Autumn Statement Resolutions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

From listening to some Conservative Members, one might think we were in some sort of economic Shangri-La. The only positive element about the autumn statement is that it was not the previous Chancellor’s statement, so I congratulate the Chancellor—perhaps this could be passed on—on not being the previous Chancellor.

In substance, the change of staff in Downing Street means that the country is not quite as far up the creek without a paddle as we may have been under the last Administration, but that is of small comfort to the millions of people who are still paying more for less, so I am sure the Chancellor will understand if I do not give him a high five. He is like a dentist telling the patient that they need only four teeth taken out without anaesthetic rather than five, and dressing that up as good news.

The autumn statement was an act of neglect. The facts from the Office for Budget Responsibility speak for themselves: real growth is down, debt interest is up, inflation is slowing but high, and productivity is in its boots. After 13 years of blundering, every indicator is pointing in the wrong direction. The Conservative party has spent months making lofty pronouncements about long-term decisions, but the Chancellor’s statement looked no further than the next election. By now, this House and the British public are used to the wide gap between their claims and fiscal reality.

Does anyone remember the “long-term economic plan” from 2014? What happened to that? What about “strong and stable” in 2017? Where has that gone, and where are northern powerhouse and HS2? It is strange that we did not hear any of those phrases in the statement. Of course, the Chancellor could not even bring himself to mention “a brighter future”—the slogan that adorned his party conference just a few weeks ago. The statement shows that the Conservatives have not learned a single lesson from their 13 years in power. They have not hit one of their fiscal rules in 13 years.

Once again, we see the old approach, which the public now roundly reject: attacks on our public sector, which is always refused the resources that it needs; and, as we have heard this afternoon, the scapegoating of social security claimants—particularly disabled people—through cuts to the social security system, to pay for the Government’s economic chaos. We can see from the polls that the public are tired of the same old Tory approach put forward in the autumn statement. They are tired of NHS waiting lists of nearly 8 million people waiting for healthcare, including 14,000 people in my constituency and constituents of every Member in this Chamber. Almost 200 schools are at the point of collapse because the Government decided to halt the Building Schools for the Future programme. The number of bus services has been halved since 2011, leaving more people isolated and unable to access services. And it goes on: the housing market is in a parlous state; mortgage defaults are going through the roof, if people have one; and many landlords are out of control and using no-fault evictions. In huge swathes of the country, it is almost impossible for people to get a mortgage, let alone pay it.

I will concentrate on two elements. First, on tax, the Chancellor tried to buy off the electorate with headline-grabbing changes to national insurance, but those policies only thinly conceal the true picture of what is happening under this Government. The frozen tax thresholds mean that those who make their living from work will pay tens of billions of pounds more while taxes on the wealthy remain largely flat—that is a political choice; it is as simple as that. Over the pandemic, the top 10% accrued £50,000 each in additional wealth, according to the Resolution Foundation. The list goes on.

In reality, the changes to national insurance that were announced last week will be paid for by cuts in services. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that the statement bakes in a real-terms cut, to the tune of £22 billion by 2028, to departmental budgets. That almost exactly matches the £20 billion that was spent on the national insurance proposals announced last week, and of course there will be more cuts in local government, right across the piece. It has been 13 years of blight, with tax cuts paid for by denuding public services and implemented by a deluded Government, and a weaker safety net. It is the same old Conservatives in action.

What about national borrowing? The Tories would have us believe that they borrow less and pay back more, but I will quickly fact-check that claim. The only fact we need to know is that the Tories make it up as they go along: the reality is that they borrow more and pay back less. That is fairly well documented—one or two Conservative MPs may want to ask their researchers to check that with the Library.

Turning to public services, what is that £20 billion of cuts going to look like? It will be dreadful. The Resolution Foundation says that the pain now being proposed is “implausible” in its scale. The Institute for Fiscal Studies broke down those cuts in more detail and found that if some Departments continue to be protected, that means 3.4% cuts across the board for others. That £20 billion of cuts means more bankrupt councils, longer waiting lists in the courts and fewer police—in short, a continued decline in the quality of our lives, and more pressure on the social fabric that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) spoke about. It all adds up to the greatest fall in disposable incomes since 1955. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation calls the plans “fundamentally inadequate” to deal with the 4 million people in this country who are in destitution.

What we need—what we are all calling for, including my communities in Bootle—is a general election as soon as possible to get that shower out.

Child Support (Enforcement) Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

That was very swift; I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I thank hon. Members for joining us this morning, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who has made a brilliant contribution and covered the importance of this Bill in great detail.

As highlighted by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, the Bill is vital for securing money for children more quickly from those parents who fail or simply refuse to give support to their own youngsters. Child maintenance payments, as we have heard, can play an effective role in helping to lift children out of poverty, and can help to enhance the life outcomes of children in separated families.

I take this opportunity to say a few words about what the CMS is doing more widely to improve its service—as we have heard from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn—and ensure that it is supporting our youngsters and protecting the most vulnerable citizens. I would like to reiterate the work that we are doing, and hopefully give some comfort in that regard, because I know and understand that this is a matter of concern for many of us who, as constituency MPs, receive complaints and concerns from constituents who perhaps feel that they have not received the level of support or service they believe they should from the CMS.

As Members will know, until recently the day-to-day policy of the Child Maintenance Service sat with my noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Stedman-Scott. The Baroness was truly strident in her desire for the CMS to be at its best and worked to that end, and I know that that view is shared greatly by my noble Friend Viscount Younger of Leckie, who has taken over overall ministerial responsibility for policy on CMS, and I am working strongly with him.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud on bringing this important Bill before us. I think the Minister will know that, since the agency was set up 11 years ago, almost £500 million has not been paid. That is 80% of the total accruals in deficit, in effect. Will she bring forward in due course facts, statistics and information to show how this Bill may be reducing that figure as time goes by? It is important that we monitor that this Bill, brought by the hon. Lady, is giving us information and showing that action has been taken and that young children, and mainly women, will benefit from it.

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that challenge and for making that important point. I was about to say that I am working strongly on the policy and its focus on supporting lone parents. I am happy to write to Members and share what we believe the outcomes will be. We will be looking strongly at this. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that other Bills are in progress, and we are certainly seeking to increase and strengthen the impact of the CMS. We know how much it lifts youngsters out of poverty and, as we have heard this morning, it matters greatly to families. That is an important challenge, which I am happy to take up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for raises these issues, which we have around the country. Let me assure the House that the Department for Education is looking at how it can encourage more local authorities to develop similar offers to care leavers, which was part of an independent review of children’s social care. That is part of the work that I, and the housing taskforce, are doing on housing, and I am keen to look at it.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to help tackle the disproportionate impact of the cost of living crisis on people with Parkinson’s disease.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)]

Six million people receiving an eligible disability benefit received a £150 disability cost of living payment last year, and will receive a further £150 cost of living payment later this year. This is in addition to other Government support, such as up to £900 for those on a qualifying means-tested benefit.

[Peter Dowd]

I thank the Minister for his answer. According to a Parkinson’s UK survey, people with Parkinson’s disease will pay an extra £1,196 in heating costs to manage symptoms. Those receiving the £150 disability cost of living payment are already £1,000 a year out of pocket, so will the Minister meet me and representatives of Parkinson’s UK to discuss this very important issue?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have worked together constructively on issues in the past, and I would certainly be delighted to meet him on this occasion to discuss this important issue. Of course, one point that I would make is that many people who are receiving the disability cost of living payment will also be receiving other elements of the Government’s cost of living package, but I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about his views on this particular issue.

Pension Credit and Cost of Living Support Grant

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

Pensioner poverty is a significant issue, particularly in my constituency, where 25,000 people receive the basic state pension. I am very concerned at how hard it is to find out how many of those 25,000 are eligible for pension credit but are missing out on that vital support, which could be the difference between putting food on the table and turning the heating on this winter or not. At one time, the Department for Work and Pensions monitored eligibility for pension credit—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. This is an intervention, not a speech. Would you bring it to a conclusion?

[Richard Foord]

I am suggesting that the Government should pledge not only to keep the triple lock on pensions but to restart monitoring so we can get support to the people who really need it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

I appreciate the Minister taking another intervention—I am doing so to help his throat and give him the chance to have a glass of water. If he is saying, “It was set up quickly because we had to help people as a matter of urgency,” that is good. However, we have now had time to think about it. I have written several times and been campaigning on this, but he has not yet answered the question: will he extend the deadline to 31 March, or will he consider extending it? Will he not say no today? Will he give people a little hope that they might get it? He is making the clear point that it is for households in absolute need. Well, they are still in absolute need—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. You are bordering on making another speech, rather than an intervention.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am trying to help the Minister’s throat.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I appreciate that. Will you respond, Minister?

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East for her lengthy intervention, which enabled me to get another bottle of water.

In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, this is a complex system that was set up at pace in order to reach about 8 million people. I understand the point that she is making: if the deadline were extended, more people would have a chance to apply. We are looking into a range of measures to encourage people to take it up before the final deadline. She asked earlier when that deadline would be. I am pleased to tell her that it is 19 December.

The £650 payment has been split into two payments with different qualifying periods to reduce the chance of someone missing out completely. If a household did not receive the first payment of £326 in July, it might still receive the second payment of £324 in November. To qualify for the second cost of living payment, individuals must be entitled to a payment of pension credit for any day in the period 26 August to 25 September 2022.

As pension credit claims can be backdated up to three months, however, if the person is eligible for the three-month period, it is not too late to qualify for the second cost of living payment. We therefore urge people to get their applications in as soon as possible and by no later than 19 December, as I said. That will ensure that, if they are eligible for pension credit for the previous three months, they will also qualify for the second cost of living payment. In that way, we can ensure that those eligible will receive the support they need at the earliest opportunity.

We are not changing the qualifying dates for the second tranche of the cost of living payments for any of the means-tested benefits. The eligibility period must remain consistent, so it is simple to deliver the payments quickly and on a scale to support millions of people on low incomes.

I remind Members that cost of living payments are just one part of the welfare support available to pensioners this winter. A key part of the support that we offer is the energy price guarantee, which will reduce energy bills significantly this winter. Also, owing to the impact of higher energy costs on pensioners, the Government will pay an additional £300 in a pensioner cost of living payment as a top-up to the winter fuel payment. Those payments of £500 or £600 per household will be sent out from mid-November. That is in addition to the cold weather payments, which helped more than 4 million people last year. Also, we must not forget the £150 council tax rebate earlier this year.

Finally, for those who need additional support, we recently extended the household support fund, which will now run until the end of March 2023, bringing total funding for that support to £1.5 billion. In England, that will take the form of an extension to the household support fund, backed by £421 million. The devolved Administrations will receive £79 million through the Barnett formula, with Scotland allocated £41 million of that.

As a Department, we will continue to work to increase take-up of pension credit to ensure that vulnerable pensioners receive the support they need this year and beyond. I am happy to talk to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East about it again in future.

Automatic Pension Enrolment

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind hon. Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate. This is in line with the current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a lateral flow test before coming on to the parliamentary estate. Please give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of automatic pension enrolment.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. We are considering the matter of automatic pension enrolment, but let us not speak too loudly about it. For the past decade, this has been one of the most remarkable success stories, yet also somehow one of our best-kept secrets. It all began in 2005 with the pensions commission looking out on a bleak private pension market. It knew that we had to act to boost the number of savers and savings in the UK to give people greater security in their retirement. The commission formally proposed, as part of its work, that those over a certain age and income be automatically enrolled in a pension. The Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats all agreed, and after the Pensions Act 2008 was passed the coalition Government carried this through.

The results have been remarkable, transforming the UK pension landscape. For example, whereas the rate of workplace pension participation fell to 55% between 2009 and 2012, that rate is now a remarkable 88%. Today, more than 19 million eligible employees participate in a workplace pension and, together, save more than £100 billion in a single year. More than 10 million people are now saving or saving more, increasing pension savings by an incredible £17 billion. Two million fewer people are under-saving for their retirement than would otherwise have been the case. There has been a 50% increase in participation among the young, between the ages of 20 and 29. The greatest increases in pension participation by earnings have come from low to moderate earners. Let me put it simply. Savers are up. Savings are up. Men and women are participating equally. And the lowest earners have benefited the most.

That is perhaps a sign of what we can do when we work together but other, indirect benefits have been seen. For example, studies have shown that auto-enrolment has eliminated the mental health participation gap. Our fight against climate change has been bolstered: with savings volumes increased, UK pension funds now have more assets to invest in high-growth technology that is green or in renewable energy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

For the benefit of Members, if you do wish to speak—notwithstanding that you have asked to speak—would you rise? Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I am conscious that the hon. Lady thinks that just because there is a free course, those people who are most disadvantaged in her country will take advantage of it. In fact, that has not been the case; we see far more people in England from less privileged backgrounds getting into university and benefiting from that. It is important that we have a balanced approach, recognising the importance of level 3, 4 and 5 apprenticeships in particular and the fact that, once they have graduated, those people will be better off financially, except compared with those in Russell Group universities, within 10 years.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

This time last year, the Canadian Government asked the UK Government to enter into talks to bring about pension parity for pensioners like Royal Navy veteran Alan Wren, who was forced to work until he was 78 years of age because his pension had been frozen in Canada. The Government refused to enter into those discussions. What does the Secretary of State say to veterans such as Alan and the 492,000 other pensioners who are trapped on meagre state pensions, all because they live in the wrong country? In Alan’s case, the country is a commonwealth and NATO partner and ally.

[Guy Opperman]

As the hon. Gentleman and I have met and spoken about this matter in the past, he will be aware that the UK state pension is payable worldwide and that all veterans are treated the same as non-veterans when it comes to the payment of the UK state pension overseas.

Income Tax (Charge)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) [V]]

Yesterday I was fortunate enough to have my first dose of the Oxford vaccine. I had it in a pharmacy that is just yards away from the house where I lived as a child. Davey’s Chemist, one of a number in Merseyside owned by Mary Davey, is at the heart of the community. In fact, I managed to have a quick chat with her after my jab because she happened to be in the pharmacy. The vaccination centre is being run efficiently, effectively, professionally and personably. How she and her staff managed to set it up so quickly and smoothly, I really do not know, but they did. It took hard work, effort, commitment and dedication, and I was impressed but not surprised, because pharmacies get on with it. They were asked to do a job. They said yes and delivered, and despite the stresses and strains on the pharmacy sector, they deliver time after time. So I was disappointed to find that there was not, as far as I can tell, anything in the Budget statement that in any way sent a message of support to the pharmacy sector, let alone any practical or financial support for it. A key sector in the fight against covid through the vaccination programme has been cut adrift, yet the Government still ask a sector that is under strain to pull out all the stops.

As a member of the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group, chaired by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), I want to highlight some of the concerns and recommendations identified in the APPG’s report of December 2020 and the themes brought out in it that are affecting the sector. First, the Government should review the response from pharmacies during the pandemic and re-evaluate a clear vision of what we need from these undervalued frontline healthcare workers.

Secondly, the NHS and Government should enable pharmacists to do more by giving this vital sector additional resources for training and support. Thirdly, a reassessment by finance teams in the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS of the value of pharmacies would be welcome. Fourthly, the Government should write off the advance payments as an immediate way of providing relief. In addition, they should re-evaluate the financial implications of asking pharmacies to pay back the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am sorry, but we seem to have lost Peter Dowd, so we will go to Gagan Mohindra.

Universal Credit

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I would like to feel able to thank every Member who has spoken in the debate, but, frankly, the only meals Tory Members are interested in are when their rich donors pay them to have them. Those are the only meals they are interested in. [Interruption.] That is all they are interested in.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd]

We have been asked today to tell the truth: I have just told the truth, and the truth hurts as far as Tory Members are concerned. [Interruption.] The four statutory instruments we are debating today—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd]

That has upset Tory Members; they are deeply upset about it. The four statutory instruments taken together would end childcare vouchers, restrict the number of children receiving free school meals and limit access to universal credit for the self-employed and disabled people.

[Rachel Maclean]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

No, I will not.

Far from seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, this Government have indicated once more their relentless desire to throw some of the poorest into the shade. While the Chancellor came to the House today to pat himself on the back, with no sense of irony whatsoever, these new regulations remind us that austerity is far from over. Depriving some of the poorest children in the country access to a free school meal on its own would be considered shameful, but paired with the restriction on childcare vouchers and the introduction of tougher criteria for universal credit, we have a cruel cocktail of cuts and misery—and Tory Members know a lot about cocktails as well when they are at their meals.

The Children’s Society estimates—[Interruption.] Fact check: the Children’s Society estimates that the changes the measures the Government are seeking to introduce will see 1 million children in poverty unable to benefit from free school meals because of them pulling the rug on the current transitional arrangements, and to add insult to injury, by setting an income threshold for the children of those on universal credit to qualify for free school meals, the Government are creating a cliff-hanger which will leave around 350,000 families worse off. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There are clearly heightened tempers, but we must have some decorum to allow us to listen to Mr Dowd.

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

[Mr Duncan Smith]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

What I will say is this—[Interruption.] If Tory Members want to listen, I am more than happy to say this:

“I am unable to watch passively whilst certain policies are enacted in order to meet the fiscal self-imposed restraints that I believe are more and more perceived as distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest.”

That is from the right hon. Gentleman’s resignation letter.

Why do the Government feel the need to cut the number of children who are eligible for free school meals? Why are the Conservatives keen to limit the number of parents eligible for childcare vouchers? And why do Ministers seem content with ensuring that the self-employed and disabled on universal credit are worse off and at further risk of sanctions?

The Chancellor’s mantra, as with his predecessor, has been fiscal prudence, a concept hijacked by an ideologue for ideological purposes. He has long proclaimed, whether on spending on public services or on the welfare state, that there must be belt-tightening. In the name of balancing the Budget, we have seen almost a fifth of women’s refuge shelters close under this Government’s cuts, while 41% of children’s services are unable to perform their statutory duties. Yet the Chancellor can somehow conjure up money to give large multinational corporations and the wealthiest £70 billion-worth of tax cuts by the end of the Parliament; no belt-tightening there.

If we look at the decision to cut the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p alone, research—fact—has shown that those earning over £1 million pounds a year have saved on average £554,000 from 2013 to 2018. There was no belt-tightening there, either. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Members must not shout at the hon. Gentleman.

[Peter Dowd]

Over the past five years, this tax cut has cost the British taxpayer £8.4 billion. That £8.4 billion could instead have fully funded universal credit, extended free school meals or ensured tax-free childcare for all. Fact check: that is a fact.

Childcare remains the biggest cost for working households. For some families, the childcare bill is crippling their finances. The childcare voucher scheme is not only popular but well subscribed, with some 780,000 parents using vouchers and more than 50,000 employers offering childcare voucher schemes. Most employers who provide vouchers currently do so through salary sacrifice schemes, exempting recipients from income tax and national insurance on vouchers up to a maximum of £55 a week. The scheme has its flaws—for example, it does not cover self-employed people and requires employers to be registered—but overall, most parents and employers who use the scheme believe that the system works, and an overwhelming majority want it to stay. There is another fact check.

It is not really surprising that the Government are planning to pass regulations this evening that would close the scheme to new applicants, particularly considering their shambolic introduction of the alternative tax-free childcare scheme. The Government’s much-awaited tax-free childcare scheme opened to parents this year, a full five years since it was originally announced. [Interruption.] That is another fact that Conservative Members do not like. To call the roll-out disastrous would be a grave understatement. On top of the delays, HMRC’s website crashed, forcing the Government to pay nearly £1 million to parents in lieu of childcare payments. Hardly a great start! Under the current voucher system, the amount of childcare a family gets is tied to their earnings. Under the new system, it is based instead on expenditure, so the childcare system will benefit those who can afford to spend the most, with the Government’s headline figure of £2,000 tax free reserved for those parents who have an extra £10,000 lying around.

It is well known that the tax-free childcare scheme is the pet project of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. She has consistently called for better value for money when it comes to public spending and said that the Government should avoid spending money that they do not have. However, under the new scheme, parents sending their children to independent schools will also be able to claim the £2,000 tax-free amount for childcare. How can the Chief Secretary justify that? Surely, the money spent giving a tax break to those who can afford to send their children to some of the most expensive fee-paying schools in the country could instead be used to ensure that a million children do not lose access to free school meals. There is no reason why the Government should not listen to the calls of the Opposition, of parents and of employers across the country who want to keep the voucher scheme open and extend it to the self-employed.

I should like to turn now to the Local Authority (Duty to Secure Early Years Provision Free of Charge) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 and the Universal Credit (Miscellaneous Amendments, Saving and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2018. As we have heard, the first of these instruments creates new eligibility criteria for families applying for 15 hours of free childcare for their two-year-old through universal credit—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to give way. Please allow him to finish.

[Peter Dowd]

The facts do rile them, don’t they? They have asked for facts all afternoon. Then they get a few and they just don’t like them. I shall be coming to a close very shortly. It is as simple as this. Fortunately, at least the public now have a clear choice between the two parties: a Government of the past wedded to a failed ideological nightmare, or a Labour party that will govern for the many, not the few. Finally, is there any vulnerable group or person that this self-obsessed, clapped-out, washed-out, out-of-time Government are not prepared to attack?

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Gerald Jones. Where is the feller? He is not here.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of self-employment.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)]

The Government support those who aspire to be their own boss. The number of self-employed people in the UK labour market has increased by nearly 800,000 since 2010 and by 129,000 in the last year alone. We continue to monitor and review the impact of self-employment on the wider labour market and benefits system.

[Peter Dowd]

A Citizens Advice report in August 2015 said that there were as many as 460,000 people in bogus self-employment, with a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds in lost revenue. Is it not about time that the Secretary of State, rather than hounding disabled people, started tackling exploitative companies, many of which have lucrative public sector contracts, that are forcing people down the self-employment route?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there should be no exploitation of workers, particularly through forced self-employment, but he will have noticed that the Government are on the case, having set up the Matthew Taylor review specifically to explore alternative employment structures and to consider how employment rules need to be altered to keep pace with changes in how people work in the modern economy. If, however, he is characterising the growth of self-employment as harmful to the jobs market, I would disagree. The new enterprise allowance is proving very successful at making sure that people who want to can work for themselves. I am sure that he, like me, welcomes the fact that in his own constituency self-employment is up by 7% since 2015, and that the claimant count in the last year has fallen by 12%.

Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is always hard—this is a challenge in all legislation—to set out the rules to be followed when not every scenario is identified in the legislation itself.

[Peter Dowd]

The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), has said:

“Sanctions are being applied at a scale unknown since the Second World War and the operation of sanctions on this scale has made for the most significant change in the post-war social security system. Yet the Government”

do not know for sure how much money has been withdrawn. Does the hon. and learned Lady not agree that more of the same process is completely useless?

[Lucy Frazer]

All the evidence suggests that over 90% of people do not go through the sanctions system at all, so the system works for a large number of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I agree with the hon. Lady that it would be good to have a consistently high standard of support in jobcentres across the country. I do not agree, however, that a Bill is the right way to achieve that. There are other ways of achieving improvement across all the sectors of our public services. I have done an enormous amount of healthcare work, as she might know, and I do not believe that legislating from the top is necessarily the right way to reduce variation and bring everyone up to the level of the best. There are many ways of doing that that do not involve legislation.

[Peter Dowd]

I want to ask a specific question about the Bill. Clause 1 states:

“Before sanctions or reductions (“sanctions”) may be imposed on a person in receipt of social security benefits which will have the effect of reducing or restricting those benefits—

(a) an assessment of the relevant circumstances of the person must be carried out, and

(b) conditions in this Act found to be satisfied.”

What is the problem with that principle?

[Helen Whately]

I am going to deal with that point later in my remarks. As I was saying a moment ago to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, legislation is not always the right way to achieve improvement. Personally, I believe that, where possible, it is better to give those who work in the public sector greater autonomy to do a really good job. That gives people an enormous amount of motivation, because they usually go into those jobs because they want to make a difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend is right that those circumstances are considered already, so much of what is in the Bill duplicates what is already done, and is included in extensive guidance to work coaches.

[Peter Dowd]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Whately]

I wish to move on now to speak about mental health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Just briefly, please.

[Helen Whately]

I will give way briefly.

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Lady says that legislation should not be introduced when it is not necessary, but the Government are poking their noses in all sorts of places where they should not be, so why not here? [Interruption.] She does not like legislation, but what about a code of conduct setting out the procedures, tests and standards to be followed and applied in carrying out assessments? What is wrong with a code of conduct laid down via regulation?

[Helen Whately]

As I literally just mentioned, there are already extensive guidelines, so why add to them with another code of conduct? It is simply duplication.

I wish to move on now to mental health. I am chair of the all-party group for mental health, and I recognise that there have been particular problems with sanctions being imposed on people with poor mental health. We know that people with mental health problems have been disproportionately affected by sanctions, partly because of the complex and fluctuating nature of those conditions, and that sanctions have caused them a great deal of stress and anxiety.

Mind, the mental health charity, has made the point about the great number of people with mental health conditions who have been receiving sanctions. In its evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee in 2014, it talked about the problems with the way that people with mental health problems were being supported in the benefits system, and those problems persist. We know that an individual’s mental health problems are not always well understood by the people in the jobcentres, and that some of the activities required of them as conditions for receiving benefits can be inappropriate and are sometimes thought to move them further away from work. That can be the case despite the fact that people with mental health conditions frequently very badly want to work.

Efforts are already being made to support people with mental health problems into work. Work coaches already receive guidance specifically on how they can best support people with mental health conditions. For instance, the definition of people regarded as “at risk” now includes those with mental health conditions, so hardship payments can be expedited. In recognising the challenge for people with mental health problems getting into work, the Government have recently published a Green Paper, “Improving Lives”, which is a joint effort between the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions. I very much welcome it, as it recognises that there is a large employment gap between those in good health and those with long-term illnesses—physical and mental—and it sets out a series of proposals to try to improve that situation. One proposal seeks to improve the support for people with mental health conditions, including developing the employment offer alongside talking therapies, enhanced training for work coaches to support people with mental health conditions, more disability employment advisers, and personal support packages offering better tailored employment support for people with health conditions. That set of proposals must be a reminder to everyone here how committed the Government are to helping people with health conditions into work, particularly those with mental health conditions. The Government are doing an enormous amount to help people in these situations. The Green Paper is very much part of a common theme of the Government listening, responding to the situation and trying to make the system better.

On the other actions the Government are taking, we have heard that they accepted the recommendations of the Oakley review. The Work and Pensions Committee, in its recent follow-up review, said:

“We welcome DWP’s acceptance of the Oakley Review’s findings, and the steps that it has taken towards implementation of the Review’s recommendations.”

The Government have accepted many of the recommendations in the Select Committee’s follow-up report, including trialling the yellow card system, so claimants will have 14 days’ warning before they are sanctioned, and we will soon hear how that has gone. The Government have been issuing comprehensive guidance to staff to improve awareness of how JSA conditions can be varied to take account of the claimant’s physical or mental health condition and caring responsibilities. The Government have also provided for claimants to agree with their work coach any restrictions in their pattern of availability and/or in the type and hours of work they are capable of doing, as long as the restrictions are reasonable in light of their condition. Therefore, all JSA claimants should have conditionality requirements that are tailored to their specific circumstances. As more people move on to universal credit, more will benefit from its even more tailored approach.

To conclude, given all that is being done to improve the system we have—a system that is rightly designed with a level of flexibility to allow for improvement—the Bill is unnecessary and unhelpful. It is unnecessary because it seeks to legislate for things the Government are already doing. For instance, there is guidance that requires an assessment to be carried out of whether hardship payments are appropriate. There is also a whole set of guidance about things that would count as good reasons for a claimant not to attend an appointment or make their Work programme commitments. Those good reasons include things such as homelessness, travel time, domestic violence, bullying, harassment, mental health conditions and learning difficulties.

I could go on, but, as has been said, that list is not intended to be exhaustive, and it gives scope for judgment on the part of the decision maker. Critically, the system we have is intended to support and enable work coaches to give flexible support to the individuals they are helping into work. It is intended to give some autonomy and responsibility to jobcentres in supporting people into work.

What we should not try to do where a system does not work perfectly is always to centralise and always to legislate. It is better to persist with an approach that is about improving the way the service works on the ground. My experience of work coaches is that they are thoughtful and doing their absolute best for the individuals they are trying to help into work, and I absolutely support them. What they have told me they need more than anything is time to spend with the individuals they are supporting. What they do not need is more complexity, more legislation and more rules that might get them into legal knots. Let us give them the support and the time to do the best possible job by the individuals they are helping into work.