Disability Support

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Luke Graham]

I could not agree more. I find it interesting that we have had an increase of around 800,000 people aged 16 to 64 who are now being classified as disabled. I understand that they had previous classifications within the welfare system and were receiving different benefits, so a simple change in the denominator would not indicate the impact.

The Government have made commitments to people in receipt of cash benefits. [Interruption.] It is a fair point. The hon. Lady asked me a direct question, and I gave her a direct answer. Again, I would happily debate the number of people who are now being classified as disabled.

There have been some positive movements in the Government’s changes. We have seen the employment rate for disabled people go up from 43% to 51%, which is welcome. I referred to Access to Work earlier, and £104 million went into the scheme in 2016-17, providing support to around 25,000 people.

Again, no Conservative Member is complacent. We are very clear that changes still need to be made. A number of my constituents have talked to me about their experiences of the assessment process, taking me through the paperwork. I have gone through that page by page with them to understand where they are having difficulties. From that, we can see that some of these changes have brought people into our offices; they have brought them into the welfare system. For a long time, they have lagged in the dark, whereas now assumptions are being challenged and new benefits are being offered. As a result, new questions are coming from our constituents, and we should try to answer them as best we can.

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

I commend the hon. Gentleman for giving a far more honest portrayal of his experience of his constituents than other Government Members. May I just challenge a point he made earlier about the figures? Of course, when he refers to these figures, he is being somewhat selective. The rate of inflation means costs have risen since 2010, so naturally the costs, output and spend he refers to will be higher, but that does not necessarily mean that people are not being affected disproportionately.

[Luke Graham]

We are looking at a 38% increase in cash terms, but if the compound inflation rate over the same period is taken into account, this would come out as less than 38%. I am happy to go through the calculations with the hon. Lady separately, but we would still find a real-terms increase in the benefits that are being paid out.

On all these policies, we, as constituency MPs, see people who come into our offices. They come to see me and my staff in my Alloa office and in my Crieff office, and we see some of the human impact of the changes made in welfare. I support looking at how we assess the impacts on disabled people, because we are putting in a considerable amount of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) made the point about the amount being spent on disabled benefits, and we are one of the highest spenders in the developed world, which should be applauded, but if the money is not getting to the right people at the right time, we need to see exactly how it is being administered and how our services are being delivered on the frontline right across our country.

Like other Members here, I have hosted debates on Disability Confident, which is a fantastic scheme. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) talked about how MPs should be signing up for that. My office is a member of the scheme and the same applies to colleagues from right across the House. The Minister visited the Glenalmond Timber Company in my constituency, and I hope everyone will be able to join me in congratulating Jed Gardner, its production manager, who now has Disability Confident leader status—the first in Scotland. I hope everyone will congratulate him on the fantastic work being done in Methven to give people with disabilities opportunities to work. When I visited the company and when the Minister did, too, we could clearly see the impact this has on not only individuals, but their family and friends. So some incredibly positive work is being done by this Government, although there are also areas where we need to review and assess continually.

Furthermore, in my constituency, we recently held a joint event with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) on Disability Confident in Alloa, which the local community and the DWP attended. It was hosted in Inglewood House, which, I am glad to say, signed up to the Disability Confident scheme immediately following that event. Again, that is an incredibly positive action, showing that companies in Clackmannanshire, Perth and Kinross are taking Government initiatives from the green Benches here and applying them in a daily way where we can see real improvement in our constituents’ lives.

As I said, I have a number of concerns about how the assessment is taking place, and I would support looking at having an assessment of how these things are being delivered. I hope to work with my Government colleagues on how that would be done. I hope that such an assessment would be independent, or certainly objective, to make sure that our constituents, our Government and ourselves will have the best possible view on how these disability benefits are being delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your fortitude, and that of the previous occupant of the Chair, at this time of the evening. It has been a long week. I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for bringing forward this important debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

Welfare reform has had a huge impact on my constituents, in particular on the lives of disabled people. That is the case not just in my constituency, but across the UK. Regardless of the rhetoric of those on the Government Benches that welfare reforms are helping people back into work, the reality is that the conditions are getting harder for those who are most in need of assistance.

Despite the War on Welfare petition with over 100,000 signatures calling on the Government to introduce cumulative impact assessments, the Government have been unrelenting in introducing these changes. For many, they have earned a reputation for having a hostile environment when it comes to these welfare changes, coupled with the Government’s austerity measures, notwithstanding the impact of Brexit and the potential for a further weakened economy. The reality is that it will be the most vulnerable and the disabled who will be hardest hit by Brexit. Whether it is Brexit, the initial 2012 changes or the 2016 welfare reforms, we have to acknowledge that they are not working as well as they could be in practice. That is not a political statement; it is a matter of fact that they are not working as well as they could be. Unlike some Ministers, I know that the Minister of State for Disabled People cares deeply and she will want to get this right.

We have heard many contributions from across the House from right hon. and hon. Members, who have conducted themselves, may I say, immeasurably better in the Chamber than in recent weeks. They have served their constituents admirably better on this important matter. It is worth highlighting some of those valuable contributions. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth rightly highlighted the WOW campaign and the disproportionate impact on disabled people, families and carers. This is not a political statement, but something we all, across the House, want to get right. I know the Minister shares the same passion to get it right.

The hon. Members for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) and for Clacton (Giles Watling), I am sorry to say, gave a rather rosy depiction. I am afraid I do not share the same optimistic view. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) for being a bit more realistic about the experience of his constituents. The fact is that there are elements of this that can be reviewed and reformed, and we all want to do that.

The hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) highlighted the range of cuts. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) spoke passionately, as always, about the impact on WASPI women, who are working longer and harder under the pension changes. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) rightly highlighted that many disabled constituents want to work but cannot. That reminded me of the phrase that a good friend, Susan Douglas-Scott, said to me: often, it is society that disables individuals, not the individuals themselves. The hon. Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) highlighted the UN report and the EHRC report, and the joint calls for cumulative impact assessments. Of course, no debate would be complete without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who needs no further words.

My constituent Liam from Hamilton has been trying to get the limited capability for work element for his universal credit, but so far he has been unsuccessful in his work capability assessment. His doctor, however, is adamant that Liam should not be working. Liam was a heavy goods courier. After a work-related injury, he cannot stand for any length of time and he cannot walk without fear of falling or his knees giving way. He has experienced heart palpitations, high blood pressure, numbness of limbs and sleepless nights as a result of various medical treatments. Despite all that, the gravity of his disabilities is not reflected in his medical assessment. Many of the conclusions of the assessment were based on assumptions rather than evidence. That seems to be a theme in many of the assessments.

Liam was therefore required, as part of universal credit, to claim to search for jobs for which he is physically unsuited and to attend training sessions for jobs he cannot do. This included a session with Remploy, the specialist charity for disabled employment, whose staff are experts in this area, but which refused to put Liam forward for any jobs because he was physically unsuitable for anything it could offer.

It is a shame that Liam is in this position. He has a very strong work ethic and wants nothing more than to get back to work. He is becoming increasingly frustrated by this situation because he is unable to provide for his children. He is a single parent with shared custody and often unable to see his own children because there is no food in the house and he is unable to feed them. Is it right that families should be forced to make these decisions? The system is clearly flawed and not working. This man cannot work, yet he cannot even see his own children because he cannot afford to feed them. It is heartbreaking.

For many of those claiming PIP and employment support, the situation is not much better. The assessment criteria for these benefits do not appear to have been written by disabled people with disabled people in mind; rather they are tick-box exercises carried out by ill-trained staff. It is abundantly clear from many of the cases that have come through that my office and the assessors do not pick up on all the issues faced by disabled constituents. Yet I am asked daily to advocate on their behalf, when I do not even know the half of their situation or the magnitude of their disability. How can a work capability assessment or adviser assess that in less than five minutes, 20 minutes or half an hour? It is not possible. We have to be realistic.

On Friday, I visited a local charity in my constituency, Esteem, which I sponsored this year for my annual Christmas card competition and which supports people with mental ill health. It highlighted the experience of many of the clients it sees on a day-to-day basis who have gone through the jobcentre and faced horrible experiences. I know that that is not everyone’s experience, or the intention of any staff member in the local jobcentre, but Esteem has identified that employees and staff do not feel adequately trained or qualified to assess individuals and are bending over backwards to prevent people from receiving further cuts. They are doing everything they can. It is not the fault of staff that the policy is flawed, and I do not blame them for administering the policy set by the Government.

This flawed assessment process is resulting in inaccuracies being reported to the DWP and leading to far lower amounts of benefit being given than what is needed to fit people’s circumstances and to give them the right level of support. In some instances, DWP staff are advising people not to switch because it would be less beneficial for them. There might be issues with the legacy system, but clearly there are also issues with this system, if DWP staff are having to give that kind of advice to get people through the process. We have to acknowledge the flaws.

Having to fight to overturn a case causes huge stress to claimants as well as putting extra pressure on agencies, citizens advice bureaux and MPs’ offices. It is admirable that, as we have heard, Members across the House have gone out of their way to help individuals to fill in forms, go through mandatory reconsiderations and get the right support, but, ultimately, if the system worked as it should, we would not have to do that; we should not have to do that. It is not a good use of our office resources, staff or processes.

We have to get to the root cause. This situation demonstrates how unfit for purpose the current system is. Another of my constituents, Darin, suffers from a chronic condition as well as mental health issues, but he lost his entitlement to an enhanced rate of PIP and mobility element in a recent reassessment. The assessor clearly did not consider the full range of his needs. For example, he is deemed personally able to manage his own treatments, but in reality he relies on his mother to take care of his medication and to wake him up every morning to make sure he gets the appropriate medication and support. He cannot do that on his own, yet his mother’s caring role was completely disregarded. It was Darin’s mother who approached my office, which helped to get the case overturned under a mandatory reconsideration, but we should not have had to do that. That anxiety and stress could have been avoided altogether had the assessment been accurate in the first place.

Another constituent approached my office after losing the Motability element of his PIP reassessment. He had an adapted car, which was necessary for him to get to appointments and to maintain his independence. However, the assessor who carried out the review found that he did not require help with mobility, despite having lost one of his legs. He also lost all his entitlement to PIP during that reassessment. Again, he dealt with the matter through my office, and had to undergo the process of mandatory reconsideration—not to mention the impact on his family of the shock, the stress and the senseless removal of support. The fact was that he simply had no alternatives.

The system can be senseless and excessively technocratic, although that is not always the case. It takes no account of how the removal of financial support or help in the form of, for instance, a mobility car will affect disabled people, making their lives far more difficult.

In a similar case, my constituent Margaret, from Carluke, lost her Motability car during her transition from DLA to PIP, which left her housebound. She successfully disputed the distance that she could walk, reducing it from the 20 to 50 metres in the assessment report to 1 to 20 metres. Her Motability car was returned but, in the meantime, unfortunately, she had bought another. That meant that, although she was receiving the correct level of support, her living standards had been needlessly reduced by the reassessment process.

If the system works as well as we have heard it does in so many accounts, why does every single one of our offices, each and every day, have to help people to counter it? The fact is that it simply is not working as it should. I think it not unreasonable to suggest to the Minister that the motion offers the Government an opportunity to conduct a thorough review of the assessment criteria, with the meaningful involvement of disabled people and those with long-term conditions, to ensure that the criteria are fair and truly reflect the extra costs that people face and the myriad conditions that affect them. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire rightly admitted that a continual review and assessment were required.

Let me end by asking the Minister a simple question. If the Government can spend limitless amounts on Brexit and on planning for no deal, why can they not introduce an independent cumulative impact assessment of their welfare reforms?

Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit: Two-child Limit

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The Womens Budget Group has found that 86% of welfare cuts have come out of women’s pockets. The Government are taking a gendered and targeted approach, and they should be wary of that.

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

The charity Refuge found that the two-child limit is forcing domestic abuse survivors and their children into poverty as a result of an increased financial dependence on their perpetrators. Does my hon. Friend agree that women are ultimately fearful to leave abusive relationships because they cannot support themselves, and that that is another example of where the policy has gone wrong?

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will talk about some of Refuge’s evidence later, because it is stark and the Government should take heed of it.

A social security safety net ought to be there for everybody—each one of us—when they need it, but by April 2018, the two-child limit had already affected 73,530 households. Well over half of those households—43,420 of them—were in work, so I will not have it if the Minister, or anybody else on the Tory Benches, which I note are remarkably empty, gives us the old Tory trope that the policy is about people on benefits making the same choices as those supporting themselves solely through work. The benefit is designed to give people in the lowest-paid work a top-up, to help support them and to make sure that their children are fed and clothed.

Of those 73,530 households, 2,900 were able to keep their entitlement for a third child by claiming an exemption to the policy. There are largely three exemptions to the two-child limit. None of them is entirely logical, and I would recommend that hon. Members check out the Child Poverty Action Group’s page on the exemptions to see how mind-bendingly arcane they are.

The first exemption is the rape clause. I put on record again my absolute disgust at a policy that forces women to fill out a form to say that they have conceived their third child as a result of rape. It is absolutely inexcusable as a policy. For someone to have to put their child’s name on a form and say that they were conceived as a result of rape is beyond contempt, and the Government should know better than to treat women in that way. We know from the figures that, up until April, 190 women across the UK claimed under that exemption. That is 190 women who have had to replay the most traumatic experience of their life to put food on the table. The Government should hang their head in shame.

The second exemption is for twins, but it is not as simple as it ought to be. It applies if twins are born after a single birth, but not before. If someone has twins after two previous children, only one twin is eligible for payment, but both those twins need to eat. There may be two almost identical families with three children—one that had twins and then a single birth, and one that had a single birth and then twins—but only one is worthy of support from the Government, which is completely illogical.

The third exemption is for adoption, but not if someone has adopted from abroad or if they were a step-parent before they adopted the third child, so that is not simple either. An additional exemption has been made for kinship care. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who successfully campaigned for that on behalf of her constituent Alyssa Vessey, who lost an entitlement for her own child after taking on caring responsibilities for her three younger siblings. The clear result of the policy and the exemptions is discrimination. Families may have similar circumstances and needs, but some will lose out simply due to the order in which their children were born—something that those children certainly have no control over.

I understand that CPAG will be back in court on the issue before Christmas, and I wish it the very best with its case. It believes, and I agree, that the two-child limit breaches articles 8 and 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is also beyond me how the limit could possibly be compliant with the UK Government’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child.

There will also be an impact on blended families and families who may be encouraged to separate to avoid being hit by the limit. A friend also pointed out that women who have children from previous relationships will be caught should they wish to have a child with a new partner, which is very common, whereas the male partner may be able to go off and start a new family more easily without having the children with him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danielle Rowley]

I only have two minutes left, so I must press on.

The SNP have argued against covering for Tory welfare reform, and I agree that it should not exist in the first place; but such political posturing helps no one. The powers of the Scottish Parliament should be used to stop families struggling.

[Angela Crawley]

On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?

[Danielle Rowley]

I am sorry, but I must press on. I am quite confused about SNP policy, because the hon. Member for Glasgow Central said she cares about families and children across the UK and wants the policy to be stopped across the UK; but the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said that the only way to end the situation was independence for Scotland. I should like to know whether they care about people across the UK, or only about people in Scotland.

[Angela Crawley]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Danielle Rowley]

I will not. I want to ask the Minister how he thinks the retroactive application of the policy will affect families who already have more than two children. How will it achieve the policy’s stated aim of making the system fairer and changing people’s financial choices about having children? In addition, there is no evidence that that would happen. What steps are being taken to ensure that women, ethnic minorities and other protected groups are not affected disproportionately by the cap? Have the Government made any assessment of the mental health and wellbeing impact of the policy?

The policy pushes more children into poverty. It targets women with no real assessment, and it is a good example of the Government engineering society to punish the less privileged for having children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

Let me make one point clear: the evidence is that we voted against the Third Reading of that Bill, when it mattered. The rhetoric at the time is irrelevant. Also, the Labour party is of course now under very new management, with a radical approach to abolishing the policy. The point is irrelevant.

A Government who react to children’s pain in the way that is the subject of the debate—by callously making a comparison with a market decision such as buying a car or a house—are not fit to govern. That is what we face when the Conservative Government take that attitude towards children’s pain. The children do not make those decisions. We have a duty to establish a welfare state that goes back to its founding principles of drawing a line below which no one will fall, and above which everyone can rise. That is the fundamental principle of the universal system of welfare in this country. While I want a UK Labour Government who fulfil their pledge to end the rape clause across the whole UK, we should use powers wherever they can be found to mitigate the policy and reduce harms in society where possible.

[Angela Crawley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Sweeney]

I am sorry, but I have already given way and have only five minutes for my speech.

We have the opportunity to make an impact in the Scottish Parliament, where there are powers to mitigate what is being done. It is four years since the Smith Commission, and the SNP has delivered only a single payment to carers. Families suffering the evil Tory cap on welfare need help right now. Indeed, that is not beyond the realm of possibility: to eliminate it in Scotland would cost £4,000 per child, which is less than 10% of the budget underspend of the Scottish Government. It is very much in their gift and they can achieve it, with the £10 billion extra they achieve from the Barnett formula. We must take action on all fronts to oppose the callousness of the Conservative party. Let us not pretend we cannot take robust action at all levels of Government to deal with the matter and minimise the harms faced by children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said, there is a £10 billion supplement from the Barnett formula. We have heard the stories, and I have questions for the Minister.

[Angela Crawley]

rose—

[Mr Sweeney]

rose—

Universal Credit

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

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

This week, South Lanarkshire Council informed employees that they could lose their universal credit over the Christmas period simply because they are paid four-weekly. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another example of the shambles around universal credit, and will he urge the Secretary of State to do everything in her power to ensure that low-paid staff at South Lanarkshire Council are not penalised this Christmas?

[Neil Gray]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right, and I will be coming on to that point later in my speech.

Mortgage Interest

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for mortgage interest.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone.

When people develop disability during their working life, it can disrupt those lives in profound ways, often making it impossible for them to work. Disability will not always take a person’s life plans into account, and the Government have a responsibility to stabilise people’s lives in new circumstances. Recent changes to the Government support for mortgage interest scheme mean that the safety net to help such people to keep their homes is being eroded.

Taking out a mortgage over several decades is of course always a risk. Most people would never dream, on signing those papers, that a disability might one day affect their ability to pay the mortgage. Yet with about 170,000 claims for support for mortgage interest as of 2016, the issue is clearly widespread and affects a significant percentage of home-owning families in the UK.

Until 5 April 2018 the Government had offered support for mortgage interest as a benefit to homeowners in hardship. That covered only the interest payments on their mortgage. The amount borrowed, insurance policies and arrears were to be paid by the homeowner, but for disabled claimants that in practice would mean scraping the money together from their employment support allowance and personnel independence payments.

Since April, the Government have stopped mortgage interest support, instead offering a loan to be paid back with interest. It is repaid when the home is sold, ownership is transferred or the homeowner dies, making the sale of the house more costly and difficult for the claimant or members of the family. Many people are wary of taking out a loan due to that aspect of the policy, and the effect it might have on a future house sale.

Figures contained in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” reveal that although all existing claimants have been contacted about the change, only about 10,000 have so far agreed to take up the loan. According to the document, that is

“90 per cent short of the 100,000 expected by the end of 2018-19.”

Many constituents have also approached me about the fact the loans will be delivered by Serco, a company exposed in the Paradise papers as having

“a history of problems, failures, fatal errors and overcharging”.

Problems with the policy may cause many people to sell their unaffordable homes and move into the private rented sector. In doing so, many would be eligible for housing benefit, but that would in fact create additional expense for the taxpayer: the average support for mortgage interest claimant under the pre-April rules received about £1,800 per year, whereas the average housing benefit claimant receives about £5,000 per year.

The Government have labelled the change a cost-saving exercise, and claim that it is done in the name of fairness. The Minister stated in a letter that

“the Government believes that it is right that, when they can, homeowners should repay this financial help they receive from taxpayers to accrue an asset, which may increase in value over time,”

However, it comes at the cost of forcing people to take on repayment of a new and unforeseen loan. At the same time, housing benefit can be paid to private landlords, who are able to pay their mortgages from taxpayer money given to tenants in receipt of housing benefit, without any of the associated requirements to repay. Even the Government and the Minister may agree that that is slightly hypocritical—it is not in keeping with the new term, the loan. The change in policy is causing extreme stress to already vulnerable individuals, in addition to forcing them to pay interest out of benefits that are designed to cover basic costs of living.

That was the case for my constituent, Alistair Dickson from Stonebyres, who was in receipt of the support for mortgage interest benefit. Mr Dickson was registered as blind at work and, as a result, had to leave his job. He receives employment support allowance and disability living allowance, and has been paying his mortgage and home insurance from those payments. As a result, his household budgets are extremely tight, and it is very important to him to be able to stay in his own home. This is where he has adapted to his new circumstances as a blind person, and where he feels safe. My constituent is unable to leave the house as often as he used to as a result of his disability, so that is where he feels most comfortable. He is aware that, financially, it would be easier for him to move into rented accommodation, but that would not offer the same security, comfort or familiarity as his own home. That is therefore not an option for him. I do not believe he is alone.

Tens of thousands of disabled people, people with long-term illnesses, and pensioners who had previously claimed support for mortgage interest but who have declined to take up a loan, are in the same position. They do not know where they will scrape together the money for their mortgages. They do not know if they should pack up their homes, downsize or go into rented accommodation. They do not know whether their only option is to take out a questionable Government loan. All they do know is that that terrible policy decision has been made, putting into jeopardy their ability to maintain their own home. On their behalf, therefore, I ask the Government to pause and reconsider an ill-designed policy change to ensure that they do not penalise homeowners.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend gives an excellent constituent example. Does she agree that many constituents across the UK found themselves getting a surprise letter from Serco, which caused fear and alarm across the board in people affected by this policy?

[Angela Crawley]

The Government’s decision to have Serco institute this policy seems rather absurd given its recent bad press. Again, I must ask the Government to pause and reconsider this ill-designed policy change, and make sure that we do not penalise homeowners for changes to their circumstances that are beyond their control. Will the Government consider that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I do not accept that there has been a lack of communication. If anything, we have over-communicated about the scheme. We went out of our way as a Department to ensure that literally hundreds of thousands of letters were sent and hundreds of thousands of telephone calls were made. We are still trying to contact some people, given the lack of clarity about the data we need to make those contacts. We are taking this in a very steady and sensible way.

Everyone is given plenty of time to make a decision—everyone is given up to six weeks from the loan offer to decide whether they want the loan. Once the loan documents are issued and sent off and a loan offer is made, people get six weeks to make a decision. We signpost people to the Money Advice Service or Citizens Advice if they need any kind of financial advice, because neither Serco nor the Department for Work and Pensions can offer such advice. As I said, there is a communication phase, which Serco handles, and the execution and administration of the loan is done entirely by DWP operations.

[Angela Crawley]

Does the Minister accept, though, that six weeks is in real terms quite a short time in which to get the relevant and necessary financial advice? Relying on services such as Citizens Advice—voluntary, third sector services that are often financially strapped—to give people the necessary financial advice about their future seems a bit irresponsible on the Government’s part.

[Kit Malthouse]

I do not accept that sending people to Citizens Advice or the Money Advice Service for advice is irresponsible. That is exactly what those organisations are there to do, and they do it very well on a daily basis. Do not forget that the six weeks are from the loan offer—the point at which someone says in principle that they would like to have a loan. They then have six weeks in which to decide, execute the documents and send them back. There is a whole period before that in which people gather information and discuss the matter with their financial advisers and, indeed, with Serco if they need more information on which to make a decision. Do not forget that the communication process started in July last year, so it has been ongoing for quite a while, and tens of thousands of people have successfully made a decision either way.

[Kit Malthouse]

No, people do not receive correspondence prior to the Serco letter. An initial letter and an information booklet are sent out by Serco to warm them up to the change that is coming, and there is then a variety of follow-up information. Once someone has had all the information and thinks they are in a position to make a decision, they are in effect handed over to the operations people in the Department, who proceed to execute the loan—or otherwise—and load them on to the system for payment. As I said, tens of thousands of people have successfully made the transition, and many people are now receiving payment of the new support for mortgage interest.

I want to move on to a couple of other issues. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East mentioned vulnerable recipients. We have taken particular care over those who are vulnerable and those who might not have the mental capacity to make financial decisions on their own. In those cases, the timeframe for execution, resolution and transition has been significantly extended. We are working with people either who we know are vulnerable or who were identified during the process as vulnerable to ensure that they have an appointed financial adviser, deputy or whatever it might be to make those financial decisions for them. That process is much longer; we are able to extend it to be pretty much as long as they need to make the position clear.

The hon. Lady raised a particular constituency case. I urge her to reassure her constituents that the new scheme is designed to maintain them in their home. On a day-to-day basis they will see absolutely no change whatsoever. They can stay in that home for as long as they like—for the rest of their natural life. The only change for them is if they sell that house or it is inherited by someone following their death and there is any equity in the house, the accumulated loan will be recovered from the proceeds. If there is no equity, we write the loan off. Do not forget that it is a very low-cost loan: the interest we charge is the same as that charged to the Government on their debt. It is in statute that it is a low-rate loan. We recognise that this is a disruption and change for people, but as we take the scheme forward we will try to make it as painless as possible.

We expect that a number of people will decide not to take the loan but to try to go it on their own, making their own mortgage payments. We are hearing anecdotally that people are either managing to make the rest of their mortgage payments or turning to family for assistance. However, if in three or four months’ time they do not think it is manageable, they think they have got themselves into trouble or they are in arrears on their mortgage because they have not been able to make payments, it is open to them to come back to us and reapply for SMI. If they are in trouble, we will be perfectly willing to backdate that to the date of change for them, to 6 or 7 April, to clear their arrears and ensure that we do not put anyone in a difficult position.

I stress that this change is about increasing sustainability and fairness, balancing the interests of the taxpayer against those of someone who is in extremis and needs assistance but nevertheless is in ownership of what could be a very valuable capital asset. In other parts of the benefit system, we do not necessarily allow people to accumulate capital assets. If someone applies for housing benefit, we look at their assets and if they have between £6,000 and £16,000 in cash in the bank, whatever it is that affects it. SMI is specifically about protecting people’s homes and ensuring that they are maintained in those homes for the long term.

[Angela Crawley]

Does the Minister accept that through housing benefit most people forced into the private rented sector are paying someone else’s mortgage? Is it not a tad hypocritical to say that someone in hardship or who will not otherwise be able to work again should not have their mortgage paid when those in the private sector, often renting from private landlords, are paying mortgages through housing benefit?

[Kit Malthouse]

I do not accept the equation the hon. Lady is creating between the two. Those on housing benefit are being supported by us with a legally enforceable rental liability. It might be to a private landlord, a housing association or a council—who knows? They have a rental liability and we want to maintain them in their home, so we will support them in that through housing benefit.

Through SMI, if someone gets into extremis, we want to maintain them in their home and support them in their mortgage, subject to capital limits. All we are saying is that if someone stays on SMI for some time and therefore profit accumulates in their home, once they sell it some or all of that very low-interest, low-cost loan should be recovered so we can recycle that into support for other people in search of housing, in need of support and housing benefit or, indeed, in need of SMI. That seems only fair and reasonable.

We reckon that the overall saving for the taxpayer will be £150 million, plus or minus—we will see where we get to. Overall, in fairness, given how the housing market has changed and that SMI was only ever meant to be a temporary support—only for us to find people who have been on it for decades, and about half the people on SMI are pensioners, so there is likely to be significant equity locked into the property being supported—it seems reasonable that, when that house is sold, the taxpayer should recover some or all of the money advanced to maintain that person in their home.

Critical for us is that the scheme achieves exactly the same objective as the old benefit payments. People who need support for their mortgage can rely on the state to support them while they get back on their feet, or whatever it might be, and maintain them in their home. The hon. Lady’s constituent can be reassured that SMI should not change their status at all. If they take the loan, we will do our best to support them to stay in their home for the foreseeable future.

Question put and agreed to.

Marriage in Government Policy

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing this debate and on his efforts to ensure that Marriage Week is celebrated in Parliament.

Marriage is a changing institution, and within our lifetimes it has changed dramatically. In fact, when the institution of marriage was originally created, the average life expectancy was 30 years. If we look at the statistics for marriage rates, we see that the number of people getting married each year is falling. At the same time, the age at which people are getting married is increasing: people of my generation are marrying on average 10 years later than their parents. On top of that, marriage rates are on the increase among over-65s, having increased by half between 2009 and 2014, which also says a lot about people living longer. So in my opinion, while marriage trends are changing and adapting to people’s wishes and needs, the institution of marriage does not appear to be under threat.

However, I am somewhat astounded, if no less grateful to the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), that equal marriage was finally mentioned one hour into the debate, although much of his attention focused on civil partnerships. I find it astounding that the Government did not take this opportunity to recognise all forms of marriage, and instead focused on nuclear and “2.4” families. I am sure that the Minister will address that in his response, but I just expected more from the Floor of the House.

While I welcome recent changes that allow same-sex couples across Scotland, England and Wales to marry, it is a great disappointment that that is still not possible in Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) shares that concern. This is a great freedom for many couples who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, and as we approach LGBT History Month it has never been more important for the Government to put on record their support for same-sex marriage, recognising that everyone should be equal in the law and under the protections therein.

Giving same-sex couples the right to marry allows them to validate their relationship in a way that was previously denied. It is a move forward, closer to a more equal society, and allows those people to choose whether to get married, just like their peers. For many others, it is just as relevant not to marry. We have talked about cohabitation and suggested that it is not on an equal par with marriage, but I suspect that many families would disagree. I do not think that it is this House’s place to determine the sanctity of anyone’s relationship, whether they are cohabiting, married or otherwise. It is a choice, and we should simply enable that choice to be made by all individuals equally.

On many occasions, long-term cohabiting couples have just as successful relationships. So while I recognise the comments of the hon. Member for St Ives and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on the statistics—which, yes, are alarming—I would echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who cautioned us about the correlation of statistics in relation to marriage and mental health. The simple fact is that there are many successful families and they come in many shapes and forms, and marriage is not the sole indicator. While the hon. Member for St Ives outlined those statistics and suggested that children are more successful where there is marriage, I would caution that it is neither our role nor responsibility to lecture those who do not choose to marry.

As the term “marriage equality” suggests, the sanctity of marriage should be available to all, but we should also respect those who choose not to marry.

[Dr Poulter]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley]

No, I will continue.

Finally, many people’s marriages and relationships end. When they do, it is Government’s responsibility to create policy to support and protect those people, not to penalise them, especially not vulnerable parents with children to raise. If tackling child poverty is this Government’s aim, using this debate to lecture others on the sanctity of marriage is not the best use of time, especially when there are other aspects of Government policy that do not support families as they should.

I therefore take this opportunity to focus once more on Government policy, which is, of course, part of the subject of this debate, and to call on the Government to address the charges for the Child Maintenance Service. Where a relationship breaks down, many parents do not choose to live separately or rely on the Child Maintenance Service, so it is unfair and unacceptable to penalise parents or levy charges on one or both parents trying to support their children despite the breakdown of a marriage or relationship. Many parents rely on the Child Maintenance Service. The levy imposed is unfair and penalises children, who need the service most.

Marriage is and always should be a choice available to everyone. I hope that the House will recognise that.

State Pension Age

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. In pension terms, what we have witnessed over recent years is an attempt to take away dignity in old age. The plans formulated to take the pensionable age beyond 65, 66 and, now, 67 simply outline this Government’s direction of travel. For any national pension scheme, dignity should be at the heart of retirement. Speaking for the Scottish National Party: that is where our values lie.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), for example, has been at the sharp end of the debate on behalf of the WASPI women, as we all have. Despite the calls for fairness and dignity for the WASPI women, despite the majority of MPs saying that they would support the WASPI women in a vote, we are still in the situation that women born in the 1950s are expected to work beyond their original pensionable age and are having to work into their retirement years—those who still can.

For a Pensions Minister to come to this Chamber, as he did last July, to suggest that women get themselves an apprenticeship at the age of 63 or 64 is laughable and shows how much this Government appreciate the difficulties that people have adjusting to retirement.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituents, such as Lorraine McColl and Nancy Rea, who have campaigned relentlessly for the past two and a half years since I became an MP, have yet to hear any satisfactory response from this Government? I thank the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) for securing this debate, but how long must we continue endlessly to have this debate?

[Douglas Chapman]

It certainly feels like, “How long is a piece of string?”, because this debate has gone on and on. Frankly, some of the conditions and situations described by other Members are totally unacceptable.

As my hon. Friend points out, it is absolutely ridiculous that women born in the ’50s have to wait for another six years before they can collect their deferred wages through the state pension. The situation is not getting any better; in fact, it is getting worse. The Cridland review recommended that the expected rise in the state pension age to 68 be brought forward to 2037. For many hard-working Scots, whose life expectancy is not high because of historical and deeply ingrained health challenges, this means fewer years for them to enjoy their retirement. The picture is no different in parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, where industrial injuries and a high level of poverty impact on life expectancy. At no point were the Scottish Government, which raised the issues with the Cridland commission, given the opportunity to put their point forward in a proper consultation on this proposal. Again, that is totally unacceptable from the point of view of Scottish pensioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I feel that I have already answered the point about notice.

The proposal made by many is to revoke the Pensions Act 1995 and all subsequent Acts, which would cost the public purse more than £70 billion, to be paid for by younger people, as today’s pensions are paid for by today’s worker. It would represent a cost of more than £38 billion to the public purse in the next year alone.

[Angela Crawley]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

No; I have a minute and a half in which to finish. If we consider that in combination with the ever-increasing demographic pressure—the number of people over state pension age is set to rise by almost one third in the next 25 years—it quickly becomes clear that we cannot afford to back away from the responsible choices that successive Governments have made. Although the state pension has risen significantly since 2010 under the coalition and this Conservative Government, and although auto-enrolment has succeeded in increasing eligible female employees’ participation in a workplace pension to 80% in 2016, the reality is that the Government face a key choice when seeking to control state pension spend: increase state pension age or pay lower pensions, with an inevitable impact on pensioner poverty.

The only alternative is to ask the working generation to pay an ever-larger share of their income to support pensioners. Although increasing longevity is to be celebrated, we must also be realistic about the demographic and fiscal challenges that it creates for us as a society. Given the increasing fiscal pressures described, we cannot and do not intend to change a policy implemented over the last 22 years and supported by all three major political parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

It is open to any Member of the House to attend any Westminster Hall debate. Members can choose to apply to speak, or they can ask to intervene on the Member speaking. It is entirely in the hands of individual Members whether they attend a debate or not.

[Angela Crawley]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. Can I clarify something for the avoidance of doubt? A number of generalisations were made about young and old people, and who cares more or less about pensions—

Child Maintenance Service

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

It is perhaps not surprising that while Brexit dominates most political debate, issues of huge importance sometimes slip through the scrutiny of this place, and I believe that the Child Maintenance Service falls into that category. After several months of working through the formalities of this House, I am delighted finally to have the opportunity to raise my concerns and highlight in the Chamber the real struggles faced by my constituents.

My constituency office has dealt with a huge variety of problems with the Child Maintenance Service, including the tax on survivors of domestic violence—the Minister may be aware of that issue since I have been campaigning on it for some time. I would also like to raise further constituency cases beyond that campaign, and I hope that the Minister will respond to my remarks.

The Child Maintenance Service was established in 2012 to replace the Child Support Agency—an organisation that was arguably worse. The new system was built on the ethos that children fare better when their parents have a positive relationship. However, that is not the case for all former partners, and some of the ill-judged changes made in the transition to the CMS included glaring oversights in the administration of the system. The stubborn refusal of the Government to acknowledge their mistakes has meant that the current system is not always fit for purpose.

The essence of child support is simple. When both parents are not in a relationship, or if they break up, the child should not suffer financially. For some children, the CMS is their means of avoiding poverty. As a result, that organisation forms one of the most important roles of government—the protection of children. It is therefore vital that such a service should be treated with no less complacency than any other Department.

To allow the CMS to fulfil its important duty, some changes should be made. It currently operates three different payment systems, two of which—the family-based scheme, and the direct pay scheme—operate without charge. The collect and pay scheme, however, has a number of charges. The family-based scheme essentially runs without the involvement of the CMS. Parents can sort out financial arrangements without the bureaucracy of Government interference. It is designed for former partners who can maintain an amicable relationship, and it is the most advantageous scheme for all those involved. It is cost-neutral to the Government, beneficial to the child, and ideally involves no ill-feeling between the parents.

The direct pay scheme is where child maintenance is directed to the receiving parent without using the CMS. That happens after a maintenance calculation has been made by the Department. Parents essentially agree between themselves how and when maintenance will be paid, and the onus is on both parents to monitor the payment and highlight any discrepancies within the agreement. The direct pay scheme does not check whether maintenance has been paid, and neither does it offer any enforcement for either parent. Instead, if the scheme does not work, the CMS offers a move to a managed service—the collect and pay service. That scheme is available to those who have failed to receive payment, and if there is a reason why someone may not wish to interact with their ex-partner, or if the parent requests to use that scheme, in many cases the CMS can collect child maintenance payments and pass them on to the parent with day-to-day care of the children.

Paying parents must pay a 20% collection fee on top of their usual child maintenance balance, and receiving parents must pay a 4% per cent collection fee that is deducted from their usual child maintenance amount. There is a £20 application charge for the collect and pay scheme, which is waived should the receiving parent be a survivor of domestic abuse. This scheme is the safest of all. Even in this instance, however, the system can be open to exploitation and abuse. The protections include wage deductions and the removal of any possible contact with an abusive partner. As the Minister will know, one of the biggest barriers to independence for survivors of domestic abuse is financial control, which is why it is welcome that the £20 application fee for the collect and pay scheme is waived for survivors of domestic abuse.

I welcome the waiver, but it leads to the question that if the collect and pay scheme is the most secure mechanism for survivors of domestic abuse to exercise their right to child maintenance, and is free to apply, why is there an ongoing monthly charge for the survivors’ continued safety? The 4% collection charge is removed from the child’s entitlement. This is support that the Government have already determined through their calculations that a child is due, yet they see fit to remove it, taking vital financial support from families and penalising children.

In previous correspondence with the Minister’s Department, I was informed that the charges were to cover administering the cost of the service and to incentivise the use of other schemes within the CMS. Logically, however, that runs counter to the Government’s removal of the £20 charge. The Minister is essentially saying that the initial charges are intended to incentivise the use of other schemes, but the ongoing monthly, and more costly, charges are there to penalise those where this is not possible. I am sure that that is not the intention, but the Government are using the charges to encourage some of the most vulnerable individuals in the country to engage with their abusive ex-partners and to rely on Government bureaucracy or worse. That is unacceptable and it must stop.

The 4% tax on survivors of domestic abuse has rightly caused major concern with support groups and charities, including Women’s Aid, the White Ribbon Campaign, Gingerbread, Engender and One Parent Families Scotland. Those organisations all signed a letter in March this year, alongside Members from every party in this House with the exception of Government Members, calling for the abolition of the tax. Since then, the Government have lost their majority and this could carry the majority of the House. I therefore implore the Minister to do the right thing by vulnerable parents and send a message that the Child Maintenance Service should be a place of safety and security where individuals can exercise their right to child maintenance without fear of recurring abuse. I have been campaigning for this change for some time and have heard many weak excuses from the Department for its inaction. If the Minister in his reply plans to give me some of the same lines I have heard in the past, let me assure him that I have heard them all before. Let me try to counter them in advance and save him some time.

The Government have consistently advised me that the direct pay scheme is a safe scheme and that the collect and pay scheme is the best way to ensure that both parties are protected. The Prime Minister has told me that users can utilise anonymous sort codes and therefore hide their location and that, if a payment is not made, the domestic abuse survivor can move on to the collect and pay service. Let me tell the Minister why that answer is at best careless and at worst negligent. Giving abusers access to communication with their former partners through bank transfers, and the ability to leave messages while doing so, continues the cycle of abuse. Allowing abusers to pay late without fear of enforcement also continues the cycle of abuse. The system is open to exploitation and abuse, and I hope the Minister will take that into consideration.

Finally, while the collect and pay service offers the protection required, the charges come into play if a domestic abuse survivor is moved on to it. I am sure that that is not the intention. There is no way, even by the Government’s logic, that a survivor of domestic abuse can escape the tax applied by the Government without subjecting themselves to the possibility of continued abuse. Surely the Minister would agree that that is a flaw in the system? It must be reviewed and addressed accordingly.

Another argument proposed by the Conservative party is that the tax is so small that it does not matter. I would question whether it is the place of the Government to define what matters and what constitutes small or large. Is it the place of the Government to define what is materially impactful when vulnerable families rely on the service? In response to a letter, the former Minister highlighted the fact that the 4% charge was “minuscule” and, in her interpretation, was not materially impactful. That is not a position I would expect of a Minister. I would expect the Minister to listen and adopt the views of Opposition Members as well as Government Members.

I believe that the Minister’s response is contemptible at best, and I seek a better response from the Department. I want to raise two points. First, if it is not materially impactful, why apply it at all? Secondly, it might not have a huge effect on the Government’s budget, but for families living on the breadline, every penny counts. In advance of next week’s Budget, I ask the Government to consider who needs the 4% of child maintenance more—a family who will feel its material impact or the Treasury, which will not? I hope he will feed that back to the Chancellor along with my determination that the tax be scrapped.

The Government consider it a success that more people are using the systems outside the intervention of the CMS, but with one third of those applying for children maintenance citing domestic abuse as the reason, I wonder how many individuals are being put at risk to avoid these punitive charges. The CMS should be protecting, not punishing, those who have fled domestic abuse. It is time that the tax was scrapped. I have spoken at length about the domestic abuse survivors tax—an issue I have campaigned on and which needs attention—but it is just one aspect of the service that is not working, yet, as much of my constituency casework shows, it could very easily be addressed.

I wish to highlight a few further issues with the CMS, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond. Several issues with its administration have clearly had an impact on my constituents. One of them had been in an abusive relationship but managed to cut off all contact while receiving maintenance for their child. However, the Department sent her a letter meant for her ex-partner, which caused her great concern, as she was worried that he would get mail meant for her and find out her new location. It is unacceptable that a simple administrative error could strike such fear and alarm into an individual and that any Department, no matter how easily administrative errors might occur, could allow someone to feel endangered in that way.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I rise to mention the case of lady in my constituency who approached the CSA back in 2005 and was assessed as only getting £18 a week. Eventually in 2013, after multiple letters and failures, it recognised that it should have been £68 a week. By that time, though, there were nearly £20,000 of arrears. That woman has been left in debt, and until recently we were told that the arrears would be cleared over the coming 15 years. By then, she would have been left servicing debt for 27 years. We have managed to get it sorted, but the idea that someone could write back to a woman who has raised children for 12 years on her own and say, “Don’t worry. In 15 years, it’ll be cleared,” shows a lack of comprehension of the real world.

[Angela Crawley]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that such errors, so glaring and so obvious, should be addressed by the Government.

The service levels offered to my constituents are often inconsistent, and CMS rules are often not followed by departmental staff. For example, requests to use the collect and pay service are often discouraged by advisers. I have previously raised the case of a constituent whose ex-partner was falling behind on payments and had requested to be put on the collect and pay scheme. She was told by a CMS adviser that this was not possible because the shortfall in payments was less than 10%. My constituent had not heard of this rule and, on asking where this was written in the legislation, was told to look it up herself.

I could not find it written down anywhere either, and on questioning the Department, I was informed that it was not policy. Will the Minister tell me if there are targets for staff to keep people off collect and pay? I sincerely hope that there are not. If not, why are excuses being made not to use the scheme? In calculating the amount owed by the paying parent, income details are taken from HMRC, but they are not always taken from the most recent tax year. In fact, HMRC can use historic income data from any year in the past six for which it considers it has complete details.

While this might work for most people, as was outlined in correspondence with the Department, it fails those who are self-employed or who tend to work on a contractual basis. For those people, income figures can vary dramatically year on year, so the calculation often does not reflect real incomes. The CMS system of annual reviews does not work for contractors, particularly when the annual review takes place before the end of the tax year. That simply causes more issues, with CMS payments being calculated on the basis of inaccurate income figures. There is currently no facility for a mid-year adjustment, and I ask for that aspect of the policy to be reviewed.

An additional failure in the system of calculation is that, should a contractor submit payslips to try to prove current income, the amount shown on them is extrapolated to produce an estimated annual income. The contracts are often, by nature, short-term, and a few months of high income may be followed by months of no work. This is what happened to my constituent George Gillan, from Carluke. As the Minister knows, I have written to one of his colleagues about it.

George worked offshore on a contractual basis, with a high income during the months when he was working, which were followed by periods when he could live on those earnings when out of work. At present, the CMS is calculating his payments on the basis of income from the tax year ending April 2015. George tried to submit evidence of a change in his circumstances by sending 12 weeks of payslips, but that was extrapolated across the whole year. The total estimated income did not breach the 25% threshold for a new calculation, so it could not be changed.

That left my constituent owing payments that he simply could not afford to make. His annual review takes place in February, and because a mid-year adjustment could not be offered, he cannot afford to take short-term contracts, as he will be expected to make payments based on his higher income from 2015. He has not worked since December 2016, because he is fearful that he will be penalised on that contractual basis. If mid-year adjustments were possible—I hope the Minister will consider them—things would be much easier for those who are self-employed or work on a contractual basis. I hope the Minister will agree that that would be an easy accommodation to make. There is a fundamental flaw in the current procedure for identifying accurate income details, especially those of contractual workers.

I am sure that I have given the Minister more than enough material to respond to, but Members and the public will know there are many issues I have not been able to cover today. Let me recap. I am asking the Minister to make the system fairer for survivors of domestic abuse by scrapping the 4% tax for those who use the collect and pay service. I am asking him to address the administrative problems that plague the CMS. I am asking him to ensure that its service is managed to a high standard and that policies are clear and correctly interpreted by staff. I am asking him to ensure that the CMS works for contractual workers by allowing accurate income details to be taken and allowing for mid-year adjustments. I realise that it is difficult for policy changes to be made, but I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to some of the injustices that my constituents and people across the country have experienced in their dealings with the CMS.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. It took me rather a long time to secure the debate. I urge the Minister to take my pleas on board and to seek to improve the system to protect and support families, which is what the Child Maintenance Service should be doing.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) on highlighting some of the deeply rooted problems with the accelerated roll-out of universal credit. However, it is indicative of this Government’s complete disregard that we find ourselves debating the issue again.

I highlight the notable contributions of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), and the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and their passionate calls to pause the roll-out and to fix the system, which is absolutely necessary.

I thank the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) for his kind words for our colleague and friend, and I assure him that of course my constituency is the most beautiful part of the country.

Elements of universal credit have been live in my constituency for some time, but we moved to full service early last month. In past debates, the Government have said that universal credit will work for those who require support, but if that is the case, why has my local authority, South Lanarkshire Council, had to move almost £1.5 million from its revenue account into its welfare mitigation fund? The reason is to keep a roof over the heads of people who are falling into rent arrears as a result of universal credit.

It is worth noting that it was the right-to-buy policy of this Government and of the previous Tory Government, coupled with a failure to replace housing stock, that has decimated social housing provision across the UK. That money would be better spent on building council houses, on supporting people in their tenancies and on improving the existing housing stock.

I have repeatedly called on the Government to halt the roll-out and fix the systemic problems with universal credit. Does the Minister have a hearing problem? Forgive me, but if he is not hearing correctly, let me say it again: it is necessary for the Government to halt the roll-out until the problems have been ironed out. Members on both sides of the House have told him there are problems. Some Conservative Members have not yet experienced the problems and are therefore probably not able to speak with a great degree of authority. Let me assure them that the problems are stark and huge, and they will fall on the doorstep of their constituency offices, as they have on ours.

I have repeatedly called on the Government to halt and fix the roll-out, yet today I find myself asking once more for the same thing. At best, the Government might row back, reduce the waiting time and slightly improve the circumstances, but the fact is that this is a flawed policy. If they admit it and concede that there are problems, why not halt the roll-out and fix it properly and completely? I have even invited the Prime Minister to visit my constituency on a number of occasions to see the damage at first hand, but the invitation has been ignored.

Despite this fact, the roll-out has gone ahead and the number of people in crisis due to complex problems has gone up and up. A constituent of mine has had to wait more than 12 weeks for payments; some have received payments without the housing costs to which they are entitled; and some have been forced to register as homeless. In the last debate, I heard a Conservative Member state that universal credit will end the days of private landlords discriminating against social security claimants. He said, “Gone are the days of the signs outside the estate agents reading ‘No DSS Need Apply.’”

Let me tell that Member and all Conservative Members that that could not be further from the truth. Private landlords, unsure whether they will be guaranteed their rental income, are evicting people across South Lanarkshire simply because they are in receipt of UC. The already sizeable housing list in my area is being added to by this poorly executed policy. These failures are unacceptable for a social security system that is meant to stop people falling through the cracks in society—that is exactly what it is ensuring it is doing. The failure to address these problems is only pushing further people into homelessness and poverty.

For the sake of perspective, it is worth looking back at the initial design of universal credit and comparing it with where we stand now. When it was introduced in 2013, it promised to lift 350,000 children and 600,000 adults out of poverty. How is that working out for us, eh? It was promised that it would increase entitlements and improve rewards earned from work. It was to allow smooth transitions in and out of work, as claimants would not have to claim a different set of benefits when starting or ending a job. Please remind me: how is that working out for us?

Problems apparent now went unmentioned back in 2013. Design flaws such as the six-week waiting time for a first payment were then unknown—they are known now, so what are the Government going to do about them? There seems now to be an expectation that people claiming benefits are able to survive for a month and a half with nothing to live on. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who was the one originally involved in the inception and creation of this policy, proudly told journalists at the time that he could live on £53 per week. I wonder whether he could live on fresh air for six weeks.

For many of my constituents, universal credit has meant falling into debt traps, through taking out loans or advances through the DWP only later to have the cash removed from their already meagre payments. This is the reality of the roll-out of universal credit. What are this Government going to do about it? Even though we have pointed out the myriad problems with the system, I am still waiting, in the fourth debate, to hear anything come back from this Government. If the Government today, as I suspect they will, make a small advancement, that in itself would be an admission that the system is not working and it is time to halt the roll-out. Even back then, and on many occasions since, we have stood here and told the Government the problems. Government Back Benchers, failing in their mission to scrutinise the Government, have failed to accept that there are problems with this roll-out and instead have ignored them.

Each and every time my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) has met Citizens Advice, he has been informed that it is not allowed to perform the role of advocacy because it is not mandated to make representations on behalf of clients. This is a clear attempt to undermine the support available to people that makes sure they get the help they need. Worse than that, one of my constituents has had to wait 12 weeks before his universal credit payment came through, even though his change in circumstances was outwith his control. The DWP had not uploaded documents he had sent it initially with his claim, and when these documents were finally attached to his file some weeks later, as this was discovered, a further six weeks was added to his waiting time. That is the reality of universal credit. What will the Minister do to resolve the issue?

I am asking the Minister this: does he accept—[Interruption.] Of course he will have his time to answer—he has plenty of time. The fact is that universal credit is not fit for purpose and people are suffering. I urge him to halt the roll-out and fix the problems.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I thought that was a reference to the hon. Gentleman’s speaking ability in the House.

Universal credit is a huge driver for positive change that, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said, will not just get people into work quicker, but help us identify those in deep difficulty and change their lives. That is the critical element that I hope will unite the House on what universal credit is all about.

We should not stall universal credit because doing so would damage it. Changes need to be made, and the problems that have been discovered need to be rectified as we move forward. The way that the system is being run is therefore right.

I direct my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to some of my earlier comments. As I said, I hope that the Chancellor will look again the way in which financing for the work allowances has been reduced. I would like that to be changed. My right hon. Friend made a very good point when he said that we keep what needs changing constantly under review. The issue around waiting days is critical—I know that he will consider that and see if the evidence stacks up for whether changing that would make a major difference.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on moving swiftly to ensure, as was always the intention, that jobcentre staff can pay out the advances on the day or within the week and, more than that, notify every would-be recipient of universal credit that they are eligible to receive them. That will dramatically change the position of many who have found themselves in difficulty because of the monthly wait.

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

rose—

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I am going to make a straightforward speech as I am aware of how many Members want to speak. I am conscious that many of our debates involve jargon that is inaccessible to most people who try to follow politics, so I rise to make just three basic points. First, I will explain what universal credit actually is. Secondly, I will describe what has gone wrong since the universal credit roll-out began. Thirdly, I will explain why it is so important that the Government halt—not scrap—the roll-out until we can deal with the problems effectively.

I find myself in a bizarre situation: I am going to stick up for the principles behind a Tory policy. Universal credit is a simplified online-only way of receiving benefits. It rolls together six benefits, including unemployment benefit, tax credits and housing benefit, into one personally tailored payment. It makes sense. For a lot of people, social security used to stop altogether once they began to earn above a certain amount. Universal credit seeks to remedy that by slowly and steadily declining as people earn more through their job, rather than suddenly stopping altogether.

That all seems absolutely reasonable, which is why I stress again that we are not calling for universal credit to be scrapped altogether. We want it to be halted because, like most Conservative policies, the minute we scratch beneath the surface we see the harsh truth. What has gone wrong here? There is a minimum 42-day wait for the first payment, which we have heard umpteen folk talk about, but I do not think the Chamber appreciates the reality of what that means. It means the most vulnerable are being left for six weeks with absolutely nothing.

[Angela Crawley]

My South Lanarkshire constituency was one of the first in Scotland to see the roll-out of universal credit, and I have witnessed my constituents relying on food banks as they wait up to 12 weeks for their universal credit payment. Does my hon. Friend agree that the policy is clearly not working in practice? Will she invite the Minister to visit my constituency and see how his policy is actually working, because it is a disaster?

[Mhairi Black]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point because I want to say to Conservative Members that none of us is lying about our experiences. We are not making things up. We are coming to the House with genuine problems that the Government are failing to address.

DWP figures show that around one in four new claimants waits longer than six weeks to be paid—a 25% failure rate: staggeringly alarming given that universal credit is still in its early days. Benefit delays remain a primary reason for the increase in the use of food banks. Citizens Advice has found that, from 52,000 cases, those on universal credit appear to have, on average, less than £4 a month left to pay all their creditors after they have paid essential living costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

The problem is Government Members’ lack of understanding. The Opposition are calmly and rationally putting forward a solution to pause and fix the problem with the roll-out.

[Angela Crawley]

Does the hon. Gentleman remember the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), saying that he could afford to live on benefits of however much per week? Does the hon. Gentleman reckon that anyone on the Government Benches would be able to live on thin air for the next six to 12 weeks while universal credit is rolled out?

[Grahame Morris]

I do recall those remarks, and I do not think it is possible. It would be incredibly instructive if Government Members actually lived on benefits and experienced what it is like.

Housing and Social Security

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I should like to associate myself with the comments made by right hon. and hon. Members across the House about the tragic incident at Grenfell Tower. We on these Benches welcome the inquiry and believe that lessons must be learned from this event.

This Queen’s Speech seems to me to be one of the most shambolic and lame legislative programmes in my lifetime. The Tories, cowed by their unnecessary election defeat, are working on a weak mandate with no authority. Since the start of the month, we have seen promises ditched as they face defeat across the House. Pledges on introducing an energy price cap, disastrous social care plans, a free vote on foxhunting, the introduction of grammar schools and the setting of an immigration target have all been dropped—and yesterday we witnessed no mention of the deliberately harmful plan to scrap the triple lock on pensions.

Yet again, this Queen’s Speech proves one thing: the Tories will continue their obsession with austerity in spite of a sea of evidence against it. Let me be clear: another Parliament of cuts is a choice, not a necessity, and it is a choice that has been decisively rejected by voters across the country. The Resolution Foundation has warned that the continuation of austerity will drive the biggest inequality since the times of Margaret Thatcher. Much of the power to legislate on housing has been devolved to the Scottish Government. We ended the right to buy some time ago, taking the view that unless housing is replaced, many people are left disadvantaged and lacking the opportunity to obtain affordable housing. That is something that this Government have failed to learn.

Today’s debate also focuses on social security. The High Court ruling on the benefit cap highlights the fact that it causes real damage to single families. When will this Government learn their lesson? The incomes of the poorest third of working-age households will fall by 10% over the next four years, driving a further 1 million families across this country into poverty. By 2021, there could be more than 5 million children across the UK—a number equivalent to the total population of Scotland—living in poverty. This is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and that is a disgrace.

We on these Benches choose to take a different approach. Unlike those on the Government Benches, and many on Opposition Benches, the Scottish National party has consistently and unapologetically opposed austerity. Our approach to the public finances would balance the UK budget for day-to-day spending by the end of the Parliament. It would set debt on a downward path and, crucially, free up an additional £118 billion of public investment. With our plans, we could stop the further £9 billion of additional social security cuts that this Government will inflict. That would mean that those on low incomes who rely on in-work social security, and the vulnerable and disabled, would not have to face further punishment. Despite the rhetoric from the Labour party, its plans fail to provide the same protections.

In my constituency, the cost of welfare reform is clear. Despite my constituency’s assets, almost 25% of the children in Lanark and Hamilton East grow up in poverty. Under this Government, my constituents have had to endure a reduction in employment support allowance, a freeze on in-work support, cuts to their personal independence payments and the removal of their mobility cars. Worst of all, they are now subject to a family cap and a despicable rape clause. Austerity has failed my constituents in Lanark and Hamilton East and it has failed constituents up and down the country. However, we are, for now, in a better position than some.

My constituency is yet to face the massive ramifications of the roll-out of universal credit. Later this year, the UK Government intend to introduce universal credit in South Lanarkshire. Only a few weeks ago, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations highlighted the policy as a key concern in tackling homelessness across the country. The Scottish Government have plans to mitigate some of the worst elements of the UK Government’s welfare reforms, including the roll-out of universal credit, but that will not help families across the rest of the UK. It is completely unreasonable to suggest that we should spend nearly £400 million mitigating poor decisions made by this UK Government. Universal credit will make some of my constituents homeless, and despite the work of the local authority and the third sector, the UK Government are intransigent and unrelenting in their approach.

It is clear that austerity has failed the economy and failed society. It has driven the people we should protect into poverty, hunger, humiliation and crippling debt. I had perhaps naively hoped that their defeat earlier this month would make the UK Government reflect on their approach to social security, listen to the experts, and inject the investment necessary to genuinely rebalance the economy and create a fairer society. At its very heart, that is what a social security system ought to do, yet that is exactly what this UK Government have failed to do.

[Alan Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that austerity has failed and that the social security system is not providing the necessary safety net. Does she agree that the application of a proposed cap on housing benefit for supported accommodation is another issue that this Government need to reflect on? Otherwise, this austerity will hit the most vulnerable: those in women’s refuges and other vulnerable adults in supported accommodation.

[Angela Crawley]

Absolutely. Statistics already show that over 80% of the cuts fall on women. That is simply not good enough.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angela Crawley]

I need to make some progress.

The UK Government are fixated on a failed Brexit strategy and intent on damaging the economy and threatening jobs—so much so that they have cancelled next year’s legislative programme. In closing, my call to Government Members is this: stop being fixated on fighting with the EU and get on with your day job of governing this country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]