Universal Credit

Rosie Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on securing this important debate, as the daily lives of our constituents are being adversely affected by the operation of the universal credit system. I want to highlight for the Minister a couple of examples of West Lancashire constituents who are in receipt of universal credit and what their experience is. The system is far from improving work incentives and tackling poverty among low-incomes families and far from developing a particularly effective new administrative system. Families are not paying only the financial cost of the system failures; there is an emotional cost as well.

As for improving work incentives, a young person in West Lancashire was offered four days’ work. In accepting, he had to get the jobcentre adviser to sign a form confirming that he was in receipt of universal credit. If the forms were not completed by the deadline set by the employer, the job offer was to be withdrawn. Two days before the deadline, he was told that the form would need to be sent to the DWP’s Wolverhampton office to be signed, which was ridiculous. Only through my intervention and the good sense of a senior jobcentre official was the matter resolved in the end.

It strikes me that there is an organisational culture in the DWP in which process trumps outcomes. I have dealt with the case of a single parent with one child going out to work. Their problem was caused by the unintelligent and inflexible assessment system that universal credit operates. Those of us who are paid monthly know there are occasions when our payday is earlier owing to the standard payday falling on a weekend or a bank holiday. In some instances, universal credit assesses a person as having two sets of income in the one month and therefore they do not get any payment. In the case of my constituent, they lost out on £350 for their childcare costs. The following month, the payday was also brought forward.

I suspect that the Minister will say that, in the round, the payments will equalise out, but that fundamentally ignores how household budgets operate and the family’s need for the payments they receive to be consistent and regular. For families whose day-to-day existence is financially balanced, that leads to them asking whether they are really better off in work, if that is the result. A change in one month’s payment can have a ripple effect that lasts considerably longer than one month for a family’s financial position to recover.

Another West Lancashire family, a working couple in receipt of universal credit, experienced problems receiving payments in four consecutive months, which included their claim being incorrectly closed after the information that the claimant provided was not entered in the system. Having not received their payment, they called the Department to seek an explanation and asked for a call back. Owing to the request being processed incorrectly, there was no call back. In months three and four, payments were again not paid. What did the DWP do? It sent a letter apologising for the repeated failures, which it said were due to an “oversight” on the part of the Department for Work and Pensions. Well, that’s okay, then—I think not. Anybody with an ounce of compassion for the people they deal with would not even put such words on a piece of paper.

For their trouble, the family received a £25 consolatory payment, although the DWP could not say when that would be paid because it takes weeks to process. I am sure that, for the Minister and the people operating the universal credit system, such failures seem to be minor administrative mistakes. I raise them in the desperate, perhaps forlorn, hope that the Minister will begin to understand that such mistakes have monumental and disproportionate consequences for the people on the receiving end. It is not only about the financial costs; there is a lasting emotional cost.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply, but I remind him that he will be judged by his actions in making the system better for families, rather than contributing to their daily struggles. He has that responsibility.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I have been advised that, as names have rolled over from the previous time, unfortunately I have to restrict the time limit to four minutes. I apologise for that, but there are many people with an interest in such an important subject.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rosie Cooper Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

There are a number of very good local projects working with local organisations. I do not have the list in front of me, but there is some good work going on, and we seek to find where best practice exists and see how far it can be replicated.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

11. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on improving pension transition arrangements for women born in the 1950s.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

20. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on improving pension transition arrangements for women born in the 1950s.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)]

I give the same answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford): the Government have been clear that the introduction of further transitional arrangements cannot be justified, given the imperative to focus public resources on helping those who are most in need. There are no plans to go beyond the £1.1 billion concession introduced when Parliament considered the changes.

[Rosie Cooper]

In response to the Minister’s answer, I ask him whether he will respond to the comments of his Government’s former Pensions Minister Baroness Altmann, who said she regretted the Government’s failure to properly communicate state pension age equalisation, an approach she described as

“a massive failure of public policy”,

and the comments of Steve Webb, another of their former Pensions Ministers, who said that the last Government made a bad decision on changing the state pension age? Will the Minister look at rectifying that?

[Richard Harrington]

In the latter case, Steve Webb was Pensions Minister at the time, so I do not think there is much further I can say about that.

There were very extensive communications on the 1995 changes. Millions of people checked their state pension requirements; it was publicised and leaflets were produced. This has been said many times on the Floor of the House, and I simply reiterate it.

Supported Housing: Benefit

Rosie Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup]

I entirely agree. That is why the review is so important. We need to reach out to organisations to find out what is needed and will be sustainable for the future.

The extra support that is provided by such organisations, including charities like the Canaan Trust, means that for their clients the outcome is a very different story from the revolving door that sends eight out of 10 back on to the streets. Just 2% of their clients go through that revolving door, which is a huge reduction. That, along with other evidence of good outcomes, shows just how important it is for supported housing to be available to the most vulnerable people. It should also be borne in mind that this is not just about the costs associated with the type of provision found at the Canaan Trust; it is also about the savings made for the NHS, the police and other support agencies.

Let me end by reminding Opposition Members that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) mentioned earlier, it was this Conservative Government who, in the 2015 autumn statement, committed £40 million to services for victims of domestic abuse, three times as much as had been provided in the previous four years. I am proud of that.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

At the beginning of her speech, the hon. Lady said that the review should run its course. People running domestic violence refuges in my constituency are desperately worried that those refuges will not be there by the time the review has run its course. What advice would the hon. Lady give them, and the desperate women and children who need their help?

[Maggie Throup]

I think it is important that the Government have already put more money into support for domestic abuse victims.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rosie Cooper Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

The point about employers is absolutely right. That is why we have worked with Autism Alliance to improve knowledge and awareness across our Jobcentre network. We have specialist teams to assist with access to work, and the small employer offer will specifically match employers with the support and help that is available to create more opportunities for disabled people.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

18. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that personal independence payment assessments are undertaken fairly and appropriately.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)]

Provider performance is measured across a range of service level agreements setting out the Department’s expectations for a quality service. This includes an assessment report quality audit. Contractual remedies are in place if the provider fails to deliver against the service standards.

[Rosie Cooper]

Given that the Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s rating of the Department’s PIP programme is once again amber/red, meaning that successful delivery of the project is in doubt, with major risks or issues apparent in a number of areas, what urgent action is the Minister taking to ensure that problems with assessment are addressed and that disabled people do not continue to bear the brunt of the Government’s policies?

[Justin Tomlinson]

We have seen that of those who go through the PIP process, 22.5% of claimants secure the highest rate of benefit, compared with just 16% under disability living allowance. We have a constant evaluation, including working with charities and stakeholders, and currently a claimant can expect to have their assessment process over a median of 13 weeks end to end, which is well within expectations.

Personal Independence Payments

Rosie Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian C. Lucas]

Absolutely. These assessments, which often deal with vulnerable people who in many cases have particular complex medical needs, need to be carried out by individuals who know what they are talking about and who have not just been sent on an away day to establish whatever criteria Capita want to apply to let as few applications through as possible.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. One of my West Lancashire constituents had their mobility car repossessed following a PIP assessment, but that was before a mandatory reconsideration or a tribunal to reconsider the case. Where is the natural justice? Does he agree that that is just one more area where the PIP process is ineffective? It is not always cost-effective, and it is certainly uncaring in its treatment of people. All of that has consequences for those being assessed, and it is time for the Government to reconsider their absolutely appalling approach to this problem.

[Ian C. Lucas]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The Motability issue is important and is causing concern on both sides of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

Absolutely. That is happening; that is a given.

[Rosie Cooper]

rose—

[Justin Tomlinson]

Let me make some progress, please, because I am on eight minutes and 40 seconds—

[Rosie Cooper]

Why not allow Capita to film those—

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order.

Health and Safety Executive

Rosie Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the management of the Health and Safety Executive.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy, in this debate, which aims to highlight serious concerns about the management, culture and practices of the Health and Safety Executive. The debate is built on the case of my constituent in West Lancashire, Linda Murray. She is a former Health and Safety Executive employee whose successful employment tribunal case highlights several issues, including a culture of bullying and the use of human resources practices to pursue personal vendettas; a culture of protection among senior managers; Health and Safety Executive staff providing misleading, disingenuous and even false information; reward instead of disciplinary action for inappropriate actions; the wasting of public resources without accountability; and the non-disclosure of information, amounting to secrecy, to hide failings.

It is not the first case in which I have been involved of senior executives in a public sector organisation creating a culture of bullying and fear using HR practices and disciplinary action to pursue individuals who would not bend to their will. It is not acceptable that those individuals can act in that manner as public servants. They are not running a family business with their own money: they operate in our name using taxpayers’ hard-earned money, and there should be greater scrutiny of their behaviour and consequences for inappropriate action.

On Wednesday 5 June 2013, Judge Reed, sitting at the Liverpool employment tribunal, confirmed that Linda Murray had been unfairly dismissed by the Health and Safety Executive on 18 July 2012. The hearing lasted only several hours before giving a verdict in favour of the former employee. Linda Murray was awarded the maximum statutory compensation of £85,000. That was in addition to the Health and Safety Executive’s legal fees, which were paid from the public purse. The bill ran into hundreds of thousands of pounds at a time when the organisation faced budget cuts and staff redundancies. It is unacceptable.

It is not only the monetary cost of the case that needs to be considered, but the personal and emotional cost paid by Linda Murray. Throughout the entire period she suffered stress-related ill health, requiring medication. She lost her financial security and her family suffered great distress. She had given 33 years’ service to the Health and Safety Executive. She was held in the highest regard by the HSE staff who worked for her, much as she was by the chemicals industry when she managed an operational inspection team in the north-west.

I appreciate that there is insufficient time in the debate to outline every detail of the case and the events leading to Linda Murray’s unfair dismissal, but I suggest that the Minister begins with the 200-page report compiled by Ian Travers and the findings of the employment tribunal for more details. Needless to say, if the whole situation had been handled differently it would not have been a major incident. Instead, it escalated out of control.

To allow time for a post to be found for her, Linda approached HR about returning to her substantive grade 7 post six months prior to the conclusion of her temporary promotion as an interim grade 5 inspector. Mr Peter Baker was the senior manager tasked with finding that post. There was considerable uncertainty as people took voluntary redundancy—an option that Linda Murray did not want and could not afford. Time passed with no post being offered. Linda found the process upsetting. The general uncertainty was allied to her senior manager’s indifferent and sometimes hostile attitude towards her. In the end, she was given a position that amounted to a demotion, although she was told that it was a grade 7 post.

The whole episode led to a tense meeting between her and Mr Baker. Previously, Mrs Murray had provided challenge to and constructive criticism of Mr Baker. She expressed concerns about how decisions were being taken and the negative impact on her staff and the job they were employed to do. Following the meeting, Mrs Murray received notification of disciplinary action being taken against her. That resulted in a written warning, which was successfully appealed. The main grounds for the success of that appeal were that Peter Baker could not investigate the alleged misconduct when he was the sole person against whom the misconduct had allegedly been perpetrated.

Despite the appeal, Health and Safety Executive senior managers decided to run the disciplinary action again, and a senior crony then reinstated the written warning. A second separate investigation into Linda Murray was then pursued by senior managers, and that can be traced back to the period of her interim promotion. An underperforming staff member was put on her team, but no one told her about the performance issues. It reached a point where Mrs Murray and the staff member agreed that they could not work together. He was transferred to Mr Ian Travers’ team. Despite the transfer, the staff member continued to treat Mrs Murray with a great deal of contempt and disrespect. She requested that the staff member’s line manager, Mr Williams, speak to the person about their conduct, which he failed to do.

The acrimonious nature of a meeting between Mr Williams and Linda led to Linda being asked to meet with Ian Travers. Instead of dealing with the behaviour and conduct of the underperforming staff member, the two managers sought to deal with Linda Murray, claiming that she was bullying that member of staff. That led to Linda being forced off work with stress, and that situation was compounded by the hostility with which she was met by Ian Travers at her return to work interview. A suspension for 10 and a half weeks for insubordination was the outcome of that meeting. An example of that insubordination was asking for HR to attend the meeting with her. A 200-page report was produced and a dismissal for gross misconduct was the outcome.

From the outset of her dismissal, Mrs Murray was denied any measure of fairness or justice. Prior to her disciplinary meeting, she was not provided with the 60 questions that she would be asked. Those questions were overly long and loaded. She was refused the opportunity to interview some of the key witnesses in the case and staff were told that they did not have to provide written statements to her. Lies were told within the organisation to justify the disciplinary action. It was reported to Mrs Murray by a former colleague that a rumour was circulating that she had assaulted Ian Travers. She was never afforded the opportunity to put her side of the story. Such a culture of fear existed within the organisation that people were not prepared to speak out for fear of losing their jobs. It seems coincidental that the only senior officer to stand up for Linda Murray, her ex-husband, was subsequently investigated and subjected to disciplinary proceedings.

Mrs Murray pursued her case to a tribunal, knowing that she had been hounded out of the Health and Safety Executive for personal, not performance reasons. She understood the grounds of her dismissal were erroneous and a complete fabrication. She is a well-educated woman with a law degree. She had one successful career and has gone on to build a second one, but she admits that going through the tribunal process nearly broke her. She was unable to afford a lawyer to represent her as she was on jobseeker’s allowance, she had no access to legal aid, and her trade union, Prospect, refused to support her case, siding instead with the management. Linda Murray had to defend herself against the HSE’s legal team, which was publicly funded. We paid for it.

In the end, an independent arbiter, Judge Reed, was the person who finally listened to Mrs Murray. Although she paid a very heavy price, no action has ever been taken against the individuals who pursued a personal vendetta, including Ian Travers, who initiated the investigation and who reacted in a fit of personal pique having had his management capabilities questioned; Alf Williams, who I understand is a personal friend as well as a colleague of Ian Travers, and whose evidence provided a major contribution to the investigation; Philip White, who led the deeply flawed and oppressive investigation and who was heavily criticised by the employment tribunal judge; Eddie Morland, who rubber-stamped the outcome of the investigation; David Snowball, the senior operations manager who oversaw the investigation in conjunction with Peter Baker, and who took the decision to elevate the issue to the head of human resources, who I understand is now deceased; and Gordon MacDonald, a very senior official in the HSE who was asked personally by Linda Murray to intervene, which he had the authority to do, but who failed to act, allowing Mrs Murray to endure a tortuous experience.

As an organisation, the HSE does not seem to have learned from the experience either. It has refused to acknowledge the outcome of the case and has failed to take any action to restore Linda Murray’s reputation. Specifically, it has failed to address the rumour of assault being the grounds for her dismissal. Will the Minister give a commitment that the permanent secretary for the Department for Work and Pensions will personally ensure that this matter is investigated? Can he assure me that a conclusion will be reached within six months and a report produced that Mrs Murray and I can access?

The record should be set straight and Mrs Murray should get an apology, but for the Minister there are much wider questions. How does this happen in the Government’s name—or any Government’s name? Why is no action taken to investigate malpractice when a tribunal judge finds so heavily against an organisation or Government Department? What can he do to limit and, indeed, stop bullying in the workplace? Should fit and proper person tests be applied to the misuse of power? Then there is the cry from the taxpayer: how much have these failures across public services cost the taxpayer? How much of that money would have been better directed into public services?

I have presented the case of a single person. In a couple of weeks there will be an even bigger report from the health service along similar lines. We cannot allow this behaviour to continue and I look to the Minister for assurances that it will be rooted out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

I absolutely agree with that point.

Because I cannot discuss specific cases here, I shall set out the wider issues relating to the work that the HSE is doing. Nevertheless, I have made a firm commitment to look at that serious case, and it should be investigated further.

[Rosie Cooper]

Before the Minister deals with the generalities, may I say that there is a huge irony in the HSE being the subject of the comments I have made? Will he look at the overall picture, in which employees are bullied, but even when a case goes as far as a tribunal that finds in the employee’s favour, the system does not learn? The people who promulgate that behaviour are not held properly to account. The NHS has fit and proper person tests; what happens in other public services?

[Justin Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady’s point is absolutely understood, and we will take that forward.

The HSE lies at the heart of a globally respected regulatory system and has been a catalyst for positive change in organisations ranging from the smallest micro-businesses right up to global players that manage major hazard facilities. It has helped Great Britain develop one of the best health and safety records in the world, and fatalities, injuries and ill health have all substantially reduced since it was formed in 1975. The 2014 review reflected the high esteem in which the HSE is held. There was widespread support from stakeholders for the organisation and for the professionalism and technical expertise of its staff. I have genuinely seen that at first hand when I have spoken to businesses at events. The previous Government accepted the review’s recommendation of confirming the HSE’s operating model and its status as an arm’s length body.

Last week, the HSE launched a new strategy for the health and safety system in Great Britain, aimed at helping the country to work well. Almost a thousand people from hundreds of organisations attended seven roadshows in seven cities to develop the new strategy, with 7 million more being reached through social media. The six themes outlined during the engagement with stakeholders attracted strong support, and now the strategy is setting a positive new direction for health and safety across England, Scotland and Wales. It will help each nation to work well, protecting lives and livelihoods and helping Great Britain become more prosperous.

The strategy will help to ensure that we maintain our world-class health and safety record while maximising the wider benefits that the system can bring. Such achievements and the future ambition are made possible by the dedication, professionalism and specialist expertise of the HSE’s staff and management. I have personally visited the HSE laboratory in Buxton and seen for myself the energy and innovation of the people there. Their work is directly helping industry to improve health and safety, both here in the UK and abroad, where a number of international contracts have been secured to provide advice and support.

The HSE is part of the wider civil service and, as such, offers modern employment terms that compare favourably with other large organisations. In line with the rest of the civil service, it is aligning its human resources policies with new, modernised terms and conditions. Its HR policies reflect good practice and are consistent with what is expected of a well managed modern employer. It has excellent retention rates and turnover is low compared with similar organisations. Excluding retirement, only 3% of staff leave each year. There is a high degree of loyalty, pride and commitment, which I genuinely saw on that visit to Buxton. Many staff enjoy long careers with the HSE, giving the organisation an impressive corporate memory. The civil service people survey results show that the majority of its staff say they are proud to work for the executive and regard it as a great place to work where staff are treated fairly and with respect.

Like any ambitious organisation, it has identified areas for improvement. Over the past year, under the leadership of the new chief executive, Dr Richard Judge, and with the active support of the internal management board, the HSE has set itself a challenging agenda to invest in its people and capability. I will raise the subject of the debate with those people and ask for further work to be done.

As a result of the actions I have described, the HSE’s overall engagement score is improving. It rose by 10% on the previous survey. Although it is currently just below the civil service average, the HSE’s goal is to ensure sustained improvement and performance above the civil service average. The programme of action is designed to get the HSE into the best shape to deliver its responsibilities, not only to continue to improve an already effective health and safety system but to anticipate the future and embrace new ways of working. The programme will respond to feedback from staff, including through the annual people survey.

We are not complacent, and it is important that there is ongoing improvement. The senior leadership team’s priority is to improve staff engagement and address leadership and management at all levels. In line with the rest of the civil service, a clear statement of values and expectations for those in leadership roles has been launched, against which all managers will be measured as part of their appraisals. A key element of that ongoing work is a structured leadership and management development programme, with an initial focus on new managers. That programme will eventually be targeted at all managers, equipping them to lead the HSE through change and to manage group and individual performance confidently.

In the most recent people survey, the rating for inclusion and fair treatment stood at 71%. That figure is increasing. However, about 11% of staff reported that they had experienced bullying and harassment in the previous 12 months—slightly above the civil service average of 10%. The HSE has a robust bullying, harassment and discrimination policy, which has recently been revised with its trade unions. It takes seriously any reports of bullying, harassment or discrimination, and any such cases are investigated independently of the line management involved.

My experience of the HSE is that it is a modern, effective regulator with a diverse workforce. It has a well deserved reputation for professionalism, expertise and dedication. I have seen at first hand the energy and commitment of its people, including its leadership team, and I am confident that it recognises the importance of engaging and managing its workforce effectively and has clear plans for driving further improvement.

The HSE has helped Great Britain to develop one of the best health and safety records in the world. It has done so as a result of the expertise, professionalism and dedication of its staff, and its future success will depend on their ongoing support and commitment. Its leadership and management team recognise that and are committed to ongoing improvement. I am confident that they have a clear plan of action to make the HSE an even better organisation.

The matter that has been raised will be taken seriously, and we will investigate it further. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for West Lancashire for taking the time to highlight it to me and the senior management team. We will endeavour to do what we can.

Question put and agreed to.

Work Capability Assessments

Rosie Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing this important debate.

Work capability assessments are one of the issues most commonly raised with me, and I am sure with many other Members on both sides of the House. The system is flawed and discredited, and it has caused undue stress and hardship for too many claimants. Recent academic research estimates that for every 10,000 assessments carried out between 2010 and 2013 there have been six suicides, which is truly shocking. That alone requires the Government to undertake a complete review of the current system.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that cases such as that of one of my constituents, who is disabled and does not drive and who has had to attend centres four times, only to be told that the assessment would not go ahead, exemplifies the administrative and financial shambles of the current work capability assessment scheme?

[Gerald Jones]

My hon. Friend illustrates a valid point that is replicated across the country.

I am sure that hon. Members are as concerned as I am when they hear that, according to the DWP’s own figures, around 50% of assessments are overturned on appeal. That surely calls into question the reliability of the initial assessments and raises the question why we are putting people through such unnecessary stress, which has undoubtedly had a negative impact on the mental health of many claimants.

I am also concerned that the work capability assessments do not seem to take account of individuals who have a limiting long-term illness that means their condition often fluctuates, such as kidney dialysis patients or people with Parkinson’s. I visited the kidney dialysis patients support group in Merthyr Tydfil last weekend, and a number of people told me of their concerns about the work capability assessment and the lack of understanding of their condition. Dialysis patients often feel reasonably all right on certain days between dialysis, but on the day following treatment they can feel very low, which means that if they are receiving treatment three days a week, the number of days when they feel okay are few and far between. The Government need to address that lack of understanding.

If the original clauses 13 and 14 of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill are reinserted, financial support for new claimants in the work-related activity group will be cut by around 25% from £102 to £73, which will have a drastic impact on disabled people. The Government have said that they are committed to protecting support for disabled people, so the clauses are deeply worrying. The cut will not incentivise people, as the Government say they want.

Welfare Benefit Changes

Rosie Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this important debate.

In the political to-ing and fro-ing that surrounds the decisions taken in this place, the consequences for innocent children are all too often shunted down the list of priorities. I agree with the numerous calls from children’s charities for us to start to put children at the centre of our decision-making process.

Shortly after the Chancellor announced his Budget, I held a child poverty summit in my constituency. Participants included the deputy Children’s Commissioner for Wales, children’s charities, council officers and local groups that deal with vulnerable children. The overwhelming message that they wanted to convey was that child poverty was a growing issue, particularly in households where it had never previously been an issue—in-work households. Those are families whose incomes previously stretched to cover the mortgage and bills and to put food on the table, and still left enough to live comfortably. However, after years of pay freezes, increasing costs for fuel and food and the erosion of welfare support, those families were just one unexpected bill away from not being able to cover their costs. Many are too proud to ask for help, but we know they are suffering.

I feel that Dickensian conditions are creeping into society. One example given to me at the round table was of children being sent to school in dirty uniforms because their parents could not afford to put the washing machine on. Clothes-swap initiatives sprang up to provide them with clean clothes. In a different example, children in receipt of free school meals were going hungry during school holidays when they did not have those meals. Surely that should not be happening in one of the richest countries in the world. In my constituency 3,910 children are living in poverty and 2,407 of those are in in-work poverty. The Government’s latest round of attacks on working families announced by the Chancellor in July will adversely affect 9,400 children in Aberavon.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recently defended his policy to restrict universal credit to two children as

“bringing home to parents the reality that children cost money”.

I am sure we all thank him for those words of profound wisdom, but we are not engaged in a teaching exercise; we are talking about children’s lives. Questions remain about how the system will detect, for example, fathers who have multiple children with multiple women. If each mother claims for her children, more than two of the father’s children could be in receipt of universal credit.

There are huge loopholes in the law, not just massive ethical and moral questions. I wonder what is happening to the party currently occupying the Government Benches, which claims to be a socially liberal party, in the old tradition of the term. The two-children policy might perhaps be described as government just large enough to fit into people’s bedrooms. There is nothing wrong with making work pay, but it should not be at the expense of children. If the state abandons children when they are in need, what incentive does that give them to contribute to society later in life?

I want to close with a quotation from the recent Conservative party conference:

“We must ensure that…we protect the hardest working and lowest paid.

Shop workers, cleaners, the people who get up in the small hours or work through the night because they have dreams for what their families can achieve”.

That was said by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), otherwise known as the Mayor of London. I wonder whether it was simply part of some complex leadership bid. It may or may not have been; the fact is that I think many of my hon. Friends would agree with those comments.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that abject failure is the only way of describing the Government’s welfare reform programme, which puts headlines ahead of the impact on children, the disabled and other vulnerable people whom society should protect?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I absolutely agree; as hon. Members have said, the issue must be about the bigger picture and the sort of society we want to build—not tomorrow’s headlines in the Daily Mail.

The Conservative party claims to be a one nation party and the party of the workers. That is high-flying rhetoric, but the reality is a story of division, attacking the most vulnerable in society while inheritance tax for the richest 60,000 is cut. The gap between the Government’s one nation rhetoric and the divisive reality of their policies is fast becoming a chasm. I urge the Minister to reconsider those policies and to close the gap.