DWP Estate

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Thank you very much, Ms Dorries. This will test me.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on bringing this subject to this place again. As the MP who represents Glasgow North East, which has the 16th highest unemployment rate in the UK—at 5.9%, it is 2.5 times the UK average—I couldn’t not be here, but I will cut out huge swathes of my speech.

I have used my personal experience in this place on previous occasions. I have spoken about my own experience of being unemployed and how I was treated and how I responded. When I have spoken about it, it has elicited empathy from Members of all parties, with everyone agreeing that I did not deserve to be treated in that way, but I am aware that many here will think that what I speak of is my experience alone and that I am different, but I am not. When I have talked about the pain of being unable to find work and desperately wanting it, people have said to me, “But you are probably the exception to the rule”, but I am not. When I talked about being treated like a child by some—though not all—jobcentre staff and about that having the reverse effect in terms of getting me into employment, I was told that that was a one-off, but it was not. I am no different from any of my constituents. I have family, friends and constituents who all wanted to work, worked hard to find work and needed help, not punishment. I am saying this because I am coming to a suggestion as to what we can do with these jobcentres.

The small minority who do not put effort into finding work are those who need the most support. It is more often than not a deep lack of self-confidence that stops them, as has been said previously. We need to support, encourage and empower them, not criticise, ridicule and punish them by cruel sanctions and by making it far harder to get to the jobcentre. Here is my suggestion for using the excess space that we have heard about within the earmarked jobcentres. The DWP work services director for Scotland, Denise Horsfall, said earlier this week:

“In Glasgow the buildings are between 20% and 40% under occupied. When you go in you will see a floor fully occupied but there are floors above which are empty”,

so why not use that space to provide room where people can utilise services that will actually assist them to gain employment? I am thinking of the difficulty I once had when I had no printer and I was required to print 20, sometimes more, CVs: a total of 60 pages at a cost of 10p a photocopy every week. That was £6 that I honestly could not afford, so I asked the jobcentre staff if they would print them for me. The answer I got was—I paraphrase, but this is the sense of it: “Don’t be ridiculous. We can’t do that sort of thing here.” I am thinking of the times when I could not afford credit for my phone, but I needed to make phone calls about employment opportunities. I wanted to be proactive. Why not use the space that is said to be leading to jobcentre closures, and provide office equipment and anything that people need for support in their search for work? Why not provide space for people to come together and support each other, build their confidence and get advice when they want and need it? The Minister will say that that happens already, but it honestly does not. There are areas of good practice, and we have heard about some of them today, but on the whole the DWP’s approach is completely wrong.

Many years ago as a young graduate I was offered the opportunity to attend a group that was for some reason called the executive job club. It was not compulsory, so I did not feel like a naughty schoolchild in detention. It was respectful: the group co-ordinators made it clear that they believed everyone would work, given the opportunity, so none of us felt as if we were being judged. Peer support was encouraged, which meant that we spent time with people who were also struggling to find work, and felt useful because we could advise each other. One-to-one coaching, group sessions, pair work and drop-in were available; and it was all voluntary. It was therefore well attended, and the atmosphere was supportive and respectful. The turnover was high, because most of us got jobs. For me it removed a huge blockage. I was there only a few weeks, but it had a big impact on me. It changed the way I viewed myself and my professional skills. It gave me confidence and got me into a well-paid, challenging job, which put me on the path to a fairly successful career. The Government could learn from that and from other groups, including the numerous unemployed workers centres around the country.

I am suggesting that there is something missing in the experience of a person who is unemployed. Without any facetiousness I want to say that I would be happy to meet the Minister to talk some more about what I have outlined. Now that we have the space in the jobcentres in Glasgow, why, instead of closing them down, do we not consider using that space to provide the sort of services I have described? It would require more resources, but if it works it is surely worth it.

Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. I could not have put that more eloquently myself.

Sanctions regimes are not uncommon. In fact, most developed economies attach conditions to the receipt of benefits. Recent European studies in Switzerland in 2005, in the Netherlands in 2013, in Denmark in 2011 and in Germany in 2014 found that benefit cuts substantially increased employment take-up among sanctioned persons. In 2013, the Government commissioned an independent review into sanctions and implemented all its recommendations.

We should put aside the misconception sometimes portrayed by Members that sanctions are the automatic default that the system rushes towards. In fact, a claimant has to go through an incredibly long journey before they reach the point of sanction.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell me how that fits in with what DWP staff have told me about the aspirations that they have? They do not call them targets; they call them aspirations, and they have an aspiration to sanction a certain number of people every week.

[Conor Burns]

If the hon. Lady has an example of a named official who has told her that, she should feed that information to the Minister, because I am sure that the Department would like to investigate it. That is not the policy of Her Majesty’s Government. The Department has laid down a very clear process that staff have to follow.

I shall take the House through that process. The first stage involves a claim interview at which expectations are explained and set by the work coach. The claimant’s commitment is discussed and agreed, taking into account individual circumstances. It includes the claimant’s job goals and the days and hours they are available for work—including any agreed restrictions for caring responsibilities or health reasons—and the job steps that offer them the best prospects of employment. The work coach notifies the claimant of any specific requirements, such as the details of where and when they need to attend the jobcentre. As part of the above, the work coach explains the consequence of non-compliance and gives sources of further information, such as the Government’s website.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Accordingly, I shall now deal with the practical case for sanctions.

The purpose and the effect of sanctions is to encourage people to take steps to find work. According to the Department for Work and Pensions, 70% of claimants say that they are more likely to stick to the rules, and to participate in the activity that will help them to get closer to work if they know that their benefits could be withdrawn.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Whately]

I must make a little bit of progress. Otherwise I shall be speaking until 2.30 pm, and I know that other Members wish to speak.

Claimants in that position are more likely to turn up for appointments with their work coaches, more likely to search for jobs online, and more likely to engage in Work programme activities that will help them to make their way towards finding a job. I recently visited Faversham creek, where Work programme activities include building boats. That is a fantastic activity, and I could see—and heard stories about—the enormous difference that it can make to participants. They gain real skills and meaningful involvement, which can take them closer to the workplace. The structure of turning up and doing the work is very good for their self-esteem, and the benefits are clear.

[Helen Whately]

I shall come to the point about the evidence in a moment, but before I do so I want to say something about conditionality. I know that Opposition Members think there should be no sanctions at all. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has said that she opposes sanctions in their entirety, although I appreciate that the Bill is not intended to achieve that.

The problem is that if there are no sanctions, that brings conditionality into question. As other Members have said, conditionality has been a long-standing feature of welfare benefit entitlements since they were introduced at the beginning of the last century, and in the United Kingdom access to employment benefit specifically has always been conditional on recipients’ being involuntarily unemployed and available for work. Sanctions have been a feature of the JSA since it was introduced in 1996 and they were continued under Labour as well as the coalition Government.

Nor is the UK alone in imposing sanctions; it is the norm in most countries to have conditions placed on receiving benefits. France, for instance, imposes sanctions if a jobseeker refuses two reasonable offers of work. Germany also imposes sanctions, as do the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark and Norway. A recent study covering international evidence from Germany showed sanctions increase the probability of leaving the welfare system for employment by over 50%. Another study in the Netherlands showed they increased the probability of going into employment by between 36% and 98%.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The hon. Lady said France imposes sanctions if somebody refuses two reasonable offers of jobs. There is a world of difference between that and imposing sanctions on somebody because they are five minutes late for an interview or for any number of other trivial reasons why people have had their money taken off them.

[Helen Whately]

I will come later on to the question about good reasons for sanctioning somebody. We do have to be careful. Examples have been given in this House, and we will have seen this in our own casework, where the reasons do not appear to be good reasons and sometimes they are indeed errors, but we should not base policy on those specific individual examples, although what we should do, as we all do, is follow up on those individual cases and make sure that where errors have been made they are addressed. That is exactly what the appeals system does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the value of the relationship that the individual has with their work coach, who can support them when going through some processes. MPs also play an important role. I am currently supporting two constituents in their appeals. One was sanctioned after missing an appointment because they could not read their appointment card and another was sanctioned on the grounds that they did not use the right website to look for a job. We know that there are times when the system does not work as it should and we can support constituents who are going through the appeal process.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I thank the hon. Lady for taking another intervention from me. Does she agree that the vast majority of people will not go to their MP to ask for support? We see a tiny percentage of the people who, like in her example, could not read their appointment cards—there is any of a number of reasons. The others are not getting the support that they need. It is good that the hon. Lady supports those who do come to her, but she is not seeing the majority.

[Helen Whately]

It is impossible to know how many people do not go to their MP, but I make my best efforts to be as accessible as possible to my constituents so that people know that they can come to me for help. What I find when following up on individual cases with the DWP, whether relating to sanctions or other problems with the benefit system, is that it is extraordinarily responsive and willing to review cases and reverse decisions that turn out to be flawed. I am reasonably confident that the DWP steps up and corrects mistakes when they are made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Today started so well. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) took us on an incredible journey through the sanctions system, explaining why we need the Bill to pass, and many of my colleagues and many Labour Members made really powerful interventions—but then things just started to go wrong. I am standing here feeling like I am banging my head on a brick wall. I feel powerless. As an MP, I feel that I can do nothing to get the message through and to make people understand. If I feel powerless, depressed and, to be honest, close to tears at times, how on earth must somebody who actually has no power and who is at the mercy of this Government when they are using the benefits system be feeling? I do not even want to make this speech, but I will anyway.

As MPs, we often have to manage the expectations of our constituents. I would say that I am pretty good at fighting for them, sometimes tooth and nail—as no doubt are many others who have talked about supporting people in difficult situations—but we have to let them know that we do not have a magic wand. If I did have a magic wand and could make it do something today, I would get rid of the pernicious sanctions in the benefit system, because they are cruel and unnecessary.

I always say that the Conservative party knows the cost of everything and the value of absolutely nothing, but the sanctions do not even tick the Conservative box of being cost-effective. The irony is that, despite all their clamouring to reposition themselves as the party of working people—that is even more laughable—the Tories are simply showing their true colours by allowing the system to persist.

My hon. Friend’s Bill is based, quite rightly, on the premise that having a decent job is in an individual’s interest, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). I agree with that, and the vast majority of people will try their level best to get one where one is available. The Government, with their usual deeply cynical view of humankind, have developed this policy based not on their view of the value of work, but entirely on their disdain for those who happen to be without it.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Not yet. I am going to talk about my mother, who is slightly more important to me than the hon. Gentleman. My mother regularly told me—I was a not-too-confident child—that I was as good as anyone else. She said that I was no worse and, being Scottish, no better, but as good. Let me tell those on the Government Benches today—not all of them need to hear this, but most of them do—that the same goes for us all. My constituents, whether they are in work or not, and whatever their reason for being out of work— illness, lack of jobs or a lack of self-confidence—are every bit as good as every one of them. Government Members are not better than my constituents. They may have been treated better in life and had better opportunities, but that does not mean that they deserve better, because they do not.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Truly, I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She and I have had many discussions and exchanges about this subject, the first almost exactly a year ago. She speaks with great passion, but Government Members have no less compassion than Opposition Members. She has mentioned her constituents, but all our constituencies have examples such as those that she has cited. She spoke a few moments ago about the principle of sanctions. Will she be crystal clear: would she get rid of the sanctions system altogether?

[Anne McLaughlin]

That is not what we are talking about, but as a special treat for the hon. Gentleman, I will come on to that and be very clear about what I think about the sanctions regime.

[Chris Stephens]

I remind everyone in the Chamber that the Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents DWP staff, supports the Bill, because too often its

“members in DWP are forced to implement the policy against what they know is in the best interests of claimants.”

[Anne McLaughlin]

That is absolutely right and I completely agree. I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought that up again.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) has said that Government Members have as much compassion as Opposition Members. I suppose that depends on his definition of compassion. Was the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) compassionate when he said that people were terrified of getting a job? In other words, he was saying that they are lazy and work shy. Then, when we attacked him for saying that, he sniggered.

[Mr Nuttall]

rose—

[Anne McLaughlin]

Let me think: do I want to give way to somebody who speaks about my constituents in that way? No, I do not. My constituents who are out of work are every bit as deserving of a decent life as any Government Member. If they agree with that, they need to ask themselves how valued and respected would they feel if someone stood over them, pointing the finger, tutting away, treating them like naughty schoolchildren and taking away their entire income by way of punishment for minor misdemeanours. Except they cannot imagine that, because most of them—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) about being unemployed—have been nowhere near that kind of life. Well, lucky them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Anne McLaughlin]

Who wants to come in?

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank my hon. Friend for deeming me worthy to be given way to. On contrasting lifestyles, does she share my disappointment and alarm about the fact that we can have legislation that targets some of the poorest people in society, but we cannot find the legislative means to tackle people such as Philip Green who have stolen workers’ pensions but who are happy to keep their own yachts and who are taking away from people at the bottom of our society?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Absolutely. Without wanting to put words in my hon. Friend’s mouth, I wonder whether she is suggesting that there is a bit of political ideology behind all this.

The Bill does the best that we can do, working within the system. The Government cannot really argue with what is proposed, because they claim that they do it anyway. They claim that they already take people’s circumstances into account. If that is the case, they should just agree to the Bill. The hon. Member for Bournemouth West said that he would not support the Bill because my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South had said that she was opposed to sanctions, full stop. I want to know how supporting the Bill is going to end the sanctions regime. It is not; it is going to make the regime a little bit more humane, but there is, sadly, nothing in the Bill that will end the sanctions regime.

[Conor Burns]

rose—

[Anne McLaughlin]

I will let the hon. Gentleman come in if he will answer my question. Why is he not supporting the Bill? He said that he would not do so because the Bill will end the sanctions regime. Nothing in the Bill says that it will, so why will he not support it?

[Conor Burns]

There are very good reasons not to support the Bill that do not relate to the comments that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) made about her approach to sanctions in general. Much of the Bill duplicates what already happens, and it would increase bureaucracy. I have also made the point that the Government have listened consistently, and they have improved and changed things. It might be a timely moment for the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) to fulfil her promise to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) about her approach to sanctions in principle.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am going to repeat what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). The staff at the DWP are supporting the Bill. They want clarity, and they think that they do not have it. They are on the frontline doing the job, so if they think that they do not have that clarity, we should listen to them.

[Mhairi Black]

Is my hon. Friend frustrated, as I am, about the fact that Government Members seem to be applauding themselves for being so good at listening, but they have not listened for the last three hours, while we have told them how the system is not working and why we need the Bill to formalise what should be happening?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Absolutely. As I said at the start, I feel as though I am banging my head off a brick wall. In fact, I think that that might be a better use of my time.

If we are already doing this, the requirement in the Bill for someone’s caring responsibilities to be taken into account when considering a sanction happens already, does it? Tell that to my constituent Claire, a single parent who was summoned to an interview with the jobcentre on a day the following week at 3 pm, the exact time that her six-year-old gets out of school. She asked whether the meeting could be changed to 3.30. No. Could it be changed to earlier in the day? No. Could it be changed to another day? No, it had to be on that day at 3 o’clock, the time that she needed to pick up her child from school. She said, “Should I leave my child there, or should I take my child out early?” She was told, “We don’t care, as long as you get here, and if you do not get here at 3 o’clock on that day, we are sanctioning you.” Were her caring responsibilities taken into account? No. I do not want to hear that that was an incorrect decision or an isolated case. I am sick of hearing that. It was not an isolated case, because we hear about this all the time. I could talk about it until midnight and I would not get through, such is the number of times I have heard about it.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. When it comes to the system not working, does she agree that we have heard about very many cases and it is quite clear that Conservative Members are not listening? A constituent of mine, who had Parkinson’s and who fell twice coming to my office, had been sanctioned—against the DWP’s own recommendations that people with degenerative diseases should be treated through a paper process and not be subjected to interviews. Twice I wrote to the DWP, but only when I brought his case to this Chamber was it properly dealt with. That is not how the system should work, and the Bill would address that.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Absolutely. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South on proposing this Bill, and I thank her on behalf of many of my constituents. If the Bill is successful, it will provide some protection. If not, it will at least have raised the issue again, and people out there will know that somebody in here cares about what happens to them.

I will start—I say “start,” but I have been going on for quite a while—by offering the treat that the hon. Member for Bournemouth West is looking for by arguing against the entire sanctions regime. I challenge him to respond to my arguments. I saw Government Members being given a sheet of paper with a list of suggested interventions, but I have experience, and lots of it, on my side, so challenge away.

I will argue on three levels. First, there is the financial argument. I will use only factual arguments, and the sanctions regime costs us more to run than it saves—that is before we look at the long-term hidden costs. Secondly, there are the academic arguments. Conditionality in the welfare system does not work. It is not me making that argument; it is academics. I will share their findings, and let us see whether Government Members have actual evidence to the contrary—not opinions, but evidence. Thirdly, I will make the moral argument, and here Government Members can make a counter-argument because we all have a different moral compass—morality can be subjective, a matter of opinion. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that anybody who thinks it is right that we sanction the benefits of people who are already in poverty needs their compass reprogrammed pronto.

[Patrick Grady]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is my MP, for giving way. Is it not ironic that we interrupted today’s debate to talk about the UK’s response to global poverty and the sustainable development goals? Does she recognise, as I hope the Minister does, that the Government have a duty to meet those sustainable development goals and eradicate poverty here at home, too? In fact, as we have heard in all the testimony today, the sanctions regime makes that poverty worse.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I agree with everything my constituent says. On the financial argument, let us look at the hidden costs. We do not know how much those hidden costs amount to, but it does not take a genius.

[Mr Nuttall]

The hon. Lady has just said that we do not know the costs. Earlier in this debate, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) suggested that the explanatory notes contain figures on the cost of the Bill. I have looked again at those explanatory notes, just in case I had missed it, but it turns out that I had not missed anything. All the notes say is that, in relation to clause 9 on financial provision,

“The Bill will require a money resolution to cover increased expenditure under the Bill.”

There would clearly be increased expenditure. When the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) talks about the costs, will she explain how much the increased expenditure will be?

[Anne McLaughlin]

If it is in order for me to say so, that is the last time I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene. When there is expenditure, it is about political choices. I choose to support people who are at their lowest, and I choose not to pay £400 million to redecorate Buckingham Palace. As he knows, I was talking about the long-term hidden costs.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is contrasting supporting the most vulnerable with paying for Buckingham Palace. I speak on behalf of my constituents, and their median salary is £480 a week. I am not talking about Buckingham Palace; I am talking about being fair to people in my constituency who earn £480 a week. I am sure she agrees that that is not a great deal of money, and those people require fairness, just like the vulnerable people who Members on both sides of the House have mentioned.

[Anne McLaughlin]

That reminds me of a constituent who wrote to me about his benefits being sanctioned for 13 weeks and about how he is now back in work and how he hates benefits scroungers because they caused the sanctioning to happen.

[Victoria Atkins]

rose—

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the hon. Lady let me develop my argument? That is just about turning people with very little against people with nothing. My point is that the Member for Louth and Horncastle—

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, because the most important thing in this debate is that I say “hon. Member”, is it not? She said that she is not talking about Buckingham Palace, but her Government are, and she is supporting the Government to redecorate Buckingham Palace, while saying that we cannot support people.

The other thing is that the people on £480 a week may well be unemployed at some point and may well face benefit sanctions.

[Victoria Atkins]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

No, I will not let the hon. Lady in again.

It does not take a genius to work out that it will cost more if we put people out on the street. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South cited the figure from Crisis, which has done some studies. It found that 21% of the people it spoke to said that they became homeless as the result of a sanction. How much is it going to cost to rehouse people and to deal with the health and mental health problems that result from their having nothing, losing their home and being on the street? All sorts of figures are being batted around, but according to a story in Scotland’s Daily Record, the National Audit Office has said that, when the figures are added up, it costs £135 million more per year to implement benefits sanctions than we save by them. I think that that proves the financial argument.

On the academic argument, I have a report on welfare conditionality from the Universities of Glasgow and York. I am happy to send it to people if they want to read it. The report shows that conditionality in the welfare system does not work, if by “working” we mean that it helps people to move into employment. It does not help people into employment. The first wave of findings found that, in all the research on the impact of the current sanctioning regime, only one individual thought that sanctioning made them more active, which is less than 2% of those interviewed. Later, I will read out what somebody said.

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) mentioned the need for a money resolution if this Bill is to progress further, but the Government have not tabled a money resolution for the last private Member’s Bill that was approved by the House. Even if we have a vote and the House gives this Bill a Second Reading, there is no guarantee that the Government will let it progress any further.

[Anne McLaughlin]

That is absolutely correct, and what does that say about the democracy of this place?

The fact is that most of the respondents in the research were already keen to find work—most people are—and even the practitioners who are imposing the sanctions regime are sceptical about its benefits. As we have already heard, DWP staff are under incredible pressure. When I spoke about the aspirations they have to reach, the hon. Member for Bournemouth West challenged me to provide the name of the whistleblower who told me all about this, and then just hope that they stay in employment. I will not do that, but I will point him to an article on a journalist’s website called “Common Space”, in which Fraser Stewart talks about how he gave up his job and became unemployed because he could not bear to keep up with the targets or aspirations that were set for him. The hon. Gentleman can have a look at that, although I am surprised he does not know about it already.

I was glad to read the research to back up what I have always known, which is that conditionality does not work. I do not think people have to be that bright to see why it does not work to have somebody standing over them telling them, “You must do it”. I wonder how many of the Conservative Members who have spoken today require a stick to be wielded over them for them to go out to find work. [Interruption.] They have the Whips—that is a very good point—but how many of them went out into the world of work and said, “I’m not going to bother doing this”. What makes them so special, because they will all say, “No, no, I always wanted to work”? I was always keen to work, but so are most people. Most people have aspirations.

[Hannah Bardell]

I promise my hon. Friend that I am intervening on her for one last time. Is she aware of this year’s “Welfare Conditionality: Sanctions, support and behaviour change” project report? It states that

“the impacts of benefit sanctions are universally reported by welfare service users as profoundly negative.”

It also found that sanctions have pushed some people into committing survival crime. Is not the fact that people in our society are pushed into committing crimes just so that they can survive a shame and a stain on our society?

[Anne McLaughlin]

That is an absolute shame on our society, and it costs more money, because when people commit crimes, we have to detect them and punish criminals.

I want to talk about a friend—[Interruption.] Wheesht! If an hon. Member wants to intervene, they can do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I will just make it clear that the hon. Lady is quite right in saying “wheesht”. We cannot have sedentary interventions.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I want to speak about a friend who has been through the system and tell Members what was done to her. She asked to change her signing on day because she could not find work and wanted to set up her own business. She was given a fantastic opportunity to present to 60 people in the industry that she wanted to go into. She could not have had a better opportunity, so she asked to change her signing on day. They said no. She said, “But I’ll lose this opportunity.” They said, “Tough.” She said, “But I have to go.” They said, “That’s fine, but we will be cutting your benefits if you do.” The Minister is looking perplexed, which is how he looked at my Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).

[Peter Grant]

Honourable Friend.

[Anne McLaughlin]

May I just say that I think everybody is honourable in case I forget to say it again?

These are not isolated cases. My friend could not do that presentation and had to sign on because she could not afford to lose unlimited amounts of that meagre income. She had to refuse that business opportunity. The damage it did to her reputation and self-confidence was incredible. She could not say to the person inviting her to the conference, “I’m awfully sorry but I have to go and sign on that day,” because she was positioning herself as a serious business person. She lied, but did so unconvincingly and was offered no more opportunities. The impact on her self-confidence and ability to apply for further jobs or develop her business was dramatic. I know that because the person I am talking about is me.

That was only three years ago. The decision did not make me any more likely to find work; it made me far less likely to find work. I felt powerless and my confidence went. I continued to apply for jobs, but how many jobs will someone be offered when the words they write make it quite clear that they are not feeling it and do not have the confidence to do the job? If I have time, I will tell a story of being unemployed that shows why conditionality does not work, and what does work.

I have no notes on the moral argument because it should go without saying. Let us take one single person—this is not about parents who are struggling to feed their kids—who is living on £73 a week. Does any hon. Member imagine that that is easy or manageable?

[Victoria Atkins]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

No. I want to talk about the people who need to be talked about.

It is a struggle. If that person’s washing machine breaks down, they cannot get it fixed on £73 a week. They have holes in the bottom of their shoes and it is raining non-stop—perhaps that is just a Glasgow thing—and cannot afford to buy new shoes. They cannot afford to be part of what their friends and family are part of. The Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said that they can apply for 60% of their benefits, which means they can get £40 a week if they know about it and if they are successful. They cannot live on £73 a week, never mind £40 a week. That is immoral. The only reason for sanctioning is to say to people, “You are too lazy and you are workshy.” It is punishment and that is all it is.

I had bad and good experiences. My good experience was that I had an adviser who had faith in me. He built my confidence. I had already been a Member of the Scottish Parliament. It was not as if I was lacking in confidence, but it goes instantly when people are treated as if they are children, or as if they are work shy and do not want to go out and earn their own living. Nobody wants not to work. There are reasons why people do not apply for work, and we need to investigate them. They might be lacking in confidence. I have met so many people who say, “Who would employ me?” So they are not applying for jobs because they think, “Who would employ me?” Nobody is helping them and people are taking their money away from them, so that they lose even more confidence. It is unacceptable and it just does not work.

I have not seen the film, “I, Daniel Blake”; I just need to go to a constituency surgery; I do not need to see the film. However, I will see it and we should all thank Ken Loach for making it—I want everyone to see it. I am not saying that members of the Conservative party do not know anything about real life—I would not say that—but for those who have not experienced anything like this situation, please go and watch it. Government Members said it was fiction but it is based on fact.

[Michael Tomlinson]

You have not seen it.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I have not seen it—I do not have to see it.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

No, I will not, but I will respond to that point. The hon. Gentleman is saying, “She’s not seen it”—incredulously. I do not need to see it; I have lived it. I do not have to see it, but I will go and see it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South mentioned our top-notch researcher, Tanya. Tanya told me that she went to see “I, Daniel Blake”, and came away thinking, “What is the point of any of this that we’re doing?” Are Government Members proud that they have made her feel that way, that they have made her feel as if she is powerless to help anybody? She was in tears. I guess that is what the sanctions are all about. They are about grinding people down, so that they know who the bosses are, making them know exactly how powerless they are—

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I will not give way to somebody with lots of power; I want to talk about people with no power. The reality is that the true motivation behind these sanctions is political ideology that says, “We are better than you”.

Now, if this Bill is not passed today—I am guessing that we will not get it through today—[Interruption.] There they go again, Madam Deputy Speaker, telling me that I do not have the right to speak. I am sick of hearing that in this House. It is important that what we are saying to people here is—

[Victoria Atkins]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that passions are running high in the Chamber but I do please ask the hon. Lady to reflect what Members across the Chamber are saying—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Again, the hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is not a point of order as such, but I am well aware, and I have already said a few times in this debate, that we must not have sedentary interventions, that people must not shout when they are not taking part in the debate, and I will make sure that they do not do so. At the same time, this is a heated debate on an important subject and I cannot reasonably expect everyone to sit in silence—that would be uncharacteristic.

Also, I have every confidence in the hon. Lady for Glasgow North East being able to conduct this part of the debate with perfect precision and indeed rhetoric.

[Anne McLaughlin]

If I must, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Somebody does not have to use the words “benefits scrounger” to imply that somebody is a benefits scrounger; they just have to apply vicious sanctions to them because they were five minutes late for an appointment, or because they attended hospital with their wife when she was giving birth.

I will end by sharing the story of two of my constituents, who I met during the election campaign a year and a half ago. I bumped into them and their beautiful two-year-old daughter on the street, and they told me that the day she was born, he went with his wife as she gave birth. Does anybody here think there is anything wrong with that? Does anyone think that the right decision was to say, “Sorry, I’m going to sign on”? He forgot all about it in the euphoria—well, euphoric for him, if not for her—and was at his wife’s side as she gave birth. The following day he went in, euphoric—“I’ve had a baby”—but apologising, and they sanctioned that young couple, and that tiny little baby. Her first ever birthday gift was a six-week sanction—not a single milk token, not a single pound to support that family.

I feel that my language has been as tempered as I can get on this subject. When I hear such stories—it is not an isolated case; I have heard so many like it, as I have said before—I find it difficult to retain a calm demeanour. My priority is to support my constituents. The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle is looking at me as if to say, “I would never have done that to them”, but she supports a regime that allows it to happen. That is the important point.

Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

As there is a real chance of Members from all parties reaching agreement today, I will resist the temptation to talk about what I would usually talk about, which is the political ideology behind cuts to the welfare system. Instead, I will concentrate on the unfair implementation of the cuts and the counterproductiveness of removing £29 a week from people in the work-related activity group of employment and support allowance.

Let us remember that many people who are in receipt of ESA are currently unable to work because of poor health—“unable” being the operative word. Although it can be extremely difficult for jobseekers to find jobs, it is more than just difficult—it is often impossible—for those in the WRAG to do so; otherwise, they would not be in the WRAG. They therefore have fewer opportunities to improve their financial situation than someone who is able to actively seek employment. They do not have that potential light at the end of the tunnel. At the very least, their tunnel is a lot longer, because, as has been said, those on ESA tend to be on it for longer than those on JSA. For those on JSA, 60% are off it within six months, whereas the average figure for those on ESA is two to two and half years.

The sum of £73 a week is a shockingly small amount of money for anyone to have to live on. I am sure that we can all agree on that. It is a pittance, but having to live on a pittance for about six months is an entirely different proposition from having to survive on it for about two and a half years. People need the additional £29 a week simply because they have almost no prospect of any increase in their income and there is not an awful lot they can do about it.

The situation is not just unfair; it is also counter-productive. The Government say—in the spirit of consensual politics, I am willing to take them at their word—that the reason they are taking the money away is that people will be more likely to move from the WRAG into employment more quickly. The charity Scope argues that taking the money away will, in fact, take them further from the workplace, and I completely agree.

Being poor is a very time-consuming way of existing. It is a constant juggling act and a battle to stay afloat, and it takes up a lot of emotional and physical energy. For someone in the WRAG who has a disability, whether it is physical or psychological, to have to use up what little energy they have left trying not to go under financially when they are living, long term, on just £73 a week leaves them with very little energy to get well and to get the support they need to get back into the job market. Neither is it difficult to imagine the impact on the self-esteem of the dramatically increasing number—at the moment it stands at 49%—of people on ESA because of mental health problems.

To believe that keeping people on the very lowest income, rather than giving them the additional £29 a week, will help get them off the sick and into work is to believe that people are making themselves ill or swinging the lead in order to access that extra £29 a week. Do we have such little faith in people that we honestly believe that great swathes of those currently in the WRAG would not give anything to be well, to be working and to be able to play a full part in society, and to not be looked down on by others, as is often the case?

That is not what I see, and I represent one of the most deprived constituencies in the UK. I see incredible people in Milton and Ruchazie and in Blackhill and Royston—right across Glasgow North East—who, even when they have next to nothing themselves, keep giving to and sharing with others in their communities, because they are good people in an area with very high levels of health-related unemployment.

Davy in Possilpark has a disability. He walks with a stick, sometimes struggles to breathe and is in the WRAG. But when he is up to it, he spends his time voluntarily helping very many other people in his community. He could not possibly have a job right now, as he is just not well enough often enough, but he can sit down with others, for example, in the local men’s support group that he is a member of, to just listen and advise. He does that as often as he can. Davy told me that despite having that extra £29 a week he feels like a failure, because he still cannot afford to buy his granddaughter a decent Christmas present. That man is no failure, but does anybody here seriously believe that Davy likes feeling like a failure and that he would not give anything to replace his life with the one he once had, when he had his health and his job, and he was earning enough money to buy that wee girl a present that would have made her eyes light up? Does anybody honestly believe that his precious granddaughter is not motivation enough to get well and back into work?

My concern is that although every Member in here may well be thinking that they can empathise with Davy, some may also be thinking, “ It is not the Davys from Possilpark of the world we’re trying to sort out here, it’s the others.” I am anything but naive, and I can tell Members that Davy may be an exceptional man, and he is, but he is no exception to the rule. Those “others”, like Davy, would also rather be working, and an extra £29 a week will not stop them doing it, when they are able to. Removing that £29 a week will, however, make getting well and getting into the workforce much, much harder, and I appeal to the Government to please think again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

I would be very happy to meet them.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State is reportedly set to reduce the benefits cap by up to £6,000 per year. Who does he think will miss out most from this? Does he think that private landlords with out-of-control rents will just accept £500 a month less, or that children, who have no control over any aspect of their lives, will be the ones to suffer yet again?

[Stephen Crabb]

The changes to the benefit cap have already been legislated on and passed by this Parliament. I urge the hon. Lady to look at the results of the earlier changes to the benefit cap, which have had really positive outcomes in encouraging and supporting more people into work.

Benefit Sanctions

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on securing what is possibly the most important debate that could be brought before the House. We heard from her some important and shocking statistics, which I will not repeat. I intend to look at the principle of sanctioning people’s benefits, share a few stories about people in my constituency who are currently being crucified by sanctions, and say a little about what I think the Government’s motivation is.

The idea is that if we punish people for not wanting to work, or for not wanting to work hard enough, and really make them suffer, it will teach them that they cannot always rely on the Government to take care of them. I would challenge the idea that there really are people who do not want to work. Yes, there are plenty of people who struggle to find work, but there are many reasons why they cannot, such as a lack of jobs, a lack of confidence, no self-belief, an experience of applying over and over and getting nowhere, and generational unemployment in the area where they live.

I also want to challenge the idea that people get comfortable on benefits and on the Government’s largesse. Jobseeker’s allowance is about £73 a week, and people struggle to pay their living costs on it. Being cash poor is incredibly time-consuming. People have to be very creative to get by, but it is not a fun creativity. It is stressful, depressing and, for many people, never-ending. I am sure we would all argue that we could live on £73 a week, and I agree that we probably could for one week, but try doing it week in, week out, month in, month out—for some people, it is year in, year out—with absolutely no respite. There are no bonuses for people who live on benefits.

Seventy-three pounds a week means that, if your washing machine breaks down, you’ve had it. Nobody is going to fix it for less than £50, so where will you get the money? It means always being the one who turns up to family weddings and parties in the same outfit and with a cheap present that you know they do not really want but is all you can afford. It means having holes in the bottom of your shoes and getting used to soggy cardboard underfoot. It means keeping up the facade so friends do not pity you. It means being in job interviews trying to focus on coming across well, but spending far too much time worrying that they can hear your shoes squelching. Being poor can be really embarrassing. Nobody gets comfortable on benefits.

The money people are given does not stop them looking for work. Yes, low pay is a problem that we need to tackle, but we need to acknowledge that pay is not the only attraction to work. There is the purpose that work gives; it is somewhere to go and a reason to get up in the morning. Most importantly of all, there are people to interact with on a daily basis. Whether you like them or not, interaction is important.

We all know that, but not everybody does. There are areas in which whole generations have been unemployed for long periods. If someone does not remember their parents, aunts and uncles working, how can they know that jobs are about more than money, and how do they therefore garner the enthusiasm to apply for very low-paid jobs?

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making some important points about the most vulnerable in society, as, indeed, did the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who secured the debate—I apologise for being late. Does the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) agree that we should welcome today’s jobs figures, which show that more people are in work than ever before, and that we, as Members of Parliament, have a responsibility to promote those who are in work and the benefits of work that she is highlighting?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I represent Glasgow North East, which has the 17th highest rate of unemployment in the whole of these islands, so my constituents have got very little to cheer about today, although I hear that the Prime Minister was most gleeful about the fact that we have managed to cut unemployment a little overall.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that, although more people are in work than a year ago, the number of hours that we are working as a country has gone down, which indicates the sort of jobs that people are getting?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Yes, I am aware of that, and I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting it.

I grew in the shipbuilding town of Greenock in Port Glasgow. I often tell a story about when I was at Port Glasgow high school—I am not going to tell Members what year it was. Every Monday morning in my first year at high school we had a 15-minute registration class, and the teacher would ask, “How did you get on at the weekend?” I remember a long, long period in which several people in my class—it felt like dozens, but it could not have been—said, “My dad got made redundant”, “My dad was a fitter, and he’s lost his job”, “My father was a welder” or “My mother worked in the canteen.” Not many women in those days were time-served tradespeople. For so many of my classmates, both their parents lost their jobs. For many of them, the last time they could remember their parents working was when they were 12, so they have very little memory of working parents. Where there is generational unemployment in an area in which expectations are low, surely our job is to raise people’s expectations; give them confidence and self-belief; work with them, not against them; give them additional support, not less support; and certainly not punish them.

Let me turn to what I believe lies behind the Government’s sanctions agenda. I will start with what they say lies behind it. They say it is to teach claimants that they cannot expect something for nothing. I will refer to a few of my constituents, and perhaps the Minister will tell me what each of them was supposed to learn. Sara was late—not very late—for an interview and was sanctioned. She was late because there was an accident on the road and her bus was stuck in traffic. It was not her fault. What is she to learn from that?

Another constituent was told that she had to go to an interview at the jobcentre. She was given a week’s notice, and they said, “We want you to come next Wednesday at 3 pm.” She said, “But I pick up my six-year-old from school at 3 pm.” “Well, that’s just tough”—her parents lived 100 miles away—“You either come to the interview or we sanction your benefits.” What is she to learn from that? Should she have abandoned her child at the school playground or take her child out of school? That is what she did, and her child missed an hour’s education.

I have two constituents—a couple—who live in Roystonhill. The wife went into labour—not the party; she was having a baby. [Laughter.] I do not know why I said that. The husband unsurprisingly went with her. He had no credit to phone and say that he would not be signing on that day, so he went the next day. They were sanctioned for six weeks. Welcome to the world, tiny baby; your parents are getting no money for six weeks, and not even a single milk token. What is that couple to learn from that sanction? Did they learn that the husband should have abandoned his wife and left her to it? Before anybody starts thinking that they were long-term unemployed, let me say that their daughter is two and they are both working now. They were both working up until six months before she had the baby. They are not people who do not want to work. They learned nothing from that experience, except that the Government do not care about them.

I have a constituent who has mental health problems and a visual impairment. He has severe panic attacks. A condition of his ESA is that he attends an office in the city centre either once a month or once a week. It takes him hours because he gets lost and distressed. He was asked, “What is it you do when you get there?” He said, “I just sign a bit of paper and leave.” Why? What is the point of that?

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

That would be very helpful.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I want to be helpful, but I also want to make a point. The hon. Lady is raising some tough, interesting cases, but does she recognise that there is a test of good reason that can be employed where there is good reason for sanctions not to be imposed?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I recognise that, but, as one of the most active welfare rights providers in Barmulloch in my constituency told me, most people do not ask for a mandatory reconsideration. That couple with a baby did not know that they could apply for a mandatory reconsideration. No doubt they were given a leaflet, but they were so distressed and busy working out what they were going to do with their baby—they had absolutely no money for six weeks—that they did not do it. I am sure everybody here will agree that those cases cannot be justified and that those decisions were wrong, but they are not exceptions. Those people are losing money for unacceptable reasons.

I want to look at the exception of the people the Minister will no doubt argue should be sanctioned—those who are deemed not to be doing enough to find work. I can tell him a little about that, because I was one of them, apparently. I recently spent a significant period looking for work. I started off confident. I was certain that I would find something fulfilling and reasonably well paid, and I was prepared not to limit myself. I spent days putting my heart and soul into applying for jobs that I knew I would be offered an interview for. Rejection is very hard to take, but no acknowledgment is even harder. When someone has put their heart and soul into something, to be treated as if they do not exist—as if they are invisible—is soul-destroying. Some weeks, I confess, I could not face it. I could not pluck up the energy to try to write in the confident manner that is necessary to impress a potential employer. Should I have been sanctioned? That is what is happening to people now. Should I have been punished, or should I have been given a bit of additional support? We should acknowledge that finding a job is a stressful, extremely low-paid, full-time job. Is it really so difficult to understand why claimants sometimes need to clear their head and build their confidence again?

It is clear that what lies behind the benefit sanctions regime is an ideologically driven determination to drive people further into the ground, to show them who is boss, to pander to the red tops that tell people about layabouts living the life of Riley, never having worked a day in their lives and never having wanted to because the poor, downtrodden workers are doing it for them while they get paid way too much to sit about on their backsides all day. That is utter nonsense and anyone who argues it should be ashamed of themselves.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to argue that, carry on.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady is being generous with her time, particularly with my interventions. I cannot let her get away with the accusation that Government Members are determined to drive people into the ground. It is the exact opposite. The intention is to drive people into work. For SNP Members to accuse Government Members of wanting to drive people into the ground, not into work, is to miss the point entirely.

[Anne McLaughlin]

We are not missing the point. Most of us have been there ourselves. Most of us have been unemployed and looking for work. None of us was born with a silver spoon in our mouth. None of us has had a job for the boys. Most of us have experienced living on benefits. I am telling the hon. Gentleman that the way to get people into work is to support them, understand them and build their confidence, not to attack or threaten them and certainly not to take away the means by which they feed and clothe themselves and their children.

[Neil Coyle]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern about the despicable comments that we just heard? We are talking about disabled people with mental health conditions or learning disabilities. A quarter of a million people on employment support allowance have been found unfit for work. It is disgraceful to be pretending that this is about supporting them back into work. This is about taking money from disadvantaged people.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I will finish by completely agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. I have had a constituent—a grown man—crying to me on the phone. He once had a lot of self-respect. He once had a tough job that he worked really hard at. He became ill, but he has not been believed. He is now talking to me about ending his life. I do not know what to say to him. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) pretends that this is all about getting people into work, but why does he not listen to what we are telling him? Why does he not listen to the evidence? He may believe something else, but he needs to open his ears and start listening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says at all. Sanctions have been a part of the welfare system for a considerable number of decades, and successive Governments of all parties have acknowledged the principle that there should be a link between benefits and engagement with the labour market. That principle has been at the heart of the system, and it is important to recognise that that is exactly how the system works right now; we engage claimants and ensure they are being supported in their work searches, while ensuring fairness and balance in the system.

The claimant commitment clearly sets out the consequences of failing to meet the requirements of the claim. As I have stated in previous debates, the claimant commitment is discussed at length with the claimant and, of course, takes account of any barriers to work, health conditions, disabilities or caring responsibilities.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will not, because I have many comments to make and we are short of time.

Two weeks ago, in the previous debate on sanctions, a number of Members quoted from reports and gave statistics to support their claim that the system is broken. We have heard similar quotes today, but we should be clear that much of what has been quoted is not fully representative of the system. We have heard extensive quotes from Oxford University and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine report that suggests only 20% of JSA claimants find work after a sanction has been imposed. That is misleading, because it makes the assumption that the 80% of people who leave JSA with unknown destinations do not enter work. In fact, many people do not inform Jobcentre Plus of their post-benefit destination because they are getting into work.

Statistics published by the Office for National Statistics put a clear disclaimer on the data, stating that the destinations data are unreliable and that it should not be assumed that all movements into employment are accurately reported. It would have been more accurate for Members to quote from the comprehensive DWP destinations survey that found that 68% of those leaving JSA move into work.

Members have rightly raised the issue of sanctions for people with mental health conditions. Less than 1% of ESA WRAG claimants with mental health conditions are sanctioned each month. The latest available data show that the number of sanctions across ESA WRAG claimants has decreased over the past year, including for those with mental health conditions. That is because, as we have continuously stated, we are seeking to support people with health conditions and, in particular, mental health conditions into employment.

The Government have just pledged more than £40 million to develop a proper and robust evidence base on which approaches are effective for people with mental health conditions. Over the next three years, that investment will enable us to have informed pilots that are based on evidence, to see exactly what kind of support works for those people and whether cognitive behavioural therapy for people on ESA, JSA and UC makes a difference. We are now working in a more integrated approach with the Department of Health on the use of talking therapies in our jobcentres and other community locations.

Several hon. Members mentioned the recent Crisis report, but they did not highlight that the report found there was support for a system of conditionality among the respondents interviewed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

That, of course, is part of our ongoing work and, along with the sanctions system, it is always subject to review. We will continue to work with the system and learn from the data we receive.

To return to the Crisis report, it is not entirely clear how the respondents to the study were selected, and the conclusions appear to apply to only a subset of the overall homeless population. That is why we are quite cautious about the degree to which the views and responses included represent those of the broader population. We know that the most important priority for homeless people is to secure accommodation, and to secure support not only in getting into accommodation but in dealing with barriers to work and any particular conditions they may have. It is important to note that support is always, rightly, based on individual needs and circumstances, and is there to help homeless claimants find suitable living accommodation, which in turn helps to remove barriers to employment.

I return to the role of our work coaches. They are able to treat certain homeless claimants as meeting their job-seeking conditions if they are receiving the right support to find living accommodation. Work coaches are also able to suspend conditionality temporarily if the claimant’s circumstances constitute an emergency. We recognise that homeless claimants may not be covered by our current list of vulnerable claimants for the purposes of hardship payments, and I emphasise that we are considering expanding the list to include those who are homeless.

We understand that homelessness is highly complex, and no one should generalise about the circumstances or backgrounds of homeless individuals. It is our priority to ensure that they get the right support. That is why the Government have made more than £1 billion available since 2010 to prevent and tackle homelessness and to support vulnerable households. In the spending review, we announced an increase in the Department for Communities and Local Government’s centrally funded programmes over the next four years to tackle homelessness. I would like to think that all Members here would welcome that.

References have been made to sanctions statistics, and it has been suggested that according to the Government’s March figures, 50% of sanctions imposed have been overturned on appeal. The official statistics say something different: in the year to June 2015, only 14% of original adverse JSA sanctions and 23% of ESA decisions were overturned by decision makers. Those decisions were based on new evidence being brought forward that was not available at the time of the original decision.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Priti Patel]

I come back to my point that if individual Members want to raise specific cases with me, they are very welcome to do so.

I do not have time to touch on the overall improvements to the sanctions process, which I know we have discussed before, or the Work and Pensions Committee. We keep the operation of the sanctions system under constant review—as we do all our policies—to ensure that it continues to function effectively and fairly. We will continue to do that.

I will touch on the pilot of the yellow card system, which gives claimants an additional period of time to provide evidence of good reason before a decision is made. That will help to strike the right balance between fairness, conditionality and individual circumstances. Our intention is that the trial will operate in Scotland from March 2016, running for approximately five months. It will be carefully designed and delivered, with a clear process, training and guidance provided for all staff involved. The trial will be evaluated in full to assess the impact on the individual behaviours and understanding, and we will carefully monitor all the relevant data to consider the extent to which the warning system trial affects sanction decisions. We will make the findings available from autumn 2016. There are already a number of opportunities for people who are sanctioned to present more evidence, and of course, that will be part of an ongoing system of review. We are working with our work coaches to develop that.

As today’s debate was secured by members of the SNP, I would like to raise some particular points about the situation in Scotland. First, I am pleased to say that today’s employment figures show that Scottish employment is up significantly, by 178,000 since 2010, and that Scotland has an employment rate of 74.3%, which is higher than the UK average. We are seeing very strong levels of employment growth in Scotland. Unemployment has fallen by 63,000, with the number of people in work in Scotland now close to a record high. That is not just because of economic policies, but because of employers expanding their businesses and doing more to support the economy. There are plenty of figures on that, but I do not need to quote them. Members in all parties can access today’s employment figures.

However, I want to touch on something that has not been raised today. When it comes to welfare provision in Scotland, we have the Scotland Bill, and the devolution package in Scotland will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. The Bill will also apply to welfare provision in Scotland, which will be tailored to local circumstances. Powers will include: a power for Scotland to create its own employment programme to help the long-term unemployed and disabled people into work; the power to create new benefits in any area of devolved responsibility; powers in universal credit to determine how and when claimants are paid and how much some claimants get for housing support; and the power to legislate for top-up payments to people in Scotland who are entitled to a reserved benefit.

This of course puts more power in the hands of the Scottish Government, and Members of the Scottish National party can now be up front with the public in Scotland on what they will do with this new devolved power and how they will apply the new powers to their welfare system.

Although we have had a full debate today, I think it is fair to say that sanctions are not a punitive measure, contrary to what the Scottish National party Members—[Interruption.] They are sitting there giggling right now, but I would not trivialise the support that has been put in place by this Government to help people into work; I think that is quite insulting, actually, to many of our work coaches and the people who work in the welfare area providing support for individuals.

This is part of a wider framework of policy to provide support to encourage claimants into work. Today’s labour market figures show that. Not only are we seeing high levels of employment, but the claimant count rate is at its lowest level since 1975. Conditionality and sanctions have played a role in that, and it is only right that we continue to keep under review the policy of sanctions, and continue to work to do more, to do better and to provide the support to help people get back into work. That is why we have the new joint health and work unit, set up by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health between them, and why, during the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a new work and health programme. That will come in in 2017 to support individuals with significant barriers to work and, in particular, help them to get back into work, through the welfare system, with support. Of course, universal credit is part of that. It gives people the help that they need to increase their earnings, move away from welfare dependency, and importantly, make sure that work always pays.

Thank you for chairing the debate this afternoon, Mrs Gillan, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell]

I could not agree more.

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

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

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

“devalues our values and our community”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Listening to my hon. Friend talk about women having to prove they have been raped and about 18 to 21-year-olds having to move back in with their parents when housing benefit is removed reminds me of when I was a welfare rights officer in the late ’80s and the Tory Government decided that 16 and 17-year-olds were no longer entitled to any benefits unless they had exceptional reasons. I had to advise a frightened 17-year-old girl sitting in front of me that, yes, if she wanted to stay in her own not very nice house, which was at least safe, she would have to tell a stranger that her dad regularly raped her. What does my hon. Friend think of progress under Tory Governments?

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is very clear from her experiences that these cuts are pernicious and unfounded, and we must, must oppose them.

The Scottish Government are protecting people from Westminster cuts. To be properly supported to live a full and meaningful life, be that in employment or otherwise, we have to look at a different way of doing things. In Scotland, the Scottish National party Government are providing £104 million in 2015-16 to protect as many people as possible from the damaging impact of the welfare reforms imposed so far by Westminster. That includes £35 million to mitigate the bedroom tax and the council tax reduction scheme, which has protected 500,000 Scots.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Dowden]

I do not accept that. I hope that Members will forgive my slip of the tongue. The increase in the current minimum wage, which is less than £7 an hour, to a minimum wage of well over £9 an hour by the end of this Parliament is huge. It is not in line with the standard increase in the minimum wage. This is a step change that reflects the introduction of a national—

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Oliver Dowden]

I will give way once more, but I am subject to the time limit.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I assume the hon. Gentleman knows that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has noted that it is “arithmetically impossible” for the increase in the minimum wage to

“provide full compensation for the majority of losses experienced by tax credit”

—and universal credit—

“recipients.”

Is it the members of the IFS who need to go back to school, or is it the hon. Gentleman?

[Oliver Dowden]

I invite the hon. Lady to note the analysis showing that the income of a typical renting household receiving tax credits, consisting of two people working full time with two children, will increase by 12%. That is exactly what we are seeking to achieve.

The third element comes into play once we have ensured that wages are higher—and I should point out that we are able to do that only because our welfare reform programme has been so successful that it has brought about a massive cut in unemployment. Because 1 million fewer people are receiving unemployment benefit and 2 million more people are employed, the labour market can withstand a significant increase in wages. Had it not been for those developments, the whole package would have fallen apart. Our measures reflect a more coherent vision.

Once those first two elements are in place, it is only right for us to consider reducing welfare benefits. There is a clear principle behind this. People in my constituency, and in many other constituencies, face tough choices, and those choices should also be faced by those people who are receiving welfare benefits. For example, one of my constituents will have to decide whether he or she can afford to have another child; we are saying that, similarly, child tax credits should, in due course, reflect what is appropriate for a family with two children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Ours is a disabling society. Some are born impaired, some acquire impairments. Some of those are visible, some invisible. All of us will, in time, feel the invisible agency of a society that is organised for the convenience of able bodies, a society which for too long has approached the mental wellbeing of its people with silence, embarrassment and denial. It is society that disables. It inscribes its exclusionary assumptions everywhere—on pavements, on buildings, in interview panels, in bleak ATOS assessment rooms.

The Government propose to abolish the employment and support allowance work-related activity component, which was originally envisaged as a way of supporting people with limited capability for work as a result of sickness or disability. It sought to recognise the barriers that people with disabilities face in seeking work, the disabling attitudes, the disabling environments, and the additional costs that disabled people bear, day to day, leading their lives. Employment and support allowance extended a small measure of recognition of the inequality that our society generates, and now even that small gesture is to be torn away. Paul Farmer, the chief executive of Mind, is reported as saying:

“People being supported by ESA receive a higher rate than those on JSA because they face additional barriers as a result of their illness or disability, and typically take longer to move into work. Almost 60 per cent of people on JSA move off the benefit within 6 months, while almost 60 per cent of people in the WRAG need this support for at least two years.”

[Anne McLaughlin]

Someone close to me who has bipolar disorder used to use her employment and support allowance to pay for things when she found it impossible to face the world. She would employ somebody to take her child to school and someone to provide talking therapies and things that improved her mental health. Does my hon. Friend agree that sometimes mental disabilities can be just as financially costly as physical ones?

[Natalie McGarry]

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady really needs to think carefully about what she says. Labour Members say that they will be tougher than us. Let me give the hon. Lady a simple pledge: we will protect the most vulnerable. There is only thing that is tough at the moment —tough on Labour Members: they lost the election. They had no idea of how they were going to end the deficit, and that is why they are sitting on the Opposition Benches.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

9. What arrangements are in place to prevent child maintenance payments from increasing when a parent is prevented from spending time with their child by the recipient of the payments.

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

The issue of contact with children and that of the calculation of child maintenance, although related, are separate. In the calculation, we will reflect the level of care that a parent provides for any child for whom he or she should pay maintenance, but we have no power to direct what the level of care should be. That is a matter for the parents to agree either privately or through the courts.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I asked the question on behalf of a constituent, but obviously many others will be in the same situation. I do not agree that there is no link, because it clearly states on the Child Support Agency website that if someone spends less time with their children, they will pay more in child maintenance. Some people spend less time with their children because, through no fault of their own and with no suggestion of any detriment to the children if they were to see them, the partner prevents that from happening. Will the Minister examine this and stop punishing parents twice over?

[Priti Patel]

Child contact following the separation of two parents is always a difficult and emotive issue, and the child’s needs must be met by both parents, in terms of financial support, when they separate. We are investing in support for parents to help them make more family-based child maintenance arrangements, and we will continue to help and secure separated families so that they can do what is in the best interests of their child. The hon. Lady mentioned that she has a particular case, and I am happy to look into it.