In-work Poverty

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing this incredibly important debate.

Poverty is a scourge that devastates lives. In today’s debate we are focusing on in-work poverty, but the Government should address poverty however it arises. A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research in May 2021 highlighted that the UK’s poverty rate among working households was at a record high this century. The report also found that in 2019-20 the majority of those living in poverty were in households that had some form of paid work.

That is also reflected in the Government’s statistics, which show that of all the working-age adults in poverty, both in the UK and in the north-west, 65% are in working families. In some areas, the figure is even higher. For the east of England, that is 70%, and for the south-west, 72%. That is truly shocking, and completely dispels the Conservative myth that work is the best route out of poverty. I am so disappointed that we have already heard that myth chanted today.

[Peter Gibson]

If work is not the route out of poverty, what is?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have just listened as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) came out with all sorts of suggestions, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Easington—such as increasing the minimum wage, tackling insecure work, banning zero-hours contracts and so on. I will return in my speech to the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised.

As I said, those figures completely dispel the Conservative myth that work is the best route out of poverty. It is clear that low-income households are likely to be disproportionately affected by the cost of living crisis. The Trussell Trust has warned that, for people already struggling to afford the essentials, the cost of living crisis can mean parents going without meals in order to afford to feed their children. That, sadly, is nothing new, but the situation, instead of improving, is getting worse.

Food prices have been increasing since the middle of 2021 and are expected to increase in coming months. The domestic energy price cap will increase by 54% from 1 April for approximately 22 million customers. Energy prices are likely to continue to rise beyond that, as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Some economists have suggested that the inflation rate in the UK could hit 10%.

[Peter Gibson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Margaret Greenwood]

I have given way once and am short of time; I am sorry. The increase in national insurance contributions from next month, opposed by Labour, will increase the pressure on working people and businesses even further.

The full impact of the coronavirus pandemic on levels of poverty is not yet known, but early analysis suggests that poverty will increase over the next few years, and that low-income households are particularly vulnerable to the economic effects of the pandemic. The Government must end the scourge of in-work poverty, by tackling the structural causes of poverty and inequality, such as low pay and high living costs. At next week’s spring statement, the Government have a chance to make a real difference to the lives of working families. There are plenty of steps they could take.

The Government should never have cut universal credit by more than £1,000 a year, and they should reinstate the uplift. They should also scrap the two-child limit, which the Child Poverty Action Group has called for, and the benefit cap. They should increase child benefit by £10 a week, and call a halt to the rise in national insurance. They should also initiate a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas producers, to cut household energy bills by up to £600, as Labour has called for.

Those are all measures that this Conservative Government could take; it is simply a matter of political will. I ask the Minister to set out today what action the Government will take to eradicate poverty.

Regional Inequalities: Child Poverty

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Liz Twist]

I thank my hon. Friend for that valid and pertinent point. That is one detail that must be looked at—it is so important for those families. Turning to in-work poverty, the TUC found that 108,775 children living in poverty in the north-east come from homes with at least one parent or carer in work. That is an increase of 52% since 2010. Children growing up in poverty is not about parents who refuse to work, but rather a lack of good, secure and well-paid jobs in the north-east and across the north.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being generous with her time and making an excellent speech; I am impressed that it is so wide-ranging. She will be aware that 4.3 million children are living in poverty in the UK. According to research by the End Child Poverty coalition in May last year, 20% of children in my constituency of Wirral West were living in poverty in 2019-20. That has increased since 2015. Does she agree that Government policy is having a direct impact in stimulating child poverty? She is talking about parents being in work, but policies such as the cut to universal credit are only making the matter worse.

[Liz Twist]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall come on to that later. The regional inequalities go beyond childhood and affect people in the north-east throughout their life. According to “Health Equity In England: The Marmot Review 10 Years On”, living in a deprived area of the north-east is worse for health than living in a similarly deprived area in London, to the extent that life expectancy for those living in deprived areas of the north-east is nearly five years lower. Life expectancy in the north-east is lower than in any other part of England, and region matters more for people in the most deprived areas. For both men and women, the largest decreases in life expectancy were seen in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in the north-east. That is clearly unacceptable. I thank Jane Streather, chair of the North East Child Poverty Commission, for her work over the last 10 years; she steps down as chair later this year.

Of course, we cannot have this debate without speaking about what the Prime Minister calls levelling up. That phrase seems to mean so many things to so many people, but I would argue that a crucial part of levelling up, reducing inequalities or whatever else we call it is reducing child poverty—giving our children and families the economic means to get out of the poverty trap. It was disappointing to see that the levelling-up White Paper did nothing to address that fundamental issue for families, many of whom are working households. The “Child of the North” report clearly points out the link between tackling poverty and increasing productivity, so it makes sense to take steps to remove those children from poverty. What we have seen with the removal of the £20 per week universal credit uplift is the exact opposite.

Another thing we cannot and must not ignore is the impact of the substantial increase in the cost of living. The families and children we are talking about are hit every bit as much as others, and in many cases more, by increasing inflation, the massively increasing energy costs and other increases. Those effects do not show yet in the figures I have quoted. What can we do? We must urgently work towards a comprehensive, cross-departmental child strategy that includes increasing Government investment in the welfare, health and social care systems that support children’s health, particularly in deprived areas and areas most affected by the covid-19 pandemic. That means raising child benefit by at least £10 per child per week, lifting the two-child limit and the benefit cap and, crucially, reversing the £20 cut to universal credit. We need a welfare system that both prevents and tackles poverty.

We need long-term transformative investment in the services that children, young people and families use, particularly those services that are targeted but universal, such as family and community hubs, in order to build social solidarity and reduce the risk of stigmatisation.

We need to develop area-level measures of children’s physical and mental health in order to better understand place-based inequalities. I ask him to look at those issues and respond to those points. I would be pleased to meet him to discuss these issues further. Can he answer each of those points?

I can do no better than finish with the words of Lemn Sissay OBE in the foreword to the “Child of the North” report, which I hope he does not mind me quoting. He says:

“Childhood is life defining and shaped by factors from before birth through to adulthood. A child’s mother’s health, the care they get, through family or the care system, what house they live in, what food they eat, how often they get to run around, their education, their opportunities. All of these things have a big impact and, as this report shows, the average Child of the North is disadvantaged from the start across all of these measures.”

The children of the north deserve the very best chance to develop, grow and prosper. I hope that the Minister will take action on these issues.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

According to the Resolution Foundation, over 40% of people on universal credit were food-insecure before the Government introduced the £20 uplift, so does my hon. Friend agree that by cancelling the uplift and cutting universal credit by £20 a week, the Government are taking the money from people that they need to put food on their tables and to support their families?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Again, no one could dispute that case. Last week I went on a visit to Peterborough, which is the Conservative constituency most affected by this cut, and I went to volunteer in a local food bank. Anyone volunteering in that situation and simply observing the level of need coming through the front door could not in any good conscience say that the people going there could sustain themselves if this cut were to take place. Some of the volunteers there are people who work for the NHS, who in their spare time are volunteering on the vaccine programme and, in their spare time from that, are volunteering at the local food bank. That is what the people of this country are doing, and if only they had a Government who were willing to give the same level of commitment, how much better things would be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

Last week I published the benefit uprating statement, which indicated the inflation rise for benefits, as well as the 2.5% for state pensions. I am conscious that a number of different things are going on with benefit spending—my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work just reminded me that benefit spending on people with disabilities is up 5%. I think there is a lack of understanding of what the spending review is: it is not about budgetary measures, which tend to come with major fiscal events. As has been indicated before, the decision to consider the temporary uplift to universal credit will be made in the new year.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of statutory sick pay during the covid-19 outbreak.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of statutory sick pay during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)]

Statutory sick pay provides a minimum level of income for employees who are unable to work. We have made temporary changes to support people to follow public health advice on coronavirus.

[Margaret Greenwood [V]]

At £95.85 a week, the level of statutory sick pay is just too low, and it excludes 2 million of those on the lowest pay. To qualify for the Government’s test and trace support payment, people need to be receiving social security payments like universal credit; according to the Resolution Foundation, seven out of eight workers will not qualify for it. What assessment have the Government made of the number of people who are ineligible for either statutory sick pay or the test and trace support payment? Will they commit to increasing the level of statutory sick pay and extend it to everyone, including the low-paid and the self-employed?

[Justin Tomlinson]

Those required to stay at home by NHS Test and Trace could be eligible for the additional £500 of financial support if they are on UC, working tax credits, employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance, income support, housing benefit or pension credit, and that is just part of our wider targeted welfare safety net.

Supporting Disadvantaged Families

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of the House, and I am conscious that he will be seeing things exacerbated in his constituency by the issues that we face in tackling coronavirus. It is a great sadness that so many people have lost their work or are on reduced hours, and that is why we put in the extra injection of more than £9 billion of welfare support, to help people through this time.

In terms of helping young children, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), has just reminded me that we have the most generous support for pre-school children ever undertaken by a Government. We continue to want to ensure that every child reaches their potential. While I am conscious of how proud the Labour party was of Sure Start, the key difference is that we wanted to ensure that the interventions we undertook were exceptionally targeted, so that every child was able to fulfil their potential. I am confident that the measures in place will continue to accelerate that, because that is the right thing to do.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]]

People who have already had a mortgage holiday for six months are not eligible for another one under the Government’s scheme, so many people will be worrying about how they will keep a roof over their heads this winter. Furthermore, the scheme does not cover mortgage interest, so that will still accrue during any payment holiday. Back in April 2018, the Government scrapped the support for mortgage interest payment and replaced it with a loan, despite warnings from Labour that that would put low-income households at risk. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to reinstating SMI, and will she abolish the nine-month waiting period, which renders the scheme unfit for purpose?

[Dr Coffey]

One of the things the hon. Lady fails to mention is that if those who are new to benefits have had full contributions over the last nine months, there is no cap on the benefits that they may receive. The support for mortgage interest is continuing. She is right to say that the Government changed that from a grant to a loan. That was the right thing to do, because people have an asset, and we are helping them to keep it. I am conscious of the extensive work undertaken by the Chancellor on ensuring that mortgages could be rearranged or that payments could be made. I am also conscious of the excellent work done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on ensuring that no evictions would happen as a result of the issues we are facing, except, more recently, for people who are nuisance neighbours. We have done a lot to ensure that people can stay in their homes and keep a roof over their heads.

Universal Credit: Court of Appeal Judgment

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]]

Many people on low incomes have suffered real hardship as a result of the Government’s failure to address this fundamental flaw in universal credit. I pay tribute to the women who took the Government to court to seek justice on this matter, but they should not have had to do so. A number of my constituents have been affected. One is a single working mother who has fallen into arrears with her rent, has seen an increase in her anxiety and depression, and has had to turn to food banks and local welfare assistance as a result. I wrote to the Secretary of State and Ministers several times about this last year, so will the Government now look at the cases of my constituents and all those affected as a matter of urgency, and pay them the money that they should have received?

[Will Quince]

I am certainly happy to look at the cases raised by the hon. Lady. I have said clearly that I am determined to find a fix. That will involve looking at numerous solutions, identifying the cohort of people and the fix, and putting it into action. That may take a little time but, as I say, I am determined to find that solution. I am happy to meet her when we are able to do so to look at those individual cases she raises in more detail.

Statutory Sick Pay and Protection for Workers

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of Statutory Sick Pay and protection available for all workers.

This is an international crisis, where countries need to learn from each other about what is working and what additional steps need to be taken. We also need to come together as a country to support each other as the severity of the crisis is becoming clearer. A Public Health England document estimates that the coronavirus epidemic in the UK will last until this time next year and could lead to almost 8 million people being hospitalised. The impact will be felt not just by those who become ill or have to self-isolate; this public health crisis has exposed the fault lines in an economy in which insecure, low-paid work is so prevalent.

In the Budget last week, and again yesterday, the Chancellor announced measures to support business, but there was a glaring omission when it came to workers on low income and those who are unable to work. PHE warns:

“It is estimated that at least 10% of people in the UK will have a cough at any one time during the months of peak Covid-19 activity.”

The revised health advice is that anyone with a cough should self-isolate for at least seven days, and for 14 days if they live with other people. It is right that people should not go on working when they are not well, but the Government’s measures so far still leave many people facing a cruel choice between their health and financial hardship, and it is a choice that has an impact on the health of the people with whom they come into contact.

In response to the questions from the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that he would bring forward a package of measures relating to statutory sick pay. We really do need the details on that as a matter of urgency.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

In order to claim statutory sick pay, workers need to prove that they are earning a minimum of £118 per week. So does my hon. Friend agree that rather than just regurgitating vacuous soundbites such as “whatever it takes”, the Government need to bring the statutory sick pay levels up from the current paltry £94.25 a week, which is not enough to even feed one’s family, to European levels and to extend it to all workers?

[Margaret Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes a couple of important points about the levels of pay and the people who are able to access it, and I will be coming on to deal with those things in my speech.

Some 7 million people are not eligible for statutory sick pay: just under 2 million workers on low income do not qualify because they earn less than the £118 on average; and 5 million self-employed people do not qualify. Those on low pay are some of those who will be hit hardest by the crisis. Many of them work in retail, hospitality and leisure, and we are also hearing of people being laid off in these sectors. Others will be concerned that their jobs may be at risk, and these anxieties could also make them more likely to carry on working, even if they are unwell. Nearly 1 million people are on zero-hours contracts. Analysis by the TUC found that the earnings of about a third of them do not meet the threshold for SSP, compared with a figure of 6% for permanent employees, and women figure highly in the number of people on zero-hours contracts. Overall, about 70% of workers who would benefit from the removal of the threshold are women. A Government consultation published last year highlighted that workers who do not earn enough to qualify for SSP may be “working when unwell”. It said that the Government believed that there was a case to extend eligibility for SSP to people earning less than the threshold. So will they now extend SSP to all workers, including those on low pay.

Along with the just under 2 million people whose earnings are too low to qualify, others on low income in the gig economy are not eligible because they are classified as self-employed. They include careworkers, cleaners and delivery drivers, the very people on whom we will be depending to an even greater degree than usual in the coming weeks and months as people have to self-isolate in greater numbers. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) has rightly highlighted, in a letter to the Government signed by 100 colleagues, that although NHS England has issued guidance advising trusts to give full sick pay to staff who have to self-isolate because of the disease, careworkers on zero-hours contracts will not be protected. They make up a quarter of the social care workforce. Will the Government ensure that they also qualify for full sick pay? In the case of delivery drivers, the GMB has worked with Hermes to agree on a fund to protect the income of drivers who fall sick or who have to self-isolate, but there are other examples of companies offering derisory payments or even requiring drivers to continue to meet the costs of renting vans even while they receive sick pay. We should not need to emphasise how important it is that people in occupations where they are going from one house to another should not go on working when unwell. We depend on people such as carers and drivers, and the Government have a responsibility to protect them if they are unable to work because of the outbreak.

There is also a case to extend statutory sick pay to the self-employed more generally, as the Irish Government have done. Many people who are disabled and who have been ill, for example, choose self-employment because of the flexibility that it can give them to choose hours that are manageable. However, they also may be now more vulnerable to the virus.

The level of statutory sick pay is far too low at only £94.25 a week, so even those who do qualify for it are likely to struggle to keep on top of even basic household bills. Average weekly earnings are currently £512, meaning that the average worker who has to self-isolate for 14 days will see their income fall by more than £850 during that time.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Is the hon. Member aware that research undertaken by the Institute for the Future of Work absolutely backs up everything she is saying about putting the statutory floor in place so that people can economically contribute when it is right for them to do so? There is much more resilience in the general population and they have more ability to work when they are fit to do so when such measures are in place.

[Margaret Greenwood]

The hon. Lady makes a really excellent point, and I thank her for it. Many workers on low pay are unlikely to have savings to fall back on either. In a recent YouGov survey, 48% of workers said that they would not be able to cover their rent or mortgage and other living expenses if they had to take two weeks off work at the current statutory sick pay rates. The European Committee of Social Rights found in January 2018 that statutory sick pay and social protections for the unemployed, sick and self-employed people in the UK were “manifestly inadequate”.

A worker in the UK on the national minimum wage who has to self-isolate will receive less than a third of what they would in Germany and less than half of what they would in Sweden or the Netherlands. The level of statutory sick pay is also set lower than the national living wage, which the Government said in the Budget that they want to increase. Will the Government therefore raise statutory sick pay to at least the level of the real living wage so that people are not pushed into poverty by doing the right thing?

The Government’s approach has been to say that people on low income who are not eligible for statutory sick pay can claim universal credit or new-style ESA. That is not the answer. Universal credit acts as a vehicle for cuts and the level of support is simply too low.

The four-year benefits freeze will only come to an end in April, and, as a result, families living in poverty have been left £560 a year worse off on average, so will the Government raise the level of social security payments in order to build resilience in people facing the virus? The five-week wait for the payment of universal credit means that there will remain a risk that people will go on working when unwell. The Government say that people can request an advance, but advances are loans that have to be paid back, often on top of other debts built up during that period, so will the Government commit to ending the five-week wait, and will they change their loan into a non-repayable advance?

The truth is that people often have to rely on food banks to survive as well as on advances during the first five weeks, and often after that, as deductions are made from the universal credit when it finally does arrive. However, there are reports that panic buying by the public is leading to food banks running short. People using food banks cannot afford to stock up and so are disadvantaged still further.

The Government should be taking measures to protect people in poverty in the current situation. Will the Government immediately suspend deductions from social security for anyone who becomes ill or is forced to self-isolate, and consider suspending them for all other claimants? Will the Government suspend work search requirements for anyone directly affected by the virus, and will the Government suspend all sanctions?

In the Budget, the Chancellor also suggested that some people who become ill but do not qualify for statutory sick pay could claim new-style ESA. That is £73.10 a week, even lower than statutory sick pay. Someone who is ill as a result of the coronavirus or for any other reason should not also be pushed into poverty and left worrying about how they will cope financially, so will the Government raise the level of new-style ESA payments? Even to get that, someone has to have built a contribution record over the past two years, which people in insecure work in particular may find difficult to do.

The Government announced that they were temporarily suspending face-to-face assessments for sickness and disability benefits. That is welcome as far as it goes, and Opposition Members have been highlighting the major problems with how assessments are carried out for a long time, but the Government have said that this approach would be replaced by telephone or paper-based assessments. That could risk increasing pressure on GPs at a time when they are already overrun, so can the Government tell us clearly how assessments will be carried out during the outbreak?

Media reporting of the virus highlighted that the most at risk had underlying health conditions, so what is the Government’s response to Mind’s call for all reassessments to be suspended to give people security of income at this time? What action will the Secretary of State take to protect people who care for a loved one who was already ill or disabled before the crisis began? Neither person may be directly affected by the virus, but attending a jobcentre could leave the carer at greater risk of contracting the virus.

The truth is that social security changes aimed solely at people who are self-isolating or ill will not be enough. Other people will be affected by the crisis. The Government have said that they will suspend the minimum income floor in universal credit for self-employed people directly affected. Will they also suspend the minimum income floor for all workers, given that many will be affected as a result of the crisis and the impact on the economy?

The demands on the DWP will be considerable, and its own staff may be forced to self-isolate or take time off because of illness as a result of the outbreak. What will the Government do to ensure that the service can continue? We are calling on them to do all that they can to introduce a form of robust, generous and comprehensive income protection for those whose hours may be cut or who may be asked to take unpaid leave because of the impact of the crisis. In some cases that will be because of a fall in the number of customers, but if schools have to close at some point, there will also be parents who are not ill and do not have to self-isolate, but who are unable to go on working, at least full-time. The Danish Government have just announced a scheme that would involve their paying 75% of people’s wages in those circumstances, and businesses paying the remaining 25%. A similar scheme successfully limited redundancies in Germany during the financial crisis.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent comments. I understand that a major international fast food chain has told its employees that if a branch has to close because of infection, business being quiet or Government action, the employees will receive only statutory sick pay, and those on zero-hours contracts will get nothing. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will make it harder for employees to do the right thing, and that it constitutes exploitative behaviour on the part of the employers which must be condemned and stopped?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood]

My hon. Friend has made a very important point, highlighting the vulnerability of people in insecure work who do not have enough support and also the levels of statutory sick pay, which are not sufficient to cover people during the crisis.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. May I echo the point that she made about Denmark? I understand that both the French and the Italian Governments are seeking to introduce exactly the same system to support workers who would otherwise be laid off. The money is being paid directly to companies to ensure that they can retain those employees and the business can be kept alive as well.

[Margaret Greenwood]

That too is a very important point. The Labour party is working with the TUC and others on a package of measures, and looking at the Danish model in particular.

We want people to be reassured that they will not lose their jobs and their income, so they can go on spending. That would prevent a sharp fall in demand, and would also ease business confidence, as firms would see the Government take on part of their wage bill. It is an approach that involves employers, trade unions and the Government working together to preserve jobs and protect people from poverty. We are calling on the Government to explore these options, and we are prepared to work in partnership to make that happen.

There is a real danger that people who have already been pushed to the margins of our society will be worst affected by this crisis, and those who are struggling on low incomes, are disabled or are unable to work will be affected particularly badly. As I have said, we are working with the TUC and others on a range of measures to extend and raise statutory sick pay, abolish the five-week wait and sanctions, and provide income and wage support along the lines of the Danish model. We also wish to join in discussions with the Prime Minister about emergency universal basic income. We need leadership from the Government to ensure that all are protected if they fall ill, are forced to self-isolate, see their jobs at risk, or face unemployment. More than ever, we need leadership and policies that reflect the responsibility we all have for one another.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for all the work he does in this area, and I welcome him back to his place. In recent years, the Government have made significant investment to improve work incentives, including the reduction in the UC taper rate from 65% to 63% and an extra £1.7 billion a year put back into UC to increase work allowances for working parents and disabled claimants by £1,000 a year from April 2019. That provides a boost to the incomes of the lowest paid and results in 2.4 million families keeping an extra £630 a year of what they earn.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said last week that any workers who need to self-isolate because of the coronavirus and who are not eligible for statutory sick pay could claim UC. However, people have to meet a work coach at the start of a claim for UC, there is a five-week wait for the first payment and anyone asking for an advance also has to go to a jobcentre to have their identity verified. So how will people who have to self-isolate be able to claim UC?

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As the Prime Minister set out last week, we will introduce, as part of the Department of Health and Social Care’s emergency Bill, provisions for statutory sick pay to be made from day one. Employers have been urged to make sure they use their discretion and respect the medical need to self-isolate in making decisions about sick pay. People not eligible to receive sick pay may be able to claim UC and/or contributory employment and support allowance, and staff at our jobcentres are ready to support people affected and can rebook any assessment or appointment that is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, this was introduced in 2012 and has been a cross-party success story. It is fantastically good news for her constituents in Kensington, where 39,000 residents are signed up to an 8% automatic enrolment. Due thanks need to be given to the 5,300 local businesses who are supporting individual constituents, who are receiving 8% per annum workplace savings.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Government tried to justify introducing the new bereavement support payment in April 2017 on the grounds that it modernises support, but couples who are not married or not in a civil partnership are not eligible. Last month, the High Court in England found that that is incompatible with human rights legislation and discriminates against children of unmarried parents. The Prime Minister has admitted that that is an injustice, so when will the Government put it right?

[Dr Coffey]

This is one of the issues on my agenda for us to take forward a consistent and coherent approach, recognising the issue of cohabitees and the impact this can have on children. We are working on particular solutions.

Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 General Committees

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 uprate the lump sum payments for sufferers and their dependants in line with September’s consumer prices index of 1.7%. Labour welcomes the fact that the Government have reviewed the rates to maintain their value in line with the CPI. We recognise that they are under no obligation to do so.

The Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 made provisions to fast-track up-front lump sum payments for people diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma and their dependants. The scheme provides that support in recognition of the difficulties that people often face in obtaining compensation from other sources, and of the fact that sufferers usually die within months of being diagnosed. It is a truly devastating diagnosis to receive.

That scheme operates alongside the scheme established under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, and offers support to those unable to benefit from it. If a person has died as a result of mesothelioma, payments can be made to their dependants. It is funded by a compensation recovery mechanism, so that payments made are recovered from any subsequent successful civil compensation claim. The 2008 scheme provides a one-off payment to sufferers who have no occupational link to the disease or who are self-employed, including sufferers who live in close proximity to a workplace containing asbestos, those exposed to asbestos in the environment and family members exposed via workers’ clothing.

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that develops in the lining that covers the outer surface of some of the body’s organs. It is usually linked to asbestos exposure. It mainly affects the lining of the lungs, although it can affect the lining of other organs as well. It takes many years to develop, but is usually rapidly fatal following the onset of symptoms. Unfortunately, it is rarely possible to cure, although treatment can help to control the symptoms.

According to the NHS website, more than 2,600 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year in the UK. Most cases are diagnosed in people aged 60 to 80, and men are more commonly affected than women. Last year, the Minister’s predecessor said that deaths from mesothelioma were at a “historically high level” and the widespread use of asbestos in the decades after world war two means that, sadly, the issue may be with us for some time.

Some 86% of schools contain asbestos, according to a 2015 study. The material was typically used in buildings between the 1940s and 1970s. Experts say that it is a greater health risk as it gets older and starts to degrade. According to the National Education Union, at least 319 teachers have died from mesothelioma since 1980, 205 of whom have died since 2001.

As I have said, Labour welcomes the uprating of the lump sum payments for sufferers of mesothelioma and their dependants. We remain concerned, however, about the striking lack of parity between the lump sum payments made to sufferers and those made to dependants. Under the regulations, a mesothelioma sufferer who is diagnosed at the age of 67 will receive a payment of £20,042. By contrast, if someone suffering from mesothelioma dies aged 67 or over, their dependant will receive a payment of just £8,084. A mesothelioma sufferer who is diagnosed at the age of 37 will receive a payment of £93,827. However, if someone suffering from mesothelioma dies at that age or under, their dependant will receive a payment of £48,829. Does the Minister think that is fair?

When last year’s equivalent of these regulations was debated on the Floor of the House in February 2019, the then Minister said:

“Of course, I fully understand that families can be devastated and very badly affected, but there is still the recognition that they are able to get compensation, even if it is not at the same level.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 360.]

She also said that the issue of disparity in payments to sufferers and dependants is raised each time this kind of debate is held. Is that not telling? Does it not make the Government realise that it is about time that payments were equalised? After all, it is 10 years since 2010, when the then Labour Minister, Lord McKenzie of Luton, pledged to equalise payments. Unfortunately, the signs are that the Government’s position will not change soon, but I urge the Minister to reflect on it.

On 6 February, the current Minister said, in response to a written parliamentary question on equalisation from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan):

“It is right that available funding is prioritised where it is needed most, that is to people living with these diseases.”

I ask the Minister to listen to the repeated calls for equalisation, to look again at the issue, and to consider the devastating impact that mesothelioma has on family members who lose a loved one. Given that the difference in payments often affects women whose husbands were directly exposed to asbestos at work, what assessment have the Government made of the impact on women of a lack of parity in payments? What is the most recent estimated cost of providing equal payments for sufferers and their dependants?

To reiterate, Labour welcomes the support available to sufferers and the uprating of provisions, but it is clear that a number of issues need to be addressed. Although we note that the Government are not under any obligation to uprate, Members said a lot about automatic uprating during last year’s debate on the equivalent of these regulations. At that time, the then Minister said that she would

“absolutely think about what has been said about automatic uprating”.—[Official Report, 6 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 356.]

It was Labour’s view then, and it remains our view now, that automatic uprating is the right thing to do. Can the Minister tell us what has come of his predecessor’s pledge to “absolutely think about” what was said about automatic uprating in last year’s debate? Will he think about what he has said today, and will he go one step further by committing to automatic uprating?

It is vital that we continue to raise awareness of the risk of working with, or in an environment with, asbestos. Can the Minister reassure Members that continuing to raise awareness is a priority for the Government, and can he tell us how the Government will do that?

Responsibility for asbestos lies primarily with the Health and Safety Executive. It is important to point out that the HSE’s funding has been cut significantly since the Conservatives came to power. It will receive £100 million less from the Department for Work and Pensions in 2019-20 than it did in 2009-10—a reduction of 54% in real terms. Between 2010 and 2016, the number of inspectors was reduced by 25%. What impact have the cuts had had on the ability of the HSE to regulate, monitor and take proactive action to prevent work-related death, injury and ill health, including that related to asbestos and mesothelioma? Will he take this opportunity to rule out further cuts to the HSE—

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid the hon. Lady is drifting rather far away from the subject we are discussing—namely, that of the two statutory instruments that relate to the uprating of the benefits. Perhaps she could return to the main topic.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I felt it was relevant, but I will return to the topic.

Can the Minister confirm that, post Brexit, this country will not lower standards to match American regulations, which allow products containing up to 1% of asbestos?

Labour welcomes the regulations to increase lump sum payments to pneumoconiosis sufferers by 1.7%, in line with inflation. We have noted that the Government are under no statutory obligation to do so. The pneumo- coniosis regulations refer to the 1979 Act, which provides lump sum payments to people suffering from certain asbestos-related conditions or their dependants where they are unable to claim damages because the employer has gone out of business. As well as mesothelioma, the scheme covers pneumoconiosis, bilateral diffuse pleural thickening, byssinosis, and primary carcinoma of the lung where there is accompanying evidence of asbestosis and/or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening. What action are the Government taking to raise awareness of all those conditions, their range of causes, the circumstances in which they are likely to occur, and the support available?

People suffering from pneumoconiosis often face a series of hurdles to receive payments from the DWP. The disease can be difficult to diagnose using two-dimensional X-rays, as they may not show enough detail and because it can take 10 years to manifest. That means that the last X-ray a miner received on leaving work may not have picked it up. Smokers or former smokers aged between 55 and 80 already receive invitations for screenings for lung diseases. Will the Minister talk to colleagues in the Department for Health about extending that to former miners?

As with the mesothelioma regulations, Labour welcomes the uprating but there is again a lack of parity between the amounts of compensation offered to sufferers and to their dependants. Will the Minister commit to establishing parity? What other support, as well as financial, do the Government make available to those who lose a loved one to a disease covered by the regulations? I say again that Labour welcomes the upratings, but I urge the Minister to reflect carefully on the many issues raised by the Committee.

Universal Credit: Delayed Roll-Out

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and for all the work that he did in our Department. He is absolutely right: universal credit is a modern, flexible, personalised benefit that reflects the rapidly changing world of work. Conservative Members believe that work should always pay, and that we need a welfare system that helps people into work, supports those who need help, and is fair to everyone who pays for it.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Yesterday the BBC reported that the Government had decided to delay the roll-out of universal credit until September 2024, adding £500 million to its overall cost. That is hugely embarrassing for the Government: yet again, they have had to delay what is meant to be their flagship social security policy. Last week the Minister told the House that they had managed to process fewer than 80 households since July, as part of what was meant to be a pilot of up to 10,000 households in Harrogate, and that only about 13 of those households had transferred to universal credit. At that rate, it would take the Government more than 380 years to complete their managed migration pilot.

Universal credit was supposed to make work pay, but instead it has caused misery for thousands across the country. It seems from yesterday’s report that senior civil servants think people are too scared to transfer to it. Can the Minister tell us why so many people are scared? Is it because of the five-week wait that is pushing so many families into debt and rent arrears, and making them turn to food banks to survive? Is it because of the two-child limit, which the Child Poverty Action Group has described as

“a policy designed to increase child poverty”?

Is it because of the sanctions regime that has made some of the most vulnerable people in our society destitute? Or is it down to the fact that, according to the Government’s own research, nearly 50% of claimants were not able to make a claim online unassisted?

It is clear that the Government have been forced to delay universal credit yet again because people do not have confidence in the system. Can the Minister tell us what they intend to do with the extra time? Will they get rid of the five-week wait? Will they scrap the two-child limit? Will they call a halt to the sanctions regime that is pushing people into destitution? And will they now apologise to all the people whom they have pushed into hardship through universal credit, and create a social security system that protects people from poverty and treats them with respect?

[Will Quince]

The hon. Lady says that I should be embarrassed. I will never be embarrassed about putting the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our society first, and neither will the Government. She talked about cost. As I have said, this is up to £500 million of additional money that will go into the pockets of our claimants. When she referred to the pilot, she was conflating two very separate issues. She also said that people were scared. Perhaps if members of the Labour party desisted from their scaremongering and spent more time in our jobcentres speaking to work coaches, they would have a better understanding of universal credit and how well it is working.