Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Like housing, the cost of childcare has weaved its way through these debates, as we have considered a Bill that places significant new burdens on working families with children. The rising cost of childcare is not a new phenomenon, but it has certainly made life more difficult in recent years for working parents, who have seen their incomes largely flatline, whereas the cost of childcare has been going up.

According to figures compiled by the Family and Childcare Trust, the costs for preschool children have increased by 20% in real terms over the past decade. Between 2007 and 2013, the proportion of families who said that they found it either difficult or very difficult to pay for childcare increased from 18% to 26%. In the past five years, as prices have continued to outstrip wages, the trend has worsened to the point where the average family will pay an additional £1,500 a year in nursery fees compared with what they paid in 2010.

The impact on families with the lowest incomes, regardless of whether they work, has been particularly alarming. Children living with parents who have to pay for childcare are now a third more likely to live in poverty once those costs have been taken into account. The Bill, which attempts to redefine poverty by focusing on whether anyone in a household works, instead of on how much working households can earn, will effectively ignore the problem. That does not make it any less real, however, for real families in the real world, and it should not blind the Committee to the fact that there is a lack of consistency in the Government’s approach, which seeks to impose strict requirements on parents to support themselves solely through work while providing less and less support to cover the costs of the childcare that would make work an option.

It is significant in that context that 41% of parents who responded to a survey carried out by Citizens Advice last year said that the cost of childcare either prevented them from working at all, or, if they already worked, prevented them from increasing their hours. That will not be helped by a promise to increase the number of hours of childcare available, as long as the promise simply remains a promise and is, frankly, no more than an unfunded commitment. We have discussed that commitment at length during previous debates in this Committee and the fact that the Childcare Bill, which is currently making its way through the other place, is a four-page Bill, which does not increase the confidence of Opposition Members that this pledge is realistic.

The most obvious concerns—I will not rehearse them all this morning—are that the extension is inadequately funded; that the Government have yet to outline their plans for increasing the number of childcare places to meet any increase in demand; and that we have had no indication that any additional support will be made available for single parents who will be expected to be available for work as a result of measures in this Bill. It seems telling to us that when we put forward an amendment saying effectively that no parent should be forced to work unless adequate childcare is in place, Government Members felt it necessary to vote against such a reasonable amendment. That group of people will be hit particularly hard by the regressive four-year freeze on working-age benefits and tax credit, which clauses 9 and 10 provide for. I remind the Committee that single parents make up 56% of families receiving both working tax credit and child tax credit. If the extension of free hours is inadequately funded—I would welcome any evidence to the contrary—it is inevitable that the out-of-pocket costs parents are forced to pay will increase as sharply in the next five years as they have in the past five years.

Freezing the level of working tax credit, under which working parents can claim reimbursement for up to 70% of their childcare costs, is particularly counterintuitive if the aim is to make work pay, as the Government continue to insist it is. If we assume that childcare costs will rise at the usual pace over the four years during which the payments are frozen, the amount that working parents will be able to claim for support with childcare costs will fund fewer and fewer hours each year. In those circumstances, the only option for many parents will be to cut back on the hours they work, which would seem to be at odds with the underlying principle of the so-called Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Parents who take such a step, which the Bill as it stands would make an entirely logical choice, will leave themselves open to harsh penalties under the sanctions regime if they find themselves unable to work altogether.

New clause 8, which would require the Secretary of State to undertake an annual review of the childcare element of working tax credit, would not require that the sums involved necessarily be increased, but would simply acknowledge that a four-year freeze in all benefits and tax credits is an extreme measure that will tie the Government’s hands in all circumstances. Economic growth may, for example, significantly exceed expectations over the next four years—that seems unlikely, but it is possible. Were that to happen, the freeze might prove unnecessary and more extreme in its effects, widening the gulf between the incomes of low-income families and the costs they are expected to cover.

It might also be the case—this seems somewhat more likely—that the promised extension of free childcare will not materialise according to the Government’s plans. In that scenario, significant costs will continue to fall to parents, whether they are working or looking for work. I would like to think that, in such circumstances, the Secretary of State would be open-minded enough to admit that tax credit payments specifically earmarked to cover working parents’ childcare costs might need to increase at a level that was adequate to ensure that those costs remained affordable. If the intention behind the Bill is, as the Government say, to give people an incentive to work and to ensure that work always pays, more flexibility is surely called for.

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

A very good morning to the Committee.

The new clause seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State would have to review the level of the childcare element of working tax credit annually, and that that review would be used to determine the maximum rate at which that element was set.

By way of background, I should say that the childcare element, like a number of other elements of tax credits, has never been automatically increased as part of an annual review, but we do keep it under review. Indeed, since its inception in 1994 as part of family credit and disability working allowance, it has increased from a starting rate of £40 per family towards the costs of childcare to its present-day level, where the Government contribute 70% of childcare costs up to £175 a week for one child or £300 a week for two or more children. Under universal credit, as the Committee has discussed, that will increase to 85% of childcare costs.

In addition, the Government have taken significant steps to increase support for childcare for working families, including by extending free entitlement to childcare for working parents of three and four-year-olds to 30 hours—an increase on the 15 hours allowed for in the last Parliament—and by providing for 15 hours of free childcare a week for two-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds. We also have the forthcoming introduction of tax-free childcare, which will benefit up to 1.8 million working families by up to £2,000 per year per child, or by up to £4,000 per year for disabled children.

[Emily Thornberry]

I have been sitting here processing what the Minister has said, and I believe that she told the Committee at the outset of her speech that the Government have kept the cost of childcare continually under review. If that is right, there is not a huge gap between us. Given the alarm that is spreading across the country over cuts in benefits and whether working families will be able to make ends meet, would it be a good idea to give a commitment today that the review will happen annually? We would not need to discuss the matter any further.

[Priti Patel]

We take the view that the new clause is not needed. The childcare element has never been included in formal annual uprating reviews, and the Bill does nothing to change that. The Government already keep the level of the childcare element under review, as we have said. We are committed to helping families with childcare through some of the areas to which I have already alluded. On that basis, the new clause is not needed and I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

[Emily Thornberry]

This was largely a probing new clause, and I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Changes to age of eligible claimants of housing benefit

‘(1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 130(1) insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State shall not make provision about eligibility for housing benefit in respect of the age of a claimant except by primary legislation.”.’—(Hannah Bardell.)

This New Clause aims to ensure that any changes to the age of eligible claimants for housing benefit must be made by primary legislation rather than regulation. The Government intends to withdraw entitlement to housing benefit from 18-21 year olds and it is understood this change would be enacted by regulation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

Indeed; what can I say?

The SNP fully supports the intention behind Labour’s new clause, and we seek to prevent any young person from being locked out of the housing system due to age. We heard our youngest Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), speak passionately in her maiden speech about the fact that she would be the only 18 to 21-year-old in the UK who would be supported in housing under the Conservative Government’s proposals. We have already said that we will support Labour’s new clause 10, because we share the concerns of the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury.

The SNP is concerned that the Government’s intention to remove young people’s access to support with their housing costs could lead to an increase in youth homelessness. According to Crisis, youth homelessness is already on the rise, with 8% of 16 to 24-year-olds recently reported as homeless. In four years, the number of young people sleeping rough in London has more than doubled. In a written answer on 14 September the Government confirmed they would restrict 18 to 21-year-olds from access to housing benefit. Their rationale, which we believe is deeply flawed, was cited as a wish not to allow young people to slip into a lifetime of benefits. The Government may not realise that it is not simply a matter of people deciding to have to rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over their head; many young people are not able to live at home with their parents for a variety of reasons. The fact that the Government are already squeezing the pockets of working families and families with more children will make it even harder for parents to afford to keep their children at home for longer.

Of the 19,000 18 to 21-year-olds who will be affected by the change, 60% are in social housing, all of whom will have been subjected to the stringent eligibility test and only deemed a priority by the local authority because they are in need. The remainder of those eligible for help live in the private rented sector and receive the shared accommodation rate—the lowest rung of housing benefit, according to Shelter, barely enough to cover a room at the bottom end of the market.

We have seen the increase in housing costs across the UK, which has locked out this sector of society. That is frankly wrong. The Government have failed young people by failing to provide economic opportunities and stability in the workforce. Growing numbers of talented young people are left unemployed. The Minister cannot simply say, “Stay at home, and your parents will look after you”, because that is regressive and smacks of a lack of vision. Many young people cannot live at home and housing benefit is the only thing that stands between them and homelessness. Between 2010 and 2014 Crisis helped to create 8,120 tenancies in the private rented sector for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, with support from the Department for Communities and Local Government.

The SNP believes it is unfair to restrict entitlement to a benefit based solely on age rather than on evidential grounds. We support Labour’s wish for a blanket ban on the Government restricting entitlement based on age, but as the answer to a written question on 14 September confirmed, it looks likely that the Tories are intent on locking young people out of this lifeline. That is why we have tabled new clause 12, which would provide restrictions related to vulnerable people who may be impacted. I recognise that the Government have said that they will bring forward exemptions for particularly vulnerable young people, but the full details of that proposal are not in the Bill. We tabled the new clause to ensure that young people in the circumstances that I have described are protected.

[Emily Thornberry]

Does the hon. Lady agree with me that it is very important to look closely at what the Government say counts as vulnerable? One can imagine them saying that they are going to look after vulnerable youngsters, but their definition will be restricted. For example, they may include young people leaving care but not anyone else. We need to be careful, because Opposition Members’ definition of vulnerability may be different from what Ministers are trying to get away with.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady must have read my mind. I was just coming on to the point about care leavers and those who have experienced violence or abuse. As the hon. Lady says, the categorisation of those who are vulnerable must be a unified approach. We must be in agreement on that throughout the House. Some young people may be unable to live with their parents because of relationship breakdown—for example, if they have been thrown out because of family circumstances such as a parent remarrying—or because of their own lifestyle choices or sexuality, but they might find that difficult to prove. Many young people who have found themselves homeless are currently supported into accommodation funded by housing benefit, either by a local authority or by a homelessness organisation. Without that support, those vulnerable groups will be homeless and unable to meet housing costs. Housing benefit helps those people live independently when living at home is no longer an option, and removing it could leave people choosing between returning to a destructive family home or the street.

Accepting the new clause would at least show that the Government were serious about their commitment to protect the most vulnerable, which we must have within the law. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, and I urge hon. Members to support our new clause 12 as well as Labour’s new clause 10, to ensure that vulnerable young people can access housing support to keep them off the streets.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

As everyone always says, it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.

[Emily Thornberry]

She means it!

[Jess Phillips]

I really mean it. It is an honour.

As soon as I heard of the plans for the removal of housing benefit from those aged 18 to 21, I was understandably alarmed. There are many reasons why, and I have discussed with colleagues on the Government Benches. I took to my feet in Prime Minister’s questions and asked the stand-in Prime Minister, the Chancellor, to guarantee that certain vulnerable groups would be exempt from the changes. I highlighted to him then, as I do to the Committee now, that every year, Women’s Aid conducts a survey of residents to provide socio-demographic information about a sample of women residents living in refuge services in one day. Last year, on that one single day, 132 women living in refuges were aged 18 to 20. In Birmingham, women aged 18 to 21, who had been beaten and tortured, raped and belittled, made up 25% of all residents living in Birmingham and Solihull Women’s Aid refuges. Almost all will have received housing benefit to live in the refuge and stay safe. That gives an idea of the number of women in that group.

Anyone who has ever worked in supported accommodation with victims of domestic violence will know that that group—those living in refuge—represent the tip of the iceberg of those living within the community and suffering the same thing. As an example, in the last year that I worked in refuge, 800 people came through our refuge services, and 8,000 were rehoused in the community. That means that around 10% were in refuge. From those figures, we can see how many people within the community are fleeing violence. If we take the idea that 25% of those people are aged 18 to 21, the Committee will see my concern.

Up and down the country there are young people who simply cannot live with their parents, such as abuse victims, care leavers and kids whose parents have died, moved away or simply do not want them to live with them. Those are people with little or no earning power, no networks and no safety net. I want the Government to answer this simple question: where will those people live?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause gives hon. Members the opportunity to put the Government out of their misery and abolish the changes they believe they wish to make on tax credits. The Government claim that they have a mandate to impose massive cuts to tax credits, which will blow a hole in working families’ budgets in a few months’ time, but they have no such mandate. The Conservative party went into an election this year with a vague aspiration to reduce welfare spending by an abstract figure of £12 billion which, because of an almost complete lack of specifics, almost no one took seriously. Of course, the Prime Minister made clear that he was not going to touch tax credits, so he has broken his promise to the people. Those people will not forget.

The cuts to tax credits that the Government recently introduced undermine one of the bedrock principles of welfare reform, which we thought was shared by all the parties, which is that hard work should be rewarded. Indeed, when Gordon Brown introduced the new rules and payments, he did it so discreetly that many people probably did not even know that it was a politician that had made the decision. He discreetly redistributed income, he discreetly made it right that work should pay and that, instead of the taxman taking taxes away, the taxman would give people money in their pay packet in order to make sure that they could work, hold their heads up high and support their families. I remember speaking on the doorsteps about tax credits to many people who asked the classic question, “What did Labour ever do for me?” I would explain about tax credits and they simply thought that it was something to which they were entitled. Now they will realise that it was a political decision. When they get their letter at Christmas from the Chancellor telling them that they will be losing £1,000 or £2,000, what a happy Christmas it will be for these poor families. The letter will be care of this Government, who were not elected with a mandate to do that.

The view that hard work should be rewarded was shared by all parties. Between them, the 11 Conservative members of the Committee represent 40,000 working families with children who will be hit by the cuts. Some 4,000 working families with children will be affected in Louth and Horncastle; 3,900 working families with children will be affected in Bury St Edmunds; 4,300 working families with children will be affected in North Devon; 2,500 working families with children will be affected in East Hampshire; 4,700 working families with children will be affected in Cannock Chase; 2,600 working families with children will be affected in Hexham; 2,700 working families with children will be affected in Witham; 3,500 working families with children will be affected in Sutton and Cheam; 3,100 working families with children will be affected in Elmet and Rothwell; 5,700 working families with children will be affected in North West Cambridgeshire; and 3,000 working families with children will be affected in Faversham and Mid Kent. That is a large number of families and a large number of constituents. I ask those Members to consider that very seriously when deciding what to do this morning.

The impact will be immediate. There will be no transitional measures—the funding simply stops. As I said, families will find out over Christmas that they will suddenly lose more than £2,000 a year. We are talking about families for whom that amount of money can make the difference between keeping their head above water and not. Conservative as well as Opposition members of the Committee will find desperate families coming to see them, probably not even appreciating that they have been on what the Tories call “welfare”. They have been dependent on the state in order to ensure that their work pays. Indeed, some may even have been tempted to vote Conservative on the basis that it was a good idea for the welfare bill to be cut, not realising that they would be affected, and thinking that it would affect some other family that they know nothing about, a long way away or down at the bottom of a council estate, that they would never come across. They believe they are doing the right thing, doing what the Government expect, what their morality expects them to do and yet, nevertheless, they will be penalised. It will be down to them to help pay off the deficit and the debt caused by bankers and the international financial crisis at a time when the Government believe that their priority ought to be cutting taxes paid by the richest in order to allow them to pass on their riches to the next generation. The Government have changed the tax rates in order to give tax breaks to the richest, and they have decided that the people who should be penalised are those who can hardly fight for themselves, and who are doing their best for themselves and their families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Has she read the article in the British Medical Journal last week, which looked at the impact on child poverty? It stated that an extra 200,000 children will be plunged into poverty, but it also looked at the effect on child health. The UK already has the highest rate of child mortality for under-fives, which can be directly attributed to the additional child poverty that is faced in this country. The implications of this are really significant.

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There are many arguments against the tax credit cuts, and although it is tempting to rehearse all of them this morning, another debate is going on elsewhere. Essentially, I cut down a long speech to a short one to make the main points.

I was talking about the policy being a failure in moral terms, as my hon. Friend illustrates well. The focus today might be down in the Chamber, but members of this Committee have the real power. They have in our hands the power to do the right thing and to put the interests of working families in their constituencies ahead of the interests of their party. They have in their hands the power to put the interests of children in some of the poorest working families first, remembering that, even as things stand, two thirds of children in poverty have a parent in work. How much worse will it be after they have suffered the cuts to tax credits?

I am sure that Conservative Members who have an interest in this field are, deep down, genuinely and gravely concerned. When we put the new clause to the vote and when their Whip holds up the piece of paper saying no, will they look aside, think about the thousands of their constituents who will be so greatly affected by the Bill and vote with their conscience, vote the right way, and stop this now?

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady has made a powerful speech. I will not drag out my comments on a painful and frankly despicable assault on our society. Much has been said about tax credits and I would like to give a bit of a Scottish flavour to the debate.

Since the election campaign and throughout this Parliament, the SNP has opposed the Bill in its entirety and the cuts to child tax credits in particular. It is important to highlight the findings of the IFS, that it was “arithmetically impossible” for families to do better with the limited increase in the living wage. We are talking about an attack on low-income families and vulnerable working families. In Scotland more than 500,000 children live in families that rely on tax credits to make ends meet; 350,000 of those children will feel the impact of the cuts as much needed tax credits are stripped away from more than 200,000 low-income families.

The austerity measures proposed by the Conservative Government are disproportionately harming the poorest and most vulnerable households while giving tax breaks to the better-off, thus increasing inequality, not closing the gap. Much has been said about families claiming benefits and families in work as if they were different people, different sections of society, but the reality is that the majority of people who will be affected by the provisions of the Bill are families in work.

The changes are regressive; they take proportionately more from low-income households and give to the richer ones. Planned cuts to tax credits increase the burden on the working poor and the children living in such households. The IFS has found that 63% of children living in poverty are in working households—I repeat: 63% of children living in poverty are in working households. The increase in the minimum wage for people aged 25 and over, which has been wrongly branded a living wage, is nowhere near enough to offset the cuts. The changes run contrary to the Government’s own policy of making work pay and they weaken the incentives to work, because the impact of cuts will fall disproportionately on low-income working families. This is not war on poverty; this is war on the poor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I will restate my point. Nine in 10 families with children were eligible for tax credits. That was reduced to six in 10 in 2010 following the coalition’s reform in the last Parliament. The present reforms will reduce that and take tax credit spending back to where it was in 2008 and not, as Opposition Members suggest, to a world without tax credits. Alongside the tax credits changes, we are introducing the national living wage, which, we have clearly heard, Opposition parties do not support. That will be worth more than £9 an hour by 2020.

[Emily Thornberry]

With great respect, the right hon. Lady is talking nonsense. Of course we support wages going up by whatever means that can be done. What we do not support is the ridiculous associated rhetoric suggesting that the proposals are somehow taking over or working on the national living wage campaign, which is based on a completely different set of statistics. It is typical of the Conservative party to try to confuse people and confabulate as it is doing. Of course we support increases in wages.

[Priti Patel]

It is typical of the Labour party to scaremonger and distort some of the facts that we have heard, as well.

The national living wage will be worth more than £9 an hour by 2020. The increase in the personal allowance is part of a single thought-out and coherent plan to ensure that people keep more of their money, rather than having more of their income taxed. The new national living wage means that someone working full time on the current national minimum wage will have a pay rise of nearly £1,000 gross next year, and about £5,000 by 2020. Of course, the personal allowance will go up from £11,000 to £12,500, which means a typical taxpayer will pay more than £1,000 less income tax by 2020.

The Opposition have given illustrations of their view, and I want to give illustrative examples of how families will benefit over the course of the Parliament when the welfare and tax changes announced in the Budget are taken fully into consideration. The income of a couple with two children where only one parent is in work on the current national minimum wage will increase by £2,480. The income of a lone parent with one child working 35 hours at the current national minimum wage will rise by £1,500. A family with two children where the parents are working 35 hours a week on the national minimum wage will see their income increase by £5,500. And a single person with no children working 35 hours on the current national minimum wage will see their income rise by more than £2,000.

There will also be a wider ripple effect in the economy, which is growing, through the national living wage pushing up wages above the current national minimum wage. As we have discussed, not just in this clause but in previous ones, we are committed to doubling free childcare for three to four-year-olds and providing £5,000 of support in childcare for working parents.

No analysis has taken into account those factors from 2016, with the wider ripple effects, which are set to benefit more than 3 million working people. On top of the uplift in the free childcare, there is the £2,000 per child that working families and parents will be entitled to through tax-free childcare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My understanding is that tax-free childcare will cover after-school clubs and school holidays, but I will get clarification—[Interruption.] Well, I will give the hon. Lady clarification.

The point I would like to make is that, as we discussed in the previous sitting, the Government have a very strong record on childcare provision, tax-free childcare and support for disadvantaged two-year-olds. The fact that we have been spending in excess of £5 billion on supporting childcare provision for working families should be welcomed by all parties. It is sad that political parties choose to point-score about childcare provision.

We are clearly going to disagree on the content of the new clause. I have highlighted how the increased personal allowance, the national living wage and the welfare changes announced in the summer Budget will provide support for working families. For the reasons I have set out, the new clause is not appropriate for inclusion in the Bill, and I urge the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury to withdraw it.

[Emily Thornberry]

We will not withdraw the new clause, Mr Streeter.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Emily Thornberry]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is about having a review of the application of sanctions. Many shadows have fallen upon our discussions over the past few weeks. This particular shadow is whether there is a link between welfare reform and work. What happens to people who do not live up to the requirements imposed on them?

Too often in recent years the Government’s focus has been on a target-driven approach that has assumed that anyone out of work simply lacks willpower. The cornerstone of that approach has been the sanctions regime. The Committee might remember that the previous Minister for Employment, who lost her seat at the last election, took the view that

“people who get sanctions are wilfully rejecting support for no good reason”.

The evidence, however, had she or any of her colleagues cared to look, suggests otherwise.

As the Minister frequently reminds us, and as I am sure she will remind us again today, it is true that conditions have always been attached to the social safety net since unemployment benefit was first introduced in 1911. Nevertheless, the Government mislead the public when they fail to acknowledge that the sanctions regime introduced as part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 marked a radical departure from the history of the welfare state and from the entire principle of evidence-based policy making.

The official justification of the Department for Work and Pensions for sanctions remains that

“they are there to encourage claimants to take reasonable steps to find employment or move closer to the labour market”,

but its own impact assessment for the 2012 changes acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence for the proposed approach achieving that. Since then, of course, extensive evidence has emerged that demonstrates that sanctions are deeply counterproductive if helping people into work is really the intention.

The number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance has fallen since 2012, but that has coincided with a significant rise in the number of people whom the Office for National Statistics classes as economically inactive—not unemployed or claiming jobseeker’s allowance, but statistically almost non-people. Interestingly, many of those economically inactive people, if asked why they have become economically inactive, give their reason as being discouraged. So that is their reason—they have been discouraged and so dropped out of the labour market altogether. I would have thought it was important to do some work on what “discouraged” means and on the experiences of those discouraged people, because there might well be a clear link between cause and effect.

Research published in January by Oxford’s Professor David Stuckler found that, of those sanctioned between 2011 and 2014 who subsequently stopped claiming benefits altogether, only 20% said that it was because they had found work. According to the professor, all those people were sanctioned and 80% of them then stopped claiming benefits, but not because they had found work. So they are all off the jobseeker’s allowance statistics and are no longer unemployed. In some ways, therefore, perhaps there has been some success.

To the extent that increased sanctions have had an identifiable impact at all, it has been to increase dramatically the levels of hardship and poverty in recent years, as illustrated most starkly in the extraordinary rise in food bank use. I do not know how many Members were at the Trussell Trust breakfast this morning, but one of the stories I heard arose because the trust has started to give medical advice at some of its food banks. It was giving medical advice to a nurse who had a condition that meant she needed to take various pills. The nurse in her knew that she had to take the pills regularly, but the mother in her knew that, because their tax credits had been wrongly taken away and they were in great need, she had to give the food in the cupboard to her children. So she was taking the pills without having eaten anything and was causing herself more harm. There are hundreds of thousands of these stories and unfortunately things seem to be getting worse, not better. We understand that last year, a million people took advantage of food banks. One has to wonder what would happen if they were not available. According to the 2014 survey by the Trussell Trust, 83% of food banks said that the new sanctions regime had caused an increase in the number of people needing their help.

Another very odd thing about the sanctions regime, which would be addressed if the new clause were accepted, is that different towns and villages have different numbers of people going to food banks and different levels of sanctions. There is one jobcentre where in one month, 40% of people were on sanctions. If there are such extraordinary variations happening within the system, there is clearly unfairness. If individuals within jobcentres are given powers and exercise them with a wide element of discretion, that discretion will clearly be exercised differently in different jobcentres. In some areas there will be more strain on food banks, let alone on the poorest and most vulnerable who continue to be sanctioned.

[Neil Coyle]

It might surprise my hon. Friend to learn that part of the strain on the resources of the food bank in Southwark, which is provided by Pecan as part of the Trussell Trust’s network, comes from people in work. Some 10% of that food bank’s users are working, and the Government have just made that a whole lot worse with their tax credit changes.

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend is right. The range of people going to food banks is very alarming. It is not enough to say, “Oh well, it’s because people know that there are food banks now. They didn’t know about them in the past, but now they do, and they are going in because it’s free and taking a can of beans, but they don’t really need it.” That may be how some Government Members feel that people behave. There is another point of view, which is that to go to a food bank is completely humiliating. It is the worst.

I raise my own personal experience again. After my family got thrown out by the men with the bowler hats and went into social housing, I remember my mother used to get boxes of food from friends. It was embarrassing, but it was the way we kept things together; there were no food banks at that point. I remember that one of the food boxes always used to include Campbell’s meatballs. My mother kept them under the stairs and threatened us that if we did not eat what was on our plates, we were going to have to eat the meatballs instead. They may still be under the stairs for all I know. But at least those boxes of food were delivered to our door, instead of my mother having to go out to ask for food. That is humiliating for anybody, for heaven’s sake.

What the Government’s sanctions regime has brought us is increased hardship and suffering, with no tangible gains in the likelihood that those affected will move into work as a result. If we could be confident that all this suffering was resulting in something good, that there was meaning and that people were moving into work who would not have moved into work otherwise—can the Conservative party show us some real evidence of that?—that would take some of the edge off the terrible stories that we hear, which show that the sanctions regime is simply unfair. How on earth do people manage if they are living from hand to mouth, have no savings and have exhausted the support they can ask for from their families and friends, but then are sanctioned a third time and given nothing for three months?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

Might I take advantage of this moment to point out that, when my local law centre takes up appeals on sanctions, it has a 100% success rate?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Cases are often overturned on appeal, but for someone on ESA—that means they are not well—going through that process is traumatic and can exacerbate the condition. I will come to that in a moment.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Oakley review, which reported in July 2014. It looked specifically at the JSA sanctioning. It was an important step, but there were still many unanswered questions, which is why the Select Committee wanted to look at it in more detail.

I am aware of the dreadful circumstances of food bank use to which my hon. Friend has alluded—in my area, 60% of food bank use is attributed to sanctions. More shockingly, I am aware of the reports of accidental deaths following sanctions. Those have been included in coroners’ reports, so I do not mention them lightly. David Clapson was one particular case. He was a former soldier who gave up his job with BT to care for his mum, who had dementia. When she died, he wanted to get back to work and signed on at the jobcentre. He missed an appointment with his job adviser and was sanctioned. He was diabetic. Without the £71.70 a week from his jobseeker’s allowance, he could not afford to eat or put credit on his electricity card to keep the fridge where he kept his insulin working. Three weeks later, David died from diabetic ketoacidosis caused by a severe lack of insulin. He was 59. A pile of CVs was found next to his body. The coroner said that, when he died, he had no food in his stomach. His sister, Gill Thompson, has campaigned tirelessly to get an independent review into sanctions. The petition she started has more than 211,000 signatures to date.

David is not the only person to have died following sanctions. There have been 49 peer reviews following the death of a claimant, but the DWP is still not prepared to release the details of whether sanctioning was involved. I hope Ministers reconsider that.

The Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry reported in March. If anything, the Opposition’s concerns from the previous inquiry worsened. The negative impacts on poverty, including child poverty, debt, physical and mental health, were reported. The Committee was given the example of a woman who had discharged herself when she was in hospital because she was frightened of being sanctioned.

There is evidence that the sanctions targets were driven by targets to get claimants off-flow, distorting the JSA figures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury has mentioned, the team from Oxford analysed data from 376 local authority areas and found that 43% of JSA claimants who were sanctioned left JSA. As my hon. Friend said, 80% did so without having a job.

The main recommendation from the Select Committee was for a more detailed independent inquiry. Matthew Oakley said that he expected that to happen. I am at a loss as to why the Government are dragging their feet. Surely that is the very least we should do for the people who have lost their lives following sanctions and for their relatives. I hope the Committee will do the right thing and support the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is right to give those examples. What happened is not right. He mentions accessible formats. I will go away and report back to him on that, but what happened in that case is simply not right—that should not have happened to someone with a visual impairment.

The Department is considering the contents of the Work and Pensions Committee report and looks forward to working with it not just on that, but on future reports.

I come back to my point that, with all our policies, we will keep the operation of the sanctions system under review. We are focusing our efforts on continuing to improve the process on JSA and ESA to ensure that the agreed recommendations can continue to be delivered in the existing universal credit live service and embedded into the design and build of the emerging universal credit digital service. On the basis that we have a system of continually reviewing the sanctions system and are looking at it with regard to the universal credit live and digital services, I urge the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury to withdraw the new clause.

[Emily Thornberry]

We will press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.