Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We released them earlier and they have been available since before the debate began, so I will simply move on.

I would like to turn to how we tackle the root causes of poverty. I believe that the past approach focused on dealing with the symptoms of poverty while completely failing to target the root causes. The Bill will provide a statutory basis for much-needed reform to improve children’s life chances. I have long argued that there are five key pathways to poverty that affect children’s life chances: worklessness, educational attainment, drug and alcohol addiction, family breakdown and problem debt. The Bill will remove the existing measures and targets in the Child Poverty Act 2010 and introduce a new duty to report on worklessness and educational attainment. Alongside the statutory measures, we will develop indicators to measure progress against either of those root causes of poverty.

Our new approach will drive real action, which will make the biggest difference to the most disadvantaged children now and in future. The key point is that this will enable us to measure what Government policy actually does, rather than just how much money we put into it. It is worth reminding the House that we will continue to publish the HBAI—households below average income—statistics so that those who wish to look at them can still do so.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

Child Poverty Action Group figures indicate that 21% of the children in my constituency grow up in poverty. As a result of the benefit freeze, a couple with two children earning £400 per week will be £34.20 worse off each week. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Bill punishes families on low pay?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No. The hon. Lady should realise that the main way out of poverty is to get into work and then to progress through work. The vast majority of people progress through work. [Interruption.] The records in Scotland are remarkably good. Employment in Scotland—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley]

At the moment, 1 million more children are expected to grow up in poverty by 2020 across the UK. That would mean 5 million children in poverty in one of the world’s richest nations. Does my hon. Friend agree that those children need support, not savage cuts to the security of their families?

[Hannah Bardell]

I could not agree more.

As I was saying, there was limited support for single parents, and although my mother held a good job in academia, finances were always close to the edge. I recall Lady Thatcher famously saying not long after she left office:

“It is far better to put these children in the hands of a very good religious organisation, and the mother as well, so that they will be brought up with family values.”

She told the audience in the Commonwealth convention centre in Louisville, that the spread of illegitimacy

“devalues our values and our community”.

She said that Governments had made things worse by providing social security benefits for single mothers, and it feels to me as if this Bill and the Conservative proposals are taking us back in time. We have come a long way since the dark days of the Thatcher Government: please do not let us return. All Opposition Members should be uniting against these pernicious Tory cuts—perhaps even a few progressive Government Members will join us to say no to a Second Reading.

Let me turn to the two-child policy. This part of the Bill makes changes to universal credit and tax credits, including a two-child limit for new claims and births after 2017. The Budget documents say that there will be protections in cases of rape and exceptional circumstances such as multiple births, but there are no details in the Bill. The limit will reduce the value of tax credits for future claimants with three or more children. There are currently 50,000 households in Scotland with three or more children receiving tax credits. Many of them are in Livingston and I have heard already from a number of constituents who are deeply worried about the impact that this measure will have on their finances.

To suggest for a moment that a woman who has been raped will have to justify herself to a member of the DWP is as sickening as it is unworkable. I have to hope that this grave error in policy making is a matter that the Conservatives will rethink and completely remove from the Bill. Either it is a deeply insensitive afterthought, or it is a proposal that shows utter disregard for a woman’s privacy and basic human rights.

How on earth can that policy work? What criteria will be applied to women justifying whether or not they have been raped? Will the criteria require a conviction—numbers of which, as we all know, are notoriously low—and what if a woman’s first or second child was the result of a rape? Will she be asked retrospectively to justify herself if she goes on to have a third child? What kind of training will staff have in dealing with women who have been raped? I simply do not want to believe that anyone in this House would want a woman to be subjected to this kind of regime. Asking a woman to relive such an abhorrent crime, simply to get enough money to keep a family going, is surely one of the most ill-conceived policies any Government have ever proposed. We deplore this policy and ask the Government to rethink it as a matter of urgency. As Sandra Horley, the chief executive of domestic violence charity Refuge, said:

“Women experiencing domestic violence are often completely controlled by their partner, including their access to birth control. Some women are also raped and sexually assaulted on a regular basis. Will this tax credit exemption mean vulnerable women who have been raped are forced to re-live their ordeal to prove they deserve support?”

We need detail and a rethink on this policy urgently. Similarly, for people who have had multiple births, the details and parameters of this policy are not clear. Much more clarification is required.

I will turn now to other aspects of the Bill, including the abolition of the employment and support allowance work-related activity component. Under the Bill, employment and support allowance for claimants in the work-related activity group will see their payments reduced to jobseeker’s allowance rates for new claims from April 2017. People affected are therefore set to lose up to £1,500 a year under current rules.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) described eloquently the pernicious nature of the changes to housing benefit for young people when she highlighted the fact she was now the only 20-year-old in the country the Chancellor would be helping with her housing bill. We now know that, from April 2017, those out of work aged 18 to 21 making new claims to universal credit will no longer be entitled to the housing element.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natalie McGarry]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very well-made point.

According to the House of Commons Library, in November last year 492,000 claimants fell within the employment and support allowance work-related activity group—people assessed as being capable of undertaking some work—almost 250,000 of whom are classified by the Government as suffering from mental and behavioural disorders. Under the Bill, these people will see their payments slashed, at a saving to the Exchequer of £640 million a year by 2020. Affected claimants will receive up to £1,500 a year less than under current rules. A recent study by Scope found that disabled people spend an average of £550 more in disability-related expenses than non-disabled members of the population. These are not extravagances, they are not luxuries, and they are certainly not lifestyle choices.

[Angela Crawley]

Child tax credits will be paid only to families with up to two children, even if the third is disabled. Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is a disabled child in a family, they should be exempt from this cap?

[Natalie McGarry]

I absolutely and fundamentally agree.

While £30 a week may seem like small change to the Secretary of State, for whom it is a breakfast, for too many disabled people it is the difference between hunger and malnutrition—between turning on their fire or sitting shivering in the dark, or between booking a cab to take them for their one day out a week or sitting at home alone, excluded from society. We will not tolerate that. Disabled people are not passive victims. This Government see the poverty they inflict on disabled people, on their loved ones and on their children as someone else’s problem. They talk a good game on getting disabled people into work, but dismantle the best tools we have for doing so. They have used traditional tools: cynical innuendo about disabled people, with baseless assertions that they are workshy, idle, and disincentivised by employment and support allowance from seeking work. Knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, they assume that everyone organises their lives according to their cynical standards. This is a Government determined to ignore the social barriers they are even now erecting.

Tonight the conscience of this Chamber will be tested. Hubert Humphrey, in his last speech, said:

“The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and”

those with disabilities. The Minister’s hand signed the paper, but this Government, who would rather parrot empty slogans than address the real needs of our people, have no tears to flow. Yet the tears flow of my constituents, and yours and yours. If you vote for this Bill or abstain, go home to your constituencies and prepare your explanations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

This Bill, in combination with the summer Budget, asks us to make three choices. It asks us to think about what sort of society we want to live in, the place of welfare in that society and whether welfare should be a way of life. It asks us to think about the relationship between the state, employers and labour. It also asks us about our tolerance for people being better off on welfare than in work. I know where I stand on those three issues, but I have heard that some on the Opposition Benches are wavering.

On the first of those questions—what sort of society we want to live in and the place of welfare in that society —I am pretty sure we have a consensus that welfare should be a safety net and should be a hand up rather than just a handout, but that means that a benefit such as child tax credits, which nine out of 10 families are receiving, simply cannot be right. Either a benefit should be universal, as with the NHS, or it should help those in trouble, but this one is at present stuck somewhere in between. It is absolutely right that we should move towards tax credits being for far fewer families—five out of 10 families in due course—but arguably we should go further, because in future people’s incomes should cover their cost of living. That is the direction we are going in with the living wage going up towards £9 an hour in 2020.

On the second question—the relationship between the state, business and labour—right now we have a high employment society, but we have a problem of low pay topped up by the state combined with low productivity. We need to move to a situation in which people have a decent wage and businesses keep more of their earnings through there being lower tax, with those earnings being reinvested in the workforce. We will then have a workforce that receive higher pay and that are worth more to their employers, who invest more in their workforce. That is a much better economy to have, with people being better paid and more productive.

The third question—our tolerance of people being better off on welfare than in work—was, I am sure, a real sticking point for all of us on the doorsteps. We got a very clear message from the voters at the election that it is not right for people to be better off on welfare than in work. It is a huge source of resentment when people see they are paying taxes that support somebody in a lifestyle they cannot afford. A couple might stop at having one or two children when they would like to have more but they realise they cannot afford it.

[Angela Crawley]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Whately]

I am sorry but we are short of time, so I will keep going.

It is right that those out of work or receiving benefits should face the same tough choices as those in work and living off their income. Three wards in my constituency are among the most deprived 20% in the country, and since becoming an MP I have prioritised spending time with my citizens advice bureau and local food bank. In the past I have worked as an outreach worker for the homeless, so I do really care about this subject—it is not just something I feel I should say.

It is critical to recognise the three principles of the Bill: that the best way out of poverty is work; that we have a better economy when we have people on higher pay with lower taxes and there is higher productivity as well as high employment; and people should be better off in work than on welfare. That is not just to do with incentives; it is about being one nation, with everyone having a shared stake in the nation’s prosperity.