Universal Basic Income

Debate between Angela Crawley and Dan Poulter

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a universal basic income.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for his contributions in this place on the issue of a universal basic income. There is no better time to reopen the discussion on this subject. We are up to our necks in the cost of living crisis, which is pushing households across this country further into poverty and destitution. We need change, and we need it now.

Over more than a decade, the Conservative Government have carefully crafted a welfare system that designates recipients as being deserving of payments only if they meet conditions. I appreciate that the idea of implementing a universal basic income and removing the conditions on welfare payments would not normally sit comfortably with the Government. However, it seems that the Conservative party has had a change of heart. On Monday 6 June at the Treasury Committee, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was questioned on the universal nature of energy bill discounts, which will leave third home owners £1,200 better off, he said:

“there will be some people who do not need the help. That is, unfortunately, the consequence of having to do policy in practical terms.”

He said that, having looked at all the options, the Government decided that the discount was “the most effective way” of reaching a “large number of people” and helping them when they needed it. Clearly, this Government have had a change of heart, and are open to universal policies, depending on who benefits, so it seems that the biggest barrier to implementing a universal basic income is ideological. I urge the Minister to consider extending his party’s new, compassionate approach to the benefits system, and to abandon the cruel and unforgiving system that depicts desperate people as undeserving.

I come to the benefits of a universal basic income. As we have heard many times here and in the main Chamber, a universal basic income would mean that every citizen was provided with a subsistence income. It would mean secure, regular payments into every individual’s bank account, without threat of disruption. In real terms, it would ensure that every person in this country was always able to afford food, keep a roof over their head, provide for their children and have a minimum standard of living.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

In principle, the concept of a universal basic income is promising, but just so that I understand, will the hon. Lady answer these questions? Under her definition, would the universal basic income be the only income that a person received? Would they receive additional benefits if they were unemployed or had disabilities? At what amount would she consider setting a universal basic income?

[Angela Crawley]

I thank the hon. Member for addressing those points. To be clear, we already have a system that recognises that individuals will need an approach that is tailored to their needs. Those who have disabilities will need additional support. Those who need additional support because of family requirements will have it. We have a system that already accepts that.

This is about acknowledging that every single person has the right not to be destitute. That is a basic, fundamental tenet. I find it uncomfortable that anyone in this place would consider it a radical motivation. A recent study by the University of York found that a universal basic income would cut poverty by more than half, bringing it to the lowest level for 60 years. It would cut child poverty and pensioner poverty by more than half and working age poverty by a quarter. It would be a driver of economic equality. Further research has shown that it would stimulate local economic growth. Introducing a universal basic income would allow us to incentivise people into work properly, and to move away from the current focus on cruelly sanctioning those who are desperate. Instead of our pushing people into precarious forms of employment and pretending that work programmes are actually working, a universal basic income would provide financial security. It would enable everyone to pursue employment that was more suitable for their lifestyle, hopes and ambitions, and it would allow everyone to engage in socially and personally productive activities, such as community or voluntary work, care giving, or entrepreneurial or creative activities.

The Scottish Government explored the feasibility of introducing a universal basic income, but found that it was impossible under the devolved settlement. With independence, the Scottish Government could be ambitious and look to a future where we could ensure that every citizen in Scotland had the support they needed. We do not have those powers yet and, without independence, we will not have them.

Instead, the Scottish Government commissioned research on a minimum income guarantee, which would transform Scotland’s fight against poverty. Rather than leaving those in need at the mercy of universal credit sanctions, it would at least guarantee that they did not drop below the poverty line. One of the Government’s core contentions, when this matter was last brought to the House, was the expense of setting up such a system. However, the UK Government already have the technology to implement a minimum income guarantee. We already have the tapers in place for the universal credit system, which has markers to ensure that those who need additional funds will get them; that answers the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter).

Universal credit was supposed to streamline and simplify the welfare system. Instead, it has led to the Government ploughing excessive funds and resources into empty work programmes, processing sanctions, and a target-driven jobcentre workforce unable to help those most at risk of poverty. If the Government wish to cut 90,000 civil service staff, and expect to keep this very complex welfare system running, it has another thing coming.

I ask the Minister to read through the numerous studies that have shown the benefits of introducing a universal basic income; to keep a close eye on the Scottish Government’s work on the minimum income guarantee; and to explain how the flawed and damaging universal credit system is in any way an adequate system by comparison.

The country is in crisis. As the cost of living crisis continues, we cannot ignore the worsening mental health crisis. The two are most definitely linked, and introducing a universal basic income would help to alleviate both. Innumerable studies show the detrimental impact of welfare conditionality and its impact on the mental health of welfare recipients. I do not think anyone here is in a position to argue with that. A universal basic income pilot scheme, conducted in Germany and Finland, showed that reform of the welfare state directly impacts the mental health of welfare recipients and their overall mental and physical wellbeing.

The Mental Health Foundation found that children who receive payments were less likely to use drugs and alcohol, more likely to stay in education, and more likely to have improved physical and mental health outcomes. The Finnish system showed that universal basic income helps improve cognitive functioning in adults, reduces feelings of anxiety and depression, and generally increases overall life satisfaction.

A universal basic income is a holistic policy that will have holistic effects across a whole area of social policy. Studies have shown that a universal basic income, although expensive in the beginning, pays for itself over time, through its far-reaching impacts.

Mental Health: Assessment

Debate between Angela Crawley and Dan Poulter

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Angela Crawley]

I wholeheartedly agree, and that is the point of this debate. If the system worked well and we did not have any complaints about it, we would not be here today, but the fact is that the system is not working as it should, nor as it was probably intended to work in its initial design or concept. It is simply not working in practice. If we were to amend that system and make it work better, we would probably spend less time going through administrative appeals and mandatory reconsiderations, which should incentivise the Government to get it right the first time.

Returning to my earlier point, it is my staff who deal with constituents’ cases every day, and I would like to say thank you to each and every one of them. Rhona, Josh, David, John, Mary-Jane, Carmen and, of course, Georgia—I have quite a few staff and think I have covered them all—work hard every day to have those cases overturned, because they can see the constituent before them and can see that person who is crying out for help and needs support.

Perhaps the assessors are just not getting that full picture of someone, and perhaps we are being unfair to all the staff who work at DWP, but there is a flaw in the process, which I will turn to now. The assessments are carried out by contractors of Maximus and Atos according to guidelines set by the Department for Work and Pensions. I know there have been changes and adaptations, but ultimately they are still not working. Turning to the administrative process administered by DWP, those assessment reports are then filtered into descriptors set by the policies of this Government. I do not believe that the assessors are given the correct level of training or resources to deal with mental health issues. I have written to the Department about that on a number of occasions and I have been assured that assessors are getting adequate training, but if that is not the experience on the ground, there is obviously a flaw or an issue there.

I do not believe that the criteria for assessments give enough credence to the crippling effects that mental ill health can have on people’s lives. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) has outlined, that turns into a detrimental effect on people’s mental health, even if it did not start out that way. Indeed, many of my constituents complained that their mental health problems do not fit neatly into the assessment forms because the form is not designed to assess disability resulting from mental ill health, a point that the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) also covered.

One of my constituents from Hamilton, whose daughter has bipolar disorder and was denied personal independence payments, said,

“we see mental health brought up everywhere—in adverts, in TV soaps—and the advice is to speak out. But if you tell the DWP, they ignore you and do nothing to help, they have fallen behind the times and are not keeping up to the standard.”

In the assessment reports, indicators of mental ill health bear little relation to the advice of mental health charities and are at best unhelpful for diagnosis. The assessors will make wide-reaching assertions based on outdated ideas of mental health and often irrelevant judgments on the person’s appearance: “Was the person rocking in a chair? Were they trembling? Were they sweating? What was the person wearing? Had they washed or were they wearing make-up?” That is institutional stereotyping of people suffering from poor mental health. The fact that someone turned out that day and made the effort, even if it perhaps took them hours and days to prepare themselves for that experience, only to then have it marked against them, seems arbitrary and frankly ridiculous.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I am sympathetic to a number of the points the hon. Lady makes, although, for an experienced medical professional, one component of assessing somebody who is unwell is looking at how they appear, because that may be a symptom of distress, self-neglect or other issues, notwithstanding the points she has made. One of the challenges she raised is that of those patients with fluctuating conditions such as bipolar disorder, who can be well for periods and then become quite unwell. Does she agree that the system does not have adequate assessments in place to allow for patients who can become very rapidly unwell, and that those patients in particular can become distressed by the system and how it is put into practice by assessors?

[Angela Crawley]

I agree with the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I return to my original point, which is that we are talking about a tick-box exercise that does not recognise the fluctuating nature of mental ill health—I think that is the point he is trying to make. Why should someone have the fact that they put make-up on that day, or made the effort to turn up and be there for the assessment, marked against them? It seems completely arbitrary and unnecessary.

The constituent I mentioned earlier has a nervous compulsion and, as a result, she picks at her nails. She has chosen to wear acrylic nails so that she will not unconsciously pick at her hands due to her nervous disposition. That was taken by the healthcare professional as an indicator that she was well kept and therefore mentally stable. It did not seem to matter that it was a form of self-harming and that she had had suicidal thoughts, which she outlined to the person. Those are Victorian and antiquated measures through which to identify someone with mental ill health, and they come up time and again. My constituent Donna from Carluke recently had a personal independence assessment. She acknowledged that she had two options: she could present as someone who had a mental illness and

“Present as they expect someone who has a mental illness to i.e and I quote here from your own assessment documentation ‘rock, shake, sweat, unkempt, poor eye contact and look unwell and troubled’”,

or she could present as she was on the day,

“which was apparently none of the above.”

That does not negate the fact that she has a mental health condition; it simply does not tick the markers on that sheet. The DWP tick-box system does not seem to account for that at all, nor for people who live with long-term chronic health conditions that fluctuate between good days, bad days and unimaginable days.

Donna has faced an extremely difficult few years trying to cope with severe depression. She has outlined that on one day she can be great and on another she is simply not. I take the point that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) made; I know it comes from a position of experience, and I greatly appreciate his expertise, but the fact is that Donna has been working in the mental health sector, so she has huge insight into her condition. She knew the only way she would get better would be by taking time and allowing herself to heal, which has taken longer than she had hoped, but now that she has returned to work, she has to fight to keep her personal independence payment, which has allowed her to stabilise her life.

I mentioned this case in a debate last week. Donna recently went back to work on very reduced hours, and through the personal independence payment, she was able to effectively self-manage her condition, meaning that she can lead a meaningful and purposeful life, return to work and provide for her family. Given the presence of her symptoms, that is only possible through the personal independence payment, which she is now being denied because the fact that she returned to work has been held against her. She exactly fits the purpose of those benefits and the criteria set out, but her claim was reassessed and, as a direct result of returning to work, she is no longer entitled to them.

It seems that all the valuable support Donna received over the last three years, combined with her self-determination, is now in jeopardy because, on the day of her PIP assessment, she was:

“well kempt, behaved normally, maintained eye contact and had good insight into my illness”.

Those are the assessor’s marks. They have decided against the criteria that she is no longer eligible for a personal independence payment, despite the fact that, as I am outlining, she relies on it and it has helped her to get back to work, which I believe is ultimately what the Government want. It is counter-intuitive. Healthcare professionals appear to be carrying out assessments without prior knowledge of how mental ill health works.

[Angela Crawley]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and with the comments from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) about the individual who prepared themselves for an assessment, only for the assessor not to turn up. These assessments are really distressing, and they do not take into account the condition that the person being assessed has, or the impact that the assessment might have. Another of my constituents, Denise from Hamilton, was denied assistance for bipolar disorder because, as the report repeatedly stated, she is not manic all the time or on most days. How does one assessor even know that?

The idea of requiring assistance during periods of mania completely misses the point about the problems that Denise faces. The report ignores the depressive cycles that follow, and her struggles to find a measure of stability. That is a reckless approach, as she would be sent into a manic state if she were not supported, or if she tried to live the way many of us without a disability take for granted. Some of the things that have triggered a manic state in my constituent over the years would wash over most of us without her condition, but that is why the condition is extremely harrowing and distressing for those who have it. Simple things such as preparing for Christmas or a family wedding, stressful news events such as the Grenfell Tower incident, wider health issues such as the menopause, and changes to Denise’s medication for bipolar disorder are all things that have exacerbated her condition. Additionally, she has sometimes entered into mania for no apparent reason. In other words, the condition is out of her control.

I have heard many reports of assessors using very inappropriate language during assessments for people with mental health problems. Several people, including constituents I have mentioned, have told me that when discussing suicidal thoughts, they have been asked bluntly, “Why didn’t you kill yourself?” I do not know what that adds to the assessment, or what it does to a person to be asked that, but this point has been repeated by many of my constituents. When they have discussed suicidal ideation, they have been asked by the assessor, “Well, why didn’t you kill yourself?” I cannot say why they have been asked that.

[Dr Poulter]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angela Crawley]

I will if the hon. Gentleman is going to say something useful.

[Dr Poulter]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very kind. In relation to getting a full picture of suicidality, there are sometimes protective factors that stop people wanting to take their own life. For example, they may have children. There may be other factors in their life that mean that they would not want to go through with the act of ending their life, even though they are having fleeting suicidal thoughts. It is relevant to a clinical examination or history of a person to work out what protective factors there may be, and why it was that, even though they were feeling very bad, very low, and having those thoughts, they did not want to follow them through. I just wanted to make that clinical point to the hon. Lady; it may be helpful for her constituents.

[Angela Crawley]

That would be absolutely fine if the assessor had that level of medical qualification and experience. The point is that they do not. It is fine for a doctor to say that they would ask those questions, and of course any doctor reasonably would, but that is not how this has been delivered. It has not been asked by a trusted medical professional such as a doctor, psychologist, psychiatrist or other professional with the correct experience and understanding of how to handle the situation, the follow-up aftercare or anything that comes with it. The assessor is an individual sitting with a form; it is not the same experience, so I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but that is just not how it works in reality.

Marriage in Government Policy

Debate between Angela Crawley and Dan Poulter

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?