Universal Credit Roll-out: Nottingham

Debate between Lord Sharma and Lilian Greenwood

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am sure we have all heard what the Minister has said. Of course we welcome the fact that more people are getting into work, but many of the cases that we deal with in our constituencies are of people who are on universal credit not because they are out of work, but because they are in work and simply not earning enough to support their families. Many of the ways in which universal credit works do not support people who are in work, so people who have a fixed pay date but get paid early one month because the date falls on a weekend or a bank holiday find that they get two pay sessions in their universal credit assessment period and lose their universal credit altogether. Why is the Minister not addressing those concerns for people who are in work but not earning enough to be out of poverty?

[Alok Sharma]

I had just started to set out the case. Opposition Members have made a case, and I am responding to it.

I return to the point about the jobs that are being created. There is always a lot of noise about zero-hours contracts, and I am pleased that we as a Government have banned exclusivity in them, but in the economy right now, fewer than 3% of jobs are classed as zero-hours contracts and those individuals are working an average of 25 hours a week. The number of zero-hours contracts has come down this year.

I hope we are all pleased that wages are growing at the fastest rate in almost a decade. That is an incredibly positive development and I hope it will continue. I do not want to be churlish, but several hon. Members who were here in 2010 will remember that we were told by Opposition Members that 1 million jobs would be lost as a result of the Government’s policies. That has not happened. We have a buoyant jobs market with more than 3 million jobs created since 2010. Our welfare reforms have played a big part in ensuring that we are helping people get into work.

When we talk about universal credit, we have to compare it with the legacy benefit system that it replaces. As constituency MPs, we know that the legacy benefit system is incredibly complicated, with six benefits delivered by three different Government agencies, effective tax rates of 90% for some people and cliff-edges that disincentivise people from taking on work beyond a certain number of hours. As a result, 1.4 million people were trapped in benefits for almost a decade. Hon. Members talk about the amount of money in the system, but under the legacy benefit system, £2.4 billion of benefits are not claimed. That will change under universal credit, which will benefit 700,000 households to the tune of an average of £285 a month.

When it comes to universal credit, we are providing that support. I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham North has visited his jobcentre and sat with jobcentre staff. I am pleased that he has praised their work. He will know, because he has sat in on those interviews—as I saw in his newsletter—and seen the interaction, that for the first time in the welfare system, we are ensuring that one-to-one support is provided to the individuals we are interacting with. As part of my role, I regularly go up and down the country visiting jobcentres. Invariably, I hear from jobcentre staff that they feel that this system allows them to do what they came into the system to do—provide that one-to-one support. I find that incredibly heartening.

As I said, the cliff-edges are gone and we have a smooth taper. Under universal credit, people are getting into work faster, staying in work longer and earning more. In terms of support in the system, we introduced an extra £1.5 billion of support earlier this year. I am disappointed that Opposition Members did not vote with us on that, because it meant that the seven-day waiting period was abolished; two weeks of run-on in housing benefit was made available, which does not have to be repaid; and people can now get 100% advances on day one, if that is what they need, to help with any cash-flow issues. We can see that that is working, because 60% of people who are now coming on to universal credit are taking up advances. That is a result of the support that their work coaches are providing.

In last month’s Budget, another £4.5 billion net was injected into universal credit. Work allowances are up by £1,000, which will benefit 2.4 million families up and down the country, particularly those on low incomes, to the tune of £630 a year. In terms of helping individuals, as we have ensured that there is a two-week run-on for those who are on housing benefit coming on to universal credit, we shall also ensure that there is a two-week run-on of out-of-work Department for Work and Pensions legacy benefits for those who come across to universal credit as part of the managed migration process. Again, that will help more than 1 million households throughout the country.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Many people will have welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement that the universal credit work allowance was to be raised by £1,000, but it was raised for only some universal credit recipients. Admittedly, it increased for people with disabilities and parents with current responsibilities for children, but low-paid working couples whose children have left home or who do not have children were excluded. Poverty is poverty. Why was support provided for some families and some individuals but not others? Why did those working families not benefit from the £1,000 increase?

[Alok Sharma]

I would have more sympathy for the hon. Lady’s argument if she had voted to support the Budget, which Opposition Members did not do. I feel strongly that although it is right that hon. Members on both sides of the House raise the issues they have with any system or policy of the Government, the point where money is being put into the system to support their constituents and mine is the point at which they have to follow through and support those policies.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North has engaged with his jobcentre by visiting and taking part in a Disability Confident event organised by it, but that is not the same for all hon. Members present. I would encourage every single hon. Member—[Interruption.] I did not allude to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), but there are hon. Members who have raised issues in the debate who have not visited their jobcentres recently. I encourage all hon. Members to engage with their jobcentres.

Where hon. Members have individual issues, they should raise them directly with the jobcentre and they should feel free to write to me as the Minister responsible. Again, I do not wish to be churlish, but—if I may put it like this—there has not been a large amount of correspondence about universal credit from hon. Members representing Nottingham, but where there are issues, they should feel free to raise them.

In terms of preparation by the local jobcentre, I had an opportunity yesterday, ahead of the debate, to speak to the district lead for Nottingham who is responsible for the three jobcentres. There has been a huge amount of engagement: 350 stakeholders have been met and eight or nine stakeholder events have taken place, including meeting landlords. That is all part of ensuring that we deliver what we all want for our constituents—a system that works.

Whatever our political differences, one thing that we can unite on is that we want a system that delivers, particularly for the most vulnerable, which is precisely what universal credit is doing. We want a system that supports the most vulnerable, that is ultimately fair to taxpayers, and that helps people into work.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Sharma and Lilian Greenwood

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

Obviously, the Guinness Partnership will need to determine, with the local fire service, what is needed to keep those properties safe. As the Secretary of State has made absolutely clear, where work is necessary to ensure the fire safety of social housing, a lack of resources should not prevent it from going ahead.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

T9. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Nottingham Community Housing Association, which has been recognised by the Almshouse Association for its refurbishment of the William Woodsend memorial homes in my constituency? Will he also listen to NCHA and give it the certainty to enable future investment by dropping his plans to cut housing benefit for supported and sheltered tenants?

Rail Fares

Debate between Lord Sharma and Lilian Greenwood

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will not give way at the moment.

We have heard about shoppers finding that they have less to spend when they get to the shops or the market because bus fares have gone up, about small businesses struggling with the high cost of petrol, and about mums and dads having to find more money from the family budget to help teenage sons and daughters pay to travel to college because they have lost their education maintenance allowance and the fare concessions they used to get have been cut. Parents are having to get the car out to take their children to school, even if they cannot really afford to, because school transport has been cut. As has been said, that does nothing to contribute to the green agenda.

The cost of living crisis is hitting hardest those who are least able to withstand it and is made worse by the decisions that the Government have made, which show that they are out of touch with the concerns of ordinary families. When so many people are struggling to pay their bills and make ends meet, only a Government who are completely out of touch with these concerns would allow inflation-busting increases in rail fares, yet that is exactly what this Government have done. They were forced to back down on their original plan to increase rail fares by inflation plus 3% this year, but passengers will still face those rises in January 2013 and January 2014.

When passengers heard the Chancellor’s autumn statement, they understandably expected that the most they would have to pay this year was an extra 1% above inflation, but they soon found that they were wrong, because the Government gave private train companies the right to increase some tickets by an additional 5%, something that Labour banned in government precisely because we understood the pressures commuters face in tough economic times.

[Alok Sharma]

At the start of the debate the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) made a spending commitment to keep fares down. Will the hon. Lady tell us where the money for that would come from and, assuming she does not wish to increase the national debt, what she would cut to fund that commitment?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am not making any spending commitments this afternoon. The real question needs to be addressed by the Minister, which she might do when summing up. She needs to address the point, made by the National Audit Office, that rather than protecting taxpayers or paying for the investment described by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), the flexibility will boost the profits of train operating companies. How will she tackle that?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) rightly said, rail services flourished under Labour, with more services, more passengers and better punctuality than ever before. He also noted that Lord Adonis stood up to train operators and removed this flex. Lord Adonis stated in evidence to the Transport Committee:

“In a time of economic stringency I do not think it acceptable for individual commuters to face significantly above-average fare increases. The Government’s intention is, therefore, that in future the cap should apply to individual regulated fares, not just to the average of each fares basket.”

He said “in future” and nothing about it being for one year.

The Prime Minister might say that he wants to tackle crony capitalism, but actions speak louder than words. His Government have shown that they are on the side of private train operators, rather than passengers, letting them increase some fares by as much as 11% with no guarantee that the money will lead to a better deal for taxpayers. As I have said, the NAO has warned that that could simply result in higher profits for train companies. The Government also know how difficult it is for passengers to navigate their way around complex fare structures to find the cheapest tickets, but they will not rule out getting rid of the very ticket office staff who can help and advise people, particularly those who are unable to find the best offers online or by using a ticket machine.

If things are bad for rail users this January, bus users might say, “Look at the year we’ve already had.” The Transport Committee called the 2010 comprehensive spending review

“the greatest financial challenge for the English bus industry for a generation”.

Alongside rising fuel prices and a depressed economy, many bus operators have had no option but to raise fares, cut services or both. What have the Government done to help bus users, many of whom are among the least well-off in society? They have cut transport funding to local councils by 28%, a loss of £95 million in 2011-12 alone. They have changed the way in which the concessionary fares scheme is funded, taking a further £223 million away from local authorities in the past year, and they have decided to cut the bus service operators grant, the fuel rebate to bus companies, by 20% from April.

If we add those changes together, we find that the result is devastating. Fares are going up, one in five supported bus services has been scrapped and the Campaign for Better Transport has collected examples of more than 1,100 bus services that have already been lost in the English regions. Whole communities have been left isolated without access to public transport, and almost three quarters of local authorities have been forced to cut or to review school transport provision.

Older people, who are protected from fare rises, having benefited enormously from the free bus pass introduced by the previous Labour Government, are finding additional restrictions on when they can travel and, particularly in rural areas, that the service they relied on has disappeared. The Prime Minister may have promised to keep the free bus pass, but it is of little use if people have no local bus to travel on.

Time and again we see this Government choosing to implement policies that have a disproportionate impact on the very people who most need to be protected in harsh economic times: older people and disabled people, who often do not have the choice to use a car; and the unemployed, who are already paying the price of this Government's economic failure. Some 64% of those seeking work do not have a access to a car, so they rely on buses to get to interviews and jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said, how will they access job opportunities or stay in work without public transport and how can work pay if travel to work is not affordable?

We heard about young people, 72% of whom rely on buses to get to college and to give them independence. They are already struggling without their education maintenance allowance, or are facing a threefold increase in tuition fees, so it is little wonder that colleges report a fall in admissions, and that the UK Youth Parliament made cheaper, fairer and more accessible public transport its No. 1 issue for 2012.

For the one in 10 people in rural areas who do not have access to a private car, a bus is essential to get to the nearest shop, doctor or post office—not that car users have done much better. For all the Government’s talk of fuel stabilisers in opposition, one of their first acts was to increase VAT to 20%—immediately putting petrol prices up by 3p a litre and adding an extra £1.35 to the cost of filling up the average car.

The Government claim that those changes are all in the name of deficit reduction and that there is no alternative. That is not so. What is required is the determination to stand up to vested interests and to powerful lobby groups. We have already set out how we would ease the pressure on households from the rising costs of transport—not by increasing spending, but by banning private train companies from averaging out the cap on fare rises. That would mean a maximum increase of inflation plus 1% this year, not increases of up to 11%.

My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) also set out how we are considering other options to ensure that passengers are protected from unfair pricing, including a single definition of peak and off-peak; a right to the cheapest ticket; a right to a single price for the same ticket; a more flexible way of changing one’s travel plans; and a right to a discount when a rail replacement bus service is put on.

Labour’s policy review is looking at all options for reforming the structure of Britain’s rail industry. We need root-and-branch reform of its costly fragmented structure, and we need a better deal for taxpayers and passengers. We also want to devolve more transport responsibilities, so that more decisions are made locally by integrated transport authorities with powers to deliver local bus services in a way that best suits each community, ensuring that the needs of local people are met and that fares are affordable. For young people who are aged 16 to 18 and in education, we want to see a concessionary fares scheme delivered by the major bus companies in return for the subsidies that they have received.

In the transport spending review, the Government recognised:

“Transport provides the crucial links that allow people and businesses to prosper”.

Well, people and businesses are suffering as a result of their poor decisions. Yesterday, we, like the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), welcomed the good news about High Speed 2 and the Government’s commitment to long-term investment in our infrastructure, but they must face up to the here and now. They need to listen to passengers and start taking action to tackle the quiet crisis facing people the length and breadth of this country.

Careers Service (Young People)

Debate between Lord Sharma and Lilian Greenwood

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

I do not know whether you have seen the film “Groundhog Day”, Mr Deputy Speaker, in which history keeps repeating itself, but this Opposition day debate and the one before it feel very similar. We have heard the same old tired arguments from the Opposition, with very little acknowledgment of the mistakes that they made or the mess in which we find ourselves, in terms of both the economy and the careers advice service.

A number of hon. Members have quoted the former Member for Darlington, Alan Milburn, so let me do so as well. Having chaired the panel on fair access, he said:

“In my view, the service requires a quite radical rethink”.

Indeed, the panel concluded:

“We believe that schools and colleges need to be given direct responsibility, working with local authorities, for making their decisions about information, advice and guidance”.

That is exactly what the Government plan to do.

The current hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) quoted a survey that said that only one in five young people found Connexions helpful. Further surveys said that under Labour, six in 10 were unhappy with the quality of the careers that they were getting—[Interruption.] There has been an element of good advice, but perhaps not enough, and we must acknowledge that there was no golden age of careers advice under the previous Government. We need to put the debate in that context.

I agree with hon. Members who have made it clear that careers advice is vital, and that young people need to get it as early as possible in their school careers. It is important that we foster aspiration, which hon. Members have talked about; that we expand the boundaries of what students believe is possible for them in their careers; and that we get young people to aim high.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who is not in the Chamber, spoke about that, and I agreed with her, but the question is this: how do we deliver that careers advice? We have heard that the Education Bill will introduce a legal duty for the provision of impartial careers guidance in years 9 to 11, which is absolutely right. I am pleased that the Minister spoke about the fact that the Government are consulting on whether they should extend that duty downwards to year 8, which would be great. I would like to see it go down further, because we cannot start careers advice early enough.

I agree that that responsibility should go to schools. At the end of the day, they know their pupils best and know what is required. They will be able to commission advice and services from the new national careers service when that is up and running, and of course from other external sources.

It has been implied—I do not whether it was deliberate or not—that providing online advice does not make sense for young people. Some of us have young children ourselves, and some of us know young people, and we know that it is second nature for them to use the internet to do research. Professor Alison Wolf, who led the Government review of vocational education, has said very clearly that there is a role for the Government in providing online, updated information on what is available. It is entirely consistent that online provision is one of the things that will be happening.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I agree that young people often want to access information through new technology, but does the hon. Gentleman consider it an adequate replacement for guidance and the opportunity to discuss options face to face?

[Alok Sharma]

Clearly, we need to have both. [Interruption.] Hang on, let me finish! Schools will be able to access this information.

I want to talk about what is happening on my patch in Reading. It is vital that not just schools, but businesses have a key role in providing careers advice, because, at the end of the day, they have an interest in interacting with their future employees. It is vital that we do not forget that element. As the Minister knows, because he is opening it at the end of the month, we have organised an interactive careers fair—we have called it a “futures fair”—open to all secondary schools in my constituency. We have organised it with the educational charity, Central Berkshire Education Business Partnership, which I guess is the sort of external service provider that we are talking about. I have long thought it important—I am sure that other Members have too—that we connect schools and business and that careers advice is not provided in isolation by schools and teachers.

When I began the initiative, I wondered how we would fund it, but actually businesses bent over backwards to provide funding. We are holding it at the conference centre at the Madejski football stadium in Reading—it is going to be a very big event—and schools will not have to pay a penny because it will be fully funded by business. More than 60 organisations, including businesses, multinationals and local companies, are taking part. An hon. Member said that we needed alumni and former students in positions of responsibility in companies to come and talk to pupils in schools, which is exactly what we will have—every sector will be covered, from engineering to IT and apprenticeships providers—along with seminars on practical skills, including on how to write a CV, perform in mock interviews, secure an apprenticeship, manage money and budget. There will also be advice on pursuing a science career. Hon. Members have rightly said that we need to encourage STEM subjects.

The careers fair is also about ensuring that before the students arrive, they know exactly what to expect and that afterwards there will be follow-up sessions with teachers. Hon. Members talked about the need to involve families and parents. There will be an opportunity, after the school day, for parents to come back with their kids and talk to businesses. There are families in my constituencies—perhaps in all constituencies—who have never had a scientist, lawyer, accountant or whatever in their family, and this is an opportunity for parents to talk with businesses together with their kids. That is vital.

In the previous debate, the shadow Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), talked about the need for long-term apprenticeships. We have companies coming to the fair offering three-year apprenticeships, and there is even a seminar for teachers to learn about the local labour market and the types of skills that employers are looking for. I am talking about this because we need to stop thinking one-dimensionally and assuming that the Government must provide everything. There is a clear role for businesses. They bend over backwards to help schools and local communities because they know that at the end of the day they will see the benefits. We need to find a way of getting the business community more engaged. Bridging the skills and expectations gap between young people and potential employers is vital.

In conclusion, I think that the Government are on absolutely the right track with careers advice, and I ask the Opposition to think carefully about what the Government are doing and the constraints placed on them as a result of the position in which we were left by the previous Government. Unfortunately, I cannot support the Opposition motion tonight.