Universal Credit

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I thank my right hon. Friend. For a year from next July we will be having a trial period or test period, working with 10,000 claimants to see exactly the way in which it should be done—for example, should it be done for the most vulnerable groups or should it be done geographically?—and to make sure that we get it right. That is how we work: we make sure that it works; we do not just go forward with an idea—[Interruption.] There is chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench. We will work with claimants to make sure it works for them.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. The work allowance boost that we are being told we should welcome only undoes or reverses half the cut that was made in 2015. It is like taking £100 away from somebody, giving them 50 quid back and saying, “You should be grateful that I’ve given you 50 quid back.” The reality is that people are still worse off. The benefit freeze is still in place.

The sanctions regime is also still in place. I am particularly concerned about the methods of communication for universal credit. I have seen a number of people who come to my surgeries with mental health problems particularly—they cannot open letters or deal with having to jump through the hoops that are put in their way—who are then sanctioned because they are literally unable to jump through those hoops. I hope that the Secretary of State will look at all these issues. She has mentioned communication methods, and I very much hope she will put that at the centre of the decision-making process for communication.

On the exact amount of money that has been allocated for universal credit, it seems to me that nothing has been done on the basis of how much people actually need to live on. If it had, there would not be a huge increase in the number of people going to food banks and there would not be the incredible number of sanctions that we see. Rather than the Treasury deciding how much money should go to universal credit and the Department for Work and Pensions then divvying it up, it would be better to make decisions on the basis of how much people need to live on and what amount of money would encourage people to get into work.

We need to ensure that people are not going to food banks, that families are not in poverty and that young people are not starving as a result of the Government’s policies.

[Ms McVey]

As I said previously, when we came into office, we had to take an overview of Government spending, full stop. We were voted into office to get this country’s finances under control. One of the decisions that we had to make was on the size of the benefit bill because it had grown by 65% under the previous Labour Government. We took hold of that, and decisions were made across the board—I have never shied away from that. Again, in 2015, further decisions were made after a general election. The Opposition did not vote against the changes and cuts. Their Whips’ advice on that day was to abstain. Some broke ranks, but generally they did not.

Those changes are now coming through, but I said that I would go out, meet people, listen, learn and see what we could do and afford, and that is why an extra £4.5 billion has gone into universal credit. I look at what people are saying and why they have welcomed the increase. I reiterate that there are 3.4 million extra people in work and that we are targeting the money at the most vulnerable.

The hon. Lady is right about communication, which is key. That is why we will work with charities to get it right.

Universal Credit and Welfare Changes

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. The NAO report was damning in its criticism of universal credit, and I am honestly surprised that anyone on the Government Benches could stand up and say they do not agree with it. This is what it does: it audits things. That is its role. I should not be surprised, though, because the Government have form. When the UN published its report on the rights of disabled people, a Minister stood up and said, “Problem? What problem? There’s no problem here”. They are trying to do exactly the same thing with this report.

The NAO in its report says it is not clear that universal credit will ever cost less to administer than the existing benefits system and that the Department will never be able to measure whether universal credit actually leads to 200,000 more people being in work.



Universal credit is pushing families into poverty and hardship. In addition to this report, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report has damningly criticised the sanctions regime, setting out how dreadful it is for individuals. A Trussell Trust report refers to the number of people needing to visit food banks in the areas where universal credit has been rolled out. Universal credit will be rolled out in my constituency later this year, and I am worried for my constituents. I expect what many other Members have seen: a massive increase in the number of people who are facing financial hardship coming through my door. My office, in Scotland’s third city, already refers one person to a food bank every fortnight because of the actions of this Tory Government. The Government can no longer bury their head in the sand. They need to own up to these failings and make changes to improve the system.

[Ms McVey]

We have said quite clearly that this report is out of date and does not take into account the significant changes that we have made. The changes in the Budget were worth about £1.5 billion and the ones that are coming in are worth several billion pounds, but the report does not take that into account. Genuine people who get support from work coaches are saying, “It has transformed our lives.” I invite the hon. Lady to visit a jobcentre and meet the coaches in her area to see how revolutionary this process is. If she does not agree, she knows as well as I do that her party has considerable powers in Scotland to change the welfare system. Should Scotland wish to do that it could, but it is not doing so.

Draft Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2018 Draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2018

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 General Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this Delegated Legislation Committee at this early time in the morning. On NEST, the Scottish National party has no concerns to raise about that part of the discussion. Our position on automatic enrolment and particularly the earnings trigger is that the scheme should be expanded so that as many employees as possible can take part. This has been our long-standing position and the Minister would expect me to put this forward today.

I am slightly concerned that the Minister seems to be slanting the decision-making process around both the earnings cap and the qualifying earnings band towards benefit and simplicity for employers, rather than the widest possible benefit for employees. I am sure that is not necessarily what he meant; it was just the way it was put across in this relatively short debate this morning. I understand what the Minister says about simplicity and consistency around the qualifying earnings band but, again, it should be the best possible deal for employees and those taking part in this deal, rather than one that is simply the easiest for businesses to administer.

The Minister did not seem to provide much evidence for keeping the earnings cap at £10,000. We believe that it should be expanded to cover those earning less than that amount. To add a point, if there were more people earning a real living wage that people could live on, it would be less of a concern that they would have to divert possible savings money into day-to-day spending.

Our major concern is that the Department has been unable to show a significant level of consultation around the decisions that have been made. I cannot see evidence for consultation with a wide range of people to decide the best possible level for either the earnings cap or the qualifying earnings trigger. I know the Government are busy dealing with Brexit—as we all are—but this is particularly important for those earning very little and who are most likely to be in poverty when they hit pension age. It would have been better if the Government had done more in the way of consultation and providing evidence about why they have suggested these figures as the most appropriate levels, rather than just some arbitrary level that happens to have been chosen.

Having said all of that, we will not oppose the measures at this stage. However, it would be useful for the Minister to give us a little more information on the decision-making process and, if possible, a commitment to wider consultation next year or the year after—or the next time this is discussed—so that we can see the evidence for the decisions that are made.

Work, Health and Disability

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and pay tribute to the work that she does on autism, including the work that she has done for many years now as chair of the all-party autism group. Yesterday she published a very good report on the issue and we are studying its contents closely. She highlights this issue. That is the challenge: we have made progress across the board, but is there more to do? Absolutely; there is more to do. She highlights the employment gap for those with autism. That is something that we do have to address as a society.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the statement.

The SNP is extremely disappointed in the statement and the Command Paper that have been produced today. We believe that the UK Government, as a priority, need to reverse the cuts they have made to these benefits and need to scrap the freeze on benefits, because they are harming people.

Mencap has released a statement that says:

“We are alarmed that the needs of hundreds of thousands of people with mild or moderate learning disabilities have been overlooked.”

The Government seem to have abandoned their pledge to halve the disability employment gap, and the gap is even worse for those people who have learning disabilities.

The Disability Benefits Consortium has said:

“We are extremely disappointed that they have chosen to focus on the design of ESA, instead of the broken Work Capability Assessment.”

Sixty-eight per cent. of those challenging their work capability assessment results are successful in that challenge. The system is discredited and broken. We want to see the UK Government committing to scrapping the work capability assessment. We want to see them committed to putting in a new system that puts fairness, dignity and respect for disabled people at the absolute heart of the system.

[Mr Gauke]

First, in response to the hon. Lady’s comments on behalf of the SNP, I know that the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), has spoken to Scottish Government Ministers today and got a much more constructive response. It is the launch of the innovation fund for the Dundee gateway today and we look forward to working closely with the Scottish Government in a constructive manner.

We have consulted on the work capability assessment. It is not clear that there is consensus at this point as to the way in which the work capability assessment should be reformed, but we acknowledge that there are improvements that should be made. We have indeed made improvements in how the work capability assessment works; for example, those with severe long-term disabilities will not be reassessed in the way that they were previously. So we continue to make improvements on that. If we can reach consensus on the way in which the work capability assessment should be reformed, I will be happy to proceed with that.

Pensions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He makes some good points about the work the Government have done over the past seven years in terms of fuller working lives and helping more people to work longer, and he has a proud personal record in what he did on that as Secretary of State. He is absolutely right to highlight the irresponsibility of the position Labour Members had at the last election. Just as they have walked away from a deeply irresponsible position on student debt, I hope they will walk away from a deeply irresponsible position on the state pension age.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I can see why the Department for Work and Pensions did not want to publish this report by the date it was supposed to have been published by—7 May—because it would undoubtedly have lost the Conservatives more seats than they did lose.

The SNP opposes plans to raise the state pension age above 66. We also have concerns about the fact that the Government have chosen the 32% rather than the 33.3%, which was the more gentle of the scenarios presented in the Cridland review. I am lucky enough to be a few days inside the 69 group, so I will get to retire at 69 rather than 70, which people a couple of weeks younger than me will retire at if the full extent of the 32% in the Cridland review is implemented.

The SNP continues to call for the establishment of an independent savings and pensions commission. The Government are not doing enough to recognise demographic differences across the United Kingdom, and an independent review would look at those and take them into full account.

[Mr Gauke]

John Cridland looked at exactly those issues and concluded that the divergence within the regions and nations on this matter was greater than the divergence between them. However, if the Scottish Government believe that there should be more support from the state for those approaching retirement age, they will have the power to provide it. If they wish to provide that support in Scotland—effectively, providing support a year or two years earlier than in the rest of the United Kingdom—they have the power to do that. I would not particularly advise them to do it, but that is their decision, and I really do not think there is a complaint to be raised with the UK Government on that front.