In-work Poverty

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Karen Buck

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on introducing the debate, and on setting out a powerful and well-argued case for action on the scourge of in-work poverty. We also heard excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Newport West (Ruth Jones), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), and for Reading East (Matt Rodda).

A consistent theme of the debate has been the extent to which the problem of in-work poverty, which has increased over a number of years, has been exacerbated by the cost of living crisis that we have been grappling with over the past year. That is driven by such factors as core food inflation, which is worse in this country than in neighbouring countries; the housing cost crisis, which has been driven by rising mortgages and rents; and a decade of low wage growth.

The Trussell Trust’s figures today, which should shame the Government—should shame any Government—show that the scourge of food insecurity is affecting millions of people. As was said by many hon. Friends, it has been proven that work is not in itself a means of ensuring that people are not food insecure. My food bank, and food banks in the constituencies of my hon. Friends, are reporting unprecedented demand for assistance from people who are working.

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

Does my hon. Friend want to comment on the fact that work is now not the route out of poverty, as we have heard? Nothing in what the Government propose on in-work progression will make an impact on that.

[Ms Buck]

I will touch on that in a second. We all want to see people in good, well-paid work. The fact that work is not a route out of poverty has been proven amply in recent years, and more so than previously, but I would also say that work in itself is not necessarily a route out of poverty for people bringing up children. It has always been, and remains, the case that Government have a role to play in ensuring that working families, including those with children, receive support, and that that is not simply left to wages.

The story of in-work poverty over the last 13 years is one of wasted opportunity. One of the most underappreciated social changes of recent decades is the decline in family worklessness. When Labour came into government in 1997, one in five children were living in a workless household. On the most recent data, 9% of children are in workless households. The decline in family worklessness has been an almost continuous trend, outside of economic downturns, over the last two or more decades. There are not only far fewer children in workless families than there were a generation ago, but more couple families in which both adults are working, and fewer in which only one parent works. All those changes should be positive for poverty reduction.

“Work is the best route out of poverty” was always a glib soundbite that dismissed the challenges faced by people who cannot work, whether because of disability, health or caring responsibilities, but it is true that as a general rule parental employment greatly reduces the risk of poverty. On the face of it, then, the employment situation for families with children is incomparably better than it was a generation ago, yet despite continuing improvement in parental employment, child poverty was higher in 2021-22 than it was in 2010-11.

The link between increased employment and poverty reduction broke down somewhere around the middle of the last decade. Some 19% of children in families with someone in work were in poverty after housing costs. By 2019-20, that figure had risen to 26%. It fell back very slightly in the latest data, which are for 2021-22. I suspect that is to do with the boost provided to universal credit and other support during the pandemic.

Astonishingly, the poverty rate after housing costs for children in single-earner families with full-time work is now 44%. Given the changes to employment over this period, had the risk of poverty for working families remained where it was when Labour left office in 2010, we would now be looking at there being far fewer children in poverty. That is what I mean about a wasted opportunity. Just think: the historical record of Conservative-led Governments would be one of poverty reduction. Ministers would be able to proudly defend their record on child poverty. They would not need to switch poverty measures to confuse people. They would be quite happy to be judged on the headline relative poverty measure.

How did this all happen? Faced with employment trends that would have reduced poverty, we had policies that made working and out-of-work families poorer—specifically the benefit freeze, which permanently reduced the value of in-work and out-of-work support. Universal credit was designed around a single-earner household model, and it continues to provide poor rewards for second earners when they increase their hours and earnings. The Government’s response to the weak incentives in universal credit is the crude stick of in-work conditionality. It is virtually an admission that they do not expect second earners to be dramatically better off if they increase their earnings.

For too long, jobcentre policy has been concerned with getting people into any job without considering crucial aspects of job quality such as stability and predictability of earnings and progression. If we want work to be the main route to poverty reduction—and we do—for those who can work, it needs to be work where people can genuinely improve their incomes over time, rather than struggle with zero-hours contracts, unpredictable shift patterns and fluctuating earnings.

The lesson is that increasing parental employment is a necessary but not sufficient condition for reducing child poverty. If we want to reduce poverty, we need a genuinely supportive welfare state and a focus on job quality. These have been the missing ingredients in Government policy since 2010, leading to the squandering of opportunities for poverty reduction.

Universal Credit Project Assessment Reviews

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Karen Buck

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

As some of my colleagues are saying, we are asking for the documents now. We are pleased the Government finally acknowledged that their universal credit programme is not fit for purpose, and now we need to understand the extent to which it is not fit for purpose through the publication of these reports.

I wish to start by giving some context to today’s debate and then set out why it is so important that we have access to these project assessment reviews. For many months now, Labour has been calling on the Government to pause and fix universal credit. This is a direct response to the mounting evidence that the full service programme is driving hardship in the areas where it has been rolled out. I am sure hon. Members from across the House will now be aware of the figures, but the realities of the misery being caused by this programme bear repeating: half of those in rent arrears under UC report that their arrears started after they made their claim; 79% of those in debt are recognised as having priority debts by Citizens Advice, putting them at higher risk of bailiffs and evictions; and two in five have no money to pay creditors at the end of the month.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of research published today by the Residential Landlords Association on this point, which found that 73% of landlords remain reluctant to let properties to people on UC? That is vital context. We need to understand what the Government know about the pressure on landlords in the context of UC.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes such a pertinent point. I was going on to say that demand for emergency food parcels in areas where UC has been rolled out is up 30%. Disabled people, single parents and families with children have been particularly affected. Initially, the Government’s impact assessments said that UC would reduce child poverty by 350,000, but then it was to be by 150,000. Now, the Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that by 2022 an additional 1 million children will have been pushed into poverty by as a direct result of cuts to UC. We have identified three drivers for these widespread problems: policy design issues; implementation flaws; and funding cuts.

As I have mentioned, at the recent Budget the Chancellor was forced to respond to Labour’s concerns about UC, as well as concerns from across the House—I acknowledge everybody’s work on this. As I said in my response to the Secretary of State’s statement on this, the measures in the Budget are welcome, not least in finally acknowledging that UC was not fit for purpose. But they are not nearly urgent enough, as they do not come into effect until next year; they do not address key issues, such as the assessment and payment periods or the single household payment; and fundamentally they do not redress the cuts and restore work incentives. Only £1 in every £10 that has been cut has been restored. Though he refused to pause the programme, as we had demanded, the roll-out of UC has been slowed considerably, meaning that the roll-out to all jobcentres will now not be completed until December 2018.

That brings us to the project assessment review reports and today’s motion. Five reviews on UC were carried out by the then Major Projects Authority between 2012 and 2015. As Members know, such reviews are independent ones that provide assurance to major projects. They contain in-depth analysis of the implementation of the project, including detailed assessment of the risks faced and the progress that has been achieved against the Government’s objective: to deliver their flagship social security programme, universal credit. Although these review reports have never been made public, the National Audit Office’s report on UC in 2013 stated that

“the Major Projects Authority’s project assessment review expressed serious concerns about the Department having no detailed ‘blueprint’ and transition plan for Universal Credit. In response to these concerns, the head of the Major Projects Authority was asked to conduct a 13-week ‘reset’ between February and May 2013”

In other words, it was clear that all was not well even then. The announcement of a “reset” was buried in the MPA annual report of that year, accompanied by a single sentence of explanation. This is how UC has limped on ever since.

To try to uncover the extent of the issues, freedom of information requests were submitted to the Government to access these project assessment reviews; but they were refused. The doughty campaigners appealed to the Information Commissioner, and on 30 August this year, the Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that this information must be disclosed by the Department in full, with the exception of the names of the civil servants named in the reports. The ICO’s judgment is important and worth reflecting on here.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Karen Buck

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the impact of in-work conditionality. There are about 1 million people on zero-hours contracts who may not know from one week to the next whether they will be able to work 35 hours each week, and we know how much harm universal credit will do to them. Those people are doing the right thing, but they may be sanctioned if they are deemed not to be working enough hours.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being generous with her time. During last week’s debate, I raised the reluctance of private sector landlords to rent properties to people who are on universal credit. Is she aware that social landlords frequently issue a notice indicating that they will seek possession of a property if the tenant is in arrears for only a week? Is it not scandalous that an ever-increasing number of people will approach the Christmas period with such a threat hanging over them?

[Debbie Abrahams]

Absolutely. Surely what is happening is not right, so we must stop this.

I will now make some progress, although I will take more interventions later. People might not have kept up with the hundreds of stories that we have heard from colleagues on both sides of the House, but we must make sure that the Government’s flagship programme is amended to take account of the real hardship that people are experiencing. We have heard about that hardship not just from claimants, but from charities that deal with claimants, as well as many other organisations.

There are three key issues with universal credit: the programme’s design flaws, which have been there from the outset, as I mentioned last week; the cuts that were introduced in 2015; and various implementation failures. First, I will talk about the programme’s flaws. The six-week wait before new claimants receive any payment is particularly draconian, and it is having real impacts. Four weeks of the waiting period are to provide that universal credit can be backdated, but an additional week’s wait was added as policy, and claimants must wait a further week for their payment to arrive. That is believed to be one of the primary drivers of the rise in debt and arrears.

Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Karen Buck

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) on calling this timely debate. The fact that he has such a degree of support from across the House cannot be overestimated. The speeches we have heard show the House at its absolute best. We are concerned about the plight facing so many of our constituents and the impact that this additional cut in support will have on them.

Although my party wants the ESA WRAG cuts to be scrapped completely, we will support this motion calling for a postponement until the Government have been able to analyse the consultation from their Green Paper. The same points have been made a number of times: I think that only one speaker generally supported what the Government are doing, while everyone else set out the reasons why their proposals should not go ahead. The key element is that we have only just had the closing date of the Green Paper consultation. I hope that the Minister accepts these points; she will have support from across the House if she does.

Let me re-emphasise some of the points that I made in yesterday’s debate. Half the 13 million people living in poverty are disabled or live with a disabled person. The number of disabled people now living in poverty is 5 million—one in three disabled people. The situation is getting worse after a decade when the problem was in decline. According to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the figures that are officially published are an underestimate. Labour Members are concerned that the Government do not seem to recognise the link between disability and poverty. We know from extensive research that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people. Eighty per cent. of that poverty results from the condition or disability that they experience. We have heard moving accounts from Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who gave a very eloquent description.

This is happening in the context of what disabled people are already going through; it is not just about social security cuts. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 cut £28 billion from 3.7 million disabled people, and that does not even include the cuts in social care and other health-related public services, such as the number of specialist nurses who might be available for people with a learning disability. I will not say that it is the tip of the iceberg, but it is not the whole story. Yesterday I mentioned research showing that families with a disabled adult or child have been made five times worse off than non-disabled people.

Among a number of measures in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 that the Minister debated extensively with me last year, this is one of the worst. We have already heard about the cut of £1,500 a year affecting nearly half a million disabled people.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

This morning I received an email from a constituent who has lost his ESA and has been put on the assessment rate. He suffers from lymphedema, an extremely painful condition that makes him almost unable to walk. He asked what advice I could give him, because the rate that he is now on means that he has to choose on a weekly basis between turning on the heat and eating. What advice should I give him?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I have a constituent with exactly the same condition, and we are going through exactly the same process with the personal independence payment as well as ESA. It is important that my hon. Friend will be representing her constituent. Sixty per cent. of people are successful in the appeals process, which shows how flawed the system is, does it not?

These are people who have been found not fit for work. There is absolutely no evidence that the cut will incentivise people. In fact, the Government’s own research, which was published earlier this year, and the Low report say that it is less likely to help disabled people back into work.

Macmillan Cancer Support has forwarded me details about a woman called Lynn, who said

“When I was ill, I had to give up work for a year. I couldn’t work—the chemotherapy knocked me for six and I just wanted to sleep all day. It was horrendous. I couldn’t pay my mortgage, my council tax. I thought I was going to lose my house. Then I got Employment Support Allowance. If they cut the ESA that would just be absolutely horrendous. I would hate to have had that done to me. Without it, we would have been homeless.”

Members across the House will have similar examples.

I again remind the Minister that the Government’s own data, which were published last year, show how vulnerable people in the group are. They are twice as likely to die as the population as a whole. That proves that incapacity benefit and ESA are good population health indicators. We hear awful language about shirkers and scroungers, but these are sick people who deserve care and support, not humiliation.

I mentioned the work, health and disability Green Paper at the beginning of my contribution. It is out for consultation, and while it seems to include some good measures, I have a number of concerns about it. I am also concerned about the reduction in employment support from £700 million to £130 million. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said, how on earth will we reduce the disability employment gap with such reductions? The Access to Work programme is inadequate: it serves only 35,000 of the 1.4 million disabled people who are fit and able to work. It is nonsense.

I know that we are pressed for time, but I want to touch on the limited capability to work component of universal credit. It has been suggested that it applies only to new claimants, but everybody will transfer to UC at some stage, so it will affect absolutely everyone.

I also want to reflect on growing evidence of the effects that the current round of cuts are already having on sick and disabled people. They include isolation, loss of independence, reliance on food banks, homelessness, exacerbation of existing conditions and a direct link to mental health issues. They have also been associated with the deaths of claimants. It is absolutely unacceptable for policies of the state to be doing such harm, so we support the motion and call for the ESA cuts to be paused. There is a lot of support for that.

In conclusion, there is an evidence base of the effects that the cuts are having on sick and disabled people. Over the same period that the Government have cut support for them, they have given generous support to high earners and big business. Last year, the average worker’s pay of £27,645 increased by 2%, while pay for top executives on £5 million increased by 50%. The trend is getting worse and the inequalities are already being felt. We cannot underestimate the effect of those inequalities. They are not inevitable; this is about political choices. The cuts must not go ahead and we would welcome the Government moving on the issue.