Oral Answers to Questions
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guy Opperman
I can do that. It is a herculean IT project with 43,000 pension providers, 22 million private pensions and state pensions all coming to your mobile phone, your laptop or your device at home. It will be groundbreaking and will be ready in 2023.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Guy Opperman
The hon. Member will be aware that the pension has gone up by more than £2,000 in cash terms since 2010. There will be a double lock this coming year, subject to the will of Parliament, and there is also the enhanced take-up of pension credit, which I urge her to ensure her constituents apply for.
Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
I will tell the hon. Member about the real people. There are 7,700 families in his constituency whom this cut will affect, and the decisions the Government will make—[Interruption.] I am not going along with Conservative Back Benchers trying to tot things up and coming out with them in the middle of a debate. No, let us talk about the real impact on the 7,700 families in his constituency. The message he should be considering is: what will happen to his local economy and what will happen to national finances by taking that money away from them? This is a very important point.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Some 7,850 of my constituents will in three weeks’ time also lose £20 a week. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real cost will be the impact on people’s lives—the lost opportunities for those children’s futures and the hopes we all carry? Is it not right that we invest in people, not see this as a cut in itself?
Jonathan Reynolds
Absolutely. That investment in people is essential, and this uplift that we are talking about today cannot be considered without remembering the benefits freeze that lasted for four years prior to 2020. As the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), has said, the uplift only really restored what the value of UC would and should have been.
The pandemic exposed what many of us already knew: that social security in this country had become so threadbare it simply would not have got us through the pandemic. Since 2010 there has been unprecedented growth in in-work poverty in the UK, and food banks have become the norm in every town and city. No constituency has been exempt from that, and, most of all, one in eight working people in the UK is currently living in poverty. So the Government should not be seeking to congratulate themselves on making this uplift during the pandemic; they should ask themselves why they let things get so bad to begin with.
There was another laughable moment in Question Time on Monday when the Secretary of State compared the Government’s response to that of the Labour Government after the global financial crisis. Back in 2008 there was a functioning and supportive welfare state: tax credits acted as a superb automatic stabiliser; Jobcentre Plus had already been created, bringing together the old social security offices with the jobcentres, which all Governments since have recognised as a huge strength; unemployment did not hit 3 million, as initially predicted; and initiatives such as the future jobs fund played their role. So that Government had already done the hard work back then, and that is the lesson this Government need to learn.
As many Members have said, great as the impact on families is, we also have a responsibility to consider the impact of this on the country as a whole. The money we are talking about is spent in local shops and on local services, the very businesses that have had such a tough time because of the necessary public health restrictions most of us here backed for good reasons.
The recovery is promising, but it is not a done deal and there is a lot of ground to make up. This is the wrong decision for the economy and it also fails to learn the lessons from the pandemic and build the resilience we need as a country to face future challenges.
Dr Coffey
The right hon. Lady is right to praise care workers, who played an important part during the covid pandemic. It is my understanding that half a billion pounds of the health and social care levy, which was passed yesterday—the Opposition voted against it—will go to supporting the workforce in the care industry, recognising aspects of skills and pay. I want to put across to the right hon. Lady that we know—there is evidence on this—that where both parents are working full time, 97% of those households are not technically in poverty. That is why we have such emphasis. Households with children working part time are more likely—substantially higher, closer to 42%—to be in poverty. Frankly, five times the rate of people who do not work at all—workless households—are in poverty compared to those who are working. That is why we have worked really hard to reduce the number of workless households. I think there are 650,000 fewer workless households, lifting children out of poverty.
Dr Coffey
I will make some progress if the hon. Lady will allow.
We know that the best way to get more pounds into people’s pockets is through work. Those of us on the Conservative Benches believe in a welfare safety net, not a welfare trap, where it feels the Opposition are keen to keep people. We know that work and progressing in a job is the best route out of poverty, and I have spoken about parents working full time. That is why the Government, having provided unprecedented support during the height of the pandemic, are now right to focus on helping people back into work and helping those already in jobs to progress in their career.
Although the legacy benefits system penalised people for taking on more hours, universal credit ensures that working always pays. We got rid of the cliff edge that was part of working tax credits where people were penalised for working more than 16 hours and of the other cliff edges. I repeat that that is why we have UC work allowances focused on people with children or with limited capability to work, so that they can keep all the extra money that they earn until the allowance is used.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. She says that universal credit is responsive, but when she announced this cut, we did not know that there would be a 3.2% increase in inflation. My constituents are in work; it is just that the cost of living in York is exceedingly high. This proposal will hit them significantly, so will she take it back and reconsider in the light of inflation rising?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady represents a beautiful city—a magnificent city—and she will know that the jobcentre and our work coaches are working hard there with the communities. In lifting the local housing allowance rates, we made nearly a £1 billion investment, and we have maintained that in cash terms to recognise some of the costs of housing, which are truly challenging in very popular areas such as hers, and I am sure that she will welcome that.
We are making the most of our 13,500 extra work coaches. Right across the country, we have doubled our jobs army, which is helping people to get into work and to progress in work by accessing skills and job schemes. Our plan for jobs employment programmes are providing tailored support to help more people to move into and progress in work.
Future of Pensions Policy
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate this afternoon, Mr Hosie. I thank the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) for securing it.
The insecurity and inequality that people experience throughout their working lives is amplified in older life. I certainly see that in my constituency, where, regrettably, insecure work mars the lives of many people. It was in the city of York that Joseph Rowntree first introduced pensions in his factory in 1906, ahead of the Old Age Pensions Act 1908, which came into effect on 1 January 1909—on pensions day, as it was known. It was Seebohm Rowntree’s work in this field that brought about that Act, so my city has a real investment in today’s debate.
We need to ask what the problem is that we are trying to solve around pensions. Are pensions simply part of reward packages and used as a recruitment and retention tool by employers? Are employers really interested in the economic fortunes of their former employees once they have left their employment? How do we address the serious issue of pensioner poverty, and are pensions fair and equitable or dependent too much on past income, which we know is inequitable in itself? Today, 1.9 million older people live in poverty, which really amplifies how pensions have gone wrong, and we therefore need to look at how we address those issues.
I view this issue through the prism of women and their experiences of the inequality that is already built into their working life by the pay gap. They are more likely to be in part-time employment and more likely to be carers, and there is also the serious issue of underemployment. In fact, since the start of the pandemic, 70% of people who have lost their jobs are women. We therefore need to understand why so many women are in pensioner poverty.
Young workers and black workers are more likely to be in insecure jobs. Disabled people lose out altogether and fare worse. Inequality is hardwired into our pension system, exacerbating the unfairness of employment. I observed over the years as a trade union official how we needed to bring redress into our pension system, which is an issue I would welcome the Minister looking at specifically.
On state pensions, many countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Australia have far better statutory provision in later life, as can be seen in the quality of life that people experience. The Netherlands pays 95% of average earnings, Denmark 66%, Australia 58% and the UK just 29%. Insufficiency is also built into our pensions system. We have heard much about the pension credit system, but take-up is only 60% , with £2.8 billion not claimed. I therefore support automation. Data can be shared and the technology is there to tackle inequality and enable people to access not only their pensions but, as we have heard, TV licences and other such benefits. It is really important that the gap is closed with the mechanisms we have available to achieve that.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Lady is making a very well informed speech, as is typical of her. Does she agree that much of the drive over recent decades to increase the state pension age has been driven by the fact that life expectancy has been increasing? However, there is evidence that that is reversing and life expectancy is starting to fall. If that is sustained, the UK Government need to look at pensions policy and perhaps reverse the pension age increases that we have seen over recent decades.
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Of course, that was the basis on which the Cridland review undertook its exercise of looking at how to address an ageing population, so he is right that the Government need to look at that issue.
Turning to employer schemes, we have seen a change in the schemes over the years from more beneficial schemes such as the defined-benefit schemes, first from final salary to career-average earnings schemes. There has also been a rapid move to defined-contribution schemes, where more risk is placed with the worker. Therefore, people’s lack of engagement in the complex world of pensions is ever more understandable. Of course, auto-enrolment in some of the pension schemes shows insufficiency, which the hon. Member for Delyn drew out, but the employer contribution of just 3% is hardly that of an employer investing in their workers’ future. I would urge, if we are looking at raising the sufficiency of stakeholder schemes, a greater employer contribution into those schemes, as opposed to the burden being placed on the workers’ shoulders.
I would also like the Minister to look at the number of pension schemes. Many countries have just a few hundred pension schemes altogether; we have more than 10,000, and we know that many of those schemes are struggling. I have looked at the charity sector, where, among the top 50 charities, there is now a deficit of £1.5 billion. We know that in other sectors, people move from job to job to job and therefore have no time to build up a pension pot with a company. If we moved to a more sectoral model, that would give individuals a lot more scope to build a pension for their future, and a model of sectoral bargaining could shape such pension schemes. I think it would be helpful to look into that.
As I have mentioned, equality needs to be brought to the fore, not least because of the impact in terms of women in poverty in later life. Economic events impact on pensions so much. We therefore need to address those issues, but we also need to recognise that in later life, people from areas of deprivation are more likely to be in poor health and so working longer is not always relevant. We need more flexibility to be built into pensions in later life, but we also need to ensure that individuals do not lose out because they work in different ways.
I echo the support that has been expressed for more financial education. I, too, was at the event that Aviva held on work, wealth and wellbeing. It was particularly about people having an MOT to check on them—to check their mental health as well as their physical health—and to look in mid-life at the opportunities and the finances ahead. We need to ensure that such opportunities are open to everyone.
Finally, I want to draw attention to the importance of building confidence again in the pensions system. At a time when people have so little dispensable resource, they will be making choices about whether to invest in their longer-term future or to buy essentials, such as a meal for their family. We therefore need to ensure that we address the poverty today as well as the poverty tomorrow. The WASPI women are one example of a group that certainly made the right choices, yet was badly let down by the changes brought about by Government decisions. We need to build confidence in our system to ensure that there are fair choices for people in the future.
The Future of Work
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for introducing the debate.
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). He is absolutely right to speak up for the Rolls-Royce workers. We are seeing that the opportunities for employers come on the back of working people when they offshore jobs. That is one of the biggest threats to our economy, and I support Unite in its battles against employers who have done such things.
The reason why the people of Barnoldswick have come to our attention is very much at the heart of my speech. Work defines us; it gives us dignity. It is where we spend most of our waking hours, build our security and friendships, display our skills, and contribute to society. Without work, we lose our identity, purpose and self-worth.
Tragically, for many, work has been hardly an edifying experience in recent times. Slavery conditions, poverty wages, insecurity and uncertainty have framed the working experience for too many. Recently, we have seen a sharp increase in zero-hours contracts, on which many people languish at the behest of their employers. Many jobs, good and bad, hang in the balance as we face a catastrophic tsunami of job losses. We have to build back better.
We have to decide what kind of economy we want to build. There have obviously been advances in technology and automation, but the word “growth” was mentioned again in this debate, and we have to understand what it means. Does it mean depth, or does it mean forever chasing profits for those at the top of organisations at the expense of workers?
I want the Minister to comment on how her Government view economic thinking such as that of Kate Raworth, who is looking at things such as doughnut economics and the value being put in, and Julian Richer, whose work on the good business charter looks at how work can have a more ethical base, including a real living wage, environmental responsibility, fairer hours, paying fair tax, employee wellbeing, a commitment to customers, employee representation through a trade union, diversity, inclusion, timely payments to suppliers and ethical sourcing. That would reshape the economy for the future in a far better, qualitative way.
Before I talk about my constituency, which is due to be the worst-hit area in the country from the current economic crisis—we could see unemployment rise from 2.8% last year to 27% next year, because the recovery from the last economic crisis was built on insecure jobs—I want to highlight three areas where we could see real movement in reshaping the economy. First, we should build sectoral councils. The fragmentation of the economy is not helping our response, so we need the economy to come together. Establishing sectoral councils will provide a framework for employers, workers, trade unions, academics and industrial leaders to come together, build back better, institute a skills analysis and look at the economic opportunities of those sectors. The fragmentation is preventing that from happening, but linking with local and devolved authorities and local enterprise partnerships would be a real opportunity to focus on the future and ensure that the big issues such as climate mitigation are at the heart of the discussions. It is also about building a base for sectoral negotiations to determine things such as pay, pensions terms and workers’ conditions in those sectors.
Secondly, I want to look at the university and further education sector. I have to say that I was disappointed by the debate earlier this week on the union learning fund and the opportunity it brings. Education is at the heart of growth: if we enable people to reach their potential and the extent of their skills, we can do so much more in local economies.
We see real under-employment in the city of York in my constituency. The two universities have now come together with the two further education colleges to form Higher York in order to shape the economy, but we need the education sector to have a more central role in establishing the future of the economy, looking at things such as the skills gap and inequality, and at the wider community interest—not just from the perspective of education alone, and not just looking at higher-end skills. In my city, 30,000 people work in areas such as retail, tourism and hospitality. Those jobs will not be there next week, next month and possibly next year, and we therefore need the university and further education sector to intervene and to address the many challenges that we face.
Perhaps the most difficult conversation that any of us have had over the past eight months has been with small employers and the self-employed, who have poured everything into their businesses—their money, their time, their resources and their lives—only to see them melt away without Government support. In building back for the future, we need to build more resilience into business by building collective support and looking at more social models of business support, to ensure that businesses are more sustainable in the future as they move forward—looking at the co-operative models and social enterprises that have good reach into their communities and real roots, which can address some of the real challenges around employment, too.
I turn briefly to my constituency of York Central. Already the high street is the worst impacted in the country—we have lost around 60 businesses to date, and I daresay there will be many more to come. As those businesses have been struggling, Government grants have been slipping through their fingers into the hands of leaseholders who live offshore and do not pay their taxes in our country. The taxpayer is subsidising that lifestyle, and hard-working people in our local businesses and shops do not see any of the benefits. There has to be responsibility when the Government hand out resources. Although they are saying they are supporting these times, we have to look where that money is ending up—it is certainly not ending up supporting business. I call on the Minister to look at how we can have proper investment and a responsibility put on property tycoons to ensure that the money is not just invested in their tax havens.
On a green new deal, the BioYorkshire project is incredible. It will create 4,000 jobs and retrain 25,000 people to have the skills to bring about a real revolution in the bio-economy, putting York at the heart of that—not just in the UK, but globally. The Government are tying this to a devolution deal that could be two and a half years away, but we need investment in those jobs and skills in York now. Before next Wednesday, can the Minister have words in order to bring that forward, so that we can start the work in creating the jobs that we are losing hand over fist at the moment?
Finally, and most importantly, if we are to have a strong future of work, we need to protect workers’ rights and to think about the real challenges that workers face in the workplace today. After 50 years of looking at health and safety, it is timely that we now have a health, safety and wellbeing commission to look at the wellbeing of workers. We know that issues such as mental health, bullying in the workplace and even the fallout of occupational health services were not discussed 50 years ago. We do not have a legislative framework to protect workers, particularly those who experience issues such as stress, poor mental health and bullying. We need to ensure that such a framework is introduced. Finally, we need to introduce a right to learn and to ensure that the union learning fund is invested in, because this is the opportunity to rebuild our economy.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
A Westminster Hall debate would not be complete without Jim Shannon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to respond to the debate. I look forward to further debates on this issue. I greatly thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for securing this important debate on a critical topic for the UK. It has been interesting and thoughtful, and the introductory speech was exactly that—as were those from Front-Bench colleagues. I particularly welcome the new APPG on the future of work, which will look at work going forward and the role the Government take. I will try to pick up on some of the points hon. Members have made.
Reflecting on what Members have said, we recognise that the labour market is fluid. We will have to continue to adapt to the forthcoming challenges, emerging technologies and the changing nature of available employment, and the skill sets that are required to remain agile enough for this change in the world in work. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) reflected on the jobs miracle, the barriers and impacts of where we are now compared to where we were, and the inequality challenge. I absolutely recognise the points that my hon. Friend made.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who has the art of being in two places at once—brilliantly done today. I failed at that earlier, and I apologise. The hon. Gentleman pointed out, rightly, that for many families this is an incredibly worrying time. The Department for Work and Pensions has stepped up in this pandemic so that we are supporting as widely as possible, but I fully recognise the impact on SMEs and our local independents.
We heard from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) who highlighted the social care challenge—it is absolutely important. We have had a care academy in Scotland through the DWP that has been brilliant, and has highlighted the variety of roles, and impacts, that can be made by those who are part of that amazing world making a daily difference to people’s lives. It is important that we sell and point out that opportunity in the world of work.
I want to pick up briefly on UBI. I believe, fundamentally, it is the wrong approach for the UK. As we heard from my hon. friend the Member for Devizes, it does not incentivise work. More importantly— and the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire mentioned disability—it does not target people with additional costs and needs when it comes to the challenges that they face, whether it is disability or childcare responsibilities. We should be careful how we approach that.
We recognise at the DWP that we need to be looking strongly and widely at the labour market. We have an excellent team, which I work with closely, who give me a daily understanding of the labour market so that we can try to take advantage of the opportunities of automation—this emerging technology—and what it may bring. We heard already about the green jobs taskforce which met for the first time last week, which will bring together the views of businesses and employers, as we heard today, and key stakeholders including the skills sector. The taskforce will focus on the immediate and longer term challenges of delivering workers with the right skills for the UK’s transition to net zero, including dealing with the issue of building back greener, as we heard this afternoon, and developing a long-term plan that charts out those key skills. It will also focus on the good-quality jobs that we need, a diverse workforce and supporting workers in high-carbon areas transitioning into sectors such as green technologies.
We heard about the 10-point plan this week from the Prime Minister and his blue-print to focus on jobs and opportunities in the areas where the UK’s industrial heartlands need that support—be they in Yorkshire, the north-east, the Humber, the west midlands, Scotland or Wales. It is important that we drive through a green industrial revolution to support the industries of the future.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister specifically look at the BioYorkshire project, which has been driven by the University of York and others to kickstart York’s economy in the light of the crisis, and look to bring it forward, because we need new jobs now?
Mims Davies
It is an absolute focus for us to drive forward local needs and support where they can change the local labour market and local opportunities. Earlier, the hon. Lady also mentioned working with local mayors and local enterprise partnerships, which this Government encourage.
On automation, we know that the increase in productivity, progression and wages that it can bring if we get it right will be really important as we head into this fourth industrial revolution. It is very difficult, as we know, to predict with any kind of precision what automation will do to the labour market, but it is important that we understand new technology, including the enablement of smart robotics and artificial intelligence, grab it and put it in place as part of our process of change. We know that 60% of the jobs in 2014 simply did not exist in 1990, so we know that things will change imminently.
Universal Basic Income
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Davies. I start by saying to both contributors so far that I wholeheartedly agree with the thesis that they set out while also highlighting the practical realities of what a universal basic income could bring.
We live in such an inequitable society—the second most inequitable society that there is. We have 4.5 million people living in poverty today, in one of the richest countries. We know that many have made their millions out of this crisis, but millions have fallen into very stark circumstances. We have heard about the 3.1 million people who have been excluded from any support whatsoever and are desperate at this time.
The unemployment rate in my constituency last year was 2.8%; next year it will be 27%. This is terrifying—one in four people losing their jobs because of the nature of our local economy. The 2.8% was an incredible feat, in a post-industrial city where the manufacturing base was wiped out, with the loss of the rail and chocolate manufacturing jobs, but we now face an unprecedented precipice, and we are worried—terrified—at what lies ahead. We have to think outside the box at a time like this. That is why I believe that York, because of the nature of the economy and the way our city works, would make an ideal pilot for a UBI, or citizen’s wage, as many call it.
We also know that, at the end of this month, many people on furlough today will fall over tomorrow. The reality is that, while wages are currently at 80%, they will drop in areas of high lockdown to 67% and in many areas to nothing. That will mean a longer and longer queue at the jobcentre—none of us wants to see that—or people simply struggling. UBI is not just about economic circumstances; it is about holistically supporting individuals, which is why I am also a convert to such a mechanism. It does not judge or call out, but it does protect. At a time like this, we have to look at how we protect society.
The Prime Minister talks about putting his arms around our society, yet we are not seeing the evidence of that. Many of the economic packages that have come out have been narrow, too late and too little. They do not look at the real, longer-term solutions that we need to look at in this crisis. The packages are short term and have not grappled with the real economic challenges of our age. We have to look at what will sustain us, and not just in the next six months or year—we are talking decades of recovery from this pandemic.
We have to inject the right solutions. Therefore, we should not rush, but move on this path to look deeper into this situation. We have seen the benefits where universality has been applied. We have the pension scheme—too low, I would argue, but it is a scheme that does not judge—and child benefit. Such a solution removes the issue of the undeserving poor, a narrative that has often sat with this Government. It does not judge; it recognises the real challenges. Of course, it should also sit alongside a progressive taxation system—something we desperately need which challenges those with broader shoulders and supports those without that resilience.
At a time when we see our high streets about to topple over, businesses folding, our whole local economy in York and our national economy spiralling out of control, and pp spiralling down with it, we need that safety net. Universal credit has been a good attempt, but it judges, it sanctions and it has caused harm. People have to wait for weeks before they get any money. At the height of the pandemic, it was not just five weeks, it was eight or nine weeks that people in my constituency waited.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
indicated dissent.
Rachael Maskell
The Minister is shaking his head. I talked to my constituents who were offered a loan, to be paid back. I am telling the Minister about cases in my constituency where people waited that length of time to get their hands on any money. They were absolutely desperate and needed to use the food bank. Why are we doing this to people when we have other tools that we can utilise?
That is why I believe that universal basic income will bring the universality, the collective responsibility of society, and the solidarity to see people through this time. I argued for it at the start of the pandemic, seeing what was ahead. I believe ever more strongly that, as poverty encroaches, we must find proper solutions. At the moment many people are struggling to pay heating bills. A constituent came to me about that this week. People cannot afford to feed their families. Often it is the women in the family—the mothers—who do without to make sure their kids get what they need. It is tough. My city is like many other places in facing that.
One of the benefits of universal basic income comes from the fact that at the moment people are in and out of work, sometimes because they must isolate, and sometimes because of the pace of fluctuations in work. People who are self-employed try to get started or to do more work and then, with levels fluctuating, they fall back. Perhaps they have access to workplaces, or perhaps not. If there was a steady income for the self-employed, what a difference it would make to entrepreneurs who want to start a business but need time to build it up and to build a custom base. That would give them the underpinning they need to grow.
As for people on statutory sick pay—as well as those who do not get it—universal basic income would provide more of an underpinning while people have to move in and out of the economy. People on zero-hours contracts get paid—and then they do not get paid. They do not know, from week to week. Universal credit, whatever the Minister will say, is not agile enough to respond to the real economy that people work in. That would not be the case with a universal basic income. Also, people entering training and skills development may move in and out of it, perhaps with different hours at different times. They may or may not be on full-time courses. Universal basic income provides underpinning and does not discriminate. It does not call out disabled people, those who are shielding, or anyone else. It does not judge in that way, but understands. We need a system that understands people.
Something that came through to me clearly when we debated the Coronavirus Act 2020 was that there were opportunities to volunteer during the pandemic. We saw that from the British people in an incredible way at the start of the pandemic. No doubt as we get through the winter crisis together—and it is going to be a hard winter—many people will put their hand up and say, “I will help.” Universal basic income would give employers flexibility, because they would know that their staff would be out volunteering, moving in and out of those opportunities, as we pull together as a society to get through this impossible situation. We have to have that solidarity that was built. Flexibility, built into our ability to sustain ourselves through the crisis, would be underpinned by a universal basic income.
That is why I say do not push it off the table. A recovery UBI would help the economy to grow and establish itself again. It is interesting that the Mayor of London and even Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, have said that we need to look at UBI. That is my ask of the Minister today: that we look at how to build the foundations of a new, fair economy, which does not discriminate and is built on the principle of recognising that everyone wants to put in, but sometimes people need help. UBI is the fairest way to do that. I ask the Minister whether he will set up a UBI commission to look at how UBI can work in different areas, and at the economic challenges of our age and the flexibility needed to grow a new economy, and to report back to the House on that commission to show how we can build a stronger, better economy and a fairer system for the future.
Jim Shannon
I wholeheartedly agree. I was sympathetic to the really good question that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) asked the Prime Minister yesterday in the Chamber. I am not saying that because he is sitting across from me; I told him it was a good question at the time. It was about the minimum wage. I understand how it works. There are arguments to reduce the working week to four days and to reduce wages, but if someone on a minimum wage loses wages, they have nowhere to go. This is about every penny they have.
I remember the stories that people in my constituency have told me. They managed everything almost to the last pound for that week. Even a small reduction in what they have will mean that they will not be able to pay their rent or their car off. They may be paying off furniture for their property, too. The whole thing becomes a real difficulty. If somebody takes ill, it becomes a real problem. The hon. Gentleman’s question was pertinent, because I could relate personally to what he was saying. I thank him for that.
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Inverclyde referred to other schemes. I read in the briefing about the Finnish experiment. It is not all about money. I am conscious of time, so I will come to my conclusion fairly quickly. Those who participated in the Finnish experiment
“were more satisfied with their lives and experienced less mental strain, depression, sadness and loneliness. They also had a more positive perception of their cognitive abilities, i.e. memory…and ability to concentrate.”
Giving people that help improves their quality of life, physically and mentally. We have to look at that, because there is cost otherwise. If the Government or others are not able to help, there are impacts on people’s physical and mental health, which then has to be paid for by the NHS. I suggest that although the Finnish experiment may not be the best example, it did highlight that issue.
As I see every day, those who are under financial pressure and who are worried about their future also face mental stress and difficulty. I meet people every day, every week, in my office—my staff do most of that, to be fair—and recently, when universal credit first came in, I remember that there were great problems. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and I have spoken about these things on a number of occasions, and we understand that.
Rachael Maskell
That brings to mind another aspect of this issue, which is sickness absence from the workplace. We obviously know the impact that has, but if people have the underpinning of a universal basic income, that will help with their rehabilitation and get those people back into work, whatever form of work that is. It may be volunteering experience or it may be through social prescribing, and therefore having a universal basic income could be a real aid to rehabilitation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is another opportunity?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. That is why I brought up the issue of people’s physical and mental experiences—because if we can get people into volunteering or get them back to work and moving up, that will make the Minister’s job a lot easier as well.
The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) referred to the five-week period, which turned out to be an eight-week period in many cases. In a way, with all the experiences we had early on with universal credit, we overcame many of those issues, and the Government did as well. I therefore say gently to the Minister that we should perhaps be looking at a methodology for a universal basic income, at least on the basis of a pilot scheme, because with a pilot scheme the Government can perceive the issue, look over it, challenge it and investigate to see whether it is possible. In Northern Ireland, 16% of people—300,000 people—live in poverty, and that is before housing costs, which are enormous. With that in mind, the Northern Ireland Assembly also asked questions on this matter, although I understand that responsibility for the DWP lies here.
We have always had the greatest respect for the Minister, as he knows, and I believe him to be a compassionate person who can understand why we, the hon. Member for Inverclyde, and others have spoken on this topic. We believe there is a necessity for the universal basic income to be looked at through a pilot scheme. I believe it will help others, and therefore, along with others, I ask for that as well.
Kickstart Scheme
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman talks about the Future Jobs Fund. It was a failure in getting the private sector involved. It was a failure in getting much smaller businesses involved. That is why we have stripped back the criteria to focus on what really matters for the young person, rather than a tick-box exercise on all sorts of different benefits that needed to be created. I am not trashing the Future Jobs Fund, because the intention was absolutely right, but we want to make sure that this has a wider ambition. There is already a youth hub in Cardiff. We have already had approaches about wanting to get involved. That is why the gateway for small businesses is much simpler than it has ever been in previous similar schemes. I am confident that we will make it a success.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Charities and social enterprises delivered over 60% of placements under the Future Jobs Fund, with over half retaining employment after six months. However, most organisations can only take on one or two young people due to capacity. The Labour Government worked closely with the sector to make it easily deliverable, yet this Government’s engagement with charities and social enterprises has been insufficient. Will the Secretary of State commit today to meet sector leaders from organisations such as the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and Social Enterprise UK to ensure that every job that can be found is found and that young people are given real hope and a future?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady should be aware that there have been 330 stakeholder engagements with a mixture of groups and of course social enterprises will be a key element of that. The important thing is that we make sure we have good jobs for young people to go into. I absolutely believe that social enterprises will be an important part of that. When I was at Canary Wharf yesterday at the launch of the scheme, the social enterprise around the Canary Wharf Group was expressing interest in how it can bring together a number of different organisations in Canary Wharf to make sure a wide variety of businesses can be involved. That absolutely has to be the way forward.
Statutory Sick Pay and Protection for Workers
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We conclude this debate on statutory sick pay and protection for workers at a time of immense uncertainty, as we are witnessing an implosion in our labour markets and people’s lives being turned upside down. As we have long feared, those in the most insecure work have little resilience to weather this storm. As we speak, thousands of people are being laid off, falling into hardship and fearful for their future. We cannot let the story of coronavirus also be the one about avoidable poverty, so, today, Labour is highlighting how Government must take a far more robust approach to create the safety net that we all need.
The Government have said that no one should be penalised for doing the right thing, yet without stronger underpinning of statutory sick pay and employment and wage protection, many will be plunged into serious debt, unable to pay their rent, their bills and even for their food, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) set out.
I will, if I may, start with workers’ protection. We need all workers to be kept safe and to be protected from contracting coronavirus in the first place. Employers must maintain their duty of care. Too few workers still have access to appropriate PPE, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) set out while paying tribute to NHS staff, and I endorse what he said.
Yesterday, community pharmacists in my constituency highlighted to me how they have now become the frontline of healthcare, and yet they only had a tiny stock of plastic pinnies, gloves and masks. Tradeswomen and men such as plumbers will need to carry out urgent home repairs so will also need protection. Care staff need to be provided with PPE and not expected to pay for it themselves.
Workers must never feel that they have to choose between health—their own and that of others—and hardship. Even after yesterday’s announcement, they were offered little comfort. I have three asks on SSP, isolation leave pay and families’ and carers’ leave. First, no worker should be excluded from statutory pay protection for sickness or isolation no matter their employment status—employee, worker, self-employed, office holder or limb (b) workers. This should also apply no matter what a person earns, which is why the lower earnings limit must go, and no matter whether a person has already taken 28 weeks SSP. All who work should have statutory pay protection for sickness and isolation from day one.
If people are required to stay away from work, or are staying away to protect their health due to existing underlying health conditions, they should not be penalised and neither should their family members be penalised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) set out. Life must come first. We also need these measures to reach beyond the narrow application of coronavirus. People will be isolating because they have signs of the virus, but not the virus itself. Vulnerable people are at risk from all communicable diseases and so the application of the measures needs to apply to all sickness and isolation absences. While many companies are establishing full pay for those sick and in isolation, others are not. This inequality must be addressed. Universal credit is no substitute, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) highlighted with their experience, and, as we have heard in the debate, it pays even less than SSP and takes five weeks to process. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who set out the plight of those who have no recourse to public funds; that must be resolved.
Simple changes to section 16 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and section 64 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 would ensure that all workers were fairly remunerated and did not experience hardship; with the underpinning of statutory sick pay UK workers would be protected to levels we are seeing elsewhere.
Secondly, as life must come first, to reduce a worker to poverty levels of statutory sick pay at just 18.4% of the average wage will not be sufficient for those forced to make a choice between health and hardship. We cannot afford for anyone to go out to work if the determination is that they should isolate or are sick, but if they are battling to keep their head above water financially, they may lessen the severity of their sickness to justify just to themselves that they are not really a risk.
At a time when other countries are significantly raising their statutory sick pay, the UK, which pays the lowest rate of statutory sick pay compared with the EU27 countries, must now ensure that statutory sick pay provides vital protection. The TUC has highlighted how the real living wage is the right benchmark when full pay is not paid. Many in today’s debate across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Ilford North, have highlighted the opportunities a universal basic income would provide. The Prime Minister earlier said that he is willing to look at that, and he must.
In light of the possible scale and duration of isolation and sickness expected to be taken, the £1 billion package announced by the Chancellor is totally insufficient. Will the Secretary of State return to the House this week and confirm that she will, through a poverty prevention measure, ensure that statutory sick pay is paid to take away the additional fear of financial hardship, so people will be able to pay their rent bills and fuel and food? Without this significant shift, people will be dependent on other sources of income support, perhaps food banks and other charitable support. However, we know that these are areas in themselves experiencing major challenges at this time. The infrastructure to underpin this completely avoidable poverty is so fragile, so statutory pay must rise.
Thirdly, parents and carers are also facing new challenges as they are having to significantly change their lives. No one should be denied the right to meet family and carer needs at such a time as this, so will the Secretary of State ensure that taking leave for family emergencies and for care provision becomes a right—not a right to ask, but a right to get—and that people remain fully remunerated while doing so? While most employers will be accommodating, this is a critical time, and we need to ensure all parents and carers are supported in this national effort.
I further want to raise the issue of pace. While welcoming the Chancellor’s announcement that he will work with trade unions and businesses to provide wage protection, this needs resolving now—this week. If Denmark and other countries have brought forward a scheme of wage protection, there is no need to reinvent the wheel; we can deliver a scheme through the emergency legislation being laid tomorrow. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said, if it is good enough for workers in other countries, it is good enough here.
Denmark’s first coronavirus case was on 27 February and New Zealand’s first case was on 28 February, and they have developed and delivered support already. The UK’s first case was on 31 January, and we still have nothing to protect people’s incomes. People are losing their jobs now, and it could be avoided; it must be avoided. Employers need confidence that the Government will deliver a package of wage substitution; workers need confidence that they will not face poverty. We need interventions now so that jobs can be saved.
Many workers, where there is a cessation of work through this crisis, may step up in the national effort to provide vital services elsewhere in the economy, for instance in health and care. They will be doing the right thing, so can the Secretary of State ensure their position in their substantive jobs is protected when they return so that like someone returning from maternity leave, they will be able to return to the job they left?
I endorse my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) in highlighting the extended role that others such as postal workers can play. I urge the Government to meet the CWU and to explore that terrain further.
The last few days have exposed the weaknesses in zero-hours contracts—workers who are reduced to zero hours, yet must still be available to work. Those workers are desperate. Some 1.87 million of them will not qualify for statutory sick pay, and 70% of those people are women. I ask the Secretary of State to end this insecurity in work. All workers need security, not least at a time such as this. Will she move to ensure that all employment become substantive, and that workers are placed on proper contracts underpinned by the same securities afforded to all employees?
Workers and employers are being called upon to take extraordinary steps to protect our country from the worst aspects of covid-19. They need a Government who recognise all the challenges they face, and who will provide the full protection that they need. The Chancellor promised to do this, so will the Secretary of State ensure that all the holes that continue to exist in the safety net are closed, with the publication of the emergency legislation. Will she ensure that workers get the support they need to save them from hardship? All these things are political choices. Making the right call today may save us from the worst aspects of an economic crisis, and reset the dial for a fairer and more equitable country to come.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend makes the good point that hundreds of thousands of people have been helped into work, but more particularly this is about the difference between the current system and the legacy system: we now have a dedicated work coach and personalised support; we have scrapped the 16-hour cliff edge; there is more help with childcare; and we have given additional support that was never there under the legacy system.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Guy Opperman
If the individual case is sent to the Minister with responsibility for UC, they will take that up and respond accordingly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. In the middle of last year, there were 63 new mentoring circles in operation. The circles originally focused on the race disparity audit, but they are now being rolled out across the country, as was agreed last January. I recently met the members of one circle in Basingstoke, where they were having a real effect on local young people who know what is around them. Mentors, businesses and employers can do a great deal to change young people’s lives locally.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will Quince
Childcare provision is far more generous under universal credit than it was under the legacy benefits system. Another recent change is that the flexible support fund can now be used to pay deposits or first month’s payments.
Child Maintenance Service: Payment Recovery from Absent Parents
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Grant
Absolutely, and I will come on to some of the new powers that have recently been given to the Child Maintenance Service. Although those powers are draconian, there will be instances when they have to be used. Deliberately concealing income from people who you know want only to provide for your children should be a criminal offence. It is not a matter for the civil courts or for civil adjudication. If someone falsifies their tax returns, they go to jail, so if they falsify returns provided to assess their financial liability for their own kids, they should also go to jail.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a constituent who has not received payment for years. Their former partner has moved home and jobs, and keeps changing bank account. They also disposed of two properties, yet that money is untraceable. Surely people should not be able to open new bank accounts if they owe all that money.
Peter Grant
Again, I entirely agree. I have had female constituents who use one name in their family and one in their professional work. They have difficulty opening two bank accounts, so it seems strange that others are able to get away with opening bank accounts all over the place.
Last year the powers available to the Child Maintenance Service were extended. I found it concerning to read the evidence submitted to the Work and Pensions Committee in 2016, because it seemed that the Department for Work and Pensions did not understood the difference between collection powers and enforcement powers. The DWP can implement collection powers immediately through the Child Maintenance Service—it does not need anybody’s permission—but enforcement powers are more severe and need the consent of the courts. If those who write the evidence for a parliamentary Select Committee are vague about the distinction between those two powers, it is no wonder that parents and children who are waiting for their money sometimes get confused about what the powers are.
Some powers that the Child Maintenance Service has should not be allowed as a form of debt enforcement, and even in certain cases I do not think that imprisoning someone for not paying their dues is acceptable. It should be an imprisonable offence if somebody falsifies information, but not if they refuse to pay money that has been established as owed. I certainly would not want any seizing of property, warrant sale or auction to happen in Scotland. One of the first private Members’ Bills put through the Scottish Parliament was to outlaw what I believe to be a barbaric practice. In a civilised country, there are other ways to carry out debt collection, without such draconian and barbaric actions. For example, we could restrict someone’s ability to open new bank accounts.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachael Maskell Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Tomlinson
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. We work closely with stakeholders to look at how we can continue improving the system, but I repeat that we are now spending an additional £6 billion and that a significantly higher rate of claimants are now on the highest level of support, and rightly so.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this question, and I am mindful of the Select Committee report that addressed some of it. We have now made changes so that women going into work for the first time from benefits—either universal credit or a legacy benefit—will be able to access advance payments for that first month so that they do not have to find the money themselves. I am making sure that work coaches have more independence to support people back into work; that is one of the changes I have made.