We therefore do not support the regulations, taken as a whole. There are positive steps forward, but there is a real danger that writing off historical debt without taking effective action to tackle arrears under the current system will send the wrong message. The Government should produce a strategy aimed at ensuring that more people make maintenance arrangements—that should mean addressing the issue of charges—and at increasing compliance rates. Existing collection rates are too low, and questions remain about the effectiveness of charges and other approaches, so we cannot give the proposals unqualified support.
The Government must get their act together on collection, using existing powers more effectively, and must provide clear evidence that their charging policy works and is fair. We urge the Minister to ensure that that happens, and, in doing so, to make sure that the policy and approach work for those for whom they are intended—the children.
Poverty in Liverpool
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(5 years, 6 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
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on securing this important debate.
Liverpool is a place I have got to know well, like many others who have spoken today. Part of my constituency lies within the Liverpool city region, and many of my constituents travel to work in or visit Liverpool each day. Many—including my wife—have recent personal or family heritage in Liverpool, and people are well aware of what colleagues have already noted. Liverpool is a city with incredible culture, buildings, beauty—Scouse pride, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) pointed out—and history. It is also a city that has places that are suffering deep and scarring poverty and, disgracefully, 32,000 children are living in poverty. That poverty is made even worse by the Government’s austerity measures, and it looks set to deepen further as a result of the roll-out of universal credit across the city and region.
This afternoon we have heard many examples and arguments for why the roll-out of universal credit must be halted and the policy radically reformed and fixed. We heard many more in the main Chamber last week—in fact, we have heard many over the past few months. Of course, universal credit is not the sole cause or trigger of poverty—I will talk about some of the other causes later—but it is certainly not scaremongering to suggest that rolling out universal credit across Liverpool is likely to make the issues worse and the suffering even greater. There are many reasons why the Government should stop the roll-out, but surely the evidence that more people will be forced to use food banks— 69,000 used them last year alone—simply to feed themselves and their children is reason enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said that people in Liverpool want jobs, skills and investment. They certainly do not want to root through bins for food and vital goods. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton rightly pointed out that austerity is a political choice, and that it is driving what we see on the streets of Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) pointed out that only 16%—a stark figure—of young people aged 16 to 24 are in work. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) made a strong case that the end-of-austerity cheque should deal with the growth in food bank use and the decimation of public services in Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) pointed out that this is a debate we really should not be having today—or on any day—and said that universal credit is exacerbating the crisis on the streets of Liverpool.
My question to the Minister is this. If the unacceptable delays, the growing rent arrears in Riverside and elsewhere, and the numerous tales of mistakes and misapplications are not enough to make the Government stop and think again, what will it take? It seems that the prospect of children going hungry in Liverpool and elsewhere is not enough to stop universal credit. That should shame the Minister, the Government and all of us in the fifth richest country in the world, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby said.
Of course, poverty is not caused solely by universal credit, although it often rises as a result. Good, well-paid, fulfilling and decent jobs can help to tackle poverty, and we have often heard Conservative Ministers talk about work being the best route out of poverty. The question, however, is, what kind of work? We hear lots of spin from the Government about jobs and employment, but beneath the headlines lies a story of insecurity, low pay and wages falling far short of decent expectations. Real-terms weekly pay is £11 a week lower than it was a decade ago. Business surveys suggest that there are 1.8 million people on zero-hours contracts in the economy, and almost 800,000 consider such posts to be their main job. The draconian cuts to in-work allowances from universal credit is a retrograde step. The National Audit Office says that there is no evidence that it leads to employment growth.
Having focused on what little the Government are doing to tackle poverty, I want to take the opportunity to welcome what Liverpool City Council and many other councils across the country are doing to blunt the ever sharper knife of Tory austerity and to support those in need. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree and others mentioned the work of Liverpool’s Labour Mayor, Joe Anderson. The Labour council and its city region Mayor are helping to tackle poverty. They have spent £12 million on services for homeless people, £3.5 million protecting 42,000 people from the full impact of Government reductions in council tax support, £2.7 million on almost 13,000 crisis payments to help people with the cost of food, fuel, clothing and furniture, and £2.2 million on 8,300 discretionary housing payments to people affected by welfare reform and hardship. They have set up a £2 million hardship fund that will run from 2017 to 2020 to help struggling residents. As has been rightly pointed out, all children’s centres remain open. There is a demand for real powers to transform the economy into one that offers high-quality, decent and fairly paid jobs—something that Whitehall control has so far failed to deliver.
My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton and for Garston and Halewood mentioned those actions in the main Chamber last week, and they are welcomed by all Members from Liverpool. Once again, it is left to our councils—usually, our Labour councils—to help those most in need. They have already faced draconian cuts—Liverpool’s budget has been cut by 64%, or £440 million, in a decade—and yet the Liverpool Mayor is still determined to tackle the root causes of this shocking poverty. Meanwhile, the Government have cut taxes for the richest and wealthiest businesses and corporations—a £110 billion giveaway.
We accept that eradicating poverty requires more than one approach. It requires many partners inside and outside Government. We also know that two key elements are fundamental to the approach: a genuine desire from the Government to do it and the willingness to prioritise that desire and make decisions to underpin it. The Government’s record show that they have neither.
Dan Carden
My hon. Friend will have heard the Government announce, over the summer, their intention to halve homelessness by the end of this Parliament and eradicate it by 2027. As charities that deal with homelessness and crisis said at the time, unless the Government deal with the problems in our economy and put together a cross-departmental strategy, the idea that they will ever get anywhere near that target is fanciful, because they are dealing only with the results, not the causes.
Mike Amesbury
My hon. Friend makes a very strong case and a fair point.
The Minister has heard my colleagues talk about the extent of poverty and its effect on Liverpool and elsewhere. He has heard the genuine fears that the Government’s current policy direction—their cuts to welfare, nurseries, schools, colleges and local government, and their disastrous approach to Brexit—will make that worse. He has heard about the inequality and the unfairness that people, families and children are suffering in Liverpool and places like it. Their lives and opportunities are defined by their postcode, rather their talent, ambition and dreams. Will he now step back and listen to the reality of life in poverty from real people and real cases, look further than the spin of statistics about the jobs market and the economy, which far too many people see as a world away, and lobby the Chancellor?
The time to act is now. End the cuts that push people into poverty, the benefits freeze and the two-child cap. Stop the damaging, catastrophic roll-out of universal credit, which will make poverty worse in Liverpool and elsewhere. Restore the £3 billion-plus cut from the system made in 2015. Act now and fairly fund public services.
Justin Tomlinson
That is not what I am saying at all. I said I would come to food banks. The hon. Lady has not been to a jobcentre to talk to work coaches and see what they have to say. [Interruption.] I know that other hon. Members have.
The key is that the legacy benefits are not some panacea, where everything is great. As constituency MPs, we all know from our casework that legacy benefits are complex, involving three different agencies—HMRC, local government, and the DWP jobcentre—and frankly, one would need to be a nuclear physicist to deal with all three.
Over 700,000 families on legacy benefits were, on average, missing out on £285 of support that they were entitled to, worth a total of £2.4 billion. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) is heckling from the sides again, but these are some of the most vulnerable people, and my role as the Minister is to represent them. I have seen in my casework, as a genuine local resident in my constituency, as the MP and, formerly, a councillor, that some people were overwhelmed by the legacy system. Under universal credit, they will have for the first time a named work coach who will stick with them throughout the process to ensure that they are not missing out. That does not mean that universal credit has been perfect—we have had many debates and there have already been many changes. In some cases, under tax credits and legacy benefits we had tax rates of 90%. I know that would please the Leader of the Opposition, but that is not what the decent public want. There were 16, 24 and 30-hour cliff edges, which created a barrier to people progressing in work. The legacy benefits were seeing £2.4 billion-worth of support missed. We cannot knowingly stand by and say, “We’ve got to stop universal credit,” because these are vulnerable people missing out on money.
We are conscious that we have had to make changes to the migration. We have always said that the roll-out of universal credit will be slow and steady—it is a “test and learn”. In last year’s autumn statement, we rightly announced that we would remove the seven-day waiting list, a welcome change that was called for by a cross-party campaign.
A lot of the cases brought up involve people who have not had access to money. We realised that people did not know that the system was not designed to provide advance benefits, so it is now a given that the work coach will push that information in the initial interview.
Anybody currently receiving housing benefit will now get two weeks of housing benefit in addition—no strings attached—which can then be used. We recognised that we should not presume in all cases that they should take full responsibility for paying their housing benefit, so we now offer, particularly where people’s housing benefit payments are sent directly to their landlords.
We have launched the Landlord Portal, which is very much welcomed by local government and housing associations, and we have protected the severe disability premium. In conjunction with the £3 billion-worth of transitional support in place, over one million disabled families will be on average £110 a month better off.
Universal Credit
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Today’s debate has made it clear to all that rolling out universal credit, even in a slightly different timeframe and in a slightly different manner, will be a disaster for the most vulnerable. It will be a disaster for the disabled—750,000 are forecast to lose out; a disaster for the self-employed—600,000 will lose out; and a disaster for 3.2 million tenants. Families and children will be forced further into debt, hunger and poverty as they lose up to £200 a month and £2,400 a year.
We have had more than 60 speakers in this passionate and generally well-tempered debate. There has been no scaremongering. These are real cases and real people in our communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) spoke about his experience of universal credit being rolled out in his constituency and of the rise in food bank use.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) spoke about his rather positive experience of universal credit. While you were speaking, one of your constituents got in touch with me and referred to the 45% increase in food bank use in your constituency—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. In his constituency, not in my constituency.
Mike Amesbury
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for pointing out that the 45% increase in food bank use in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is due to universal credit.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
May I ask my hon. Friend for help on behalf of Paul in my constituency? In September, his wife died, and he is in pieces. He cannot get her name removed from his UC application. He says that every time he logs on it is a knife through his heart. I have written, called and requested, but I cannot get her name removed from that claim. Will my hon. Friend help me? Will the Secretary of State help me to get that name removed?
Mike Amesbury
That is a dreadful and, obviously, very sensitive case. I am sure the Secretary of State and the Minister for Employment will take up that individual case, which demonstrates some of the failings of UC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) referred to the explosion in casework in her constituency as a result of the universal credit roll-out. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) referred to a lack of money among his constituents and debt problems associated with food banks. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred to the 34% increase in food bank use as UC was rolled out in her constituency. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) highlighted concerns about cuts to the in-work allowances, but of course Conservative Members voted for those cuts. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) spoke about the chaos for her constituents, particularly with the administration of UC. The list goes on and on.
Mike Amesbury
I must make some progress.
In among this procedure—the passion and politics of today’s debate—let us not forget that for millions of people universal credit is more than just a policy; it is a daily reality. That reality is insecurity. It is fear, hunger and, all too often, homelessness. Despite our political differences, I cannot believe that Members came into this House expecting to or wanting to back a policy that is causing such horrors to increase. I know that I did not and I can tell from the genuine contributions of so many Members in the House today that neither did they. So I say to the Secretary of State: she has heard the stories, she knows the risks of continuing along this road and she must recognise that, when even the architect of universal credit, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), says that the system is £2 billion short and this is what is needed, it is time to think again and probably add a few billion more.
The universal credit journey has not just been a bumpy ride; it has been crash after crash. It is a journey that is rapidly running out of road, with a driver, Captain Chaos, who thinks that dropping down a gear at the last minute will prevent catastrophe. The only thing that can halt this is putting the brake on. We need to stop, radically reform and fix this policy before it is too late. Indeed, the policy may well already be beyond fixing. It is certainly already too late for many of the constituents in my patch and beyond. The Government and the Secretary of State have a choice: they can carry on as they are and preside over another poll tax, or they can listen to the unprecedented number of voices from across civil society telling them to stop and think again. Sir John Major believes that universal credit is
“operationally messy, socially unfair and unforgiving”.
That assessment is shared by expert after expert, and by thousands who are affected by the policy. Delays and tweaks will not solve this. It is time to stop, fund and fix it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. That is absolutely key: with universal credit you will always be better off in work. UC removes the effective 90% tax rate of the legacy benefit and the cliff-edges of 16, 24 and 30 hours. It is a far simpler benefit, which is stopping the £2.4 billion-worth of benefits that were missed in claiming.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
From July 2019, up to 2.8 million people will be required to move from their existing benefits by making a new claim for universal credit. Many are set to lose up to £200 a month. The Trussell Trust, the Child Poverty Action Group, Disability Rights UK, two former Prime Ministers, the future Chancellor and even the Archbishop of Canterbury have all called for a halt to this process, which is driving the growth of poverty in our communities. At what stage will the Secretary of State take her fingers out of her ears, listen to reality and halt this chaos?
Justin Tomlinson
This is the reality, as it stands today: complex legacy benefits of £2.4 billion-worth of benefits not being claimed—an average of £285 a month. As the roll-out of universal credit continues, it will remain a test-and-learn process. Where we can see improvements—we have made many already—we will continue to make them.
Funeral Poverty
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(5 years, 8 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
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for securing this important debate, and for all her work over a considerable period. There is consensus on both sides of the Chamber on securing change.
As we have heard, funeral poverty affects many thousands of people, and all families and friends should be able to mark the death of someone they love through a funeral. A funeral is a chance to remember those who have passed away and an important part of grieving after someone has died. Being unable to provide a funeral for a loved one can cause real distress and make grieving much harder. Support must be available for bereaved families to provide dignified funerals, regardless of income. In the media, across the House and across all parties, we talk a lot about the cost of living, but we probably talk a little less about the cost of dying.
The Government must recognise that the problem has grown under their watch as a result of the rising cost of funerals and their failure to increase the level of support to keep pace. In the words of the then Minister, so-called “difficult choices” about welfare spending meant that the Government refused to increase the £700 maximum for funeral-related expenses provided by the social fund—that point was raised by the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). That figure has not gone up since 2003, although funeral costs have. According to SunLife Insurance, funeral costs have risen by 70% in the past decade alone, and the average cost of a funeral in Britain now stands at almost £4,000.
The Minister’s difficult choice is nothing when compared with the difficult choices faced by those forced to find money elsewhere—for example, by crowdfunding. There are even reports of mortuaries keeping bodies for several months until a family could afford the cost of a funeral, and it is almost impossible to imagine the distress that that must cause.
Public health funerals, sometimes called paupers’ funerals, have risen by 70% in the past three years. If the phrase “paupers’ funeral” sounds Dickensian and outdated, that is surely because it is. What could be more Dickensian than having no option but to rely on charities or to beg and borrow simply to afford the most basic of dignified funerals? Dickensian as that is, we must not fall into the trap of assuming that funeral poverty is the only problem for those forced to access the last resort of public health funerals.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields stated, a recent YouGov survey found that 4 million people in the UK had suffered hardship following the death of somebody close. Research has shown that people are taking on an average of £1,744 of debt to pay for a funeral—an all-time high. That is the reality of funeral poverty today in our country and in the 21st century. That is the reality we heard about earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who spoke about the distress caused by having to fill in a 23-page application form. Things must change.
I ask the Minister to listen to those stories and take action so that local authorities are no longer underfunded and struggling to meet the costs of providing even the most basic funeral. As has been said, if we are to allow local authorities to get things right and offer a dignified funeral, we need to take action so that the founding principle of our welfare state—the offer of security from cradle to grave—lives up to its name. As hon. Members have said, we should follow the recommendations in the 2016 Work and Pensions Committee report “Support for the bereaved”, which called for support through the social fund to properly reflect the cost of a funeral.
Will the Minister take action to shorten and simplify the application form—I think all Members have raised that issue—to prevent people from falling further into debt through a lack of understanding about eligibility and process? Will the DWP introduce a clear eligibility checker—that point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields?
The Government must take action to reduce regional inequalities in the cost of funerals. According to recent research by Royal London, the average cost of a burial funeral in some parts of London is almost £12,000, compared with a general average across the UK of £3,757—it is rare to hear a northern MP pleading for more equity between the north and south, but this is in reverse gear, and that wrong must be righted.
Bereaved families should not have to rely on a Supreme Court judgment to get fairness for children, as the inspirational Siobhan McLaughlin recently had to do in relation to the widowed parent’s allowance. I make these asks of the Government not to score party political points—this issue goes across the parties and deserves better than that. These points are not only being made by politicians in this Chamber, but have been raised for some time by charities, voluntary organisations and the Work and Pensions Committee.
Labour Members ask these things because when it comes to tackling the hugely sensitive issue of Government support for the bereaved, we can do better by working together. Indeed, at times we have done better. Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) fought an incredible campaign to get funeral fees for children waived by local authorities. To the Prime Minister’s credit, the Government listened and set up the children’s funeral fund. Other partners can also play their part. Halton Borough Council in my constituency has just begun to offer a fixed-cost funeral package for under £2,000—that local authority is putting its principles where its mouth is. Also, as a Co-operative party Member, I am pleased to see that the Co-op has just reduced the price of its low-cost funeral by £100.
However, as welcome as those steps are, affording a funeral should not be dependent on the postcode lottery of being fortunate enough to live, and die, in a local authority area that is able to offer a fairly priced funeral service, and we should not be reliant on the market or a so-called price war between providers to have access to an affordable funeral on the open market.
People on both sides of this Chamber have stated that it is time for the Government to act—to review the broken market, to make sure everybody gets a dignified funeral when the time comes, to ensure bereaved families and friends can focus on the memories of their loved ones and not the cost of their passing, and to make sure that our welfare state truly offers support from cradle to grave. The Minister today has the power and the opportunity to do those things. I urge him to act for justice and dignity now.
The Secretary of State’s Handling of Universal Credit
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Despite being new at the Dispatch Box, I am under no illusion about the fact that people inside and outside this Chamber may shortly have plans to watch something other than my response to today’s debate. I will seek to respond in a manner that is timely, but that also does justice to the many thousands of people for whom the realities of universal credit are more than just a game—they are an everyday injustice.
Regardless of the result tonight—and I wish my team England well—we can all appreciate the manner in which Gareth Southgate has taken over an underperforming team and turned it around. If only those in charge at the DWP had a similar approach to leadership and accountability. Over the past week, we have seen a Secretary of State who, when called on to show leadership and humility, chose to lecture rather than to listen, to sow division rather than to build consensus and refuse to make a thorough apology at every point.
In fact, the Secretary of State’s attempts to explain away a number of misinterpretations of the National Audit Office facts were so fantastical that they reminded me of an episode of the children’s programme “Jackanory” or of Trumpisms, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) would phrase them. I am talking about a world where pause and slow are fast; where failure is success; and where sign-off is tune out, forget and denial. It is a place where the trusted and respected National Audit Office, armed with empirical data and facts to give good counsel, is almost dismissed as an agent of fake news.
We have the evidence and facts that were signed off by the DWP on 8 June. Here are some of the facts: 113,000 claimants paid late and two thirds of disabled people with limited capacity to work not paid on time. Then there is the continual claim, well documented by Members in the House, that 200,000 people have been put into work, which is not evidenced and not proven.
The contributions today show just how important it is that this Government radically fix and pause universal credit. We are not short of evidence that the current system is failing. The current impact of the roll-out of universal credit has united housing associations across the UK. They are clear that this policy is causing debt, suffering and hardship for the families they house. The Child Poverty Action Group’s early warning system is pointing towards what it says is likely to be a systemic problem.
The Secretary of State may have struggled to accept the NAO’s criticism last week in its unprecedented open letter, but there can be no room for misinterpreting what we have heard today from many MPs across the Chamber: tale after tale of delays, refusals and mistakes, causing suffering, hardship and misery to the very people this policy is supposed to support.
Last week, the Secretary of State went to great lengths to defend this policy, by explaining how universal credit must be judged on the most up-to-date information. Well, it was, and the Department signed it off. The cases and experiences that have been raised today show what is happening here, out there and now. We are talking about real lives, real time and real people—not crocodile tears. It is time to stop. It time to pause. It is time to fix it.
Universal Credit
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend demonstrates the complete confusion and disarray of the Opposition, not just on this policy but on our future outside the European Union. That goes to the heart of the situation: this is all about political dogma, rather than practical ideas and practical help for people.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Children’s Society’s figure of 16,500 children being denied free school meals in the county of Cheshire, which the Secretary of State and I represent, is political dogma?
Mr Jones
The new system is more generous than the old system. I will come on to the external evidence that explains that in a moment.
Returning to what I was saying about free school meals, under the old system of jobseeker’s allowance as soon as a parent worked 16 hours, or two parents worked 24 hours, they lost their children’s entitlement to free school meals. The crux of this debate is comparing and contrasting that with what we are moving to. All those currently in the system have been eligible, because of transitional arrangements. Conservative Members have made it clear why the transitional arrangements were put in place. Under the new system, when everybody is on universal credit and these regulations are in place, by 2022 an additional 50,000 children will be eligible for free school meals. I hear all the noise from Opposition Members, but they should not just take my word for it or that of other Conservative Members. They should go on to the “Channel 4 News” FactCheck website, which says:
“This is not a case of the government taking free school meals from a million children who are currently receiving them. It’s about comparing two future, hypothetical scenarios.”
Both of them are more generous than the old benefits system.
The Labour party frequently looks for us to improve the situation and the lives of the most vulnerable. That is what this policy and these regulations are doing today, but unfortunately, Labour seems not to let the truth and the facts get in the way of a good story. There is too much political dogma and it is putting that before people. The Government are putting people first. This system will be better than the system was hitherto and that is why I will support the Government tonight.
Pensions Auto-enrolment
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(6 years, 2 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
Stephen Crabb
I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. Pension freedoms are great, but we want people to be well informed and educated about the consequences of the choices that will be available to them, particularly when it comes to drawing down large cash lump sums from their retirement pots.
Low opt-out rates are part of the success story of auto-enrolment, but let us not be complacent about them. So far, contribution rates have been very low. Those rates will go up this April and again in April 2019. Despite all the positive effects of increasing the minimum wage and raising the personal allowance threshold for income tax, there will be people on lower incomes who feel a financial pinch in their take-home pay, and opt-out rates may increase as a result. I encourage the Minister to monitor what goes on in response to the increase in contribution rates and to be ready to reinforce the strong positive messaging about the importance of employers and employees sticking with their pension arrangements so that they do not see that increase as a reason to get energised and look at actively opting out of the system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham mentioned young people. I strongly welcome the Government’s indication that they will look to lower the minimum age threshold to 18, but why 18? If 16 and 17-year-olds are working and earning £10,000 or more, why should they not also be captured by auto-enrolment and benefit from it? No 16, 17 or 18-year-old should leave school without basic education in what auto-enrolment is all about and without being equipped to make good decisions.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
As an ex-careers adviser, I certainly share those concerns. Education is vital. The right hon. Gentleman talks about a tipping point. If education were given at an earlier stage, people would make more effective and informed decisions at that tipping point, which is a key transition. Too many people see a pension as an unaffordable luxury. Education would help.
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point very well.
Let me make one further point before I conclude and allow other hon. Members to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham appeared to indicate that she supports rates increasing above those that have been set out for April 2019. I absolutely agree: both employees and employers will need to make even greater contributions. It is easy to talk about that in this place, but it is much more difficult to get it across to the businesses and individuals affected, so I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. He is a brilliant Pensions Minister. I heard him speak in another part of the Palace earlier, and he has an incredibly strong grasp of the detail, which is exactly what we need from Ministers as we get to grips with the challenges of auto-enrolment.
Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Newton
I thank my right hon. Friend for such a helpful intervention. He knows this matter well, having been the Minister in this place before. I am sure he has had to respond to that question in similar debates, and I thank him for that additional point.
The hon. Member for Battersea asked me a number of questions, and I will try my best to get through them all. If I have omitted to make a timely note, I will follow up any unanswered questions after reading Hansard. First, she asked why impact assessments have not been prepared for the statutory instruments. I remind hon. Members that the statutory instruments do not change any policy or existing scheme; they just uprate the amount that is paid. If there were new measures or policies, it would be absolutely right and proper to do an impact assessment in relation to businesses, charities and voluntary bodies; but as there would be no impact, because all of those assessments would have been done when the legislation was introduced, there is no need to do that.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Surely there is an impact regarding the disparity between payments to sufferers and dependants? It is important to address that.
Sarah Newton
The issue of what the person affected by the condition and their dependants receive was a matter of policy when the initial legislation was introduced.
The hon. Member for Battersea also asked about predictions and whether we still hold to the Health and Safety Executive’s most recent predictions of the annual number of deaths. Predicting life expectancy and death from any condition is an art rather than a science. We must listen to the experts; we very much value the work of the HSE and it stands by that estimate. Let me reassure everyone that as long as people suffer from these conditions and need compensation, the scheme will be there. The estimates are to help us to plan the scheme, but they are in no way a limitation on who is eligible for support.
The hon. Lady made a good point about spouses who might have contracted mesothelioma from washing overalls or clothes, or from being exposed to asbestos other than because they were workers. People who contract mesothelioma through contact with their spouse’s clothing are eligible for an award under the 2008 scheme, and the value of such payments are the same as those made under the 1979 Act.
The hon. Lady also asked about the action that the HSE takes to raise awareness of asbestos. The HSE ran a successful and high-profile campaign from October 2014 to October 2015, and it continues that work by making a lot of information available on its website and in its “Beware Asbestos” app. The matter is regularly highlighted through trade magazines and trade associations; as has been mentioned, people who are self-employed are perhaps not aware of the compensation scheme. Such campaigns are aimed at ensuring that people are aware of the dangers and know about the available support, and that every effort is made to reduce exposure to asbestos. In my conversations with the HSE, which is an arm’s length body, I have been assured that it has the resources it needs to do its work. Its funding does not come solely from the Government, and it assures me that it has the funds that it needs to do the important review. I meet the HSE regularly, and it always has the opportunity to raise the issue of resources with me.
The question of why the Government do not equalise dependants’ payments with those made to people who have the disease has been debated in the past, and it was raised again today. We estimate that the cost of equalisation is about £5 million a year, and it is absolutely right that we prioritise the use of resources where they are needed most: for people who live with the disease. If we were to consider equalisation, in addition to the financial implications, legislative changes would be required. That would be a complex task, because awards to dependants under the 1979 Act include payments made in two parts: a payment for the effects of the illness before death, based on the assessed level of disability and the length of time the person had the illness, and a payment made in cases where the death was caused by the disease. At the moment, we see no legislative opportunity for equalisation, and no priority. We want to ensure that people who would benefit from the compensation in their lifetime come forward now and claim it. There are payments available for dependants.
I thank Members for their contributions, which have helped us all to understand how valuable the regulations are, in that they help some very poorly and very disabled people. We want to ensure that the schemes operate really well, because they can play an important part in people’s lives at a very difficult time. I commend the regulations to the Committee and ask for approval to implement them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.
Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.—(Sarah Newton.)