Universal Credit Roll-out
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. It is always good to have that discipline behind one.
Let me start with a point about process. I listened carefully to what the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), said. In the House, she resisted temptation and accurately quoted what the House had decided last week, but I am afraid that outside the House the Labour party is misleading people. It is saying that Parliament voted to pause and fix universal credit, but the motion last week did no such thing. I mention that because it is important to the substance of today’s debate about the Government’s response.
As the hon. Lady said, the House did ask the Government to pause, but what the House did not do was provide a single reason in that motion why the Government should pause. [Interruption.] I was at the debate last week, and I spoke in it. The hon. Lady set out some reasons in her speech, but the motion, which is what the Government have been asked to respond to, contained not a single reason why the Government should pause.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
It may well be that if Her Majesty's Opposition had added just a couple of words to their motion so that it read, “That this House calls on the Government to pause the roll-out of universal credit full service in January 2018, as announced in the written statement by the Government in November 2016”, we could all have agreed.
Mr Harper
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention.
Let me run through, very briefly, one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth. She is fond of saying that she completely supports the principle of universal credit and wants it to be implemented, but she then goes on to list innumerable reasons for her fundamental disagreement with all the key strands of the benefit. She cannot have it both ways. If she does not want universal credit to be implemented, let her just stand up and say so. She should not pretend that she agrees with the fundamental principles, and then say that she disagrees with almost every important aspect of it.
I listened to and read very carefully what the hon. Lady said during last week’s debate. I shall pick just a couple of reasons for the fact that I could not support that motion. The hon. Lady referred specifically to housing. The Minister set out the position very clearly today, as the Secretary of State did last week. If there are universal credit recipients who have issues with managing their rent, they can arrange for their landlords to be paid directly, but I do not think we should patronisingly assume that every single person receiving universal credit is incapable of managing the rent. Most of them are perfectly capable of managing their finances, and we should treat them accordingly.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Opposition Front-Bench winding-up speech of three minutes must begin no later than 4.52 pm, so the final two speakers have a maximum of three minutes left—a bit less.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I hope to end the debate on a note of agreement. Everyone in this Chamber wants people to have the opportunity to work, if they are able to work, and to be supported in the process of finding work. And when they do find work, we all want them to be paid properly. That, I hope, we can all agree on.
I hope we can also agree that the old system was a nightmare. I do not speak just from my experience of working in this place. In my previous career I worked in criminal courts across the country as a prosecutor for the Department for Work and Pensions. I would work through a whole load of cases when I visited a magistrates court, such as Camberwell Green magistrates court, and I cannot say how many single working mums were being prosecuted by the DWP because they had gone one or two hours over their 16 hours. Members of this House talk about being caring, but I dropped those cases myself—I took the decision that it was not in the public interest to prosecute. When did those cases happen? In the late 1990s and the early 2000s.
When people speak about a caring welfare system, let us not pretend that the old system cared. Let us instead work together to make the new system work better for our constituents. Let us take advantage of the pause in January 2018 to address some of the issues that have been raised in these debates, but please let us not pretend that the old system worked, because it did not. Universal credit is an effort to design a better system for our constituents, and I support it.
Universal Credit Roll-out
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
It is right that we are debating this important issue and, given its importance to all of our constituents, it is right that we do so respectfully, recognising, even where we disagree, the evident strength and sincerity of the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams)—with whom I do not always agree in this Chamber, but with whom I frequently agree as my fellow co-chair of the all-party group on dementia—made an important point in her speech, highlighting the need to fix our social security system to ensure it functions effectively. Our challenge is not that our historical social security system is badly designed, but that in many ways it was never designed as a whole at all. It has evolved from myriad changes over the decades, and for too long Governments of all shades shied away from this challenge. Universal credit represents a real step forward in addressing this, and in seeking to design a system fit for the 21st century, and it is the right thing to do.
Universal credit represents a progressive change to simplify the system, to tailor it to individuals, and to help to ensure work pays, removing that dreadful 16-hour cliff edge that previously existed.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
In the context of the cliff edge, does my hon. Friend agree that under the old system some claimants lost £9 from every extra £10 that they claimed, and that that is what we are trying to correct?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend makes the point succinctly and effectively, highlighting, too, the great deficiencies of the previous system. The simple truth is that universal credit is helping to get more people into work, which we can all welcome.
On the call for a pause, the shadow Secretary of State did not set out in detail what she wants to see changed through such a pause. What I did, however, hear this morning in the Select Committee was a Secretary of State who is listening, and who cogently set out how the staged roll-out is specifically designed to allow for lessons to be learned and subsequent roll-out to be refined and adapted where improvements can be made, but without the damage that will be done by pausing the roll-out.
Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill
Victoria Atkins ExcerptsFriday 2nd December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill 2016-17 View all Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately
My experience is that the Government are genuinely listening and, as we have heard in many examples today, have repeatedly responded to recommendations about improving the system. There is a continual process of listening and improving. But, no, I do not agree with the principle of the Bill, which is to legislate to address what are essentially problems with the management and implementation of the current system.
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I commend her for thanking the members of staff in her own jobcentres. If I may, I will join her and thank the staff in my own constituency of Louth and Horncastle. Clause 1 (1)(a) says that
“an assessment of the relevant circumstances of the person must be carried out”.
Does that not happen already?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is right that those circumstances are considered already, so much of what is in the Bill duplicates what is already done, and is included in extensive guidance to work coaches.
Anne McLaughlin
If it is in order for me to say so, that is the last time I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene. When there is expenditure, it is about political choices. I choose to support people who are at their lowest, and I choose not to pay £400 million to redecorate Buckingham Palace. As he knows, I was talking about the long-term hidden costs.
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is contrasting supporting the most vulnerable with paying for Buckingham Palace. I speak on behalf of my constituents, and their median salary is £480 a week. I am not talking about Buckingham Palace; I am talking about being fair to people in my constituency who earn £480 a week. I am sure she agrees that that is not a great deal of money, and those people require fairness, just like the vulnerable people who Members on both sides of the House have mentioned.
Anne McLaughlin
That reminds me of a constituent who wrote to me about his benefits being sanctioned for 13 weeks and about how he is now back in work and how he hates benefits scroungers because they caused the sanctioning to happen.
Anne McLaughlin
Will the hon. Lady let me develop my argument? That is just about turning people with very little against people with nothing. My point is that the Member for Louth and Horncastle—
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, because the most important thing in this debate is that I say “hon. Member”, is it not? She said that she is not talking about Buckingham Palace, but her Government are, and she is supporting the Government to redecorate Buckingham Palace, while saying that we cannot support people.
The other thing is that the people on £480 a week may well be unemployed at some point and may well face benefit sanctions.
Anne McLaughlin
No, I will not let the hon. Lady in again.
It does not take a genius to work out that it will cost more if we put people out on the street. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South cited the figure from Crisis, which has done some studies. It found that 21% of the people it spoke to said that they became homeless as the result of a sanction. How much is it going to cost to rehouse people and to deal with the health and mental health problems that result from their having nothing, losing their home and being on the street? All sorts of figures are being batted around, but according to a story in Scotland’s Daily Record, the National Audit Office has said that, when the figures are added up, it costs £135 million more per year to implement benefits sanctions than we save by them. I think that that proves the financial argument.
On the academic argument, I have a report on welfare conditionality from the Universities of Glasgow and York. I am happy to send it to people if they want to read it. The report shows that conditionality in the welfare system does not work, if by “working” we mean that it helps people to move into employment. It does not help people into employment. The first wave of findings found that, in all the research on the impact of the current sanctioning regime, only one individual thought that sanctioning made them more active, which is less than 2% of those interviewed. Later, I will read out what somebody said.
Anne McLaughlin
May I just say that I think everybody is honourable in case I forget to say it again?
These are not isolated cases. My friend could not do that presentation and had to sign on because she could not afford to lose unlimited amounts of that meagre income. She had to refuse that business opportunity. The damage it did to her reputation and self-confidence was incredible. She could not say to the person inviting her to the conference, “I’m awfully sorry but I have to go and sign on that day,” because she was positioning herself as a serious business person. She lied, but did so unconvincingly and was offered no more opportunities. The impact on her self-confidence and ability to apply for further jobs or develop her business was dramatic. I know that because the person I am talking about is me.
That was only three years ago. The decision did not make me any more likely to find work; it made me far less likely to find work. I felt powerless and my confidence went. I continued to apply for jobs, but how many jobs will someone be offered when the words they write make it quite clear that they are not feeling it and do not have the confidence to do the job? If I have time, I will tell a story of being unemployed that shows why conditionality does not work, and what does work.
I have no notes on the moral argument because it should go without saying. Let us take one single person—this is not about parents who are struggling to feed their kids—who is living on £73 a week. Does any hon. Member imagine that that is easy or manageable?
Anne McLaughlin
No. I want to talk about the people who need to be talked about.
It is a struggle. If that person’s washing machine breaks down, they cannot get it fixed on £73 a week. They have holes in the bottom of their shoes and it is raining non-stop—perhaps that is just a Glasgow thing—and cannot afford to buy new shoes. They cannot afford to be part of what their friends and family are part of. The Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said that they can apply for 60% of their benefits, which means they can get £40 a week if they know about it and if they are successful. They cannot live on £73 a week, never mind £40 a week. That is immoral. The only reason for sanctioning is to say to people, “You are too lazy and you are workshy.” It is punishment and that is all it is.
I had bad and good experiences. My good experience was that I had an adviser who had faith in me. He built my confidence. I had already been a Member of the Scottish Parliament. It was not as if I was lacking in confidence, but it goes instantly when people are treated as if they are children, or as if they are work shy and do not want to go out and earn their own living. Nobody wants not to work. There are reasons why people do not apply for work, and we need to investigate them. They might be lacking in confidence. I have met so many people who say, “Who would employ me?” So they are not applying for jobs because they think, “Who would employ me?” Nobody is helping them and people are taking their money away from them, so that they lose even more confidence. It is unacceptable and it just does not work.
I have not seen the film, “I, Daniel Blake”; I just need to go to a constituency surgery; I do not need to see the film. However, I will see it and we should all thank Ken Loach for making it—I want everyone to see it. I am not saying that members of the Conservative party do not know anything about real life—I would not say that—but for those who have not experienced anything like this situation, please go and watch it. Government Members said it was fiction but it is based on fact.
Anne McLaughlin
I will not give way to somebody with lots of power; I want to talk about people with no power. The reality is that the true motivation behind these sanctions is political ideology that says, “We are better than you”.
Now, if this Bill is not passed today—I am guessing that we will not get it through today—[Interruption.] There they go again, Madam Deputy Speaker, telling me that I do not have the right to speak. I am sick of hearing that in this House. It is important that what we are saying to people here is—
Victoria Atkins
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that passions are running high in the Chamber but I do please ask the hon. Lady to reflect what Members across the Chamber are saying—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. If the hon. Lady is making a point of order, she must make it to the Chair, not to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). If she wishes to make a point of order, she has the opportunity to do so.
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful and this is the first point of order I have ever made, Madam Deputy Speaker, so forgive me if I do not know the procedure. The hon. Lady has made assertions about what has been said by Government Members, but the things she is asserting simply have not been said. The claims that we have been accusing people on benefits of being scroungers and what she has just said are simply not true.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I appreciate that it is the hon. Lady’s first point of order, but it is not properly a point of order. It is not for the Chair to decide what any particular Member can say, but I am quite sure that the hon. Lady for Glasgow North East will temper her speech so as to reflect what has been said, not what might be said, but the hon. Lady has the right to say whatever she likes, within reason, and she is speaking within perfect reason in this House.
Mims Davies
I absolutely agree about the importance of an integrated approach. Last night, I gave out an award at one of my local colleges for one of the most improved maths and English students. Some people who came to the local college were unable to engage with education, let alone a benefits system. We need to understand that people must feel able to participate in the process.
In some cases, my constituents were aware of what they needed to do, but they somehow failed to gain a sense of ownership or an understanding of the process, which led to complications and, in some cases, very regrettable sanctions. I have been involved with parents and others who are concerned about vulnerable individuals. I found from my surgery work that in some cases the reason for non-attendance—illness, for example— had not been taken into account.
We met some great success with sanctions decisions being reversed when there was an unavoidable reason for failure to comply. Inevitably, however, there were some instances where sanctions were imposed and no good reason existed. My team and I have been able to work alongside the individuals and families in cases where the process has got on top of them—and my biggest concern about the Bill is that it amounts to more process in a difficult and complex area.
In addition to dealing with DWP benefit sanctions, I have worked with a small number of HMRC tax credit suspension inquiries due to investigations regarding the eligibility of single living claims. HMRC has recognised problems and implemented solutions that have helped to sort out the bottlenecks surrounding evidence by claimants. This has reduced the number of delayed decisions locally. I thank HMRC for its work in this respect.
For some constituents who approached me for help with making progress on getting a decision to reinstate their claim, the problem has been the consistency of their evidence. There can be a discrepancy between what people say to their MPs or their work coaches and what they actually do. I am sure that other hon. Members will have had their own experiences. Indeed, we have heard in today’s debate the wealth of knowledge that Members have brought into play.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South once again on her Bill. I am yet to be successful in the private Member’s Bill process, and I am sure that it is an absolute minefield. The hon. Lady therefore deserves our congratulations.
Before I come on to the specifics of the Bill, I believe it is necessary to examine its main principles. Clearly, the Bill is not designed specifically to reverse the conditionality of the system, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South was at pains to point out. It is going to be quite difficult to ensure that any benefits system is going to work where any condition is likely to arise. We have heard about the importance of assessing and assessing again after sanctions.
To some extent the debate has been about showing our colours—whether we as Members agree or disagree with conditionality in the sanctions. I do believe in it, as long as it sits alongside, as it must, positive transitional work and local support for increasing employment. There is absolutely no point, as we have heard, in having the stick without the carrot. It is all about getting the right balance.
The National Audit Office report on how people have been affected by sanctions and how likely they are to get into work has rightly been acknowledged. The review states:
“The existence of benefit conditionality and a system of sanctions is…supported almost uniformly across the political spectrum in Great Britain.”
It also notes that similar systems can be found throughout the developed world, and Members have mentioned many different countries today. As we have heard, and as I have been at pains to point out, 70% of claimants are more likely to follow the rules if they know that they could be sanctioned—but only if they understand the system.
A system of sanctions is a necessary and well-supported part of our benefits structure. We know that the conditions need to be checked, and that they should be used fairly. I do not think that any Member in any part of the House believes in unfairness, and it should be rooted out.
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend is making a fine and reasoned speech. Does she agree that Conservative Members acknowledge that any system run by human beings is liable to mistakes? I have experience of that myself, because in the early stages of my previous career I used to prosecute cases for the Department for Work and Pensions, and on several occasions I refused to prosecute because I considered that the Department had taken the wrong view. Does my hon. Friend, like me, find it unhelpful and, indeed, a little hurtful when Opposition Members accuse us of not being compassionate? That is not our reason for disagreeing with the Bill; we believe that the current regime should be reviewed, and the Department is doing that.
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for her considered intervention.
Today we have heard about a “postcode sanctions lottery”, about formalising and consistency, and about efforts to ensure that no one falls into the gap. The people who make the decisions will not always be in possession of the full facts, which is why we need a process to examine the sanctions system. The four principles of the Gregg review offer a useful set of tools for assessment of the strength of the policy, and were endorsed in the Oakley review. The additional pillar described in the Oakley review has also provided a clearer recourse in terms of appeal, and that must be welcomed.
We are talking—and have been all day—not about statistics, but about people, livelihoods, aspirations, children, families, homes and security, and that is absolutely right. I strongly believe that this is a listening Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) said what worried her about the Bill was the risk of duplication and pure bureaucracy in a system that would continue to be tweaked and would continue to evolve. That system will have to change to meet new challenges, and there are people in the middle of the process. I know that, in this area as in many others, the Government are listening and proceeding with reform based on constructive criticism and research, and that they are taking a pragmatic stance. I like to think that the Minister, who is a Hampshire neighbour, is always listening, although I see that he is talking to a colleague at the moment
A new sanctions regime was introduced in 2012 with the important aim of increasing the effectiveness of categorisation. Again, this was about people, not just statistics. The categories were higher, intermediate and lower, depending on whether a transgression had been repeated and on the nature of the fault. I think that that was a good reform. Proportional responses mean a system where one size does not fit all, and we have an opportunity to approach people and their personal circumstances differently.
Oral Answers to Questions
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way in which Members can help young people to find work is by hosting jobs and apprenticeships fairs? Does she look forward to the first-ever jobs and apprenticeships fairs in my Louth and Horncastle constituency on 2 September?
Priti Patel
I commend my hon. Friend for hosting that jobs and apprenticeships fair. She is absolutely right: such fairs provide a gateway for young people who are looking for work. I know that many Members on both sides of the House have been doing exactly the same, but I encourage all Members to bring employers together in their constituencies, and to give young people the opportunities that they are seeking.
Oral Answers to Questions
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
The key thing is that, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, there is nothing new in the spending review when compared with the Budget. It said that
“the long term generosity of the welfare system will be cut just as much as was ever intended”.
In other words, the £12 billion of savings is pretty much exactly as was announced in the Budget. I say to the hon. Gentleman that universal credit has a huge effect. We published figures this week to show that universal credit means that more people go into work faster, stay in work longer and are likely to earn more money. That is a huge change and it will affect young people dramatically, as much as it will anybody else.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
The reforms to benefits, whereby work should always pay more than welfare, are welcome in Louth and Horncastle. As we roll out universal credit across my constituency, will the Secretary of State join me in my constituency to see the changes for himself, including the 40 new jobs just created in Louth at the supermarket Aldi?
Welfare Reform and Work Bill (First sitting)
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
One final brief question, and if we can have brief answers that would be good. Then if there is anything else you need to say, or you feel you have not the opportunity to say it, please supply some written evidence and it will be circulated.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Q 23 David and Geoff, isn’t the point of the employment figure that it is not just the fact of the job itself, which, of course, is hugely significant; it is also all the roll-on effects, such as getting up in the morning and getting children up in the morning to go to school. For the mum you described, it is building strength, so that hopefully she will not accept abusive relationships, and giving her financial independence, which again helps within a domestic violence situation. Although it is a big figure in itself, from that employment figure so much else flows.
Geoff Little: You cannot dissociate long-term ingrained worklessness from all the other problems—mental health, domestic violence, educational attainment—that went into and flow from—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that it is the end of the session, but I repeat that anything else you wish to inform the Committee about will be circulated as the Bill progresses. I thank you, on behalf of the whole Committee, for your comments and for answering the questions.
Examination of Witnesses
Neera Sharma and Emma Stewart gave evidence.