Social Security (Equality)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Christian Matheson]

That certainly would have prevented a lot of heartache and difficulties for those who have been affected. My hon. Friend, who sits on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, is an expert in this area, so I will take his word for it.

On his recent appointment, the new Secretary of State immediately used the justification of focusing benefits on those who need them the most. I admit that even previous Labour Governments have used that as an excuse. However, I believe that it is a bogus argument, and a sham to give cover to further cuts. Why should a disabled person placed in the group of greatest need when PIP was first introduced suddenly be deemed not to be in the greatest need, just a couple of years later? Are the Government seriously suggesting that someone with a lifelong disability or chronic illness can be cured of that disability? Why is my constituent who is on dialysis with double kidney failure suddenly considered not to require PIP, when there has been no change in her condition and she has not yet received a transplant?

The situation does not only economic harm by forcing the vulnerable into even greater poverty, but psychological harm by increasing their stress, and their worry that their lives will be further impoverished by reductions. My constituent Lynda Hesketh, who is wheelchair-bound and who runs the Chester People Have Abilities group, describes to me her terror—that is her word—whenever a brown envelope drops through her letterbox; she worries that it is announcing a further cut to her support.

Of course, many people with disabilities want to work and are capable of doing so, but they face cultural or physical barriers. The Government have made some progress in helping disabled people into work, but the disability employment gap has nevertheless widened slightly in recent years.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that having listened to the debate about quiet cities, we should listen to the quiet man, the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who was scathing about the current Government’s policies in this developing area?

[Christian Matheson]

We should listen to him. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) mentioned, it might have been more help if he had spoken up a little sooner, but none the less, better late than never. The advice that he gives is absolutely valid.

Of the 12 million people in the UK living with a disability, impairment or chronic illness, around 7 million are of working age. We know that 47% of working-age disabled people are in work, compared with almost 80% of working-age non-disabled people—a disability employment gap of more than 30%. That is important because it indicates not only the waste of the potential talent of disabled people who want to get into work but the fact that those forced off PIP and other benefits will have far less opportunity to make ends meet through their own efforts than through benefits. I welcome the Government’s determination to address those issues in the forthcoming White Paper, and I hope that the Minister might be able to give us a sneak preview today if at all possible.

I turn to employment and support allowance. The Government’s stated aim was to ensure that work became a way out of long-term illness and that benefits were focused on what a person can do as opposed to what they cannot do. That is all very laudable, of course, but again the reality was detached from the rhetoric. As the Work and Pensions Committee recognised, the focus on a return to work in such a short time was not appropriate for many claimants, and the work capability assessment failed to provide an accurate assessment of a claimant’s individual health-related employment barriers or distance from the labour market.

Through announcements by Lord Freud, the Government have now moved to make additional cash available to help disabled people return to work. That indicates that they accept that there was and remains a problem. Indeed, the Government’s intention to produce a White Paper, which I have just referred to and which is keenly if nervously awaited by disability charities and campaign groups, demonstrates that there is still a way to go.

Chester was one of the first areas to move to universal credit. We now hear that further cuts to the universal credit rate are likely to be coming down the line, to make up for the cost of the Government’s U-turn on tax credits. Such cuts will inevitably have a still further impact on those at the bottom of the pile. Indeed, from its inception, universal credit included the abolition of the severe disability premium of £61.85 a week, which was a massive and largely unpublicised cut in the benefit levels of the most severely disabled people, although, to be fair, it was mitigated by a degree of transitional protection for existing recipients. Consequently, many of the effects of the changes to universal credit are yet to be seen.

That brings me to my main point. With the combination of the changes to PIP, universal credit, ESA and other benefits, disabled people in particular are experiencing increasing insecurity and inequality. The effect on them and their friends and families is becoming tangible. We talk about the cutting of individual benefits, but when a combination of cuts falls on individuals or families, that has a greater effect. I therefore make one further request to the Minister, which is that the Government consider instituting a cumulative impact assessment to evaluate the overall combined consequences of the many different changes.

I will finish with two brief quotes. The first is somewhat truncated and is from July 2009:

“I do believe that you judge a society by the way it treats its most vulnerable… together we can create a society we are all…proud of.”

That was said by the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now our Prime Minister. Sadly, those pre-election words have come to nothing, as shown by my second quote, which is from Richard Atkinson, a disability rights adviser at DIAL House, which is Chester’s disability rights centre. He says:

“What we do know though, is that the barrage of cuts and their accompanying media offensive—orchestrated and encouraged by the government—have had a real effect on the security, self worth and confidence of millions of disabled people. Here at DIAL West Cheshire, we see people every day who have become frightened and apologetic about their disability. They say to us, ‘I’m not one of these scroungers but...’, and they are afraid of being judged, reassessed and found wanting. I myself have MS and can’t walk well—but can and do cycle albeit on a tricycle. As well as being apprehensive about being transferred from DLA to PIP, I have had to become inured to comments like, ‘Why’s he carrying a crutch if he can cycle—to get benefits!’”

It is time for Government rhetoric and philosophy to change, to create the caring society that the Prime Minister claimed he wanted to see. It is time to treat disabled people with a dignity not currently afforded to them either in the benefits system and the process for accessing benefits or in the wider cultural context in which they live and we operate. It is time to take away the sword of Damocles that is dangling above people who live every day with a disadvantage simply because they have been unlucky in life.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

Again, we need to look at our spend as a proportion of GDP. We are 19th out of 32—[Interruption.] No, France and Germany spend more. We spend 1.3% of GDP. We are 19th out of 32 EU countries. Contrary to what this Government perpetually claim about our generosity, we are not good at all in terms of the actual spend in relation to GDP. It was 1.6% of GDP in 1960. Now it is 1.3%. It is shameful. On those grounds, I ask all Members across the House to consult their consciences and support amendment 8.

Let me move now to clause 14. Again, the Government have been more than a little disingenuous when they suggest that the reduction in social security support applies only to new ESA WRAG claimants from 2017. From this April, 492,180 people currently on ESA WRAG will start to migrate across to universal credit, which, as many people know, combines a number of benefits, including ESA, into one amalgamated benefit.

Clause 14 removes the limited capability for work component for the work element of universal credit. That means that everyone currently on ESA WRAG will ultimately be transferred on to universal credit and will also have their support cut by £29.05 a week, or £1,500 a year.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a stark difference between the warm words of the Minister for Community and Social Care earlier on, when he talked about parity of esteem for mental health, and the proposals to penalise people with acute and chronic mental health problems?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I absolutely agree with him.

What has been hidden so far is that this cut will also affect disabled people who are in low-paid work. Currently, 116,000 disabled people in low-paid work and working more than 16 hours a week receive the disabled workers element of working tax credit—about £60 a week—which they get as a result of being on disability living allowance or personal independence payments. They need that payment to cover the additional costs that they face as a result of work. Under universal credit, the limited capability for work component is the main additional financial support for disabled people in work and is meant to cover those extra costs. However, unlike the disability element of working tax credit, that is available only after working disabled people have been through a work capability assessment. If the Government go ahead and remove UC’s limited capability for work component from working disabled people, the inevitable impact will be disabled people dropping out of the labour market, thereby increasing, not reducing, the disability employment gap. It will have exactly the opposite effect to the one that the Government say that they want to achieve.

Motability Car Scheme

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) on securing this debate on a subject that I care about a great deal. I should declare an interest, in that my mother has benefited from a Motability vehicle for more than 10 years.

I want to make it clear that I agree with the Government about ensuring that everyone who needs a Motability vehicle should have access to one. However, for decades, the system has not been reformed and it must be changed in a fair and cost-effective way if we are to ensure its future effectiveness. To ensure that the most vulnerable receive the support that they need, those who no longer have a medical condition need to be told that reform must occur to ensure the future viability of the system. That is only fair to people such as my mother who really depend on the Motability scheme.

Before I move on to my substantive points about improvements to data sharing between the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions and the NHS, I would like to seek assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister that the high volume of appeals that are currently being seen are constantly being reviewed. Although I understand that new systems take a while to embed, as we know from what happened when the previous Labour Government introduced the Atos system to handle work capability assessments, these things should be constantly reviewed.

Ever since I began to work alongside the NHS eight years ago, the UK has had a significant problem with data. Although I freely admit that it is not the most interesting subject in the world, it certainly is the most important when it comes to producing evidence-based policy. While I sadly do not have time to discuss the problems with evidence-based data collection and information governance, I want to focus for the last couple of minutes on the need for improved data sharing. All too often constituents come to my surgeries and ask why it is so complicated in today’s digital age to ensure that patient information is shared with the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Howlett]

I will not give way because I have very limited time.

Sharing information would make a huge difference to all disabled people as well as people on the Motability scheme. It would save so much time and money if there were one joined-up system to enable a GP to identify a disability and to refer that person directly to a DWP contact in a joined-up and efficient way. Currently, it takes two sets of paperwork and a vast amount of time and communication, which can only be described as lacklustre at best. I completely back the Government in getting this sorted.

For too long, the most vulnerable have been let down. If there were a joined-up system, the GP could notify the DWP quite effectively if someone was no longer in need of a Motability vehicle. The efficiency savings that would be made could be driven into increasing support for those who desperately need it and would also help disabled people feel that the process is much more joined up when they probably need as smooth a process as possible to get through those tough experiences.

How can the Government achieve this? The Government have to identify weaknesses in the law that prevent data sharing between the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions. As the Government look to produce a Green Paper on the impact of welfare on health and wellbeing, it is important for the DWP to formalise discussions with the Department of Health and consider the benefits of direct and indirect data sharing. Although I appreciate the sensitivities around data protection, charities are screaming out for changes and we should be doing everything that we can to help facilitate that.

I specifically ask for the Minister to work with his counterpart in the Department of Health to look into the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to understand why there is a problem with data sharing. Under that Act, the law allows personal data to be shared between those offering care directly to patients, but it protects patients’ confidentiality when data about them are used for other purposes. While I agree that these secondary uses of data are essential if we are to run a safe, efficient and equitable health service, we should consider new legislation that will further enable swift and effective data sharing between the NHS and the DWP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) on securing this important debate, and I welcome to his place the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People. We have heard passionate speeches from many Members here about the devastating impact of the changes to mobility criteria on the lives of many people who are already struggling with everyday tasks. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate.

The purpose of Motability is to help those who would otherwise be unable to afford full mobility. As many hon. Members have outlined, the recent change from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment for people of working age has had various damaging effects on those with disabilities.

[Peter Dowd]

Is my hon. Friend aware of any action taken by the Government to ensure that the most vulnerable people with disabilities are protected from being isolated in their communities if they lose their eligibility for mobility service under the changes from DLA to PIP? I do not know of any, and neither do many disability organisations, including Muscular Dystrophy UK.

[Angela Rayner]

Many Members have also raised that concern. I hope that the Minister will respond to it when he sums up.

Many speakers in this debate have given examples involving their constituents and told us of the devastating impact on their needs and self-esteem. Significant numbers of people who currently benefit from the higher rate DLA mobility component will fail to qualify for the enhanced rate mobility component in PIP. That is a deliberate outcome; it is what the Government said up front that they wanted to do. They wanted to cut those benefits. It is not based on need; it is based on making cuts and financial savings.

Many people have had the adapted vehicles that are vital to their lives and livelihoods withdrawn as a result. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) for raising the need for joined-up services, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who told us the story of Lisa’s experience and the impact of the cuts on her life. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) spoke passionately about the responsibilities of society and community, and the cuts to the work-related activity group of employment and support allowance.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) spoke of her concerns about the quality of the PIP assessment and the conflict with medical experts who know the person’s needs. It is simply not fit for purpose. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) discussed Kayleigh’s experience and how only 50% of people get to keep the car after being assessed for PIP, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) discussed the devastating impact of the removal of the cars before an appeal has been heard.

The reality is that £24 billion in support will be removed from nearly 4 million disabled people by 2018. The policy will hinder disabled people, not help them. It is about removing support, not providing it, for people to live and work independently. The Extra Costs Commission has shown that disabled people face an average of £550 in extra living costs a month as a result of their disability, which is the main reason why disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people. PIP is meant to help with those extra costs. The Government’s determination to maintain such a flawed rule is a direct assault on independent living for many, and it greatly hinders opportunities for those with disabilities to contribute to society.

Any one of us is likely at some time to be affected by disability, either directly or in caring for a disabled friend or relative. I know; my son is registered disabled. I urge the Government to rethink this policy.

Housing Benefit and Supported Housing

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is becoming increasingly apparent that this Government are one of the most pusillanimous in living memory when it comes to tackling the powerful and vested interests in this country. This pusillanimous approach extends to the interests of the media, the utilities and any companies that replenish the coffers of the Tory party. In fact, it also extends to the international community as well. The obsequious kowtowing to foreign Governments, such as those of China and Saudi Arabia, is cringe-worthy, embarrassing and not worthy of a British Government. It comes to something when the Italian Government have managed to get more taxes out of big corporations than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is saying something.

It does not matter whether a person is young, old, disabled—either physically or mentally—distressed, unemployed, on low pay, or on temporary or zero-hours contracts, they are fair game for this Government. This is a Government who challenge the weak, the vulnerable and the needy and dress it up as a virtue or something that is character building. The trend now is for the Government to discredit anyone who gets in their way, or who they think is getting in their way. The Government could teach the mafia a thing or two about extortion, but without the charm.

The House of Lords, the bastion of the Tory party for decades, challenges the Government, so the Government are now giving thought to how to clip its wings. It is strange that they have managed to do that only now when they no longer have a built-in majority in the Lords.

Let me turn now to the banks and the bankers. Today, we are seeing the continued fall-out from their reckless decisions that led to the crisis, with the Royal Bank of Scotland having to put aside a further £2 billion to cover its incompetence. Ministers sound like a stuck record, as they once again blame the previous Labour Government. Yet those are the people who, in the form of the shadow Cabinet in 2007, wanted to deregulate the banking and financial services sector lock stock and barrel through their “Freeing Britain to Compete” document. Following the banking crisis, which was caused by their friends in the City, they quietly buried that document much to the chagrin of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) who co-ordinated it. Although that document is as rare as rocking horse dung, I do suggest, none the less, that Government Members try to acquaint themselves with it—that is if they can find a copy of it.

I noticed the Prime Minister patting himself on the back today when he talked about the Government’s record on tax collection. If that is the best this Government can do, it is no wonder they are having to penalise those who can least afford it. If they cannot get the money off the corporations, they will get it off the dispossessed.

Yet again we are hearing about another policy that has not been thought through. The fact that the Minister has announced some delay in the proposed cuts to supported housing is evidence of that. The long-term impact on the finances of local government and of the health service are potentially catastrophic. It is significantly cheaper to have elderly people living in supported accommodation than it is to have them in residential care. There is a danger that these proposals will bring forward that cost with the transfer to residential care. Not content with penalising older people for being old, the Government are now on a roll, as they tackle homeless people, those escaping domestic violence and people with disabilities. Around 440,000 homes are potentially affected. Discretionary support will not make up the difference. Charlotte Norman of Place Shapers and St Vincent’s Housing Association says that the proposals look like having a more detrimental effect than any other recent housing or welfare announcement. In my own constituency, Anchor Housing will struggle. The average rent in sheltered housing schemes is £123 a week, which will leave a shortfall of £32. There will be a significant detrimental effect on those organisations that support the most vulnerable.

When we talk about the most vulnerable, the Government accuse us of shroud waving. We are not shroud waving; we are telling the facts as they are, or possibly as they could be. Those on the Government Benches can wring their hands and accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) of being a scaremonger, but they are putting their heads in the sand. It is the responsibility of the Ministers on the Front Bench and this House to get a grip of the situation and get the Chancellor to change his mind for the umpteenth time.

Child Poverty

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered levels of child poverty.

I am pleased to serve under your oversight, Mr Howarth.

“Even if we are not destitute, we still experience poverty if we cannot afford things that society regards as essential. The fact that we do not suffer the conditions of a hundred years ago is irrelevant… So poverty is relative—and those who pretend otherwise are wrong.”

I start by agreeing with the Prime Minister, who hit the nail on the head when he said that in his 2006 Scarman lecture. Consideration of the levels of child poverty is a matter of huge significance. A reasonable definition of poverty proposed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is

“when a person’s resources are not enough to meet their basic needs.”

In other words, being able to enjoy the activities of normal daily living is important. The Prime Minister agreed with that in practical terms.

I do not want our consideration to turn into a political football, but given the political choices that the Government have made in this policy area, it would be almost impossible not to stray on to that pitch. I take it as read that, at some point or other, a Government Member will mention the apparent mess in which Labour left the country; how the Government have got the country back on track and saved the day but that there is still much to do; how the country needs to fix the roof while the sun shines; how we have to live within our means; and, of course, every other cliché to which Ministers can lay their tongues. Unlike the world economic crisis of 2008, which was clearly and wholly the fault of the last Labour Government, even I acknowledge that the current international economic uncertainty has little to do with Government policies, but that cannot be an excuse or an alibi for the Government to shirk from ensuring that child poverty does not increase.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about what the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission said just before Christmas:

“It has long been obvious that the existing child poverty targets are not going to be met. In fact they will be missed by a country mile”?

Does he agree that that is a damning indictment of the Government’s policies?

[Peter Dowd]

It is a damning indictment. If just one organisation was saying that, perhaps we could bypass it, but organisation after organisation is identifying that as a cause of concern. Somewhat topically, if the Government can exempt the most powerful of commercial institutions from paying their due taxes or can slope away from challenging the practices of bankers, who are the real culprits in the economic chaos of 2008, surely they can protect our children from the worst effects of those who seem unable or unwilling to pay decent wages.

The existence of any level of child poverty in one of the world’s wealthiest countries should be a source of deep concern to everyone in this room, but it should also be a source of shame that the levels of child poverty in this country are high and rising. I have many friends who either were or are teachers or health and social care professionals—they work or have worked to make the lives of children better, easier and gentler—but such professionals have a hard task. They have spent much of their careers seeing the number of children in poverty beginning to drop. For example, poverty reduced dramatically between 1998 and 2011, when 1.1 million children were lifted out of poverty, but that has changed over the past few years, as my hon. Friend said. Austerity has taken its toll, particularly on those who can least afford it. Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions indicate that, since 2010, child poverty has, at best, flatlined. Meanwhile, the number of children in absolute poverty has risen by half a million since 2010. That is 100,000 children every year, more than 8,000 children a month, almost 2,000 children every week or, put another way, 300 children a day for five years—year in, year out—which cannot be right.

Let us not beat about the bush. The unspoken question on many minds is whether that poverty is due to the fecklessness of parents. Well, I think not in most cases. More than two thirds of children affected by poverty live in households where at least one member is in work. God knows what type of work permits and enables such poverty, but they are, none the less, in work. End Child Poverty, an organisation considering such issues, is particularly concerned about the rising poverty in working families. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, “A UK without Poverty,” noted,

“Too often, public debate talks about ‘the poor’ as if they were a separate group of people with a completely different way of life.”

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Does my hon. Friend agree that low-wage, low-skill economies lead to an increase in child poverty? In my constituency, Bradford East, we have an absolute child poverty rate of 28.6%, compared with a national average of 18.2%, which is unacceptable. Does he agree that one solution is not this rhetoric of more employment, which the Government keep telling us, but to provide high-skill, high-wage jobs, so that families cannot just survive but live properly and children are brought out of poverty?

[Peter Dowd]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come back to that in a moment.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He is making an important speech on an important topic, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. He has mentioned poverty suffered by people who are in work. Does he agree that the cuts that the Government are introducing to the work allowance of universal credit from April 2016 will make that situation worse? Perhaps that explains the enormous turnout of Tory Back Benchers to support the Minister today.

[Peter Dowd]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I spoke earlier about Members in the room being deeply concerned about poverty, but obviously not that many Government Members are concerned.

I will finish the quote from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report:

“In reality almost anyone can experience poverty—over half of the population spent at least one year in relative income poverty between 1991 and 2003.”

Even if we accept that fecklessness is a factor, it is only part of the picture, and not a very big part. It becomes another alibi for doing little about the problem. Blaming poor people for being poor, even when they are working hard, is unconscionable. Shakespeare is always a good source for thought:

“And, being rich, my virtue then shall be,

To say there is no vice, but beggary.”

My late mother was a war widow. She died at the age of 95 and had been a widow for 50 years. Her mother was a war widow and a war mother—she died at the age of 106 and had been a widow for 67 years. Much, if not most, of their time was spent in relative poverty, with poverty for their children, too. Was that right? As the youngest, I feel that I was lucky, but luck should have nothing to do with it. That cannot be right.

The country’s economic structure plays a significant part in poverty. For example, the Government are still not concentrating on the effects of the productivity gap, which accounts for billions of pounds in lost GDP. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) raised that issue earlier. Output per worker remains 2% below the pre-crisis levels of 2008, whereas in the rest of the G7, it is 5% higher. The Economist has said:

“The French could take Friday off and still produce more than Britons do in a week.”

In an article in MoneyWeek last year, Simon Wilson indicated:

“Bank of England calculations suggest if productivity had kept pace with the pre-2008 trend, the UK population might on average be 17% better off than it is today.”

Rather than pointing the finger at the poor, the Government should get that same finger out and address that driver of poverty.

[Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I have statistics similar those of to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). In my constituency, one third of all children, 33%, live in poverty, which is heartbreaking and shocking for the many hard-working families there. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) welcome the major defeat in the Lords last night of the Government’s attempt to abolish income-related child poverty targets, and does he agree that it is simply not credible to tackle child poverty without acknowledging the worst issue, a lack of money? For the Government to attempt to abolish that target is simply reprehensible.

[Peter Dowd]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I think a pattern is beginning to develop with this Government: they redefine everything when it does not suit them. So, for example, affordable housing now means a house costing £400,000 or £500,000. Everything is redefined to suit the Government’s agenda.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

To follow on from the point made by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as child poverty charities are by the Government’s attempt to redefine child poverty? It is important to publish annual figures on income-related child poverty, if for no other reason than the long-term impact of such poverty on health, development, educational outcomes and life chances.

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. As I said earlier, even the Prime Minister accepts that there is relative poverty, and all the jiggery-pokery with definitions is not going to make that untrue.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Child Poverty Action Group has stated that it costs £29 billion a year to respond to the issues caused by child poverty? CPAG says that it is a false economy to drive up child poverty and that this Government should be considering measures to drive it down.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has stolen my thunder—I will refer to that figure later—but she makes an absolutely valid point.

The Government’s January 2014 evidence review of the drivers of poverty found that a lack of sufficient income from parental employment, not just worklessness, is the most important obstacle to getting children out of poverty. Of course, to pick up on what my hon. Friend said, the Government say that a high-skilled, high-wage economy will lift family incomes—ergo, poverty will fade away. In the world where many of my constituents live, it does not quite work like that. I am afraid that even combined with increased personal tax allowances, the increase in the minimum wage, or whatever the Government want to call it—another redefinition—does not go far enough to alleviate child poverty to any substantial degree.

There can be no doubt that child poverty is rising and that it has an effect on educational outcomes, health outcomes and job prospects in the longer term. Independent projections from the Institute for Fiscal Studies indicate that, as has been mentioned, child poverty is beginning to rise. Research by End Child Poverty identified that 4.1 million families and 7.7 million children have been affected by below-inflation rises in both child benefit and child tax credit over the past few years. Interestingly, poverty of aspiration by the Government in policy terms begets financial poverty, because it restricts the use of the very tools that could tackle the drivers of poverty.

In my constituency, child poverty in one ward has reached 40%. Across the constituency, it is around 30%. In other words, almost 7,000 children in my constituency live in poverty. That cannot be right. Remembering the point I made earlier about the number of children in working families who still live in poverty, youth unemployment hovers between 8% and 9% and adult unemployment at about 7%. The median wage is £470, below the national median level of £520 and the regional level of £480. What message is that sending to our children: “Start your life in poverty; get a job on low wages; and you’ll still be in poverty—and so, in turn, will your children.”? It is hardly the most encouraging of straplines for young people.

In 2015, £7 million in early intervention funding was allocated to Sefton Council, in whose area my constituency sits. That is a reduction of £10 million since 2010 in early intervention, the very thing we should be getting to grips with. How can that funding cut help alleviate child poverty? Problem debt in Bootle is £12.5 million. The Children’s Society suggests:

“Too often, when families are struggling with repayments, the response from creditors is unhelpful…a breathing space scheme”

would give

“struggling families an extended period of protection from default charges, mounting interest, collections and enforcement action”,

enabling them to seek advice and preventing them from falling deeper into the debt trap. That is a practical suggestion.

I believe that my constituency is not an outlier in statistical terms; it is typical of many areas, both rural and urban. It is lazy to suggest that people are shirkers. Levels of child poverty in this country are dreadful. They are a blot on the integrity of our society. The Government cannot solve all the problems, nor does anyone expect them to, but poverty costs money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) said earlier, the cost to the UK of poverty is reckoned by one assessment at about £29 billion pounds: almost £6 billion in lost tax, £15 billion for extra spending on services to deal with the consequences of poverty and £8.5 billion in lost earnings to individuals. What a waste! Surely, even forgetting the human stories and experiences behind those figures, the statistics and costs are enough to make any Government reconsider their strategy for dealing with the child poverty that our country faces.

As Nelson Mandela said, standing just yards away from here while he addressed Parliament,

“poverty is not natural. It is man-made, and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings.”

I have managed to agree with the Prime Minister and Nelson Mandela in one fell swoop, which does not happen very often.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I welcome the work that my hon. Friend is doing through the APPG. We recognise that we can never stand still in this area. There is always more to be done to support young people through work experience, traineeships and, importantly, working with employers to encourage them to take on more young people and get them into the labour market, invest in them and train them so that they have skills for the future.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

T5. A devastating announcement has been made in the days before Christmas by Shop Direct, which covers the Littlewoods and Very brands, and its partner, Webhelp, that 400 call centre jobs in my constituency are to be lost. Those jobs are to be transferred 6,000 miles away to South Africa. What assurances can the Secretary of State give me that the people affected by those redundancies will get all the support and help they need from his Department?