Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for his comments, which I associate myself with, and for his hard work over the years on the all-party parliamentary group. I also thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and the Backbench Business Committee for securing this important debate.
We all know how we got here. For people watching at home, many women born in the 1950s retired at 60 in the belief that they would receive their full state pension, only to realise that the Government had increased the retirement age by five years and not told them. Many had handed in their notice at work, and in many cases those women were forced to exist on meagre welfare benefits that left them living a hand-to-mouth existence. Many were left destitute. Some even lost their home. Many experienced depression, and some were even suicidal. That is a scandal and a clear injustice.
I give my warmest thanks to all the 1950s women against state pension inequality campaign groups, on behalf of myself, the hon. Member for Waveney and all members of the all-party group. I also thank the 5,000 women in my constituency of Salford and Eccles who were born in the 1950s, in particular a lady called Judith Robertson and the women of the WASPI Campaign 2018, who have set up stalls in our local supermarkets, and lobbied me and other MPs on this important issue. We all recognise the determination and strength of these brave women. Their relentless campaigning against this profound injustice is the reason why we are here today.
The issue is not whether these women faced injustice; the ombudsman’s report makes it clear that they did, that the DWP was guilty of maladministration, that these women are entitled to compensation urgently from the Government, and that Parliament must urgently identify a mechanism for ensuring that. I will briefly make a few comments about the ombudsman’s report for clarity. First, it is important to stress that the ombudsman has looked at only one aspect of injustice: maladministration by the DWP—that is, whether they adequately notified the women affected by the change to their pension age. The ombudsman’s remit was not to look at the wider discriminatory impact of the policy; that has been left unaddressed.
Sadly, the UK’s pension system systematically favoured men in this age group. They often receive higher state pensions, and even higher private pensions. Many of these women affected spent significant periods out of the workforce caring for their children and family members. That was coupled with a gender pay gap that was far more acute during their time in the workforce than it is today, so they were already at a disadvantage in terms of their ability to contribute to their private and state pensions. The only element that went some small way towards addressing the gender pension gap was that the national insurance pension was paid to women from age 60, whereas it was paid to men from age 65. Obviously, that advantage was taken away.
The fairness and the gender impact of the policy need to be urgently addressed, and I hope that we continue to fight for that in this House, but today we are focusing on the ombudsman’s findings. The key finding was that the failure by the DWP to adequately inform thousands of women of their state pension age constitutes maladministration. The ombudsman also found that, as a result, some women had lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their finances, and that the DWP’s failure had diminished women’s sense of personal autonomy and financial control. The ombudsman also recommended that the DWP acknowledge its failings and apologise for its impact on those affected. The report concludes very clearly that the women concerned are entitled to compensation urgently.
We have discussed what the remedy could look like, and the report is very clear that it leaves that open to Parliament to determine. Crucially, it says that finite resources should not be used as an excuse for failing to provide a fair remedy. This is a clear injustice and should be treated as one. If we go down the path of deciding which injustices are and are not deserving, we are in very dangerous territory. The report also points out that HM Treasury requires compensation schemes to be efficient and effective, and to deliver value for money.
In particular, any administrative costs associated with compensation schemes should not be excessive. That leads the ombudsman to suggest that while Parliament might favour a mechanism for assessing individual claims of injustice, it might want to consider the point that a flat-rate payment would deliver a more efficient resolution. A note of caution here: it is important that we consider the impact of that carefully, as some women may be paid far less compensation than they are entitled to.
On the amount of redress, as we heard from the hon. Member for Waveney, the ombudsman’s guidance on financial remedy sets out six levels of compensation. The ombudsman suggests that solely in the very small set of six cases that it assessed, the range could be within level 4, but in further sessions with the Work and Pensions Committee last week, it acknowledged that that small subset may not cover all the extreme financial situations that many women affected have faced; that could be addressed by an appropriate redress mechanism that Parliament looks at.
All the women’s campaign groups that have contacted the all-party group so far have stated that setting compensation at level 4 would be grossly insufficient, and I agree. When gathering evidence, the all-party group found that in a vast number of cases the injustice was actually at level 6, and that was the recommendation that the all-party group made to the ombudsman.
A whole range of options are being discussed, from a flat-rate payment to a flat-rate tapered payment, the bell curve that the hon. Member for Waveney spoke about, a flat-rate payment with top-ups over a five-year period or mediation for 1950s women alongside an initial payment, to address the full scale of loss and discrimination faced. Whatever option Parliament chooses to take, it is important that it is not means-tested, that it is fast, fair and enshrined in legislation and, most importantly, that it garners the support of the women affected.
However, there is one major hurdle before us. Before we even get to the point of discussing and fine-tuning any proposals the Government have, they must first lay before Parliament their proposed redress mechanism. There is no excuse for delay. The report was laid before Parliament in March; it is now May, and still we have no Government response. It is just not acceptable. We have heard that nearly 280,000 women have already died waiting for justice and as we speak, at least one woman will die waiting for justice every 13 minutes. I say to the Government, “Just do the right thing and, as a matter of urgency, lay before Parliament a mechanism for redress so we can all act in accordance with the ombudsman’s recommendations.”
Health and Disability Reform
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
I know the Prime Minister shares the view that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to our GPs, right up and down the country. They have a highly pressurised job, and they do it extremely well. DWP assessors are highly trained individuals, and there are very clear guidelines on how assessments should be fairly conducted. They are, as the hon. and learned Lady will know, open to appeal where that is necessary. She mentions GPs. As part of the assessments, which are concluded by a DWP team member, rather than the assessor themselves, taking into account all the evidence, it may well be that GPs have an input into many of the decisions.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Secretary of State must understand that the rhetoric coming from the Government over the past few weeks has been brutal, divisive and inducing unimaginable terror in the two thirds of people already in destitution who have a chronic health condition or disability. The prospect of further cuts is making the situation worse. Can he confirm whether he expects overall Government PIP spending to be reduced and, if so, by how much, and what assessment he has made of how his proposals will affect those who are already in material deprivation?
Mel Stride
The presumption that the hon. Lady makes is that the alternative to consulting on a different and potentially much better way forward is to do nothing at all. To me, that is unacceptable. In terms of ensuring that we truly support all those who need support, I have already given that reassurance from the Dispatch Box. It is made very clear in the consultation that we recognise that there will be people who need more support than they are receiving at the moment, but we need to have that conversation in order to get the best outcomes.
Women’s State Pension Age
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
Given that we have not yet responded to the findings of the ombudsman, for the reasons that I gave—this needs to be done in a diligent and careful manner—I am not sure that the hon. Member’s assertion holds water. The report was five years in the making. It covers highly complex matters, and many questions are raised as a consequence. We will look at those questions and those findings extremely carefully and come to the House without undue delay while engaging with the House in an appropriate way, which is what we did with the ombudsman.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The report’s central finding of fact is that women born in the 1950s could not make informed decisions about their finances and that their sense of “personal autonomy and financial control” was “diminished”, with tens of thousands plunged into poverty. The issue now is not whether those women faced injustice, because the report makes it clear that they did, that they are entitled to urgent compensation from the Government, and that Parliament must “identify a mechanism” for providing appropriate redress. Will the Secretary of State allay my concerns that he is not proposing to question the ombudsman’s findings and that, rather, after the Easter recess, he will return to set out appropriate mechanisms for redress that we can debate in the House?
Mel Stride
We are considering the findings, which need to be considered in their entirety in order to come to a view.
Household Support Fund
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks 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
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for securing this crucial debate.
Salford City Council recently commissioned Greater Manchester Poverty Action to research the impact of the household support fund. That research showed that the fund has been a vital lifeline for people in Salford. As my colleague stated, nearly 19,000 low-income households access the scheme. That is a staggering 86% increase from the year before and is set to increase even further this year. Therefore, both the Salford City Mayor and all three Salford MPs were extremely concerned that the autumn statement seemingly omitted to clarify the Government’s position with regard to the continuation of the fund.
The Minister must understand that to withdraw this fund at a time when the cost of living crisis is demonstrably outstripping so many incomes will have disastrous consequences for our most vulnerable residents, families and children who simply cannot make ends meet. For so many, cutting this vital lifeline will mean that they are quite simply catapulted into further destitution, hunger, fuel poverty and worse. For many, their health will be put at extreme risk.
Given that the Government are supposedly consulting on the next provisional local government finance settlement, will the Minister provide financial clarity today by confirming the extension of the household support fund? Will she also commit to formally ringfencing financial measures such as the household support fund and the ongoing revenue support grant calculations for local government, to support the most deprived residents during the cost of living crisis? Will she confirm that she will not cut the current services grant for local government, and that she will instead increase it by inflation to reflect the financial pressures that local authorities face at this time? Will she work with the local government sector to urgently address the acute financial pressures facing local authorities?
Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, will the Minister meet me, along with the Salford City Mayor and Salford MPs, to urgently address these issues?
Pension Credit and Cost of Living Support Grant
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(1 year, 8 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
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) for securing this important debate. I fully support her call for the Government to extend the eligibility period for the £650 pension credit cost of living grant to the end of the financial year.
Independent Age’s analysis of Government figures shows that around one in six older people in the UK live in poverty. Many are already struggling to afford essentials, and with spiralling energy prices and the general cost of living, that is set only to get much worse. I welcomed the support grant itself, and the plan for an additional £300 pensioner cost of living payment. However, sadly, as hon. Members have heard, Independent Age suggests that more than 850,000 pensioners in the UK do not even receive the pension credit to which they are entitled. That is likely due to a combination of digital exclusion, apprehension about applying and social stigma—and that is before they are even eligible for the extra cost of living payment. We must remember that pension credit is a financial top-up for some of the pensioners who are most in need in this country. In many cases, it means that people do not have to choose between heating their homes and eating. Nobody in the world’s fifth biggest economy should ever face that choice.
A great campaign run by Greater Manchester Housing Providers, Independent Age, Age UK Salford and Citizens Advice Salford has been supporting people to take up their pension age benefits. As of June 2022, it estimated there is over £6.3 million of pension credit unclaimed this year in Salford alone. Independent Age estimated that if everybody who is eligible received pension credit, roughly one in three pensioners in poverty would be lifted out of it. That is the impact these payments have on people’s lives.
The Government must step up to ensure that our pensioners—our grandmothers, grandfathers and elderly friends—receive the support they are entitled to in the first place, as well as the additional crisis support. They certainly should not be excluded due to short, strict deadlines when we know that these exclusion factors are already at play. This is not just about compassion; as we heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, Independent Age estimates that low uptake of pension credit costs the Government £4 billion a year in increased NHS and social care spending. These deadlines are an arbitrary, cruel barrier that the Government are choosing to impose, but they can easily amend them in this time of crisis.
Alongside that, the Government should confirm as a matter of urgency that they will increase income top-ups such as pension credit, not just the state pension, in line with inflation according to the consumer prices index or the higher rate of the pensions triple lock. They should also look urgently at increasing all benefits in line with inflation. According to recent figures from the Resolution Foundation think-tank, the number of all people living in absolute poverty in the UK is projected to rise by 2.9 million between 2021-22 and 2023-24. A real-terms benefit cut would add another 600,000 people to that rise, including 300,000 children.
These are our most economically vulnerable households, and if the magical, mythical unicorn of compassionate conservatism that the Chancellor referred to recently is to be given any meaning at all, the Government can start today by extending the pension credit cost of living grant deadline and uprating benefits and pensions in line with recent inflation figures.
Carer’s Allowance
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(2 years, 2 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
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) for securing this very important debate, and for his passionate speech—one that I very much agree with. At the last census in 2011, 24,188 people over the age of 16 were carers in Salford. Nationally, Carers UK estimates that there are now 11.5 million people across the UK who give unpaid support to someone who is elderly, seriously ill or disabled. It estimates that, by doing so, unpaid carers are saving the Government a whopping £193 billion a year.
Last year it was noted that there were only 900,000 full-time unpaid carers nationally who received support of any kind, in the form of carer’s allowance. At only £67.25 per week, it is the lowest benefit of its kind. There are so many more who are excluded from receiving carer’s allowance, including: carers in full-time education or studying for 21 hours or more a week; carers earning more than £128 per week, which is less than 15 hours a week on the national living wage; and carers who spend less than 35 hours per week on their caring responsibilities.
It is clear that even before the cost of living crisis, thousands of carers were facing extreme financial hardship. Indeed, a recent survey by Carers UK found that more than a third of those on carer’s allowance are struggling to make ends meet; many had been struggling for months, often relying on food banks to feed themselves and the people they care for. Now, as energy bills increase by up to 50%, inflation rises and the cost of day-to-day essentials skyrockets, there is a real worry that without urgent support from Government many carers and their families will simply be unable to cope. Those in receipt of the menial carer’s allowance have been awarded a 3.1% increase. However, as we know, inflation is set to reach at least 7.5%, so they face a real-terms benefit cut.
New research from Carers UK reveals that the financial pressures on unpaid carers have become untenable. Just under half—45%—of unpaid carers said that they are currently unable to manage their monthly expenses and that any further increase in energy bills will negatively affect their own physical and mental health, or that of the person they care for. Many also said that they were taking difficult steps to manage their monthly expenses; 58% had cut back on heating while 14% had already fallen into arrears with their energy bills. In the months ahead, more than two in five thought that they would not be able to heat their home to a safe level, while a third were worried that they would have to use a food bank.
It is clear that urgent Government action is required. I join Carers UK in calling on the Minister, first, to increase carer’s allowance and other benefits so that they rise in line with current inflation predictions. Secondly, the Government should immediately extend the warm home discount scheme to ensure that it includes carers on the lowest incomes. Thirdly, the Government should increase the paltry earnings limit for those claiming carer’s allowance, so that it is at least equal to 16 hours of work at the national living wage, and provide a carer’s supplement to all carers with an entitlement in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as carers in Scotland have been receiving since 2018.
Unpaid carers are the backbone of our families; they are our mums, dads, brothers, sisters, partners and friends. They support us in our time of need. It is time we gave them the recognition and thanks that they deserve by supporting them too.
In-work Poverty
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(2 years, 3 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
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing this important debate and for his passionate speech.
More than half of those who live in poverty are in working households. Indeed, the Institute for Public Policy Research found last year that since 2010 the situation has deteriorated steadily, leaving working families at the highest risk of falling into poverty since the welfare system was at its most generous in 2004. That was before the current cost of living crisis that we face.
Now, the Government’s proposed national insurance contributions increase will affect more than 2.5 million working households on low incomes, inflation is expected to hit at least 7.25% in April—pushing food and everyday costs through the roof—and energy prices are expected to rise by a whopping 50%. If we add the Government’s proposed benefits uplift of 3.1%, which, in the light of the anticipated rates of inflation that I have just mentioned, actually amounts to a dramatic benefits cut, we have the makings of a poverty crisis the scale of which we have not seen in our lifetimes.
Things do not need to be like this. In fact, it makes no economic sense at all, because in economies where incomes are supressed, it is not just living standards that suffer; growth is suppressed, too. I am sure that we have all heard the saying, “A rising tide should lift all boats”—as the economy expands, everybody should reap the rewards—but we cannot successfully expand the economy without two things—industrial strategy and demand. If consumers have no money to spend, there is no demand—unless we export everything we produce in the UK.
I urge the Minister to take a number of urgent actions. First, the Government must set about setting out a far more detailed and comprehensive industrial and skills strategy. Secondly, the Government must take the reins on liveable wage levels. They must reform corporate governance and industrial policies to promote healthy wage growth. They must strengthen the workforce voice and roll out sectoral collective bargaining to give working people more power in the workplace, and they should examine the concept of a universal basic income for all. Thirdly, they must introduce the long-promised renters’ reform Bill, to give renters the security and protection that they deserve.
Finally, on providing support to households during the cost of living crisis, I urge the Minster to scrap the proposed NICs increase and to help struggling households on energy bills by cutting the rate of VAT for household energy bills, and levying a long overdue windfall tax on oil and gas companies to generate income. This plan should include expanding the warm home discount, significantly increasing universal credit to offset soaring inflation, and increasing public sector pay and the living wage to push further wage growth. I know that this suggestion goes against every ideological principle that the Minister probably has, but he must finally address the fact that privatisation of our energy system has failed, and acknowledge that public ownership is not just a pragmatic way to solve the energy crisis, but essential to securing our energy security.
There is much that I disagree with when I study the economic principles of Adam Smith, but I will leave the Chamber with one final quotation, which I hope the Minister will agree with:
“A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him.”
I hope that the Minister bears that in mind when he sums up, and that he will address the points that I have raised.
Regional Inequalities: Child Poverty
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(2 years, 3 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
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for securing this important debate and for her articulate and passionate speech.
As we have already heard, recent End Child Poverty coalition research indicated that there were 4.3 million children living in poverty in the UK between 2019 and 2020, and now it is set to be much worse. The Government might wax lyrical about the route out of poverty being work, but staggeringly, 75% of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works—work that is often insecure and simply does not pay enough to sustain a decent standard of living.
In my constituency of Salford and Eccles, 23% of children lived in relative poverty, whereas the national average was 19%; 19% lived in absolute poverty, and the national average was 16%. Poverty, whatever we call it, relative or absolute, is still poverty, and 42% of children in Salford and Eccles live in poverty. In one of the richest economies in the world, those statistics are a disgrace.
Amid this scandal, the Government are quietly passing their benefits uplift legislation today. Even with inflation expected to hit 7.25% in April, the Government are uprating benefits by just 3.1%. Let us be clear: that is a real-terms benefit cut. With rising living costs, it will push families already stretched past breaking point.
More than 30 charities and organisations have called on the Government to increase benefits in line with rising inflation, so I hope the Minister will heed those calls today. I hope he will also recognise that the two-child limit and benefit cap should be abolished. Although most households will see their benefits increased by a paltry 3.1% in April, capped households will see no increase, just as inflation is set to peak and energy bills soar. That will be catastrophic for those families.
Further energy prices are expected to rise by a whopping 50%, which will cripple many families. In response to the calls to increase benefits, the Government have offered paltry support in the form of a £200 discount that consumers must pay back over the next five years, essentially loading even more debt on to the backs of cash-strapped families. At the very least, the rate of VAT for household energy bills must be cut by the Government as soon as possible, and they must levy a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. They must also expand and increase the warm home discount, not load the cost of supplier failure on to household bills, and must increase universal credit to match inflation, as well as increasing public sector pay to a real living wage.
I say to the Minister: let us not wring our hands today about how much we empathise with those who are struggling. As Franklin D. Roosevelt once said:
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
We have the means and the policy ideas to tackle this national scandal, so let us act on that today.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
Statutory sick pay is just one part of our welfare safety net and the wider Government support offered to people in times of need. We have been able to look closely at statutory sick pay during the pandemic, but more consideration is needed and it certainly should not be looked at in isolation.
Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that the best route out of poverty is to work. If only that were true. When I came into this place, I knew there would be Tory Members who believed that poverty was a self-infliction, or a “personality defect” in the words of Margaret Thatcher herself in 1978. But I also naively hoped that there might be one or two good people on the Tory Benches who understood that the struggles of many people’s lives were not self-inflicted, but imposed upon them by an economic system that was simply stacked against them and that possibly, just possibly, they might stand up when the time was right.
So I ask Tory Members today: what kind of Tory are they? Are they one who understands that 40% of the 15,000 universal credit claimants in Salford and Eccles are actually in work, work that pays so little they have to rely on Government support to top it up? Are they a Tory who would help my constituent who wants to work, when she says:
“With the amount I would get from Universal Credit coupled with the childcare costs and my potential wages, what I would have left at the end of the month will leave myself and my husband very tight on finances. The £20 uplift makes a huge difference in our finances and my ability to work”?
Or are they a Tory who simply dismisses her, and indeed analysis by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that shows the majority of families that lose out will be working families who were already suffering before the pandemic hit?
For those unable to work, the situation is even bleaker. The reality is that the basic rate of universal credit is only a sixth of average weekly pay, and many on legacy benefits did not even get the uplift at all. Frankly, rather than being cut, universal credit should be increased to at least 80% of the level of the living wage and the temporary £20 top-up extended to those on legacy benefits.
If the Tories mean it when they say that the best route out of poverty is work, then I say to them: do something about it. Outline an ambitious agenda to tackle in-work poverty, including a higher minimum wage, collective bargaining, secure work, a ban on zero-hours contracts, progression opportunities, and affordable childcare and housing costs. Tory Members, prove to me today that my naive hope that there is some semblance of common decency on the Government Benches is true, and stop this cut.