Universal Credit

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the key points, because this is one of the biggest changes in benefits. We always said that the slow roll-out would reflect the changes needed. Even within the last couple of weeks, I have made significant changes yet again. Whether they involved kinship carers, 18 to 21-year-olds and housing benefit or severe disability premiums, I made those changes after listening to people. Again, the impacts will not have taken effect yet because they are still being rolled out.

I agree that sometimes we have to do a “mea culpa”, hands up, as I did yesterday. I had the wrong words, I apologised to the House, and the apology was accepted by the House. Equally, I am more than happy and prepared when colleagues on either side of the House say, “Could you look at this? Can we look at it a bit more? Could you change this?”, and have made significant changes to this policy since I became Secretary of State.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State appears to be willing to mislead Parliament and to get into a fight with the National Audit Office in order to protect her failing universal credit policy, but what she and none of her colleagues will admit is that the NAO report blows a hole as wide as the Clyde through everything the Tories have been saying on universal credit. The NAO felt forced into writing an open letter to put this matter straight, and I understand that this is Sir Amyas Morse’s first such letter in over a decade in service. This is an absolutely shameful state of affairs. We can all accept honest error, but the Comptroller and Auditor General points out in his letter that a number of the statements that the Secretary of State has made are without evidence, are not correct and are not proven.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

[Alison Thewliss]

This is not about phrasing, as the Secretary of State has said, because speeding up is not the same as pausing. Did she actually read the National Audit Office report before her recent attendance in the House? And—

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. [Interruption.] Order. I am a little disconcerted to see the SNP Front-Bench spokesman gesticulating at me as if to say, “What’s going on?” Forgive me, but I did say to the House very clearly that—[Interruption.] Order. It is no good shaking your head, I say to the hon. Lady, who is an extremely dextrous and committed Member of this House. She had a minute; she consumed her minute and I then move on. That is the right thing to do.

Personal Independence Payments

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend raises several questions about helping disabled people into work. Over the last three years, we have helped more than 600,000 people into work. People will know that PIP is a benefit for those in work and those out of work, and we have helped another 200,000 people in work through PIP. This is what we are about: supporting disabled people who are in work and out of work, and bringing in a more tailored and personalised benefit. What I will say is that if something has gone wrong and if something is not right, we will correct it to make sure that people get the payments they deserve.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The credibility of this Department lies in tatters. The Secretary of State celebrates the fact that the Government are not appealing this decision, but the fact remains that they had to be dragged through the courts in the first place to be proven wrong.

I have some questions for the Secretary of State. Will she commit to ensuring that the money for the back payments does not come out of existing DWP budgets? When will the first payments be made and will they be fully backdated, so that nobody loses out? Why are decision makers making decisions as if the High Court case never happened? I have constituency cases in which people are being assessed under unlawful criteria and then forced into the appeals process, all of which delays payments to which they are fully entitled and means that they are living in poverty. When will new guidance be issued to Jobcentre Plus staff and claimants, because there is so much confusion out there that nobody is aware of what they are entitled to?

This Department is in no fit state to be undertaking the biggest shake-up of social security this country has ever seen. It is incompetent and failing the most vulnerable in our society, and the Secretary of State must do something about it.

[Ms McVey]

I reiterate that under PIP we are supporting more people than before and giving them a higher rate than they ever got before. If the hon. Lady is questioning whether money is being handed out to people who need it now, I ask her to consider how many fewer people were getting that support under DLA, the previous disability benefit. On the mobility component, in respect of which I rightly did not seek leave to appeal, we are supporting an extra 200,000 people—I take it that both sides of the House agree I should be helping an extra 200,000 people. That is what we are doing. That is what we are aiming to do. I think I said earlier that the first payments would be made at the start of the summer; I meant at the end of the summer. As I said, in respect of the specific cases that gave rise to the urgent question, those concerned will get their first payment in the coming days.

Welfare Reform and Work Act

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Thank you very much for fitting me in, Mr Gapes. I have pulled myself out of my sickbed to be here today, partly because the Minister who is here today is one who I have not yet challenged on the two-child limit and the rape clause; he deserves a fair go on those things as well, as a new Minister.

Earlier, Members mentioned the sort of false premise that people on benefits should face the same choices as those supporting themselves through work. However, that completely fails to recognise that 70% of families on tax credits are working and that the cuts that have been made are making them poorer and putting them into poverty, even though they are in work. They just cannot earn enough to make ends meet, and that is absolutely despicable. They are trapped and they cannot do anything about it, and it is driving children into poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 10% more children will go into poverty as a result of the two-child limit alone, which is absolutely despicable.

Through my own constituency work, I have found that the two-child limit has also had an adverse impact on the uptake of Healthy Start, because that entitlement is claimed through the child tax credit system and third children are not getting it. Food is literally being taken out of the mouths of children because of this Government’s incompetent policy.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission report that was published last week has evidenced properly that the two-child limit is having a disproportionate effect on those from ethnic minorities, which the Government have failed to acknowledge all the way down the line with this measure. Three quarters of Pakistani families are losing out as a result of the changes and the two-child limit. Bangladeshi families will lose out by around £2,150, and Pakistani families will lose out by £1,900. That is absolutely unacceptable.

I will talk today particularly about the rape clause, because it is an issue that I have been campaigning on since 2015. We all know that the Government are embarrassed by this policy, because they have refused scrutiny of it on every single occasion. They were forced into having a consultation on it. People submitted their responses to the consultation, stating how unacceptable the policy is, and because the Government knew that and knew that they could not avoid it, they snuck out the results on the day of Trump’s inauguration, because they knew that the eyes of the world would be elsewhere. They are thoroughly embarrassed by this policy and they have not accounted for it. They have ducked scrutiny of it on every single occasion.

The Government have also failed to acknowledge the particular situation for women in Northern Ireland, because if women in Northern Ireland make a claim under the non-consensual sex exemption—or the rape clause, as I prefer to call it, because that is what it is—they face being criminalised under the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 if they even make a claim. That is evidenced in the form they have to fill in, which states:

“Please be aware, that in Northern Ireland, if the third party knows or believes that a relevant offence (such as rape) has been committed, the third party”—

the person who verifies the claim—

“will normally have a duty to inform the police of any information that is likely to secure, or to be of material assistance in securing, the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of someone for that offence”.

No woman in Northern Ireland wants to put herself through that; it is absolutely appalling and the Government have failed on every occasion to account for it.

It is unacceptable that women have to fill in a form that states:

“I believe the non-consensual conception exception applies to my child”,

and that they have to fill in their child’s name on a form to say that that child was born as the result of rape. The Minister should be thoroughly embarrassed about this.

I have cross-party support against this policy, as well as support from the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nurses, and a whole wheen of women’s groups, charities and trade unions. The Government still have time to do something about this policy. It has gone to judicial review. If the judicial review finds in favour of the people who have brought it, will the Government accept that? Will the Government not appeal it, because I think they are embarrassed and they should do something about it?

Scottish Welfare Powers

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bill Grant]

Disability funding has increased over this Parliament, and will continue to do so. Fairness is a double-sided coin. The hon. Gentleman will learn that in the Scottish Government. Fairness must apply to the taxpayer and to those who receive assistance. I am sure that he agrees.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Equality and Human Rights Commission produced a report last week that suggested that 75% of cuts have fallen upon Pakistani families in England. Does the hon. Gentleman think that is fair?

[Bill Grant]

I have to take the hon. Lady’s word for that. I have not seen that report. I have no reason to doubt it, but I would have to know more about it before I agreed to apply the word “fairness.”

Disability benefits are being devolved by April 2020, and we have been promised that a new Scottish social security agency will be up and running, ready to take on the handling of welfare issues, in time for the next Scottish election. Time is moving on, yet many of the details are still desperately lacking. For example, we do not know how the system will interact with and work in parallel with the UK system and the Department for Work and Pensions. Might the Minister be able to indicate whether he has discussed that with his Scottish counterparts? That might reflect on the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) tasking me with that job.

That lack of detail and policy is a concerning feature of the SNP Government’s approach to welfare. We know that they will take over responsibility for benefits such as disability living allowance and personal independence payments. What we do not know, however, is precisely what their policy will be on disability benefits. What assistance do they propose for people with disabilities? How will claims be made, assessed and processed through the system? How much will people be able to receive?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Grant]

I have no issues. That is the choice of the Scottish Government, and I respect their choice. They have chosen to do that.

From what we do know of the SNP plans, we can see that they are likely to be incredibly expensive. The Scottish Fiscal Commission said that devolved welfare spending—this is an astronomical rise—will increase by nearly 50% between 2017 and 2023, going from £330 million to £470 million of taxpayers’ money. It is never the Government’s money; it is the tax raised from the hard-earned income of those in employment. Of course any system must be able to cope with the needs of those who depend on it, and do so adequately, but my concern is that the Scottish Government might devise a social security system that is so expensive that it will not provide fairness to taxpayers. The balance of need and affordability must be carefully considered.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that people are either claiming benefits or paying tax. Does he not agree that that is not the reality? Some people supported through tax credits are working.

[Bill Grant]

It might be my Scots accent that is causing an issue, because I did not indicate that. I said that the welfare system is generally dependent on those who earn money and pay tax, but there is a middle group. There are those who earn and who are not dependent on the welfare system, and those who are wholly dependent on it and are perfectly entitled to that support. The hon. Lady is right that there is a middle group where there is a balance of work with tax credits and assistance, and that is to be welcomed.

Jobcentre Closures

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I am pleased to have one hour and 23 minutes for this debate, having arrived in the House earlier today to be told by the Whips Office that I would do well to have the debate today, as opposed to early tomorrow morning. I take that as an early Valentine’s gift from the Government, and perhaps they will go further by addressing the series of asks that I and other hon. Members have for them.

The Minister will have briefed himself on the folly of the jobcentre closure programme, particularly in the city of Glasgow, where the Government wished to reduce the provision of jobcentres across the city from 16 to eight. Although I am immensely grateful, immensely proud and pleased that the one jobcentre the Government removed from the programme is the Castlemilk jobcentre in my constituency, for which I pay tribute to the trade unions, local campaigners and anybody who signed a petition on the various campaign days we had to save the two jobcentres in my constituency—I pay tribute to everybody who took part in that campaign—the Government, however, continued with the closure of Langside jobcentre, to which I will return later in my remarks.

I will remind the House how this all began. It began with a story in the Daily Record, which is how Members of Parliament representing Glasgow constituencies found out that the Government wished to slash the city’s jobcentre provision in half. That was followed the next day with a letter from the then Minister—now the Education Secretary—to Members of Parliament representing constituencies in which jobcentres were set to be closed.

It is worth remembering that, where Ministers were keen to send jobcentre users to alternative jobcentres, they relied on Google Maps to tell them which bus services people could use to move around the city to get to those jobcentres, despite the fact that Google Maps tells people to use bus routes that no longer exist and have not done for some time. Even after that was pointed out to senior managers at the Department for Work and Pensions and even after it was raised by myself and a number of colleagues in this Chamber, in Westminster Hall and in written questions—even after all that—still no effective transport study was carried out. I believe that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) who said that if a school or a nursery were to close, the local authority would be duty-bound to carry out some form of transport analysis to determine how people would use the service they then had to use instead of the original service they relied on. Government by Google cannot be the way this is done.

We pressed Ministers on several occasions to contact directly every person who would be affected by the closures, but they did not do so. Of course, Ministers know all the people who would be affected, because, as you will know in your role as a constituency Member of Parliament, Mr Deputy Speaker, when someone goes to the jobcentre to sign up for whatever support they are seeking, they do not get to leave that jobcentre until they have given the Government every single detail of their life. So I cannot understand why the Government did not take it upon themselves to contact people directly, instead relying on a couple of posters thrown up in the jobcentre, which many people would pass by.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will have had the same experiences I have had. Many people I contacted to let them know that this was happening did not know and had not been told about it. Unless they were going into the jobcentre regularly, they just would not find out, so they would go along when they needed the service only to find that it had gone.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As hon. Members can imagine, this was a big election issue in the city of Glasgow in June last year. During the campaign in my constituency, I told people that I was campaigning to save the jobcentre, and I met folk who used the jobcentre and it was the first time they found out about its potential closure; there can be no excuse for that, because there was no reason the Government could not have let those people know—they had every detail necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I do not want to detain the House too long, but I want to pick up on a couple of points.

My local jobcentre in Bridgeton closed on Friday. That jobcentre was well used and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) pointed out, it was round the corner from the Bridgeton citizens advice bureau. I spoke to the manager of Bridgeton citizens advice bureau, Frank Mosson, a week last Friday, after my surgery had finished. It was after 2 o’clock on Friday afternoon, and that was the first opportunity he had that day, since arriving at about half-past 8 in the morning, to go and get some lunch, but the soup had finished in the shop and there was nothing left for lunch. He had been sitting there all day working through case after case—complex cases—caused by the UK Government.

People rely on the citizens advice bureau in Bridgeton and other ones around the city to get the advice that they very much need and depend on. The jobcentre is being moved away from that local hub and the local support network. The credit union, the library and the housing association are nearby. All those things are right where people need them, but it is being moved out of the community and people are being sent nearly 3 miles away, on two bus journeys, or a 50-minute walk on a good day, if they are healthy and it is not tipping down outside.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is making a valid and salient point. When we fought the case for the Ballynahinch social security office, one factor we used was that people in Ballynahinch would have to travel out of the area, so people on benefits who already had minimal money coming into the house would have to find anything from £5 to £10 just to go and sign on. That is wrong.

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. We are fighting the fight in Glasgow about bus fare rises in the city as well, which is making it more challenging for people to get about.

While spending time outside the front of the Bridgeton jobcentre, I spoke to a woman who was on her way in. She was in bits. She was crying and upset. She had come from her house, which was just along the street, and she was in fear of what she would find when she went into the jobcentre, because they were hassling her and sending her letters. She had already been through a lot. She had lost her daughter. She is a WASPI woman, so she should not even have had to look for work in the first place, but this Government are sending this poor woman who had worked her whole life out to work. She was in bits, so we comforted her as best we could. She went through that experience and was understandably even more upset by the time she left. It would have been very hard for her not only to leave the house and go to the jobcentre that was just around the corner, but to get herself up, get on the bus and find her way all the way up to Shettleston and then make the journey back again. That is a challenging journey.

It is also a challenging journey for people who have caring responsibilities, for people who have kids to drop off at nursery and pick up from nursery, or drop off at school and pick up from school, and for people who are tending to elderly relatives who are poorly, which is a very common occurrence for my constituents. The burden of that falls upon women, which has not been picked up in the Government’s lack of an equality impact assessment.

All those things mount up on the pressures of life that my constituents are feeling every single day. This Government are not trying to get them into work. This Government are making it harder for them to even get out of the house in the morning. They are making it really challenging for people to cope. I am fearful that people will just fall out of the system; they will think it is too hard, fall back on their friends and fall into debt, drink, drugs, gambling and all the other social ills that we need to see removed from our people in Glasgow, so that they can progress in their lives. This Government are making it harder for them to cope.

The impact on jobcentre staff has not been mentioned. One of the first things I heard as a candidate in Glasgow was a story from a trade union rep about a jobcentre employee who had been attacked by someone with a clawhammer. That is awful. No one should face that at work, and I condemn the situation that led someone to do that, but that is the situation, and those staff need to be protected. When I walked into that jobcentre, the first person who came to see me was the security guard and the second person was the manager, saying “What are you doing here?” There is a security guard on that door for a very good reason, which sadly is to protect the staff.

The Government are talking about outreach, flexible working and going out into communities, but they have not said what the impact will be on staff, how staff will be protected out and about in the community and how individual constituents who are also in very distressing situations will be protected, with their dignity intact, if they are told they are being sanctioned in the corner of the local community centre. How do we ensure that staff and our constituents are protected in those situations?

[Hugh Gaffney]

One of the elements we have forgotten about is the staff. In Coatbridge, 300 jobs were moved. It was speeded up and the jobs were moved more quickly. We intervened and asked why those people were being moved out. Jobcentre staff have a 1% pay rise. For some of these staff, it will cost up to £1,800 extra a year in travel costs, so they are being asked to take a pay cut to follow their job. I hope the Minister keeps that in mind.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman is definitely right. He has previously spoken very movingly about the effect on local economies of having jobcentres as anchor tenants in such areas—in shopping centres and on high streets in local communities—and this is about the impact on the local shops, such as the butchers’ and everything else. There is an impact that the Government are obviously not taking into account.

I want to finish with a plea to the Minister. I know that it will be difficult for my constituents to make that journey. It will be hard for them to get there, find their way and do so on time. Buses are not very regular, and we cannot rely on them turning up precisely when we need them. On Google Maps, the timetable may say x—if people turn up at exactly that time, they can get here and there—but we know that that is just not how it works.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend reminds me of a particular case of a constituent in Carmyle. She recently told me that, for her to get to Shettleston jobcentre from the village of Carmyle, which is fairly isolated from the rest of my constituency, she will be required to leave three hours early. How difficult would that be if her appointment was at 9 o’clock in the morning?

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. The limitations of public transport make it difficult for people to get where they need to be at a specific time. In the early stages of this change, I want a guarantee from the Minister that not one single one—not one—of my constituents who arrives late, due to the decision of this Government to close their jobcentre, will be sanctioned. I will be keeping a very close eye on this Government and on this Minister to make sure that none of my constituents ends up being sanctioned because of the decisions his Government have made.

Social Security

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Lloyd]

I heartily agree with the hon. Lady. There are more than 2 million single parent families, which must involve many millions of children, and the effect on them will be devastating if the Government do not address this matter very quickly. If they leave it for another four years, I can barely comprehend the damage that it will do to many of those children.

I am also disappointed about the employment and support allowance work-related activity group benefit—the WRAG—which is for disabled people whom the DWP recognises as having the capacity to work but who need a certain amount of support in order to get back into work as a consequence of their disability. This is an area that I have been supporting for many years before I came into politics, because I totally share the view of many others in the Chamber that work is the best way out of poverty and the best way to boost self-respect. However, after the coalition—the Liberals would never have allowed this—the Government cut the WRAG payment by 30%. I see that that has not changed. In fact, the Government are looking at removing it completely.

I ask hon. Members to imagine that they have a disability, that they have been unemployed for six or seven years, and that they want to get back into work. They will be supported by their local Jobcentre Plus and by the DWP, but because they have been away from work for a long time, they might lack confidence. They will therefore be gently directed, guided, assisted and mentored into work. I now ask them to imagine what would happen if the DWP then said, “Oh, by the way, we are going to reduce your income by 30%.” What would that do to their self-confidence, and to their determination to stay in the work-related activity group? I can tell them that because human nature is what it is, more and more disabled people will try to move into the support group as a result of this cut, and that will cost the state more. This shows the Government’s complete lack of understanding of disability and of human nature. Bad move!

Turning to the work allowance, one of the first things that George Osborne, now editor of the Evening Standard, did after the Liberals were defenestrated in 2015 was to slash £3 billion per annum from the work allowance. When I was on the Work and Pensions Committee, along with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, I was so supportive of universal credit because, despite all its clunky bits, the work allowance meant that work really did pay. By removing £3 billion per annum since then, which will continue for the next four years, work no longer pays, which is completely counterproductive. The Government have kept all the worst elements of universal credit and have dumped the best element: the work allowance.

I pointed out in DWP questions earlier that universal credit is not working for the self-employed due to the minimum income floor. People who are self-employed may earn x amount of money one month and y the next—it could be less or more—but the way that universal credit is designed can mean that, at the end of 12 months, someone who is self-employed and earned £15,000 will have received less in benefits than someone who is employed and earns £15,000 or £20,000. The Conservative party, which always trumpets itself as the aspirational party, is specifically working against the self-employed, which is absolutely daft. As we know, the Government have abolished housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds, and housing benefit payments in the private rented sector have been frozen since 2016.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cancelling of benefits for under-21s leads to a perverse incentive? If young people are in supported accommodation, it does not actually make any sense for them to leave and go back into ordinary rental housing, because they cannot afford it.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Lady, who makes such a good point. Again, it is a false economy, because the situation just leads to more dysfunction and challenging circumstances for families. It will prevent younger people becoming independent, and it will cost the state more money.

In drawing my remarks to a close, I want to return to the issue of single parents once again. I urge the Minister to take responsibility for his Government and to listen to these figures. There are more than 2 million single parents in this country, who will have x million children, and they stand to lose nearly £2,500 a year in benefits under the benefit freeze. Those people do not have a lot of money; they are just trying to bring up their children. The situation is unacceptable. I urge the Minister not to ignore that important issue when he responds and to say something that we can perhaps take back to those many hundreds of thousands of single parents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend mentions the rape clause. Conservative Members asked him earlier about MPs who had said things that we would not accept were right, but the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) said that people should have vasectomies rather than children, because vasectomies are free. Does my hon. Friend agree that that sort of attitude—thinking that poor people are having hundreds of children just to scrounge off the state—is completely unacceptable?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That takes me quite nicely on to my next point, and the hon. Member for Stirling takes a keen interest in such matters, so I am sure that he will be concerned about this. Government policy is meant to go through a family test, so for the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) to start suggesting that poor people should have vasectomies is deeply worrying and provides a real insight into the mindset of a Tory MP.

Marriage in Government Policy

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered marriage and Government policy.

I am pleased to have secured this debate and grateful for the opportunity to speak to this important subject. I am also pleased to see a good number of Members here; I hope that is a sign of support for the promotion of the importance of marriage in Government policy. I welcome the Minister and wish him well in his new role.

In a week’s time, we will celebrate the 21st national Marriage Week. It will be 20 years ago this summer that I married my wife Tamsin Thomas. She tells the tale that when she met me, she was Christmas shopping and I was standing on a street corner with a bottle of methylated spirits. That is true, but it does not exactly explain the situation.

I would be wrong if I said that we had been happily married for 20 years—that it had been idyllic and that there had been no challenges. There have been considerable challenges; when she moved into my home, I found her moving the cutlery in the cutlery drawer frustrating enough. But I recognise that over those 20 years I have had a wife who has raised my children and been a tremendous support to me. I have been no help at all: I spent years working on the marriage and then left her to come to this place. I give credit to my wife and all the wives and husbands of Members across the House who are so supportive in the work that we do. I recognise the challenge of having strong and healthy marriages and couple relationships in which we raise our children.

It is now seven years since a Government Minister took the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach to promoting marriage in a speech during Marriage Week. When we last debated this issue in 2017, the Minister’s predecessor but one tried to reassure Members that

“the Department intends to continue to work very hard to ensure that marriage gets the support it needs to continue being a strong bedrock for the families and the children for whom we want to secure the best possible outcomes in the future.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 389WH.]

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman will come to this in his speech, but my constituents raise with me on repeated occasions at my Friday surgeries the difficulties that the Home Office places on their marriages. They cannot see their spouses because they live abroad and cannot get into the country. Does he agree that by not allowing people to live out their marriages, the Home Office is undermining people’s relationships?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing the debate. I was happy to go to the Backbench Business Committee and support him in his request, and I am happy to see the culmination of that request. I am well known as a supporter of marriage, especially in Government policy. I have been happily married for 30-plus years—believe it or not, 30-odd years ago I had thick, curly black hair. Then, I needed a brush; now I just need a chamois.

The fact of the matter is that I have supported married life over a long period, I am totally committed to it and I want to see Government policy on it. Since I came to the House in 2010, I and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is in her place—she will not mind me saying this, because it is true—have shared in many issues of common concern, and this is one of them. In the past, she has worked consciously in the Conservative party, as I have done in the Democratic Unionist party, to try to formulate Government policy. By working together across parties—not just in the confidence and supply agreement that we have now, but long before that—we have had some success with the marriage allowance. We were instrumental in making that Government policy. I want to put that on the record early on.

I and my party worked extremely hard to bring in marriage tax allowance transfers as a recognition of the stabilising effect that marriage provides to our community. The public policy benefits of marriage are significant. The hon. Member for St Ives outlined some of them, and I will add these facts and figures: three quarters of breakdowns of families with children under five come from the separation of non-married parents; children are 60% more likely to have contact with separated fathers if the parents were married; the prevalence of mental health issues among children of cohabiting parents is more than 75% greater than among children of married parents; and children from broken homes are nine times more likely to become young offenders—they account for 70% of all young offenders.

Those are some key figures. However, I want to be clear: in no way whatsoever am I am attempting to say that the only unit that works is the married family unit. I see this in my office every week, and just now my staff will be dealing with many people who are single parents. I see hundreds of wonderful women who singlehandedly run their homes, and their children are well adjusted and thriving. I increasingly see single men taking on the two-parent role and doing a great job. As the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, society is changing, and we have got to look at that. The intervention from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) reaffirmed that. We must adjust our focus and way of thinking to how things are today.

I understand as much as the next person that marriage is hard and relationships are hard. Sometimes, no matter how much one person may try, it simply will not work. In our relationship, my wife has been understanding. The hon. Member for St Ives referred to time away, and most of my life has been away from home. My wife reared the children and now has the role of rearing the grandchildren as well. Simply, people have to try hard, otherwise it will not work.

I have also seen too many women widowed in the troubles. I relate very much to that, back home in Northern Ireland, where women have to be both mother and father to their child in the midst of tremendous grief and ensure that their child has not simply a house to live in, but a home to grow in. The role of those tasked with the responsibility of looking after children is so important. I make no judgment on anyone’s ability to provide a great home for their child being intrinsically linked with marriage, but statistics show why I believe that marriage is key and why it should be key in any Government policy. I wish the Minister well in his new role.

One massive issue to recognise is that the commitment of marriage is a driver for stability, quite apart from wealth. Crucially, even the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples. In that context, it is entirely appropriate that our tax system now recognises marriage. That is something we pushed for and the Government recognised in the previous Parliament. It is good to have that.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about income and marriage. The Government seem to recognise that in the tax system, but not in the immigration system. I have a constituent who had tried to bring his wife here since 2007. Gladly, she has now arrived, but he was short by £7 over the whole year in his salary and the Government refused to operate any discretion to allow her to come from Iran.

[Jim Shannon]

I agree; I have faced many similar cases in my constituency office. I look to the Immigration Minister and her Department to be fair and allow for some flexibility in the process. To be just a few pounds short is frustrating. We have a system to work within, but we make our cases on behalf of our constituents and their wives and spouses in other parts of Europe, the United States, Africa and even further afield in the far east. The difficulties are around financial contributions, so we need a flexible Government and flexible policy. That is not this Minister’s responsibility, but it is another’s.

As I have said before, the case for change is compounded by the fact that the Government spend more money on supporting marriage through the much more generous married couples allowance than they do through the new marriage allowance. The married couples allowance applies to married couples in which one or both spouses were born before 6 April 1935, while the new marriage allowance applies to one-earner married couples on basic income tax. While £245 million was spent on the married couples allowance, just £210 million was spent on the marriage allowance during 2015-16. The former can reduce a tax bill by between £326 and £844.50 a year, but the latter does so by only up to £230 a year. That is a help, but it does not fulfil the aim. It is important to have those facts and figures on the record in Hansard so that we can see where the differences are and where we need change. I hope that others agree.

It is absolutely right that we recognise the public policy benefits of marriage for adult wellbeing at all ages. However, given the special benefits in relation to child development, it seems strange that we should afford the marriages of couples in their 80s and 90s, whose children left home long ago, greater recognition than those in which the public policy benefits could reach both adults and children.

We need a system that addresses families and children rather than those who are long past that stage. In that context, the Government should introduce a fully transferable allowance and pay for it by reducing its scope to married couples with young children. That would do away with the problem of low take-up by ensuring that the allowance is really meaningful for those who are eligible. At the very least, the marriage allowance for those with pre-school children should be increased so that no marriage of a couple in their 80s or 90s is recognised more—and not, indeed, by £844.50—than that of a couple with young children. Rather than just spending the same sum on a reduced pool of married couples, we need some change in the system.

I briefly referred in the Chamber, during the Budget debate, to the ComRes polling from last November; this is for those who follow ComRes and perhaps fill in their forms whenever they come. The poll demonstrated that increasing the marriage allowance is much more popular, with 58% support, than bringing in yet further increases in the personal allowance, which got 21% support. If we are looking for something that is more acceptable to the general public—we need to be conscious and cognisant of that—here is a simple system.

The cost of the further projected increases in the personal allowance to £12,500 is £4 billion, the majority of which will go, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has demonstrated, to those in the top half of the income distribution. By contrast, any increase in the marriage allowance would disproportionately benefit those in the bottom half of the income distribution.

If we take away housing benefit from couples who get married, and reduce working tax credit for families who marry and move in together, we make it less appealing for people to make that final commitment. We have outlined the social benefits of marriage, and the Government should feed something into that and make it more attractive for people who love each other and are in a committed relationship to marry. That is what my heart as well as my voice says, and what would benefit families and communities throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the issue of the marriage allowance and how to achieve what we set out to do in putting that in place. Many in the House, including many of those present for the debate, think the same.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. I have worked with him over a long time, and having run the Department I have a fair idea of the challenges that lie ahead of him. I am going to add to them. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on obtaining the debate, particularly this week, of all weeks.

Under the previous Prime Minister I was nominated to construct the family test against which everything was going to be measured. When I finally left—of my own volition, by the way—at no stage had I managed to get agreement from any of the key players about what it would consist of. While there was a principle, which was that the Prime Minister wanted a test that all decisions would be set against, the reality was that the Treasury in particular was not keen on any of it. I urge the Minister to press for a definition of the family test, by which all the effects of policy decisions could be looked at to see whether they would damage the family or make things more difficult. That would make logical sense.

I want to be brief, as I just want to make a start on a couple of issues, beginning by asking what the debate is not about. The trouble is that we all tiptoe around and get amazingly worried about the word. We think: “If I mention marriage, does that automatically mean worrying about whether marriages break up or other people do not choose to get married, and so on?” I know of nothing else in the purview of government where such a fear reigns in quite that way. We do not talk about business policy on the basis that some businesses will fail. We do not immediately say, “We must not talk about business or try to set policy to help businesses survive.” We do those things, because it is logical. Of course, in society as in economic life there will always be things that do not work out, but that does not mean people should set their life around what does not work out. If we all did that, frankly we would look a lot like North Korea. The point is we do not do it, so let us now make policy around what works and what is clear.

Marriage, frankly—this is not an arrogant statement—is probably the most fundamental institution that society has ever managed to construct to make society better, give children a better chance and improve the incomes and wellbeing of those within the process, as has been said. That is not to say that when, sadly, a marriage breaks up we should not do our level best to help people, and try to find them a better way and support them. That is critical. However, it means there is a need to recognise a couple of features. I am chairman of the Centre for Social Justice, which has been making this argument for some time, and we did a poll. What we found was the thing that always most intrigues me: when young people between about 18 and 28 were asked without reference to marriage what one thing they aspired to more than anything else, more than 70% aspired to be married, with stable families and a happy life. They did not aspire to be brilliantly successful at business; that was not their No. 1 aspiration. They did not aspire to have a fast car or a smart house. Their aspiration was for a social arrangement that would deliver them a happy outcome for the rest of their lives.

In any other area of life we would worry about such aspirations never being met by the reality. What, then, given that young people start with that aspiration, are we doing to make it less likely that they will achieve it? If that happened with respect to any other process, in school or in society, and we said “That is not a problem,” then of course we would be causing damage, but in this case we walk away from the issue. My arguments about policies on marriage are not to do with favouring marriage. I do not think it needs to be favoured in any way. People’s basic instinct and sense of direction will take them towards the thing that benefits them and their families most. I am certain that that is the nature of the situation. The question we really need to ask is what we do that stops people who have that aspiration getting to where they aspire to be.

I have a couple of points to make about that, beginning with the OECD’s view of what it costs for two people to live together, in comparison to the cost of living for one person. It makes a base calculation and comes up with a figure. It is not the same as two people together—the calculation includes how savings can be made within a couple. We understand and accept that. The UK, peculiarly—this emanates from the Treasury and every other Department—somehow takes the view that we need to go further. Financial policy here makes it more difficult than it is in almost any other country for a couple—particularly if they are married—to stay together. The cost of getting married is higher here than in any other country, because taxation is set against doing it.

I have been told by a number of my colleagues, “No one gets married for money.” Only someone from a reasonably well-off middle-class background will endlessly take that view. People in a low-income family where every pound really matters will calculate how best to manage their affairs. If one situation makes them better off, there is enormous pressure to decide on that as their direction of travel. I should love us to look carefully at why the UK persists in making it financially more difficult for people to come together to marry, and to stay together. Those are really big issues, and the figures are there.

[Alison Thewliss]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, because universal credit is set up so that there will be a single recipient in a household, many women are subject to financial control, which makes it far more difficult for those who face domestic violence to leave a relationship, because they cannot afford to?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Not really. I do not accept that at all. Universal credit operates by looking at the household, which makes it more likely that couples are supported to stay together. The hon. Lady knows that the vast majority of married people—and, by the way, even cohabiting people—have joint accounts. The figure is way over 80%, and I think it is close to 90%. For those in an exceptional position, it is clear that the money will follow the person with the duty of care. Those rules are written into universal credit, so I simply do not agree with the hon. Lady. I think that universal credit will help enormously to get rid of what I and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) referred to as the couple penalty.

The cost of weddings is another issue that we need to consider. There is an idea that people cannot get married now unless they have a fantastic celebrity wedding. The average cost of a wedding is now more than £20,000, whereas what people actually need is a marriage licence. There should be pre-wedding education to tell people: “You do not need to make such a big fuss about it. What you want to do is get married.” One big reason for so many marriages breaking up—probably more than anything else—is debt. If people start married life in debt because of making such a big issue of it, that puts enormous pressure on couples.

Work Capability Assessments

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for presenting the case so well. I will refer to many of the things he mentioned, but purely from a constituency point of view.

The issues to do with ESA, DLA and PIP appeals that Members have referred to come into my office every day of the week. On my staff I have a lady, Yvonne, who is blessed with the talent of being able to listen to someone, be compassionate and help put into words what people are frightened to write down. The forms are beyond off-putting. Sometimes the format of the forms is disappointing. Yvonne works hard and there is never a day that she is not up to her eyes in the crux of the matter. Housing and planning used to be the major issues in my office, but the major issue of the day now is benefits. We have a full-time staff member who deals with nothing else, and other staff members do so on a part-time basis. Whenever she takes annual leave, I try to keep on top of the most pressing appeals, and that tells me much about her character and what she is able to do.

Our local citizens advice bureau points people to our office as it is simply unable to process the sheer volume of cases of people appealing. I have the deepest respect for the Minister, and I want to put that on record, but does everyone understand how immense the issue is? I invite her to come to my office in Newtownards, if she is ever in the area, to speak to some of my staff. They will tell her clearly what the issues are.

I will quickly run through the system. If a claimant wishes to appeal a decision, they must request a mandatory reconsideration. Guess what happens next? More often than not, the original decision is upheld. Then, the claimant goes through the appeals process. If 64% of ESA tribunal cases find in favour of the claimant—in other words, the original decision is overturned—that indicates that there is something wrong with the system to start with. Two thirds of appeals are successfully appealed. The same thing applies to the DLA and the PIPs as well. It frustrates me greatly when constituents I have known for umpteen years—I have known their physical illnesses and health problems—get a form back that says, “We have decided you can work.” Well, they are not able to work. They do not see the same person sitting across the table from them. They are asked, “Can you jump up and down? Can you walk 100 yards? Can you make your tea?” There are issues with mental health as well; the hon. Member for Glasgow East referred to that.

People ring our offices in genuine distress and actually crying over the issues. Even the hardest heart in this Chamber would have to acknowledge that and take note. The problem is that the unwell person feels as though they have been dragged across hot coals. Their illness is exacerbated by the stress and they become even more ill. I have seen that happening so often.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good case that chimes with my constituent, Mr Ramsey, who had his ESA terminated. He has arthritis, kidney and heart problems, type 2 diabetes and colitis, and he receives DLA at the higher rate. He is at risk of a heart attack and a stroke if he is made to go back to work, but he was told he could not get what he was entitled to. He has now been placed in the WRAG, so he continues to have great stress and worry about whether he will be hauled back in again.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which will be mirrored by me and everyone else in this Chamber. Indeed, I do not see how anyone could have a different opinion. We see the reality in our offices every day.

The vicious cycle continues. Although it might look good on paper for the decision makers to meet their quotas, it does not look good to the doctor who has to care for the person. We need a system that lends adequate weight to the illnesses that people have without having to tax doctors even more. We all know how difficult it is for doctors to make appointments, and we are asking them to provide additional information that puts more strain on local GP practices. I understand that system. GPs in my constituency have decided to inform patients they will no longer provide letters for PIP or ESA, and will give information only if requested by ESA or by PIP. Again, that happens irregularly.

On the other hand, ESA and PIP request only certain information, so the whole case is not heard and the loser is the person applying. What comes first—the chicken or the egg? People are bouncing back and forth between the benefits office and the GP. It really frustrates me.

Universal Credit Project Assessment Reviews

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

As someone who has worked for the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers on behalf of low-paid shop workers for nearly 20 years, I have been banging on about universal credit for many a year. It is a pleasure to see so many Members across both sides of the House taking such an interest in the policy. We are not surprised by that, because the policy will affect not just the 7 million households who will become claimants—an average of 10,800 households in each constituency—but the 2.5 million households who are currently on legacy benefits and will cease to receive anything because of the cuts to universal credit.

I welcome the constructive comments made by Members on both sides of the House about universal credit, and I have always tried to be constructive when I address the policy. I have set up the all-party group on universal credit, and I am pleased to see contributions being made to that group by Members from all parts of the House. I sit on the Work and Pensions Committee, which will be pleased to receive the report.

If the Government are open about scrutiny and they really want to learn and fix universal credit, why are they not publishing an impact assessment on it? It is not just about the reports; we last had an impact assessment on universal credit five years ago, almost to the day. Since then, almost £5 billion a year has been cut from that policy. The last impact assessment for universal credit stated:

“A comprehensive evaluation programme is being developed…The evaluation will need to meet the immediate need for feedback and evidence on implementation issues”.

Apparently, the evaluation programme will include

“ongoing monitoring, evaluation and analysis; a ‘live running review’ of implementation and delivery; a fuller evaluation of implementation and delivery and ongoing analysis of outcomes and impacts.”

I want the Minister to answer this question when he replies to the debate: where are those assessments of universal credit that the impact assessment of December 2012 said would be put in place? Have they actually been produced? If not, why not? If they have been produced, following that commitment, why have they not been published? Why have we waited for five years and seen £5 billion of cuts but still not seen any evidence from the Conservative party on how universal credit is affecting the hundreds of thousands of people now receiving it, and on how it will affect millions in future?

At the very least there should have been an assessment of the impact of those cuts from the July 2015 Budget. That Budget cut £3.2 billion from work allowances and nearly £1.5 billion with the two-child policy, but it was left to the IFS to tell us that 3 million working households with children will be £2,500 a year worse off and that work incentives for single parents and couples who both work are actually weakened under universal credit now that the work allowances have been cut.

Unlike under tax credits, if universal credit claimants work overtime, their next month’s universal credit payment is docked by 63% of whatever they earn. Where is the work incentive in that? If a parent earns an extra £100 in the run-up to Christmas to try to pay for some presents and give their family a decent holiday, they will see their next universal credit payment cut by £63. That is not a work incentive.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is speaking very well, and I am glad that she is raising these issues. Is she aware that for some families who now fall victim to the family cap on universal credit it does not pay to go out to work, because work will pay them less than the nursery fees required if they have a third child?

[Ruth George]

Absolutely. Childcare is a key issue when families are trying to raise themselves out of poverty, as the hon. Lady rightly says. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that 30% of children are now in poverty, and nearly two thirds of those are in working households. Some 8 million adults live in poverty in a household where someone is in work.

Universal credit was meant to address the problems of poverty and work incentives. It does not. The Government are refusing to publish the evidence needed to fix their own policy, which they claim is what they want to do. If they really want to fix universal credit before it is rolled out to another 6 million families, they need to publish not just these reports but a full impact assessment, laying their policy and themselves open to the scrutiny that this House and the public deserve.

Universal Credit

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We do engage and listen to the voices of disabled people; indeed, our announcements yesterday were strongly welcomed by some disabled groups. On the test and learn approach, we obviously only made the announcement yesterday, so we are designing the trials. The purpose is to ensure that people can progress in work.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State claims that universal credit is constantly improving and that he is responding to concerns. Will he respond to my concerns and those of the Child Poverty Action Group and others, that the Government are knowingly putting 200,000 children into poverty as a result of the two-child cap, that they know the two-child cap is having a disproportionate impact on religious minorities and that their vile rape clause is stigmatising women in Northern Ireland and putting them in danger?

[Mr Gauke]

We have of course put transitional protection into the system. The hon. Lady represents a Scottish constituency; if the Scottish Government wish to provide support for third, fourth and fifth children, they can provide exactly that.