Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill]

As the hon. Lady found, within our jobcentres we have highly skilled people helping people to find work. We have a higher number of people with disabilities in work than in 2010—more than 2 million—and we intend to ensure that work coaches can work carefully and sensitively and attend to people’s needs.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

In recent months, the Welsh Affairs Committee has heard from young adults about their experiences with the benefits system. We have been struck by how this group of young people want to work and feel that they can work, but they have been written off as long-term sick and passed to the long-term sickness benefit roll by jobcentres. They feel incredibly let down. Does the Minister agree that we cannot afford to be signing off so many of our young people on long-term sickness?

[Jo Churchill]

That is why we have WorkWell, the back to work plan, and the occupational health group, led by Dame Carol Black, looking into fit note reform. It is also why we have youth employment coaches and the youth hubs. We are working to ensure that there is the right attenuated support, including kickstart, the sector-based work academy programme and boot camps. Only last week, I met Steph, who is 27, 10 years out of work and grateful for the help that she has had.

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is attempting to tempt me into matters that I know are under discussion at the highest levels of Government at the moment around the policy that we should adopt on immigration, but I will not be drawn immediately in that direction.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Let me return to the record of the past 13 years. At various points in that time, there has been no shortage of people in this House and outside who have been very quick to predict an explosion in unemployment—whether that was when we were introducing the public spending restraint under the coalition Government or when we were coming out of the covid pandemic. Does not the fact that those predictions were wrong demonstrate two things? The first is the underlying resilience of the British economy and labour market, and the second is the success of the measures taken by numerous Ministers in his Department over the years always to make work pay and to make sure that our welfare system is reformed to encourage work incentives?

[Mel Stride]

As usual, my right hon. Friend makes characteristically insightful remarks about the UK economy, not least about unemployment, where he is right: the expectation during covid was that unemployment would rocket up to the kind of levels that we last saw in the 1980s. The fact that no such thing happened is a testament to many of the Ministers, as my right hon. Friend suggests, and not least to our current Prime Minister, who as Chancellor came forward with the furlough scheme and the support for business.

Our commitment to supporting the most vulnerable is clear, including in the substantial the Government have provided to help families with the cost of living. That includes the millions of cost of living payments, landing directly into the bank accounts of those on the lowest incomes, as well as to millions of pensioners and disabled people. Of course, one of the most important actions that we have taken to help families is to deliver on the Prime Minister’s pledge to halve inflation. A compassionate Government recognise that, for the poorest families, cost of living pressures remain, which is why we are increasing universal credit and other benefits by 6.7% from next April in line with September’s inflation figure.

A compassionate Government recognise that rising rents are affecting private renters on the lowest incomes, which is why we are increasing the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile of local market rents from April next year. A compassionate Government back their pensioners, which is why we are honouring the triple lock, with an increase to the full state pension of 8.5 %. That is the second biggest ever increase, following last year’s increase of 10.1%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I rise to make a few remarks in support of the Chancellor’s autumn statement, emphasising two themes that came out strongly from it. They have been consistent themes for the Government over the past 13 years we have been in office: boosting incomes, particularly for those in the lowest income brackets, and improving our benefits system to ensure that we have a dynamic labour market and individuals can fulfil their maximum potential.

Before I go into those points, it is worth underlining again where we were 13 years ago when we took office. The minimum wage was less than £6 an hour, the state pension was less than £100 an hour—no pensioner will forget the derisory 75p increase that they got from Gordon Brown—and we had a welfare system where more than 1 million people had been languishing out of work for almost 10 years, out of the reach of any meaningful engagement from local job centres. We should not forget either that, while the Labour party might this afternoon present itself as a party of welfare reform, spending restraint and sensible economics, for most of the past 13 years it set its face against every step that we took to try to improve our benefits system. What we have now is not perfect—no benefits system ever is—but it is so much better than what was in place under the previous Labour Government. We know that because Labour Ministers who served in the Department for Work and Pensions before 2010 were themselves highly dissatisfied with the benefits system. Those with particular reforming instincts were doing their best, fighting an uphill battle to see improvements. We should not trust the Labour party as a party of benefit reform.

Briefly on boosting incomes, a national living wage of £11.44 an hour is transformational for constituencies such as mine in Pembrokeshire, where for decades there has been a culture of low pay, as there has been right across Wales. Thousands of people in my constituency will benefit from that increase to the living wage. Increasing the state pension by the full triple lock boost will ensure that pensioners continue to see the full value of their pension increase. That comes at a cost. All of us who defend the triple lock need to bear in mind that it has significant long-term costs, and we need to speak to how they will be met in the future, but the triple lock that this Conservative Government introduced in 2010 has been transformational in lifting pensioners out of poverty in my constituency, and all across the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the reasons the triple lock is in place is the confidence and supply agreement between the Democratic Unionist party and the Conservative party. It was one of the things that we insisted upon. When it comes to giving credit for things, I want to keep the record straight.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Member makes a strong point on behalf of his party. Lots of people claim credit for the triple lock. Again, all of us who defend the triple lock need to bear in mind the long-term costs and be ready to speak to how the country will afford them. The answer that successive Governments have found of just pushing the state pension further out of reach by increasing the state pension age is not a long-term sustainable plan.

On benefit reform, I strongly support what the Government are trying to do in linking together more closely the work of local jobcentres with that of health authorities, health boards and the Department of Health and Social Care overall. Successive Ministers have found huge institutional resistance to the NHS and the DWP working together—two massive spending Departments that have levers to do something really positive in getting people with long-term sickness and disabilities back into work. It is really encouraging to see much greater levels of co-operation than at any time in the past 20 or 30 years.

The point that has been made several times this afternoon about obligations is really important. There was speculation that the Chancellor would not uprate working-age benefits by the higher level of autumn inflation rates, but he did so. That was entirely consistent with what the Conservative Government have done consistently through the pandemic and the cost of living challenges, which is to help people on the lowest incomes. The Government doing the right thing and choosing to be consistent in that underlines the point about obligations, and the social compact that needs to be at the heart of our welfare system. Government Members have talked about that, as have those on the Labour Front Bench. An adequate benefits system supports people on the lowest incomes and provides a strong and secure safety net. There needs to be a sense of obligation around that as well.

As I said, there were Labour welfare Ministers who struggled with how to engage people who had been long-term sick and had long-term health needs to get more meaningful interaction, so that they could perhaps begin a journey back to work if that was appropriate. It is one of the biggest public policy challenges that we as a Government have faced. If the Labour party forms the next Government, it will wrestle with that, too. Governments of countries around the world that share a similar demographic to ours, with an ageing population and increasing numbers of elderly and sick people, are wrestling with these challenges. There are no easy solutions.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that fundamentally this is just a question of fairness? It is about supporting those who genuinely need our help, but when people choose welfare because they choose not to look for work, hard-working taxpayers should not pay the bill.

[Stephen Crabb]

I agree with my right hon. Friend to a point. There is always an issue of fairness, and perceived fairness, when it comes to the distribution of taxpayers’ money to people.

I question whether there are large numbers of people out there who want to live their lives not working or contributing to our society. If I really press them, the people I meet in my constituency who are struggling with long-term illnesses and have been out of work for a long time, say they would love to be working. They would love to visualise themselves in a job and playing a full part in the economy. The truth is that many of them need support. Some of them need a bit more than just warm words of encouragement, and that is why I have always defended the appropriate use of sanctions and conditionality in our benefits system.

This time of assistive technology, flexible working and homeworking should be a new golden age for people who sadly live with long-term health conditions to be able to get back into the workplace. I am really pleased that Government Ministers are grappling with that and thinking about the long-term steps that could be taken to help people back into work. As I say, that is one of the great public policy challenges of our time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

A whole host of things are being done on in-work progression. More importantly, vacancies have fallen for nine successive quarters, employment is up, the claimant count is down, economic inactivity has fallen, and disability employment is up. All those things are helping the hon. Lady’s constituents, and all other constituents up and down the country.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I strongly support the efforts that my hon. Friend is making to boost in-work progression. After all, the original vision behind universal credit was to see more people on benefits earning more and increasing their income over time. Does he agree that one key to the success of this, alongside tailored and relevant training, is better contracts? Research seems to show that a claimant on a permanent contract does significantly better with in-work progression than those on zero-hours or temporary contracts.

[Guy Opperman]

My right hon. Friend makes a number of very good points. He is a former Secretary of State in this Department, and has great wisdom on this issue. The main thing that the Department is doing is providing the in-work progression offer, which assists people who are in work and trying to progress to greater hours and full-time work. We are also fully in support of greater training, whether through sector-based work academies or the skills bootcamps, to allow people to have permanent long-term contracts, and enable them to thrive and survive in a better way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised the subject of this pilot, which I agree is hugely important. We are looking closely at the results, including the effect not only on mental health but on productivity. As he will know, £7 million has been invested so far.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the leadership they are showing on this issue. They are exactly right: it is the increase in the number of, in particular, younger workers dropping out of the labour market owing to mental ill health that is driving the increase in economic inactivity. As he prepares the White Paper, will my right hon. Friend keep the focus on how a close link with the employment support agency and the labour market can be maintained? Once someone leaves the labour market and is out of work for an extended period, it becomes far less likely that they will ever make it back.

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend has great experience in these matters, and he too is entirely right. It is essential for the Department to do whatever it can at the early stages to support those with mental health issues who are already in work, particularly those who are in danger of falling out of work, so that we do not end up seeing more and more people experiencing longer-term absence from employment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the level of economic inactivity in the labour market.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

19. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce the number of people who are economically inactive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He is right to raise the issue of economic activity. That will be a major focus of mine as Secretary of State: we have 9 million people who are economically inactive, and we desperately need to get as many as we can into the workforce, not least because under this Government we have very low unemployment, very high levels of employment and 1.25 million vacancies in the economy.

[Stephen Crabb]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and send him my best wishes for his time in this important job. May I suggest that he has a look at some research published earlier this year by the Prince’s Trust, which found that there are hundreds of thousands of young people not in education, employment or training, many of whom are economically active? They want to work, but many of them are living with physical or mental disabilities. Does he agree that the right support would enable them to stay in touch with the labour market and prevent patterns of worklessness from setting in at a very young age?

[Mel Stride]

I recognise the great work that my right hon. Friend did as a Secretary of State. There are 820,000 young people out of work and not in full-time education, and he is right that there are many things this Government can do, and indeed are doing, with our youth offer. That includes our youth employment programme, youth employability coaches and 150 youth hubs across Great Britain.

Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak for the SNP on the Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill. The Chancellor announced this uprating a number of weeks ago, having dragged his feet for so long. He announced the energy loan at the Budget, after announcing it earlier in the year, with a “Ta-da! Look at this! This is wonderful. We are giving you all this.” It was never sufficient. We called immediately for the energy loan to be a grant and for it to be increased.

The big announcement at the Budget was, “Hey, look, you can have cheaper solar panels!” That does not help my constituents, who are literally unable to buy food. We called for these changes then, and the Chancellor waited and waited until the end of May to make this announcement.

It has been a few weeks since the end of May, and we saw this Bill only last week. Parliamentarians have been able to scrutinise this Bill for only one week. The Government, or the Secretary of State, may say that this is because the Bill is so complicated, but they had weeks beforehand in which to decide what it would look like, and they have had weeks since the announcement in which to present it and give us an opportunity to see it. We should not be doing this in a single day. I appreciate that there is a tight timescale and that the Bill must be put through now in order for the payments to be made; what concerns me is the time during which we have not been able to scrutinise it effectively.

My other concern about process involves the money motion. It is drawn as tightly as possible. No doubt when we reach the Committee stage the Government will say what they say in every Finance Bill Committee: “All the amendments are about having reports. All the Opposition want are reports, rather than any actual changes to the Bill.” However, such a tight money motion makes it impossible for us effectively to put forward the asks that we have and to make it clear that this is wholly insufficient and that there are massive changes that we want to introduce.

Nevertheless, I congratulate the House on the fact that we are actually debating spend. That is very exciting—it is wonderful—because we never debate spend. We get the estimates for five days a year, or is it three? For a handful of days a year, we are allowed to debate those. To be fair, we are now allowed to debate spend, but it does not happen. We have the Budget, and then we have the Finance Bill. The Finance Bill is entirely about taxation: it is not about spend. We do not get the opportunity to debate and scrutinise spend properly, so it is very nice to get the chance to do so today—albeit with a money motion that is so unbelievably restrictive that we cannot put forward any amendments that make any sense or assist our constituents in any way.

Before I proceed, I want to thank Chris Mullins-Silverstein and Linda Nagy, who have been incredibly helpful in putting stuff together very quickly to enable me to make a speech that makes sense—or, I hope, largely makes sense.

This is the situation in which we find ourselves. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), in October, energy bills will be up by £1,500 for the average household, which is far more than the amount that the Government propose to provide for people—and that is before we take into account the other increases that we are seeing. According to the Office for National Statistics, pasta is up by 50%, bread by 16% and rice by 15%. I pay tribute to Jack Monroe for the huge amount of work she has done on the “Vimes Boots” index, which allows inflation to be measured not just in the way in which it has historically been measured, but in a way that relates to how people shop—the people at the lowest end of the income spectrum, who count every single penny in the supermarket to work out whether they can possibly afford what they have put in their baskets. Inflation for those lowest-income families has increased by significantly more than inflation for the families who are earning more. It is even worse for disabled householders, who are seeing even more significant increases in energy bills, and the same goes for pensioners.

I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) suggest that things are very generous. He cannot have the same inbox as me. According to my inbox, things were dire before Brexit, dire before covid, and dire before the massive increase in inflation that we are seeing now, and they have only got worse. The fact is that the impact of Brexit has increased our food prices. Less migration means less money for the Government to spend, while net migration reduces net public sector debt and increases the amount that the Government have to spend. The former Chancellor George Osborne’s Red Books make that explicit. It is clear that he was seeking to crack down on migration, and that doing so would reduce the amount of money that the Government had to spend. It costs money for us to reduce migration. It means that we will have less to spend on people who stay here, who live here, who work here.

The announcement that this is a £37 billion package is genuinely a joke. In the Government’s calculation of the £37 billion, they have included the fuel duty changes. A significant number of my constituents, especially the poorest, do not drive. They are impacted by the price of supermarket vans having to drive around and small businesses’ costs increasing, but the fuel duty does not make a difference to their daily lives. They do not fill up their fuel tanks because they do not have fuel tanks. They cannot afford cars. So including the fuel duty rise in the £37 billion is ridiculous. Including the freeze on alcohol duty is one of the cheekiest things I have ever seen in this place, and I was here all the way through the Brexit debates. The Government cannot include an alcohol duty freeze and say that they are helping with the cost of living. “We are helping the poorest people to save money on their alcohol.” People who cannot afford pasta are not helped by freezing alcohol duty.

These things that are being included in the £37 billion are listed on the factsheet on the Government’s website, by the way. The £37 billion also includes lots of already planned stuff. It includes what has happened with national insurance, and it includes things that were put in place when the Government thought that increasing benefits by 3.1% in April 2020 was sufficient. It includes a massive chunk of that. The Government cannot stand up and realistically say that this is a £37 billion package, because it is not. These are not the positive changes that my constituents and people across Scotland and the UK want to see.

I am pleased to hear that disabled people are getting an additional amount of money. That is a good move by the Government, but it does not take into account the increased costs that disabled people are seeing, including the massive increase in scarcity affecting gluten-free diets, for example. More disabled people have specialist diets than people who will not get the £150 increase. Disabled people spend more time at home, and it is the same for pensioners. The increases that are happening for those two groups are not sufficient to cover the increases they are facing in their energy costs, particularly, and in specialist diet costs.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I am listening very carefully to the hon. Lady’s arguments, and she is making some important and useful points, but I have to disagree with her. She cannot honestly stand up here this afternoon and almost dismiss this enormous sum of expenditure that the Government are making by saying that it is not sufficient and that she wants more. Perhaps she could explain where all this extra resource is going to come from. I personally believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer listened and took on board arguments that many of us were making earlier this year about the rising cost of living, and that he has done everything possible to make his pounds go as far as they can in providing relief to those on low incomes.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer did listen to the arguments that were made, and I absolutely welcome the fact that he came back and said, “What we did before was not enough.” I do not know if he actually said that, but he said that he was going to do more and bring forward more. I am pleased that we are discussing this today, and I am pleased that these increases are happening, but I am making the case that the additional payments that are being made do not cover the cost of living increases. I do not think they are sufficient. and I do not think they will assist our constituents who are already struggling. The right hon. Member asked where the money would come from. We have always said that the windfall tax should be applied more broadly than just to oil and gas companies. We have always said that it should be for all those who made excessive profits during covid. Why should the Amazons and the Sercos of this world get away with making so much money during the pandemic and not have the Government look at that?

The reality is that the UK Government do not have to run a balanced budget. That is how the UK Government budget works. The Scottish Government have to run a balanced budget by law; the UK Government do not. There is far more flexibility in the budget than the Chancellor explains. When he stood up on 27 May, he was already looking at an additional £30 billion of fiscal headroom in the next few years, compared with his earlier projections and targets—compared with what he had hoped to get. There was already extra space, before he made the decision to introduce the supplementary tax on oil and gas companies. There is money there to do the additional payments and the additional requests that we are asking for today.

The UK Government have failed in a number of places. For example, they have failed to keep the triple lock for pensioners. They failed to keep the universal credit lifeline. They failed to implement a pension credit take-up strategy. They failed to come forward with cost of living measures as early as they should have during the course of the Budget. They have failed to scrap the evil sanctions regime. They have failed to produce a strategy to tackle child property. They have failed to bring in a minimum child maintenance payment. They have failed to uprate benefits by anywhere close to inflation this year. They have failed to scrap the rape clause. They have failed to bring in a real living wage that people can actually live on. They have failed to bring forward the long-promised employment Bill. They have failed to end the Department for Work and Pensions vicious loans clawback.

In contrast, the SNP Scottish Government running that balanced budget is delivering for people in Scotland. In Scotland, we are mitigating the bedroom tax. We are doubling our game-changing Scottish child payment. We are uprating benefits by double the level that the UK Government are. We are paying carer’s allowance supplement to people who are carers. We are paying £200 child winter heating assistance to families with severely disabled children and young people. We are increasing our school clothing grant, which is not available across the board in England and is at the discretion of local authorities here. We are offering 1,140 hours of childcare to all eligible children, no matter their parents’ working status. We are providing five new benefits worth up to a maximum of more than £10,000 by the time a first child turns six. That is £8,200 more than that provided in England and Wales. We are also providing additional money for subsequent children that is significantly in excess of the amount being provided here.

I therefore have some calls for the UK Government. I would like the UK Government to now uprate all social security benefits by 10% and backdate that to April 2020. The Chancellor stood there and said that uprating benefits would be less than the additional payment he is making—I want him to do both. This is a sticking plaster. Giving this additional one-off payment does not solve things for next year. It does not undo the fact that this year’s increase was woefully insufficient.

I would like the UK Government to make an additional £25 a week uplift to universal credit and to extend that to all legacy benefits to undo the harm done by cancelling the £20 a week increase last year. I would like them to cancel the rape clause, the two-child limit and the bedroom tax. There is only so much mitigation that the Scottish Government can do within our balanced budget.

I would like the UK Government to produce a child poverty strategy and to make tackling child poverty a national mission, as it is in Scotland. I would like the UK Government to bring in the long-promised employment Bill. They promised 28 times that they would bring in an employment Bill in the Queen’s Speech, and no employment Bill appeared in the Queen’s Speech. I would like them to match Scotland’s commitment to dignity and respect for those claiming disability benefits. I would like them to bring in a real living wage and to scrap the ageism in the pretendy living wage.

From day one of the Chancellor’s energy loan, which he announced earlier this year, we called for it to be a grant, rather than a loan. In May, the Chancellor U-turned. He changed it from a loan to a grant and he increased it, like we had asked. Now, we must see a U-turn on the five-week wait for universal credit. We must see that payment become a grant for those who get universal credit. We must not see those payments being clawed back.

The UK Government have 85% of the powers on social security. They have all the powers that relate to energy, all the powers that relate to the minimum wage and all the powers that relate to national insurance. We are being failed time and time again by the UK Government. We have asked for these measures to be devolved. We have amended things for these measures to be devolved. We have voted for these measures to be devolved. We have called, at every opportunity, for devolution of employment law, for devolution of energy, for devolution over the minimum wage, and for devolution over national insurance. The UK Government refuse. The UK Government are continually refusing and clawing back powers from the Scottish Parliament—in their United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, for example. The Brexit Freedoms Bill is set to remove powers from this Parliament and centre it even more in the Executive than it already is. This is not the way to run a democracy.

People are struggling. Even with these payments on the horizon, people still struggle to see how they will get through the year. The only choice is for Scotland to become an independent country. Only by having the full powers of independence will we be able to protect people and help them through the cost of living crisis, in contrast to the UK Government who refuse to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Select Committee will certainly be looking at that. We are conducting an inquiry later this year on the question of the level of benefits, and the issue of how benefits should be uprated will certainly feature. I am intrigued to learn that the Secretary of State was able to do that in the 1970s given that we have been told that the IT systems in the 2020s cannot cope with it. I am certainly interested in seeing more on that.

[Stephen Crabb]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and important point about how we do upratings. I urge him not to get drawn too far down the path of looking at the system in the 1970s, which was in very different circumstances. There is an issue about the timing of uprating and the figures that are used to calculate it, but the bigger practical issue is the different IT systems and the plethora of different benefits that are still in play. Does he agree that we need to find a way to rationalise and simplify them?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

That would help—just modernising the old systems would help, and I will say something about that in a moment.

We are getting ad hoc payments from the Treasury to tide us over. The Secretary of State rightly spelled out to the Committee the downsides of one-off ad hoc payments such as those that the Bill enables. In oral evidence in February last year, she told the Committee that there were higher risks of fraud attached to one-off payments and that they can make it difficult for claimants to budget effectively—both quite telling points. She said that one-off payments were not

“one of the Department’s preferred approaches”

for providing that financial support. She noted:

“There are some challenges about fraud”

and that there would be difficulties if people claiming tax credits received a one-off payment and then moved to universal credit shortly afterwards. On the question of what might work best for claimants, she told us:

“Previous experience would be that a steady sum of money would probably be more beneficial to claimants and customers, to help with that budgeting process.”

I think she is right; it is not ideal for the Treasury to provide lump sums instead.

Why was proper uprating not done in this case? The Chancellor pointed out that legacy benefits cannot be quickly uprated because they are run on antiquated IT systems, as the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) referred to, so uprating takes several months. The Chancellor told us that that was why he was unwilling simply to uprate benefits: it could have been done quickly for universal credit, as we discovered in the pandemic, but not for legacy benefits.

In an earlier debate, I recall the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) brandishing a document from an IT company, perhaps Oracle, about the front end that it had built for the Department’s legacy systems, which it said enabled changes to be made to them more quickly. I wonder whether the Minister, in closing, could tell us the truth behind that claim about the front end that had been provided. I know that the Department has certainly commissioned such front ends for the legacy systems over a long time, so I am interested to know why, notwithstanding what that brandished document said, it is apparently still the case that uprating takes four or five months. Are front ends in place? Why have they apparently not made faster changes possible?

In our June 2020 report on the Department’s response to coronavirus, the Select Committee recommended an increase in the speed with which changes could be made to legacy benefits. We said:

“People will be claiming legacy benefits until at least September 2024, the Government’s most recent estimate for completing the rollout of Universal Credit. It is simply not tenable for the Department to continue to operate antiquated systems that prevent Ministers from making timely changes to the rates at which legacy benefits are paid. We recommend that the Department work to increase the speed with which changes can be made to legacy benefit rates.”

In its response in September that year, the Department said that it

“recognises the need to be able to respond to events flexibly which is why we are investing in Universal Credit which is more agile than the systems that support legacy benefits.”

While substantial numbers of people depend on legacy benefits, the Government surely need to keep the systems that support those benefits fit for purpose. They are clearly not fit for purpose at the moment, and that ought to be addressed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

This Government have a very good track record when it comes to protecting pensioners against poverty, not least through the state pension triple lock and the pension credit. However, will the Minister sit down with his colleagues the Employment Ministers and look at participation rates in the workforce among older workers? Some estimates suggest that there are now around 200,000 fewer older workers in the economy than there were pre pandemic. It is important that we bring out all the skills in the economy, not least to fill some of the employment gaps.

[Guy Opperman]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, as he should do, being a former Secretary of State and very wise on these issues. The Under-Secretary of state, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), has set out the “50 PLUS: Choices” programme and the amazing package of work that is available to people over the age of 50 who wish to return to the workplace. I am certain that if my right hon. Friend was to sit down with her, and other colleagues, there would be much that we can do in this particular space.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

With 1 million vacancies and above in the UK and with a comprehensive plan for jobs, our focus absolutely has to be on helping people into work, particularly in the hospitality sector, where there are vacancies. I hope that there might be a vacancy for the hon. Member’s constituent.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

May I thank the Minister and especially the Secretary of State for really pushing for the cut to the universal credit taper rate that we saw in the Budget? It will make a real difference to families on low incomes. There are more than 1 million job vacancies right now, plus the Budget measures to strengthen work incentives—cutting the withdrawal rate, boosting the work allowance and increasing the national minimum wage. Does that not all add up to the best opportunity in more than a generation to bear down on long-term unemployment in this country?

[David Rutley]

Absolutely. I credit my right hon. Friend: I know that he has been a champion of improving the taper rate over many years, and it was a pleasure to work with him as a Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Now is the time for us to take forward opportunities for people, given the Budget measures that have been put in place, and help long-term unemployed people into work through the sector-based work academy programme and the restart programme, which the employment Minister—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies)—is taking forward with her characteristic verve and enthusiasm.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I addressed that in an entire section of the speech so I refer the hon. Gentleman to Hansard.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Actually, that is a really important point because the hon. Gentleman was guilty in his comments on the previous welfare system of looking at it through rose-tinted lenses. There were huge problems with the previous welfare system. It caught hundreds of thousands of families in poverty traps, and at every opportunity since 2010 the Labour party resisted our efforts to reform welfare, to make work pay and to provide better financial support for families in Britain.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, and he has been vocal in opposing the Government and we all have respect for that, but I must put a few things on the record in response to his intervention. The reductions in poverty under the last Labour Government were tremendous, and we did not even know how good they were until we got the evaluation, sadly a few years later when already so much of that had been taken apart. Of course there were problems with the previous system, but no one should try to claim that the last Labour Government were not a reforming Labour Government. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, after that Labour Government came to power a single parent did not have to go out and look for work until their eldest child was 16—there was no regime in the world like that—and Jobcentre Plus did not exist. So there was a lot of reform and the system was improved, but crucially—this is the big difference from the reforms of this Government—our reforms brought poverty down, brought more people into the workplace, and made this country stronger, more resilient and a better place for everyone. That is why, sadly, our record is overwhelmingly better than this Government’s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I am going to make some more progress and then I will come back to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb).

Returning to the crux of the debate, the temporary £20 uplift was an important intervention to help people facing the greatest financial disruption to get the support they needed. It brought the universal credit standard allowance close to the level of statutory sick pay, the minimum amount required to be paid by employers for people who could not work.

In the Budget earlier this year, recognising that the country was still under restrictions, the Chancellor set out that we would continue covid financial support until autumn, several months after the country came out of lockdown. That helped many people stay on furlough and be connected to their employers as businesses gradually opened, and meant keeping that extra financial support for people on universal credit and tax credits for an extra six months. As our economy continues to recover, it is right that we are investing in jobs and skills to boost pay, prospects and prosperity for people right across the UK as part of our plan to level up and build back better.

[Stephen Crabb]

On universal credit, I have spoken to dozens and dozens of work coaches all over the country. Every single one of them has told me, without a shadow of a doubt, that universal credit is a better benefit than what was before. It is down to the enthusiasm and the skills of work coaches, to a large extent, that universal credit has been such a success during this very difficult period.

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We already had about 640 jobcentres. We are opening a further 200 by the end of the year, recognising that we need to support more people. Of course, work coaches do not just deal with helping people—people with disabilities and a limited capability to work—to get back into work. Work coaches do a wide variety of work to support some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable. Again, I thank him for paying tribute to our work coaches. They will play a key role in the time ahead. Perhaps the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth would like to intervene now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I think it is fair to say that in the letter I saw that my six predecessors had signed—they are magnificent people and it is an honour to follow in their footsteps—they were keen to have the extra financial support that has gone into aspects of the welfare system and to help people in that way. It was not specifically about the £20 but about recognising, as has been said today, that there may be better ways of using that financing. I am conscious that the media may have reported that in a slightly different way and I am not going to put anybody on the spot. However, I think they valued the extra money that went in, and I want to continue to support people.

[Stephen Crabb]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend, one of the co-authors, but I am conscious that the universal support, alongside universal credit, was a key element of their request.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again; she is being incredibly generous with her time this afternoon. The central argument of the letter that we sent to the Secretary of State and other colleagues in Government was about trying to retain the investment in universal credit. There are different ways to spend that money. All the evidence that I have seen suggests that investing in the standard allowance gives us more bang for our buck in protecting families against poverty. It was really a last-ditch attempt by me and a number of my colleagues who had served in that Department to persuade the Government to hang on to the crucial extra investment that had been put in at the start of the pandemic and which has made such a powerful difference to so many poor families up and down the country over the last 18 months.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my right hon. Friend. Anybody who has served in this office, including the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), will recognise, for the people we meet daily, as other hon. Members do in their constituencies, what a difference an intervention from a work coach or a decision maker can make to really boost people when they are at their lowest ebb. I do not know whether any hon. Members watched the series “The Yorkshire Jobcentre” on Channel 4. Our social justice team there go above and beyond in trying to help people who have been rejected by the rest of society to get their lives back on track. That is the sort of work we can do. I understand why my right hon. Friend is keen for the welfare budget to still be substantial in supporting such people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I will keep my remarks fairly short. My views have not really changed since the last time we debated and voted on this issue. On that occasion I voted against the Government for the first time ever, because I felt so strongly about the course of action that we were intending to follow and the impact that it would have on workers on low incomes and their families up and down the country.

The truth about the pandemic is that it has not been a time of increased hardship for everyone. For the lucky few, it has been something of a gold rush; for large numbers of other people, it has been a period of reduced household expenditure and increased household savings. Many people have become richer during the pandemic. However, those are not the people we are talking about this afternoon. Many of the people we are talking about this afternoon carried on working throughout the pandemic. They did not enjoy furlough, or some of the comforts of working from home. Typically, these were people working in supermarkets, doing cleaning jobs or working in the care sector. I believe that as the modern Conservative party, we should be standing on the side of people like that: people who go out to work, who choose to work, and who want to improve their circumstances.

I was surprised when the standard allowance was increased by £20 a week; I had not seen it coming. I was delighted when it was increased, but I was surprised that it had been increased by that amount, and it was not immediately clear to me why the amount in question had been chosen. I must confess that I am not sure that the Government have been very clear about why they picked it, unless it constitutes a recognition that the standard allowance in March 2020 was too low to provide anything like a decent, respectable level of income replacement as an out-of-work benefit. It is that question of adequacy to which I think we will return time and again during the remainder of this Parliament.

I came to the view a while ago that the level of universal credit in March 2020 was too low. One of the key reasons that it was too low involved decisions that I was part of in 2015 to begin freezing that benefit and seeing the value of it eroded at the time. I used some of the exact same language and arguments when I was doing her job that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State used this afternoon at the Dispatch Box. The assumption at the time was that we were in a time of almost full employment, and we assumed that there would be a virtuous cycle of wage increases and that people would be living demonstrations that work was the very best route out of poverty. That did not happen. Instead, we saw an increase in in-work poverty, and that fact should be profoundly troubling to those of us on this side who really believe that work is the best route out of poverty. I fear that we are in danger of repeating the same cycle of assumptions that were proved incorrect last time.

One reason that in-work poverty increased in the years leading up to the pandemic was, I am afraid, directly related to the fact that we had frozen the main rate of working-age benefits that supported families on low incomes. If we look at the data and the evidence, that conclusion is unavoidable. Anyone who thinks that we have generous benefits in this country is wrong. If we look at this internationally or historically, there is no way we can describe UK benefits as generous. We do not have generous benefits. I do worry—this has come across a bit in the debate this afternoon—about the view that if we can only make welfare just that bit tougher and more uncomfortable for the families who rely on it, we will get better engagement with the labour market and see more people going out to work. The evidence does not point to that either. It shows that a family living in destitution and with anxiety and mental health problems that are a direct result of their financial circumstances is less well able to engage with the labour market productively or to increase its earnings or its hours.

I know that the views of No. 10 and the Treasury are firmly locked down on this, but this is not going to be the end of the matter. We are going to keep coming back to talk about this issue for the remainder of this Parliament.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Crabb]

I will give way just to give myself a bit more time.

[Carla Lockhart]

The right hon. Gentleman is certainly making a very valid point. Does he agree that, with one in four children in Northern Ireland growing up in food poverty and with 22% in fuel poverty, this proposed cut along with the increase in national insurance contributions will plunge people into further poverty and that the Government need to cease with this plan and support the most vulnerable in our society?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady makes a strong point.

We on this side of the House do not believe that benefits alone are a route out of poverty. We emphasise things like work and the importance of education, but what a scandal it is that we are still churning out so many 16, 17 and 18-year-olds whom employers reject and do not want to see because they do not see them as fit for work. We also emphasise the role of communities and the importance of family structure and role models. These are all things that can help to move people out of poverty, and we are not wrong to do that. The Labour party is guilty of over-emphasising the important tool of social security, but I say to my colleagues on the Government Benches that we should not make the mistake of overlooking the importance of good welfare policy. This is not about being wet on fiscal discipline or about being Labour-lite. It is about recognising what is good, responsible social policy, and I am clear in my mind that this sudden, abrupt withdrawal of the £20 uplift that millions of families will experience in the coming weeks is not the right way of doing welfare policy.

Pensions Update

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for having read the statement and for recognising some of the challenges that we face. I accept that it is his role and that of the Opposition to suggest that the Government are not taking the right course of action. However, this is where I disagree with him. He referred to the earnings link that was dropped in, I think, the late ’70s or early ’80s. It was not reinstated by the Labour party until the late noughties and was not commenced until the coalition Government were in place. That is why we have followed the triple lock policy for the last decade, recognising that we wanted to restore the earnings link and to see an increase in pensions overall. We have made good progress on that, as I set out, with the £2,050 cash-terms increase in just over a decade.

We have used the earnings link since the policy came into effect a decade ago, and we have done this on the same basis. As for trying to mess about with different bits of earnings, the Office for National Statistics produced some data but we did not find it necessarily reliable, in terms of what could be considered as a substantiated basis to make the change. I have made the recommendation to the Government—that has been endorsed today and I hope that the House will endorse it in the forthcoming legislation—to set aside the earnings link, as we did last year, recognising the challenges of covid and the implications that that would have had last year directly on pensioners. There is the same fairness of approach here.

I do not intend, as is usual, to publish legal advice. That legal advice is quite straightforward. I would summarise it as “The best way to introduce this temporary set-aside is through legislation, just as we did last year.” I intend to take this forward on that basis.

As for making comparisons with other countries, I am conscious that we have a substantial amount of occupational pension here. We also have a whole fringe of pensioner benefits alongside it that are not necessarily available in many other countries. Just this year alone, which is about to come to an end, while the pension cost is about £105 billion, we are spending about £129 billion directly on pensioners. We have genuinely shown a measured approach to supporting pensioners during our time in office. We think this is a sensible thing that will be broadly welcomed by the public, recognising the balancing act that we continue to face.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Government Members should be incredibly proud of the state pension triple lock. It has transformed the state pension landscape for retired people—no more derisory 75p pension increases, as we saw when Labour was in government—and it has become a key part of the defences that we have built around pensioners to protect them from poverty. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the triple lock that we put in place was never designed for a set of fiscal events of the kind that we have been through over the last 18 months? The difficult decision that she has come to is the right one. When I talk to pensioners in my constituency and elsewhere about the difficult challenges that we face, they understand that. We just need to explain it clearly and with compassion.

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is right that the triple lock policy was never anticipated for these extraordinary times. He will know that, as a former Secretary of State. The Lib Dem Pensions Minister, who served a five-year term, has also publicly said again today, as well as recently, that it was simply not designed for this sort of situation. I believe that the pensioners in our country are wise people. They will recognise that a statistical anomaly is not the basis for the uplift this year. Some people will of course be keen to encourage more people to take up pension credit. We estimate that only three in four of the people who could get the benefit are taking it up, in terms of the income guarantee, and we will continue to encourage people to do so. Nevertheless, this is a sensible approach and I thank my right hon. Friend for his support.