Housing Benefit
Kate Green Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Main
No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady.
The Opposition should also address overcrowding. As yet, they have not done what Mr Tom Copley says that they should do and apologise for the fact that they never addressed the dire need to build more social housing to allow—
Mrs Main
No, the hon. Lady will have her time at the end.
Mr Copley said:
“As a Labour politician one of the things that really galls me is that there’s this statistic that more council homes were built in the last year of Thatcher’s government than were built in the 13 years of Labour government, and that’s something I think as a Labour Party we need to apologise for.”
The apology needs to be made because the dearth of social housing that we inherited was a direct result of Labour’s inability in the good times to deliver sufficient adequate social housing. The Labour party should be ashamed of itself and it should apologise.
I do not think that the Opposition has a coherent policy. They want to penalise people in the private rented sector. They are not making any commitment to redress the imbalance, yet they wish to have what they see as a core vote that might be deserting them in droves. We helped the aspirational working class during Thatcher’s era under the right to buy, but unlike us, they introduced a policy to penalise only the private sector. Labour is the party of inequality, not the party of equality. I congratulate the coalition Government on all their efforts to level the playing field for more people both in social and private rented housing.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Opposition are proud to have called this debate. The testimony we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has shown again why this policy is both a moral and a practical failure. It is cruel, unworkable and perverse. It is not reducing overcrowding and it is not saving money as intended. It is causing fear and misery, and it is time it was scrapped.
I want to respond to as many of the points that have been raised as possible. I appreciate that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who wanted to participate this afternoon have not been able to do so. One or two of them have notified me of their concerns and I hope to be able to raise them.
Let me start with an issue that was raised repeatedly by Government Members, who made comparisons with the private rented sector and said that the situation there is appropriate for the social sector. A whole raft of arguments against that position were made by my Opposition colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) pointed out that the social market is a very different market with very different rental structures from those in the private sector. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) pointed out that we allocate social housing predominantly on the basis of need, not market forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) pointed out that there is a significant difference between this Government’s implementation of the bedroom tax and Labour’s implementation of the local housing allowance. The local housing allowance was not implemented retrospectively and people were not trapped. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who was a Minister at the time so she ought to know, pointed out that it never became our policy in the social rented sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) was right to say—this was also highlighted by Government Members—that our aspiration for social housing is very different from theirs. We see it as fulfilling a role of offering high-quality, stable accommodation to strengthen families and communities. We cannot understand why a Government who proclaim their commitment to a big society would not agree with us on that.
The hon. Members for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) suggested that the policy is popular with the public and pointed to the recently published Ipsos MORI poll. I suggest that hon. Members look a little more closely at the poll, because it shows that the public become more sceptical about the policy the more they know about it. The public are not in favour of the policy if there is no alternative home for people to move to or if it means that people cannot meet basic living costs, which they cannot. As the Real Life Reform research is beginning to show, the policy is causing human misery and leading to arrears and debt, to mental health problems and stress, and to families cutting back on fuel and food.
George Hollingbery
Having looked at the poll this afternoon, I think I am right in saying that the hon. Lady may have a point on the issue of requiring people to move out of the area in which they live, but that there was an approval of more than 45%—I think it was 48%—for expecting people to move within the area in which they live. Is that correct?
Kate Green
That may be the case, but as my Opposition colleagues have repeatedly shown, in many areas there is a mismatch of suitable properties for people to move into. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to acknowledge, as we have said, that expecting people to move up and down the country would not command the same popular support.
As many of my colleagues have pointed out, the policy is especially cruel towards those affected, including 220,000 families with children, lone parents and separated families and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) has said, those fleeing domestic violence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halton has said, some pensioner couples will be affected under universal credit if they are not both over state pension age. Most crucially, two thirds of those affected are disabled—420,000 disabled people are affected by the bedroom tax.
Contrary to what Government Members appeared to believe at the beginning of the debate, not all disabled people are protected from this policy. Adults with an overnight carer are protected, but children who need an overnight carer are not. Children with medium and high-level care needs will now be protected—following the Government conceding that they need to take action in light of the Burnip and Gorry cases—but children with higher rate mobility needs are not protected, contrary to the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee, let alone there being protection for all disabled children.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) pointed out, and many colleagues reinforced, there is no protection for a couple if they are unable as a result of health or disability to share a bed or bedroom. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) highlighted to me the case of her constituents, Mr and Mrs Wilkes, who have been particularly harshly hit by this measure.
There is no protection if someone needs extra space for equipment or because they have had their home adapted, as was the case for the Rutherford family who were required to install a hoist, wider doors and a wet room for their 13-year-old son, Warren, yet are not protected from the bedroom tax. Mr Randall from Basildon has been told by his council that it will not move him to a smaller property as it has not been and cannot be adapted, yet he is being hit by the bedroom tax in his current property on which adaptations have been made.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good case. As I understand it, the Government have two arguments, the first of which is that the policy will relieve overcrowding. When larger properties are freed up in my constituency, they are sold on the open market. If families move into private rented accommodation, that costs five times as much as social housing. Neither argument works.
Kate Green
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us remember that disabled people’s options are more limited. A number of hon. Members have said that people should work, or work a few more hours a week. Often for disabled people it is particularly difficult to work or to do extra hours, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out, that is a particular challenge for carers. One point that I do not think has been made, but which is extremely concerning for disabled people, is that many local authorities are treating disability living allowance as income when calculating someone’s entitlement to discretionary housing payment. That is a disgrace. I have challenged the Minister on that before, but he has declined to take action to ensure that all local authorities of whatever political colour have clear guidance on how they should treat the DLA.
As colleagues have pointed out, the policy will not achieve the savings that have been expected and scored by the Government because of the extra cost of having to adapt, readapt or undo adaptations to homes and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) pointed out, because of the extra high cost of rent and therefore housing benefit in the private rented sector. There are the implications of higher levels of arrears and the extra cost of advising people in arrears, and of collecting and managing arrears. There is also, of course, the impact on the financial standing of housing associations. The policy is damaging their credit rating and cash flows, and makes it more difficult for them to undertake the new builds we desperately need.
As colleagues have said, we will see extra costs for local authorities, children’s services, the health service and so on, and we also highlighted the utter perversity of the fact that being in arrears means someone will not get another tenancy in a small property unless and until those arrears have been cleared. That is simply not possible for many families.
We were pleased—surprised, I think—to hear the Minister of State say at the beginning of the debate that if it turned out that the discretionary housing pot in a local authority was fully committed, more money would be made available. That was encouraging, and we would welcome his colleague repeating that commitment. Let us remember, however, that the discretionary housing payment is temporary, transitional and—as its name suggests—discretionary. In many cases, we have instances of local authorities denying people access to that pot of funding, and actively discouraging people from going to appeal.
The most cruel part of the policy is the lack of suitable alternative homes for people to move to. There is a lack of one-bedroom properties in certain parts of the country and, increasingly, three-bedroom properties are left lying empty. How can that be sensible? People are being forced to leave sheltered accommodation that, by definition, cannot be taken up by families who do not have the special needs or meet the criteria to live in those homes.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly said that the answer to the problem is to build more housing. I am proud that Labour has committed to building 1 million new homes—[Interruption.] Let me address Labour’s record on housing. Between 2000 and 2007, the Labour Government increased the number of additional net new homes in every single year. The Department for Communities and Local Government figures from last week prove that. The number of net new homes has declined in every year since 2007, including under this Government.
Kate Green
I will not give way.
In 1997, when Labour returned to power, the Labour Government inherited an urgent priority to deal with the appalling quality of the housing stock. Our priority was to bring it up to decent standards. Of course, it would have been good to build more homes, but we had to bring existing homes up to a decent standard.
It is time to call a halt on the Government’s policy. A review in 2015 is too late. Labour will act as soon as it comes to power to abolish the policy, but I hope the Government commit to abolishing it now.
Disabled People
Kate Green Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Byrne
The whole House will have heard my hon. Friend’s powerful story. I am afraid that too often in the past three years we have had not the politics of national unity, but the politics of dividing lines—dividing lines after dividing lines. When has this country ever achieved great things when we have sought to divide one from another? We have only ever achieved great things in this country when we have pulled together, but I am afraid that that is not the policy of reform we see from this Government.
Today we have one third of disabled citizens in our country living in poverty. That proportion has increased every single year this coalition Government have been in power. That is a disgrace, and it is only surpassed by the Government’s attempts to make it worse.
Today I want to set out the great pressures that now confront disabled people and ask, in the words of our motion, that the Government, for the first time, put together
“a cumulative impact assessment of the changes”,
because the Secretary of State has an important duty to fulfil later this year. He has a duty before the autumn statement to set before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the combined concerted impact of the changes he is prosecuting on disabled people. These changes are big and they are well known. They affect the roof over people’s heads, the cash they receive, the care they enjoy, the help for their children and the help for their carers, and, of course, the systems that are currently failing to give disabled people the chance to lift themselves out of poverty by actually going to work.
Let me start with an issue that I know will be much in the news today: the hated bedroom tax. Two thirds of people hit by this tax are disabled. We know that council housing in this country is allocated according to need, and very often disabled people are given accommodation that is suited to their need. They may have a room that is available for a carer or for equipment, but the accommodation they were given was allocated according to need. Now disabled people face a tax on that spare room. Disabled people now face the distress of debt, being torn from their neighbours, and cut off from help very often if they are on disability living allowance. This is a cruel and unusual punishment meted out to the most vulnerable in our society, and this Government should drop it, and drop it now.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government knew when they first introduced this tax that it would have this disproportionate and devastating effect on disabled people? Originally they had hoped to exempt them from the tax, but when they worked out how many would be affected, they simply buried their principles in the interests of expediency.
Mr Byrne
That evidence is now becoming well known, and we have had more evidence circulated by great organisations, such as Carers UK today, about the impact this tax is now having on some of the most vulnerable people in our community, including hundreds in the Minister’s constituency.
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman knows very well that funding formulas are in place to ensure that the money is allocated. There is an obligation on local authorities not only to make a contribution towards tackling the deficit that we inherited from the previous Government, but to look innovatively at how they deliver services and ensure that we get value for money.
Kate Green
I point out that the previous Government did not conduct a cumulative impact assessment because we were not making so many sweeping changes all at once. However, I want to ask the Minister about his comments on disabled children. Does he accept that the welcome exemption that the Government introduced to allow adults with disabilities an extra room under the bedroom tax for an overnight carer does not apply to children? If he accepts that it does not, will he explain why it does not?
Mr Hoban
The previous Government were asked to supply cumulative impact assessments. [Interruption.] Well, that was the point that the hon. Lady wanted to make. However, that Government recognised that those assessments were too complex and difficult to carry out. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill is smiling; he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and he has to recognise that the previous Government failed to do that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kate Green Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s proposal for a single-tier pension on women born between 6 April 1952 and 6 July 1953.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
7. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s proposal for a single-tier pension on women born between 6 April 1952 and 6 July 1953.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
16. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s proposal for a single-tier pension on women born between 6 April 1952 and 6 July 1953.
Steve Webb
Unless the hon. Lady has read the research, I do not know why she should be shaking her head. It says that 85% will do better by being treated as women than they would by being treated the same as men.
Kate Green
You and I, Mr Speaker, have just had the great pleasure of welcoming a rather beautiful portrait of Emmeline Pankhurst to Parliament, and I hope that all colleagues will want to go to admire it in the Upper Waiting Hall. It is important that we remind ourselves that women’s political interests can sometimes be different from men’s, and I am grateful to have the chance to ask the Minister about his pension proposals and their implications for women today. Many women will struggle to achieve 35 years of full employment and full contributions, partly because of caring responsibilities and also because of labour market discrimination. What steps does he intend to take to address that disadvantage?
Steve Webb
As the hon. Lady says, we have a system of not only paid contributions, but credits. Although 35 years will be needed for the full £144, even a woman with 30 years will get thirty thirty-fifths of £144, which is more than the current basic pension of £107. So, many women will benefit from the new rules.
Universal Credit
Kate Green Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Anne Begg
I am worried that the Government say bluntly in their response to our report that they are not going to provide a definition of a vulnerable claimant. Without that, it will be difficult for Jobcentre Plus to identify the individuals who need help. This is our biggest area of concern. We do not know whether someone will need to get into trouble before they can get help rather than already having been identified as needing it.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I do not know about my hon. Friend or other right hon. and hon. Members, but I get paid monthly and my main outgoing, my mortgage, is taken on the day that my salary goes into my bank account. I think that I have had that arrangement ever since I first had a mortgage. Most banks and mortgage companies tend to arrange things with their customers in that way. They ask on what day people are paid and then arrange that that is the day on which they take the mortgage payment. Has the Select Committee considered whether there is anything the Government could do to help landlords, particularly social landlords, to collect rent in that way on the day that universal credit is paid?
Nigel Mills
Yes, that is recommended in the report and I think the Government promised that by 2014 there will be a separate app for universal credit. Currently, 92% of jobs advertised require some level of IT skills, so encouraging people to become more confident and use computers to claim their benefits is a move in the right direction. I agree that we must give the right support to those who cannot do that or have not done it previously, and I hope the Minister will explain to the House how that will be done.
The Government’s response to the report mentions computer terminals in jobcentres. I am not sure whether I have yet seen that on the ground and how we will get enough computers in jobcentres for people who need to claim, or how people will deal with the regular monitoring of their benefits. Universal credit is not a once-only application in which a person can sit with someone who does the form for them and that is it. The entire system relies on updating that will require regular IT access, not just a one-off.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman may not know the answer, but does he have any idea how long it will take to make a claim on average, particularly with regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) about filling in the form on the phone? If it will take more than half a minute or so, it is unlikely that people will be able to cope with that on the phone, and they may struggle to do it online at all.
Nigel Mills
It would be very optimistic to assume that the application form will take half a minute. I have not seen the form, but I have not seen any Government form that takes half a minute for a long time—[Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to answer the question?
Sheila Gilmore
I certainly do, although I rather regret that that money was so long in the coming given that it was available to be paid out some couple of years ago—but better late than never.
Finally, I want to discuss a particular group—single parents. Some of the problems I am going to consider do not necessarily result from universal credit as such, but they will not be cured by universal credit and may even be made worse. For many single parents, getting back into work is not easy. There is a great deal of evidence that many of them, when they do find work, find that it is low-paid and low-skilled work. There is a high level of churn because of the type of work or because of the practical difficulties that can arise. They may find that arranging child care is unexpectedly expensive or difficult—for instance, when they run into the summer holiday problem. All these things can lead to a single parent who wants to work finding a job and doing it for a period, but then having to leave and go back to the beginning again. Skilling up is particularly important.
Over the past few years, including under the previous Government, there have been several changes to the rules for single parents, particularly about their registering for work once their children reached certain ages. Considerable flexibilities were built into the system whereby, for example, a single parent would not be required to apply for a job, go for a job interview or take a job where it would not fit with their child care responsibilities. There are several such flexibilities, none of which, bar one, are in the new regulations that have been produced for universal credit. They are in guidance, but the problem is that guidance is not legally binding and these matters are at the discretion of an individual adviser.
There are currently 12 flexibilities, only one of which has been migrated into the new regulations in its entirety; the other 11 are not there or have been very much qualified. For example, under the regulations a single parent is still able to restrict the hours they work, but only if they can demonstrate that there are jobs with those hours available locally. If there are not, they cannot have that flexibility, so presumably they will have to look for a job that does not accord with their child care responsibilities or look for one outwith their area, which creates a whole new set of difficulties. Anyone who has had to pick up their child from nursery at a fixed time and has experienced the reception they get when they arrive back late because the bus has been delayed will know that working a long distance away is not easy.
It is not at all clear why these changes are being made. They might make it more difficult for single parents to get back into work. If the flexibilities are not there, the other problem that arises is sanctions. If people do not have those flexibilities, they may be required to take on a job—or to refuse a job—that does not meet their needs. If they refuse to take the job, they can be sanctioned. The level of sanctions was increased substantially in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the number of people who are being sanctioned is increasing. We are all seeing those people already. I would like the Minister to explain why the decision has been taken not to put the flexibilities for single parents into the regulations.
Gingerbread, which represents single parents, feels that getting skilled has been made more difficult of late. Again, there does not seem to be anything in universal credit that will help that situation. Previously, a single parent with a very young child who was on income support got a fee remission if they did a college course. That fee remission has been removed, so although a single parent with a child under five can still do a college course if they can fit it in around everything else that they are doing, they have to pay for it. When they hit the requirement to sign on for JSA, they will get fee remission for a course, but if a job offer comes up that they have to accept, they will either have to drop the course, which they might be part-way through, or continue the course and be sanctioned. That is not the way to upskill people. Gingerbread has proposed that a single parent who is undertaking a further education course, up to and including level 3,
“should be treated as fulfilling work search and work availability requirements”
until their youngest child reaches the age of seven or the course ends. That is a practical proposal.
There is serious concern that the structure of universal credit, far from enabling single parents to work, will not be of great assistance and might even be harmful. The Gingerbread report, “Struggling to make ends meet”, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, points out that a single parent who is earning the minimum wage cannot expect their disposable income to increase by much once they start working 10 hours or more. We are talking about very short hours. For anyone who does not understand, we are not talking about 10 hours a day, but 10 hours a week. Somebody who works only three, four, five, six or seven hours a week will be better off under universal credit, but because of the structure of it, once they are working 10 hours a week or more, they will not be much better off. For all that has been said about universal credit making people much better off and encouraging them to go into work, the structure is not quite as good as has been made out.
Kate Green
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that problem. Does she agree that it is therefore especially unfortunate that in-work conditionality will propel that lone parent to increase her hours or, in other words, propel her into diminishing returns for her work?
Sheila Gilmore
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The concept of in-work conditionality, which is new to the UK, needs to be fleshed out considerably as universal credit rolls out. It is not at all clear how it will work. It appears to mean that if somebody is working a low number of hours, they will be expected to look for more hours or for a different job in which they can work more hours. It will be open to the DWP to tell people that they have not made enough effort to do that and to sanction them for it. That is supposed to make people better off; it is supposed to be good for them to go through such a process, but if it does not make them better off, it feels more like punishment than assistance.
The report also looked at single parents who are not on the minimum wage but earn a median salary, and it was calculated that they would be worse off working full time than part time. They would not simply be no better off, they would actually be worse off as their hours increased. Again, that undermines the Government’s pledge to make work pay. Part of the reason for that concerns things such as child care costs. The cap on reimbursable child care costs has not been increased, and those costs are rising rapidly in many places. That has a marked effect on whether working longer hours and increasing earnings makes work pay.
Single parents are just one group that will be involved in this massive upheaval that will either create something completely different, or might lead to something that does not look very different at the end of the day—I am not sure which. There will still be many different categories of people, and the problems that we know about such as eligibility, and issues such as employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment that we have frequently discussed in this House, will not go away with the introduction of universal credit but will be tucked inside it.
I urge the Government to look at some of those issues and not simply to sit behind a general statement that universal credit will make work pay and that people will be better off. They think that if they keep asserting that and say it often enough it will happen, but it will happen only if we get the books right on the bookshelf.
Mr Hoban
We have always said that there would be a progressive roll-out of the system. I am not going to give a running commentary on the timetable at this moment. We have been very clear—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] No, we have been very clear that we would have early implementation in April 2013, and we are going to see that in the Greater Manchester and Cheshire area. That will enable us to test the end-to-end process in advance of the progressive national roll-out of universal credit from October. Once a pathfinder has happened, we will continue to adjust the exact timing and sequence of the migration process in the light of experience, including the operation of the pathfinder service in the Greater Manchester area. That will be done exactly to avoid the problems that previous Governments have faced with big-bang system changes falling over.
I would also point out to hon. Members who continue to question the Department’s ability to deliver significant system changes that we have launched the latest generation of the child maintenance system on time and on budget. We have also successfully launched the universal jobmatch service, which is helping more than 1 million jobseekers find work and get into employment more quickly. That we have been able to do those things demonstrates the Department’s capacity and capability to deliver programmes on time.
Kate Green
Even if things work entirely to plan and universal credit proves to be easily accessible and simple to use for the majority of claimants, we know that some of the most vulnerable claimants will be unable to make claims unassisted. They will go to an independent advice agency such as Welfare Rights or Citizens Advice for help. Can the Minister assure me that those agencies will be able to contact the Department easily with queries? They already struggle in the present system to find a dedicated helpline that can help them as advisers. Can the Minister confirm that that will be put in place and will work effectively for adviser agencies under universal credit?
Mr Hoban
I want to return to the question of support and advice agencies, because the need to support people on to universal credit is an important issue that has been raised. Before I do that, let me talk about a couple of other issues that people have raised in this debate.
A number of hon. Members have raised the issue of online access. We should recognise that digital exclusion is a major issue affecting communities and individuals. It acts as a barrier to employment, as well to claiming universal credit. We need to lift that barrier and make it easier for people not just to claim universal credit, but to get the online and digital skills they need to get into work. Universal credit gives us an opportunity to move people online.
Pensions and Social Security
Kate Green Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Webb
In responding to the hon. Lady, I occasionally lose count of the logical flaws in her argument. However, I will take one in particular. The Government have made available for this coming year, 2013-14, an additional £100 million to help local authorities to dampen down the effect of the council tax benefit changes. Many local authorities have reduced the subsidy given on empty homes and on second homes—which are not generally associated with poverty, I would add—and many have damped, or reduced to zero, the impact on council tax. Some Labour authorities have chosen not to do that, which is an unfortunate political decision.
I remind those who might consider voting against the order—the interventions that we have heard suggest that the Opposition are considering it, or perhaps they want to give that impression—that they would be voting against an above-inflation increase in the state pension, a full increase in line with CPI for disability benefit, and any increase in any benefit this coming April.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will be reluctant to penalise with his uprating measures people who are in employment, so why is statutory maternity pay encompassed within the 1% freeze? Has he seen the letter in The Guardian today from six mums who have written to complain about this measure and point out that having a new baby costs families money?
Steve Webb
Statutory maternity pay applies to those who are leaving work to have a baby and who often return to work, and for those in work our income tax cut in April will be a very substantial benefit. It is true that the 1% figure applies to SMP. It also applies to in-work benefits such as tax credits, which are not within the scope of the order. That is a consistent approach, particularly given that many people in work, such as those in the public sector, are also getting a 1% increase.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That does surprise me very much because in opposition the Minister’s party used to champion reducing child poverty. In government, however, it has surrendered and is cutting in real terms the incomes of the poorest in what is frankly a craven surrender to the Tory party at its worst. It is implementing policies that even Mrs Thatcher did not dare propose.
Kate Green
My right hon. Friend is right. This order will simply make poor people poorer. Is it not absolutely cynical that, rather than face up to the fact that more children will be in poverty as a result of these miserable measures, the Government decide instead to change the definition of child poverty?
Stephen Timms
That appears to be what they are going to do, and it was striking that the impact assessment for the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill did not tell us what the impact on child poverty would be. After the election, the Minister and his colleagues started well and said, “Yes, we are serious about tackling child poverty; here are the figures.” They have stopped that now and it is difficult to get an answer out of them even with a parliamentary question. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—they apparently want to change the definition of child poverty, but they will not get away with it because we will be able to tell what is going on.
Stephen Timms
It would be particularly interesting to see a revised child poverty forecast from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which I expect to appear before the Budget. We now know—as I say, these figures had to be dragged out of reluctant Ministers—that this order plus the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill will increase the number of children growing up below the poverty line by 200,000, including 100,000 in working families.
Kate Green
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing a further intervention. When Government Members say that the uprating of benefits is in line with the uprating of wages, including in the public sector, are we not talking about the exactly the same people who are facing a double whammy? Those receiving the 1% benefits uprating are the same as those receiving the 1% pay uprating.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we are talking about a large group of people. Indeed, the hon. Member for Eastbourne and I were on the radio together when somebody rang in whose total income was £71 a week. She was going to get an increase of 70p a week as a result of this order and she asked, “How am I supposed to manage?” To their credit, the hon. Gentleman and his friend from the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), could not give her an answer.
John McDonnell
Indeed. According to the survey, half the parents questioned had gone without food themselves at some time in the past year to ensure that their children were fed.
We sometimes forget that children have views as well, and that those views can permeate a whole family. When a family is living in poverty, the children understand what is going on. They have a glimpse of what is happening, and they realise what their parents are going through. I found the survey of children shocking as well, and quite startling. Save the Children said that
“the most striking finding from the survey is the extent to which children are aware of the financial strain their parents are under. Parents are stressed by lack of money and”
—whatever they do—
“many children are sharing this burden.”
It said:
“The majority of all children (58%) think it is getting harder for their family to pay for everything.”
Those children understand. It also said:
“Over half of children in poverty (52%) agree that not having enough money makes their parents unhappy or stressed.”
Kate Green
My hon. Friend is advancing a powerful case. I am glad that the Secretary of State is present. He often says that debt is a route to poverty, but is not the situation that my hon. Friend is describing proof that, in fact, poverty will drive those families into debt?
John McDonnell
That is true, and I shall say more about it shortly. There is a wider debate to be had, but the pressure on parents that forces them into debt eventually has implications for their children.
According to Save the Children,
“Over a third of children…say their family struggles to pay the bills….4 in 10 children… ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’”
—that phrase is typical of surveys—
“that their parents are cutting back on things for themselves, such as…clothes and food.”
The children witness their mums and dads not eating properly.
Let me leave the last word to the families themselves. A number of parents were quoted extensively by Save the Children. It is worth reading quite a few of those quotations, because they hit home and reveal what people are really experiencing. One parent said:
“ I regularly leave the heating off and use blankets and jackets to keep warm so that we have more money towards the food bill... I buy the cheapest brand foods so that I can afford the right amount of fruit and veg for the children. Missing a meal or two a week is not uncommon for me so that my children can eat. My children never go without what they need, but I sometimes have to.”
Brendan is 13. He says:
“I had shoes that were all broken up and full of holes. People at school laughed at me…I saved up my own money for my own shoes, but I don’t care about the brand or the make.”
They are the people who will be driven further into poverty as a result of the decisions we take tonight. We now have 3.5 million children living in poverty, and as a result of the last Budget, the autumn statement and today’s measures, we will probably have another 400,000 or 500,000 children living in poverty by 2015. We are blighting a generation.
Those children will never forgive us, and nor should they forgive us, because we are currently redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich, not from the rich to the poor so that we can tackle poverty and child poverty. That is why I wish I could vote against tonight’s orders. We are in a bind, however. If we vote against this order, we vote against the CPI increases as well. I hope lessons will be learned so that in future years we will properly consider each element of any such proposals.
Any Member who votes for this order tonight should feel a weight of guilt on their shoulders. Individuals and families are suffering greatly. The Save the Children survey findings reflect what we see in our constituencies. People say to us in our advice surgeries every week that they cannot survive on the income they have, whether they are in work because of low wages, or out of work because of low benefits, or—that dangerous combination—in work and on benefits at the same time. They cannot survive on their incomes.
Poverty is not just about income, of course. There is a range of other interventions that need to be discussed and debated, but those other interventions do not work if people cannot put food on the table. They do not work if people are cold at night and do not have shoes or a coat to put on their children. That is why we must halt this cutting of benefits.
We must instead start to look at how we can create a fairer society. We had a consensus for at least two generations after the welfare state was established that when inflation took hold, we would increase social security benefits in line with inflation, so that the poorest would be protected. I agree that we occasionally had rows in this House—both between and within parties—about what form that protection should take. I refused to support the shift from RPI to CPI. That was a debate worth having, and even under the new definition at least people on social security benefits were protected. Now we have torn up that consensus and the people who suffer will not be those who take part in party political debates, but the sort of people who were surveyed by Save the Children, and most of them will be children. That is a total disgrace.
We cannot vote against the Government tonight because of the nature of the order before us, but we can campaign against these measures, and that is what we will do. We will take our argument into our constituencies. We will mobilise people, and I think this generation of children will remember who forced them further into poverty. Any Member who votes for this order tonight will pay for it in the long term—even if they end up paying for it in history. Those Members will be taking part in the impoverishment of a whole generation—kids who cannot afford coats, school shoes and school trips and whose parents have to go without food. That is unacceptable in 2013 in the seventh richest country in the world.
Kate Green
Is not the problem that there is a single order dealing with the uprating of a whole range of benefits, including disability living allowance, which is going up by more than 1%, and other working-age benefits that are limited to only 1%? The problem is that a single order is dealing with a combination of benefits within it.
Mr Brown
Exactly, and that is the difficulty we face this evening.
I have raised the point about the 1% freeze on benefits before. I have asked Ministers in both the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury what kind of impact assessment has been done and what consultation there has been between the two sets of Ministers, but I have never had a straight answer. What we will be witnessing over the three-year period, according to the Government’s figures, is almost £6 billion being saved or, as I would put it, £6 billion being taken away from the lowest income households. The Minister must surely know that that £6 billion would have been spent in the local economy.
When I first arrived in this House, in 1997, the then Labour Government decided to introduce a national minimum wage, which effectively put money into people’s pockets. The impact assessment at the time was based on £1 million being given to the poorest households, which clearly would then be spent in the local economy. For every £1 million spent in the local economy, 40 jobs were created.
If the Minister is able to do his work—I think that he is an intelligent man—he will see that taking £6 billion out of local economies over three years will have a detrimental impact. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) is telling me that yet another high street outlet is on the brink this evening, so more jobs might go.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kate Green Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
That is exactly the point. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The mess of all the chaotic benefits left by the last Government, many of which contradicted each other, meant that people were not incentivised to go to work for anything more than 16 hours in some cases. Many people who could have got themselves out of poverty by working did not do so because they were penalised by the system. That is the shame of what the last Government left behind.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State say what resources are being allocated to in-work conditionality for part-time workers under universal credit, given that the Department has acknowledged that there is no evidence nationally or internationally of what works to sustain people in employment and enable them to progress?
Mr Duncan Smith
The Department is looking closely at how we can assist people to take more work while on universal credit. We do not have the final results of that, but I am happy to sit down with the hon. Lady at any time and discuss her concerns. She is right about one thing: rather than parking people on a specific number of hours, universal credit will allow people to work more hours and get more money, rather than losing it, thereby getting themselves and their children, if they have any, out of poverty.
Housing Benefit Entitlement
Kate Green Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Phil Wilson
At the beginning of the 21st century, it obviously is. Bishop Auckland, the constituency that my hon. Friend represents, shares some of the statistics regarding Livin, because it covers both our constituencies, and it is concerned because of the proposal that its rent arrears could double from 4% to 8% in the future. In a briefing note prepared by Livin, it said:
“Rent arrears will increase, affecting cash flow, which could mean that the loan facility made available to Livin for improvements and development of the housing stock may be required to fund administration. This could only be considered as a temporary position and Livin would need to readjust its spending to avoid borrowing for ongoing day to day costs.”
I said earlier that the impact of these new rules would be arbitrary on families and communities. Here are a couple of examples. The DWP’s equality impact assessment shows that 66% of claimants who will be affected by the bedroom tax are disabled. Although recipients of disability living allowance are exempt from the overall benefit cap, the DWP has chosen not to exempt them from the bedroom tax.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning disabled people. He may be aware that Ministers have made much of access to discretionary housing payments for disabled people. Indeed, Ministers have implied that the money has been allocated specifically to meet the needs of disabled people. But, of course, the money is temporary and limited, and the discretion of local authorities whether to pay only to disabled people cannot be fettered. Is it not totally misleading to imply that discretionary housing payments will in any way compensate for what has been lost?
Phil Wilson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will address that in my speech, which many hon. Members seem to have read. The Minister will probably say that that budget is being increased, but it is not ring-fenced.
A man came into my constituency office. He is divorced, and he cares for his children for part of the week. He receives housing benefit and lives in a two-bedroom house. The children’s mother, however, is deemed to be the main carer, so his housing benefit will be docked by 14%. He will need to move into a one-bedroom property, if he can find one. His main problem is that, if he moves into a one-bedroom house, how will he look after his children for part of the week?
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on obtaining this important and well supported debate.
I quite understand that at a time of housing shortage it is important, particularly in Stockport, which has more than 7,000 people on the social housing waiting list, to ensure that people have the appropriate housing and to address issues of under-occupancy. My problem with the policy is the way it is being implemented, and the lack of local flexibility for the families and individuals who, through no fault of their own, will be disproportionately affected. It is always a problem with blanket policy changes. No central edict can take account of people’s varying individual circumstances, and inevitably the result will be that some will be put in desperate circumstances.
I will give only one example. I have a constituent who lives in a two-bedroom flat and who receives housing benefit. He is under the care of Manchester royal infirmary renal team, and is about to start dialysis at home, while awaiting a kidney transplant. He needs the extra room for the dialysis machine and to store fluids. He told me:
“My concern is when the new rule comes into effect this year, I’ll need to downgrade to a one bedroom flat as the housing benefit won’t pay for the extra room”.
I took up his case and have been told that he is not exempt, but that if he had an overnight carer staying in his flat he would be exempt. I am sure that the Minister would agree with me that it is very disruptive for someone who has a long-term illness to move home, and possibly area. I do not think that the Government intended the policy to have such an adverse effect on seriously ill and vulnerable individuals. However, part of the problem is the lack of flexibility given to organisations such as Stockport Homes to respond in a way that gives them discretion in those very difficult cases.
Stockport has 1,500 tenants affected by the rule, who now need rehousing in one-bedroom flats; but we have a turnover of only 300 one-bedroom properties a year. Where are people expected to go? The alternative, of course, is the private rented sector, but recently there has been an increase in private rented sector repossessions in Stockport, and landlords are not keen on taking people in receipt of housing benefit. Also, we have a smaller private rented sector than elsewhere. That means that people will inevitably have to move out of the area.
Different areas have had different local housing policies. For example, under previous housing policies, families in Stockport have been offered a three-bedroom flat or house if they have a boy and a girl both over five years old. However, the new policy means that if they receive housing benefit they can have a three-bedroom flat only if they have a boy and a girl over 10, so families currently living in three-bedroom flats or houses in my constituency will be hit by the rule. Moving out will be very disruptive for children, who will have to change schools. They will lose their friends and their parents will lose family and community links. Often, those are the very families that other agencies are concerned to support in a settled environment.
It does not make sense to me that the policy of one Department can so adversely affect the policy of another. Localism, and local partnerships working together to support families, should mean that some flexibility is given to local social landlords about the implementation of the policy. That would mitigate some of the disruptive impact on families who, through no fault of their own, were rehoused under previous housing policies.
Kate Green
On the point about discretion, the local authority will be able to use the discretionary housing payment, to the extent that there is money in the pot; but does my hon. Friend agree that it will be first come, first served? If her constituents’ circumstances are presented late in the financial year, there will be no money to enable the discretion to be exercised.
Ann Coffey
My hon. Friend makes an important point; and the payment is meant to be temporary. It will not support someone on a long-term dialysis programme.
Finally, it is difficult for Stockport Homes to let two-bedroom flats, and that is the reason for the current under-occupancy. Now it is going to have to advertise outside the area for tenants for those properties. It is a strange social policy that results in people having to leave the area where they have family and community links to make way for people to come in, from outside, to an area where they have no such links. That is another unintended but serious consequence of the proposals. My plea to the Minister is that he will consider giving social landlords some discretion so that the worst of the consequences to vulnerable individuals and families, who we all agree should not be affected, can be mitigated.
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
Kate Green Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Timms
Absolutely right—the policies of the previous Government have continued to have beneficial impacts, but as soon as this Government change the policy the numbers will rocket back up again. According to the IFS, child poverty will rise by 400,000 by 2015 and by 800,000 by 2020. On top of that, there will be an additional rise of 200,000 as a result of the Bill. That is what the Government’s policies are doing.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Of course, that is the figure the Government have been prepared to acknowledge in relation to relative income poverty, but they have said nothing about the impact on absolute poverty, material deprivation or persistent poverty—all measures they are signed up to in the Child Poverty Act 2010. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that they should publish the impact on those measures of poverty as well?
Stephen Timms
Absolutely. That is what they have done in previous Budgets and autumn statements; in this one there was silence. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government should absolutely return to the practice they adopted after the election.
Like the Minister in the 1980s, anybody who cares about poverty and who is looking at what is set to happen to the most vulnerable in the next few years, will be appalled. Child poverty will be growing remorselessly once again—back to the policies of the 1980s and back to their consequences, too. There is enormous public concern about the effects of clause 1 and the Bill as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) referred to the coalition of organisations in Scotland who have written about their concern. The Child Poverty Action Group has said:
“The Bill is a cause of great concern.”
Barnardo’s has stated:
“This policy will punish children the most by trapping them in poverty and impacting on their lives, leading to poor health, poor qualifications and unemployment.”
Citizens Advice said:
“It is imperative, particularly whilst increases to earnings from work are restricted, that support for low earners received through the welfare system is not disconnected from inflationary measures to the cost of living.”
The Children’s Society said:
“Groups which are meant to be protected (such as households with somebody with a disability) are more likely to be affected than households without protection.”
In an open letter this morning, the chief executives of Catholic charities in Liverpool, Manchester and London warned of the threat the Bill
“poses to the fundamental well-being of disabled, unemployed and low paid people, as well as their families who are already buckling under the weight of recent changes to the welfare system.”
Ian Mearns
I live in the heart of my constituency, among the people whom I represent, and, oddly enough, the people whom I represent do not feel massively better off as a result of the Government’s changes. VAT, for instance, has a dramatically greater impact on those at the lower end of the income spectrum.
Kate Green
Is not one reason why very low-paid people do not gain in any way from an increase in the tax threshold the fact that if they are working part-time on the minimum wage, they will be below the tax threshold in the first place?
Ian Mearns
The position in my constituency is exemplified by the fact that household income probably hovers just above £20,000 per annum. That is household income, not personal income.
Kate Green
The problem with using the tax threshold as a means of not taking money away with one hand and giving it back with the other is that it gives to people who do not need as well as to people who do. By contrast, tax credits targeted at lower-income households give to people who need, and the tax credit is tapered away rather than kept at the same level as people rise up the income spectrum.
Mr Redwood
What a miserable world the hon. Lady lives in. People on £30,000 and £40,000 need more money as well as people on £10,000 and £20,000, and I am here to try to ensure that they get more money. I do not believe that the Government should take all their money; they should be allowed to keep more of it so that they have more to spend, which would create more jobs. I thought that was part of the Opposition’s argument—or it would be, were we having a different debate. They will not use that argument today, because we are debating benefits.
My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are trying to deal with part of the problem by taking people out of tax altogether and cutting the amount of tax that those at the lower end of the income scale have to pay. That is a very good thing to be doing. They are also about to launch their universal credit in trial systems. The whole purpose of universal credit, as described, is to make it more worth while to work and to deal with the fact that if benefit is taken away too quickly, people face a high rate of tax combined with benefit withdrawal, which is a big disincentive to going to work. It might even get in the way of their going to work, as they might not have enough money for the bus fare, the clothes they need and all the rest of the things one needs when setting oneself back up in a job. That is very important.
Atos Work Capability Assessments
Kate Green Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Last week I held a meeting in my constituency for a number of disabled constituents, their carers and family members, and the organisations that support them. I want to highlight to the Minister two or three messages that build on some of the things that have been said this afternoon.
First, and most importantly, the Minister needs to understand how totally discredited this whole system has become. My constituents told me categorically last week that they believe that the whole system was deliberately designed and operated to trick them—to make them incriminate themselves and to catch them out. They firmly believe that the system is deliberately designed, not to assess and then help them into work if they are fit for it, but simply to stop paying benefits wherever possible. I regret that they continue to believe—I know that this is not the case—that Atos is paid to bring that about.
Whether or not the system is deliberately designed to trick them, it is clear that there are far too many instances of trickery and misleading people and of distorting what they have done, said and reported and drawing conclusions from that. That is happening far too often. It is an absolute disgrace that we should run a public assessment process in such a discredited way.
Kate Green
I will not, because others wish to make speeches.
The Minister has to either sort out the process or address the fundamental scepticism and mistrust of the system. Many Members have already said that we do not believe that that is possible unless the system is scrapped and we start all over again.
I say to the Minister—because I think I know what he will say in his response to the debate—that I understand that this is an occupational assessment, not a medical assessment. I understand why it is not just doctors, but other occupational health professionals who can carry out the test, but it is disgraceful when those professionals have no understanding of the underlying medical condition and can arrive at such distorted judgments on a person’s fitness for work.
I also want to report to the Minister that, of the couple of dozen constituents I met last week, about half of them had no idea that they could take a companion to the assessment process. They said that they had not been told. Of those who did know that they could take a companion and who had sometimes done so, that companion was not made to feel welcome and was not able to assist them. Someone who suffers from autism is likely to behave in a particular way when responding to the questions asked—by trying to please and to give the answer that they think is wanted, rather than accurate—so I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that a companion who can support them and, if necessary, intervene is very important indeed. This bit of the system is not working and the Minister needs to look at it very carefully.
When the work capability assessment was introduced, we knew that it would be difficult and that we were trying something new. We built in the review process that led to the appointment of Professor Malcolm Harrington and some of the early improvements, which I think we all welcomed. Today, however, we have to face up to the fact that it is no longer possible to make the kinds of improvements that would make the system viable.
I get the impression—perhaps the Minister will correct this—that the Government have moved from trying to improve the system to either defending it or, to be frank, washing their hands of it. I honestly do not believe that that is a good enough response. If the Minister intends to say that there is not a problem, that improvements can continue and that these are simply still early days teething troubles, I say to him that the extent of the reports from throughout the House and the country of repeated, systemic problems means that it is time to look again.
I am sure that the Minister and many Members will remember—I most certainly do—the last time we had such a failure, whatever the intentions, of public policy implementation: the Child Support Agency. It took us 20 years to realise that the design that had been put in place simply could not work. Please let us not wait 20 years to realise that this system cannot work and must be started again.
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
Kate Green Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
Exactly. Mortgage rates are a critical component of what a household spends each year. Under Opposition plans, if interest rates had to rise because of their messy borrowing and spending, every 1% would cost another £1,000 on a typical mortgage. What have also done as a coalition, which we should be proud of and on which our coalition partners were very keen, is raise the tax threshold. That is taking more than 2 million people out of tax—people who were paying tax under the previous Government. That is serious help and an improvement of £165 a week for the average family.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I want to ask the Secretary of State about the people who are moving into low-paid work. Of the increase in employment in the past year, only 20% has been for full-time work, and so 80% has been for people who are by definition in part-time, and therefore probably low-paid, work. How will they benefit when he is capping the in-work benefits increase by just 1%?
Mr Duncan Smith
I will make two points to the hon. Lady. First, the vast majority of people who take part-time work choose to take part-time work. In all the studies we have—I am happy to let her have them; they are in the public domain—only 17% or 18% say that they did not want a part-time job, and wanted a full-time job, so she should not decry those who take part-time work. My second point is that that is why we are bringing in universal credit. Universal credit is about in-work and will be a huge support to those in part-time work, starting this year. The trouble with the tax credit system, which the Opposition are defending despite the fraud, the over-payments and the massive error, is that it lodged people into little silos where they could not move up, out of those hours. If a job moved from 16 hours to 17 or 18 hours, people did not do it because they could not afford to do it. Large numbers of lone parents, as she knows only too well, would rotate out of that and crash back out of work, because the job moved on and they could not stay with it.
The reality is that we are reforming the welfare system to make it better and easier for people who are in part-time work to have improved incomes. That is a part of this overall welfare programme that will deliver an efficient and even-handed system. It is right that the 1% applies across the board, including the tax credit system. As I said earlier about the overall numbers of people affected, of those working households, 20% of all households are affected by the Bill. If tax credits and child benefits were excluded, as the Opposition have prescribed, we would see a requirement to find a further £1.5 billion—yet another amount of money which they cannot say how it would be found. When in denial, like those on the other side of the House, one just votes against everything. A constructive Opposition would give us a proposal on how they would save that money.