Benefit Sanctions

Debate between Chris Stephens and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Chris Stephens]

It should be among the highest. I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his very kind words, which I appreciate. I have enjoyed working with him, and he chairs the Committee very effectively indeed. He is absolutely correct to say there is a real question about reports that are currently unpublished but should be published, and I will come to some of them in my remarks.

I would argue that the dugs in the street—or the dogs in the street, for those not from Scotland—could give us a comprehensive picture of sanctions and their effects on people. When I secured the debate, Feeding Britain and the Independent Food Aid Network asked for case studies and examples. I raised one with the Secretary of State at the Select Committee hearing about a Glasgow South West constituent who has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and severe anxiety, and who has extreme difficulty communicating with others. The local jobcentre applied a sanction after she failed to attend in-person appointments, despite the fact that, as part of a claim for employment and support allowance, it was agreed three years ago that reasonable adjustments would have to be made and that telephone meetings would be arranged for her. It raises the issue of the financial losses that occur, but the Department for Work and Pensions argued that there was no change of circumstances and that no sick notes were handed in.

We also have the example of an individual in Motherwell. A young mother who had escaped domestic violence was sanctioned for failing to attend an appointment, despite the fact that she had advised the Department for Work and Pensions that she needed to care for her autistic child on that particular day.

In the city of Liverpool, clients have commented that DWP job coach appointments have come through to their phone journals at times when they had no credit for data or access to wi-fi. By the time that each was able to afford to that phone data, they had missed the appointment and been sanctioned. Digital exclusion will increasingly affect clients who are unable to afford a basic smartphone and/or a contract for data access. They then face longer journeys to their jobcentre as a result of one of the busiest jobcentres in that city, Toxteth, being due to relocate, making access harder for local people.

In Coventry, we are advised that the vast majority of sanctions are due to people not attending an appointment, but many are now told of their appointments through an online journal so, again, people with no access to internet are being told that they are going to be sanctioned.

In Somerset, we hear of the case of someone with severe mental health issues and anxiety, whose job coach assured her that any correspondence would go to the principal carer. Ordinarily, she was informed of her appointments via a journal entry. The job coach cancelled a planned appointment and arranged a new one, but put it on that job coach’s to-do list, not through the online journal. This is an area that has to be looked at, because that person was subject to a sanction.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Chris Stephens]

I give way to my fellow Select Committee member.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate, and on all his work on the Select Committee. Is he as worried as I am that this is just a further iteration of the DWP sanctions issues going back to 2012? I particularly remember David Clapson, who was the first case that I came across—a former soldier who was sanctioned. He could not afford to keep his refrigerator on, his insulin went off, and he died as a consequence. Is the hon. Member as concerned as I am about sanctions potentially resulting in deaths?

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Lady, who is a good friend, for her intervention. She has done fantastic work in this area, which I very much support. I am concerned about the effects that sanctions have, and that the whole deductions policy has. The effect that taking money away from people has on cost of living payments is another real issue, which I will come on to.

I would also add that, based on exchanges I have had with Ministers past and present, people can be sanctioned if they refuse a zero-hours contract job. Someone could be in a position where they have secure work, but less hours. The Department is encouraging people to increase their earnings, so if that person refuses a zero-hours contract and insecure work, they will be subject to a sanction.

Then, we have the position of the DWP staff themselves. Some have received letters saying that they need to increase their earnings. It is no wonder that they are going on strike, is it? There is an anomaly here: many thousands of DWP staff are paid so poorly that they are claiming the same benefits they deliver, while sharing an office with someone who could then sanction them because they have not increased their earnings or their hours. I find that completely and utterly bizarre, and I hope that Ministers will look at PCS’s concerns and maybe treat the situation of DWP staff separately. It seems to me that the Department that is delivering social security should not be taking social security away from the people who are delivering it.

Food banks across the Independent Food Aid Network see a newly hungry person referred as the result of a sanction every three days on average, so I have a number of questions for the Minister. Does he agree that the current sanctions policy is forcing people to use food banks if they are not to go hungry? To that end, will the Minister undertake to publish the Department’s evidence review on the drivers of the need for food aid, which was promised two years ago, yet remains under wraps? As the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham, has outlined, that is one of the reports that remains unpublished, and it is something that we want to see.

The Department’s own serious case panel agreed at its October meeting that

“there should be further collaborative work undertaken through the appropriate governance routes to explore strengthening the mechanisms which protect our most vulnerable customers in respect of sanctions.”

Will the Minister explain to us what that collaborative work will look like, and when it will take place? Will he also undertake to commission a study into any correlation that exists between the distance someone lives from their nearest Jobcentre Plus and the likelihood of them being sanctioned; the prevalence of poor mental health and vulnerability within households on universal credit and the likelihood of them being sanctioned; and the prevalence of digital exclusion within households on universal credit and the likelihood of them being sanctioned? We know that the Department has closed jobcentres; we also know that has made it more difficult for people to attend jobcentres and that they may be sanctioned for not attending a jobcentre.

Will the Minister also provide an update on the Department’s most recent trials of the yellow card early warning system in two areas, including any plans to roll out that system further afield? I do not accept that there should be conditionality in the system, but if we are going to have conditionality it seems sensible to me that there should be a yellow card system, or some sort of warning system, in place before the decision is made to issue a sanction. Given that the present system seems to rely heavily on individual discretion, which is resulting in people becoming destitute, does he agree that a fully national roll-out of a yellow card system is needed sooner rather than later?

As I have indicated, people being subject to a sanction could mean—indeed, has meant—that they do not receive their cost of living payment, but that decision could be reversed if they appeal and win their appeal. However, it seems to me that if there are 6,600 universal credit claimants who have missed out on that first cost of living payment because of sanctions, the Department for Work and Pensions should look at that situation. It seems to be a double punishment. The cost of living payment is in place so that people can meet their basic living needs and if they are sanctioned, it appears that there is something very wrong.

Cost of Living

Debate between Chris Stephens and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

I recognise what the hon. Member says. I visited Glasgow last week—the constituency of my friend the hon. Member for Glasgow South West is there—and it was interesting to see the reforms being introduced there, particularly those for disabled people.

Many hon. Members will not be aware of yesterday’s report from Deaths by Welfare, which provided even more evidence of the impact of the so-called reforms on premature deaths and suicides. It had a timeline that showed when there had been reforms and further cuts, and what they meant in terms of deaths of vulnerable social security claimants. Another recent report shows a detrimental impact on social cohesion. The University of Newcastle quantified that, between 2013 and 2015, for every £100 lost in income per working age adult, motivated hate crimes increased by about 6%. The effects are much wider than the Government recognise.

My second point is about the pandemic. We know that people on the lowest incomes, and particularly those reliant on social security support, were disproportionately and negatively affected by covid. They were more likely to be exposed to the virus and to be infected, and they were more likely to be seriously ill and die. Within that group are disabled people. After adjusting for a range of factors including health, the Office for National Statistics has estimated that disabled people were between 1.3 and 1.6 times more at risk of death from covid. The reasons for those disproportionate deaths must be investigated in the covid public inquiry, but given the context that I have just described—the inadequacy of our social security system—the contribution of the cuts in social security support cannot be ignored.

On the cost of living package and its impact on the DWP spending estimates, of course I welcome the package, but I have just spent the past few minutes describing the context and, much though the Government congratulate themselves on what they are doing, it just about scratches the surface of the cuts that they have made. I must, as others have done, highlight some of the gaps in the package. As support is on a household basis, larger families will not get the same support as smaller families. As the Resolution Foundation suggested, in the light of inflation, a 9.5% uplift to all social security support would have been more progressive than the 3.1% awarded at the beginning of the year, and would have taken us beyond the Chancellor’s stop-start, ad hoc approach.

My concern is that the cost of living will not just be an issue this year; it will carry on—and what will the Government do then? We need principles that ensure that all social security support is uplifted to account for inflation.

As my friend the hon. Member for Glasgow South West mentioned, there are huge issues with deductions. We asked the Secretary of State about that last week. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, StepChange and many other charities have pointed out that 4.6 million households are in arrears on at least one bill, so what is handed out with one hand will be clawed back by another. I join those charities and hon. Members in their calls to reduce the amount that can be deducted from the universal credit standard allowance; it is now 25%. I would like it to be less than 15%. When the deductions are for debts to Government—figures indicate that the Government are the largest debt collector—it would only be reasonable to reduce it to 5%.

My final point is that given the cuts in spending and the culture in the Department, our social security system does not provide the safety net that everybody thinks it does. I really like the approach being introduced in Scotland, which is not about people proving that they are entitled to support; there is trust. We should try to make that the basis of the culture in England as well.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Lady, my good friend, for giving way. She mentions culture; there is also the issue that sanctions are part of that culture. It had seemed that we were persuading the Government to introduce a system in which there were warnings before sanctions, but they seem to have rowed back on that. Does that not add to the concern that she rightly raised about the culture?

[Debbie Abrahams]

We have spoken many times about that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a system in which there is conditionality, but I believe that there are other ways of recognising that than by taking away somebody’s income and making things even harder for them.

Social Security

Debate between Chris Stephens and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

There is, of course, nothing to celebrate here. The Conservative Government are trying to clean up the mess they created, and they are not even getting the job done properly. We have repeatedly called on the Government to scrap the benefit freeze. This uprating is of course welcome, but it appears to be too little, too late. The brutal cuts imposed by the Government have entrenched, and continue to entrench, poverty across these islands. A 1.7% increase in working-age benefits does not make up for the damage caused by the four-year freeze. If austerity was really over, the Government would be making up the shortfall.

Let us look at some of the effects. Overall, benefits and tax credits affected by the four-year freeze will be around 6% lower in 2020-21 than they would have been if CPI indexation had been applied during the four years of the freeze. Taking account of all uprating restrictions across the decade, affected benefits are around 9% lower in 2020-21 than they would have been if CPI indexation had applied since 2010. Child benefit and working tax credit elements are between 13% and 17% lower in 2020-21 than would have been the case if CPI indexation had applied throughout the decade.

The Resolution Foundation estimated that the four-year freeze saved the Government £4.7 billion a year by 2019-20, of which £1.8 billion was attributable to the final year of the freeze, and yet the Treasury forecast at the 2016 Budget that the four-year freeze would achieve an annual saving of £3.5 billion by 2019-20. Just last week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported:

“The benefit freeze has seen the value of many benefits fall. The same benefit received in 2019 and 2013 is worth around 6% less”.

We have to wonder about that. If austerity was really over, as we are continually told it is, the Government would make up that shortfall.

I am sad to say that there are 1 million people living in poverty in Scotland, and almost one in four of them are children. In 2019, 250,000 children living in one of the world’s richest nations are growing up in poverty. That is nothing short of scandalous. Poverty is not inevitable. People not having enough money to feed and clothe their children is not something that happens by accident. The existence of poverty in a country as rich as ours is a direct consequence of political choices. The decade of austerity was a political choice. Massive long-term cuts to the social security budget were a political choice. The widening of the holes in the social security safety net so that more families and children would fall through was a political choice. The ill-conceived and hopelessly financed introduction of universal credit was a political choice. Making the poorest, weakest and most vulnerable in our society carry the can and bear the brunt of a financial crisis that had nothing to do with them was, of course, a political choice.

There can be no doubt that one of the main drivers of child poverty in these islands has been the Government’s package of welfare reforms, which by any measure has been an abject failure. How else could one describe a package of reforms the result of which is that 65% of all the children who live in poverty come from households in which at least one adult is working? There is no need to take my word for it; the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty said:

“Changes to benefits, and sanctions against parents…are driving the increase in child poverty.”

Some would still have us believe that it will take decades to turn things around and lift children out of poverty, but I do not believe that that is true. There are measures that the UK Government could take right now that would immediately stop children and their families falling into poverty. One of those would be for the Government immediately to stop the roll-out of universal credit, take their time and find the money to fix the major problems in the system, which they are only too well aware of but choose to ignore. There is no doubt that poverty in childhood leads to poverty of hope, aspiration and opportunity. Most movingly, we hear too often of the deep scars that people have in adulthood as a result of child poverty.

[Debbie Abrahams]

On that point, I wonder what the hon. Member thinks of the Citizens Advice proposal that all frozen benefits be uprated not just by CPI, but by CPI plus 2% for the next four years. That would go some way to addressing the appalling imbalance, and the poverty that so many of our children and our disabled people have found themselves in.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Lady—my good friend—is right that Citizens Advice has produced an excellent report on this. My local citizens advice bureau bears the brunt of trying to help people fill out forms and navigate their way through the social security system, and I am sure she knows all about that. I hope that the Government will take cognisance of the Citizens Advice report to which she refers.

There is an inescapable and undeniable link between the paucity of affordable rented property in the private rented sector, as we have heard from the shadow Minister, and the increased risk of people becoming homeless simply because they cannot afford to meet the cost of living in private rented accommodation. There is a chasm of difference between what people are expected to pay and what they can afford to pay.

Let us be absolutely clear: this housing crisis—particularly in England—and the rising levels of homelessness and rough sleeping did not happen by accident. There has not been some unforeseen set of circumstances that has led to the number of households living in temporary accommodation in England rising by 60% between 2012 and 2018. No unexpected or unforeseen quirk has led to the number of rough sleepers in England nearly doubling over the past five years. This housing crisis was all too predictable, because just about every stakeholder warned the Government right from the start about the inevitable consequences of pursuing their austerity agenda. When they froze local housing allowance and failed to meet their targets for building social housing, what did they expect to happen other than a rise in homelessness and the number of people sleeping rough on our streets? That is exactly what has happened, so let us call this what it is: a crisis entirely of the Government’s own making.

It is incontestable that the Government’s austerity agenda has had a hugely negative impact on people’s ability to rent private sector accommodation. Research from the Chartered Institute of Housing shows that many LHA rates now fail to cover even the cheapest third of rents, as they were designed to. A survey carried out by the National Housing Federation and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations found that tenants on universal credit were more than twice as likely as other tenants to be in debt.

There is much more to be done to ensure that we help our fellow citizens escape poverty. I hope that Ministers have seen the two Bills that I presented today, the first of which aims to ensure that people who give up a zero-hours contract job are not subjected to sanctions under universal credit, and the second of which would ensure that the Government would step in to ensure that no one in rent arrears is evicted from their home.