Autumn Statement Distributional Analysis, Universal Credit and ESA

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

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

This has been a detailed and thorough debate, in which we have heard from 10 speakers. I will begin by responding to the Minister’s comments. I should state for clarity that this Government are borrowing more now than any previous Labour Government have borrowed in the past. We certainly welcome the reduction in the disability employment gap, but unfortunately it shows that the Government have simply stood still, because the situation got worse over the past year. The Minister did not answer the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked about the commitment to halve the disability employment gap by 2020.

I am glad that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) has suddenly seen the light, but why did he not do something about the issues faced by the social security system when he was Secretary of State?

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) made important points about the distribution analysis and the impact on child poverty. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) made an interesting speech, but I refer him to the IFS data that show that cuts to universal credit work allowances mean that the incentives for single parents to enter into work have been significantly weakened. Similarly, the Child Poverty Action Group has described the cuts as being in direct contradiction to the policy’s stated agenda of making work pay.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for highlighting her constituents’ issues, particularly with the distribution analysis and the impact on the poorest, as opposed to the richest. The former Minister with responsibility for disabled people, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), said that nobody has explained how our proposal would be funded. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said at the beginning, the Resolution Foundation has shown that reversing the cuts to capital gains tax, corporation tax and inheritance tax would be more than sufficient.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made a characteristically comprehensive speech. Her passionate and regular campaigning on child poverty does her and our party credit. The same is true of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), who is brave to speak out on the issues so eloquently and so often.

There are 6.8 million adults in this country who are in working households but who live in poverty. Two out of three of the nearly 4 million children living in poverty are from working households. All the evidence points to the simple truth that, under this Government, work is not a route out of poverty. I contrast that with the achievements of the previous Labour Government, who reduced poverty across the board.

Our disabled people have been battered by this Government, too. Some 5 million disabled people currently live in poverty in the UK—nearly one in three—and the gains made by Labour are now in reverse. Although disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to live in poverty, specifically as a result of their disability or condition, the Government cut £28 billion from 3.7 million disabled people as part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, thereby increasing the likelihood of poverty.

As we have heard, the IFS has shown that people on low incomes have been most adversely affected by the Government’s changes to tax and social security support since 2010, and that that will continue. In other words, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Landman Economics and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimate that poor families with a disabled adult or child have been made five times worse off than non-disabled families, through tax and social security changes. Of course that does not even factor in other spending cuts. There is ample evidence.

Several measures in the Welfare Reform Act 2016 further punish the sick and disabled, but the cuts to employment and support allowance and the related cuts to the limited capability for work element of universal credit are among the most troubling. Nearly half a million people will be affected when the measure comes in next April, losing around £30 a week or £1,500 a year—a third of their weekly income from ESA. Those are people who have been found by the Government’s flawed work capability assessment process to be not fit for work, but who might be in the future. The Minister’s argument that these cuts will incentivise sick and disabled people into work is baseless and deeply offensive. In fact, the Government published this summer their own research showing absolutely the opposite. The policy does not incentivise people; it makes the situation worse. We must stop using this “shirker” and “scrounger” rhetoric, which is harmful and wrong.

I remind Ministers that the Government’s data show that the death rate for people on incapacity benefit and ESA in 2013 was 4.3 times that of the general population; that figure increased from 3.6 in 2003. People in the support group are 6.3 times more likely to die than the general population, and people in the WRAG—the people from whom the Government will be cutting more money—are more than twice as likely to die as the general population. IB and ESA are recognised as good population health indicators, and the Government’s data prove that point.

Consultation on the Government’s work, health and disability Green Paper will barely have finished before the cuts are imposed. I am sceptical that the measure will address the issues that sick and disabled people face, and I fear that it will be just another means to get people off flow. Last year, the Government failed to produce evidence of the cumulative effect of their further cuts on disabled people living in poverty, saying that it was too difficult. Labour disagreed, as did the Equality and Human Rights Commission, disability charities and disabled people’s organisations. Reporting last week, the UN committee that investigated breaches by this Government of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities also disagreed. The UN’s report concluded that “grave and systematic violations” of disabled people’s rights had been perpetrated by this Government.

In the same week as the UN published its damning report, the Trussell Trust released data on the increase in food bank use because of social security issues, and the Supreme Court ruled against the Government on the discriminatory bedroom tax as it related to disabled people and their carers. The film “I, Daniel Blake” epitomises what is wrong with the social security system, in an accurate and moving representation of what is happening in this country. Surely the Government must see red. They must do the right thing and reverse the cuts to ESA WRAG.

On universal credit, we supported the principles of the Government’s flagship programme when it was first introduced: to unify a complex system into a single payment and to ensure that work pays. However, since its inception, universal credit has gone from damage limitation to outright disaster. In particular—apart from the Government’s gross incompetence in its costly implementation—the £3.8 billion of cuts to work allowances significantly undermine the principle that work will always pay under the scheme.

Research by the Resolution Foundation showed that the cuts will leave 2.5 million working families on average £2,100 a year worse off. The Resolution Foundation estimated that the poorest 50% of households will be £375 worse off on average by 2021, while the other half will be £235 better off. Those already on UC will be hit first. House of Commons Library analysis shows that the cuts will mean that a single mother of two who works full time on the minimum wage will lose £2,400 a year. Further analysis by Liverpool Economics has shown that disabled people in work will lose £2,000 a year. The north—particularly the north-west, where UC started—has been hit first: from powerhouse to workhouse. Once again, the Government have failed to publish an impact assessment on the effects of the cuts. The Government’s cuts to UC work allowances, replacing tax credits and topping up income for people in work on low pay, are undermining the principle of making work pay. I repeat the call to reverse these cuts.

In conclusion, the Government’s arguments to justify the cuts to UC work allowances are without any evidence. In contrast, there is a clear and growing evidence base on the effects that these cuts are having on the working poor and on sick and disabled people. At the same time, there is increasing evidence that as a nation we are becoming more and more unequal. After six years, the Government have done next to nothing to curb boardroom pay, giving tax breaks to the highest earners. Last year, the average worker’s pay of £27,645 increased by less than 2%; by comparison, the average top executive pay of £5 million increased by nearly 50%. The impacts of those inequalities are already being felt. The very fabric of our society—who we are and what we stand for as a tolerant and just society—is under attack as a result of these inequalities. The Prime Minister’s warm words about tackling injustice are not enough. We need action, not just words.

Under-occupancy Charge

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the Supreme Court’s ruling of 9 November on the under-occupancy charge.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)]

The removal of the spare room subsidy was introduced in April 2013 to all working-age claimants in the social rented sector as part of this Government’s plan to create a welfare system that is fair for those who use it and those who pay for it. Under the previous system, the taxpayer had to subsidise benefit claimants to live in houses that were larger than they needed, despite the fact that people renting in the private sector were receiving housing benefit on the basis of the number of people in their household rather than the number of bedrooms that they had, which has been the case since 1996. Since we introduced the policy, it has saved over £1.5 billion, and the number of households affected by it is going down.

We, of course, operate a number of exemptions to the policy, and they include: all pensioners; households with a dependent child receiving the middle or higher rate care component of disability living allowance; households in which an overnight carer is allowed for the claimant or partner; households in which the claimant or partner is a foster carer; and households with an adult child who is in the armed forces and deployed on operations. In addition, we provide local authorities with funding to provide discretionary housing payments to claimants whom they evaluate as needing additional support with housing costs.

Turning to last week’s Supreme Court judgment, it was welcome that the Court found in our favour in five of the seven cases. These cases related to a panic room, a claimant with mental health issues and those requiring an extra room to house medical equipment, as well as cases involving shared care and adapted properties. The Court also agreed with our view that discretionary housing payments are generally an appropriate and lawful way to provide assistance to those who need extra help. In the two cases in which the Court did not find in our favour, we will take steps to ensure that we comply with the judgment. In most cases, local authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their residents, which is why we will have provided them with more than £1 billion to offer that support by the end of this Parliament. This ensures that people in difficult situations and those who are vulnerable do not lose out.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The Supreme Court’s judgment on Wednesday clearly stated that the bedroom tax is discriminatory, as Labour Members have repeatedly highlighted. The Court upheld the claim of Jacqueline Carmichael, who is disabled and cannot share a room with her husband, Jayson; as well as that of Paul and Susan Rutherford, who care for their severely disabled grandson, Warren. I pay tribute to them, as well as to the other families, for their courage, tenacity and determination in pursuing these cases.

The ruling states that housing benefit regulations allowing claimants to have an additional bedroom when children cannot share a bedroom because of a disability should be extended to adults. Likewise, adults who need an extra room for an overnight carer have been exempt from the bedroom tax, but children such as Warren have not. Those anomalies, the judges ruled, were “manifestly without reason”.

The Department’s spokesperson indicated that the Government accept the Supreme Court’s ruling. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether his Department also unequivocally does so? Will he tell the House how much taxpayers’ money has been spent on legal fees in the attempt to defend the Government’s bedroom tax policy? How many families does the Department calculate have been affected by the Government’s unlawful imposition of the bedroom tax on disabled people and their carers? When and how will the Government inform the families affected by the judgment? How quickly will the Government comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment and revoke the bedroom tax for those families? Will such a revocation be backdated and, if so, to when? Will the Government now formally apologise for the pain and suffering inflicted on disabled people and families caring for a disabled child? Finally, will the Government undertake to look again at their policy on safe rooms for victims of domestic violence, which affects a relatively small number of incredibly vulnerable women who live their lives in fear and are being punished by the Government for heeding security advice and being safe in their homes?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to repeat what I said in my statement. We of course accept the Court’s view and, to answer some of the hon. Lady’s subsequent questions, we will take the appropriate action as soon as we practicably can. She said that the removal of the spare room subsidy was unlawful, but it patently is not, because the Supreme Court found in the Government’s favour in five of the seven cases before it. It is interesting that those involved in every one of those cases—all seven—were receiving discretionary housing payments, which are the best way to ensure that those who are affected can be helped if they need it.

Discretionary housing payments are up fivefold since 2011-12 and the Government are committed to a further £870 million over the next five years—[Interruption.] I am surprised that the hon. Lady complains about the payments, because her local authority received the best part of half a million pounds for discretionary housing payments this year, which makes it clear that people in her area find them useful. She might also be interested to know that 63% of those who are affected and unemployed have decided to look for work, which shows one of the policy’s effects.

I hope that the hon. Lady will address the basic issue of fairness. Without these measures, neighbouring households could be treated differently, which many people would regard as unfair.

On the hon. Lady’s point about those receiving disability benefits, all seven cases involved people receiving discretionary housing payments. Four of the five people involved in the cases won by the Government have a disability, so the policy is clearly not unlawful. Her basic analysis is wrong. The Government are spending £50 billion a year on disability benefit, which shows that we want a practical system that cares for people with a disability. This court case does not alter that at all.

Improving Lives: Work, Health and Disability Green Paper

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and advance notice of it. This is again kicking into the long grass the issue of support for disabled people and halving the disability employment gap. He is the third Secretary of State who has promised a plan, yet we have just talk, no action.

During his announcement today, the Secretary of State claimed he was confronting negative “attitudes, prejudices and misunderstandings”. The audacity of the statement is offensive. The Government have been more responsible than anyone for the negative attitude towards disabled people, with their shirkers grand narrative. Only this morning, the Secretary of State himself described disabled people as

“sitting at home living on benefits”.

The consultation itself demonstrates that the Government fail to understand the reality of many disabled people’s lives and the real anxiety those people feel about the coded messages in the consultation, yet further cuts are on the way.

I must challenge the Secretary of State for suggesting that the so-called reforms to social security have helped to make work pay. These claims are derisory. All the evidence shows not only that the introduction of universal credit has been an unmitigated disaster—with seven delays to date, the Major Projects Authority and the National Audit Office expressing concerns regarding the scheme’s governance, and the additional £3 billion the taxpayer is having to pay—but that cuts to work allowances signally fail to make UC help to make work pay. The Resolution Foundation has shown that, on average, 2.5 million working families will be over £2,000 a year worse off, so will the Secretary of State commit to reversing cuts to work allowances and universal credit?

On the Green Paper, if the Secretary of State is committed to helping disabled people into work, why has he cut employment support for disabled people from £700 million to £130 million? Will he commit to providing Access to Work support to more than the 36,500 disabled people who received it last year? Given that 1.3 million disabled people are fit and able to work, that is obviously a tiny proportion.

The Secretary of State referred to a review of statutory sick pay. Can he confirm that it is not a vehicle for further cuts to sick pay? Will he commit to maintaining levels of statutory sick pay, both now and in the future? On the plans to broaden the number of professionals who can provide a fit note—notes currently can be provided only by a general practitioner—will these people be appropriately trained clinicians? Given the Government’s use of so-called healthcare professionals under the work capability assessment, we know that weakening the role of the medical profession in assessment processes is an underhand tactic to force people into work before they are ready.

On changes to the WCA itself, why will the Secretary of State not commit to scrapping this discredited process completely, as I have? As it stands, this dehumanising system does great harm and is nothing more than a vehicle for getting people off flow. Will the Secretary of State explain why only employment and support allowance is included in the statement? What are his intentions for the personal independence payment? How much funding is meant to underpin the health and work programme? Will he commit to reversing the cuts in support for the ESA work-related activity group, as those cuts will do untold harm? Does he accept his own data showing that people on ESA are more likely to die than the population at large, and that some sick and disabled people will never be able to work? As a civilised society, we must ensure that these people are adequately supported and not plunged into poverty, left destitute, or worse.

[Damian Green]

I am disappointed by the hon. Lady’s tone because she seems to be completely out of touch with those who represent disabled people. Let me read her the words of the chief executive of Scope, Mark Atkinson, who said today:

“Disabled people are twice as likely as the general public to be unemployed. It is right that the Government has recognised this is an injustice that needs to be tackled. We welcome

the Green Paper’s

“publication, which recognises the need for real change and sets out some bold ideas for reform.”

Dr Liam O’Toole of Arthritis Research UK said:

“Today’s Green Paper offers a vital opportunity to better understand and then meet the needs of people with arthritis.”

The Work Foundation said:

“We have consistently advocated that good work and the benefits it brings to individuals, employers and society at large should be recognised as a positive outcome from a health perspective.”

I am afraid that her carping is out of touch with the sector comprising those who most represent disabled people.

Let me deal with some of the detail. The hon. Lady repeated her promise to scrap any kind of assessment system at all for people getting benefits. Let me quote one of my predecessors who, when the work capability assessment was introduced, said, “We want to have a system where virtually everyone who is getting benefits is doing something to prepare for a return to work. The benefits system is not there for people to stay on benefits but to help them get back to work.” I completely agree with that. It was said by Labour Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell in 2008 when introducing the WCA. I am afraid that, again, the hon. Lady is out of touch.

The hon. Lady said a lot about universal credit and described it as a failure. Let me give her the facts about universal credit. Under universal credit, people spend about 50% more time looking for work and move into work faster. For every 100 people who found work under the old jobseeker’s allowance system, 113 universal credit claimants have moved into a job. They are more likely to be looking to increase their hours—86% on universal credit compared with 38% on jobseeker’s allowance. They are more likely to be looking to increase their earnings—77% on universal credit compared with 51% on JSA. [Interruption.] I am afraid that despite all the shouting from a sedentary position, the hon. Lady is simply wrong about the effect of universal credit.

The hon. Lady asked me to make some commitments about Access to Work. Real-terms increases in funding under Access to Work will support an additional 25,000 people each year by 2021. Last year, more than 36,000 people were helped to take up or remain in employment, including 2,800 young people. Access to Work is doing very well for tens of thousands of people with disabilities.

The hon. Lady would also, I hope, welcome our personal support package, which includes the recruitment of about 200 community partners into Jobcentre Plus to bring in expertise from the voluntary sector. One of the key things about this Green Paper is that we will work closely with the voluntary sector and use its expertise to help people with a disability.

The hon. Lady talks about forcing people into work. I hope that underneath some of her rhetoric she recognises the fact—this is now recognised increasingly by medical practitioners and clinicians—that a good job is good for people’s health. Talking about forcing people into work demonstrates the wrong, old-fashioned mindset, and I genuinely hope she has moved on from that.

The hon. Lady asked about statutory sick pay. I assure her that there is nothing in this Green Paper about cutting statutory sick pay. We want to make it easier for people to move back into work, perhaps gradually, meaning that they take a few hours’ work in the early days and months of their getting back into work. The purpose of the useful changes to the fit note, which is given by a properly qualified medical practitioner, is so that the process does not simply write someone off work, but guides them into a system that will help them to get back to work, because in the long run that is the best way to improve their lives, which is what the Green Paper is about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, no one who is already claiming ESA in that group will see a cash loss. What we are seeking to do is to make it as easy as possible for as many people as possible to get into work, because doing a job is, for most people, the best route out of poverty. The various changes announced by my predecessors were all aiming at that end, which is the best one for the vast majority of people receiving these benefits.

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

The Government’s climbdown regarding their discredited work capability assessment is welcome, but given that 60% of people who appeal against their WCA decision are successful, that academics estimate that between 2010 and 2013 an additional 590 suicides were associated with WCA and that the Government’s data show that the people who have been found fit for work are four times more likely to die than the general population, why will the Work and Pensions Secretary not scrap the WCA process immediately and completely?

[Damian Green]

Because the work capability assessment, which was, of course, introduced by a Labour Government, has been reviewed five times since 2010, and each time we have improved it. I am glad that the hon. Lady has welcomed the recent improvements that we have introduced. [Interruption.] I would be grateful if she waited for her next question before she asks it. One thing I would particularly take issue with her over is her implied link between suicides and the work capability assessment. I do think that that is an unhelpful use of what is always clearly a deeply tragic situation for political ends. I think she will have known that there is no direct evidence to support that, and I do not think it is a very constructive way to seek to improve the work capability assessment.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Just as a point of fact, these are academic estimates, and the Government’s data show that people have died.

Unlike with the work capability assessment, the Government plan continually to assess all disabled people for the personal independence payment, regardless of their disability or condition, regardless of the fact that 59% of PIP appeals are successful and regardless of the wholly inappropriate process. After the outcry over proposed cuts to PIP in the Budget, and having had to abandon proposals to restrict access to PIP by changing eligibility to the daily living component, the Government are looking for alternative ways to make cuts to PIP—this time by changing the guidance and making it harder for disabled people successfully to appeal PIP decisions. Are the Government not ashamed that they are putting disabled people in such dire circumstances?

[Damian Green]

I am not at all ashamed of the introduction of PIP or the fact that many more people are eligible to receive PIP than were eligible to receive disability living allowance. It is a better benefit, and most of the disability support groups recognise that it is a better benefit, so I simply do not recognise the hon. Lady’s characterisation of PIP.

Social Security

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I warmly thank the Minister for introducing the order. May I also take this opportunity to welcome him to his place? It is nice to see him there.

Although I recognise that the order principally tidies up existing legislation—as such, I will not oppose it—I want to make a few comments about articles 2 and 3, as well as about the decision not to conduct an impact assessment.

Article 2 enables the income-related benefits awarded to recipients to be adjusted to account for additional income being received through an uprating of the new state pension, without requiring Secretary of State oversight, as the Minister has explained. The arrangement applies to the old state pension and it is now being carried forward to the new one, so it is relatively uncontroversial. However, I want to push the Minister on the specific changes to entitlements for couples.

The explanatory memorandum states that, currently, where one member of a couple has reached a qualifying age for pension credit but the other has not, the couple can choose to claim either pension credit or the relevant working-age benefit. The explanatory memorandum points out that most choose to go for pension credit as, should they choose to access the working-age benefit, they will be subject to conditions that do not apply to pension credit. From 2018, it is planned to remove the option to claim pension credit, replacing it with universal credit for mixed-age couples making new claims.

What are the proposed transitional arrangements to cover those changes? Would someone covered by transitional protections who loses their entitlement to pension credit for a short period then be expected to enrol on universal credit? How do the Government plan to communicate those changes? Given the important differences in the amount awarded under pension credit compared with most other working-age entitlements, as well as the strict conditionality requirements of universal credit, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is very important to ensure that all those affected are well informed.

Article 3 provides for a right of appeal against a decision as to whether a person is to be credited with earnings or contributions for the purposes of entitlement to the state pension. Under the old state pension, people who reached state pension age before 6 April 2016 already had a right to appeal decisions regarding whether they were eligible for credits. The order, as the Minister has explained, extends that right of appeal to the new state pension.

The explanatory memorandum states that that right should have been in place from 6 April 2016 but that it was “unfortunately overlooked”. That omission is disappointing, not least for those who might have been affected. Although the Minister has taken pains to explain that it has not affected anybody and that there are measures in place to ensure that no one will lose out, I would be grateful if he wrote to me to clarify how many people have been denied a claim since 6 April and who might have been affected. For example, were women and people on low incomes more likely to have been affected? I would also be grateful if he confirmed in writing how the situation for all those who have had applications for credits declined will be resolved?

I want briefly to touch on the related issue of take-up of national insurance credits. NI credits cover circumstances in which people are not working, and in some cases they require an application to be made. In 2013, the Government acknowledged that there was a low level of awareness and understanding of some NI credits, such as carer’s credit. They said that the low take-up rate suggested that the credits were

“not achieving their stated aim of protecting the state pension position of individuals who take time out of paid employment due to caring responsibilities”.

Of course, in many cases, those affected are women.

The Government undertook to review the system, develop a customer-focused communications strategy and work with outside agencies to encourage take-up. They said that state pension statements, which individuals have to request, would be the vehicle for providing individuals with personalised information about their entitlement. In last week’s debate on this order in the other place, the Minister for Welfare Reform said:

“There are around 400,000 eligible for carer’s credit and, in August, there were 10,900 recipients.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 September 2016; Vol. 774, c. 1221.]

According to my maths, that is about one in 40, which means that a very low proportion of those who are eligible to apply have received entitlements. Do the Government have plans to review their approach and to look again at some of the recommendations made by the Work and Pensions Committee in its report, “Communication of the new state pension”?

Finally, I want to push the Minister on the decision not to undertake an impact assessment when preparing the order. The Government argue that the order has no impact on civil organisations or the private sector. Is this not a narrow interpretation of when an impact assessment should be carried out? Can the Minister reassure the Opposition that a dangerous precedent is not being set? As we know, impact assessments by this Government have tended to be rather inadequate.

Social Fund Funeral Payments

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

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

As always, Sir David, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), not only on securing this debate but on the compassionate, sensitive and very eloquent way in which he put his case across. In particular, his comments about the importance of ensuring that there is dignity in death as well as in life really resonated with me, as I am sure they did with all Members here in Westminster Hall today and beyond.

There have been a number of memorable speeches in this debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), in memory of her husband—our dear colleague, Harry—and the personal experience that she went through. She made a point very sensitively, in a speech that was very moving as a whole, about the worry that people experience regarding finances as well as having to come to terms with their grief. Almost across the board today, the point was strongly made that the issues around debt that people face as a result of funeral costs compound their grief. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), following in the wake of her ten-minute rule Bill, very eloquently described the issues that arise.

The Government are facing some confusion around the eligibility checker for the social fund. Does it exist, or not? Will it be used, or not? Progress in this area has been disappointing and I know that the Minister will address that in her response to the debate.

There is an issue about fair funerals. An important point was made about the need for us to consider looking at regulation of funeral services, in light of some of the overcharging that has occurred.

Although the point that the social fund for funeral payments just has not kept pace with inflation is very important, I will not labour it. The hon. Member for Belfast East has already made the important point that the figure for payments is the equivalent of £495 today; it has remained static since 2003 and it does not cover the cost of the average funeral. I would be grateful if the Minister told us what plans the Government have to uprate that figure and said whether any such uprating would be index-linked and continue in the future.

In addition to the adequacy—or not—of the social fund funeral payments, there is also an issue about people’s eligibility for support; again, that point has already been made this morning. That issue must be looked at.

We heard about the approach being taken in Northern Ireland about cohabiting couples. I will cite one of my own constituency cases, involving the father of a constituent. Sadly, my constituent’s father passed away in the summer. He was given a funeral. My constituent’s dad had been living with his partner, but for various reasons his partner did not want to get involved in the funeral and was unable to pay for it. So it fell on my constituent to organise the funeral himself, at a cost of more than £2,000.

My constituent is in a low-paid job and is supported by universal credit, so he could not afford the cost of the funeral. He tried to apply for a social fund payment, but because his father had been living with his partner he was told that he was not eligible. His father’s partner had not applied for a social fund payment, but he was still told that he was not eligible for such a payment. Obviously, my constituent will appeal that decision and he has my support for that appeal.

The eligibility issue has been raised a number of times today and consideration of it was also included in a report by the University of Bath. That report said that the Department for Work and Pensions rules take no account of the status of relationships and particularly the quality of relationships. Once again, if the Minister could examine that issue I would be very grateful to her.

The other point made consistently throughout the debate is about the issue of debt, particularly for those already on low incomes. A very valid point was made—I cannot remember who made it—about the context of all the welfare reforms that are currently going through. How on earth are people meant to save for funerals given that someone might die unexpectedly? That is a real issue. There is a scandal here. We had hoped that we had put these stories behind us. We are not in Victorian days—we are the fifth richest country in the world, and there is this increase in paupers’ funerals. As I say, this is not Victorian Britain; this is 21st century Britain and the situation is quite scandalous.

There was a report in The Guardian earlier this year that a Liverpool credit union had been inundated with requests for help, as people tried to acquire cheaper credit; the alternatives were payday loans or, even worse, going to loan sharks. Meeting funeral costs is a real worry for people. Similarly, the UK Cards Association says that payment of funeral costs is the single most placed payment that people make using credit cards. I am also worried that the Government are not collecting any data on this issue and that we cannot monitor the worsening state of affairs. Again, I would be very grateful if the Minister said exactly how she intends to address these issues.

There is a silent epidemic of funeral poverty, which, as I say, has been adding to the grief of losing a loved one. Given the Prime Minister’s very welcome words about tackling the injustices in this country, could this be an area where the Government take action? We need action and not just words.

Universal Basic Income

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

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

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on securing this debate, which is most welcome and timely. The contributions that we have heard demonstrate that we are in absolute agreement that our current social security system is not fit for purpose. It is not delivering for claimants, who frankly deserve better, in a whole range of different ways. The Minister and I have exchanged views on that in many debates in the past; the detail is there for everybody to review.

Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), I am open-minded on this issue. I want to see the evidence, and it is very early days yet. We know that the current social security system is not delivering, in particular for people in work on low incomes, who might also go from in-work to out-of-work and back into work. The system is not flexible enough. The rapidly changing labour market is not currently catered for by our social security system. The Bank of England’s chief economist, for example, suggests that 15 million jobs are at risk of automation. These are huge changes, which have been growing over the last 20 years or so. Whether or not those jobs will be replaced by new sectors, we have seen a massive change in the labour market, with zero-hour contracts and insecure, low-paid work—our social security system is just not dealing with that. It is not fit for purpose in today’s labour market and there are huge ramifications for how we adapt and develop our social security system to ensure it can properly respond to the rapidly changing circumstances that workers face, and provide them with the necessary security to build happy and fulfilling working lives.

In the light of those great challenges, the Government’s ongoing failure to implement the universal credit programme is of serious concern, and questions about that were again raised last week. Universal credit was meant to attempt to address some of the challenges around flexible working. Unfortunately, because of the way it has been pared back in recent years, as well as the difficulties with implementation—at great public expense—that has just not happened.

[Kate Green]

Would my hon. Friend accept by contrast that Labour’s working tax credit, after initial teething problems, was very effective in reaching low-paid workers, lifting families out of poverty, making work pay and responding to changing work circumstances?

[Debbie Abrahams]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend has, as ever, hit the nail on the head. I am proud of Labour’s record of lifting nearly 1 million children out of poverty as a result of that policy. It is one of which we should be justifiably proud.

We need to respond to the rapidly changing labour market. The Government’s failure to deliver on the heavily diminished universal credit project has led to considerable problems and it is right that we look at the alternatives out there.

There are, of course, different views on what universal basic income is. At its simplest, it is about all of us having a non-contributory, unconditional lump sum, which would be available to all citizens regardless of means. I would like to explore both the positives and negatives. We have already heard some of the positive arguments, such as its simplicity and the way in which it may lift people out of poverty. Currently, there is very poor take-up of income-related benefits across the country. A mere half of those entitled to income-based jobseeker’s allowance are claiming their entitlement. That might have something to do with the current Government’s sanction regime, but it is undoubtedly affecting the numbers of people experiencing poverty in the UK, which now stands at 13 million people. By offering a simple, single sum to all, UBI may go some way to tackling the poverty that so many of our citizens are facing.

In replacing our complex system of universal contributory and means-tested support with a single, simple mechanism, UBI would also allow for a greater simplification of social security administration, with subsequent savings to the Department’s budget. Again, we really need to look at that.

Secondly—this is a really important point—by offering support to everyone regardless of their circumstances, UBI could go a long way to ensuring that the British public retain trust in the social security system. Over the last six years, we have seen the complete erosion of the social security system and the denigration of claimants. Some of the language that has been used—not by the Minister but by some of his colleagues—is frankly shameful.

The recent Fabian Society report, “For Us All”, demonstrated that the Government give as much tax support to people on high incomes through the shadow welfare of tax reliefs as they do to the poorest in our society. It has been suggested that if we were to replace the Government’s tax reliefs for the wealthy with a single universal payment, the reality that social expenditure benefits us all would be much clearer. It would get us away from the Government’s divisive rhetoric of strivers and skivers. Fundamentally, Labour believes that we should value our social security system, which, like our NHS, is based on the principles of inclusion, support and security for all, should any one of us become sick or disabled, or fall on hard times.

Let me focus on some of the concerns. Alongside those arguments in support of UBI, it is clear that tension could arise between its simplicity and its adequacy in supporting people with vastly differing needs and circumstances, which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan described. A flat rate could not possibly provide the additional costs associated with disability—approximately an additional £500 a month—which are one of the causes of disabled people being twice as likely to be living in poverty. The Government, with their swingeing cuts, have not recognised that. To allow for variations in need, UBI would need to be supplemented with additional top-ups, increasing its expense and complexity, which is where we get to some of the issues discussed earlier.

My final substantial concern is the cost. A recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggested that realising the policy would require not only an increase in income but a considerable shift in the general public’s understanding and knowledge of what and whom a social security system is there for. We know from the British social attitudes survey’s time-series analysis that although superficially there are peaks and troughs of support, when people understand what the system is for, whom it is for and the circumstances in which people make claims, they are a lot more supportive of it, so we need to inform people and extend their understanding.

I welcome this debate and I again thank the hon. Member for Inverclyde for securing it. I look forward to further exploring the strengths of UBI, but we must make informed decisions and evidence-based policy.

[The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Mr Davies. I would like to join the congratulations to the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on securing this important debate. I thank everybody from all parts of the House who contributed to it. I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Saddleworth—

[Debbie Abrahams]

Oldham East.

[Damian Hinds]

I am so sorry.

I think she confirmed that the official Opposition are considering a universal basic income. We already knew that the Scottish National party will look into it further after their conference, and we now know that the official Opposition also see some benefits in it.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I think the Minister is running away with himself. I said it would be useful to explore it. That is not how he characterised it.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful for the clarification.

A universal basic income or similar systems that guarantee a minimum income to all have been debated and discussed at some length across the world. This debate has been stimulating and important, and discussing UBI and similar concepts, such as the negative income tax, which was a popular subject for academic debate before UBI, is an engaging activity. Any system that promises protection and, to quote the recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Compass,

“freedom of choice for individuals between work and leisure”

is bound to sound appealing. It is difficult to argue with a utopian system that enables individuals to choose whether to work or to engage in leisure activities, alongside all the other valuable things that people do, such as voluntary work and caring.

However, as the Compass report suggested, the big issue with UBI is not whether it is desirable but whether it feasible. Would it be affordable, and could it be introduced in a way that prevented losses among the poorest sections in society? The hon. Member for Inverclyde said we should not turn our back on laudable aims. I could not agree more, but laudable aims are not enough. When Jack Kennedy said he wanted to put a man on the moon, he knew that just willing it would not make it happen. It had to be technically feasible.

The Citizen’s Income Trust, which the hon. Gentleman cited, and the RSA claim to have developed cost-neutral models for a scheme, but less highlighted is the fact that they could do so only by collecting huge amounts of additional tax. I can confirm that that is not everybody’s definition of cost-neutral. As the JRF and Compass report found, the additional tax revenue required to deliver a sustainable UBI would be as much as £160 billion. Such a system is clearly unaffordable, even if we assume that the introduction of a UBI would not affect individual behaviour in the labour market and that nobody would give up paid work as a result of its introduction. That assumption, of course, goes against common sense. It goes against trials that have happened in other countries, which have been referred to, and the principles of this Government and all recent Governments that I know of.

[Damian Hinds]

I think the hon. Lady has the relevant page in front of her; I do not, but I have it nearby. From memory, if she casts her eye about three lines further up above the £8.2 billion figure, she will find another figure for what the impact on income tax will be. That is where the total effect, which is so much greater, is laid out.

[Debbie Abrahams]

rose—

[Ronnie Cowan]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I am spoilt for choice. I give way to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am interested that the Minister is picking on one model. We need to be clear that there is a range of different models. He needs to clarify that in his remarks.

[Damian Hinds]

I am more than happy to clarify that the report looks at five models. There are three different proposals that might be called pure UBI models, which would deliver different levels of universal income; then there are two hybrid or adjusted models. The one that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to was, I believe, model No. 5, so it was the second of the adjusted models. The other ones are more expensive. The pure UBI models are more expensive than that one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

If the hon. Lady will bear with me, the claimant count is close to its lowest for 40 years, unemployment is at the lowest rate for 10 years and pay is rising. Our reforms are working. Why would we put all that at risk by implementing a blunt policy of financial handouts that does not treat people as individual human beings, with their own different ambitions and aspirations? UBI would also make no allowance for those with additional needs—a pure UBI system has no additional payments for those with disabilities or variations in housing costs, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) highlighted. Our reforms are about supporting people to reach their full potential, treating them as individual human beings and giving them the opportunity to get on.

Universal credit lies at the heart of the Government’s commitment to reform the welfare state, as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, rightly identified. We want a welfare state that is fairer and more affordable, tackling poverty and welfare dependency, while supporting the most vulnerable households. The Government believe that work is the best route out of poverty, which universal credit supports by supporting people into work and by making work, and more work, pay. Together with the rise in the personal tax allowance, investment in childcare and the national living wage, our reforms are ensuring that support goes to those who need it most. There is additional help to cope with essential living costs, such as housing and childcare, and we will ensure that being in work will always pay.

Universal credit is already changing people’s lives for the better. Claimants are moving into work more quickly and staying in work longer than under the legacy system. For every 100 people who would have found employment under the old jobseeker’s allowance system, 113 universal credit claimants will have moved into a job.

[Debbie Abrahams]

There is so much in that sentence, and the preceding ones, that I do not know what to pick on first. The increase in wages is slowing down, according to today’s figures. Also, will the Minister explain why millions of people will be affected by the cuts in work allowances for UC under the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016? In effect, they will get a £2,000-plus a year cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. There has been some sedentary commentary, but we have until 17.38, so if people want to ask to make an intervention, please do—obviously, it is for the Minister to allow.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Hinds]

indicated assent.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Three out of four people in low-paid work are still in low-paid work 10 years on. How is the system helping them?

[Damian Hinds]

Helping people on relatively low incomes to increase their incomes by moving up the hours scale or the earnings scale is of course an objective that the hon. Lady and I share. That is why we have made the childcare reforms that I alluded to and brought in the national living wage, which will affect people who were previously on the national minimum wage but will also have a ripple effect on pay grades immediately above that. The critical thing, which we come back to time and again, is that universal credit will reform the system, in which there are certain cut-off points on the hours scale, to ensure that there is as smooth as possible a transition through work.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion talked about less secure employment. It is certainly true that today’s labour market differs in several ways from the labour market of the 1960s and 1970s. Several factors are at play, including the long-term shift to the service sector and the fact that people are living longer. Yes, it is also true that people are much less likely to stay in a job or work for one employer or even in one sector for their entire careers, but it is important to note that three-quarters of the increase in employment since 2010 has been in full-time work. Only around 14% of people in part-time work would prefer to be working full time, although obviously we want to increase the opportunities for them.

Relatively few people in the economy rely on zero-hours contracts, which give people on average around 25 hours of work per week. We know from surveys that most people on zero-hours contracts are not seeking to increase their hours. Although those types of contracts clearly are not even close to being suitable for everyone, there are some people for whom they work. A lot of people on zero-hours contracts are students or people coming back into the labour market, and such contracts can be a good way in. It is absolutely right for the Government to have banned exclusivity clauses that prevent people from taking up other work.

Supported Housing: Benefit

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

This has been a thorough and important Opposition debate, with 21 contributions.

I welcome the new Work and Pensions team and the conciliatory tone that the new Secretary of State took in his opening speech. I gently chide him, however, for saying that the Government have an exemplary record, because during the passage of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill last year, which the Minister for Employment will remember well, they refused an Opposition amendment that would have exempted supported housing from the 1% cut to housing benefit. Although I recognise that it is early days, I hope that we can move forward in a constructive way.

I pay tribute not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for his excellent speech, but to a number of other hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) rightly identified the issues with the local housing allowance cap and gave some practical examples of how it would affect her constituents. Similarly, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) spoke of the threat to refuges. Obviously, with the Scotland Act 2016 coming into force, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Administration will have the opportunity to take their own course of action in relation to any future cap if the Government choose not to act.

I commend the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) not only for his remarks today but for his Adjournment debate last week. It is positive that we are able to work across the House on this very important issue. So many Members from across the House recognise the issues that very vulnerable people face.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) rightly identified the knock-on effects of the proposals on other Departments, especially in terms of costs. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) made a very powerful speech on the impact of cuts to supported housing provision for people with mental health issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) highlighted the impact on her constituents.

I take some exception to the remarks of the former Minister for Disabled People, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). I am sure that he did not intend to misrepresent the figures in what he said about the funding provided to disabled people, but spending as a percentage of GDP has gone down. A total of £30 billion of support to 3.7 million disabled people has been cut—

[Justin Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

No, I am sorry—there have been so many opportunities for that. I am sure you will go straight to Hansard, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see exactly what those remarks were.

I will move on to my substantive remarks. Many people have defined what supported housing provides, in terms of both accommodation schemes and support to very vulnerable people. It includes preventive services, services to older people in sheltered housing and extra care. It may consist of supported housing for people who have suffered domestic abuse, people with drug, alcohol or mental health issues, people who have learning disabilities or difficulties, people who are homeless, former offenders or young people leaving care. As we have heard very powerfully, it supports people who have been in the armed forces. Services may be temporary or longer term—for example, services for older people or people with learning disabilities.

Although types of supported housing services range widely, they all share the common purpose of providing a safe, secure home and support for vulnerable people to live independent, healthy and fulfilling lives—something we all want. As has already been mentioned, supported housing has the added benefit of preventing acute admissions to our already much-stretched health and care services, offsetting financial pressures in the Departments responsible for those services and many other Departments to the tune of £640 million a year. Rents for supported housing tend to be higher than those for general needs housing because of the nature of the schemes and the services they provide, but it is estimated that investing in such accommodation delivers a net saving to taxpayers of around £940 per person, per year across all client groups.

Last year, the estimated number of supported housing units needed for the working age population was 125,196, but the number available was 109,556, a shortfall of 15,640. It is estimated that, if current trends continue, that shortfall will double by 2019-20. I am sure that the Minister has examples of homelessness from her own constituency casework. I have to say that my caseload on that has absolutely hit the roof in recent weeks and months. I am talking not just about sofa surfers but about people who are living rough, including one young man who was living in a tent by the side of a reservoir. There were no hostel places or other specialist accommodation available for those people. That highlights the importance of the shortfall in supply.

Over the past year, there has been considerable anxiety across supported housing providers that not only are there already too few places to cope with current levels of need, but that collectively, the Government’s 1% cut to housing benefit in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016—which also affects supported housing—and the cap on local housing allowance announced in the autumn statement will make thousands of supported housing schemes unviable, affecting hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people.

The National Housing Federation has estimated that the LHA cap alone will mean that 156,000 specialist homes will be forced to close, and that in addition to stopping 2,400 new homes being completed, a further 9,270 homes planned for construction have been cancelled. In my area of Greater Manchester, it has been estimated that the loss of revenue to providers could be more than £50 million a year.

Although we welcome the Government’s suspension of the 1% cut to housing and the LHA cap, we are concerned—many Members have stressed this—about the delay in the review into providing a long-term, evidence-based sustainable solution, and the effect that that is having on investors regarding new developments, as well as on unfreezing those that have been put on hold because of the uncertainty. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State seems to have kicked that issue into the long grass—I am sure his mobile phone will provide the answers for him. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said, we were expecting—as were housing providers—a statement by the recess, but we are now a day away from that. We are six months into the 12-month period, and 19 months since the start of the review period. When can we expect to see that review?

What contingency arrangements are in place to enable housing providers to plan? Will the Minister confirm that discretionary housing payments, with their inherent uncertainty and variable application, are not the Government’s only solution to plugging the gap in rent? Will she confirm that no one with support needs will go homeless or end up in unsuitable accommodation as a result of those delays, and that the housing and support costs of delivering a quality service will be met, and be flexible enough to meet challenging levels of demand? Will she ensure that evidence of the quality and value for money of supported and sheltered housing is published and promoted to the public? Finally, will she ensure that new funding arrangements for housing costs assure long-term funding certainty for providers, enabling them to continue investment in homes and services that meet the needs of vulnerable tenants, by funding rents and service charges through the social security system? Support costs should be funded through central Government on a cross-departmental basis, reflecting the outcomes that they would like to achieve.

The Prime Minister has given her pledge for a one-nation Britain, and she said that when she makes the “big calls” or “passes new laws” she will think of ordinary working-class families. As one of her first tasks, I ask her Government to start to right the wrongs that have been done to the most vulnerable in our society, and to ensure that they have the homes and support they need. We need deeds, not words.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

I have always been very clear that income levels are important—a regular income is vital for families in difficult circumstances—but it is important that we look beyond that and, for the first time as a nation, start to tackle the underlying root causes of entrenched poverty.

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

Last year, child poverty increased by 200,000 as a direct result of the Government’s tax and social security policies, with two thirds of these children living in working households, and it is estimated that by 2020 more than 3.6 million children will be living in poverty. There is overwhelming evidence that child poverty has a direct and negative impact on children’s social, emotional and cognitive outcomes and ultimately on their life expectancy. Given the catastrophic consequences of Government policy implemented on scant evidence, will the Secretary of State do the right thing and repeal the damaging effects of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, which threaten the life chances of these children?

[Stephen Crabb]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position on the Front Bench. Given her work in the Select Committee, I am sure she will do an excellent job in the shadow role.

The 200,000 figure that the hon. Lady mentioned exactly points to what was wrong with the previous relative income approach, which her previous Government took to tackling poverty. When real wages grow, poverty rates increase, despite people’s incomes not falling. It is much more important to tackle the underlying causes of poverty—worklessness, educational failure, family stability, problem debt and addictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there will be that freedom in the future, but there are more options we can develop right now, even while we are still in the EU, for further ensuring that we have a fair benefits system that does not act as an unnatural draw for more migrants. We want people to come here, work and bring their talents, but we do not want the benefits system inflating those migration numbers.

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

The impact of uncertainty on the economy following the Brexit vote is already being felt and ultimately will affect jobs, tax revenues and public spending. Before the referendum, the Government predicted that 500,000 jobs might be at risk, so what is the Secretary of State doing to protect these jobs and what is his estimate of the impact on social security spending?

[Stephen Crabb]

It is important that none of us talks up the risks and dangers to the economy. We need to be clear-sighted about the risks and challenges, but we should not be doing anything at the moment to talk down the British economy. The truth is that our economy is fundamentally strong: we have record numbers of people in work and, as we have seen from the announcement by Boeing today, continued investment in creating new jobs in our economy.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The lack of planning by this Government post-Brexit is complacency verging on neglect. The FTSE 250 has already lost 10% of its value since the referendum outcome and that will impact on pension funds. Given that 5,000 of the 6,000 defined benefit pension schemes are currently in deficit and that the pensions regulator has raised concerns of additional risks to these schemes following the Brexit decision, what is the Secretary of State doing to protect the pensions of the millions of people who will be affected?

[Stephen Crabb]

Nothing fundamentally has changed since the outcome of the referendum: the economy continues to perform well and, as I said, we need to be careful that we do not do our bit in talking down the economy at the moment. I agree with the hon. Lady that there is a very real systemic issue with DB pension schemes that we need to look at, and my Department will be discussing it further in the months ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

When it comes to closing the disability employment gap, I am absolutely clear that no options have been left off the table. We want to look at the widest possible range of solutions, including financial incentives such as our small employment offer, which will support small businesses to increase local job opportunities for disabled people.

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

In May, after a two-year fight, the Government finally published redacted reports of 49 social security claimants who had died between 2012 and 2014, revealing that 10 of the 49 had died following a sanction, and 40 of the deaths were associated with a suicide or a suspected suicide. Another nine social security claimants have died since 2014. When will the Secretary of State publish the reports into their deaths, or will we have to wait another two years for those as well?

[Stephen Crabb]

I hear the hon. Lady’s point, but it is important not to infer too many causal links between the factors that she is raising, and she needs to be extremely careful in how she describes those cases at the Dispatch Box. I am happy to discuss the matter with her on another occasion.

Disability Employment Gap

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

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

May I first start with apologies from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith)? He is attending a debate on the EU with the former Secretary of State, taking the opportunity to consider that issue in relation to its impact on disadvantaged people.

We have had a very interesting debate, with many well-informed and well-argued speeches. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) and wish his nephew with cerebral palsy all the very best with his GCSEs. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) talked about her constituent who had gone through the PIP process and how it was affecting her ability to work. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) gave a characteristically brave and honest speech, which we in this place have come to expect from her. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) talked about his experience as a care worker and said that he has a family member with muscular dystrophy. He is the chair of the all-party group on that condition and made a very well-informed speech.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), with characteristic forensic analysis, talked about the issues we currently face in social security policy, in particular the lack of evidence for many of the measures the Government have introduced. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) focused on the disability employment gap and the variations relating to different conditions—a very important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) described in detail her constituent’s dreadful and deskilling experience of working for the Fit for Work programme. The process focused on data, not people. We need our interest to be focused on people.

About 12 million people in the UK are living with a disability, an impairment or a limiting, long-term illness: 5.7 million are of working age; 5.2 million are over the age of 65; and 0.8 million are children. Although 4 million people with disabilities are working already, another 1.3 million are fit for work and want to work, but they are currently unemployed. However, as we have heard, the gap in the employment rate for disabled people, compared with non-disabled people, has grown under the Government to 34%—a 4% increase since they took office. Given that the vast majority—90%—of disabled people used to work, that is such a waste of their skills, experience and talent.

As study upon study has shown, the Government’s pledge to halve the disability employment gap rings hollow, with estimates that it will take until 2030 to do that at the current rate. The shelved White Paper, with the promise of a strategy defining support for disabled people, is yet another broken promise. Although I recognise that the Green Paper is coming, why did that not happen in the first place? Why has there been this about-turn?

The issue comes down to whether the Government believe in the principles that underpin the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, to which we are a signatory. Fundamentally, disabled people should be able to participate fully in all aspects of society, including work, and to access the same opportunities as everyone else, and that includes being able to use their talent and skills to the best of their ability. No one should feel that they are unable to reach their best potential or that their hopes and dreams do not matter. Do the Government therefore support the principles and articles of the UN convention? If so, when will they publish the UN committee’s report investigating the UK’s breaches of the convention and their response to it?

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am sorry, but I will not—I have a lot that I want to say.

The Government set the tone for the culture of society explicitly through their policies and laws, and more subtly through the language they use and what they imply. Collectively, those things tell us who they think is worthy or not. The Government have made their views abundantly clear. Their swingeing cuts to social security support for disabled people—including the recent ESA WRAG cut of £1,500 a year—total nearly £30 billion since 2010 to 3.7 million disabled people.

The Government’s overhaul of the work capability assessment manages to be both dehumanising and ineffective, and it has been associated with profound mental health effects, including suicide. Their sanctions policy targets the most vulnerable, bringing people to the brink, and some have died under it. The PIP debacle is making it harder for disabled people to stay in work. There is also the closure of the independent living fund. I could go on and on. This is happening across all Government Departments—Business, Innovation and Skills; housing; Transport; Education; Justice; and Culture, Media and Sport. Disabled people are being completely marginalised.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am sorry, but I will not. As I said, I have a lot to say.

What needs to happen? Addressing these issues, including the disability employment gap, needs political will and leadership. The Labour party’s disability equality roadshow will work with disabled people, their carers, disabled people’s organisations and providers across the UK, listening to them and developing with them policies that address their needs and that will work. However, we will also engage the public at large, providing an alternative to the Government’s negative narrative and casual inaction.

If 90% of disability is acquired, why are we doing so little to help employers retain skilled and experienced employees who may become poorly or disabled? We need practical measures to support disabled people at work, enabling them to thrive, and protecting them from prematurely leaving the labour market. Some disability charities have recommended more flexible leave arrangements, as well as extending the Access to Work programme. Clearly, if the Government increase the 37,000 or so who used Access to Work last year by another 25,000, that will still be only a tiny, tiny proportion of the 1.3 million people who are fit for work.

The Disability Confident scheme needs to be rebooted. The latest revelation that only 40 mainstream private sector employers across the UK have joined it since its inception three years ago shows that it is, to put it mildly, completely inadequate. What measures are in place to measure the scheme’s efficacy? Where employers work hard to recruit and retain disabled employees, how does that apply to their procurement policies and supply chains?

More needs to be done to help disabled people back into work. As we have been arguing for over a year, the work capability assessment needs to be replaced with a more holistic, whole-person assessment. The current system that assesses eligibility for social security support is not fit for purpose and should be completely overhauled. I welcome some of the change in language on disabled people on this matter. That needs to be reflected in departmental and Jobcentre Plus performance indicators that do not just focus on getting people “off flow” as a successful outcome. Since so many of the same people also have PIP assessments, we should also look at how we could bring these together. It is pleasing that the Government say that they are considering this.

Instead of the increasingly punitive sanctions system, more appropriate support needs to be provided. It is essential to maintain and increase specialist disability employment advisers in jobcentres. There is currently one adviser to 600 disabled people, and even if that is doubled to one to 300, that is still a very low ratio for the Government to be working to. I would also like their role to be extended to working with businesses. The current commissioning and payments system for the Work programme and other welfare-to-work programmes also needs rethinking. We need to improve specialist support, looking at what works. Work Choice, while it has better outcomes than other programmes, may not be the only solution. The individual placement and support scheme for people with mental health conditions is another example. As I have said before, there needs to be greater integration between Departments —not just between the DWP and the NHS but with BIS and economic development. For example, if someone who has musculoskeletal conditions or mental health issues has to take time off work, they need appropriate early intervention to help them get back to work. That is not happening at the moment. We need to understand the bottlenecks in the local system that my impact on this. We need to reflect on the drive for “flexible” labour markets and what this means for supporting people with long-term and fluctuating conditions back into work, and most probably out of work and then back into work, and so on.

There are clear geographical variations in the disability employment gap, but also in the strength of local economies and the availability and types of jobs. It is well established that the prevalence and geographical pattern of sick and disabled people reflects the industrial heritage of our country. Contrary to the Government’s “shirkers and scroungers” narrative, incapacity benefit and ESA are recognised as good population health indicators. Local economic conditions, whether the economy is thriving or not, will determine how readily sick and disabled people will be able return to work. Geographical analysis shows that people with equivalent conditions in the economically buoyant London and south-east are more likely to be in work that those in Northern Ireland, Scotland, the north-east, the north-west, and Wales.

It is over 70 years since legislation was first introduced to prohibit employment-related discrimination against disabled people. Sadly, we are still fighting to address this discrimination and the inequality in employment that disabled people still face. Changing attitudes and behaviour needs cultural change and it needs leadership, and we will provide it.