Income Tax (Charge)
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
May I start by extending a huge congratulations to everybody who has given their maiden speech today? I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary on her opening speech, and the Chancellor on her Budget.
This was an incredibly progressive Budget. It recognised the real hardship that families on low incomes have faced over the last 14 years and addressed them by extending and uplifting the living wage, and by reducing deductions for those on universal credit and the standard allowance, which are a significant burden on people on the lowest incomes, including those in work. Ultimately, what we will do on increasing the personal tax allowance will be important for increasing people’s incomes.
Getting Britain back to work is an important endeavour, and I entirely support it. We must recognise that we have nearly 3 million people of working age who are not in work, education or training because they are not well. Over the past decade, and particularly over the past seven years, we have seen declines in life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in areas like mine, particularly for women. That means that people who are expected to work are not in a position to work. The investment in the NHS will make a massive difference by addressing our ill health—we are a poorly nation—but it will also mean that we can help to grow our economy.
I want to touch on a report that was produced six years ago but is still relevant today—indeed, the relevance of its analysis has probably increased. The 2018 “Health is Wealth” report by the Northern Health Science Alliance argued that in order to improve our productivity and growth, we must improve our health. Those eminent epidemiologists and public health academics brought the evidence together to enable them to make those estimations, and they calculated that improving the health of the north to the level of the rest of England would increase productivity by £13.2 billion a year, so I urge the Government to consider updating this piece of work, and also to consider how we can ensure that our NHS allocations reflect the health needs in these areas.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome the work that my right hon. Friend is doing in ensuring that the uptake of pension credit is increased, but there are genuine concerns about people who are just above that threshold who will remain in poverty—just under a quarter of a million in the north-west alone. In addition to the fantastic commitment there has been through the household support fund, will my right hon. Friend be undertaking any other mitigations to ensure that those pensioners living in poverty, particularly disabled pensioners, will not fall foul of this?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I welcome her to her position as Chair of the Select Committee. Alongside our work to increase pension credit uptake, the household support fund is available for those just above the pension credit level. My own council has done a lot of work to make sure that pensioners just above that level can get extra help with the costs of heating or energy debt. There is also the warm home discount, which is available not just to those on pension credit, but again to those just above that level if they are on low incomes and have high housing costs.
Social Security
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I recognise the serious economic context of the debate today. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, for example, has estimated that 320,000 people are being pushed into poverty because of mortgage interest rate rises triggered by the disastrous autumn 2022 mini-Budget, and of course the then Prime Minister made many unfunded policies.
I recognise that the policy measures in the King’s Speech will go a long way to reduce household costs and increase incomes in the medium term, but those tackling the appalling poverty that we are seeing will not come in time for this winter. I am proud that Labour are continuing with the triple lock on pensions, something that will be worth an extra £460, but that will not happen until next spring. The setting up of a new energy production company, Great British Energy, alongside making homes more efficient, is a fantastic initiative that will contribute to our net zero targets and reduce energy bills for millions, but again that will not be in time to offset the 10% increase in energy bills this winter. I support our focus on growing our economy, but again that will not happen overnight.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimated in its report earlier this year that there are 2 million pensioners living in poverty—about one in six of all pensioners. In areas such as my constituency, poverty rates are much higher. We have one in two children living in poverty. From the figures, we estimate that will be the same for pensioners. We know that four in 10 older people in Oldham East and Saddleworth have a disability, and almost half have a long-term health condition. We also know that, even before the escalation of energy costs, over one in six households were living in fuel poverty. Although pension credit provides extra financial support for the poorest pensioners, and opens up help such as housing benefit and council tax discounts for those who are eligible for it, only 5,500 of the 9,000 households in Oldham are eligible to claim it. Again, I welcome the automatic linking of pension credit to housing benefit to increase the uptake, but this again will not happen in time—in the next few months.
Debbie Abrahams
I am not going to give way. I thank the right hon. Member, but I cannot because I am under strict guidance from the Deputy Speaker.
One in three pensioners living in poverty are in the private rented sector, so what are we going to do about that? Even if everyone eligible for pension credit were claiming it, according to Age UK, there would still be another 2 million pensioners slightly less badly off who will not be eligible for pension credit and now the winter fuel payment. The cut-off threshold for pension credit is just under £12,000 a year for a single person. These are not wealthy pensioners. Poverty is poverty whoever experiences it, and we know that we have 8 million working people living in poverty, as well as 4.5 million disabled people, 4 million children and 2 million pensioners. As we did in previous Labour Administrations, I know we will tackle this, but again it will not happen overnight.
Could I point out what we know about the health effects of the cold? The Lancet published a very good paper reviewing data from the last 20 years, and it showed the extra deaths—the excess deaths—as a result of cold. I could mention dozens and dozens of cases from my constituents who have written to me and who, again, are just clinging on following the last 14 years. Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State able to say not just what other options she may have considered for offsetting the loss of the £300, but what alternative ways there are of raising the £1.4 billion we will get from means-testing the winter fuel payment? I know how complex and difficult our economic situation is, but, please, we must protect our most vulnerable citizens.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Carer’s Allowance
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I will start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on bringing this debate to the Chamber, and on her excellent speech. I agree with her that carers are not only the backbone of society, but represent the best of us in the selflessness that they display. We should be championing them, and we know that is not happening.
Last week, many Members will have seen Oxfam’s report on carers, which was called “Valued”—a little bit of a contradiction, because it gives case study after case study where people are not valued, and shows how little people, and society as a whole, value carers. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) shared the costs that carers save society—it would cost £162 billion a year if we were actually able to pay carers. That is the cost they save.
I want to make a few points, many of which have already been made, on the lack of adequacy of carer’s allowance —as we have already heard, a quarter of those caring for loved ones are living in poverty—and on the issue of the rules: the cliff edge, the earnings limit, and the administration of those rules and the lack of common sense and compassion. I find that unforgivable, quite frankly.
I worked very closely with young carers in my public health days. As we have heard, given the Prime Minister’s statement in his speech last week about the mental health impact on so many young people, we might also have expected a message about the impact on young carers. Many of those caring for their parents or siblings are as young as eight or nine. It really is appalling.
I had a glimpse of being a carer: my mother had Alzheimer’s disease for 10 years, and I provided support to my stepfather, who cared for her during that time. We were not reliant on carer’s allowance, but we felt the strain, day in, day out, 24/7. This is a really significant gift that people are giving to their loved ones and society as a whole. We have heard how inadequate carer’s allowance is, at £81.90 a week—its lowest level, even compared with jobseeker’s allowance. Again, I refer Members the Select Committee’s report on benefits in the UK. We have the lowest level of out-of-work support since, I think, 1911, so carer’s allowance is even less than that in real terms. It is just appalling. We have been doing a mini-inquiry, and we have a follow-up session on Wednesday, which the Minister is attending. If she wants to hear about the experience of those caring for loved ones now, she should reflect on the evidence they gave a couple of weeks ago.
We have also heard about the Department for Work and Pensions’ appalling, draconian treatment of people—the utter lack of compassion shown to those who make, often, innocent mistakes and are then criminalised by the DWP. I feel quite ashamed, to be honest, that that is happening. As we have heard, the problem with overpayment is exacerbated by the unfair cliff edge and the administration of these ridiculous rules, which really need to be reformed.
I was contacted by a medical adviser, a retired GP who is providing medical advice to first-tier tribunals for PIP appeals, who also happens to be in receipt of carer’s allowance. This retired GP contacted me because she was concerned by the statement from the Department included in her bundle over the past six months, which said:
“Although (Ms X) has identified a high-level of personal restriction he/she is entitled to Carer’s Allowance. To be entitled to Carer’s Allowance a person must provide at least 35 hours of care to another disabled person each week. The tribunal may wish to explore this further.”
Although that might not look particularly threatening on its own, given the context of the other arguments that the Department is looking to put forward, it is basically saying: “How can you be caring for somebody if you’re also disabled?” That is what it is saying, and unfortunately that was also the gist of the Prime Minister’s speech last week—“If you’re genuinely in receipt of social security, of course we’ll support you. But there’s a question mark over how many and what proportion of people in receipt of social security are genuine.” That really gets to the core of this, and it makes me quite angry. Most people have worked and are doing the right thing. To imply that they are not genuine is an absolute disgrace.
In her response, I hope the Minister or her officials can explain why those sorts of statements would be included in a bundle to a medical adviser on the first-tier tribunal, which are questioning somebody who is caring for somebody else, and who also happens to be in receipt of disability benefits?
Mims Davies
I was just coming on to overpayments and what has been in the press. I am not the Minister leading on the fraud side of the policy, but we will discuss that on Wednesday. I am keenly looking at it in the round and working with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a lot of interest, but there is always more to matters and more to discuss, although we should refrain from discussing individual cases.
Mims Davies
I will try to answer the point of the right hon. Member for East Ham. There is a need to balance the duty to recover overpayments with safeguards to manage repayments suitably. Claimants have a responsibility to ensure that they are entitled to benefits and to inform us about changes. We have improved customer communications to remind them of the importance of telling us about any earnings, including through the annual uprating letter.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford mentioned doing a couple of extra hours here and there. Where it can be balanced out using the process that the right hon. Member for East Ham mentioned, and where we can show a pattern, of course we will always respond to that. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about getting upstream of that, but the issue is the expenses that can be incurred; I am sure we will get into the weeds of that on Wednesday. He is right to say that there is a way of understanding that people may be in that situation, but there may be expenses too. I hope that gives him a partial answer.
Debbie Abrahams
Could the Minister respond to my query about medical advisers to first-tier tribunals, and the statements that are included in their bundles?
Mims Davies
I will take that point away. I am keen to explain more about the National Audit Office and the wider reports on Wednesday; it is quite complicated for this particular arena.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) made a point about the overlap of the carer’s allowance and the state pension—they are both paid as an income replacement benefit. The carer’s allowance replaces an income where the carer is not able to work full time due to their caring responsibilities, while the state pension replaces income in retirement. For that reason, they cannot be paid together to avoid duplicating the provision for the same need. However, if a carer’s state pension is less than the carer’s allowance, the state pension is paid and topped up with the carer’s allowance to the basic weekly rate.
Where a carer’s allowance cannot be paid, the person will keep an underlying entitlement to the benefit. That gives access to an additional amount for carers in pension credit of £45.60 a week, which is just under £2,400 a year. Around 100,000 carers receive that as part of their pension credit award. It is paid to recognise the additional contribution and the associated responsibilities, and means that lower-income pensioners with caring responsibilities can receive more than the lower-income receipts of pension credit. If a pensioner’s income is above the limit for pension credit, they may still be entitled to housing benefit. I would point them to the household support fund and the DWP’s help to claim service.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) raised a point about young carers. It is challenging to meet the objectives in this wide-ranging area, particularly for young carers and, as we have discussed, there are many objectives that we are trying to meet in different and individual circumstances. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley also mentioned the support from wonderful organisations such as Carers UK, and indeed our constituency offices, to help people to claim. There is now an easy-to-use online claims service for carer’s allowance. Some 90% of people claim that way, and nine out of 10 people are happy with the claims service.
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) spoke about earnings limits. I appreciate that carers are busy and there is a lot going on, but they are told about the earnings limit when they claim. They also get an annual uprating letter reminding them of any changes, and we use a text reminder. I would always ask carers to engage with us if there are any changes in circumstances. We have supported hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers receiving means-tested benefits through the cost of living support, as well as through support for their fuel bills. As I have said, it has been a difficult time.
The hon. Member for Neath rightly raised the 35-hour care threshold and asked how that was decided on. It dates back to 1976, when the carer’s allowance was introduced. At the time, 35 hours was the length of the average working week, and the view was that someone who was caring for 35 hours therefore could not be working full time. That was the basis on which the carer’s allowance support was introduced. She also rightly raised the delivery of carer’s assessments. I will ensure that Ministers in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are aware of her concerns.
The carers strategy was mentioned. The Government rightly support unpaid carers, and some of that was covered in the social care plan, “People at the Heart of Care”. Hopefully, I have spelt out today that there is a lot to look at.
The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham, mentioned the research. I have been looking specifically at that research, as well as the wider policy, in preparation for this debate. We are carefully considering the right time to publish that. I found it extremely helpful and enlightening; it is genuinely helping policy thought and development.
Before I close—I am certain I am over my time—I remind Members that for many carers doing work who receive universal credit, the 55% taper rate and any applicable work allowance will help ensure that people are better off in work. Ninety per cent of those receiving the UC carer element who are declaring earnings have a work allowance. Those with a disability or, indeed, a child might be in that situation.
I note the Opposition’s commitment to the reform of carer’s allowance. It is the first time that I had seen that, so it is pretty recent. Prior to that, there had been a focus around earnings rules. I will look at what others are promising, because as I said, some of this dates back to 1976, and some of it back more than 20 years. We have spoken about a mixed and challenging picture.
Disability Benefits
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend for making the case for Elinor in her constituency. Indeed, my hon. Friend is a strong champion of her constituents, and no doubt she and other hon. Members in this place will have helped constituents to regain thousands of pounds in support that they are due. I agree that the assessment process is something that needs to be looked at, and I hope the Minister will give us some good news at the end of this debate.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. We have unfortunately had some tragic cases in recent years, including people who have gone through the transition from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment. One person in particular sticks in my mind: Philippa Day, who took her own life because of the appalling transition process and all the mistakes that were made. We need to ensure that we have policies and systems in place, for health assessments and elsewhere, that protect vulnerable people and do not make things worse. I am sure he agrees.
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience, having served previously as a shadow Secretary of State. The word to use is indeed tragedy. There have been countless tragedies. That is why the likes of me have been calling on the Government to deal with issues with compassion and empathy. These are real people that we are talking about and often, unfortunately, they have lost their lives or been put in a state of such despair that they do not know how to get out of their predicament.
My Slough constituent, Monika, told me about her struggles being assessed for PIP. Monika was informed that she was required to have a health assessment to extend her PIP. After appealing against 27 pages of discrepancies and outright untruths in the report from her previous assessment, she was predictably very worried about how she would get through the process again. Her assessment ended up being delayed for a month and taking place when she was suffering particularly ill health. Monika was again left in the lurch by the DWP and faces another appeal, which she is dreading.
Unfortunately stories like Monika’s are, as my hon. Friends have already eloquently explained, not news to any of us. We all have constituents who are failed by the system and by the DWP. Labour has a plan to replace the Government’s current flawed system of work capability assessments with a system that can support people to live with security.
Many benefit claimants are aspirational, but fearful that if they go back into work and find themselves unable to cope, they will be left high and dry—assessed as being able to work, but finding themselves unable to work full-time. Labour’s plan was born out of a desire to deliver for disabled people, helping those who can work back into work.
Too many disabled people say the current system does not work for them. Labour has pledged to introduce the “into work guarantee”, which I hope the shadow Minister will explain at length. That will allow claimants to agree with their benefits adviser that, if they try paid work and it does not work out, within a period of a year, they can go back to the exact benefits that they were on without fresh health assessments. With 288,000 PIP claims outstanding in October 2023, does the Minister agree that Labour’s plan will help to reduce the number of disabled people who want to work, but do not want to risk having their benefits reassessed?
This January, the latest statistics from the House of Commons Library found that the most common main disabling conditions among claimants of PIP were psychiatric disorders. Nationwide, 37.7% of PIP claims were due to those. With mental health waiting lists ballooning under the Conservatives, it is unfortunately not a surprising statistic. When the Government leave suffering people for far too long—people often see their condition worsen before being able to access treatment—it is no wonder that the number is so unacceptably high. I believe that begs a question: will the Minister admit that her party’s policies on mental health over the past 14 years have significantly contributed to the PIP backlog?
The latest numbers from Macmillan Cancer Support show that claimants are still waiting 15 weeks on average for their PIP claim to be processed. Unacceptably, that is higher than it was at the same time last year. Four in five people living with cancer are facing an increased financial impact from their diagnosis, even before the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. It is unacceptable that the Government have failed to fix those issues, which affect our constituents at some of the most difficult periods in their lives. The Government announced extra funding for processing disability claims in the Budget, but can the Minister clarify how exactly that will be used to reduce delays?
Among PIP claimants in my Slough constituency, 16.3% of claims are due to musculoskeletal disorders. MS Society research found that the current disability assessment system is not fit for purpose for those living with multiple sclerosis, a condition that significantly varies in its impact from day to day. A staggering three in five people with MS have reported being unable to explain adequately the effects of their condition on the standard application form. That figure highlights a systemic failure to capture the true extent of disabilities that are not constant, but fluctuate, and underscores the Government’s failure to create a nuanced system that understands the lived realities of those with MS and other conditions.
Furthermore, based on its findings, the MS Society urges the Government to consider the elimination of the 20-metre rule used in mobility assessments, and to seek a more flexible approach that accurately reflects the variable nature of MS. Current criteria fail to accommodate the day-to-day changes in symptoms that people with MS experience. On one day, walking 20 metres is achievable; on others, it is downright impossible. That clearly leads to assessments that do not reflect disabled people’s actual needs.
Incorporating those changes into our approach to disability benefits would not only make the system fairer, but ensure that individuals with MS and similar fluctuating conditions receive the support that they truly need. I am proud that Labour is committed to delivering a system that works for disabled people, ensuring that every person with a disability receives the respect, support and dignity that they deserve.
In conclusion, I thank the constituents who have asked me to share their stories. I am also grateful to various voluntary organisations that make such an enormous impact to help those in dire need. As we conclude this debate on personal independence payments and other disability benefits, let us remember the essence of what we are discussing: the lives and wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
The accounts we have heard serve as a stark reminder of the critical work that lies ahead. It is evident that our current system, in its rigidity and lack of understanding, falls short of providing the necessary support to those living with conditions such as MS. The call to reform, to dismantle barriers such as the 20-metre rule and to embrace a more nuanced approach to disability assessment is more than just policy revision; it is a moral imperative.
We stand at a crossroads where the choices we make can significantly enhance the lives of thousands. By advocating for a system that truly understands the variable and complex nature of disabilities, we advocate for a society that places dignity, empathy and support at its heart. This is not just about adjusting guidelines or streamlining processes; it is about ensuring that every individual feels seen, heard and valued. Our commitment to reforming PIP and other disability benefits is a testament to our dedication to justice and equity for all citizens, regardless of their physical or mental health challenges.
Let us leave this room with a renewed dedication to serving those within our constituencies and beyond, ready to enact the changes necessary for a fairer, more compassionate benefits system. Together we have the power to transform lives. Let that be our guiding principle in the days ahead.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this point. There is the household support fund, help to claim, and opportunities to pop into the local library to get additional support, for example. There is also an extra £500 million out there on top of the £1 billion through to the end of this month. I would say to anybody: “The benefits calculator is out there, and do talk to the CAB and your local council”—perhaps in Swindon.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Today the Government are in Geneva defending their policies to the UN committee that is investigating the UK for breaches of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, including article 28 on the right of disabled people to social protection. Given that drastically cutting disabled people’s social security support between 2012 and 2019 and austerity were found to be responsible for 148,000 avoidable deaths, how will the new wave of austerity announced in the Budget affect the health and wellbeing of disabled people?
Mims Davies
I am pleased to have this opportunity to make it clear to the House that the Government are committed to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and we look forward to outlining the UK’s progress on advancing the rights of disabled people across this country. Our national disability strategy and the disability action plan are delivering tangible progress. This includes ensuring that disabled customers can use the services they are entitled to, as we have spelled out today. Disabled people’s needs are better reflected in planning for emergencies as well. We are making sure that this country is the most accessible and, importantly, equal place to live in the world.
Child Maintenance Service
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), on arranging this debate.
It is not too naive to say that we would all like parents who separate to reach an amicable arrangement on access and maintenance for their children, so the state does not have to get involved at all. However, I suspect that is somewhat unlikely to happen in every case, hence why we need to have this service. The problem is that the service is not sufficiently effective. It creates more need for itself because some parents think that they can get away with it and try not to pay, so we force the family through the system to try to fix the situation.
If there was a general feeling that a parent who did not pay their maintenance would get caught and have to pay more, we might actually push more parents to reach an amicable arrangement rather than try this route, and we would not end up having to be the referee or the battering ram that we were desperately trying to avoid in the first place. I remind the Minister that having a service that actually works is not inconsistent with the Government’s overall aim of not getting involved unless they really need to: that would stop some of the demand in the first place.
The cases that most frustrate me are the ones that are superficially easy. The parent who should be paying is in employment and has a relatively stable income, which we can see through a real-time information feed, and they either do not pay at all or do not pay regularly. It is incredibly frustrating to see how long it takes for any enforcement action to be taken in that situation. We see scenarios where that person does not pay for a bit, finally gets some threats and starts paying for a couple of months, and then stops paying again, and the whole process has to start again. It is effectively just a game that they are playing. We end up with huge arrears building up, the parent with care struggling financially and the child losing out.
I hope that, now we have administrative liability orders in place that can be brought in much more quickly, we can stop those situations from arising. I certainly hope the CMS can monitor how fast arrears are building up and how quickly the orders are being put in place, so that we can show real progress and so those arrears do not get to the stage they have been getting to in the past.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to my colleague on the Work and Pensions Committee. He and I were at the roundtables we had in Greater Manchester where we heard from both paying and receiving parents. There were harrowing stories of parents who were in arrears. We heard a story of someone who unfortunately had died. Is he as concerned as I am about the reports around the deaths of both paying and receiving parents, and the fact that that has not been adequately considered in the handling of those parents by the CMS? What does he think we should be doing about that?
Nigel Mills
I agree with the hon. Member that those stories were incredibly concerning. That reinforces the point that if we get this right early, and everyone knows what they should be paying and it is enforced, hopefully some of that stress goes away. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham, rightly made the point that we should be looking at the thresholds and the calculations to ensure that they are fair on all parties.
The other situation that frustrates me concerns when somebody has arrears and is sent the demand. I have seen cases where someone is sent five demands in a week, all with different numbers and vastly different by thousands of pounds. I naively assumed that when somebody is sent a demand with arrears, a calculation is made on the system to come to that number and that when somebody asks for it, CMS can just press a button and it will be emailed over, so the person can work out how it has come to that number. That is not the case. It takes weeks and weeks. The chief executive said before the Select Committee that it is a 12-week turnaround.
How can the CMS send a demand out for arrears without calculating it? When that person finally gets the calculation, they think, “I’m paid monthly, and there is a certain percentage I have to pay. I get paid two grand a month and pay 15%. That is £300. I have paid £200, so I owe £100”—a simple calculation. What they get is 16 sides of calculations and, for some reason, it is done by weekly income. It is totally unfollowable. I would seriously urge the Minister to look through some of these calculations, if he has not done so. There must be a better way of doing it, so that everybody understands what they owe and can check it to prove whether it is right. It cannot be that complicated.
Finally, will the Minister look at where child maintenance arrears sit in the universal credit deductions? They sit a long way down, and below debt owed back to the Department. If we really think this money is essential for child welfare, we should be letting the parent with care have that money before we take it back to pay debts owed to the state, and it should be much higher on the list.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
Cost of living payments can be affected by when people are paid, and therefore by whether they are on universal credit and qualify at precisely that point. I do not have the figure to hand that the hon. Lady requests, but I will of course get back to her with it.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
This morning’s report by the Academy of Medical Sciences revealed that our appalling child health and infant mortality rates are worse than those of 60% of similar countries and is the key driver of child poverty. What assessment has the Secretary of State undertaken to make on the impact that stopping the household support fund in April will have on relative child poverty and, subsequently, infant mortality?
Mel Stride
As the hon. Lady will know, the number of those in child poverty has decreased by 400,000 since 2010. We do not yet have a decision on the household support fund, to which she refers, but I point her to the very significant uplift in the local housing allowance, which will give 1.6 million people £800 a year more on average, thereby taking many of them out of poverty.
Disability Action Plan
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his experience and insight. I have met the ministerial disability champions already to ensure: that disability inclusion is a priority and is ultimately delivered in their Departments’ work; that they continue to be accountable for their contribution to the development and delivery of the national disability strategy and the disability action plan; and that they continue to show their commitment to disabled people by creating opportunities, protecting their rights and ensuring action on everything that we have spoken about today, in terms of contributions to society.
On making playgrounds more accessible and my hon. Friend’s impeccable work in his constituency, there is a lot of information on disability inclusion in organised sport, physical activity and exercise, but information on making playgrounds accessible is unfortunately not easily available. We want to make it available, work with the partners he mentioned and achieve best practice among local authorities. That will be part of this plan, and we will measure its delivery in six months and 12 months.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I have huge regard for the Minister, but I gently say to her that we must recognise the context of this disability action plan. Between 2011 and 2020, the equivalent of £20 billion was cut from working-age people, predominantly disabled people. Individually, they lost thousands of pounds every year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) pointed out. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “UK Poverty 2024” report identified that disabled people have been disproportionately impacted by that, and are likely to suffer deep poverty and destitution. On the Government’s commitment, I hope that the Minister can reassure me: it is approaching two years since the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the Department was discriminating against disabled people and issued a section 23 notice, and we still have heard nothing from the Department on that. Could the Minister reassure us that it will publish something on that in the next few weeks, and certainly before the second anniversary of that notice?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her points. I know that she has long been pushing for a response, and I will write to her further on that matter. As I said to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), there has been substantial cost of living support, but I understand the point about disability costs that has been made today. Again, I point people towards the household support fund, which is there for exactly those additional costs. In fact, we are doing research and evaluation on where that support is going, and it is making a difference to people’s daily lives. I want those people to know that, beyond the cost of living payments, which start again tomorrow, further support is available through their local authorities or from devolved moneys.
Social Security
Debbie Abrahams Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I start by welcoming the uprating order, including the uprating of the local housing allowance, which has been frozen for over 10 years now. That is a significant move forward, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) said, we need to recognise the context in which this apparently positive uprating is being brought in. We need to look at what has happened since 2010, particularly the various cuts and freezes to working-age support over the past 14 years.
I was going through some figures just before the debate started, and I noted that between 2010 and 2012, the uprating was about 1.5%; between 2012 and 2016, it was 1% a year, and between 2016 and 2020 it was zero. Of course, the average annual CPI increase for each of those years was about 3%. That is the context. There has been a steady and consistent erosion in the value of social security, and this has affected universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit, child tax credits, working tax credits and child benefits.
The Resolution Foundation estimated at the time that this was the equivalent of a cut of over £20 billion a year. That is £20 billion a year taken out of the support for working-age people. What is not well understood is that these are predominantly people in low-paid work; yes, a small proportion of people are on unemployment support or in long-term unemployment, but they are a tiny fraction of the population. This is predominantly support for people in low-paid work.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), a fellow member of the Select Committee, mentioned the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “UK Poverty 2024” report. I invite people to read it, and if they cannot read the whole document, they should read the summary. It is absolutely shocking. The headlines are that levels of relative poverty now are equivalent to those we had before the pandemic. The Government prefer to talk about absolute poverty because that is to their advantage, but in terms of relative poverty, we are back to where we were before the pandemic. So that everyone understands, what happened during the pandemic—who was affected, where was affected—reflected that poverty; those inequalities drove who was going to get ill. They drove what happened during the pandemic, and now we are back there, not having learned very much.
There are 14.5 million people living in relative poverty, of whom 6 million are in deep poverty. Deep poverty describes people who are living on less than 40% of median income. My fellow Select Committee member mentioned another level below that: very deep poverty. That is even worse poverty. The average income of somebody in very deep poverty is 59% below what we recognise as the relative poverty level. How on earth can we think that is acceptable in this country? We heard last year about the increase in destitution, which is another category altogether. There is deep poverty, very deep poverty and—the worst of the worst—destitution. The number of people in destitution has doubled, meaning there are 3.8 million people who cannot afford to meet their basic physical needs to stay warm, dry and clean, and to feed themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South talked about the children in the families who are affected. For every 1% increase in child poverty, 5.8 extra children out of 100,000 live births—I apologise for the fractions—will not reach their first birthday. That is the consequence of poverty. For those who survive, poverty affects every aspect of their development, including how their brains are wired, how they will develop and their attainment at school. It is a disgrace that we have such levels of poverty in this country.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
We have this debate every year and it becomes increasingly distressing. For me, one of the most distressing statistics this year is the European comparison of growth rates: the height of children in this country is now falling behind the height of children in Europe. What does that mean? That is not a cosmetic issue, but one that concerns the health of the child and their ability to flourish.
Debbie Abrahams
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point, which I will come on to.
We have talked about children, but disabled people are another cohort who have been punished over the last 14 years. Again, that is disgraceful—I apologise for repeating the same phrases, but I cannot think of adequate vocabulary to express my rage about what is happening in different terms. Ethnic minority communities are also disproportionately affected.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a deeply important speech. Does she agree that it is also important to consider the effect poor-quality housing has on all the groups she mentions, in particular the combination of poverty and poor-quality housing, which leads to actions such as parents turning heating down?
Debbie Abrahams
That is a very good point. The Department for Work and Pensions has the largest spending across Government. The state pension accounts for the largest part of the Department’s spending, followed by universal credit, but third on the list is housing benefit and the support provided through the housing element of universal credit. Given that the Government are investing a large amount of taxpayers’ money in housing, one would think there was some way to safeguard its quality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South made important points about the escalation in the use of food banks. As I have said before, we did not have a food bank in Oldham before 2010; we now have several to meet the need. We are aware of the impact of poverty on the labour market, which I know is of interest to the Minister. We need a healthy labour market to be able to provide the growth we all want to see across the country, but, again, all the evidence suggests that will not happen for the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
This is becoming an increasingly unhealthy country. Our healthy life expectancy is declining and our life expectancy is declining, and that has been happening since 2017. At the time, Professor Sir Michael Marmot warned what the consequences would be, and he was right. In the report that he produced at the beginning of the year—I asked the Prime Minister a question about this just last week—he said that
“if everyone had the good health of the least deprived 10% of the population there would have been 1 million fewer deaths in England in the period 2012 to 2019. Of these, 148,000 can be linked to austerity”—
directly linked to austerity.
“In 2020, the first year of the covid pandemic, there were a further 28,000 deaths”
that could have been prevented. Those are the consequences of the poverty and inequality that we have in this country.
The Select Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the adequacy of social security support. With that in mind, I once more commend the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust, which have put together some interesting recommendations on the essentials guarantee. They suggest that what we provide should be based on need rather than on some quite subjective view of what the level of support should be. I hope the Work and Pensions Committee can support some aspect of that. Finally, I will just mention that £120 per week for a single person, instead of the £70 currently, would be a good step in the right direction. Thank you for your latitude, Madam Deputy Speaker.