The Secretary of State’s Handling of Universal Credit

Neil Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I will take that on board, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for your comments in this debate.

I should begin by welcoming the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) back to the DWP. Even though it contributed to his return to Government, there surely can be no one gladder of the Chequers version of “Deal or No Deal” than the Work and Pensions Secretary. For a few days, the pressure to fall on her sword was off her, as her extreme Brexiteer chums climbed the altar of vanity to fall on theirs.

But now we must return from the Brexit bubble theatrics to the real world, where we have this week another set of reports following hot on the heels of the National Audit Office report, all condemning the current incarnation of universal credit. The Secretary of State’s position has been called into question, not just because of the failings of universal credit, but also because of her tin-eared response to the externally and expertly provided facts and criticism. I listened carefully to her speech just now, and it appears that there is still little contrition.

We come to the Secretary of State’s response to the National Audit Office report, which is the subject of the motion before us. We know that the NAO report blew a hole as wide as the Clyde in the Government’s defence of universal credit. The Government say that universal credit is about getting people into work quicker and will lead to 200,000 more people in work. The NAO says:

“The Department will never be able to measure whether Universal Credit actually leads to 200,000 more people in work, because it cannot isolate the effect of Universal Credit from other economic factors in increasing employment.”

The Government say that universal credit will be cheaper to administer and reduce fraud. The NAO says that the DWP

“does not know whether Universal Credit is reducing fraud”

and:

“It is not clear that Universal Credit will cost less to administer than the existing benefits system.”

The Government say they will save £8 billion from universal credit, but the NAO says that figure

“depends on some unproven assumptions”,

and that such benefits “remain theoretical”.

The NAO has directly contradicted the Government on the core aims of, and the central defences offered by the Government on, universal credit. It is therefore no wonder that the Secretary of State was so desperate to discredit the NAO on the Monday before last. For instance, in response to the question from the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) about the NAO recommending a pause in the roll-out, the Secretary of State said:

“The NAO made clear quite the opposite: it said that we need to continue with universal credit. It was also concerned that it was rolling out too slowly and said that actually we should increase what we are doing. So what the right hon. Gentleman says is absolutely not what the NAO said.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 8.]

Actually, the NAO report said that the DWP should:

“Ensure that operational performance and costs improve sustainably before increasing caseloads through managed migration. It should formally assess the readiness of automation and digital systems to support increased caseloads before migration begins, and ensure the programme does not expand before business-as-usual operations can cope with higher claimant volumes.”

These are not debating points; these are facts and quotes in black and white. We have a Work and Pensions Secretary who is either unable to grasp the facts or unwilling to accept them.

[David Hanson]

When the Secretary of State said that to me in the House, some of my constituents were watching the proceedings, and they believed that I was factually incorrect in my comments. The Secretary of State had an opportunity to apologise to me, but she has yet to do so in writing, and this was all before the NAO issued its report. The question for me, which I raised in my intervention earlier, is: why did the Secretary of State wait 48 hours to put the record straight?

[Neil Gray]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. The honourable thing for the Secretary of State to do would have been to apologise directly to him for what might have been a slur on his character and reputation.

This is important, because we are talking about the central—the flagship—social security policy of this Government, which has been criticised in report after report for failing those it should be helping. We are talking about people who are living in poverty as a result. Getting the facts wrong—not just failing on a debating point, but misquoting what is there in black and white—is very serious whichever way we cut it. The House should remember that the last Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), recently resigned for something very similar.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about facts, but is it not a fact that 83% of claimants are happier on universal credit, and they are more likely to be in a job within the first six months? Is it not a fact that universal credit is an opportunity for people to get back into work?

[Neil Gray]

On the last point, the NAO entirely contradicted the hon. Lady’s point. One fact I would relay back to her is that the Government’s own figures—this is from the DWP—show that 40% of universal credit claimants are living in poverty and struggling to make ends meet. I hope she will consider that fact as we build towards the autumn Budget, when I hope we can form a coalition around calling on the Chancellor to invest in universal credit.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points. When we talk about getting people back into work, we lose track of the fact that people who have serious illnesses and will never work again are facing delays in their personal independence payments, but nothing seems to happen about it. I have a number of cases like that, and if the Secretary of State wants, I will send them to her so that she can see this for herself.

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Gentleman makes some very fair points. We of course know from the recent statistics published by the DWP that 59% of claimants impacted by the two-child policy on tax credits and by universal credit are already in work. These are facts, and the Government should be considering them.

This is not of course the first time that this Government have tried to dismiss evidence placed before them showing the failures of universal credit. When the Trussell Trust said that food bank use was higher in areas where universal credit had been rolled out, UK Ministers described its evidence as “anecdotal”. In actual fact, the evidence came from 425 food banks across these isles, delivering 1.3 million three-day food parcels a year.

This week, the four housing association federations of these isles have called on the UK Government to fix the “fundamentally flawed” universal credit system. With colleagues, I met the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations this morning, and it revealed the scale and linkage of debt with universal credit. It is startling, and it is evidence-based. Ministers have replied that issues with debt were complicated and could not be linked to a single source, in spite of the evidence in front of them saying that nearly three quarters or 73% of tenants on universal credit are in debt, compared with less than a third or 29% of all other tenants.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Gray]

I will give way one last time, because I am conscious that others want to speak.

[Ms Eagle]

Does the hon. Gentleman see, as I do, a pattern of reluctance on the part of this Government to collect evidence and information precisely so that they can deny the effects of universal credit, and somehow pretend that the evidence that is accumulating is anecdotal?

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One of the central tenets of what the NAO called for in its report was that that type of evidence gathering needs to be done.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Gray]

I said that that was the last intervention I would take.

The evidence is there—it is in black and white—with the clear researched correlation between universal credit and housing debt. It is not even close; any responsible organisation, never mind a Government, would look at that type of key performance indicator and say, “Right, how do we fix this, because it’s failing?” Why are this Government so determined to push back, ignore the evidence, plough on in the face of the evidence and pile more misery on more families? That is what is behind these statistics—people and families, such as the two constituents in tears at my Airdrie surgery a week past on Friday. For some reason, on universal credit this Government ignore the evidence and the lived experience, but are happy to deceive and never accept responsibility.

It is to responsibility that I turn in directly addressing the thrust of Labour’s motion. Labour has suggested that it tabled this motion to stop the Secretary of State’s salary for a month to replicate the experiences of people on universal credit who are sanctioned and, I suppose, so that the Secretary of State had a chance to make the same choices as those on whom she inflicts her policies, to paraphrase the right hon. Lady. The universal credit sanctions regime is utterly punitive, and in the words of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, is akin to “destitution by design”. I was therefore hesitant last night, when contemplating the motion, about whether we should support it or rise above the deplorable conduct of the Secretary of State’s sanctioning regime. For the reasons I have already outlined, however, I think the Secretary of State should be considering her position.

Of course, a new Secretary of State will not necessarily fix the problems with universal credit. Perhaps the right hon. Lady could redeem herself by honouring the original concept of universal credit on which she worked, in a previous role, with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). He of course resigned because the Treasury was cutting universal credit to ribbons. In spite of this motion, I reiterate the calls I have made in the past about working with the Government to improve universal credit. I am sure all Members on both sides of the House would take such an opportunity should a genuinely listening ear be afforded to us.

Of course, the Government are not short of suggestions from expert agencies and the third sector. We have already heard about the suggestions of the NAO, which I have not actually heard the Secretary of State comment on or respond to. Those include improving the tracking and transparency of progress towards universal credit’s intended benefits, and working with delivery partners to establish a shared evidence base on how UC is working in practice, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) mentioned.

Housing associations have talked this week about issues, on top of the process improvements, that the Government could easily sort out, such as getting payments on time or allowing housing associations and other advocacy organisations to negotiate on behalf of recipients. Housing associations want implicit consent restored and the two-child limit and benefit cap to be scrapped, and they also want to see work allowances restored and the self-employed protected. At my meeting with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations this morning, I was reminded of just how unusual it is for the four federations to campaign collectively on such an issue, given the devolved nature of housing policy. That is how seriously they see the threat of the further roll-out of universal credit without significant changes.

We in the Scottish National party have talked about allowing people the choice of split payments, restoring work allowances to honour the founding principles of UC and sorting out the disability elements. This call has been echoed by Scope, which wants disability premiums to be restored. It says that, once the Government transitions run out, a single disabled person who receives the severe disability premium and is in the ESA work-related activity group could lose up to £4,745.40 a year on universal credit.

The point of universal credit was to make social security easier to navigate: it does not. It was supposed to be easier and cheaper to administer: it is not. It was supposed to make work pay: it does not. In reality, the cuts being made to universal credit may be saving the Treasury on the DWP budget line, but they will be costing it significantly more in other areas. With worsening mental health, it is costing NHS services. In increased requirement for conditionality and cuts to income, it is costing our local authorities in welfare rights officers and rent arrears. In allowing children to go hungry, it is costing our education outcomes.

Rather than working in silos, we need a new cross-departmental and cross-party approach, and we need that before universal credit reaches our largest cities, such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, which are due to be migrated soon. The NAO stressed its concern about any further roll-out until the issues it raised are addressed. We agree. We have been saying so for years. So my appeal to the Secretary of State is to work across the House and with the third sector to take a strong coalition to persuade the Chancellor to invest in universal credit at the autumn Budget.