Under-occupancy Charge

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend, who knows a huge amount about this subject, is absolutely right. The Government are indeed taking steps to try to alleviate housing problems, but he is quite right about the indignation among Opposition Members.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Last week’s Supreme Court ruling is a damning indictment of the Government’s willingness to make disabled people and their families bear the brunt of austerity cuts. The ruling follows hard on the heels of a report by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was also published in recent days. Among other conclusions, the report notes that the Government’s measures

“have caused financial hardship to persons with disabilities resulting in...arrears, debts, evictions and cuts to essentials”.

I am sorry that it is necessary to remind the Secretary of State today that, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, around two thirds of the households affected by the bedroom tax include a disabled adult. In Scotland, the proportion is a massive 80%, and I am proud that the Scottish Government have taken action to protect all affected families. Will the Government recognise that the bedroom tax has failed in its objectives and continues to harm disabled people? Will they finally call time on this destructive, discriminatory experiment?

[Damian Green]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady about that, and nor does the Supreme Court. As I said, it had seven cases before it, and five of them were found in favour of the Government, so she is wrong to say that the policy has been in any way found unlawful. She will have seen my response to the UN report, which I thought was out of date. It took completely the wrong approach by measuring the effectiveness of a policy towards disabled people purely according to the amount of benefit spend, because this is about the amount of practical help that people can get. The fact that 300,000 more disabled people have gone into work in recent years shows the success of the Government’s policies in helping disabled people. I hope that Opposition Members will also welcome the recent Green Paper, which will provide more practical help for disabled people.

Improving Lives: Work, Health and Disability Green Paper

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. He is right about the binary choice that has obtained up to now under ESA and the fact that under the universal credit system, which he introduced, we have the capacity in the welfare system to make our approach much more flexible. That is precisely what the changes to the work capability assessment are designed to achieve—so that people are not simply put in one group or another and then left there. The much more personalised approach will mean that everyone should benefit from the assessment. We will be able to separate out the level of benefit that people should get from the level of support that they need to make the best of their lives. On the question of reversing previous changes in allowances, we have no plans to do so.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement? I am glad that, at last, this long-awaited Green Paper will be published. I broadly welcome the Government’s commitment to reform, to more personalised support, and to consulting widely with disabled people, carers and those who represent them.

We will work constructively with all parties to deliver real progress for disabled people, but we need actions, not just words. The truth is that the burden of austerity that has fallen on sick and disabled people in recent years has caused severe hardship and pushed many people further away from the workplace. Sick and disabled people have been disproportionately sanctioned in the benefits system and disproportionately hit by the bedroom tax. The raising of the bar on personal independence payments has resulted in thousands of sick and disabled people losing their Motability vehicles, which in many cases are their only means of getting to and from work. From next April, sick and disabled people with long-term conditions will be deterred from going back to work, because if they do, but then have a relapse and need to go back on ESA, they will find their income cut by £30 a week. Far too many people who are manifestly too sick to work are still being found fit for work.

Earlier this year, the Government cut the budget for their Work programme from £2 billion to £130 million. Given its performance, I understand why they did that, but we know from more successful schemes to support disabled people into work such as Access to Work, and from voluntary sector initiatives such as the Moving On programme of Action on Hearing Loss, that tailored, personalised support does not come cheap. What additional budget does the Secretary of State envisage will be attached to the Government’s proposals? What discussions has he had with the Treasury ahead of the autumn statement, and will there be Barnett consequentials for Scotland?

I also want to ask the Secretary of State about support for employers. To date, efforts have focused on improving employers’ confidence, which is fine as far as it goes, but that can be fairly nebulous if there are no practical resources to back it up. Employers need concrete support to make this work. Will resources be attached to the rhetoric this time around? Finally, may I plead with the Secretary of State to hold off the impending cuts to the ESA WRAG until such time as the Government have got this right?

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her general welcome for the appearance of the Green Paper and her commitment to work constructively on it. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work was in Scotland last week discussing with counterparts what needs to be done. As the hon. Lady might know, I will be there later this week to talk to the Social Security Committee.

The hon. Lady makes a point about resources, and I am able to tell her that there will be additional support for new claimants with limited capability for work. That will be £60 million next year, with the figure rising to £100 million a year by 2020. There will be new money for the third sector—something like £15 million by Christmas this year.

The hon. Lady made a very good point about employers. I agree that we need more than rhetoric, which is why we will be rolling out a small employer offer to support the creation of more job opportunities for disabled people. It will provide support for employers and enable them to apply for a payment of £500 after three months’ employment so that they can provide ongoing support. That kind of practical help, particularly for small businesses, will transform the situation for many people. We know that small businesses are the biggest creators of jobs in this country. We absolutely want them to use the great talent pool of people with disabilities, whose levels of employment are much less than those of people without disabilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Yes, I quite take the point my hon. Friend has made—certainly as he describes the constituency case he has taken up. Someone like that should not be reassessed while we are establishing the details of the appropriate guidance so that the new system can be put into effect.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I am glad the Government have said they are going to end the needless and distressing practice of reassessing work capability people with lifelong, progressive and incurable conditions. I hope the Secretary of State now accepts that his predecessors got this very badly wrong over recent years. Will he now take steps to overhaul the work capability assessment to ensure that all ESA claimants, including those with invisible and fluctuating conditions, are treated with dignity and respect?

[Damian Green]

I am grateful for the support for my announcement from those Benches, even though I sense it came through slightly gritted teeth. As I have said to previous questioners, we are constantly looking at ways of improving the work capability assessment, and of course that work will carry on.

[Dr Whiteford]

I thought I was being quite restrained.

The other thing the Government have got badly wrong in recent times is the decision to cut financial support to ESA claimants in the work-related activity group—people assessed as currently unfit for work. At the time, that decision caused huge disquiet on both sides of the House, and deep anger and concern outside it. With those changes due to come into effect shortly, will the Secretary of State make representations to the Chancellor ahead of the autumn statement to reinstate that support, which sick and disabled people need so badly?

[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.

Cross-departmental Strategy on Social Justice

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Thank you, Ms Dorries. I will try to do the maths on the timing.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing this debate and on her thoughtful speech. Let me say at the outset that Scottish National party Members share the desire to support families, to promote social justice and to improve the prospects of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. We recognise that that will require cross-departmental action that cuts across a range of policy areas and Government functions, including areas of devolved responsibility—a point that may be reflected this afternoon in the fact that only Back-Bench Members from Scotland and Northern Ireland are in the Chamber today.

Where we part company with the UK Government is in our analysis of the underlying drivers of poverty and deprivation and in the prescriptions we offer to address it.

[Andrew Selous]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not give way because I am very short of time.

The hon. Member for Congleton put great emphasis on family policy, and clearly families are at the heart of a stable society. We have heard from other speakers today and from the Government in recent months about life chances. That is an innocuous enough term. Who could take issue with improving life chances? The problem is that the shift in the Government’s rhetoric has masked a sharp move away in policy terms from consideration of the economic drivers of disadvantage, particularly low income, towards social phenomena such as family breakdown and addiction, which we have heard a lot about today but which actually affect children in families across the income spectrum.

Don't get me wrong—children are often very badly affected by parental separation or a parent’s problematic use of alcohol or drugs, but that will not necessarily push them into poverty. Likewise, problematic levels of debt are by no means the preserve of low-income households. I agree with the hon. Member for Congleton that support for all families who are coping with these issues is important regardless of their income level, but if we want to achieve greater social justice and to close the gaps in educational attainment, job prospects, and long-term health and life expectancy between the wealthiest and the poorest, it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that low income is anything other than the core driver of poverty. It is a distraction to think we can tackle child poverty without recognising that material deprivation, lack of money in a household and chronic financial insecurity—symptoms of a labour market that is increasingly characterised by low-paid, temporary jobs with fluctuating hours of work—and excessive housing costs lie at the heart of the gulf in prospects. We cannot tackle these glaring inequalities if we are not prepared to bite the bullet of these gross disparities in income.

The reality is that the Government’s austerity agenda continues to reduce the incomes of families in lower paid jobs and those unable to work because of serious illness or disability. Austerity has hit the incomes of women and disabled people disproportionately. The four-year freeze on working-age benefits, including child tax credits, working tax credits and jobseeker’s allowance, will see families lose an estimated 12% of the value of their support by 2020. Two thirds of children growing up in poverty in the UK live in working families, so cuts to tax credits have an enormously detrimental effect on parents in low-paid jobs. That undoubtedly puts pressure on families and strains relationships.

The cuts to the work allowance will also hit low-paid working parents, including single parents, some of whom could lose as much as £2,600 a year. The cuts to the work allowance also remove from universal credit one of the cornerstone benefits of the system, namely that it was supposed to remove the work disincentives—the so-called benefit trap inherent in the previous system. Universal credit now replicates that flaw so that for many low-paid parents there is now no incentive to take promotion or increase their working hours because their family will be worse off. According to the Resolution Foundation, work will pay on average £1,000 a year less for working families in receipt of universal credit.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) talked about the Concentrix fiasco, which we debated in the main Chamber today. All I can say is that it has caused extreme financial distress and hardship. I know of at least two families who have lost their home because of that. The Government really must take responsibility.

Another key issue in addressing life chances is housing costs. There is a chronic shortage of affordable housing across the UK, a consequence partly of grossly inflated house prices and partly of the failure of successive Governments to build enough affordable homes. I am glad to say that in Scotland we have taken a very different approach and have started to reverse that situation. We are committed to building 50,000 more affordable homes in the next five years, which will go some way to meeting need, but we cannot avoid the fact that children who grow up in a warm, dry, decent and stable home will have better life chances than those who do not. That is a good example of why we need cross-departmental efforts to tackle child poverty. Again, it goes without saying that poor housing puts terrible pressure on families and relationships.

Last week, I attended the launch of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “Solve UK Poverty” report. One of the most important messages that comes out of that is about the dynamic nature of poverty. In this place, we often trade in lazy stereotypes about entrenched poverty, and there is no doubt that some parts of the country are affected by that because of deindustrialisation and so on. Nevertheless, for most people it is unexpected life events that push them into poverty, whether it be redundancy, relationship breakdown or long-term illness and serious health problems. One of the most important things that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighted is families’ level of resilience. Clearly, when unpredictable events that could happen to any of us strike, poorer families have less of a cushion. They are much less able to cushion themselves against such events that can have long-term, far-reaching consequences.

I will finish by talking about how we measure child poverty and pick up some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East. The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 removed the statutory child poverty targets that were to be met by 2020. A cynic might assume that that is because the Government know that the Institute for Fiscal Studies is correct in its projection that the rate of child poverty in the UK is set to increase to over 18%—affecting almost one in five—by 2020 as a direct result of austerity reforms.

Life chances indicators may provide some useful insights, but given that two thirds of children living in poverty have working parents, focusing on worklessness will not take us much further forward and misses the big picture of widening inequality eroding young people’s life chances. I am glad to say that in Scotland we are taking an alternative approach to child poverty which focuses on maximising household resources, investing heavily in high-quality early-years education, including 30 hours a week free childcare for all nursery-age children and for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, and renewing the focus on closing the attainment gap in schools between those from the lowest income groups and their better-off peers.

The Scottish Government are also consulting on legislation to measure child poverty with proposals for ambitious statutory income targets and duties on Ministers to report every year on published delivery plans. We have also protected the education maintenance allowance, which has helped young people from low income families to stay on at school or college so that they get the qualifications they are capable of achieving, and ensured that those who get the grades they need to go to university can study on the basis of their ability to learn, not their ability to pay tuition fees.

We should not dodge the big issue about income, but should recognise that it is at the heart of families and their ability to sustain the normal shocks and events that most people go through at some point in their lives.

Universal Basic Income

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

We have had an interesting debate already this afternoon, and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on stimulating discussion of whether a basic income model of social security would better meet the needs of our citizens at a time when we are facing significant demographic and economic change. He and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) have highlighted some of the pilot schemes under way internationally, particularly those in other advanced economies, notably the Netherlands, Finland and Ontario in Canada. There is a tacit acknowledgement that all the schemes are in an early stage of development or implementation, and some have not even commenced yet; nevertheless, they offer insights into how basic income models might work in practice and how they might be adapted for a UK context.

My hon. Friend pointed out that the idea has a long pedigree, dating back to the late 18th century. I first encountered the concept of a basic income or citizen’s income models a number of years ago through the work of the late Scottish feminist economist Professor Ailsa McKay, who was particularly interested in exploring ways to close the income gap between women and men—a gap that more than 40 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 continues to grow through the course of women’s working life and becomes most acute in old age. The idea of a citizen’s income did not have so much currency back then, but more recently there has been greater interest in a range of basic income approaches and the start of a more serious debate. Although that debate is still in its early stages, I am glad it is opening up.

As we have heard, the proponents of basic income schemes argue that giving every citizen the automatic right to an income could help tackle our growing problems of extreme poverty and destitution, streamline the complex bureaucracy of the existing benefits system and promote greater social inclusion. Those are all laudable aims, but for me one of the most attractive aspects of a basic income approach is that it would to some extent neutralise some of the toxic rhetoric that has developed around social security recently and has perpetrated divisive and damaging stereotypes about people living on low incomes. A basic income or citizen’s income would undoubtedly help us to move away from the trope of the undeserving poor and make it much harder to blame those swept away by rough economic tides for their own financial insecurity. That in itself makes it pretty appealing. When the gulf between the wealthy and the rest has not been so stark in living memory, any social security system that promotes social cohesion and a meaningful contract between the citizen and the state deserves to be explored.

None the less, I still have a lot of questions about how a basic income model would work in practice and whether it can live up to the grand claims sometimes made for it. My questions are mostly pragmatic. My biggest concern is that a minimum income could act as an income ceiling rather than a floor for large numbers of people, particularly those who are already the most economically disadvantaged and for whom the prospects of supplementary income over and beyond that are the most fragile. It would be counterproductive if those who are unable to work or have limited capability for work were to find themselves caught in a new, newly differentiated poverty trap.

I also worry that the value of a basic income could become eroded over time. We have seen, for example, how the value of the state pension has been diminished over recent decades to the extent that no one expects to live on it as a sole source of income any more. The poorest pensioners have to receive top-up pension credits to bring them up to a basic standard of living and those lucky enough to have had the opportunity to save through an occupational pension scheme depend on that income to top up their state pension. I wonder how we can avoid the risk that the value of a citizen’s income would shrink over time, entrenching poverty for those who would be most dependent on that income.

In addition, we would still face the major challenge of tackling income inequality and the widening gulf between those in secure, well paid jobs and the increasing numbers in insecure, intermittent, low-paid work. In my view, that is key to building a fairer society. A basic income could arguably smooth the fluctuations in earnings for those in precarious employment, but it would not do anything to close the earnings gap and it would mean that over time those in well-paid jobs could move even further adrift. My own sense is that a greater emphasis on reducing income inequalities in the tax and benefit system as a whole would go further towards promoting social cohesion. I will be interested to see the extent to which the basic income schemes being trialled in an international context address that point.

I am also interested in how basic income models could articulate and interact with those parts of the tax and benefit system that would still need to be based on assessment and means-testing. Most of the proposals I have seen for basic income models in the UK context exclude housing and disability benefits. Aside from state pensions, the biggest chunk of our social security budget goes on housing benefits and the level of support claimants get varies widely across the country, depending on the housing market in different areas, whether a claimant lives in private rented accommodation or social housing, and their income levels, because it is a means-tested benefit that is gradually reduced as earnings or incomes rise. Someone living in London renting in private sector accommodation and working in a minimum-wage job would receive a lot more in local housing allowance than someone in similar circumstances in my constituency for example, simply because the market rents are so much lower in my constituency. It is hard for me to see how we get away from variable rates of housing support given the huge disparities in housing costs across the UK, so we would still be left with means-testing for large numbers of people. Unless we are very careful on how withdrawal tapers are managed, a lot of people in rented accommodation could be left substantially worse off.

Similarly, there would still need to be capability assessments of some sort for those unfit for work, assuming that we recognise that sick and disabled people face extra costs and have less recourse to alternative income streams. In some cases, people will need long-term support. If one of the advantages of basic income models is that it gets away from harsh conditionality regimes and punitive sanctions, the problem for sick and disabled people is that they would still be subject to assessments and conditions even if the benefits themselves are non-means-tested.

I retain an open mind about the merits of basic income models, but until we examine specific models, it is impossible to fully assess the pros and cons or any potential unintended consequences of such substantial policy change. We need to be cautious in our approach, while looking carefully at the emerging evidence on how these models might work in practice and could be used to benefit people in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

The truth is that right in front of us now, since the outcome of the referendum, we have a mixture of opportunities and challenges. It is incumbent upon us to turn those challenges into opportunities, and we are determined as a Government to do so. If the Opposition want to do their bit, they can stand up and not talk down the British economy at this time.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Already during this Parliament the Government’s austerity cuts have taken more than £12 billion out of the pockets of low-income households, mostly through changes initiated by the DWP. With many economists predicting a further recession as a consequence of Brexit, and the pound now less stable than Bitcoin, will the Secretary of State assure me that he will not allow those on low and middle incomes to bear the brunt of further economic downturn?

[Stephen Crabb]

On previous occasions I have set out the broad approach I take to welfare reform. With regard to issues in Scotland, with which I know the hon. Lady is primarily concerned, she should be aware that I had a very constructive meeting last week with her colleague Angela Constance, the welfare Minister in the Scottish Parliament. We remain absolutely committed to giving the Scottish Government the new welfare powers agreed to in the Scotland Act 2016.

[Dr Whiteford]

In the past week, for the fourth year in a row, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority has given the roll-out of personal independence payments an “amber/red” rating, indicating that

“successful delivery of the project/programme is in doubt with major risks apparent in a number of key areas”

and adding that “urgent action” is needed to address the problems. What is the Secretary of State going to do to fix these problems, and how does he intend to protect his Department’s projects from the impending doom of a Cabinet full of Brexiteers?

[Stephen Crabb]

Any big project, whether it is the introduction of universal credit or the roll-out of PIP, carries substantial risks, and I think the IPA report recognised that fact. In the past four months, since I have been in the Department, I have been committed to driving through improvements to the PIP process. PIP still commands broad support across disability organisations, which recognise that it is a much better benefit than the old-style disability living allowance.

Employment for People with Disabilities

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) and the other hon. Members who have spoken in today’s debate. Between Cornwall, Northern Ireland and Scotland, the Celtic fringes have been well represented this morning. I just wonder where everyone else is.

We debated this subject in the main Chamber a few weeks ago, and many of the issues raised in that debate have been rehearsed today. I note the hon. Gentleman’s special interest in the lives of learning disabled adults, which I am sure we all share, but it is important that we have had a broader debate today. The hon. Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) made helpful distinctions between the different challenges faced by those with lifelong disabilities and those with acquired disabilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) and others set out the wider context of disabled people’s lives.

I still have deep-seated concerns about the difficulties that disabled people face in accessing the labour market and staying in work, especially those with more severe and fluctuating conditions. I have pointed out many times the flaws in the current system and how they combine to make circumstances extremely challenging for those who have to overcome barriers to employment because of disability or health conditions. Those flaws include the shortcomings of the work capability assessment; the failures of the Work programme; the devastating impact of the new sanctions regime on people who are found potentially fit for work or work-related activity but who cannot comply with the conditions attached to their ESA or jobseeker’s allowance; support being cut in people’s transition from DLA to PIP; and people’s income being reduced by cuts to ESA and work allowances.

Life has got a whole lot harder for many disabled people over the past few years. The support for many of those who are in work has been reduced, and those who are looking for work or taking part in work-related activity have been put under enormous pressure to comply with unrealistic conditions. Those who are not fit for work have too often felt themselves to be scapegoated or demonised as shirkers and malingerers and subjected to repeated and counterproductive assessments of their fitness to work. Too many disabled people, both in work and out of work, have experienced a lack of respect and understanding in their encounters with the state and have felt their dignity undermined.

Austerity has taken a very heavy toll on disabled people, yet there has not been much gain for all that pain. The rate of disabled people’s employment has been stuck for quite some time. I have previously been very critical of the assumption at the heart of Government that the support offered to sick and disabled people through social security creates, to quote the Chancellor, “perverse incentives” to keep them out of the workforce. There is no evidence that slashing the incomes of sick and disabled people helps them to find work. Quite the reverse: austerity has compromised the health and wellbeing not only of sick and disabled people but of the family members who support and look after them. Taking away the entitlement to a Motability car from thousands of people makes it significantly harder for them to sustain employment or to get into work. It reduces their options and increases their dependency on family members. Raising the bar on entitlement to support means that carers of those who lose benefits also lose their support but still have to provide the care for free.

I have met too many constituents with long-term health conditions who have fallen through the safety net of social security. Despite having worked and contributed for decades prior to the breakdown of their health, they have dropped out of the system altogether. Frankly, I am sick of referring people for church food parcels who should be getting better support from statutory agencies. There is recognition on both sides of the House that the UK needs to take a very different approach. The Government promised us a White Paper in the spring; then it was summer; then it was a Green Paper, and now the prospect has since been batted even further into the long grass. Yes, let us take time to reflect and to get this right, but we still need a timescale. I sincerely hope that the Minister will set that out today—this is a great opportunity to do so.

The consultation period ahead of the Green Paper gives the Government an opportunity to get disabled people around the table, along with organisations that represent their interests. There is a lot of expertise out there, and valuable perspectives on what does and does not work. For instance, Disability Agenda Scotland points out that the Work Choice programme has been far more effective in delivering results—sustained employment—than the Work programme and provides more intensive and extensive support for participants. A third of those taking part in the Work Choice programme delivered by the employability service of the Scottish Association for Mental Health find sustained employment, which is significantly more than for any other approach of which I am aware. Advisers have limited case loads and spend much more time with each person and with employers, and they also help people to apply for Access to Work funding.

In contrast, most of the emphasis in current programmes is on helping to prepare and equip unemployed disabled people for the workplace. If we want to secure a step change, the real trick is to prepare and equip employers not just to take on more disabled staff but to retain staff who become disabled or develop long-term health problems. Access to Work can play a crucial role in aligning the needs of businesses with employment programme outcomes, but it can also help businesses to adapt when a valued employee develops a condition that makes it harder for them to do their job. I wholly accept that certain jobs and certain conditions may be incompatible, but there are many, many occupations that can be sustained with the right adaptations.

This cannot just be about changing employers’ attitudes. Let us acknowledge that the take-up of schemes such as Disability Confident has been fairly low. We have seen some degree of cultural change in recent years in terms of flexible working, which has probably been driven more by labour market requirements than by concerns about disabled people’s employment rights. We should also remember that flexibilities have cut both ways, with a sharp rise in zero-hours contracts and more insecure and unpredictable working patterns. The hon. Member for South Down, echoed by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), made a good point about legal and human rights protections for disabled people, and those issues need to be part of our debate—they are perhaps more contextually important now than they have been for some time in the wake of the events of the past couple of weeks.

In general, large public sector and voluntary organisations have been much more successful than smaller employers in employing disabled people, perhaps because they are more likely to have professional human resources or occupational health staff in situ. It might also be easier for larger organisations to cover unplanned absences. The challenges of taking on someone with, for example, a fluctuating condition are likely to be far more acute for a small business or in certain manufacturing processes. Encouraging cultural change will not cut it if there are no resources to back that up. We need to make it much easier and more affordable for employers to do more to support their disabled staff and to keep them in work.

Small and medium-sized businesses in particular need cost-effective ways of managing and mitigating what they see as the risks of taking on staff with a chequered work history. Most jobs in the UK are with small and medium-sized enterprises, which will therefore provide most of the opportunities for disabled staff. The potential win-win for employees and businesses will be huge if those hurdles can be overcome, but there is a need to build confidence by improving concrete support for employers in the event that, say, someone with a fluctuating condition has a relapse or goes through a spell where they cannot work at full capacity. If employers do not have some means of insulating themselves from such unpredictable situations, we are unlikely to make much headway in reducing the employment gap for disabled people.

The last time we debated these issues, I referred to the Resolution Foundation’s recent report on the retention deficit in employment. The report makes lots of practical suggestions for policy change, such as keeping a person’s job open for up to a year after the start of their sickness absence. The model is similar to maternity leave. It would help people to stay in work and it could also be of huge benefit to people who are recovering from illness and who are expected to make a full recovery, but it will only work if, say, we reimburse the statutory sick pay costs of firms that support their employees to make a successful return to work. I hope the Government are seriously considering those recommendations.

The Resolution Foundation also recommends making early referrals to support for people who find that they are unlikely to be able to return to their previous job, which will be a growing demographic challenge. We should not wait until someone becomes long-term unemployed before making targeted and individualised interventions. For those forced to leave work, the loss of personal confidence and social contact often pushes them further away from the labour market. I therefore hope that the Government take all that work on board.

In the absence of a Green Paper, disabled stakeholders, disability groups, community organisations, carers, employers and, indeed, MPs are all scrabbling about in the dark. The process needs to be transparent and inclusive, and I hope the Minister will get it properly under way and set out a timetable as soon as is feasible.

Disability Employment Gap

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I congratulate those on the Opposition Front Bench on calling this debate and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) on leading it earlier. If there is one lesson we can draw from today’s debate, it is that it is much easier to talk about closing the disability employment gap than it is actually to close it. I have lost count of the number of debates we have had in this place over the last few years about the shortcomings of the work capability assessment; the well-documented failures of the Work programme; the devastating impact of the new sanctions regime on people who are found fit for work or work-related activity but cannot then comply with the conditions attached to their employment and support allowance or jobseeker’s allowance; those whose support has been cut in the transition from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, including thousands who have lost access to their Motability vehicles, in some cases compromising their ability to get to and from work; and most recently, those who are going to receive £30 a week less in employment and support allowance or lose their work allowance.

Disabled people and those with long-term health conditions have borne the brunt of austerity cuts in recent years, yet in that time there has been no tangible improvement in the rate of disabled people’s employment. There has been an assumption on the Government side that the support we have offered to sick and disabled people in the past has discouraged them from seeking work. Last year, the Chancellor went so far as to talk about “perverse incentives” when he was trying to justify cutting the incomes of some of the most disadvantaged people in our communities, but there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that cutting support has helped disabled people to find work. Quite the reverse: I am sure that almost all of us will have encountered sick and disabled constituents who have fallen through the safety net of social security altogether.

I think the Government recognise that their reforms have failed many disabled people and failed to address the barriers to employment faced by many disabled people who could and would work with the right support. We were promised that we would have a White Paper long before now, but here we are in June and still waiting; the proposal has been batted off into the long grass. I am disappointed about the further delays, but I actually welcome the tacit acknowledgement that this whole project needs a lot more reflection. I share the view that we need a lot more input from disabled people, a lot more work with employers, and a very different approach that is centred on individuals. Yet more punitive austerity is not going to cut it; it will just cause yet more misery for disadvantaged people.

The consultations in advance of what is now going to be a Green Paper will provide an opportunity to get disabled people round the table with the wide range of voluntary organisations that represent their interests, so that those organisations can really listen to them. The consultations will also provide a chance to talk to employers about how they can best be supported to recruit and retain a disabled workforce. This will be a chance to do much better, and I really hope that this time round the Government will do things very differently. No one is pretending that this is easy. Part of the challenge is that when we talk about disabled people’s employment, we lump together as a group people who are every bit as diverse as society itself. We need to see the whole person, not the condition. We also need to recognise the wide variations in employment support needs.

We need to recognise that other aspects of a person’s life, such as whether they have qualifications, skills and work experience, will have a significant impact on their job prospects. We also cannot ignore the fact that the wider inequalities in our labour market—such as those associated with gender, age or ethnicity—intersect with and often compound the barriers associated with disability. Perhaps most significantly of all, we cannot ignore wider labour market conditions and the simple availability of work. At a time when insecure, temporary, part-time work is becoming far more prevalent for everyone in low-paid jobs, high-falutin’ talk about sustained employment for disabled people becomes a bit of a moot point.

There is much talk about changing employer attitudes. While I wholeheartedly agree that we can and should be doing much more to help employers take on and retain disabled staff, progress has been painfully slow, and the take-up of schemes such as Disability Confident has been pretty paltry. We have seen some degree of cultural change over recent years in terms of flexible working and not only for disabled people. Some larger employers have led the way in employing disabled people and carers in sustainable ways—it is important to mention that during Carers Week—but we have to be honest about how far cultural change can take us and how greater flexibility poses serious challenges for some sectors and for smaller businesses in particular. If the Government are serious about changing attitudes, that needs to be backed up with resources. We need to make it much easier and affordable for employers to do more to support their disabled staff and to keep them in work.

Like others, I read the Resolution Foundation’s report on retention deficit this week. It contains several useful, practical suggestions that merit much closer attention, including the idea of keeping a person’s job open for up to a year after the start of sickness absence—much like maternity leave—which could help people to stay in work. That could also be of huge benefit to people recovering from serious illness or surgery, but it will work only if employers are recompensed, as is suggested, by reimbursing statutory sick pay costs for firms that support their employees to make a successful return to work. Those things are worth exploring further.

Crucially, the Resolution Foundation also recommended making early referrals to whatever scheme replaces the Work Programme for people who find that they are unlikely to be able to return to their previous job. If we continue to wait until someone has become long-term unemployed before making targeted interventions, we will miss the boat. People often lose confidence and social contact if forced to leave work and can fall further away from the labour market. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that and about incentives for small businesses.

We have heard a different tone from the Government today. That is welcome, but it is hard to reconcile it with the reality of brutal cuts in income and the dehumanising experiences of recent years for disabled people. The Government will have to make a radical change of direction if they are to make any real difference to disabled people’s job prospects and to restore dignity to the whole process.

Universal Credit (Children)

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

We have had an unexpectedly concise, but nevertheless interesting, debate is afternoon. I echo the remarks of others who have paid tribute to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for securing the debate and giving us this opportunity to highlight the impacts that the universal credit scheme will have on children. Right at the heart of this matter are the recent cuts to the work allowance—implemented just last month—which are set to drive up child poverty quite considerably in the months and years ahead.

Back in January, when the Government performed their U-turn on tax credits, it was clear that the relief would be only temporary for many families. As we have heard today, the transition to universal credit will mean that 3 million working families will no longer be eligible for the support that they would have had under the tax credits system. A further 1.2 million working families will still receive support, but will be worse off. Therefore, according to the Resolution Foundation, 4.2 million families will be on average more than £40 a week worse off, even taking into account increases in the minimum wage and tax allowances.

When universal credit was first introduced, we were told that it would simplify and streamline our benefits system, that it would introduce greater flexibility for those in seasonal jobs or with fluctuating earnings and, crucially, that it would remove the financial disincentives to work created by the previous system. However, that is not what is happening in reality. The introduction of universal credit has simply been an excuse to cut family incomes, taking £3 billion a year out of the pockets of low-paid parents. As the Resolution Foundation report puts it, the latest cuts to universal credit risk leaving it

“little more than a vehicle for rationalising benefit administration and cutting costs to the Exchequer.”

That is a truly damning indictment.

The bottom line is that cutting the work allowance under universal credit has destroyed the very aspect that reduced work disincentives—the thing that made it a distinctive policy. The most potentially valuable aspect of universal credit has been butchered, and we are now left with a system that will reduce the incomes of more than 4 million low-income families. People are already working hard to support their families and are struggling to make ends meet. The change is set to send child poverty skyrocketing over the next few years. Far from creating work incentives, the reality is that cuts to the work allowance mean that parents in low-paid jobs face staggering levels of marginal taxation if they take on extra hours. There is no way around the fact that that reduces the incentive to take on extra work. If someone is going to be only 35p in the pound better off per hour, the extra earnings might not even cover their transport costs, much less their childcare.

Working single parents will be particularly badly affected by the changes, because they are being hit with dramatic income cuts. There is also a big disparity between those who live in rented accommodation and those who are owner-occupiers or otherwise not paying housing costs. In rented accommodation, a working couple with children will lose £234 a year, and a working single parent will lose £554 a year. The reductions in income are even starker for those not in rented accommodation. A working couple with children will lose more than £1,000 per year, but working single parents are set to lose a massive £2,628 a year on average.

[Angela Crawley]

A single parent already working full time on the national living wage—otherwise known as a modern increase on the minimum wage—of £7.20 an hour will have to work an additional 46 days a year, equating to two additional months. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is unacceptable?

[Dr Whiteford]

It is not only unacceptable, but completely unrealistic. When the measures were first debated, the Government tried to argue that families affected by the losses could simply work a few extra hours to cover the shortfall. Notwithstanding the availability of extra hours being entirely dependent on the employer’s circumstances—there might not be many extra hours going around in many workplaces at the moment—the Child Poverty Action Group pointed out, as did my hon. Friend just now, that a single parent working full time on the minimum wage would essentially have to work an extra day a week just to make up the shortfall. It is already hard for single parents to manage full-time work and family responsibilities, and I just cannot believe that it is good for them or their children for them to be taking on an extra day a week. Something has to give. People’s health will collapse. People’s children and family life will suffer. It is not the right thing to do.

The effect on families affected by disability will be disproportionate. At Work and Pensions questions yesterday, I mentioned the impact that the introduction of universal credit will have on disabled children. Some time ago, the Children’s Society and Citizens Advice published “Holes in the safety net”, a report which warned that the introduction of universal credit would mean dramatic cuts in support for some disabled children. Some 100,000 disabled children in the UK are likely to be affected and will see their support halved to just £29 a week. As we have heard today, families with a disabled child are twice as likely to be low-income families living in poverty. We know that. We also know that those who live with a significant disability face extra living costs, but it is sometimes too easy to gloss over the realities of day-to-day life for such children, their parents, and their brothers and sisters. Disability affects the whole family.

Some time ago, I worked for Carers Scotland and will never forget my conversations with parents of disabled children about their experiences, many of which were positive, but nevertheless also often enormously challenging, both financially and emotionally. I remember one working mother describing how she had had to give up a full-time professional career and work part time in a lower-paid job, simply because she could not find a nursery willing and able to take on the complex needs of her little boy. I remember another mother talking about realising that she would have to become a full-time stay-at-home parent after her second child was born with quite significant physical disabilities. She and her husband had recently bought a three-bedroom house to accommodate an expanding family, but they had to sell up and downsize, because that was all that they could afford on one income. At the very moment when they needed more space to accommodate growing toddlers and a wheelchair and to enable their elder child to sleep through the night without being woken up by a disabled sibling who needed care during the night, they were instead struggling to make ends meet. Families such as those, for whom £30 a week makes an enormous tangible difference to their quality of life, are being put on the front line.

On the other side of the coin are the cuts under universal credit to the severe disability premium paid to disabled adults, affecting some 25,000 children who live with a severely disabled parent. The level of support will be £58 a week less for such families. Even those in the ESA support group—those who have absolutely no prospect of being fit for work—will be entitled to £28 a week less than under the current system. That will inevitably have an impact on the children in those households, most of whom do not get any extra support at the moment, and it will make life even harder for young people who in some cases are already taking on age-inappropriate levels of domestic responsibility. The Government talk a lot about improving life chances, which we have heard again and again today, but slashing support for disabled children and the children of severely disabled adults who have no prospect of work will only harm those children’s already diminished life chances.

I asked the Government yesterday if their intention really was for low-income families and disabled children to bear the brunt of their cuts agenda. We have heard lots of suggestions today, such as those put forward by CPAG, the Children’s Society, the Resolution Foundation and others, for how the failing universal credit project could be redeemed, not least the need for a credible and up-to-date assessment of the overall impact on child poverty. Instead of trying to defend the indefensible, the Government have an opportunity to go back to the drawing board on universal credit and restore its original policy intent of supporting low-income working families. If they fail to take that opportunity, they will be confirming their reputation as the sort of people who think it is okay to make disabled children and hard-working parents in low-paid jobs pay for the tax breaks being enjoyed by the wealthiest in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, the point about the life chances strategy is that it will be a cross-government strategy. The focus will be integration and support. The troubled families programme has been very successful in transforming families and turning their circumstances around, supporting work and the right kind of outcomes. We are incredibly focused on and conscious of the need to integrate. Once the strategy is published, all hon. Members will see that completely.

The point about universal credit, of course, is that it removes barriers that prevent people from finding work and increasing their hours and earnings. Universal credit provides the right support to incentivise work and, in particular, removes some of the barriers that were in place, including the restrictions on hours worked, such as the 16-hour rule.

Not just in this debate but in others and in various Committees of this House, we have been very clear that universal credit claimants receive not only support from their work coaches but additional support for childcare costs. Our in-work progression trials have begun to test how work coaches can continue to provide tailored support to in-work claimants so that they can progress and, importantly, increase their earning capacity.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford]

I know that the issue of in-work claimants is still at a fairly embryonic stage, but 40% of the DWP’s own staff are likely to be affected by that in-work conditionality approach. I know that various hon. Members have asked the DWP for answers on whether it will offer those staff the extra hours they need to avoid being sanctioned and having their tax credits and universal credit cut. Will the Minister comment on that now?

[Priti Patel]

We have been very clear that universal credit is there to secure employment opportunities and in-work progression for everyone who is on it. I come back to the wider support universal credit provides for families, which has been touched on. Parents on universal credit can claim back 85% of their childcare costs when they move into work, compared with 70% under legacy benefits. This is a significant change and means that a working family with two children can now receive up to £13,000 a year in childcare support under universal credit.

Interestingly enough, prior to the recent elections in Scotland, I met the Scottish Minister responsible for childcare to consider the development and uptake of the childcare policy in Scotland, which mirrors many of the programmes that we have in England. Affordable childcare is crucial for working families and I look forward to working with the new Government in Scotland to ensure that we can provide all possible relevant support.

Support for disabled children was also mentioned. We should all be clear—I recall debating these points in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill Committee—that there is clear recognition of the extra costs associated with disabilities. Universal credit will provide support for families with disabled children. Of course, the point about the disabled child addition is that it provides extra support for low-income families with a disabled child. We know that caring responsibilities are enormous for parents with disabled children, and we also know that those parents are less able to take up work. They therefore need greater support, and that is obviously what we are focused on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

It is great to hear about the fantastic work in my hon. Friend’s constituency and I would like to meet him to discuss it further. We continue to upskill staff across the jobcentre network, increasing the number of disability advisers and making improvements to our Work programme and Work Choice programme.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The Children’s Society and Citizens Advice report that the families of about 100,000 disabled children, who currently receive support through DLA, are set to see that support halved under universal credit. That will have a real impact on their quality of life and longer-term life chances. With a new Secretary of State at the helm, Ministers have a chance to step back from the universal credit debacle. Will they look again at the impact on disabled children and look for fairer alternatives?

[Justin Tomlinson]

Again, I challenge the hon. Lady back on that. Any analysis of universal credit has to take into account the introduction of the national living wage, the extension of childcare, support for working parents and increases to the personal tax allowance. It is a simpler system. More generous childcare provision supports those who work for just a few hours and there will be a named contact. As we have previously set out, the PIP benefit system is far more generous than the old DLA system.

[Dr Whiteford]

The research of reputable organisations simply does not bear that out. The reality is that disabled children are not the only ones who will lose out under universal credit. A devastating report by the Resolution Foundation published just last week found that, even with tax allowances and the increase in the minimum wage, under universal credit half a million working families will be significantly worse off. Disabled people, disabled children and low-income working families—are these really the people the Tories want to target to pay for austerity cuts and tax cuts for the rich?

[Justin Tomlinson]

We are doing more to support working households. The proportion of people in relative poverty who live in a family with someone who is disabled has fallen since 2010. There are a number of exemptions to all our benefit cap and freeze announcements, including for those on PIP, DLA, industrial injuries benefit, attendance allowance and employment and support allowance. Following further talks, we will include carer’s allowance and guardian’s allowance.