Employment and Support Allowance

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because that point has been made by the expert disability charities. They do not see this cut as an incentive for people to find work; rather, it hinders their opportunities for getting back into work, if they are able to do so as part of a timely process.

In November, in response to the debate on a cross-party motion on this subject that I introduced in this Chamber, the Minister committed to ensuring that a replacement system of support would be in place for ESA recipients in the WRAG before the cut was to take place, but we have no clarity over what that system is or will look like. She said that support would be provided and an additional £15 million invested in the flexible support fund, but, of course, the flexible support fund is a discretionary fund used by jobcentres to help those in receipt of unemployment benefits to find work. It can be used to help with the cost of travel to interviews, childcare, clothing or uniforms to start work. However, the flexible support fund has been heavily criticised by the National Audit Office, the Work and Pensions Committee and others, because of its complexity and under-utilisation.

There have been allegations that jobcentre staff have been pressured into not using the fund. It is also one of the best kept secrets in Whitehall as information about it is not available on the Government’s own website. What concerns me most is that there is no detail over how the flexible support fund, which will total only £83 million after the additional allocation, will directly support ESA WRAG recipients. Have jobcentre staff been told to target the flexible support fund on disabled people?

Another commitment made by the Minister was to secure better deals with service providers to help disabled people financially. She was going to broker deals with energy companies and telecoms suppliers to help sick and disabled people with their bills, but how many people will be able to afford a BT TV package or Sky broadband on even the higher rate of ESA WRAG? Even if she has managed to secure better deals on energy or insurance costs, we have not been told about them. How much will they aid disabled people? Will they make up the shortfall? Who are the deals with? When will they come into force? Will the Government promote them?

The Minister also committed to having personalised support packages in place by now—either a place on the Work and Health programme or Work Choice. Of course the Work and Health programme has yet to start and Work Choice is not new support. Additional places were also to be provided on the specialist employability support programme, which is a very small project, with only 1,700 members in 2015. Another idea was on job clubs, but we have not had any further detail on that. There is also the drive for work experience places with wrap-around support for young people, but again there have been no detail on whether this will be available for WRAG recipients.

Increased funding for the Access to Work mental health support service has also been mentioned. It has been launched, but is available only if a person is in work or signed off work sick, so it will not help those on ESA WRAG. All in all, we have had many different ideas. There have been different, tentative and ultimately detail-free announcements. In the end we have no detail and no way of knowing how the Government plan to live up to their promise of ensuring that ESA WRAG recipients are not punished financially or how they intend to halve the disability employment gap by 2020, as was promised.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on bringing this serious issue to the attention of the House. Does he agree that the Government are just piling on more pernicious cuts on top of—let us not forget—the closure of Remploy a few years ago, and a missed opportunity in the industrial strategy where there is very little talk of how they will close the disability employment gap? They need to be much more ambitious and much more helpful.

[Neil Gray]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed I understand that submissions to that effect have been made to the Government’s consultation on the industrial strategy.

All of us—colleagues across this House, Members of the House of Lords, expert disability charities, which have opposed this cut, and disabled people themselves—are expecting detail from the Minister this evening. She has had two weeks’ notice of this debate. She will have known what I was going to raise because I have been asking the same questions for months. There can be no excuse for not being very clear and for not providing great detail on how her Government are honouring their many promises in debates past to placate their own Back Benchers.

Of course I can predict one thing the Minister will say. The Scottish Government now have limited powers over some aspects of social security and she will claim that the Scottish Government can therefore mitigate this cut for the people of Scotland. I hope that I can pre-empt her reading out that nonsense by telling her that I am standing here defending employment support not just for disabled people in Scotland, but for disabled people up and down these isles. Secondly, the Scottish Government have already spent almost £400 million since 2013 mitigating Conservative cuts to social security in Scotland. At a time of austerity, when Scotland’s budget is being cut back to the tune of £2.9 billion in this decade, and the Scottish Government are having to divert depleted funds to mitigate Tory social security cuts, I do not think that telling Scotland to pay twice for disability employment support would be the strongest position for the Minister to take, and it does nothing to help or answer the questions of disabled people elsewhere. So perhaps she will stick to finding a credible argument to justify this cut and outline what additional support she will provide rather than deflect responsibility for it.

The Disability Benefits Consortium brings together 70 different expert disability charities and they have opposed this cut from the start. On the same day as the cross-party motion presented to the Backbench Business Committee was debated in November, they signed an open letter to the Government calling for the cuts to be stopped. They have criticised in particular the Government’s idea that somehow disabled people are disincentivised to work by receiving an extra £30 per week. The Government completely ignore the fact that the majority of sick and disabled people are desperate to work but struggle to find a job. The Government ignore the fact that a third of ESA recipients sometimes cannot afford to eat on the old ESA WRAG rate. Almost seven in 10 say that this cut will cause their health to suffer. The Government have done nothing to assess how this cut will impact on the mental health of recipients. Nobody could suffer a one third cut in their income and not see their health deteriorate in some way as a result, especially when they are already struggling to get by.

The people we are talking about today are people with disabilities or mental health conditions. They want to work, but they cannot. They are faced with the double indignity of wanting to work but being unable to find a job, and then being told that the financial support they are struggling to live on is a disincentive to find work. I am aware—not just from the debate in November when a number of Tory MPs followed MPs from eight other parties through the Lobby to call on the Government at least to pause these cuts, but since then—that all is not well on the Government side of the House in relation to this policy. I understand that the Prime Minister attended a meeting with concerned Tory MPs a few weeks ago and was told directly by them that she needed to do more. Perhaps we will get some clarity tonight as a result.

We need to hear from the Minister what she is going to do to live up to that quote about liquidity. What is she doing to ensure that disabled people, who are already struggling to get by, will be financially supported in addition to any enhanced employment support that may be forthcoming?

This will be one of the final debates of this Parliament. So far the Government have failed to listen to the disability charities, Opposition parties, the Work and Pensions Committee or the will of the House, given the vote in November. Perhaps in the coming weeks, Government MPs will hear more from the electorate about this devastating cut and come back in the next Parliament with a more serious response.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)]

I welcome the debate secured by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) and thank all Members who have attended and intervened on his speech. I shall concentrate my comments on the work-related activity group issue, which is at the heart of the debate. The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) asked about measures to deal with the disability employment gap. Clearly, we are going through the Green Paper consultation responses, but we want to build on the momentum created on these issues and wish to bring forward a White Paper at the earliest opportunity. Additional working up of those ideas will be done with employers and the third sector, which will be able to continue the momentum.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank the Minister for dealing with that point, but does she not think that that should have been done before the cuts were made? Would that have been a logical approach, rather than making the cuts, leaving people destitute and devastated, and then thinking about how they are going to be helped?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The WRAG issue was debated heavily last year and voted on in the House. The measures that were put in place to provide additional support to that group, which I will go into in detail, were debated at the time and confirmed in the Green Paper. So the issue was mentioned in the Green Paper, but it had been consulted on extensively beforehand.

On the point about the industrial strategy, we are very much engaged with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and we are looking at what can be secured on this agenda from that strategy.

Help is available to enable people to live independent lives and ensure that those who can work have the opportunity to do so. This includes personal independence payments, the Access to Work scheme; local authority-provided social care support and aids and adaptations; NHS-provided aids; free prescriptions; free or discounted travel, for example to hospital appointments; the blue badge scheme; disabled students allowance; the disabled facilities grant; budgeting loans, cold weather payments through the social fund; and housing benefit. I shall not repeat the arguments that I made, as the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts has quoted me, but I will address some of the points on liquidity before moving on to his questions about the support package.

We have announced some additional funding for the flexible support fund in the coming years, which offers grants to support claimants with the associated costs of returning to work. Through the flexible support fund, Jobcentre Plus has a discretionary fund that is available to claimants. This includes barrier awards for individual claimants. Such awards could include travel and care costs to help people to attend training or the jobcentre itself. The funds can also be allocated to help claimants to move closer towards or into work—for example, for clothes to attend a job interview and start work, and much more. Each district manager is allocated a proportion of the national budget. There are very few national guidelines, and they have considerable freedom as to how to deploy the funds locally. This clearly helps with work and employment support-related costs.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, at Christmas we introduced a new procurement tool, which enables people quickly to purchase things, commission services and so on using the flexible support fund, so I take issue with the allegations he makes. Maybe the process has involved a lot of admin historically, but that is currently not the case.

Mining: Health and Safety

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Seventy years ago, the Burngrange mining disaster happened in my constituency. It was, and still stands as, the worst accident in Scottish shale mining history. Fifty three men went down on shift on 10 January 1947, but only 38 came out alive. One miner’s body was brought up with the survivors, but 14 men were trapped behind the debris and the fire. The heat and power of the fire were all consuming. Hopes of any survivors faded fast as the hours passed. A total of 15 men from my constituency died in this tragic accident.

Earlier this year, the towns of West Calder and Seafield paid homage to their lost miners in moving tributes. The names were read aloud and stories told of the events by local schoolchildren who had spent time in class learning about what those men and their families had endured. Standing in West Calder square on that chilly January day hearing the children of Parkhead primary recounting the stories of the men of Burngrange was a powerful and beautiful tribute. I also pay tribute to Alan Tuffs and his team from the local area who had worked so hard to put together tributes and to bring the community together in commemoration.

I am proud to have the opportunity today to read again the names of the men who lost their lives working for their families and communities in an industry that is now marked by the bings of West Lothian that surround my constituency: John McGarty, 30, Limefield Avenue, West Calder, single; John Lightbody, 39, Gloag Place, West Calder, married, two of a family; Anthony Gaughan, 44, Parkhead Crescent, West Calder, married, two of a family; David Muir, 32, Parkhead Crescent, West Calder, single; George Easton, 48, Northfield Cottages, West Calder, married, three of a family; Henry Cowie, 28, Parkhead Crescent, West Calder, single; William Ritchie, 38, Old Rows, Seafield, married, three of a family; William Greenock, 50, Cousland Terrace, Seafield, married, three of a family; John Fairlie, 21, Old Rows, Seafield, single; Thomas Heggie, 27, Cousland Crescent, Seafield, married, two of a family; William Finlay, 56, Polbeth, married, three of a family; James McAulay, 56, Polbeth, West Calder, married with a large family; Samuel Pake , 24, New Breich, married, one of a family; William Carroll, 31, Seafield, married, two of a family; and David Carroll, 37, Old Rows, Seafield, married, five of a family.

I cannot imagine how the local mining community felt when the pit sirens wailed to warn of disaster, with the families running to the pit to wait for news—a wait that lasted for days before the families could claim the bodies of their fathers, husbands, brothers and sons. Today I pay tribute to them and their sacrifice. My own grandfather went down the pit as a coalminer just a few miles along the road as a fitter in Easton colliery, Bathgate. He, his father and two brothers all had serious accidents during their time as miners. He told me as I was growing up that accidents were just part of the job. I grew up with stories of him hauling himself through tiny crevices. At 5 feet 5 inches, he was a wee mannie, and was sent down all the nooks and crannies that the bigger men could not fit into.

My grandfather often told me of one accident, when the tow rope broke and a tub loaded full of coal was sent careering down the shaft, knocking him unconscious and leaving a serious gash in the back of his head. The truth was that he should never have been where he was, but it was a path well trodden by the miners around him. He survived fine, but never went that same route again. The scar on his head was an indelible mark that he showed me many times when I was a child. He said that it was a reminder to him that he was one of the lucky ones.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. There is a need for safety. Does she agree that it is essential that the Government work with the representatives of the Mining Industry Safety Leadership Group to provide a forum to develop, lead and implement a strategy for health and safety in the mining industry? Does she also agree that working with these groups is the best way to promote health and safety in mines throughout the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Hannah Bardell]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Working with members who work in that community is vital.

West Lothian Council’s local history library collected information about the disaster that became part of a community exhibition developed in conjunction with the Calder history group and Almond Valley Heritage Trust. Many communities across the UK do work like this, and it is vital that the young people in communities around us remember their industrial heritage.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. May I take this opportunity to remember the 207 people who lost their lives at the High Blantyre colliery in what is now my constituency, on 22 October 1877? Many local women were suddenly widowed and children were left without a father in the worst mining disaster in Scotland’s history. Does my hon. Friend agree that, though historical, the tragedy provides a lesson from the past in why the health and safety of those working in mines should be paramount?

[Hannah Bardell]

I join my hon. Friend in her tributes. She is a doughty champion for her constituents, and I share in all that she says.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. The keynote in her speech is that we must never forget the sacrifices that people made. It is important that children and others living in these communities in later years understand what happened before them. This year is the 60th anniversary of the Kames colliery disaster in my constituency, in which 17 men lost their lives in an underground explosion. I pay tribute to those guys and their families. It is very important that communities never forget.

[Hannah Bardell]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those lost in his constituency.

I welcome such fitting tributes to men and to the families they leave behind, as they will remain a sober reminder to us all for generations to come of the sacrifices that those men made on that day in January 70 years ago. The five shale bings—or the five sisters, as they are famously known locally my constituency—and the bings of Broxburn were recently serialised by BBC Scotland, and are the indelible marks on the West Lothian landscape that remind us of our industrial past. In constituencies across the UK there are reminders in museums and galleries, such as Mill Farm in West Lothian and the Lady Victoria colliery in Newtongrange, which I visited as a youngster when my grandfather was terminally ill with a tumour. I remember going home to ask my mum whether she thought he would be well enough to visit. He was not, but the stories that I brought home meant a great deal to him.

There have been thousands of deaths in mines over the centuries, but fortunately safety has improved. It has been 50 years since the last UK mining accident happened at the Cambrian colliery in south Wales on 17 May 1965, where 31 tragically lost their lives. However, as recently as May 2014, the worst mining accident in the 21st century killed 301 people in Soma, Turkey. I am sure many hon. Members remember the 29 men killed underground four years previously at the Pike River mine disaster in New Zealand. In November 2010, just seven months earlier than that, 29 of 31 miners on site at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia, USA, were killed in an explosion. On 30 January 2000, the Baia Mare cyanide spill took place in Romania: 100,000 tonnes of cyanide-contaminated water broke into the River Somes, the River Tisza and the River Danube. Although no human fatalities were reported, the leak killed up to 80% of aquatic life in some of the affected rivers, which meant that the accident was hailed as the worst environmental disaster in Europe since Chernobyl.

Although our UK mining industry has had health and safety problems, we have learned a huge amount from accidents such as the one in Burngrange in my constituency. From the pit closures and attacks on the trade unions in the Thatcher era, and the year-long miners strike—it was strikes in Lanarkshire that eventually drove my grandmother’s family to Glasgow so that her parents could seek other work—we remember the miners today and always. As a direct result of that strike, mining is no longer as much a part of the industrial landscape, but health and safety is crucial for those left working in the industry, wherever they are in the world. We have come a long way in health and safety improvements, but much more needs to be done, not just in mining but in other dangerous industries such as the oil and gas industry.

Many went from our pits into other industrial work such as oil and gas. It is important to remember that men and women in those industries work in some of the most challenging environments in the world. Health and safety is paramount. In fact, one such worker who followed that path was Mike McTighe, the father of my office manager, Stephanie. He worked in the Bilston Glen pit in Edinburgh for many years and was the last of a famous breed of coalminers in Scotland who moved on to work in oil and gas. He retired only a few months ago. He told me recently how he was once caught in a roof fall in a pit. He said that, as terrifying as that was, going down the leg of an oil platform, when he was often alone, responsible for his own air supply and surrounded by many toxic gases, was possibly the scariest and most hostile environment he had ever been in.

I had my own experience of the importance of health and safety when I became involved in the emergency response to a helicopter going down off the coast of Shetland in 2013. The company I worked for in the oil and gas industry lost a colleague. I spent a lot of time with his family, and working with many people in other companies to review health and safety practices and emergency response, to do our best to ensure that such an accident could never happen again. The work and continued improvement of our Health and Safety Executive is vital. Piper Alpha stands as the worst accident in the North sea and in the oil and gas industry. Many lessons were learned, including by the HSE, which has continued its work.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the men and women, and indeed children, who have worked in the pits, in some of the most challenging environments on earth. Their work and legacy leave a mark on our landscape, in our lives and in our history. We must remember them.

What will the Minister and the Government do to ensure that UK communities blighted by the loss of those industries get greater investment and support to embrace an environmentally friendly and low-carbon future? It is a fact that, despite goals to become a low-carbon economy, our dependence on imported fuels is now at a level not seen since the 1970s. The UK is the only one of Europe’s five biggest energy users to be increasing its reliance on imported energy. Britain now imports four times as much coal as it produces. Coal and other solid fuels made up 10% of the UK’s energy imports in 2015, from countries such as Colombia, Australia and the USA, with Russia being our biggest import partner. We have to consider some of the health and safety practices in those countries and raise concerns about them. Some of those countries are subject to international sanctions. Ukraine, for example, provides close to half the coal we import, and Colombia has an ugly track record on human rights.

The company responsible for the bulk of our Russian imported coal is the Siberian Coal Energy Company, which exports 31 million tonnes of coal a year, according to its website, and nearly a quarter of that comes to the UK—its biggest single market, well ahead of China. Russia’s safety record is not without blemish, and several major mining accidents have happened there. Notably, the Ulyanovskaya—I hope Members will excuse my pronunciation—mine disaster of 2007 killed 106 miners. Just last year, a methane leak triggered two explosions in a mine near Vorkuta, where 26 people ultimately lost their lives. Over 60% of Russian coal is extracted in the Kuzbass region of Siberia, and the human rights of mine workers and villagers are violated daily, according to reports.

In Colombia, the health and safety track record is appalling. An explosion at the La Preciosa mine in Sardinata in January 2011 killed 21 people; another explosion at the same mine in February 2007 killed more than 30 workers. During the decades-long civil war, the Colombian coal industry has grown to the point where it now ranks as the fourth-largest exporter of power station coal in the world, behind Indonesia, Australia and Russia. According to the London Mining Network, the growth of the Colombian coal industry has come at a terrible cost, including the dispossession of communities and widespread human rights abuses against members of the mining workforce and residents. Coal has polluted not only the air and the water but the country’s politics, with credible reports of at least one coal company providing support for militias involved in human rights abuses.

We should not condone the dereliction of duty to the human rights of workers and families living in mining communities. While we still import coal, we should do it from responsible sources, and I ask the Minister to review our coal imports and the human rights and health and safety records of the countries those imports come from.

In addition, we should do much more to develop and support our renewables sector to meet our power needs. The Banks Group in my constituency is a surface mining, renewable energy and property firm. It is truly diverse, and it has a clear vision on the future of renewables. It does pioneering work on reclaiming and redeveloping land that has been used for mining, and it was responsible for the Northumberlandia restoration, which is also known as “The Lady of the North”. In partnership with North Lanarkshire Council, the innovative Connect2Renewables project will ensure a minimum of £69 million of local economic benefit for the area, while a £1.74 million jobs and training fund will support 400 to 450 local unemployed people into work, further education or workplace training. This sort of ambitious, forward-thinking and environmentally friendly initiative is essential as we work towards our low-carbon goals.

My final request of the Minister—I know I am asking a lot of her—is that she set up specific funds for communities in former coal and shale mining areas to help them adapt and provide for the future. A specific fund could help with the kind of work that has been done in my constituency to engage with local schools. Economically, a fund could and should support areas that have never recovered from having had their heavy industries taken away or damaged irreparably, and that got little or no support at the time from the then Conservative Government.

These communities have sacrificed more than they should have, and they have provided for the whole country. We owe them our gratitude and support, and I call on the Government to do all they can to make sure that those former mining communities thrive and develop new industries where the old ones once stood so valiantly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the trust, which was closed and wound up. However, other sources of funding were made available through the usual growth funding channels, and much of that funding has been directed into the communities that we are discussing. I know that, because I was at the Department looking at how those funds had been allocated. Whether we are talking about mining or other industries that are not providing the necessary support to communities across the UK, we need to have a strong plan and vision for those communities and what will replace those industries. We should not leave people without that.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady has made some very encouraging and positive points, and I look forward to receiving those responses. On the distribution of funds, does she consider it appropriate for the former mining communities to be considered alongside other communities for the city growth plans and deals? That seems to me to be an ideal criterion to apply in considering the distribution of funds, because the areas of worst deprivation and challenge are often outside city centres, such as those in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. If one aspect of what makes a community strong and economically viable is removed, other aspects—the education system, the ability to attract teachers and all sorts of things—start to become harder. It is absolutely vital, as I know from my own constituency, to have a clear vision for and proposition on how the economy will not only grow, but be stable. That may mean diversification, or a different approach to the strengths and assets a particular community has had, but that is the key to success. It is what attracts not only public money and investment, but private investment, which is what some of these communities need.

Jobcentre Plus Offices: Closure

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

This is not about squashing anything; it is about making sure that we have full desks in buildings, not empty desks. In some instances, we have jobcentres where more than 20% of the desks are unused. The hon. Lady will be aware that unemployment is down nearly 5% across London since 2015, and it is very important that we make the best use of the facilities we have and get the best value for taxpayers.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The DWP guidance says that it is a reasonable expectation that claimants should have access to an office within 3 miles or 20 minutes’ travelling time. The Minister is planning to close the Broxburn centre in my constituency, which will result in claimants travelling 6 miles or 30 minutes. Given that that closure is in breach of her own guidelines, will she reverse the decision? If not, will she put on a free, accessible bus for my constituents and others so that they will not be left out in the cold?

[Caroline Nokes]

The circumstances that the hon. Lady has outlined are outside the ministerial criteria, and that is exactly why we are having a consultation with the public on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

The main function of the child poverty unit was to support Ministers in meeting the Child Poverty Act 2010, which has now been superseded by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, whereby the response specifically to poverty is being led by my Department, so the unit is now working inside the Department for Work and Pensions. That is the straightforward answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State have any new year’s resolutions? If not, perhaps I can help him out: he could resolve to make sure that no one is sanctioned at Christmas. Will he review the operations of his Department, as I asked him before Christmas, to make sure that nobody goes without over the festive period?

[Damian Green]

My new year’s resolution is, as ever, to make sure that my Department continues its successful work in getting ever more people into work, and to make sure that we have a benefits system that helps people to get into work and a pensions system that provides security and dignity in old age.

Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

It is impossible to know how many people do not go to their MP, but I make my best efforts to be as accessible as possible to my constituents so that people know that they can come to me for help. What I find when following up on individual cases with the DWP, whether relating to sanctions or other problems with the benefit system, is that it is extraordinarily responsive and willing to review cases and reverse decisions that turn out to be flawed. I am reasonably confident that the DWP steps up and corrects mistakes when they are made.

[Hannah Bardell]

I cannot help but notice a deep irony in the hon. Lady’s comments. She cites examples of where the system has failed and of when her constituents have not been served well, and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South is bringing forward a Bill that will help all our constituents and help the system to be fairer. How can she not see that irony and not support the Bill?

[Helen Whately]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady has been listening to what I have been saying. I think I have recognised that the system has problems. Mistakes will be made in any system of such a scale, but that does not mean that the answer is to impose some more top-down legislation. It is better to try to improve how the system works and to support jobcentres that might not be doing so well to come up to the level of those that are doing best.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

Who wants to come in?

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank my hon. Friend for deeming me worthy to be given way to. On contrasting lifestyles, does she share my disappointment and alarm about the fact that we can have legislation that targets some of the poorest people in society, but we cannot find the legislative means to tackle people such as Philip Green who have stolen workers’ pensions but who are happy to keep their own yachts and who are taking away from people at the bottom of our society?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Absolutely. Without wanting to put words in my hon. Friend’s mouth, I wonder whether she is suggesting that there is a bit of political ideology behind all this.

The Bill does the best that we can do, working within the system. The Government cannot really argue with what is proposed, because they claim that they do it anyway. They claim that they already take people’s circumstances into account. If that is the case, they should just agree to the Bill. The hon. Member for Bournemouth West said that he would not support the Bill because my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South had said that she was opposed to sanctions, full stop. I want to know how supporting the Bill is going to end the sanctions regime. It is not; it is going to make the regime a little bit more humane, but there is, sadly, nothing in the Bill that will end the sanctions regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

Absolutely. As I said at the start, I feel as though I am banging my head off a brick wall. In fact, I think that that might be a better use of my time.

If we are already doing this, the requirement in the Bill for someone’s caring responsibilities to be taken into account when considering a sanction happens already, does it? Tell that to my constituent Claire, a single parent who was summoned to an interview with the jobcentre on a day the following week at 3 pm, the exact time that her six-year-old gets out of school. She asked whether the meeting could be changed to 3.30. No. Could it be changed to earlier in the day? No. Could it be changed to another day? No, it had to be on that day at 3 o’clock, the time that she needed to pick up her child from school. She said, “Should I leave my child there, or should I take my child out early?” She was told, “We don’t care, as long as you get here, and if you do not get here at 3 o’clock on that day, we are sanctioning you.” Were her caring responsibilities taken into account? No. I do not want to hear that that was an incorrect decision or an isolated case. I am sick of hearing that. It was not an isolated case, because we hear about this all the time. I could talk about it until midnight and I would not get through, such is the number of times I have heard about it.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. When it comes to the system not working, does she agree that we have heard about very many cases and it is quite clear that Conservative Members are not listening? A constituent of mine, who had Parkinson’s and who fell twice coming to my office, had been sanctioned—against the DWP’s own recommendations that people with degenerative diseases should be treated through a paper process and not be subjected to interviews. Twice I wrote to the DWP, but only when I brought his case to this Chamber was it properly dealt with. That is not how the system should work, and the Bill would address that.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Absolutely. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South on proposing this Bill, and I thank her on behalf of many of my constituents. If the Bill is successful, it will provide some protection. If not, it will at least have raised the issue again, and people out there will know that somebody in here cares about what happens to them.

I will start—I say “start,” but I have been going on for quite a while—by offering the treat that the hon. Member for Bournemouth West is looking for by arguing against the entire sanctions regime. I challenge him to respond to my arguments. I saw Government Members being given a sheet of paper with a list of suggested interventions, but I have experience, and lots of it, on my side, so challenge away.

I will argue on three levels. First, there is the financial argument. I will use only factual arguments, and the sanctions regime costs us more to run than it saves—that is before we look at the long-term hidden costs. Secondly, there are the academic arguments. Conditionality in the welfare system does not work. It is not me making that argument; it is academics. I will share their findings, and let us see whether Government Members have actual evidence to the contrary—not opinions, but evidence. Thirdly, I will make the moral argument, and here Government Members can make a counter-argument because we all have a different moral compass—morality can be subjective, a matter of opinion. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that anybody who thinks it is right that we sanction the benefits of people who are already in poverty needs their compass reprogrammed pronto.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

That is absolutely correct, and what does that say about the democracy of this place?

The fact is that most of the respondents in the research were already keen to find work—most people are—and even the practitioners who are imposing the sanctions regime are sceptical about its benefits. As we have already heard, DWP staff are under incredible pressure. When I spoke about the aspirations they have to reach, the hon. Member for Bournemouth West challenged me to provide the name of the whistleblower who told me all about this, and then just hope that they stay in employment. I will not do that, but I will point him to an article on a journalist’s website called “Common Space”, in which Fraser Stewart talks about how he gave up his job and became unemployed because he could not bear to keep up with the targets or aspirations that were set for him. The hon. Gentleman can have a look at that, although I am surprised he does not know about it already.

I was glad to read the research to back up what I have always known, which is that conditionality does not work. I do not think people have to be that bright to see why it does not work to have somebody standing over them telling them, “You must do it”. I wonder how many of the Conservative Members who have spoken today require a stick to be wielded over them for them to go out to find work. [Interruption.] They have the Whips—that is a very good point—but how many of them went out into the world of work and said, “I’m not going to bother doing this”. What makes them so special, because they will all say, “No, no, I always wanted to work”? I was always keen to work, but so are most people. Most people have aspirations.

[Hannah Bardell]

I promise my hon. Friend that I am intervening on her for one last time. Is she aware of this year’s “Welfare Conditionality: Sanctions, support and behaviour change” project report? It states that

“the impacts of benefit sanctions are universally reported by welfare service users as profoundly negative.”

It also found that sanctions have pushed some people into committing survival crime. Is not the fact that people in our society are pushed into committing crimes just so that they can survive a shame and a stain on our society?

[Anne McLaughlin]

That is an absolute shame on our society, and it costs more money, because when people commit crimes, we have to detect them and punish criminals.

I want to talk about a friend—[Interruption.] Wheesht! If an hon. Member wants to intervene, they can do so.

Autumn Statement Distributional Analysis, Universal Credit and ESA

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I expected this issue to be raised, given press speculation. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman the facts of the matter: with the powers coming to us, we will control 15% of welfare spending in Scotland. We have to put in place the mechanisms for us to deliver fairness with the revenues we have at our disposal. We certainly would not punish the poorest in our society in the way that this Government have, and we certainly would not be punishing the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign women, who are not getting their just rights when they have had only a year’s notice. What I would be saying to this Government is, “Give us the powers over welfare so that we can protect the people in Scotland.” When we have put in place the mechanisms to allow us to look after people, we will certainly be doing a better job than the Government are doing today.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the point about powers is that, unlike this Tory Government, we are able to help and support people properly? We should not have to fill the black hole they have created in our budget. When we get those powers and have that agency, they will be set up properly. We will protect the people in Scotland properly.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point, because this is about powers and responsibilities. For us to protect people in Scotland in the way that we want to, we need powers. We were promised—since this has been raised—devo to the max. We were promised home rule for Scotland. How on earth can we have home rule for Scotland when we control 30% of our revenues and 15% of social security? I am afraid that the UK Government’s failure to protect the disabled and pensioners demonstrates that if we want to do what is necessary in Scotland, we will ultimately have to have the independent powers to do so. I am sure we will get to that point.

Let me return to what I want to address. [Interruption.] I am only responding to the Conservatives’ uninformed distractions, with which we are all too familiar.

The IFS stated:

“Normally, working-age benefit recipients would also be at least partly protected as benefits usually rise in line with prices, but, as we have discussed before, their benefits have been largely frozen in cash terms, meaning that their income from this source is fully exposed to future inflation. Those in work will, unless they are able to negotiate a bigger pay rise, find that their earnings will stretch less far than they otherwise would have done.”

Why should the most disadvantaged pay the price for Brexit and its consequences? That is what the Conservative Back Benchers should be addressing today rather than making an undisguised attack on the Scottish Government. What we need to address this afternoon is why working people will suffer from rising inflation. The weakest in our society deserve to be protected and their benefits ought to be inflation-proofed. Why are the UK Government not doing that? Why are they not seeking to protect the vulnerable in our society?

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that while the tax gap in the UK sits at £36 billion, this Government should be focusing on closing that gap, and not marginalising and targeting some of the most vulnerable people in our society?

[Ian Blackford]

I fundamentally agree. There is a £36 billion tax gap, so let us fix that hole. I listened to the Minister talk earlier about the challenges the Government face in fixing the deficit. What they fail to recognise is the interaction between fiscal and monetary policy. It is the richest who have benefited most from quantitative easing. We should have had a fiscal stimulus package. That would have driven investment and productivity into the economy, and got more people back into work. That is what we should be doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I will take your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I only say to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) that she has demonstrated once again that Better Together is still alive and well—and how did that work out for the Labour party in Scotland?

I will return to the issue we are dealing with. We have inflation created by Brexit and a falling the pound, and the result of this failure will be a fall in living standards for many of our poorest—falling living standards brought to you by this Government. On top of the benefit cuts next year, the Prime Minister is sleepwalking into a perfect storm for low-income families, rather than living up to her promise of delivering for just-managing families. The UK Government must use the autumn statement to end their austerity obsession and instead bring forward an inclusive programme that will truly support low-income families and their children.

The UK Government’s U-turn on tax credits last year was simply a delaying tactic that kicked cuts to universal credit further down the line. The Government should take the opportunity to reverse the cuts to universal credit work allowance in their autumn statement. The original intention of universal credit was to increase work incentives and make sure that, as the Government put it, work paid. On top of damning economic forecasts, however, which will push up the cost of living, the work allowance cut will simply push more working people into poverty. It has slashed the income of working universal credit claimants. The IFS has calculated that in the long term more than 3 million working families will lose an average of more than £1,000 a year as a result of the work allowance cut.

[Hannah Bardell]

Shameful.

[Ian Blackford]

As my hon. Friend says, it is shameful. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that the resulting cut in income will mean that many low-income parents cannot protect the income levels they had before April 2016.

House of Commons Library analysis from February 2016 calculates that lone parents without housing costs will experience the largest reduction in their work allowance, from £8,800 in 2015-16 to £4,764 in 2016-17—a loss of over £4,000. Is that what the Government want to defend? A person or couple without housing costs who claim universal credit where one or both are disabled will see their allowance reduced from £7,764 in 2015-16 to £4,764—a loss of £3,000. The U-turn on tax credits in the short term saved families and working people from having their benefits cut, but in the long term the work allowance cut will have a similar impact.

The House of Commons Library analysis also states that the work allowance reductions announced in the summer Budget

“will ultimately have a similar impact to the changes to tax credits which are not now going ahead, though the impact of changes to UC work allowances will not be fully felt until the roll out of Universal Credit is complete.”

By cutting the work allowance, the Government will impose an eye-watering level of marginal taxation on people in low-paid jobs and make it harder than ever for those in low-income households to break out of the poverty trap.

That point is well understood by many, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), the previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who said:

“At present, the 2016 Budget’s plan to reduce Universal Credit work allowances will not be the most effective way of controlling welfare expenditure and, moreover, it goes against the key principles. The planned reduction will affect more than three million people, reducing their income by an average of over £1,000 per year. This will reduce people’s incentive to move into work. Moreover, in November 2015 the previous Chancellor decided to reverse the reduction in working tax credits, increasing the pressure on Universal Credit as it created an artificial disincentive to move to Universal Credit from Tax Credits.”

I do not say this too often, but I fully agree with him. I would even say that, for the Government, the game is up when even the architect of much of the landscape on this issue can see the fatal flaws in what they are doing. When will they start to listen and begin to act?

We are having this debate today, and welcome though it is, it is important that we achieve a cross-party consensus on the substantive motion we are debating tomorrow, on the cuts to employment and support allowance. The House will have an opportunity to send a very clear signal to the Chancellor ahead of the autumn statement next week. It is a scandal that proposed cuts to ESA WRAG are still going ahead. The Chancellor must halt these planned cuts until the UK Government can deliver the long-awaited support promised for disabled people in and out of work. Almost 500,000 disabled people in the UK rely on ESA WRAG. This £30 cut will make the cost of living more expensive for many people—even more so in the context of the devalued pound and a possible inflation increase.

The UK Government said that these changes were introduced to

“remove the financial incentives that could otherwise discourage claimants from taking steps back to work”.

But Mencap’s review of this policy found

“no relevant evidence setting out a convincing case that the ESA WRAG payment acts as a financial disincentive to claimants work, or that reducing the payment would incentivise people to seek work”.

It is a positive step that the new Secretary of State has announced the Green Paper on support for disabled people in and out of work, and we look forward to assessing the detail of the Department’s proposals in due course. However, until the detail in the Green Paper comes to fruition, storming ahead with these cuts is simply putting the cart before the horse. The autumn statement is a key opportunity for the new Cabinet to prove it is true to its rhetoric about delivering for just-managing families. That can be achieved only by abandoning austerity by reversing these cuts and delivering an inclusive Budget fit for the post-referendum economic turmoil.

A failure to act will drive more people into poverty and the use of food banks. Recent data show that the Tories’ austerity agenda continues to push people into poverty across the UK. A survey for the End Child Poverty coalition suggested that 3.5 million children were living in poverty in the UK, with 220,000 of them in Scotland. A separate study by the Trussell Trust found that in the first half of this year there was an increase in food bank usage that included 500,000 three-day emergency food supplies distributed across the UK, of which 188,500 were for children.

A recent Resolution Foundation report has highlighted the need for the urgent delivery of support for families who are just managing. It also noted:

“Average incomes in the low to middle income group were no higher in 2014-15 than in 2004-05, reflecting not just the turmoil of the post-crisis period but also a sharp pre-crisis slowdown in income growth.”

It also points out that the projections for unemployment have been revised up since the March Budget following the referendum in June, and real pay growth is now projected to be lower than previously thought.

In conclusion, with this autumn statement, the Chancellor has the ability to re-prioritise the spending agenda to reflect the very real danger of economic turmoil resulting from the June referendum and ongoing negotiations with the EU. The Chancellor must use the autumn statement to propose measures that reverse benefit cuts and mitigate the impact of economic uncertainty on disadvantaged people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. I would like to assure her that, in designing the new provision, we are working at local level on harnessing expertise as well as engaging with a wide range of stakeholders. By doing that, we shall be taking on board important lessons from the overall Work programme and Work Choice as well as looking at how we can achieve sustained long-term employment outcomes.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

8. What assessment he has made of the effect of state pension reform on gender inequality.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

20. What assessment he has made of the effect of state pension reform on gender inequality.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Stephen Crabb)]

Last month, we introduced a new simpler state pension as part of our wider package of pension reform. The combination of the new state pension, automatic enrolment, the triple lock, the protection of benefits and giving people power over their pension pots will ensure that pensioners, male and female, will have greater protection, security and choice in retirement.

[Hannah Bardell]

Protection is all very well, but introducing the new state pension in 2016 means that 350,000 women who were born between 1951 and 1953 will retire on the old system just before the new provisions come into force, whereas a man born on exactly the same day will retire slightly later but receive a pension under the new arrangements. Will the Minister please heed the Scottish National party’s calls to establish a pensions commission in order to end these inequalities?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady was not here in the last Parliament when we debated and voted on these changes. We debated them at enormous length and a clear decision was made by Parliament. As part of that, a concession of more than £1.1 billion was introduced to limit the impact of the rising state pension age on those women who would be most affected. Let us be clear: there is no party in this Chamber that has a clear and coherent proposal for unwinding the changes that have been made since 1995 to equalise the state pension ages. I therefore have no plans to bring forward further concessions or changes.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Emily Thornberry]

This was largely a probing new clause, and I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Changes to age of eligible claimants of housing benefit

‘(1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 130(1) insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State shall not make provision about eligibility for housing benefit in respect of the age of a claimant except by primary legislation.”.’—(Hannah Bardell.)

This New Clause aims to ensure that any changes to the age of eligible claimants for housing benefit must be made by primary legislation rather than regulation. The Government intends to withdraw entitlement to housing benefit from 18-21 year olds and it is understood this change would be enacted by regulation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Entitlement to housing costs element of universal credit for 18-21 year olds—

‘(1) Entitlement to the housing cost element of Universal Credit shall not be restricted for those 18 to 21 year olds who fall into the following categories—

(a) those who have previously been in work;

(b) a person who lives independently;

(c) those with a disability or mental health problem receiving Employment Support Allowance or Income Support;

(d) those with dependent children;

(e) pregnant women;

(f) those who are owed a rehousing duty under—

(i) section 193 of the Housing Act 1996;

(ii) section 9 of the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003;

(iii) section 73 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014;

(g) those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness who are being assisted by local authority housing teams;

(h) those who are living in statutory or voluntary sector homelessness accommodation;

(i) those who have formerly been homeless and have been supported by voluntary or statutory agencies into accommodation;

(j) those who have formerly been homeless between the ages of 16 and 21;

(k) a person without family or whom social services have found that a home environment is not suitable for them to live in;

(l) care leavers; and

(m) those leaving custody.

(2) Within three months of section [Entitlement to housing costs element of universal credit for 18-21 year olds] of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must, by regulation, provide definitions of—

(a) “a person who lives independently”;

(b) “risk of homelessness”; and

(c) “a person without family”.’

To ensure that 18-21 year olds who meet one of the listed conditions are entitled to receive the housing cost elements of universal credit.

[Hannah Bardell]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Streeter. As I will be changing brief for the Scottish National party, this will be the last opportunity I have to speak on this subject. I will be moving to Business, Innovation and Skills, where I hope to continue the work that I have done.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Leaving so soon?

[Hannah Bardell]

Indeed; what can I say?

The SNP fully supports the intention behind Labour’s new clause, and we seek to prevent any young person from being locked out of the housing system due to age. We heard our youngest Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), speak passionately in her maiden speech about the fact that she would be the only 18 to 21-year-old in the UK who would be supported in housing under the Conservative Government’s proposals. We have already said that we will support Labour’s new clause 10, because we share the concerns of the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury.

The SNP is concerned that the Government’s intention to remove young people’s access to support with their housing costs could lead to an increase in youth homelessness. According to Crisis, youth homelessness is already on the rise, with 8% of 16 to 24-year-olds recently reported as homeless. In four years, the number of young people sleeping rough in London has more than doubled. In a written answer on 14 September the Government confirmed they would restrict 18 to 21-year-olds from access to housing benefit. Their rationale, which we believe is deeply flawed, was cited as a wish not to allow young people to slip into a lifetime of benefits. The Government may not realise that it is not simply a matter of people deciding to have to rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over their head; many young people are not able to live at home with their parents for a variety of reasons. The fact that the Government are already squeezing the pockets of working families and families with more children will make it even harder for parents to afford to keep their children at home for longer.

Of the 19,000 18 to 21-year-olds who will be affected by the change, 60% are in social housing, all of whom will have been subjected to the stringent eligibility test and only deemed a priority by the local authority because they are in need. The remainder of those eligible for help live in the private rented sector and receive the shared accommodation rate—the lowest rung of housing benefit, according to Shelter, barely enough to cover a room at the bottom end of the market.

We have seen the increase in housing costs across the UK, which has locked out this sector of society. That is frankly wrong. The Government have failed young people by failing to provide economic opportunities and stability in the workforce. Growing numbers of talented young people are left unemployed. The Minister cannot simply say, “Stay at home, and your parents will look after you”, because that is regressive and smacks of a lack of vision. Many young people cannot live at home and housing benefit is the only thing that stands between them and homelessness. Between 2010 and 2014 Crisis helped to create 8,120 tenancies in the private rented sector for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, with support from the Department for Communities and Local Government.

The SNP believes it is unfair to restrict entitlement to a benefit based solely on age rather than on evidential grounds. We support Labour’s wish for a blanket ban on the Government restricting entitlement based on age, but as the answer to a written question on 14 September confirmed, it looks likely that the Tories are intent on locking young people out of this lifeline. That is why we have tabled new clause 12, which would provide restrictions related to vulnerable people who may be impacted. I recognise that the Government have said that they will bring forward exemptions for particularly vulnerable young people, but the full details of that proposal are not in the Bill. We tabled the new clause to ensure that young people in the circumstances that I have described are protected.

[Emily Thornberry]

Does the hon. Lady agree with me that it is very important to look closely at what the Government say counts as vulnerable? One can imagine them saying that they are going to look after vulnerable youngsters, but their definition will be restricted. For example, they may include young people leaving care but not anyone else. We need to be careful, because Opposition Members’ definition of vulnerability may be different from what Ministers are trying to get away with.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady must have read my mind. I was just coming on to the point about care leavers and those who have experienced violence or abuse. As the hon. Lady says, the categorisation of those who are vulnerable must be a unified approach. We must be in agreement on that throughout the House. Some young people may be unable to live with their parents because of relationship breakdown—for example, if they have been thrown out because of family circumstances such as a parent remarrying—or because of their own lifestyle choices or sexuality, but they might find that difficult to prove. Many young people who have found themselves homeless are currently supported into accommodation funded by housing benefit, either by a local authority or by a homelessness organisation. Without that support, those vulnerable groups will be homeless and unable to meet housing costs. Housing benefit helps those people live independently when living at home is no longer an option, and removing it could leave people choosing between returning to a destructive family home or the street.

Accepting the new clause would at least show that the Government were serious about their commitment to protect the most vulnerable, which we must have within the law. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, and I urge hon. Members to support our new clause 12 as well as Labour’s new clause 10, to ensure that vulnerable young people can access housing support to keep them off the streets.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

As everyone always says, it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I will be honest: I simply do not know, so I will find out and come back to the hon. Lady on that.

The hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley and for Livingston touched on the various groups that cannot rely on the stability of a family home. We are focused on that and want to do everything we can to help those young people. That is the reason for the exemptions to protect the vulnerable. We are discussing the policy with landlords, housing associations and charities, who provide a unique perspective on the groups discussed.

I hope we can work together on stakeholder engagement. As I have said, that work is under way and the policy will not be introduced until next year, which gives us time for the detailed approach we absolutely need. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Livingston to withdraw her new clause.

[Hannah Bardell]

We will not withdraw the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There are many arguments against the tax credit cuts, and although it is tempting to rehearse all of them this morning, another debate is going on elsewhere. Essentially, I cut down a long speech to a short one to make the main points.

I was talking about the policy being a failure in moral terms, as my hon. Friend illustrates well. The focus today might be down in the Chamber, but members of this Committee have the real power. They have in our hands the power to do the right thing and to put the interests of working families in their constituencies ahead of the interests of their party. They have in their hands the power to put the interests of children in some of the poorest working families first, remembering that, even as things stand, two thirds of children in poverty have a parent in work. How much worse will it be after they have suffered the cuts to tax credits?

I am sure that Conservative Members who have an interest in this field are, deep down, genuinely and gravely concerned. When we put the new clause to the vote and when their Whip holds up the piece of paper saying no, will they look aside, think about the thousands of their constituents who will be so greatly affected by the Bill and vote with their conscience, vote the right way, and stop this now?

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady has made a powerful speech. I will not drag out my comments on a painful and frankly despicable assault on our society. Much has been said about tax credits and I would like to give a bit of a Scottish flavour to the debate.

Since the election campaign and throughout this Parliament, the SNP has opposed the Bill in its entirety and the cuts to child tax credits in particular. It is important to highlight the findings of the IFS, that it was “arithmetically impossible” for families to do better with the limited increase in the living wage. We are talking about an attack on low-income families and vulnerable working families. In Scotland more than 500,000 children live in families that rely on tax credits to make ends meet; 350,000 of those children will feel the impact of the cuts as much needed tax credits are stripped away from more than 200,000 low-income families.

The austerity measures proposed by the Conservative Government are disproportionately harming the poorest and most vulnerable households while giving tax breaks to the better-off, thus increasing inequality, not closing the gap. Much has been said about families claiming benefits and families in work as if they were different people, different sections of society, but the reality is that the majority of people who will be affected by the provisions of the Bill are families in work.

The changes are regressive; they take proportionately more from low-income households and give to the richer ones. Planned cuts to tax credits increase the burden on the working poor and the children living in such households. The IFS has found that 63% of children living in poverty are in working households—I repeat: 63% of children living in poverty are in working households. The increase in the minimum wage for people aged 25 and over, which has been wrongly branded a living wage, is nowhere near enough to offset the cuts. The changes run contrary to the Government’s own policy of making work pay and they weaken the incentives to work, because the impact of cuts will fall disproportionately on low-income working families. This is not war on poverty; this is war on the poor.

[Priti Patel]

I am speaking on behalf of my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, who has been paired for the clause.

It is clear that we are going to disagree on this clause. I will speak about the tax credits changes in the context of the new deal presented by the Government in the summer Budget. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor stated at the time, the deal was to move Britain from a high welfare, high tax, low wage economy to a low welfare, low tax, higher wage economy. I know that I am rehearsing arguments that hon. Members have heard previously, but spending on tax credits more than trebled in real terms between 1999 and 2010; at the same time that increase in spending did not address issues of poverty. There was a 20% rise in poverty at that time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

My colleagues have spoken very passionately on the new clause and the Scottish National party absolutely supports it. It might be interesting for the Committee if I shared some of Michael Adler’s report on benefit sanctions and the rule of law. In his concluding remarks, he says:

“We now come to the question of whether benefit sanctions are compatible with the rule of law. My conclusions, and I must stress that these are my personal conclusions and that other people may wish to take issue with them, is that they are not.”

The SNP has, for a very long time, in Committee, on the Floor of the House and publicly, opposed the sanctions regime and called for a root-and-branch review. Much of that is highlighted in Mr Adler’s report. He notes how

“the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee (2015) reiterated its previous call for a comprehensive, independent review of sanctions and for a serious attempt to resolve the conflicting demands on claimants made by DWP staff to enable them to take a common-sense view on good reasons for non-compliance. The Committee concluded that there was no evidence to support the longer sanction periods introduced in October 2012 and recommended the piloting of pre-sanction written warnings and non-financial sanctions. Sadly, these recommendations seem to have fallen on deaf ears and to date there has been no response from the DWP to the Report.”

I encourage DWP to give us its thoughts on that and why it cannot take that on board.

Mr Adler also says in his report:

“Vulnerable claimants are most likely to be sanctioned and, despite the availability of hardship payments, many of those who are sanctioned experience enormous hardship. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many of them end up becoming homeless, using food banks and resorting to crime.”

As DWP has said, sanctions are supposed to be part of a benefits system that gets people back into work and helps people. How can that be the case when someone of that credibility suggests that they are damaging society so badly?

I have not yet been in office for six months, but at least 25% of the workload coming through my constituency surgery and office is down to people who have been sanctioned. One of those is someone who suffers from Parkinson’s and who was treated appallingly by a representative of DWP. I am fighting that case and I have taken it up on the Floor of the House. I urge DWP and Ministers to look again at the sanctions regime and how it is treating vulnerable people in our society. It is not encouraging them back into work and it is not helping their families. We must have a root-and-branch review and listen to the Committees of the House on which Members across the political divide sit so that we can have a sensible approach to treating the most vulnerable.

[Priti Patel]

Let me start by saying that the Government keep the operation of the sanctions system under constant review to ensure that it continues to function effectively and fairly. Where we identify an issue, we will act to put it right. It is therefore unnecessary to embed the implementation of a review in the Bill. The Government have made a number of improvements to the JSA and ESA sanction systems following recommendations made by the independent review led by Matthew Oakley only last year. That improvement work is continuing to ensure that the Oakley recommendations are acted on in the right way where possible. In addition, we are taking the opportunity to ensure that the ongoing improvements in the review are built into the design and delivery of universal credit.

We have not only responded promptly and positively to the recommendations, but have gone further. We have improved the clarity of the JSA and ESA hardship application process, and made improvements to the payment process to ensure that payments are made within three days. We have carried out a review to check that our systems are operating effectively in respect of housing benefit, and that housing benefit is not impacted when a sanction is applied. We have introduced an improved claimant commitment for JSA jobseekers on the Work programme. We have also revised guidance to encourage jobseekers to share that claimant commitment with their provider. That will ensure that jobseekers understand what is required of them—their responsibilities both to Jobcentre Plus work coaches and Work programme providers—and that providers are clear on any previously agreed restrictions for the jobseeker, helping them to design tailored support.

We have made significant improvements to the decision-making process to ensure that doubts about actively seeking work are resolved quickly. The vast majority of decisions are now made within 48 hours, including consideration of good reasons. Our systems are ensuring that, when decisions are made in the jobseeker’s favour, their benefit payments are transferred to them using faster electronic payment systems to ensure that payment reaches their account on the same day.

I would like to touch on a couple of the points hon. Members have made. Sanctions were discussed in Committees in the previous Parliament, and there have been many debates about sanctions in the Commons Chamber and in Committees. Each month, more than 99% of ESA claimants comply with the requirements that are asked of them with regard to sanctions, and the individuals are asked only to meet the requirements that they agree with their advisers. That includes consideration of any health conditions, disabilities or health impairments.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Eighth sitting)

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 139, in clause 13,  page 14,  line 21, at end insert—

‘(5A) The Secretary of State must make provision for additional personalised and specialist employment support in connection with subsections (1) to (3).

(5B) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the following—

(a) the forms of personalised and specialist employment support;

(b) the means by which a diverse market of suppliers for personalised and specialist employment support can be developed in local areas; and

(c) information for local authorities seeking to improve local disability employment rates.’

To provide additional specialist employment support for disabled people.

I thank all Members for their understanding earlier and apologise for the interruption to our business, which was due to some sad family news.

Amendment 139 would require the Secretary of State to make provision for additional personalised and specialist employment support for disabled people. As we have heard previously in the Committee, the Government’s ambition of halving the disability employment gap is welcome, but it represents a not insignificant challenge and much more detail is needed for Committee members to be able to scrutinise how itis to be achieved. It is unclear from the Bill how Ministers intend practically to narrow the disability employment gap.

Of course, we operate in the context of what has happened in the past five years in particular, when we have seen the number of disability employment advisers at Jobcentre Plus drop; the number of disabled people supported by Access to Work, in particular, fall; work capability assessments being delayed or made inaccurately; and a lower percentage of working-age disabled people actually supported into work. We have a Work programme that has not had the highest success rate in ensuring that disabled people go on into employment. Many disabled people can and want to work, but face significant barriers to entering and staying in work. That is why specialist employment support is crucial, and this amendment is aimed at securing information from Ministers to ensure that that is delivered and is effective.

The Committee heard a great deal from witnesses about the kind of employment support that would be effective, the improvements that are needed and the lack of support that disabled people currently feel able to access. We have heard from the Minister that the Government plan to invest in additional employment support for disabled people, starting at £60 million a year from 2016-17 and rising to £100 million a year by 2021. That is positive and welcome, but it is important to understand how it will be used and how its efficacy will be measured. As yet we have heard no detail on how that investment will be directed or implemented, or how many people it is designed to support.

There are also concerns in the disability sector about whether that money will be used for Disability Confident, because of the lack of transparency about how Disability Confident is measured, and whether it is just a means of attracting employers to events or is genuinely about focusing on job outcomes for disabled people. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity today to set out how the Government intend to develop the support programme and what it will look like in practice.

We know that disabled people trying to find, enter and stay in work face a number of barriers. They can include a lack of suitable and vacant jobs, poor attitudes from potential employers towards hiring disabled people and a lack of appropriate support to enter the workplace. However, current back-to-work support for disabled people simply is not delivering. The work capability assessment does not accurately determine the support that disabled people need; it is more of a medically focused assessment process and does not relate to disabled people’s real experience of trying to find work and, in particular, stay in work. Specialist support to assist with finding and staying in work is essential, and the amendment is designed to help secure that.

There is also concern that existing employment support is misfiring and is ineffective. To provide some detail, job outcomes for disabled people on the Work programme are only 7.7% for those entering employment support allowance, and just 3.9% for those moving from incapacity benefit on to employment support allowance. Furthermore, the specialist Work Choice programme is ineffectively targeted and offers support only to a very small number of disabled people, and I should say that the figures I have just used are the Department’s own figures. A recent evaluation of the Work programme by the Department found that disabled people were more likely than other groups to say they had not received support, which is surprising given that there is meant to be dedicated support. Those who had received support were less likely to say that it was helpful.

Both programmes come to an end in 2017, and the amendment gives the Minister another opportunity to outline what support will be available in practice from then. What plans do the Government have to re-evaluate those programmes and the type of support they offer? What improvements do they have planned?

There is particular concern among disabled people and disability organisations—I refer particularly to the briefing I have received from the disability organisation Scope—about what the quantitative changes to employment and support allowance could mean in relation to conditionality. I do not think any Member would want to find a disabled person coming to their surgery having experienced sanctions, unable to access any benefit as a result of the changes and without sufficient employment support.

Written evidence to the Committee has called for employment support to be tailored to the needs of the individual, joined up with wider public services and more reflective of local labour markets. Specialist providers have the expertise to respond directly to specific barriers to work that disabled people experience. If the Minister has not already visited, I certainly recommend that she sees the Royal National Institute of Blind People’s support programme in Loughborough. Specialist employment support could include peer-to-peer sessions, interview and CV preparation, support focused on managing specific impairments, and discussing with employers how to manage different types of support in the workplace. Such support allows for more intensive and effective interventions that reflect the specific support needs of an individual.

Scope provided me with Azar’s story. Azar is 20 and recently took part in Scope’s pre-employment programme for young disabled people. Azar has cerebral palsy and told Scope that because of his disability, potential employers assumed that “he couldn’t do this and he couldn’t do that”. He knew that he wanted to work in business, so after he left college he was looking for a job, as he wanted experience to put on his CV. Having had the support of a professional mentor, he feels more confident and less worried about being judged, which has a significant and positive impact on his employability.

Job retention is another area that requires renewed focus if we are to halve the disability employment gap, and specialist employment support has a role to play in that too. Ann, a member of staff of Scope’s employment service, provides an example of how such support can help people stay in work. Ann supported a client with Asperger’s syndrome who worked in a hotel. When he got stressed and bombarded with customers, he went into his shell and ignored people. He got really upset with his own behaviour. The reasonable adjustment was for Ann, the specialist disability employment support worker, to speak to the manager and ask about making sure that the client was able to have a breather for five minutes to handle the stress. The manager was absolutely fine with that. That is a straightforward, cost-neutral, reasonable adjustment and has significant positive benefits, but requires someone who understands the health condition and is able to work with the employer.

The Government should consider personal budgets to support disabled people, so that they have greater control over the type of employment support they receive. The In Control programme had a certain measure of success, and it is a shame that it has been wrapped up. There is considerable international evidence that personal budgets can empower disabled people to have increased choice and control over their career by removing bureaucracy from the employment support system and creating greater flexibility in the type of employment support available. They also serve to help smooth the transition for disabled people moving from unemployment into work, they and should link up with Access to Work support. If people were able to carry through the Access to Work package, it would smooth the system significantly.

Finally, the devolution agenda provides a big opportunity to do far more to ensure that disabled people are connected to growth and employment opportunities in their local area. There are precedents for funding focused on increasing employment rates for specific groups of people, such as the Youth Contract and the Youth Contract for cities. There is the potential for regions to be incentivised to put disabled people at the heart of their growth strategies. That could be done by creating specialist employment support programmes, bringing together local employers or looking at wider strategies. I therefore urge the Government to ensure as a minimum that regulations made under the Bill give due consideration to types of support that will ensure that many more disabled people are better supported in the workplace.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place, and I am glad to see that he has been able to return.

The SNP fully oppose the proposals within clauses 13 and 14. We are glad to see Labour making some headway and supporting us in our opposition. To reduce the rate of employment and support allowance to that of jobseeker’s allowance is completely immoral and makes absolutely no sense to us. The Government clearly did not consider when formulating the policy the fact that those who have been placed in the ESA work-related activity group have been independently found unfit to work. Otherwise they would not seek to reduce the support for those who are ill or have disabilities or more complex needs to the same level as support for fit-for-work claimants, such as those receiving JSA.

ESA claimants have always received a higher rate than those on JSA, because they typically take longer to move back into work, as they face additional barriers. Paul Farmer, chief executive of Mind, expressed the same concern when he said:

“Almost 60% of people on JSA move off the benefit within 6 months, while almost 60% of people in the WRAG need this support for at least two years. It is unrealistic to expect people to survive on £73 a week for this length of time.”

Returning to employment is not an option for many people with disabilities. Those unable to work should receive an income replacement benefit to ensure a fair income.

The Minister needs to understand that those who live with an illness or condition are typically worse off than those who do not. A Parkinson’s UK survey in 2007 found that just under a third of working-age people with Parkinson’s were in any form of employment. It further reported that many younger people with Parkinson’s who cannot sustain work because of their condition relied on incapacity benefit for their income or part of their income.

I cite again the case of my constituent with Parkinson’s who came to see me after having been sanctioned. I wrote to the Department about his sanction and raised it with the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House and by letter. He was sanctioned and taken to a tribunal, although the Department’s own legislation said that the process should be done in a paper-based format, as people with degenerative diseases are not always fit to present themselves. The Department was not even aware of its own policy, and said so in an email to me. I found that particularly disturbing, and I continue to pursue that case.

The Scottish National party is extremely worried about the provisions. Reducing the ESA WRAG rate from £102.15 a week to £73.10 a week from April 2017—a reduction of just under £30—will force sick people further away from getting back into work, despite the fact that the WRAG was created especially to support the ill and disabled back into work. The Conservatives’ policies are doing exactly the opposite of what they claim they want to do.

The Chancellor said in the summer Budget that it was a perverse incentive for ESA claimants to receive more than JSA claimants without getting support to return to work. He cited the reduction in the number of JSA claimants by 700,000 since 2010 while incapacity benefit claimants have fallen by only 90,000, and said that 61,000 of those in the WRAG want to work. We do not dispute that, and we agree that more support must be put in place to assist those with illnesses and disabilities back into work. However, we do not understand the Government’s rationale for reducing the payments for the ESA WRAG or universal credit. How will that incentivise more people to work? Perhaps the Minister can help us.

The Disability Benefits Consortium has told us that more than 493,000 disabled people are assessed as not being fit for work, 248,000 of them with mental and behavioural problems, 86,000 with diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue and 8,000 with progressive and incurable conditions such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and other serious and degenerative diseases. The DBC has said that those living with long-term conditions are struggling to get by on the current rate of ESA. For the Government to cut it further will surely put them further into poverty and deprivation. The Conservative manifesto committed to halving the disability employment gap, but it is my party’s contention that the reduction in the ESA WRAG component will in fact present more barriers to those with disabilities who are trying to get back to work.

Mencap has said that households that include a disabled person will be hit much harder than others. Given that a third of them already live below the poverty line, the additional reduction in income will have a devastating impact on those most in need of Government support. The Government’s own figures already show that over the past year, the number of disabled people living in poverty has increased by 300,000. I am astonished that the Minister can even consider taking a small additional payment away from the ill and disabled when they are struggling to deal with the challenges of their condition.

Given the Government’s own admission that the vast majority of people in the WRAG want to work, they should be protecting any benefit that will help break down the barriers to work. The SNP has been sent here to defend our people from further hardship, to protect them from poverty and to secure a fair, just and sustainable pathway to prosperity. We will not find that in this Bill. I call on Members on both sides of the Committee to vote with the SNP to remove these unscrupulous plans.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Fifth sitting)

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

What would the Minister say to the witness who said that we risk becoming an “international laughing stock” if we remove the targets? He felt that we had led the world, but removing the targets means that we could lag behind.

[Priti Patel]

No other country in the world has attempted to use statutory targets to legislate away income-related child poverty. The point that I think came out towards the end of the evidence session was that the Department will continue to publish low-income statistics as part of the households below average income—HBAI—figures anyway, so there is no assumption that we are dismissing the matter or undermining the UK’s international credibility, which I think was the point that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark was trying to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

With respect, the hon. Lady misses the point. The data are published already across Government, so that information is in the public domain.

[Hannah Bardell]

I am interested to know why the Minister talks about a commitment to reporting, but is not willing to support our amendment to have reporting to the devolved Administrations. Does she not realise that she is answerable to the people of Scotland on such matters?

[Priti Patel]

I have made the point about the reporting mechanisms already, including during this debate. If I may, I will move on to something the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston touched on with regard to the range of life chances measures including key health indicators for children. In England, we also have key health indicators for disadvantaged children.

Amendment 82 is consequent on amendment 80 and requires the Secretary of State to set out in his report what is meant by “key health indicators”. I agree fully with the importance that the amendments would place on children’s health, but the Committee is aware that the Government have already put in place a well-developed reporting framework—the public health outcomes framework—which supports health improvement and protection at all stages of life, especially in early years. The framework includes a large number of indicators on children and young people’s health and, along with the NHS outcomes framework, sets a clear direction for children’s health that allows anyone to hold the Government to account.

The Department of Health has already commissioned University College London’s Institute of Health Equity to produce health inequalities indicators on a regular basis to complement the framework. Those indicators reflect the recommendations of the Marmot review, and profiles will be published for 150 upper-tier local authorities. Our decision to limit our headline statutory measures to worklessness and educational attainment was deliberate and supported by evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is right, and I shall come to that point, because it leads into something that I shall say about the measures and targets that we use.

The summer Budget and the measures in the Bill will push more families and more children into poverty. We have not yet got an analysis of the impact of the Bill or the Budget on child poverty and on the numbers of children growing up poor. It is disappointing that the Government have not laid that impact assessment before the House. We cannot know for sure what assessment, if any, the Government have made of the impact. We do not know whether they bothered to make such an assessment. From our knowledge, expertise and understanding of what drives poverty, we can expect that the impact will be pretty adverse. We can also look to the very helpful Joseph Rowntree Foundation minimum income standards research, to which I referred earlier. It points to a particularly harsh effect on the family incomes of some particularly vulnerable groups, including single-parent families, couples with several children and families who face high housing costs.

[Hannah Bardell]

I am listening intently to the hon. Lady and I agree with much of what she is saying. Does she agree that the alternative targets proposed are not necessarily related to poverty? Family break-up and drug and alcohol dependency affect families from all income deciles, and problem debt is generally a consequence rather than a cause of poverty.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point about the complexity of disentangling causes from consequences and about the fact that Ministers are giving the public distorting messages about what poverty actually is. Let me make this clear: only 4% of parents experience alcohol or drug addiction, and far from all those parents are parents of poor children. Of course, it is devastating for children who grow up in households where parents are addicted, but it is not the same as poverty and it certainly does not explain the 3.7 million children growing up in poverty in the UK today. As she rightly noted, family break-up affects families across the income spectrum. There will be hon. Members in this room who have experienced it in their own families. We should not conflate the two. While it is true that single parents and their children face a higher risk of poverty, there are measures that could be taken to ameliorate and address that consequence, instead of which the Government will make the position of those families worse.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend absolutely makes the case.

As we have heard this morning, it is also ridiculous to think that measuring worklessness alone could be a substitute for measuring poverty, when two thirds of poor children are in households where somebody works. We have repeatedly heard from the Conservative party that the measures are somehow flawed or insufficient, so let us go through carefully what the Child Poverty Act actually requires in relation to measurement and targets.

We know that the Institute for Fiscal Studies expects a rise in relative poverty in this Parliament, but it also expects that it is entirely possible that absolute poverty could fall. So there is a two-way street, if you like, built into the cocktail of measures that we have. We have four measures of poverty in the Child Poverty Act: relative income poverty; absolute poverty; material deprivation; and persistent poverty. That addresses some of the concerns that Government Members might rightly have about tracking only one measure. It is right that when median income is falling, relative income poverty alone is not sufficient to give a good picture of what is happening to our poorest families, although it remains important in tracking the gap that exists.

However, it is also right to recognise that we do not look only at relative income poverty in the Child Poverty Act. We look at absolute poverty, persistent poverty and, crucially, material deprivation. Material deprivation gives a real-life test of poverty and the public can engage with it, get their heads round it and understand it. Also, as I said earlier today, it is a particularly good predictor of health outcomes for children.

[Hannah Bardell]

Again, what the hon. Lady says chimes strongly with me. Is she aware that, as indicated by the House of Commons Library, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission warned in 2014 that although levels of child poverty are low by historic standards,

“there is no realistic hope of the child poverty targets being met in 2020, given the likely tax and benefit system in place”?

That was in 2014, before any of these changes were made. Is this not a thinly veiled way of covering up the fact that those targets were never going to be reached?

[Kate Green]

We are certainly not going to reach them under the Government’s current policies; indeed, we will move further away from them. I share the hon. Lady’s scepticism about the Government’s motives, to put it gently. It is really regrettable that, rather than seeking to tackle the problem of poverty, they simply seek to remove it altogether from any understanding of the public policy world.

I hope that the Committee understands that the critique of the Child Poverty Act and its measures and targets as being somehow deficient is completely false. It is also important to understand that the measures the Government proclaim will address poverty are also false, or at least incomplete. As I said earlier this morning, the so-called national living wage will not fully compensate for cuts to benefits and tax credits. What is more, it is highly regrettable that the Government, who are fond of the argument that tax credits are simply a substitute for lower wages, fail to recognise the different functions of pay and tax credits. It is why we have a complex cocktail of policy responses to a set of different drivers of poverty.

Working tax credits compensate for low pay. That means that in households where a family member is low paid, they may derive some benefit from tax credits. Some low-paid people will not do so because they are not in low-paid households; they are the low-paid earner in a household with a high overall household income. So tax credits are a response to low pay, and they help households that suffer low income as a result of low pay to avoid the adverse effects of that low pay.

We should also recognise that the purpose of tax credits for children is not to compensate for low pay or to subsidise employers. It is about sharing among society as a whole the investment that we all have a duty, and indeed an interest, in making in the next generation, who will deliver the future productivity in our economy that will sustain us as we grow old.

We should also remember that while rising pay and an increase in the so-called national living wage are welcome, the national living wage would have to rise very substantially for parents who have no access to any other sources of income—to more than £13 an hour—before their children were lifted out of poverty. Tax credits meet that gap. If it is to be filled entirely by rising wages, that is likely to lead to substantial numbers of job losses, which Ministers would be rightly concerned about.

It is also said that the Child Poverty Act and the measures therein are deficient, because they only look at money. While I strongly contend that money is important, that is also an incorrect analysis of the provisions of the Child Poverty Act. On Second Reading, I particularly sought to draw the House’s attention to that point when I highlighted the fact that written into the Child Poverty Act is a requirement for strategies in relation to child health, children’s education, parental employment, debt—a subject of interest to Government Members—and parenting. Those are all associated with child poverty and provided for in the Child Poverty Act, but they sit alongside the provisions of the Act in relation to measuring relative income poverty and targets for it. They are not the same thing or a substitute.

I am concerned and disappointed by the provisions of clause 6. The clause is cynical and distressing and cheapens the United Kingdom in the eyes of the international community. Most importantly, it means that many of our poor children are at risk of becoming poorer, unobserved. I am frankly shocked at the brazenness of the clause.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar is unable to do so today, with the permission of the Committee I will speak briefly to amendment 97, which was tabled in her name. It addresses the concern that the hon. Member for Livingston pointed out a few moments ago relating to the Government not being on track to meet the 2020 target to eradicate child poverty. That is right, but as Alison Garnham pointed out to us in her oral evidence earlier this week, the Government would not have been completely unable to reach the target in due course. Let us remember that the target, as Ms Garnham pointed out to us, is not to reach zero poverty. A frictional level of poverty will always exist. Families move in and out of poverty, but it might not be sustained if, for example, they quickly return to work. We accept that a reasonable definition of the eradication of child poverty was to reach the best level in Europe—around 10%—which is a realistic target.

The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar suggests that the target could be reasonably met by 2030, based on the trajectory that we were on before the measures in the summer Budget and the Bill. The argument for keeping the target but extending it over a realistic period is interesting. We are naturally disappointed that, for another 10 years, too many children will grow up poor, but we would rather that we retained the measure and the target in the statute book at least to ensure that there was a mechanism to drive progress forward.

My hon. Friend’s amendment is good, and seeks to give the Government leeway to deal with the difficult challenges that have existed since the 2008 financial crash and with the fact that pay either fell or was frozen in order to sustain people in employment. We recognise that time must be bought to cope with the consequences of the world financial collapse, but it is not right to give up the ambition for this generation or for future generations of children. We want the target to remain on the statute book, and amendment 97 seeks a realistic end date for that target.

Amendment 10 is similar to amendment 9 and merely addresses the same point elsewhere in the Bill.

As many hon. Members will know, I worked for the Child Poverty Action Group before I was elected to the House in 2010, and of all the measures in the Bill this is probably the one that I feel most pained, outraged and angered by. It is a disgrace. It is a disgrace and a shame that will affect our children, and I hope the Government will think again before it is too late.