Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s work in Halesowen. He is right that jobs fairs, not just by the DWP but by individual Members of Parliament, are a vital way to drive greater employment. He is also right to say that the in-work progression offer that we are developing will truly make a difference to those already in work.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7. It is clear that nationally led employment support simply is not working. Why are the Government not matching the Opposition’s commitment to let local communities take charge of that crucial work so that local support matches local labour market need?

[Guy Opperman]

I will stand up for our jobcentres, which are providing fantastic employment to people up and down the country. On top of that, we are doing the in-work progression offer, about which the Labour party, as usual, has absolutely nothing to say.

Covid-19: Disability-Inclusive Response

Alex Norris Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this important debate about an issue that affects all our constituencies. Lots of people will be watching this debate online with interest, so I hope they feel that we have done the issue justice and see the strength of feeling. This is as full as this Chamber can be in these challenging times, which shows how much Members from across the House care about it.

The hon. Lady made particularly important points about accessibility and the Care Act easements, and other hon. Members also covered those issues. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) talked about retail, which you and I are passionate about, Mr McCabe. She talked about the experience of people with disabilities in accessing retail, and I will talk about that shortly. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) made very important remarks about how this pandemic has not been felt equally. We have to be mindful of that when we design our approaches.

The hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) made particularly poignant comments about Care Act easements. We all had that in mind when we passed the Coronavirus Act 2020. We were all concerned about it, so if local government uses those easements sparingly, or indeed not at all, we will be pleased. We will all be keeping a keen eye on the situation, because we are all keen to drop that provision at the first moment we can.

The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who as a former Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee has a strong track record in this area, made excellent points about accessible communications, I hope the Minister will take some time to reflect on those points and perhaps give us some good news. The hon. Gentleman from England’s next fine city, Southend, the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), raised an issue that I am very passionate about: endometriosis. I recently tabled a number of written questions on that topic, and I have to say that I did not get particularly persuasive answers back, so I hope he and other colleagues will help me with that. I knew he would mention the Music Man Project. I did not know they had not been able to get to Broadway, but I am sure that in time they will get there, and the hon. Gentleman might go with them to show them around.

Turning to the contributions from the Opposition side of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) talked about the disproportionality of deaths from covid. The statistic that 60% of deaths are among people living with disabilities is a sobering one, and something that we have to be exceptionally mindful of. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a lovely point when he talked about this issue coming from the heart: that has very much been the theme of the debate. We all come here in good faith; that does not mean we do not profoundly disagree about some things, and we might have assertive conversations about them, but we are coming from the heart.

I will share some reflections later on the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) made about work, but that is a particularly important issue. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) was speaking, I was thinking about my concern about the SEND educational attainment gap in my community and across the country. I fear that current conditions will only make that more challenging.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) highlighted some of the pitfalls of home working and the need to help employers. I was romanced by the idea of an employers’ hub, because I believe that the vast majority of employers want to do the right thing, but we might need to help them do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) shared the powerful story of his constituent Georgina. It was very difficult to hear, but it was important that it was heard, because those are the sorts of stories that exist up and down this country, and we have to do something about them.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who at this moment, I would rather was in my chair than me. She has been an outstanding champion for people with disabilities throughout this outbreak, fighting their corner in every single way, and the fact that the lifelong condition she is living with has prevented her from taking part today tells its own story. I do not think it reflects well on us that we have the technology to be much more inclusive, but choose not to use it, so I will pay tribute to her in my traditional way: stealing her ideas and passing them off as my own. [Laughter.] This one’s for you, Vicky.

I will discuss Scope’s disability report to add a little context, because it painted a striking, worrying picture. A quarter of respondents said they felt forgotten or ignored by the Government; half said they have had issues getting essential items; a third were extremely concerned about their mental health and wellbeing if they were required to self-isolate for more than three months; two thirds were concerned that they will not get the treatment they need if they contract the virus; and nine out of 10 reported themselves to be very worried or somewhat worried about the effect that the pandemic is having on their lives. That is the reality for people living with disabilities during coronavirus: whether it is the fact that supermarket deliveries that are hard to come by—that is now starting to happen again—social distancing, which other Members have raised, or benefits, there are lots of concerns. Many of these challenges are presented to us by the pandemic, but that is not a reason to ignore them; it is a reason for us to do our utmost to mitigate them as best we can.

As we go into the second wave, if that is how we choose to characterise it, we have to understand that we have seen some of these problems before. It behoves us to meet these challenges better on the second occasion, and we ought to be able to demonstrate clearly that we will do so. There might be some latitude when it comes to making mistakes the first time; there will be no latitude if we do the same thing again, so let us have clear support for people with disabilities, and let us have clear guidance around shielding. People have often asked me where shielding fits into the three-tier system—perhaps the Minister will cover that in his response.

I know we have collectively fired a lot of questions at the Minister, so I will give him the maximum available time to answer them all as fully as possible, but in the time remaining, I will make some constructive suggestions for him to consider, starting with the welfare system. We have called throughout the pandemic for a range of social security measures that would provide immediate support for disabled people. They include converting universal credit advances into grants rather than loans, ending the five-week wait entirely, suspending the benefit cap, and abolishing the two-child limit in universal credit. The uplift to universal credit is very welcome—we recognise that—and we have called for that to be extended to legacy benefits.

I hope the Minister will reflect on those measures and commit to a few of them since he is here. I hope he will also commit to the imminent publication of the Government’s national strategy for disabled people and the Green Paper on health and disability benefits and support. The response to the call for evidence on violence and abuse against shopworkers got blocked in the coronavirus communications, because there was a sense that there was no opportunity to communicate on anything else. Actually, we knew it was more necessary, because of the conditions for retail workers in the pandemic. The principle is the same here. The sooner we can see those things, the better our response and our support will be for those living with disabilities.

Moving on to the world of work, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam made a point about face-to-face assessments for in-work or not-in-work welfare benefits. Obviously, those were suspended in March. I think every MP has constituents who have had really horrible experiences at those assessments and talked about how that made them feel. I certainly felt a bit of relief that they were suspended. How have the Government used the time before they are resumed, or the system gets back on to a more normal footing, to come up with a more dignified, more humane and a fairer assessment process that does not cause such physical or mental harm to those who have to go through it? [Interruption.] The Minister speaks from a sedentary position; I am sure he will go on in even greater detail in just a couple of minutes.

On employment issues, there is guidance on covid-secure workplaces and the vast majority of employers are doing the right things. I would be interested in learning how the shoe drops for those who are not, particularly for those who are living with disabilities at work. We have heard stories from many colleagues that this is a particularly stressful situation, and we know that it is translating into rates of employment for those with and without disabilities and creating even greater disparities. In my three years as adult services lead in Nottingham, one of my greatest frustrations was our failure to make better progress on rates of employment for those living with disabilities. This will only make that more challenging.

The recent report from Citizens Advice has worried all of us. It found that 27% of disabled people face redundancy, rising to 37% of those whose disability has a substantial impact on their activities and nearly half of those who are extremely clinically vulnerable to coronavirus. None of us wants that to be the case and none of us thinks that it should be the case, so I would be interested to know the Minister’s views on why that is happening and what he intends to do about it. Otherwise, it will just be another disproportionality that those living with disabilities suffer from.

I have covered as much ground as I could in the time available and I want to leave the Minister plenty of time. In many senses, the Government are getting a second bite of the cherry. If they reflect on the experiences in the first wave, if they talk and engage those with disabilities as experts to co-design the services that they use and need, they can do much better this time. I hope to hear that commitment from the Minister today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

To be open, I am not aware of the study to which the hon. Lady refers. I will find out about it after questions, so I can send her an answer in writing. As I have mentioned to the House before, food bank use is not what we want to see in the long term. The best way to get out of poverty is through work, which is why we will continue to help people up the escalator of career progression.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Disability Direct in my constituency has a success rate of more than two thirds when helping claimants to overturn disability-related assessment decisions. Do Ministers not recognise that a welfare system that is so wrong so often is simply broken?

[Justin Tomlinson]

The proof is in the pudding. Under PIP, 32% of claimants get the highest rate; that figure was only 16% under the legacy benefit. However, we have rightly identified that the majority of people whose cases have to go to appeal are providing additional written and oral evidence, which is why we are now more proactive at the mandatory reconsideration stage. That is already making a significant and welcome difference for claimants.

Local Housing Allowance: Nottingham

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

As usual, my hon. Friend is making a passionate case for our city. The bedroom tax was cruel because even if an individual complied with what the Government were trying to coerce them to do, there was not the housing there for them to go to, and we are seeing that repeated with the LHA. She correctly highlights the gap that people must make up just to get a roof over their head. Does she share my concern that my constituents in the north of the city, like hers in the south, are going without essentials—food, heating, things for their children—just to maintain these tenancies and that that is a sign of a system that fundamentally is not working?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I will seek to explain precisely the problem our constituents are facing. The problem is that the gap they are seeking to fill between the LHA they receive and the rent they need to pay is not trivial but significant. According to Shelter, the gap between 30th percentile rents and the LHA rate in Nottingham is £15.17 a month for a room in a shared house; £55.01 for a one-bedroom flat; £54.57 for a two-bedroom property; £56.61 for a three-bedroom property; and £121.93 per month for a four-bedroom house. These are not trivial amounts. Trying to cover the shortfall is leaving people in a very vulnerable and insecure position and, as my hon. Friend has said, in poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Although that might be discrimination in terms of the terminology we would use, it might not fall under the legal definition of it. As a result, we believe that the best way of tackling this issue is to work with key stakeholders such as landlords and mortgage lenders, as well as with those who provide insurance, because we know that there is a particular issue in that regard. We had a successful roundtable at No. 10 recently, where I genuinely believe we had a good cross-section of all the key players from across the board. We are starting to see progress in this area, and I am sure that by taking this collaborative approach, with the Government working with business, key stakeholders and the charitable and voluntary sector, we will truly get a grip on this issue and tackle it. We do not want to see anyone who is in receipt of benefits being discriminated against in this way.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing an intervention before he moves on. I am going to test your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I know that the Minister’s dogs were successful in the dog of the year competition not so long ago, as were my own, and I just want to raise a point about pets. Has he had a chance to consider the fact that another hidden way of excluding people in an overheated rental market is to adopt a no-pets policy? The Opposition have said that we want to get rid of that policy in tenancies, and I wonder whether the Minister has considered that as well.

[Will Quince]

The hon. Gentleman is a dog owner, and I am as well. I would not be without our Charlie, and I think that my two daughters would rather throw me out than the dog. In answer to his question, this is an action issue for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I can assure him that I am working closely across the board with my counterparts in that Department, and I have a meeting with them tomorrow at which I shall raise that very issue.

The hon. Member for Nottingham South also touched on the question of supply, which follows neatly on from the hon. Gentleman’s point. As I have said, I work very closely indeed on this with my counterparts at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would expect nothing less. Any changes to LHA rates must go hand in hand with how we look at supply, which is why it is essential that we have those meetings. I have them regularly, and I shall have one tomorrow. It will come as no surprise to her that I will continue to push my colleagues in the Department to look at how we can increase the supply of council, social and affordable housing. She mentioned Matt Downie of Crisis, but she missed the three letters that he now has the end of his name. I understand that he was recently awarded an MBE by Her Majesty the Queen, and I would like to send my congratulations to Matt, who is a huge asset to that organisation.

As a Government, we are proud of the progress we have made on our welfare reforms. We now have a record-breaking labour market, with over 3.6 million more people in work across the UK than in 2010 and with unemployment at its lowest rate since the 1970s, having fallen by more than half since 2010. This Government will continue to reform the welfare system so that it promotes work as the most effective route out of poverty. That is fairer to those who receive it and to the taxpayer who pays for it. Work is the pillar of a strong economy and a strong society. We believe that work should always pay, and we need a welfare system that helps people into work, supports those who need help and is fair to everyone who pays for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

I thought that we had a constructive discussion. As the hon. Gentleman says, my officials have also talked to the council, but I am always happy to have another discussion. I should add that the total amount of new burdens funding is increasing from £14 million to £18 million in 2019-20.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. Disability Direct, an advocacy organisation in my constituency, has a staggering 89% success rate at tribunals where its clients appeal against judgments on employment and support allowance and personal independence payments. Do Ministers really not accept that when they are losing nearly 90% of the time, their system is not working?

[Amber Rudd]

That, of course, applies to 4% of the overall decisions that are made. However, I acknowledge that we need to do better, for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and those of the rest of us. That is why I have already announced that we will look again at the mandatory reconsiderations to ensure that fewer people proceed to the necessary tribunal reviews.

Universal Credit Roll-out: Nottingham

Alex Norris Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the roll-out of universal credit in Nottingham.

The latest stage of the universal credit roll-out in my city took place about a month ago, which is why I sought this debate. One of the vagaries of this place is that we cannot always get the debates that we want at the time we want them, so I am pleased to be able to raise the subject at this important early stage of the roll-out.

Some claimants in the city were already on universal credit, but many will remain on legacy benefits for a while longer, until managed migration. For the past month, however, all new claimants in our city have had to claim universal credit. So far, so simple, but having seen how the roll-out has gone elsewhere and its impact in communities that are very similar to mine, my constituents and I are anxious, fearing that this will be anything but simple. We are anxious that it will mean delays, reductions in benefits, debt, rent arrears, visits to food banks and more poverty. My colleagues in Nottingham—I am glad to be joined by three of them—and I do not accept that for our community. I believe that the roll-out should be stopped.

I will talk about experiences in similar parts of the country to ours, and specific concerns that I hope the Minister can address. It seems incredible that universal credit was first announced eight years ago. The rationale was to replace the six working-age benefits. The aim was to simplify the benefits system, improve work incentives, reduce the potential for error and fraud, and mitigate poverty among low-income families. Those are broad principles that we share—I certainly do—but universal credit as it is today is not that system, and it is the most vulnerable people who are suffering and will continue to suffer as a result.

We are pleased to have campaigned for—and, in the Budget two weeks ago, secured—money back into universal credit. That is, however, only a small fraction of the £7 billion in social security cuts still to come by 2022-23, according to Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis. That will both make families worse off and be worse for the Government and the state of the public finances—a point I shall cover later.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter before the House. What he cites is not specific to Nottingham; it applies to other parts of the United Kingdom, including my constituency of Strangford. Does he agree that this “simple” scheme, which is easy for those who are computer-literate, is not so simple for many? More consideration must be given to those who are not able to claim correctly due to genuine misunderstanding and miscommunication, given that they can be penalised with sanctions if they cannot work through the system. The system simply does not work for the ordinary person.

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman is right that what I have to say about Nottingham is informed by the experience of other parts of the country, so it will be true for every community in the land. Yes, the system is supposed to be simple—we want a simple system that promotes work—but there are lots of pitfalls, which people with the best of intentions are falling into. I completely share his view that such people ought to be supported.

In June, I was startled to read that the National Audit Office had found that universal credit might end up costing more than the existing system, that it cannot prove that it gets claimants into work, and that it is unlikely ever to deliver value for money. We should all look at that.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

As my hon. Friend knows, the false economy of some of the new systems worries me. That is one of the reasons why I have always argued that advice services should be a statutory function. Citizens Advice states that for every £1 invested in advice services, we can save £10 from people falling out of the benefits system because of mistakes and so forth. Is not the worry about this particular form of the universal credit roll-out that it is leaving people confused and in a messy situation, without proper advice from the system to fall back on?

[Alex Norris]

I thank my hon. Friend—my neighbour—for his contribution. I absolutely agree with that. I am passionate about advice services. As he knows, in October last year I led a debate in Westminster Hall on advice services in our city. They do incredible work to help people find a way through that fog, but they are clearly under real pressure. Our council is also under extraordinary financial pressures, but has put more into the area, trying to support it when many other services are not being treated similarly. I am pleased it is doing that, but a real need is clearly building up. I will cover much of that.

It is important to understand the context of what has happened elsewhere. The Trussell Trust found that 12 months after roll-out, on average, food banks see a 52% increase in demand, compared with 13% in areas that have had universal credit for three months or less. The Children’s Society has estimated that under the proposal for an earnings threshold, about 1 million children living in poverty will miss out on free school meals. That will almost entirely affect working families. Furthermore, under universal credit, £175 million for families with disabled children will be cut. Analysis by Contact suggests that because of the 50% cut to the child disability payment under universal credit, 100,000 families with disabled children will be worse off by more than £1,750 per year. Also, a report by Policy in Practice has indicated that 750,000 households on “disability benefits” will lose, on average, £76 per week.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

What my hon. Friend says is the reality. Whatever the Minister says, the reality for people in Nottingham or my constituency is that they lose lots of money. In many cases, they received x amount under one set of benefits, but lose significant sums of money when they move to universal credit. Instead of living in a parallel universe, the Minister should come to the real world.

[Alex Norris]

I share that view, and it saddens me. I have been a Labour party member for all my adult life, and I am proud to be a Labour party Member of Parliament. The meaning of “Labour” is work, so we believe that work is good for people. We want people to work, so when we hear of a welfare system that promotes work but provides a safety net, we think, “Yes, that’s good. Even better, it’s going to be simple.” What was and is never explained is the bit after the asterisk: “Also, it’s going to be a vehicle for reducing the benefits bill”—even though there is no evidence to suggest that it will succeed. That is why we have a lot of the challenges and the chaos. The Library estimates that in February this year, nearly 13,000 people were not paid in full on time, and 7,500 people did not receive any payment at all.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Not only are people not paid on time, but many people have their claims rejected. They then have to go through the process of seeking mandatory reconsideration and sometimes an appeal. A large proportion of those appeals are successful, but in the meantime people have racked up debts, and in some cases even been evicted from their home. That has a significant impact on them, their families and their mental health. Is not that failure to maintain someone’s benefits during an appeal a problem with the system that the Government should address?

[Alex Norris]

I completely agree. When claimants are successful on appeal or at tribunal, they get their payments backdated, and I sometimes read, “So that’s all okay, then.” It is not, because in the meantime that has put extraordinary pressure on people who are, by definition, vulnerable. That is not to mention the anxiety. I am grateful to colleagues for their contributions.

I have listed quite a few numbers; it is important to start with the context and what has happened elsewhere, which is what I think is coming to us. We have to remember, too, that behind every one of those statistics is a human being, a family and a life. We in this place have a real duty of care to ensure that we look after those people, and that the changes that come about from legislation from this place support them.

In my constituency, about 20,000 people either already receive universal credit or—the bigger chunk—are on the six legacy benefits and will move on to universal credit at some point. That is about one in four eligible adults. The issue is significant, so it is important for me to focus on it in my role. We hear the stories about what has happened; they show the devastation of lives and the injustice.

I have received support and information from local advice services; my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and I recently attended a meeting with Advice Nottingham. We were grateful to hear the direct experiences of those who give advice and those living in the benefits system. Beyond “Brexit”, “hostile environment” must be the defining political term of the year. I contend that the term applies not just to the Home Office’s immigration policies and Windrush, but to welfare. Having talked to those individuals, I felt that they were the victims of such an environment. Slightly beyond universal credit, my friends at Disability Direct in Nottingham say that at tribunal, they are successful between two thirds and 70% of the time. If those who appeal at tribunal are winning more than two out of three times, the system does not work.

I would like the Minister to consider a couple of practical issues that have been raised with me. The first is on digital support and access to online services. Nottingham City Council has very helpfully provided a list of public access computers to try to quell worries. Advice Nottingham says that it was assured by the Department for Work and Pensions that support would be available from work coaches at all jobcentres, and that any new universal credit claimant needing support would be able to get help from a jobcentre on demand. We have three jobcentres in Nottingham city: two in the city centre and one in Bulwell in my constituency. Those are obvious locations for a jobcentre, but we are a big city, so many people must travel more than half an hour by tram or bus to get to them. There is a real cost implication for vulnerable people, especially if multiple visits are needed. That needs consideration.

We are in the very early stages of universal credit, but I have already heard an example from Advice Nottingham of how it is not working in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South; I hope she does not mind my borrowing it. A client wanted to make a universal credit claim and had no digital support at home—no computer or smartphone. They travelled for 35 minutes, mainly by tram, to their nearest jobcentre, as they had been told to, at a cost of £3.50 for a day ticket. When they arrived, the work coach told them to visit their local advice agency, which was Clifton Advice Centre, where they would get help. No one at the jobcentre offered to help them complete their application or pointed them in the direction of the local library, where they could get digital support. Instead, they travelled back home and made an appointment to see a welfare benefits adviser, losing time, money and peace of mind in the process. The system is not working.

I have spent time with my local jobcentre staff, and I know them to be committed folks with the best of intentions who are making the best of a difficult situation, but they must have the right skills.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about people’s access, even to make a claim. My constituent Errol Richards spent the whole of the last two weeks trying to make an initial claim, without success. He initially tried to register his claim at Jobcentre Plus, but his claim crashed before he could attempt to submit his identification documents, and there was no scanner available. He then made two lengthy visits to different libraries in Nottingham, but still could not submit the initial claim because the universal credit system crashed again. Should the Government have not addressed those problems and ensured that their IT systems were sufficiently resilient before trying to roll out universal credit to thousands of additional claimants?

[Alex Norris]

I am very sad to hear that contribution. Clearly, that individual is trying to do the right thing, and the system is not supporting them. That is not particular to Nottingham; it has happened throughout the roll-out process. It is not acceptable to impose universal credit on our community while knowing that these challenges would happen. Accessibility is a real issue. The one-size-fits-all approach of digital technology must be considered, because that poses a challenge in communities such as mine.

My advice to constituents on all big changes such as these is to engage and be proactive, and not to put letters in a drawer. When people come to see me at surgeries, I wish, as all other hon. Members do, that I could have seen them two weeks earlier, or one letter left in a drawer earlier, because that would have helped. I was talking to a colleague last night while rehearsing some of my arguments. His constituency is further ahead in the roll-out, and he said that a constituent had tried to be proactive because, having heard about all the challenges, they did not want delayed payments. The person was on legacy benefits and did not need to transfer, but they transferred anyway, so their universal credit application was, in essence, a new claim. That unnecessarily kicked them off the old legacy benefits and into the new system, which meant that they would lose their transitional protection. Even when we try to help, the perverse incentives in the system mean that there is a risk that we do more harm than good.

Christmas is coming, and in Nottingham we have big retail and services sectors, which will mean that for many constituents and residents in the city, there will be a chance for extra hours. There is not enough awareness of, and support for people to understand, how changes in their income will affect their universal credit. The money comes into their bank, and they realise they are not getting what they had banked on, because those extra hours do not necessarily mean the extra income that they thought they would get. I have been contacted by the GMB trade union. I refer colleagues to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I have long history of campaigning with it. It has produced useful advice, because it fears that staff will not know about that. Across the system, we need people to understand that if they do more, they must factor that into the calculation; otherwise, they will get a nasty surprise.

I feel particularly strong about my final point. Many aspects of universal credit are exceptionally important, which is why we are having this debate. They get a lot of coverage, but the issue of joint claims and split payments does not. At the moment, when applying for universal credit, couples make a joint claim and a single benefit award goes to the household—either to one recipient or into a shared bank account. In the past, at least child tax credit could be expected to have gone to the woman or the mother. I was responsible for domestic abuse services in Nottingham for a number of years; that money would offer a way for a woman to leave an abusive situation, because it would allow them to pay for petrol, or a train or bus ticket, so that they could get out of that situation.

The single payment creates an opportunity for abusive partners to exert financial control over their spouse by withholding funds and making it difficult for them to access money to meet their and their children’s needs, or to leave the situation. Refuge reports that one in five women and one in seven men experience that type of financial abuse. Survivors of domestic abuse can request that their payments be made separately as part of an alternative payment option, but the guidance given to work coaches is that split payments can be considered only where the claimant notifies the DWP of financial mismanagement, financial abuse or domestic abuse in the household. The work coach then makes a decision on whether to grant that split payment, but the other member of the household can request that the single payment be reinstated.

Eight-five per cent. of women surveyed by Women’s Aid said that requesting separate payments would worsen the abuse at home. People live in a dangerous fantasy land if they think that a woman will march down to the jobcentre, possibly with her abuser, and request that payments be split because at some point she might want to leave that abusive relationship. That is unnecessary and damaging, and it needs to be resolved straight away. The Scottish Parliament has already passed legislation to split payments by default; the implementation is yet to be finalised, but it is vital that the Government pay full attention to that and seek to replicate it as soon as possible.

We want a welfare system that promotes work, but protects people in tough times; however, we have made our safety net out of barbed wire. That is wrong. Advice services in Nottingham are doing their best to help; Nottingham City Council is doing its best; DWP staff will do their best to make it work. Fundamentally, the system does not work; it should not be imposed on my community until it does.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in this area. She was instrumental in securing a £39 million commitment from the previous Prime Minister towards this area of work. She knows that we are in the process of going through a procurement process for a new parental conflict programme, of which face-to-face therapy forms about 25%. We have recently published a timetable for the procurement process. I would be more than happy to meet her and the organisations to talk about what we can do to help.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

T9. Universal credit is having a profound impact on local authorities, such as enormous housing revenue account pressures. Ahead of the roll-out of universal credit in Nottingham, what new resources will be made available to Nottingham City Council to mitigate this impact?

[The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, a “new burdens” policy is in operation and has been for many years. Where local councils come forward with specific costs, we review them and make payments. In 2017-18, £13 million was paid out to local councils.