Work and Pensions (CSR)

Debate between Damian Hinds and Margaret Curran

Thursday 4th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), I am a new Member and might struggle with constituency names, so any help will be gratefully received—please feel free to help me out.

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing this terribly important debate about the impact of the comprehensive spending review on the Department for Work and Pensions. Of course, the changes announced will shape the levels of poverty and employment in this country for years to come and it is right that we have the opportunity today to examine them in detail and to understand the impact that they will have on our welfare system and, as has been said, on communities throughout the country.

This has been an interesting debate and later I will rise to the challenge of some of the political temptations put before me, but first I want to say that welfare reform and the work undertaken in this area in the DWP has been centre-stage in the work of the new Government, so the debate on how we reform welfare and get more people into work will continue for the immediate and foreseeable future. I am sure that we shall have many discussions. Of course, that is as it should be, as the proposals announced so far will impact on the lives of so many people in great need. What may appear to be a technical point in our consideration represents in many cases a major shift in the living circumstances of a family or an individual. That should always be at the forefront of our minds and any of our discussions.

Whatever our disagreements—I will come to them—there are some starting points, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, on which we can agree. On behalf of the Opposition, I make that clear. It has been said before that we are prepared to work alongside the Government to consider the challenge of welfare reform, because we do need to reform the welfare state to face the challenges of the 21st century: an ageing population, more people in need of care and the need for a stronger work force, less dependent on benefits. As the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said, if we could create a more equal society, of course we would all be up for that.

The Secretary of State has made strong commitments and promised to deliver a welfare system that will make work pay. He has acknowledged, in doing so, that he is continuing the work of the previous, Labour Government—some hon. Members referred to that—particularly by moving people from incapacity benefit to the new employment and support allowance, but there have been many other dimensions to that, too. As I understand it, there is a history of our working together when we have recognised challenges in the past. I think that the previous Government worked closely with the Opposition on pensions reform. I hope we can build on that.

The Secretary of State is familiar with Easterhouse, in my constituency. I think that visits to that area persuaded him of the need for reform. He is on record as saying that his aim in the reform is to improve the lives of others and not to reduce standards of living—that test will be centre stage as we progress with our discussions.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg), the distinguished Chair of the Select Committee. I have known my hon. Friend for many years and pay tribute to her authority in this field and the respect that she commands. In her contribution, she gave a strategic outline of some of the challenges that we are facing. Unfortunately, I cannot cover all the points made in the debate, but I will refer to a few of them in my brief contribution.

One point highlighted by my hon. Friend was the depth of concern about the change in the rating, which will take place when we shift from RPI to CPI. I listened to the arguments in favour, but it is incumbent on us to understand the real impact that the change will have on the standards of living of the people that we seem to care most about. I am not terribly sure that the impact is appreciated yet, but the shift does not rest easily with a commitment to let no one’s living standards change as a result of the acts of the Government and to protect everyone. If we look at the evidence from a number of organisations, they would say, “Actually, this reflects an effective and a real cut in benefits.”

Not surprisingly, the universal credit has been mentioned by just about everyone contributing to the debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made some telling reflections. It is important that we recognise that of course there is a move to support universal credit and to simplify the benefits system, and we would support anything possible that would make work pay and encourage and incentivise people to work. However, the theme that seems to be emerging in the debate is that, while the Government genuinely seem to be driving reform in that way—I have to say that of the Minister and her colleagues—that is undercut by their other actions. I ask the Government to think about that seriously.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned the changes in the council tax benefit—apart from reducing it by 10%, which alone could cause some difficulty, the very nature of devolving its decision making immediately cuts across the drive to simplicity. The change will have an impact on housing benefit, income support and jobseeker’s allowance. I am told by those involved that it is, by all definitions, very complicated—on the one hand, we have a drive to simplicity, on the other an action that complicates it.

Not surprisingly, housing benefit has concentrated a lot of minds this afternoon. There are many detailed discussions to be had. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, with a notable and highly acclaimed record on child poverty, as she amply demonstrated this afternoon, spoke about some of those complications, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), when she was present.

We can have our debates about the impact on different parts of the country—I willingly acknowledge that the impact might be slightly different in my part of the country from what it would be in London—but we have to listen to the outside organisations, such as Shelter and Crisis, which are telling us that we need to think about it in great depth. Perhaps most tellingly, they are asking, “Do we need to rush at this?” There might be a principle that we need to discuss and grapple with, but let us not do it with undue haste—there might be implications that the Government do not intend. Thinking about that is important.

I wish to highlight one issue that has particular resonance for me and my constituency, to which reference has been made—the intention to reduce housing benefit by 10% for those on jobseeker’s allowance for more than one year. The Government need to acknowledge that this is one of the most contentious proposals, and one that is causing deep concern throughout the country.

Anyone with a knowledge of Easterhouse or an understanding of the regeneration within such communities will realise that housing associations are often the drivers of change. If we reduce the benefit for many people who, genuinely, cannot find work because it is not readily available, we give the housing agencies two choices—to give just one example of the problems with the proposal. Either the housing agencies can evict people, which would cause enormous difficulties and create cost in other ways, or their business plans are undercut because they cannot reap the necessary benefits, so undermining our efforts.

That illustrates, again, that what I think are genuine attempts by the Government to reform welfare are being undercut by other actions—actions by the Treasury, undercutting actions by the DWP.

I do not have much time to go into the reform of disability benefits, but I make one request of the Minister. She has indicated that she will work with disability organisations on the disability living allowance and other changes. Will she acknowledge that it is vital that we engage with the disability movement in tackling any such changes?

I want to refer to child poverty, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members in the debate. I am so tempted to roll up my sleeves and fight for the record of the previous Labour Government, but we could continue like that for some time. Let me just say that, according to the statistics and briefings mentioned, from Barnardo’s and Save the Children, the Labour Government lifted 600,000 children out of relative poverty and made substantial progress on absolute poverty. Those organisations recognised that as a substantial achievement, which made significant progress in improving the lives of so many people.

There are real challenges in what the Government are doing across the board to tackle child poverty—that was well articulated in the debate—in particular when looking at the child care element of the working tax credit, which will now only cover 70% of child care costs rather than the previous 80%. We know that child care presents an important barrier to people returning to work, so the change again seems to contradict efforts to reform and improve the move to get people back to work.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies report, produced after the Budget, outlined how many of the measures disproportionately affected the poorest families. A number of organisations are now saying to the Government, “When you look at the impact you are having on the poorest families and at the timing of when some of your commitments will come through, particularly two, three or four years down the line, how can you possibly say that child poverty figures will be protected?”

Added to that is recent research by the House of Commons Library on the impact of the Budget on women—to which, again, reference has been made. The fact is that the cuts announced in the comprehensive spending review will hit women twice as hard as they hit men. There are big cuts in support paid directly to mothers, including cuts in child care, child benefit and tax credits. Also, the significant cuts to the public sector will, disproportionately, hit women hard—in employment and in the services they need to support families, which are vital in tackling poverty. There is much concern about that.

The Minister has already put on the record that her Department will issue an equality impact assessment of the cuts on women and, indeed, disabled people. Can she indicate when we might get that report?

That brings me to the fundamental concern about the Government’s approach. Not only will they undermine their own efforts to reform welfare, but they will destabilise growth and increase unemployment across the country. The extent of the cuts to the welfare budget announced in the June Budget and in last month’s CSR seems to reflect the political ambitions of the Chancellor rather more than those of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. In both those announcements, we have heard too much about cuts and not enough about reform—I acknowledge that reform was the tenor of the debate today, but it is not always like that with the Government.

I have said that we will work with the Government as they intend to progress with reform, but there is a fundamental flaw in their approach so far. Their welfare reform is based on the premise that it is best to get people back to work and that work pays—so far, so good. However, it falls down with what happens when there is no work to go to.

It cannot make sense to have people on the dole. We all know that longer dole queues mean a higher benefits bill, which cuts across the very principles of what the Government are doing. So, the Government are only continuing in part what we were doing. There are significant differences. Yes, we introduced conditionality, but the sanctions were backed up by guarantees, the youth guarantee and the future jobs fund. Yet one of the first actions of the Government in power was to abolish them. That is a colossal error for anyone committed to welfare reform. As I said earlier, it would appear that the Secretary of State is persuaded of the case for meaningful reform. However, it seems that he has not persuaded his Cabinet colleagues that such reform needs to be supported more systematically.

We were told earlier this afternoon—I am sure that I shall be told again in a moment—that the level of unemployment is unavoidable, and that what is happening in the economy is the result of our actions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South, I am old enough to remember the last Tory Government. They said then that unemployment was unavoidable, but they were wrong then and I believe that they are wrong now.

For the record, between 2007 and 2009, and before the global crisis, the UK had the second lowest level of debt among the G7 countries at 36.5%. Labour reduced the debt that we inherited from the previous Tory Government, when it stood at 42.5%. It was the global economic crisis of 2008 and the resultant need to bail out the banks that caused the deficit that we have today.

[Damian Hinds]

Does the hon. Lady accept the existence of a structural deficit, quite separate from the cyclical part, and will she accept some responsibility on behalf of her party for that?

[Margaret Curran]

When looking back at the Budgets of Labour Governments, the hon. Gentleman’s own Prime Minister said that we were not bold enough with our spending plans. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with his argument, and I hope not to hear it again. It was a global crisis that created the problems that we faced, and we had to respond to it.

[Damian Hinds]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Margaret Curran]

No. I hope that the Minister does not repeat that argument, because in tackling the crisis we decided not to do what had been done during previous recessions, when the unemployed paid the price. We kept people in their homes and in jobs. That was the right thing to do. If we were still in Government, we would not be making our children and our families pay more than we would make the banks pay. Even the Government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility declares that there will be substantial job losses as a direct result of the Government’s decision to slash the deficit as quickly and as steeply as they can. I repeat—this goes to the core of what we are trying to tackle—that we all know that high unemployment will mean a higher welfare bill and a bigger deficit in the long run, and will defeat genuine and well-meant efforts at reform.

I am sure that the debate may change emphasis with the publication of the White Paper. However, the benchmarks of fairness, proportionality and effectiveness in getting people back to work will be the test that we use. When the Government meet that test, we will happily work with them.