Welfare

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

In the past five years, my hon. Friends have had a fantastic track record of running jobs fairs, putting themselves at the vanguard of the great turnaround in the employment situation in this country. I am conscious that about 50 colleagues have already been holding disability jobs fairs. I have not been to one, and I would love to come along to attend my hon. Friend’s.

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

One of the big challenges the new Secretary of State will have is that the lowest-paid civil servants are employees of the Department for Work and Pensions, with 40% on tax credits and many on social security benefit. First, when he is implementing social security reforms, will he commit to publishing an impact assessment of how they affect employees of the DWP? Secondly, will he address the issue of low pay among employees in his new Department?

[Stephen Crabb]

The Department for Work and Pensions has a very good record on pay and conditions, and 80,000 people work in it across every part of the United Kingdom. I had the pleasure and privilege of meeting a few of them today, and I will be getting out and meeting far more people in the days and weeks ahead. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and we will look at it again, but there is already a duty on the Department to publish impact assessments.

Housing Benefit and Supported Housing

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to support the motion in the name of the shadow Front Bench.

The starting point on issues surrounding housing benefit was the decision made a couple of months ago in a Delegated Legislation Committee to freeze housing benefit for four years. Once again, a decision was made in a Delegated Legislation Committee that should have been made through debate in this House. I am glad that the Independent newspaper, among others, has started to highlight this mechanism that the Government are using to bring in their most damaging policies affecting the country. I represent a constituency where 40% of homes are in the social rented sector and 10% in the private rented sector, so any changes in housing benefit will have an impact.

What has been most startling about these proposed changes, and the key thing to note, is that the Government have not produced any statistics on the number of housing benefit claimants who receive the benefit to pay for supported accommodation. In other words, the UK Government are proposing to cap lower LHA—local housing allowance—with no knowledge of how that impacts on women’s refuges and sheltered and supported complexes for pensioners, among other types of accommodation. No statistics are available on the number of residents in supported housing who are in receipt of full or partial housing benefit. On 17 November 2015, the Government were asked for the latest figures on the number of supported housing schemes in England that participate in such a scheme. Baroness Williams of Trafford answered for the Government:

“We do not hold this information. More information on the scale, shape and cost of the supported accommodation sector should be available through the evidence review jointly commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions.”

If the Government do not know the impact of the change, why make it?

This Tory Government must halt their continued assault on housing benefit so as to ensure that those who need supported housing are not literally left out in the cold. Supported housing provides vital help to tens of thousands of people. It plays a crucial role in securing a safe home and supports people to live independently. Supported housing provides the support for older people to maintain independent lives. It provides emergency refuge and support for victims of domestic violence, helping them to stabilise their lives and to engage with other services that they require. Supported housing providers work with homeless people with complex and multiple needs and help them to make the transition from life on the street to a settled home, education, training and employment. In my constituency, I know the work of a charity called Soldiers Off The Street that supports military veterans who are homeless and struggle to meet the challenge of civilian life, having served in our armed forces.

Supported housing assists people with mental health needs to stabilise their lives, recover and live more independently. It supports people with learning disabilities in the longer term to maximise independent living and exercise more choice and control over their lives. The stark reality is that any change to housing benefit can undermine the ability of such tenants to pay their rent, thereby putting their home at risk and threatening their physical and mental wellbeing, as well as posing a threat to the financial stability of housing associations. Single people under 35 will lose out, as well as those who need supported housing. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded that the savings arising out of this measure would be small in the short run, cutting housing benefit expenditure by £255 million in 2020-21.

The longer-term impact of the change is expected to be more significant. If applied to all social tenants now, housing benefit would be cut by £1.1 billion from a base of about £25 billion, with 800,000 households losing an average of £1,300 per year across the UK. An Inside Housing article from 21 January 2016 claims that 95% of supported housing providers would be forced to close their schemes. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has arrived at figures that point to the potential cash impact of the policy, as it stands, in Scotland, based on a small-scale piece of research that it conducted with its members in the weeks since the autumn statement.

The proposed changes could have a devastating effect on the future provision of refuge accommodation in Scotland, because that accommodation is in the ownership of either housing associations or local authorities. LHA rates do not take into account the additional cost to refuge providers of leasing accommodation from social landlords and the associated service charge costs. A range of additional costs are involved in providing and managing refuge accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence. These costs derive from the more intensive housing management due to the crisis nature of admission, the special vulnerability of the women and children concerned, and the variable lengths of stay and rapid turnover. Other requirements include the need for increased safety and security measures, and the provision of furniture, bedding and equipment. Many refuges also include additional facilities such as communal rooms for counselling and therapeutic playrooms for children.

An analysis by the Angus branch of Scottish Women’s Aid found that in all cases, refuge rent and service charge costs are significantly higher than the LHA rate. It provides the example of a rural area where introducing a cap linked to the LHA rate would result in an annual loss of £5,800 for a two-bedroom refuge flat. In other examples, the annual loss on a one-bedroom refuge flat in an urban area is £7,100 per year, while the loss on a three-bedroom refuge in a semi-urban area is £11,600 per year. In each case, the financial cost will be multiplied by the number of refuge spaces provided. Without the existing level of housing benefit to cover costs, refuges may be forced to close. It is estimated that 62% of housing association tenants rely on housing benefit to help them to pay their rent.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. His point about the protection of refuges is important. In addition to our opposition to the Government measures, is it not quite clear that in Scotland, where housing is devolving—leaving the Scottish Government to protect the general stock, end the right to buy and fund new build housing and new supported accommodation—we need the full devolution of housing benefit to square the circle and to allow us to protect the most vulnerable and our general housing?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The SNP has been pursuing the full devolution of housing benefit.

The proposed introduction of the under-35s shared accommodation rate in social rented housing means that younger people will struggle to meet their rents, and it places women under the age of 35 at much greater risk of further abuse. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has found, based on its own analysis of the figures, that a single person aged under 35 who is reliant on housing benefit would face a weekly shortfall of £6.22, which is £323.44 per year. That translates into a rental loss of £2.8 million per year for housing associations in Scotland. The SFHA comments that that is likely to be a conservative estimate, given that, in August 2015, there were already 67,462 housing benefit claimants in social housing tenancies with housing associations in Scotland under the age of 35.

If women under the age of 35 are unable to access refuge accommodation or move into their own tenancy because of a restriction on their entitlement to housing benefit, that will in effect prevent them from leaving an abusive partner. In 2014-15, the 26 to 30-year-old age group had the highest incident rate of domestic abuse recorded by the police in Scotland. Women in that age group clearly have a significant need for domestic abuse support services, including refuge accommodation.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making very important points about women in vulnerable circumstances. Does he agree that there are issues about universal credit, in that women in domestic abuse situations may find themselves in difficulty if it is split? That would put them in a vulnerable position, which would be compounded by their not having a refuge to go to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

That factor would compound the original error. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to raise that issue.

Discretionary housing payment to top up the gap between LHA rates and the actual costs of providing supported accommodation is simply not secure enough in these uncertain financial times. The autumn statement indicated that additional discretionary housing payment would be made available to local authorities to protect the most vulnerable. This type of discretionary funding for the social sector is far too insecure and uncertain a funding mechanism to allow providers to continue to provide specialised accommodation, such as refuge accommodation. It would mean local authorities deciding at an individual level whose support needs would or would not be met. That would create a postcode lottery, as well as distressing tenants, worrying about whether they would be successful.

The Angus branch of Scottish Women’s Aid claims that that would create additional barriers, not to mention risk, particularly for those women and children experiencing domestic abuse who are seeking refuge. In April 2013, Lord Freud responded to Scottish Women’s Aid with his commitment to protect refuge accommodation from any unintended consequences of the welfare reforms. In order to ensure that such vital supported accommodation is protected, the UK Government must commit to at least exempting refuge providers from further squeezes. The Department for Work and Pensions has stated that the extent to which supported accommodation, including refuges, will be included within the cap is still to be decided. The DHP fund is a cash-limited annual allocation and the future of the payment is not secure, particularly if the pot is stretched to meet growing numbers. The DHP fund should not be used to top up benefit; instead, the changes—leaving gaping holes in the support for those that need it most to keep a roof over their heads—should not go ahead.

The proposed capping will lock out those who need support from seeking it or being able to afford it. The gap between the LHA paid and the price of supported housing could mean that many at-risk individuals will not receive the support they need from a residential tenancy. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations argues that uncertainty about the allocation of DHP could leave potential tenants reluctant to take up supported accommodation that better suits their needs. Furthermore, it argues that the uncertainty and distress about access to appropriate support could create a vicious cycle of tenants not accessing support and associations being left with empty properties.

[Alan Brown]

Is it not absolutely contrary of the Government to say that they will protect the most vulnerable by providing additional DHP? The only way in which they can actually protect vulnerable people is by completely exempting them from the proposals for such types of accommodation, rather than by providing additional DHP.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It was interesting that the Minister, in his response to the Labour spokesman, made no mention of the additional cost of the proposals to the health service and other social services across the board. In some respects, these are penny-pinching proposals, given the higher costs that will arise in future.

The proposed cuts come in the context of additional Tory planned restrictions on housing benefit for some of the most disadvantaged people in society. As part of summer Budget 2015, the Chancellor announced the removal of entitlement to the housing element of universal credit from young people aged 18 to 21, with some exceptions, from April 2017. The regressive rationale is to

“ensure young people in the benefits system face the same choices as young people who work and who may not be able to afford to leave home.”

The measure is forecast to save £40 million by 2020-21. Certain categories of young people will be exempt from the removal of housing benefit, including vulnerable young people, those who may not be able to return home to live with their parents, parents themselves, and those who have been in work for six months prior to making a claim. Organisations such as Shelter, Crisis and Centrepoint have welcomed the limitation of the impact to 18 to 21-year-olds, as opposed to the wider age group of 16 to 24-year-olds, but are actively lobbying against the removal of what they describe as an “essential safety net”, which can offer a lifeline to young people faced with homelessness.

Only with full power over social security can we fully protect individuals in Scotland from future housing benefit cuts. The Smith commission recommended that powers over discretionary housing payment be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Clause 23 of the Scotland Bill allows for DHP to be paid in exceptional circumstances, where applicants would not normally be eligible. The Smith commission also recommended that the Scottish Parliament have the power to vary the housing costs element of universal credit. Clause 27 gives Scottish Ministers powers to vary the calculation of the housing costs element of universal credit, subject to consultation with the Secretary of State about the practicability of implementation. The Scottish Government are already protecting low-income families from the impact of the bedroom tax, with total funding of £90 million in mitigation of this draconian measure.

I am proud to represent a constituency rich in the history of helping and championing the less fortunate, and of standing up to those guilty of exploitation. In Glasgow South West only a few months ago, we commemorated the centenary of the Glasgow rent strikes, which were led by the great Mary Barbour. As is explained in early-day motion 684, which I commend to all hon. Members, that fight against unscrupulous landlords who increased rents on the home front took place during a time of sacrifice on the western front. It may have been a century ago, but we have come full circle, as exploitation of one of the most basic human needs—shelter and a place to raise a family—is once more a key issue in Parliament. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will vote for the motion.

Universal Credit Work Allowance

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

We are not talking about families in receipt of £57,000; we are talking about families on low and middle wages. We are not talking about people who are in the highest tax bracket, and it is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and of this debate to try to turn this discussion to high-earning taxpayers. That is not what we are talking about.

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

I want to come back to the process the shadow Minister outlined at the beginning of his remarks. He said this measure was sneaked through by a statutory instrument. Has he read the many questions Opposition Members, including myself, asked at the statutory instrument Committee about the impact of this change, such as on carers, particularly young carers?

[Owen Smith]

We have repeatedly asked for any sort of impact assessment in respect of these measures, and as usual the Government signally fail to offer one. I believe that in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency 13,000 households will lose out by the end of this Parliament as a result of these cuts, and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) I believe 5,000 people will lose out by an average of £950 by the end of this Parliament; perhaps he ought to reflect on that when he votes on this motion later today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will extend my invitation further: I will join the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to come and see this work in action. If he is worried about going on his own, I will in effect be his work coach. We have talked about examples. Let us talk about a working lone parent with two children who is doing 35 hours on the national living wage. They will be £330 better off. We could continue to trade examples, but that would be to assume that this is a static analysis. I will address that point later.

The evidence is clear: universal credit is working. Independently reviewed statistics published at the end of last year show that under universal credit people spend 50% more time looking for work, are 8 percentage points more likely to have been in work, and when in work, they earn more and seek more hours. So, universal credit is supporting people whether they move into or out of work, and focusing on getting people not just into work but into sustainable employment where earnings increase and the number of hours they work rises.

[Chris Stephens]

The Public and Commercial Services Union has real concerns about the cuts to the work allowance, which will affect the Government’s own staff. What assessment has been made of the effect of those cuts on the employees in the Department for Work and Pensions?

[Justin Tomlinson]

As I shall explain, this is not a static analysis.

I want to focus on how we are going to support people. People will benefit from the improved support. For those directly affected by the changes to work allowances, we have been careful to put further measures in place. The affected claimants will benefit not only from additional work coach support but from access to funding through the flexible support fund. This will help people to retain work and to increase their earnings through training, travel and care, and we will support people to access those things. In the longer term, we are ensuring protection for claimants who are moved from legacy benefits to universal credit. We have always been clear that there will be no cash losers as a result of the managed migration of claimants from one system to another, as long as their circumstances remain the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

The whole point that I am trying to make is that any progress that has been made will be undone if the Government remove the work incentive, which is the work allowance. It is the aspect of universal credit that makes it possible to earn more when they work. By cutting the work allowance, the Government are going to impose an eye-watering level of marginal taxation on people in low-paid jobs and make it harder than ever for those in low-income households to break out of the poverty trap. If the Government were serious about making work pay, if they were serious about boosting the UK’s productivity and if they actually wanted to help people get on, they would be increasing the work allowance, not reducing it. That would be a genuinely progressive measure, and it would actively help those in low-paid work.

[Chris Stephens]

Are not my hon. Friend’s arguments also supported by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said in a report after the Budget that the cut to the work allowance

“weakens incentives for families to have someone in work”?

[Dr Whiteford]

Lots of think-tanks and non-governmental organisations have been queuing up to point out that this measure removes work incentives. It strikes me that increasing the work allowance would be a far more progressive measure than, for example, raising the personal tax allowance, which benefits higher-rate taxpayers such as ourselves far more than anyone in low-paid work.

The cuts to the universal credit work allowances are being introduced via the Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations, which a Delegated Legislation Committee considered last November under the negative resolution procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) opposed the cuts at the time, because it was clear to him, as it was to me, that reducing the amount that a household can earn before universal credit starts to be reduced would hurt low-income families in certain circumstances very badly indeed, and would remove work incentives for those households.

It causes me great concern that, instead of being fully debated here in the Chamber, the changes were enacted through delegated legislation without the scrutiny that their consequences merited. As far as I am aware, the Department for Work and Pensions has yet to produce a proper impact assessment of the changes to the work allowance, so we are very much dependent on external bodies for worked impact analyses. I would be grateful if Ministers said today that they will publish an impact assessment, particularly given that the Social Security Advisory Committee has expressed concerns about the adequacy of the evidence base for evaluating the changes. We can get up in this Chamber and spout as much hot air as we like, but if we lack the proper evidence or use the evidence so selectively to back up only our arguments, we really will fail the people who depend on the support of our social security system.

In late December, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission said that

“the net impact of changes to universal credit...on work incentives is largely negative due to significant reductions in the generosity of work allowances.”

It pointed out that claimants who pay income tax will keep only 24 p in every extra pound they earn. They would need to earn an extra £210 a week to make up the losses from a reduced work allowance—a staggering rate of marginal taxation that makes a mockery of the notion that any work incentives will be left in universal credit. Incidentally, it is important to get away from the false idea, which has been creeping into today’s debate, that there are taxpayers and then there are people on benefit. Work allowances are for people who are working—the clue is in the name—in low-paid jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

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

“A guid new year tae yin and a’ and mony may ye see.” I thank the Labour Front Bench—[Interruption.] It is okay; I will send that up to Hansard. I thank the Labour Front Bench and particularly—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is using perfectly good language and most of us understand it perfectly.

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

May I thank the Labour party and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) for bringing this motion to the House? I want to start, as he did, by discussing the parliamentary procedures and the concerns I had about how this change was made. My view is that the Statutory Instruments Committee should be used to address technical changes to legislation and amendments. This was not a technical amendment; this was a policy change, and this was a procedural vehicle to sneak in the most damaging legislation and avoid public scrutiny. At the SIC we were subjected to the usual sunshine and cheerful rhetoric from the Government members, so much so that if we were playing Tory buzzphrase bingo we would have won the snowball after a couple of minutes, because the reality of this change is that a lone parent who currently earns the national minimum wage can work up to 22 hours, but with this cut to working allowance they would lose that support after 12 hours.

I am still waiting for the answers to many of the questions I asked at the SIC, and I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will answer some of them. First, what assessment has been made of the effect of the changes to working families and their ability to take on part-time work? Does this disincentivise work and lead to workers reducing their hours? It seems to me that it is human nature that if there is a chance of someone losing benefit payments and they can save that benefit only by cutting their working hours, that is exactly what they will do. Will there be any mitigation of the effects on their benefits? How will carers be affected, in particular young carers? Talking about young workers, what about those aged under 25, who will not get access to the national living wage?

I also ask this question again: what impact assessment has been done in respect of Department for Work and Pensions staff, who are the lowest paid civil servants in the country—so much so that when staff from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are merged into the DWP, they earn £2,000 more than those in the DWP? These are staff who are subjected to a 1% pay cap, and who are paying, and have had to pay, increased pension and national insurance contributions; and 40% of DWP staff are currently on tax credits.

We have heard so much again today about aspiration. What message does the cut to working allowance send to those who aspire? The reality is that people are increasingly aware that the ladder of social mobility is being systematically pulled up ahead of them, and that no matter how hard they work or how much they aspire to a better life for their children and themselves, they will be punished for not being born into the right sort of family. That is the reality of this cut to UC work allowance.

Benefit Sanctions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is good to have all sorts of advisers in food banks, but food banks are filling a ridiculous gap that we should not have in the system. They are going out of their way themselves to do their best for people in terms of advice. They are having to finance these things and to get money from people, including from local charities and organisations, to provide advice. People really need that advice, and I welcome advice from all quarters, but these things should not be happening in the first place.

As I said, Aberdeen is a rich city. How do people get into a situation where they are unemployed and need to go to food banks? I came from a job where I was not earning as much as I am now—obviously, most of us took a bit of a pay rise when we got this job—so the combined income in my household was less than £40,000. People in my peer group, who are not earning the lowest of the low wages are still just a couple of pay checks away from having to go to food banks. The Government say it is really good that we are giving breaks to people with savings, but people do not have massive savings. If the main earner in the house is made unemployed, and they have a couple of months where they have no finances, they are in serious trouble, no matter how careful they have been or what they have done.

In Aberdeen, people cannot rent a one-bedroom flat for less than about £500 a month. People who have been made unemployed, who are struggling and who are having to pitch up to the jobcentre are really struggling to pay their rent.

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

My hon. Friend will be aware that, in my constituency, we now have not only food banks, but a Christmas toy bank. Food banks, general practitioners and the rest are referring people to toy banks at this time of year. Surely that shows that the welfare system is failing.

[Kirsty Blackman]

A local organisation, Home-Start Aberdeen, did an Advent book bank and people donated children’s books. Some of the children who received books would not otherwise have got a book at Christmas time. It is absolutely awful that children are being disadvantaged because of those policies.

Some of the people who walk through the door of my constituency office and through the doors of food banks are pitching up because of late benefit payments. For example, an adverse decision has been made against them, they have been sanctioned and they have got the decision overturned, but it takes another month for that to get through the system and for the money to come in. How can the Government say that someone will be sanctioned for being 15 minutes late for an appointment when they cannot pay somebody for a whole month? How is that a realistic position? They expect individuals to behave in an impossible way—it is impossible for anybody to be on time for every single appointment and never to be 15 minutes late—when they can happily miss paying people for an entire month, and that is acceptable. It is ridiculous that they expect people to live by rules they cannot live by themselves.

I am really distressed by the benefit sanctions system. I am particularly annoyed about the late payments. I am annoyed that the Government, despite having published the guidelines and policies they expect people to work within, do not even stick to them. If there is an appeal, for example, it would be really good if they could make payments timeously to ensure that my constituents do not have to go to food banks.

Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Local Housing Allowance Amendments) Order 2015

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Local Housing Allowance Amendments) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015, No. 1753).

May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard? There is a strange sense of déjà vu about so many of our recent debates on welfare reform, and nowhere is that more the case than when we talk about housing benefit. Sharpening his axe in the early stages of the last Parliament, the Chancellor set his sights on the growing housing benefit bill as a prime target for cuts. Despite cooking up no fewer than nine different ways to cut entitlement, the coalition Government nevertheless ended up with an annual housing bill more than £4 billion higher than the one they inherited.

How did that happen? The explanation is simple: thanks to a lethal combination of a low-wage economy and the lowest level of house building since the 1920s, the number of people claiming housing benefit has shot up. That is fuelled almost entirely by the 64% increase in the number of claims by working tenants in privately rented accommodation. It is important to make the point that housing benefit can be claimed by those in work—the poor in work. There has been a huge increase in the number of those people needing to claim housing benefit because the price of housing is so high.

Local housing allowance—or, in layman’s terms, housing benefit in the private rented sector—was always seen by Ministers as particularly low-hanging fruit. Despite the rhetoric of the emergency Budget of June 2010, which referred to “excessively generous payments” of housing benefit, the whole point of local housing allowance was to ensure that these payments would not be more generous than they needed to be.

It worked like this: in any given area, rates were set at the median of local market rents and, more importantly, they would rise or fall in line with those rents each month, ensuring that the cheaper half of the rental market in each area would always be affordable to low-income tenants on housing benefit. So, not luxury accommodation but the bottom half of the housing market would be available to those on housing benefit, including those in work and those out of work. While that system was not necessarily perfect, it seemed the fairest possible way of controlling costs and limiting tenants’ choices to a reasonable degree, while ensuring that low-income tenants would not end up getting priced out of large parts of the country—their country, where they have been brought up. That system, along with the principles it stood for, was completely turned on its head by changes introduced by the coalition.

First, the coalition Government changed the calculation of local housing allowance rates, lowering it from the 50th percentile to the 30th percentile, so that people on housing benefit could only rent from the bottom 30th percentile of properties in a particular area, which dramatically reduced the number of properties available within the limits of housing benefit. In making that change, the Government insisted that

“at least 30 per cent of private rented sector accommodation will continue to be affordable to people who depend on Housing Benefit.”

How did that go? It did not go well, and it should be obvious by now that that is absolutely not how local housing allowance reforms have played out.

The reason is that the move from the 50th percentile to the 30th percentile was only the first of many changes that, in combination, have seen housing benefit become increasingly disconnected from the actual cost of renting. Particularly damaging in boroughs such as mine, Islington, was the overall cap on local housing allowance rates. The cap means, for example, that claimants living in a one-bedroom flat can under no circumstances claim more than £250 per week in my area. If the Minister believes he could find a flat on that budget in my constituency or in any part of inner London, frankly, good luck to him.

The problem with these caps is that they seem to be set at completely arbitrary levels, with no reference whatever to the costs that tenants are actually facing. If hon. Members consider how much they are allowed to cover their housing costs for staying in central London, they might appreciate why £250 per week for a one-bedroom flat is very challenging indeed.

On top of that, the Government changed the rules on uprating, breaking completely the link between local housing allowance rates and actual rents. Instead of rising in line with market rents, local housing allowance rates were first uprated in line with the consumer prices index before increases were capped at a maximum of 1% for a period of two years. In breaking the link with rent inflation, the Government’s expectation was that the changes would

“bear down generally on rental values being met through Housing Benefit.”

If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny. We know full well that the effect has not been to bear down on rent levels in any area. Not only has it completely failed to do that, it has not had the slightest impact on the rate at which rents are increasing. According the Office for National Statistics, private sector rents across the country rose by an average of 2.7% in the last 12 months. Given that there is no impact assessment attached to the Government’s proposals, we asked the House of Commons Library to examine some of the effects. Its analysis of the proposed freeze is that if rents continue to increase at the same rate over the next four years, the effects would be nothing short of devastating.

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

Has the shadow Minister read Shelter’s analysis stating that it would be virtually impossible to find a private rented home in 60 local authorities by 2019?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I shall be brief, but I am disappointed that yet another piece of serious and contentious legislation is being forced through the back door with little scrutiny. I hope that today, unlike in last Thursday’s statutory instrument Committee, the Minister will actually respond to our questions.

It is concerning that even Shelter was surprised that the freeze in the local housing allowance was twice as long as that which it expected the Government to impose. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury, the most concerning fact is that Ministers have not even considered the impact. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government will publish an impact assessment or, at the very least, write to members of the Committee about the impacts?

I might be able to help the Government slightly. Many people receiving housing benefit already work and they are already struggling to make ends meet—before Government Members come out with the stock line that they are increasing wages, let me say that that does not help workers now as the measures are not concurrent. When will the Government listen to all the evidence that says that they are squeezing the money out of workers’ pockets? How does that incentivise work?

The measures in the order, we are told, will make most of the country unaffordable. As I said in my question to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury, Shelter has told us that the order will make it virtually impossible to find a private rented home in 60 local authority areas by 2019. Is this thinly veiled social cleansing? I ask that because it can only lead to ghettoisation across the United Kingdom. Unless the UK Government commit to measures such as mitigating the effects of the bedroom tax, building more homes during this Parliament and keeping rents down, that is what will be achieved.

Will the UK Government ensure that the measures in the proposal will not discriminate against some groups in our society? The hint about boosting the targeted affordability fund does not offset the big freeze overall, and those struggling to pay rising rents will face more rent shortfalls, more arrears and a greater risk of eviction. I will vote against this order and I urge everyone to consider the impact that it will have on hard-working families.

Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2015

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2015 General Committees

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

I shall be brief, because the hon. Lady said a lot of what I wanted to say. The real issue for the Scottish National party is the fact that these changes will disincentivise work. That is our concern. If we are to incentivise work, the work allowance should be increased, not cut.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. What assessment has been made of the effect of the changes on working families and their ability to take on part-time work? Is it not the case that the proposals will disincentivise work and lead to workers reducing their hours? Will there be any mitigation for the effect on their benefits? Has the Minister read the IFS report that says that the measure

“weakens incentives for families to have someone in work”?

Will carers be affected? I am thinking particularly about a qualifying young person with caring responsibilities. Lastly, what assessment will there be of the fact that, as discussed in the Adjournment debate last night, we know that staff at the Department for Work and Pensions are among the lowest paid in the civil service? Will there be a negative impact on those staff?

Employee Pay (DWP)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I wish to raise the important issue of the pay of employees in the Department for Work and Pensions—or, perhaps more accurately, the low pay of those employees.

As we know, pay throughout the public sector has been subject to restraint for a number of years, and the pay in the DWP is no exception. A TUC report published in 2014 showed that public sector workers were, on average, £2,245 worse off in real terms than they had been before the previous Government took office. However, the issue of low pay is felt particularly acutely in the DWP, as it is one of the lowest paid civil service Departments, and staff now struggle to make ends meet.

Some 87% of DWP staff—74,701 employees—now earn less than the UK mean average wage of £27,200 a year, and 47% of staff—39,526 employees—earn less than £20,000. The Public and Commercial Services Union estimates that thousands who are at the bottom of the DWP pay scale will not even earn the national living wage that was announced by the Chancellor in the Budget if their pay rises by only 1% a year until 2020. DWP pay increases have been heavily capped for the last six years, and in 2010 and 2011 there was a 0% increase for staff earning over £21,000.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

As my hon. Friend knows, in 2011, when we were in the very depths of the recession, the Scottish Government were able to introduce a living wage for all civil service staff in Scotland, along with a non-redundancy clause agreement. Why was such a move not possible for either the Labour Government or the coalition Government—or, for that matter, the present Conservative Government?

[Chris Stephens]

I do not know the reasons for that, but I think that it should have been possible. As my right hon. Friend will know, in Scotland those earning less than £21,000 a year have received a £250 pay rise over the last couple of years.

Between 2012 and 2015, all DWP staff received a 1% increase, and the Chancellor has announced his intention to limit civil service pay increases to 1% for the next four years.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that, if inflation is taken into account, that 1% increase effectively amounts to a 6% or 7% wage cut, and women in particular are bearing the burden.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is correct, and I will come on to the fact that it is estimated that what has taken place in the DWP is effectively a cut of £2,245.

There is also the issue of no pay progression within the Department. Since 2009 there has been no mechanism for DWP staff to move from the bottom towards the top of the pay range for their grade. This has meant staff have become frozen at the bottom of the pay range with no means of ever progressing further. Around 70% of DWP staff are in this position.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. The issue he has just mentioned is very important. Surely it is right to reward people as they progress and achieve goals and standards of knowledge and expertise, which is very important in the DWP, and move from one level to the next. Does he think that the Government should consider retraining people so that they can step up the wage scale?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with that, because if there is a pay range and scale, there should be natural progression through experience and training.

With pay increases limited to 1% year on year, simply not enough money is available to create meaningful pay progression and give all staff some annual pay increase. The Treasury has consistently prescribed that any pay progression must be funded from the 1% increase and no additional funds have been made available. My first question to the Department is this: will the DWP change its attitude towards pay progression and allow employees to move up the pay grades and scales?

Let me turn to the increase in pensions and national insurance contributions. DWP staff are members of one of the civil service pension schemes and since 2010 members’ contributions to the pension schemes have been steadily increasing, averaging 3.2% by 2015. These increases have, effectively, eroded the value of the recent 1% pay rise. This has meant that DWP staff take-home pay now has hardly increased at all since 2012. DWP staff also expect to see an increase of around 1.4% in their national insurance contributions in 2016, when the new state pension comes into effect.

Some 40% of DWP staff are on tax credits. The DWP has told the PCS that 40% of DWP staff have to rely on tax credits to supplement their low rates of pay. This is clear evidence of how low pay rates are in the DWP. If the measures to reduce tax credits that were announced in the July Budget were ever to be implemented, there would be a significant impact on DWP staff.

The Government have made many public statements saying that employers should pay a living wage and not make their employees rely on tax credits to supplement low pay. It is ironic, therefore, that so many DWP employees are made to rely on tax credits because the Government will not pay their own staff a decent salary. Furthermore, the Government have justified tax credit cuts by declaring that when their employees lose their tax credits, employers will naturally pay higher wages. However, if the Government rely on tax credits to subsidise the low pay of their own workforce and they are unwilling to compensate these workers who stand to lose from changes to tax credits and the 1% pay cap, it is hard to see how other employers can be expected to practise anything different.

DWP pay is an equality issue. Some 69% of staff are female, predominantly employed in the lower grades.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

There is a contradiction. On the one hand, Government policy is equal pay for women, but on the other hand they reduce women’s wages at the DWP and other Departments.

[Chris Stephens]

I entirely agree, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that we are seeing an increase in the pay gap between male and female workers.

Low pay in the DWP therefore has a detrimental effect on women. As the highest paid grades in the DWP have a majority of male staff, this has created a significant gender pay gap in the DWP. My next question is this, therefore: what equality impact assessment has been carried out to ensure the DWP complies with the Equal Pay Act 1970 and is not at risk of equal pay claims?

There have been increased workloads and efficiency, but no reward. Time and again, Ministers and those running the Department thank DWP staff for their hard work in keeping the Department afloat and delivering welfare reform. Recognition is always welcome, but DWP staff feel that the thanks need to be translated from mere words into a form of recognition visible in their pay packets.

Furthermore, the DWP workforce has been cut by 30% since 2010, so the pressure on those remaining has increased. In March 2015, the Secretary of State told DWP staff that productivity had increased significantly. He cited record levels of employment, faster processing, fewer calls chasing progress, and an annual operating cost £2.5 billion lower than in 2009-10, yet none of those improvements in productivity has been reflected in increases in DWP pay.

The DWP is one of the lowest paid Departments in the civil service. Prior to civil service pay being delegated to individual Departments, all civil service grades were paid the same, irrespective of which Department they worked in. However, as a consequence of pay delegation, pay levels now vary greatly from one Department to another, and DWP pay is particularly low. There are now well over 100 pay bargaining units across the civil service, and the DWP, as the largest Department, does not do well compared with other civil service Departments.

This will be brought into sharp focus with the roll-out of universal credit, when 2,000 HMRC colleagues, earning considerably more than DWP staff, will transfer into the DWP and will be earning a lot more for doing the same work. For example, 40% of staff in the administrative officer grade in the DWP earn less than the HMRC administrative officer grade minimum. Anyone who joins HMRC on its administrative officer minimum will come in more than halfway up the DWP administrative officer pay scale at £18,415.

People who work in the private sector are better off. This Government seek to justify public sector pay restraint by spreading the myth that life in the public sector is altogether cosier than in the private sector, but the truth is that pay for those in the DWP is now so low that some people in the private sector employed on civil service contracts are leaving them behind. For example, in Steria, the company that won the contract for HR shared services, where some DWP workers saw their work privatised, members have just been awarded a 2.3% pay increase. In Maximus, another DWP contractor, members have recently accepted an offer that will give the majority of them increases of over 15%, with the lowest paid receiving an increase of nearly £5,000.

Increases for private sector workers on DWP contracts are therefore considerably in excess of the 1% awarded to DWP staff. Of course, those pay increases in private sector contracts are funded by the taxpayer every bit as much as DWP pay is funded by the taxpayer. We commend the pay increases for those staff, but we fail to see the logic of the 1% pay cap being so rigidly imposed on public sector workers when that is not the case for private sector workers delivering Government contracts.

We fear that there is discriminatory performance-related pay in the DWP. The Department also pays some staff a non-consolidated payment each year. This is worth 1.9% of the annual pay bill—around £44 million. The payments are distributed based on performance appraisal markings and grade. Staff who have received a “must improve” box marking—around 8% of DWP staff—receive no non-consolidated payment. Other non-consolidated payments vary from £450 for an administrative assistant to £1,750 for a grade 6 employee. These non-consolidated payments have been shown to be discriminatory in many ways. You are more likely to receive the higher award if you are full time, white and under 60, and more likely to receive no non-consolidated payment if you are over 60, BME or part time.

Terms and conditions are also diminishing. At the same time as pay increases in the DWP have been subject to central Government pay restraint and caps, DWP staff have seen a gradual erosion of other terms and conditions. This has taken the form of increased pension contributions and changes to pension entitlements, repeated attacks on the civil service compensation scheme, restricted access to flexitime, a draconian approach to attendance management, and cuts in staffing.

The sense of anger among DWP staff is high. When the 1% pay award was imposed on DWP staff in July, more than 5,700 protest letters were sent to the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary. The PCS receives constant feedback from its members on the impact of pay restraint. My next question therefore is: what assessment has been carried out to ensure that DWP staff reach the so-called living wage target? Or will steps be taken to ensure that this is delivered earlier? Some DWP staff reported regularly borrowing from credit cards to make up the shortfall in their wages and being unable to afford to tax their cars.

My last question is: do Ministers believe that the enormous improvements in productivity that DWP staff have achieved on their watch should be rewarded with an additional pay increase above the 1% cap?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will have to come back on those specific details.

The Chancellor also announced in the Budget earlier this year the very welcome introduction of a statutory national living wage for those aged 25 plus from April 2016. Our Secretary of State has long championed the principle that, if people work hard, they should be rewarded. He welcomed the introduction of the national living wage as

“perhaps the most significant measure in all the Budgets that I have listened to during my many years in this House.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 482.]

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister also provide us with an assessment of DWP staff who are younger than 25 years of age, because they will not get access to that living wage? If there is a 1% pay increase year on year, DWP staff will be earning 36p more than that national living wage.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My next bit will specifically address the under-25s. Our pledge is that the national living wage will go over £9 by 2020. From my recollection at the general election, the Scottish National party pledged to pay about £8.60 or £8.80, and Labour pledged £8. I think that we can all support our decision to get the figure to over £9 by 2020.

Crucially, on the point about the under-25s, DWP will meet its statutory requirement and pay the national living wage to all employees regardless of age. That will include those under the age of 25. All Members will welcome that.

DWP will raise the pay of around 600—0.7% of our staff—who will fall just below this level from April 2016. The Department is ensuring that our contracted staff will also be paid at the new national living wage from April 2016 onwards, as we are conscious that we have large supply chains and people with whom we have direct work. For the remainder of the Parliament, all increases in employees’ salaries will be in line with the guidance from Her Majesty’s Treasury.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; I will be providing a written update in answer to that very good question.

I was asked about pensions. As changes are made to pensions, we have made sure that the lowest paid see the smallest increase and that those paid more contribute more progressively, but it remains a good pension scheme, with a defined end. As for promotion through the pay scales, for those who can get promoted through the bands—there is typically a 10% difference between them—that remains in place.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Can I ask him about Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff coming into the DWP as part of the roll-out of universal credit? That will expose a lot of differences in civil service pay.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I cannot give a specific answer, but we are aware of that issue, which is something we continuously look at, because it is a significant point that has been raised.

In conclusion, while endeavouring to provide increases for all, the DWP has focused on its most junior grades, and that will remain our focus—again, I think we have cross-party support for that. We are proud that the DWP’s gender pay gap has consistently been one of the lowest in Whitehall and we are committed to continue to focus on this. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this very important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

DWP Data

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

These are personal and individual tragedies that affect both the individual and, obviously, their families as well. It is absolutely wrong for any political party to engage in handwringing and scaremongering to the extent that we have seen in this House.

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

May I also thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for tabling this urgent question and assure her that I am getting the same answers to written questions as she is?

Too often, we hear stories in the media about people who have died having been found fit for work or who have been driven to their deaths by the Government’s pernicious benefits sanctions regime. We have heard from the Department for Work and Pensions that it currently investigates all deaths of benefit claimants

“where suicide is associated with DWP activity”,

and in other cases where the death of a vulnerable benefit claimant is brought to its attention, through a system of internal peer reviews. A freedom of information disclosure shows that, since 2012, the Department for Work and Pensions has carried out 49 peer reviews following the death of a benefit claimant and that 10 of the peer reviewed claimants were sanctioned.

Is the Department for Work and Pensions still pursuing an appeal against the Information Commissioner’s ruling, or is it abandoning it in the light of the data being published? If the Department is going to publish that information, can we be given a clear timetable for the publication of the data, not just “very soon” and “the autumn”, because they are complete opposites?

Lastly, the Minister will be aware that, last June, the Scottish Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee called for an urgent review of the benefits sanctions and conditionality regime, and in March the Work and Pensions Committee in this place published a report calling for a full independent review of the benefits sanctions process. Having been asked by two cross-party Committees in two Parliaments, will the Government now go ahead with an independent review at the earliest possible opportunity?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman raises a number of points. It is right that the Department reviews complex individual cases, including those in which claimants have died, to ensure that all processes have been followed correctly. As I have said on previous occasions to Scottish National party Members, I am happy to look at specific cases. On the point about sanctions, unemployment benefits have always been conditional, and benefits sanctions have been part of the system for the last four decades, as is right and proper. As regards the appeal and the publication of the data, I have already said that we will, as requested, publish all aspects of the data in the right format as is required of the Department.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

As a member of the workers’ and one nation party, I am very proud to support the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.

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

rose—

[Mr Burrowes]

No, we have heard enough from the SNP for now.

Unlike the previous speaker, I am going to talk about the Bill. It shows the Conservative party and the Government full of head and heart. We care passionately about mobility and aspiration. We also care about security and solidarity, helping the vulnerable and the disabled. Our head says that we have to live within our means. Finally, we are grasping the nettle and recognising that we have to live within our means. The welfare budget has to be sustainable. What the Chancellor has said has to be said again: we have 1% of the world’s population, 4% of the world’s GDP and 7% of the world’s welfare spend. We have to deal with that to make sure we can help the most vulnerable and ensure they have a sustainable future.

This is the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, but as the Secretary of State said, it could also be described as the “Catch you when you fall” Bill or the “Lift you when you can rise” Bill. That is what it is all about. We are spending more than £33 billion on welfare for the sick and the disabled. That will continue. What does that mean? Compared with the previous Labour Government, we have spent £7 billion more on disability benefits. We will continue to spend just shy of £7 billion more than the previous Labour Government on disability and sickness benefits. That matters.

The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) prayed in aid Margaret Thatcher. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher said:

“Our aim is to provide a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disability, so that more disabled people can support themselves and live normal lives.”

The hon. Lady was right when she said the Government are following in the tracks of Margaret Thatcher, because disability payments increased under her Government by 21%. This Government are continuing to increase disability benefits, despite the £12 billion in welfare cuts. The difficult cuts to the work-related activity group payments represent one twenty-fourth of the welfare cuts that are being made. We are protecting the disabled. We heard all the scaremongering, particularly from Labour during the election, about our plans to cut carers’ allowances savagely and to means-test and tax disability benefits, but the Bill shows that that is not happening.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey]

On this issue, we are as one. We are working together in the west midlands to construct the midlands powerhouse and realise the full potential of the midlands. What was surprising yesterday was that the Chancellor waxed lyrical about the remarkable Greater Manchester, mentioned the northern powerhouse in considerable detail and referred to just about every other part of Britain, and at the end of his remarks made a throwaway reference to the midlands powerhouse. That has not gone down well in the midlands.

Crucially, at the next stages what the Chancellor cannot do is empower but impoverish. One of the great problems with this Government is that everything they do is characterised by a fundamental unfairness of approach. Some £700 million has been cut from the budget of Birmingham City Council—£2,000 for every household—yet in the Chancellor’s own constituency there has been an increase in spending power of 2.6%. Likewise, the West Midlands police have been treated unfairly. If they were treated fairly, they would be entitled to £43 million more—enough for 500 police officers back on the beat.

We will never be one nation while the Chancellor and the Government continue to demonise and divide, with their talk of shirkers or strivers, work or benefits. I was born in poverty—my father a navvy, my mother training to be a nurse; they worked hard to get on. I have always believed that those who can work should work, but I object to wicked caricatures of the sort we heard yesterday in relation to the young homeless—“they come out of school, they go on benefits, then they want to get a flat”.

Three years ago, I hosted in the House of Commons the Homeless Young People’s Parliament in Parliament—quintessentially middle England, middle Scotland, middle Wales young people, the best of Britain, who had ended up homeless, overwhelmingly through no fault of their own. Last Friday, I was at Orchard Village, which serves young homeless people in my constituency. It is substantially dependent on housing benefit for its income and now faces closure.

If we are to be one nation, the Chancellor cannot continue to play politics with the United Kingdom, posing one nation against the other. EVEL—if ever there was an accurate acronym, that is it.

As for the Tories being the party of working people, they introduced in the Budget a tax on aspiration, saying to working families in social housing, “If you get on, you have to pay much more or move out.” The party of working people? On Sunday trading, I agree with what was just said. One of Labour’s greatest achievements, the weekend, is now threatened by this Conservative Government, who would compel seven-day working, in reality forcing millions of retail workers, particularly women, to work on Sunday and putting at risk thousands of small stores all over the country.

The party of working people, with the so-called living wage? Yesterday, when the Chancellor spoke about this, he grinned like a Cheshire cat and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions punched the air, as if England had scored the winning goal in the World cup. The living wage? Twelve years ago, I was a founder member of the drive for the living wage, working through the former Transport and General Workers Union, with the East London Citizens Organisation and London Citizens, to organise, for example, thousands of cleaners in Canary Wharf and the City of London and the first-ever strike in the history of the House of Commons to win the living wage. This is not the living wage or a “new contract” with the British people, as the Chancellor called it this morning; this is a con trick by a cunning Chancellor, who gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

In the west midlands, 56% of families are on tax credits and 300,000 children depend on tax credits. Yet a family with two children and one full-time earner on £20,000-plus now faces losing £2,000: for every £1 they get from a higher living wage, they will lose £2 in tax credits. What is the Government’s answer? They say, “Ah, the £9”. That is £9 in 2020, but they are cutting tax credits in the here and now.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that there has been a further attack on working people in that public sector workers have been told there will be a 1% pay rise every year?

[Jack Dromey]

The hon. Gentleman and I both come from a trade union background. I feel for public servants such as the firefighters, the police officers, the nurses. All those who do excellent work for the communities we serve, who have already been squeezed for five years, now face a 1% increase for the next four years. Effectively, that means a substantial cut in the living standards of millions of public servants.

The Chancellor says that the £7.20 rate will start next April, but the real living wage—I repeat, the real living wage—is already £7.85, or £9.15 in London; that is not based on cutting tax credits. As for the Chancellor being the workers’ friend, I did not come down with the last rainfall, and neither did the country. It is not a living wage if people cannot live on it. As the reality dawns and millions feel the pain of what the Chancellor has done, the last 24 hours of triumphalism on the part of the Conservative party will give way to the grim reality as Government Members go back to their constituencies and explain why they are inflicting cuts in living standards on the hundreds or potentially thousands of families they represent. The IFS’s verdict today is absolutely damning: for 13 million families, the living wage will not compensate for the tax credit cuts, and the poorest will be hit much harder.

When it comes to the Tories as the party of working people, let us not forget that this was certainly not a Budget for young working people. The crucial test of any Government is how they treat the next generation. Young people need the basics in life to get on—a decent job or education, and a roof over their heads. The Budget fails on all those points. It locks young people out of the living wage, makes higher education increasingly a luxury and cuts housing benefit for thousands who would otherwise end up homeless.

At this defining moment for our country, we must ask ourselves about what kind of country, economy and society we want. For me, it is an economy with a real living wage, not a phoney one. Crucially, as I have argued throughout my trade union life, it is the high-pay, high-quality, high-productivity culture of the kind that can be seen in the Jaguar factory in my constituency. We need a serious long-term economic plan if we are to promote such a high-pay, high-quality, high-productivity culture throughout our country, but the Budget failed lamentably on the fundamentals of productivity, skills, homes, rail and road. Ultimately, this country will never succeed and working people will certainly never succeed if we proceed on the basis of a low-waged, low-productivity economy.

What kind of country do we want? It has to be one in which our citizens are safe where they live and work, their children are protected and we are protected from terrorism. It is therefore fundamental folly for the Government, having cut 17,000 police officers, to continue down the path of cutting 17,000 more police officers. What kind of society do we want? Before the Budget, the OECD was right to warn against measures that would slow recovery and harm the poor, but that is exactly what will now happen.

Rick was a lifelong Tory and an ex-sergeant-major in the British Army, but he has joined my local Labour party. He told me, “I was a lifelong Tory, but I have joined the Labour party because I believe in both aspiration and support for the vulnerable.” He is in sharp contrast to a cunning Chancellor who gives hubris a bad name and is ambitious not so much for the country as for himself. After the last 24 hours—and the last century—now and in the future, the simple reality is that the party for the working people always was and always will be the Labour party.