All 2 Debates between Lord Evans of Rainow and Debbie Abrahams

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Lord Evans of Rainow and Debbie Abrahams
Tuesday 23rd February 2016

(8 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams Portrait Debbie Abrahams
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point.

The suggestion that working four or five hours a week should recoup the loss of income with the introduction of the so-called living wage has been questioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Disability Benefits Consortium, a coalition of more than 60 disability charities, has said that the proposed cut will push sick and disabled people further away from work and into poverty. It will not help, as the Government have claimed. A recent survey shows the concerns not only of disabled people—seven out of 10 of them think that their condition will deteriorate with the introduction of the ESA WRAG cut—but of the public as well. A Populus poll of 2,000 adults in January revealed that 71% think that cuts to social security will make the UK a worse place for disabled people.

Lord Evans of Rainow Portrait Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
- Hansard - -

This Government spend £50 billion a year supporting people with disability and health conditions. That is more than France and Germany. If what the hon. Lady is saying is true, it is not just about money, is it?

Debbie Abrahams Portrait Debbie Abrahams
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Again, we need to look at our spend as a proportion of GDP. We are 19th out of 32—[Interruption.] No, France and Germany spend more. We spend 1.3% of GDP. We are 19th out of 32 EU countries. Contrary to what this Government perpetually claim about our generosity, we are not good at all in terms of the actual spend in relation to GDP. It was 1.6% of GDP in 1960. Now it is 1.3%. It is shameful. On those grounds, I ask all Members across the House to consult their consciences and support amendment 8.

Let me move now to clause 14. Again, the Government have been more than a little disingenuous when they suggest that the reduction in social security support applies only to new ESA WRAG claimants from 2017. From this April, 492,180 people currently on ESA WRAG will start to migrate across to universal credit, which, as many people know, combines a number of benefits, including ESA, into one amalgamated benefit.

Clause 14 removes the limited capability for work component for the work element of universal credit. That means that everyone currently on ESA WRAG will ultimately be transferred on to universal credit and will also have their support cut by £29.05 a week, or £1,500 a year.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Lord Evans of Rainow and Debbie Abrahams
Tuesday 27th October 2015

(9 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams Portrait Debbie Abrahams
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. That is one of the reasons why we need an independent review to investigate such matters.

Lord Evans of Rainow Portrait Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
- Hansard - -

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new role on the Front Bench—she has done far better than me. When she and I served on the Work and Pensions Committee, we investigated this matter and found no evidence of benefit sanctions targets in the jobcentres we visited. I have two outstanding Jobcentre Plus offices in my constituency, and I have seen no evidence whatsoever of any targets there. How can she stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there are targets for sanctions when, to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that they exist?

Debbie Abrahams Portrait Debbie Abrahams
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I understand that his wife has previously worked in a Jobcentre Plus office. To reiterate my response to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), the whole point is that there is some evidence and that we need a better understanding, which is why we need an independent review.