Health and Disability White Paper

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

May I first welcome what I think is a cautious welcome from the Opposition for the reforms that we are seeking to advance? I think it reflects some of the utterings that we have heard from Labour Members over recent weeks and months about the direction of travel they want, recognising that there will be people for whom work is not appropriate. I repeat the point that, where that is the case, we will not be expecting people to engage with this support, but it is right that that structural impediment to work is removed from the system, that those who want to work are supported in being able to do so, and that we make sure that we have a system that is responsive to that and that also has health as a focus. I hope we can move forward on a cross-party basis on those terms.

On the specific point about PIP, again it is important to recognise that we will look very carefully at whether those individuals who are not currently in receipt of PIP meet the PIP criteria, and we will act accordingly. Also of course, anybody who thinks they may be eligible for PIP is able to apply for it. I would always encourage people who might be eligible for any given benefit to apply for it.

On the point about the health top-up, I can confirm that the award rate for the new UC health element will be at the same level as is currently awarded to those who have LCWRA. I again make the point about the approach that we intend to take: the reform will be carried out on a staged geographical basis, beginning with new claims in 2026-27. Of course, legislative steps will need to be taken to bring this reform to fruition, but there is much to welcome and I hope we can come together. On the point about the legal case, as I said earlier, colleagues elsewhere in the Department are considering next steps and will come forward in due course.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement in the Budget. As my hon. Friend will recall, I wanted to introduce the universal support package alongside universal credit. Its purpose was to intervene and help to change people’s lives, which was what was missing for all those years and needs to be there now. It was intended to replace what has been a very difficult benefit, originally introduced by Labour along with the work capability assessment. Throughout that time, I wanted to see universal credit together with universal support to help people get over their difficulties.

According to a recent survey on sickness benefit, 700,000 people want to find work, but the limits to what they can do seem so difficult that they fear losing their benefit. This measure, hopefully, should change that. However, I urge the Government to do the final bit, which is to bring in the other group who are still receiving employment and support allowance and not yet receiving universal credit, so that the interventions can help them and we can have a progressive, positive way of helping people with sickness or disability to fulfil their potential and lead productive lives, because work is a health treatment.

[Tom Pursglove]

My right hon. Friend speaks with passion and authority on these issues, and he has a wealth of experience of delivering meaningful change in the welfare system that has improved the lives of millions of people. This is the next chapter—the next step in that journey—and one thing I know for sure is that I shall want to draw on my right hon. Friend’s experience and expertise and hear his ideas about how we can get this right. Like him, I am excited about the opportunities that universal support can provide in matching people to roles and supporting retention, with all the wraparound care and support that goes with that. There is a great deal of best practice from which we can learn. I was in Tower Hamlets yesterday, and saw a fantastic example involving NHS talking therapies. I want to ensure that more people are able to engage with that sort of support.

Responding to MPs’ Queries: DWP Performance

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

I wanted to come to that point, which I will deal with in several ways. The hon. Gentleman will be aware and will understand that much of the correspondence to the Department is complex; it is not simple stuff that can be assessed. I was the Minister with responsibility for pensions for five years where the entitlement to, say, pension credit had to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Those things take time.

The hon. Gentleman raised the letter that he wrote on 29 June. It is my strong assurance from the Department that at 10:42 on 31 August—I have the email printout here—his standard parliamentary email inbox received a specific correspondence in relation to that letter. That may have got lost in the ether, but the assertion is strongly made by the Department that it replied on 31 August at 10:42.

On the hon. Gentleman’s campaign, I applaud and endorse his work, but he will understand that, post covid, all Departments are resurrecting and reincarnating various hotlines and capabilities. I take on board one key point—obviously, I will try to answer his other point too—that it is not always possible to reply within 20 working days, and in such instances, the Department must ensure that correspondence is responded to as quickly as possible and that the correspondent is kept informed, particularly where there is likely to be a significant delay in sending a full reply. I accept that it is important to highlight that many cases that the DWP receives are complex, so it is particularly important that individual situations and circumstances are looked into carefully and properly, and that a full and considered response is given. I genuinely take his criticisms on board, however, because they are honestly made and well thought through.

I will touch briefly on other ways to communicate with the Department. On parliamentary questions, we have a 90.8% response time for named day parliamentary questions, which is 277 out of 305 over the last period, and for ordinary written questions, there is a 93.5% response time, which is 389 out of 416.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other specific matters. I totally accept that, on the one key point about his ongoing treatment and how it is handled, the individual Minister who deals with correspondence at the Department for Work and Pensions, as he knows because we discussed this earlier, is Baroness Stedman-Scott in the other place. If there are any matters arising out of this, she will go through them and write to the hon. Gentleman—in good time, I hasten to add—to ensure that a proper response is given.

I want to contextualise two other quick points, and I have a little time. The first is that all efforts by the Department need to be judged against the background of covid and the background of the cost of living support. This is the Department that has had to deal with the £37 billion package set out by the Chancellor in May. That includes, as we all know, the £650 cost of living support, the £300 extra winter fuel payment and the £150 disability cost of living payment. We have had to find people and use them to deliver all those things, which is a massive enterprise. While the hon. Gentleman is right to have legitimate criticism of individual cases, they have to be seen in that context.

On top of that, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the September sitting of Parliament and then subsequently in the 17 November autumn statement, again a vast amount of things were brought forward, ranging from the further energy support package to the extra cost of living support and the energy price guarantee. Those are all things that have had to be brought forward and actioned by the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

rose—

[Guy Opperman]

Of course I give way to my right hon. Friend, who was the Secretary of State for six years.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I apologise to the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) for not being here earlier, but I did let him know that I was delayed.

May I say with the deepest respect, because nobody respects the Department more than me, that I just do not think this correspondence is working? We got a call in my office the other day to say that it would not now be writing to us, because people were too hard-pressed in the Department to write to anybody and they would make a quick call. We did not want a call; we want correspondence. When I was in the Department, the Secretary of State and Ministers all signed off their own correspondence, and nothing went out of the door that they had not read and checked. That had added value in that we knew what was going on in the Department. Each Minister should sign off every single bit of correspondence to MPs, and anything else is simply substandard, if the Minister does not mind my saying so.

[Guy Opperman]

I take my right hon. Friend’s point very seriously, and we will look into that specific point. I am not aware of the individual example of course, but we will definitely reach out to his office tomorrow to ensure that we get chapter and verse on that specific case. He will know and understand—and I am not disputing that we need a verification of his particular case—that responses in certain cases are handled by officials and responses in other cases are handled by Ministers and the Secretary of State. I cannot possibly comment on the nature of this case, but it is very traditional and usual for anything from a Member of Parliament to be responded to by the Member of Parliament who happens to be a Minister or the Secretary of State. That is clearly the normal way, but I will look into this and make sure that Baroness Stedman-Scott writes to him promptly and investigates the matter forthwith.

I want briefly to touch on two final points. On FOI handling, there was a 97% response time for quarter 1 and a 96% response time for quarter 2. On the correspondence guidance, clearly the hon. Member for Glenrothes can hold the DWP to account, but a whole bunch of guidance is set out for all Departments—it is published quarterly, and it is available both in the House of Commons Library and on gov.uk—from which he can see a comparison of this Department with other Departments.

While the statistics show that most Members do receive timely replies from the DWP, there is clearly room for improvement, and I take that on board. We closely monitor that performance, we take on board the points raised by those on both sides of the House, and we will ensure that things are done better in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

The hon. Member talks about in-work poverty. Important steps were put forward in the Budget to improve the taper rate and the work allowance, which will really help many of his constituents—in fact, the vast majority of them, about 3,966.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I very much welcome the change to the taper rate for universal credit. This will be of enormous help in reducing child poverty for parents who are in work. As we run into the new year, could my hon. Friend now persuade the Chancellor to look carefully at further helping out by putting more money into the work allowances for many of those who are trapped and unable to get into work?

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I am grateful to be called so early in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a huge admirer and supporter of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, as she knows.

I have some personal views on this subject, which I will explain. I tabled my amendment because I felt we needed to debate what the right level of investment in universal credit is. I have to say from the beginning that I otherwise support the idea that the Government have to make changes to the triple lock. What goes missing in a lot of these debates is the fact that we have just suffered the biggest blow to the economy as a result of covid—I accept that fully. We debate these things without realising that, but I recognise it and it changes the terms of the debate. It also changes the terms of the debate on the manifesto, because no manifesto could have predicted the kind of crisis we have just been through.

We need to get a rational and stable debate about these things. It is important to recognise the huge amount we have done for pensioners since the arrival of the triple lock; increases for pensioners have been remarkable, and so many more pensioners have been lifted out of poverty. These are success stories the Government should be able to talk about and recognise that there has to be some flexibility, so I am not going to end up at odds with the Government on this—quite the contrary, as I recognise all that fully.

However, I want to speak to the amendment that I tabled alongside the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). I do feel it is necessary for us to re-examine the investment levels in UC. I recognise that the Government made the right decision at the beginning of the pandemic to invest in universal credit to ensure that those who were naturally going to be falling unemployed as a result of the problems that came from the pandemic would receive a higher level of support.

When I resigned from the job that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State now holds, I did so on the basis of two or three things. My No. 1 basis was that the Treasury took a significant sum—much the same as the uplift—out of universal credit. I always made the point very early on that when we put money into universal credit we are investing in a dynamic process. It is one that by its very nature reduces the overall cost, because the more we get people into work, the lower the overall cost of the money we put in.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. You will remember that your amendment was not selected. A passing reference to it is fine, but please do not go into it in detail.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I understood that as the amendment is on the Order Paper, I have at least a right to speak to it, even though it was not selected.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

No, you have got that wrong. You are not allowed to speak to an amendment that has not been selected. You can make passing reference to it, in the generality, in a Second Reading debate—that is fine—but you cannot go into it in detail.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

In that case, I am going to make passing reference to it, and I will leave the Chair to decide whether or not that passing reference is more substantial. I shall pass through universal credit carefully and make full reference to the statement that has been made or the passing of this on Second Reading.

I want to make a simple point, and I am not going to hold the House up for too long. The point of the amendment I tabled but which was not selected and the purpose of today’s debate is to ensure that those of working age who are receiving security, support and benefit from this Government get the right level of support. We know that the changes made to the triple lock will ensure that a saving is made to the Exchequer against what was unpredictable at the time and resulting from the increase in pay that will happen as a result of the easing of the covid restrictions and the bounce back that is taking place. I also recognise that one problem we have as a result is that those of working age are going to have to pick up a bigger burden, which is why the universal credit uplift should be reviewed, and reviewed very quickly.

The point I simply make, in line with the idea that the pensioners are taking some of this burden, is about universal credit itself: if that money, or some of it, is moved towards the tapers, we will have a reality where more people move into work. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in her discussions with the Treasury on these matters, will make the point that it needs to make sure that those on universal credit are able to move through it faster and that therefore investment in the tapers would benefit both the Treasury and those who are seeking to get work, by making that pathway easier. That will complement what is being done for pensioners at the moment under the terms of ending of the triple lock for one year. Such a move will almost certainly be beneficial; this winter and into the spring, while we see the effects of the fall-out of moving from the furlough scheme and of the other difficulties on energy pricing and some food pricing, which is going to rise, it will protect those who are most vulnerable, while giving people an opportunity to work, with work being the very best way out of poverty.

I am going to finish by simply saying that this is an important matter and I hope my right hon. Friend will take our amendment, which was not selected, as justification in her negotiations with the Treasury to secure a better investment in the taper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why Independent Age has called on the Government properly to research who is not claiming pension credit, and to draw up a plan to increase take-up over five years.

Research by academics at Loughborough University found that maximising pension credit uptake could lift three in 10 pensioners out of poverty and reduce the number living in severe poverty by half. When the Secretary of State came to the Select Committee in July, I asked her whether the Department would bring forward an action plan. She replied that there had been a “media day of action” in June to encourage take-up of pension credit, and told the Committee:

“We will continue to advertise it in a different way but I am not anticipating a big action plan, no.”

That is disappointing. Given that the Bill will deny pensioners an increase that the Government’s policy appeared to promise, I ask the Minister to look again at further steps to increase pension credit take-up.

My name was also on the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which, as he reminded the House, was not selected. However, I want to comment on the reasoned amendment that was selected, which states that we should reject the Bill because it

“fails to increase key benefits, such as making permanent the uplift to Universal Credit.”

Let me pick up that specific point. As the amendment drafted by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green pointed out, the money that the Bill will save the Government next year would almost deliver the £20 a week uplift to universal credit next year. Many Members across the House are deeply worried by the plan to remove the uplift next month. The Select Committee’s call to at least postpone the removal of the uplift was unanimous. There are lots of different kinds of worry, which I will outline.

First, this is not the right time, because the furlough scheme is about to end. We are told that Ministers’ intention in introducing the uplift was to protect people who were becoming newly unemployed, but there will be a surge of newly unemployed people when furlough ends. Ministers told the Select Committee last week that the Government have no estimate of the number of redundancies that will follow the end of the furlough scheme, but the most recent figures showed that 1.6 million people were furloughed at the end of July. Surely the consideration given to people who became unemployed at the start of the first lockdown should be given to those losing their livelihood next week as well. What justification could there be for treating them differently?

Secondly, since the decision to introduce the uplift—especially in the past month—we have seen a surge of price rises. September’s inflation figure was a record, reflecting increased food prices in particular, and earlier this afternoon the House was considering the current steep increases in energy prices. This cannot be the right time to take £20 a week away from everyone receiving universal credit. The Select Committee recently heard evidence of people having to skip meals before the uplift was introduced. Well, their position will be a good deal worse if the uplift is taken away in a couple of weeks, because the prices they now face are so much higher, and have become so much higher in just the last few weeks.

Thirdly, what justification can there be for reducing universal credit to a historically low level? If the uplift is taken away, support for unemployed families will be the lowest in real terms for more than 30 years. The economy has grown by more than 50% in real terms over that period, but we are being asked to agree that support for unemployed families should be no higher at all in real terms than it was 30 years ago. As a proportion of average earnings, support for unemployed families will be the lowest since the modern welfare state was introduced in 1948. The Library tells me that it will be lower as a proportion of average earnings than it was when unemployment benefit was first introduced in 1911.

We are told that the Government’s priority is levelling up. This policy is not levelling up; this is a policy of grinding down. Social security has a job to do—an important job that we all recognise needs to be done. Pushing it inexorably downwards when prices are surging upwards means that it cannot do that job. People cannot focus on getting a job if they are worrying about whether they can afford to eat their next meal.

Speaking to the Committee last week, Ministers from the Department could give no reason at all for the Government choosing to set the rate of universal credit so low, other than as a consequence of historical accidents. They said that the Government had made no assessment of the impact of ending the £20 a week uplift on people claiming, nor of how many people would be pushed into poverty as a result. The Legatum Institute has today published research suggesting that the number of people in poverty will go up by 840,000, including 290,000 children, if the uplift is removed. The Government have also made no new estimate of the annual cost of keeping the uplift.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that often in the briefings used there is a kind of mistake in that they talk about this as being an unemployment benefit? It is not, because it combines tax credits, so putting investment into this is more likely to get people through and into work than taking it out. That is the point I was going to make but was not able to.

[Stephen Timms]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point that I agree with. It is a vital fact, often not understood, that universal credit is an in-work benefit as well as an out-of-work benefit. I think that 40% of universal credit claimants are in work. We have taken evidence in the Select Committee from working parents receiving universal credit who are having quite a hard time at the moment and are going to have a very hard time indeed if they lose the £86 a month that they will if the uplift is removed.

The cost of keeping the uplift, the figure that we are given, is £6 billion a year, but—the hon. Member for Amber Valley drew attention to this in the Select Committee last week—that figure was calculated when lockdown was still in place and job vacancies were much lower, so presumably the cost would be less if the uplift was kept.

The Bill misses the chance—the Liberal Democrats’ reasoned amendment gives us the opportunity to reflect on this—to address this very serious flaw in the Government’s current intentions. We are heading into an extremely difficult period for both working families and unemployed families who depend on universal credit, because of price rises across the board.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

There was a lot in that question. I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that ensuring that the transfer from legacy benefits to universal credit is effective, fair and compassionate is absolutely central to the work the Department will be doing. The pilot announced some time ago, involving 10,000 people, will be taking place later this year. It will be absolutely central to ensuring that that is effective. I look forward to further discussions about that.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place. Her announcement is absolutely right. She knows the whole point of universal credit was the test and learn process, unlike, and learning lessons from, the mess of tax credits. Under tax credits, nearly 1 million people lost all their money. That will not happen under universal credit. I hope she will absolutely see the programme through.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his support and pay tribute to the incredible work he did to set up universal credit, particularly focusing on ensuring that universal credit helps people into work. We must remember that under previous legacy rates that took place under Labour, to which he rightly draws attention, there were marginal rates of tax of 90%. No wonder people were discouraged from going into work.

The Secretary of State’s Handling of Universal Credit

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am going to make some progress now because there have been so many interventions, although I am pleased that so many people are here today.

The head of the NAO said clearly in his letter of 4 July:

“Our report was fully agreed with senior officials in your Department. It is based on the most accurate and up-to-date information from your department. Your department confirmed this to me in writing on…6 June and we then reached final agreement on the report on…8 June.”

The Secretary of State refused to back down and said again in a letter to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier)—dated only yesterday that, although she had full confidence in the NAO and its head,

“that does not mean the Department will always agree with all of the judgements reached by the NAO.”

Will she tell us now, once and for all, whether or not her Department agreed the report with the NAO in writing on 8 June?

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Margaret Greenwood]

I am not going to give way; I want to make some progress. Thirdly, the Secretary of State claimed—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Margaret Greenwood]

I am not going to give way and I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman has called the report “shoddy”, so excuse me if I continue. Thirdly, the Secretary of State claimed that universal—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Margaret Greenwood]

I have three minutes of my speech left, so I will take no more interventions.

The Secretary of State claimed that the NAO report did not take account of the impact of recent Government changes. However, there have been no recent changes to support people in making and managing their claim online, and we know that the Government’s universal support programme receives only limited funding. The payment delays that people are experiencing are shocking.

The DWP this week published figures on the length of payment delays for new claims due in February. The Library estimates that nearly 13,000 people were not paid in full on time and 7,500 people did not receive any payment on time at all. In December, two thirds of disabled people with limited capability for work were not paid in full on time, and last year 113,000 people—a quarter of new claims—were not paid in full on time. This is outrageous. Why were they not paid in full on time and what is the Secretary of State going to do about it? These are people on low incomes who often do not have any savings to rely on in these circumstances. The delays are causing real hardship for people, leading them to build up debt and rent arrears.

The Residential Landlords Association has made it clear that private landlords are increasingly reluctant to rent to people claiming universal credit. The National Housing Federation this week reported that nearly three quarters of housing association tenants in England claiming universal credit are in debt, compared with less than a third of all other tenants. The Government claim that no one should have to suffer hardship because advances are available, although, as the NAO said, the Government

“has not measured the impact on claimants or assessed how much hardship Universal Credit claimants suffer.”

Should it not be the Government’s duty to understand the effectiveness of their own social security system?

Advances have to be paid back, often on top of debts for utility bills and council tax arrears built up while waiting for the initial payment. One of the Secretary of State’s senior officials told the Public Accounts Committee on Monday this week that the average monthly repayment of £35 a week is “not eye-wateringly large”. Maybe not to him, but what about someone on very low income struggling to cope with basic household bills? I have received so much testimony from people up and down the country on this issue. I have heard stories of people being sanctioned because they have accompanied their mother to a cancer treatment session and stories of people with special needs not receiving the support that they should.

I put it to the Government that their policy of managed migration of just under 4 million people on legacy benefits across to universal credit that is due next year risks huge problems for the people who transfer. Although they will receive transitional protection, it will only last for two years, and the DWP’s current plan is that those people will have to make a new universal credit claim. This could bring chaos.

The NAO has made it absolutely clear that the Government should not expand universal credit until they are clear that the system could cope with higher claimant volumes. If the Government fail to get this right, there will be many people whose lives are made a misery by a benefit that is meant to support them. That is why the Secretary of State’s inadvertently misleading claim that the NAO report says that the roll-out should be speeded up matters so much. Will she give an assurance that the Government will not start managed migration until it is clear that universal credit and her Department can cope with it?

Universal credit was created to simplify the social security system. Clearly, its complexity is so often defeating both claimants and the staff administering it. It was meant to lift people out of poverty; instead it is pushing many into debt. The Government claim that the Opposition are scaremongering whenever we raise issues about the suffering of our constituents. Well, the Residential Landlords Association, the National Housing Federation, Citizens Advice, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have all raised major concerns about universal credit.

The Secretary of State repeatedly claims her Department is testing and learning, but this testing and learning is using people like guinea pigs. This is unacceptable. Where is the dignity? Her Government are causing hardship with scant regard for the devastation to families up and down the country. She must now take responsibility for the real suffering being caused by the roll-out of this flawed programme. She must call a halt to universal credit and put forward a credible plan to fix its many failings before many more people suffer.

Universal Credit and Welfare Changes

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

First off, this was the earliest time that I could come to the House to make an oral statement. I sought to make a statement as soon as possible, which is why I am here today. Obviously, everyone will know what has been happening this week in the House.

On the legal changes that I have made, let me say that I took them from day one. I took them immediately. No one was forced to do that; I actually took the changes on myself with the rest of my team and also with Conservative MPs who came and told me what they would like to do. I also went out to visit various groups up and down the country. I felt that that was the best thing that we could do.

When this system is fully rolled out, it will be £50 cheaper per claim. It is an automated system and it is a personal tailored system. For those who cannot get access, or who are not sure about the IT and how to support it, we have given an extra £200 million to local authorities to support people—to help them with IT and to help them with debt—not that we would ever recognise that from the scaremongering of the Opposition.

Labour talks about poverty figures, but, compared with 2010 when it was last in office, there are now 1 million fewer people in absolute poverty. Rates of material deprivation among children and pensioners have never been lower, inequality has fallen and remains lower than in 2010, and according to the latest figures, out this week, inequality, because of our benefit and tax changes, has fallen by two thirds in the last year. I wish the Opposition would keep up with the rapid changing of things.

We are helping more people into work. More than 3.2 million more people are in work—1,000 jobs every day since 2010. How much evidence do the Opposition need, for heaven’s sake? The support is there, and now the advances. It was key we made those changes in the last Budget. We knew if people were having difficulty with the benefit, which was there to support them, we had to make those changes—the advances, the two-week run-on for housing benefit, stopping the waiting days—and now we find out that 4% of people are moving into work in fewer than six months and that 50% spend more time looking for work. That is the reality.

Please allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to mention some of the real people I have met and spoken to and what they are saying about universal credit. Shafeeq, who was homeless, got an advance that got him temporary accommodation and put him in a better place to look for work. He said it

“helped me out a great deal and I’d have been lost without it”.

He is now in a job. Lisa said an advance payment helped her to secure a place with a childcare provider. She is paying it back over 12 months, which she says means a great deal to her. Gemma, a lone parent, said,

“it’s amazing being able to claim nearly all my childcare costs back, it’s a real incentive to go out to work – I’m going to be better off each week”.

Ben in Devon had a work coach, who helped him to progress in work from day one. Ryan from Essex had a lack of work experience and confidence, and his work coach helped him through universal credit. I will end it there—with the people receiving the benefit.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. The NAO report is, to be frank, a shoddy piece of work. It has simply failed—[Interruption.] Genuinely; anyone who reads it—I do not know if anyone on the Opposition Benches has bothered—will realise that it fails to take account of a series of issues, not the least of which are that the Treasury signed off annual recurring savings of £8 billion and, more importantly, that the changes last November and December have made a huge difference to people’s lives. I urge her to carry on and to tell the Public Accounts Committee to ask the question: who polices this policeman? This piece of work does it no credit at all. Will she now apply her efforts to universal support to make sure that every council area delivers the extra bit that is supposed to go alongside universal credit?

[Ms McVey]

My right hon. Friend has done more than most people in the House to support people into work, and I thank him for his question. He emphasises the point about universal support—the £200 million for local councils—to help people with debt management and IT. That is one thing we are definitely doing. Equally, he raises an important point about the NAO report. I am sure that Opposition Members have not read it. It does not say stop the roll-out; it says continue with the roll-out and do it faster. Please read about stuff before talking about it!

Universal Credit

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

That is absolutely right—my hon. Friend did make a really important point. Those who currently get free school meals who were not part of universal credit were in households on out-of-work benefits. If these regulations were to go through, the people on whom they would have the most detrimental effect would be those in work.

The current system would help more than 1 million more children than the plans we are voting on today. The former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), once wrote that universal credit

“will ensure that work always pays and is seen to pay”,

yet under these plans, universal credit will mean that work does not pay for hundreds of thousands of families. Those just above the threshold would be better off earning less.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

One of the biggest and most fundamental errors that the hon. Lady and her party are making is in their understanding of what transitional protection is about. I helped to design this, so let me inform her—[Interruption.] Perhaps Labour Members would like to listen as they might learn something. Transitional protection was designed to protect those moving from tax credits into universal credit so that they did not—if this would have happened to be the case—lose any money in the transition. It was not about increasing to the degree that she is talking about the numbers in receipt of free school meals. Under universal credit, more will receive free school meals than would have been the case under Labour’s plans.

[Angela Rayner]

The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges the fact that under the transitional protections many more in-work families would have received free school meals than will be the case under the Government’s secondary legislation. We hope that Conservative Members will help those hard-working families by ensuring that passported benefits do apply to them. We hope that they will help out those who are just about managing, which was what the Prime Minister claimed that she was going to do in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend is quite correct. Further studies show that people on universal credit are much more likely to look for work than people on jobseeker’s allowance—86% of those on universal credit, compared to 34% of those on jobseeker’s allowance. Under the legacy benefits came things that I am sure we all remember, such as the 16-hour rule, which trapped people on benefits. That will not happen under universal credit because it pays people to work, every hour that they work.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My right hon. Friend is doing a fantastic job. She has pointed out the absurdity of the Opposition’s position, whereby they will now vote against the changes that will benefit those who most need them. Alongside that, they are now voting for a policy that would deliver free schools meals to families earning £40,000 a year. Does not she think that the Opposition are for the few, not for the many?

[Ms McVey]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Perhaps these are honest mistakes by the Opposition; I am not sure. Under universal credit, people can be in work and not in work. Perhaps the Opposition do not understand the complexities of this system, which is helping people into work and then to progress at work. As my right hon. Friend said, if we allowed free school meals in every family on universal credit, those families could include parents earning £40,000 a year. As has always been the case, we support people on free school meals from families who are either not in work or in low amounts of work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you; “They don’t like it up ’em.”

These families, who will move just above the threshold, will be forced to shoulder the cost of school meals from their household budgets at the cost of hundreds of pounds per child.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman now has to answer one very simple question. He and his whole Front -Bench team have been putting it about that 1 million children will lose their right to free school meals. Will he now stand at the Dispatch Box and apologise to the House for misleading the public?

Marriage in Government Policy

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Derek Thomas]

I believe that measures to support marriage, whether through taxation or by supporting and encouraging people who are considering marrying or moving in together, would actually support all people who are living together in families like those my hon. Friend describes.

I do not believe that promoting marriage or putting in place measures to support married couples would discriminate against any other type of family unit; it would help to strengthen them and give them access to support. I recognise—I hinted at this earlier—that moving into a family home together is a challenge for people and that unexpected difficulties often arise, so it is right that we should do what we can to help.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right that promoting and supporting marriage is not about saying that every other choice is bad, but it is worth recognising that marriage and cohabitation are fundamentally different relationships. Too often they are elided together as though there is just a marginal difference. There is not: there are fundamental reasons why people choose to cohabit, which are hugely due to their level of commitment. A good example of that is that when a child is born to a married couple, the likelihood of that couple breaking up falls dramatically, but when a child is born to a cohabiting couple, the likelihood of that couple breaking up accelerates dramatically. That shows there is a fundamental difference between the two, so it is important to look at them separately.

[Derek Thomas]

As I said, by the time they do their GCSEs, 93% of teenagers whose parents are still together have married parents, so I support what my right hon. Friend says.

There are obvious reasons why the Government should want to address this important issue. We all want our children and young people to have the very best life chances, we want our communities and schools to thrive, and we want our working age population to enjoy fulfilled lives. As the Prime Minister said, we want a country that works for everyone. That said, no Government can solve such a complex and sensitive problem single-handedly, so the Government urgently need to provide a lead and play their part alongside local partners—councils, charities and businesses—to prioritise strengthening families, which are the bedrock of a healthy society.

In conclusion, will the Minister’s Department renew its commitment in this area? If it does, we will need to consider policies to support marriage, and I am aware of many colleagues—many of whom are in the Chamber—and policy organisations, such as the Centre for Social Justice, who would help in that endeavour. I invite the Minister to convene a ministerial working group on marriage in the coming weeks, to coincide with the 21st national Marriage Week, to thrash out a way forward and some sensible policy recommendations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. I have worked with him over a long time, and having run the Department I have a fair idea of the challenges that lie ahead of him. I am going to add to them. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on obtaining the debate, particularly this week, of all weeks.

Under the previous Prime Minister I was nominated to construct the family test against which everything was going to be measured. When I finally left—of my own volition, by the way—at no stage had I managed to get agreement from any of the key players about what it would consist of. While there was a principle, which was that the Prime Minister wanted a test that all decisions would be set against, the reality was that the Treasury in particular was not keen on any of it. I urge the Minister to press for a definition of the family test, by which all the effects of policy decisions could be looked at to see whether they would damage the family or make things more difficult. That would make logical sense.

I want to be brief, as I just want to make a start on a couple of issues, beginning by asking what the debate is not about. The trouble is that we all tiptoe around and get amazingly worried about the word. We think: “If I mention marriage, does that automatically mean worrying about whether marriages break up or other people do not choose to get married, and so on?” I know of nothing else in the purview of government where such a fear reigns in quite that way. We do not talk about business policy on the basis that some businesses will fail. We do not immediately say, “We must not talk about business or try to set policy to help businesses survive.” We do those things, because it is logical. Of course, in society as in economic life there will always be things that do not work out, but that does not mean people should set their life around what does not work out. If we all did that, frankly we would look a lot like North Korea. The point is we do not do it, so let us now make policy around what works and what is clear.

Marriage, frankly—this is not an arrogant statement—is probably the most fundamental institution that society has ever managed to construct to make society better, give children a better chance and improve the incomes and wellbeing of those within the process, as has been said. That is not to say that when, sadly, a marriage breaks up we should not do our level best to help people, and try to find them a better way and support them. That is critical. However, it means there is a need to recognise a couple of features. I am chairman of the Centre for Social Justice, which has been making this argument for some time, and we did a poll. What we found was the thing that always most intrigues me: when young people between about 18 and 28 were asked without reference to marriage what one thing they aspired to more than anything else, more than 70% aspired to be married, with stable families and a happy life. They did not aspire to be brilliantly successful at business; that was not their No. 1 aspiration. They did not aspire to have a fast car or a smart house. Their aspiration was for a social arrangement that would deliver them a happy outcome for the rest of their lives.

In any other area of life we would worry about such aspirations never being met by the reality. What, then, given that young people start with that aspiration, are we doing to make it less likely that they will achieve it? If that happened with respect to any other process, in school or in society, and we said “That is not a problem,” then of course we would be causing damage, but in this case we walk away from the issue. My arguments about policies on marriage are not to do with favouring marriage. I do not think it needs to be favoured in any way. People’s basic instinct and sense of direction will take them towards the thing that benefits them and their families most. I am certain that that is the nature of the situation. The question we really need to ask is what we do that stops people who have that aspiration getting to where they aspire to be.

I have a couple of points to make about that, beginning with the OECD’s view of what it costs for two people to live together, in comparison to the cost of living for one person. It makes a base calculation and comes up with a figure. It is not the same as two people together—the calculation includes how savings can be made within a couple. We understand and accept that. The UK, peculiarly—this emanates from the Treasury and every other Department—somehow takes the view that we need to go further. Financial policy here makes it more difficult than it is in almost any other country for a couple—particularly if they are married—to stay together. The cost of getting married is higher here than in any other country, because taxation is set against doing it.

I have been told by a number of my colleagues, “No one gets married for money.” Only someone from a reasonably well-off middle-class background will endlessly take that view. People in a low-income family where every pound really matters will calculate how best to manage their affairs. If one situation makes them better off, there is enormous pressure to decide on that as their direction of travel. I should love us to look carefully at why the UK persists in making it financially more difficult for people to come together to marry, and to stay together. Those are really big issues, and the figures are there.

[Alison Thewliss]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, because universal credit is set up so that there will be a single recipient in a household, many women are subject to financial control, which makes it far more difficult for those who face domestic violence to leave a relationship, because they cannot afford to?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Not really. I do not accept that at all. Universal credit operates by looking at the household, which makes it more likely that couples are supported to stay together. The hon. Lady knows that the vast majority of married people—and, by the way, even cohabiting people—have joint accounts. The figure is way over 80%, and I think it is close to 90%. For those in an exceptional position, it is clear that the money will follow the person with the duty of care. Those rules are written into universal credit, so I simply do not agree with the hon. Lady. I think that universal credit will help enormously to get rid of what I and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) referred to as the couple penalty.

The cost of weddings is another issue that we need to consider. There is an idea that people cannot get married now unless they have a fantastic celebrity wedding. The average cost of a wedding is now more than £20,000, whereas what people actually need is a marriage licence. There should be pre-wedding education to tell people: “You do not need to make such a big fuss about it. What you want to do is get married.” One big reason for so many marriages breaking up—probably more than anything else—is debt. If people start married life in debt because of making such a big issue of it, that puts enormous pressure on couples.

[Andrew Selous]

A pastor in my constituency told me something that struck me, which was that up to the early 1980s many couples who married were happy to live in rented accommodation, perhaps with other people’s crockery and cutlery. They did not need everything to be perfect, but later on that changed and people felt they needed all new white goods, and so on. That may have been a disincentive to marriage. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that picture?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I think that with the whole Hello! culture around the idea that people have to have a perfect fairy-tale wedding, no one is preparing them for the fact that once they are married, they will make compromises and face huge difficulties and stresses, and it is about how they cope with those. That would be far better than telling them some fantastic fairy tale: “Nothing will ever be a problem, and you’ll live happily ever after.” No relationship I have ever seen has ever been like that. The question is how to manage it, and preparing people properly for that is an enormously important feature of what we do.

The other area I will talk about is counselling. Earlier on, when I was in Government, we drove through more money to help support marriage guidance and counselling. The one thing we know, and some of them will say this, is that with the proper counselling and support probably close to half the families that are heading for break-up can change, re-stabilise and stay together. That is a critical point. We are now investing £30 million in that, yet the price of the after-effects of break-up is numbered at closer to £50 billion.

Even though I have argued for more money to go in, and I thank the Government for putting more money in, it seems like a pretty mealy-mouthed concept that we invest so little money, when that money really reaps a dividend in stabilising families and helping them stay together. If it were anything else in life, we would consider it a major benefit that that amount of money returned such a phenomenal cost saving. That cost of £50 billion would fall quite dramatically. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned the stability on divorce; one of the reasons for that is that we started investing in marriage guidance and counselling. Imagine what we could do if we spent even more money on getting people immediately into counselling. That would have a huge effect, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to view that straight away.

The last point is marriage prep. I stand with all those who say that the key thing is to educate people to understand what it really means to start out on arguably the most important agreement they will ever make. People get terribly fussed about being members of things like golf clubs, where there are all sorts of peculiar and stupid rules around what they can and cannot wear, and everyone is very strict about it. If we mention that there are things people can and cannot do in marriage, however, everyone immediately says, “This is not something we need to lecture people about. We should not talk about it.” The answer is that the most important thing we will ever do is to form that relationship and ultimately, if we are lucky, to bring up children, and we want to make it as stable as possible.

If any Government sit there and worry about what people will say when they say they support marriage, because some will break up and there will be problems, we will never get anywhere. We now need to make the case for stability and strength, and help those who are unable to make that process.

Personal Independence Payment

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

There have been changes in the DWP. Some people have come back, having previously worked here and seen what the changes were, and I am back here, several years later, and hence was probably a good person to say that we would not be appealing the court case.

On the timetable, I made the judgment just a week and a half after being made Secretary of State. It took up most of my time. It was a Friday—and could not have been any other time—because that was the deadline I had to meet for the legal judgment. At the same time, I made sure, following all protocol, that there was a written statement on exactly what had been done.

The benefit was always intended to be a dynamic benefit. Hon. Members on both sides of the House understood that DLA was focused on physical disabilities, and all parties decided there needed to be a more dynamic benefit that reflected invisible disabilities, which we all know are very difficult to assess. The extra money and support went into acknowledging that.

There has been massive change, and also massive understanding, in terms of what is going on. When I stood here all those years ago in 2013 talking about what the budget would be, people said we were cutting it. I explained the matter very clearly, though it fell on deaf ears, and I was often vilified. People still said it was being cut, but it was not. When I arrived, the budget was just over £13 billion, and it has gone up every year since, and will continue to go up. That is in real terms. Much of the vilification, therefore, was not only unnecessary but deeply untrue, and that again is why I welcome the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box to explain what is going on.

Changing benefits is not always easy. Expanding support is not always easy. We knew at the time we were taking on a very difficult change and that there would no doubt be legal challenges. When there are legal challenges, however, we must look at them, make a true and fair judgment and carry on along that path, and I believe that in this instance I made a fair judgment. Today, the Glasgow Herald welcomed the decision—although I accept that the piece in question picked on various other issues—and it was also welcomed by Paul Farmer, the chief executive of Mind. My hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work has met her Scottish counterpart; they, too, welcome the decision and look forward to establishing closer working relationships and making plans for its implementation.

I hope that what I have said explains what we have done, and I hope that what we have done is welcomed by Members on both sides of the House. If the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) would like to talk to me about a specific case or constituent, my door is open, and I will meet him.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to her post, and I welcome her knowledge in making this decision. In supporting her, I remind the House that it was our predecessor Labour Government who put off changes in disability living allowance deliberately before the election and that afterwards we were faced with the decision to make those necessary changes. More money is now spent on disability benefits year on year, and more people, including those with mental health conditions, will receive them. DLA never delivered that to those people before.

[Ms McVey]

I thank my right hon. Friend. He spent many years working on social issues and cases, and established the Centre for Social Justice. The change that he brought about was not just about changing the benefits, but about reaching out to people who are sometimes left alone. Some of those people did want to be helped to get back into work. They did want to talk about their hopes and aspirations. There are now over 600,000 more disabled people in work, because they chose that path towards self-determination and the fulfilment of their ambitions and hopes.