Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Attention has been drawn to that issue, not least by the Financial Times, which has reported that housing associations’ business plans and their loan covenants and agreements with lenders could be at risk, and that even some big associations could go bust. The implications are very serious.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man, so I am surprised that he cannot see the advantages of the housing policy in, first, reducing rents for large numbers of tenants who are among the poorest people in the land; secondly, obliging housing associations to make a 1% productivity saving each year, which is very small compared with other parts of the public sector; and, thirdly, reducing the welfare spend and therefore the budget deficit. Surely they are all advantages.

[Stephen Timms]

I think the hon. Gentleman was momentarily distracted, because I have welcomed both his first and third points. We welcome the fact that rents are being reduced, but he needs to recognise the impact that the changes will have. As I am sure he will be aware, housing associations do not share his rather sanguine view of what the changes will mean, particularly for new house building at a time when we all recognise the need for substantial new socially rented housing, which is not being delivered at the moment.

The Bill does not provide a definition of “full employment”. In line with recent research and the previous Labour Government’s definition, our amendment will set the full employment target at 80% of the working-age population. To pick up on a point rightly made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), in our view the annual report on progress to full employment must also set out progress on the target to halve the disability employment gap.

We will support policies that make work pay and increase opportunity, but where the Government are wrong we will not hesitate to say so. The Conservative party promised in its manifesto that it would

“work to eliminate child poverty”.

It is now absolutely clear that it did not mean it: the Bill abandons any pretence that it did. Instead of eliminating the scandal of child poverty, the Bill attempts to eliminate the term. Labour in government was committed to reducing the appalling levels of child poverty left behind by the Thatcher and Major Governments, and we did so. We introduced the Child Poverty Act 2010, with cross-party support, including from the Secretary of State when he was in opposition and the Conservative party. It contained clear targets to reduce absolute and relative poverty, persistent poverty and material deprivation.

We have known for some time about the debate in the Conservative party about the validity of the relative poverty measure, but now it is not just changing the definition. It is interested not in stopping child poverty, only in stopping people talking about it. It is exactly the same with food banks: the Tories want to stop people discussing them. Clause 6(9) tells us that we should not refer any more to the Child Poverty Act and that instead it is to be known as the life chances Act, but there are fewer life chances for a child growing up in poverty, and poverty needs to be reduced.

Getting rid of the targets and measures leaves the Government with no commitment to tackle child poverty at all, just a requirement to publish a mix of loosely connected statistics. Instead of removing child poverty, the Bill seeks simply to remove it from the lexicon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I listened with great interest to the Secretary of State’s attempt to reinvent himself as the workers’ friend. In fact, the Bill contains hugely regressive measures that will make many working families much poorer. It is no wonder that they include measures that will effectively repeal the Child Poverty Act 2010. From now on, there will be no income-based measure of child poverty; instead, the Secretary of State will have to report on worklessness and educational attainment, although two thirds of the children who are in poverty come from families who are in work. The problems to which the Secretary of State has referred, such as family breakdown and addiction, are indicators of poverty, but they are not a measure of it. Those problems can occur across the whole income spectrum.

As for educational attainment, the Secretary of State knows, or ought to know, that the biggest predictor of failure in education is poverty. It is not family breakdown, addiction or anything else; it is pure, material poverty. He should not confuse indicators and measurements.

Secondly, this Bill will make many working families much poorer. We have already heard that the increased minimum wage that the Chancellor is introducing is not a living wage, and many people will be excluded even from that increased wage: 21 to 25-year-olds. These people are adults and may have families, but under this Government they will pay a penalty for being poor and working. Where is the incentive to work in that?

As a result of this Bill’s measures, 13 million families will lose £260 a year or £5 a week. That might not sound much to those on the Government Benches, but for families on the margins it is the difference between getting through to the end of the week and not getting through.

The measures to restrict child tax credits and the child element of universal credit to two children are based on the assumption that people are always on tax credits or on benefit, whereas in fact there is a revolving door.

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Jones]

No, I am afraid I do not have the time.

Life does not proceed in a straight line. Let us take the example of a family with three children. They are doing all right; they can afford it. Then one partner falls ill or dies. The other partner might have to work, and take a part-time or low-wage job. Under this Government’s proposals that third child becomes superfluous—one that they should not have had. Not every child matters under this Government.

Let us say a family improve their prospects and get more hours or get a better job. If that job lasts for more than six months and they have to make another claim, that is treated as a fresh claim and they lose the credits for their third child. Where on earth is the incentive to work in that?

We have also heard about what might happen in cases of rape, and I hope the Minister will be able to answer that point when she sums up. Many women do not report rape for reasons that we understand. When they do report it, the prosecution rate is very low and the conviction rate is even lower. What will be taken as proof—reporting, prosecution or conviction? How will a DWP official, not trained in investigation or used to dealing with rape cases, decide on that? Not since Mao Tse Tung has there been a proposal to limit families that is more degrading to women.

This Bill is a purely regressive Bill. It will make millions of families in this country worse off. That is why I will not support it in the Lobby tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall start by focusing on one or two comments that Members made earlier and then return to a central issue—getting those with disabilities back into work.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) said that 3 million strivers will be hammered. I am a great fan of his—he is the Chairman of the Select Committee of which I am a member, and I am sorry he is not in the Chamber to hear this—but his gloom tonight was focused on two things. The first is the big problem of unity and what approach to take to welfare and work within his own party. The second is an underlying belief that the only way to help the poor is ultimately to increase benefits from taxpayers, and that the only way out of poverty is to grow a tax credits bill that is already, at £30 billion a year, far greater than in the similar populations of France or Germany, and is, in the words of the former Chancellor, previously the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West,

“subsidising lower wages in a way that was never intended”

when it was first introduced by the Government of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead.

The reason the right hon. Gentleman and his party are discombobulated on the issue is that they rightly feared a reduction in benefits before an increase in wages and did not expect that my party, the party of compassionate conservatism, would implement precisely that: a national living wage considerably above that mooted by their former leader, plus an expansion of the tax-free allowance that will take the amount one can earn without paying income tax to almost double by 2020 the £6,500 allowance of 2010. They know that higher wages, lower tax and less welfare is the right way forward, because there was no social justice in spending over £170 billion more than we received in tax revenues, leaving the interest on Labour’s debts alone—the interest alone—costing us more than the entire education budget. There is no social justice in spending more on benefits—on the interest on all that debt—than on helping our children with education and giving them the chance to attain and to go on to good jobs.

Some of Labour’s leadership candidates have realised that point and seen that there are no more sweeties in the sweet bag and no credible alternative to this overall philosophy of higher wages, lower tax and less welfare— unless one believes that living within one’s means is always for someone else and not for us, and one wishes to follow an anti-austerity programme that has led a country like Greece to the brink of disaster. That is a political option, but it is not one that the city of Gloucester would ever want this country to follow.

I turn briefly to the second part of my speech. The Chancellor promised in his Budget speech that we would always support the elderly, the vulnerable and the disabled.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Our hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said that £30 billion a year is being spent on disability living allowance and on similar allowances. Does my hon. Friend agree all Government Members welcome that?

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the current welfare bill is unsustainable, but he is also right—I have heard him say this in Select Committee meetings—to say it is vital that we support the elderly, the vulnerable and the disabled. It is true that the Work programme has been far more successful for those on JSA than for those on ESA. The question therefore is: how do we help those people with disabilities who are currently not getting a job and not benefiting from the Work programme in the same way as those on JSA?

Some 61% of those in the ESA work-related action group say that they want to work, and the evidence is that they do. I have heard from charities and from people with disabilities in my constituency how passionately they want to have the same working opportunities as the rest of us, so what can we do to help them? The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), in his role as the Minister for disabled people, has the ambitious task of halving the number of people with disabilities who are out of work. He will need some innovative thinking to help him, so let me make a couple of suggestions.

[Dr Whitford]

Should the hon. Gentleman not recognise that if these people want to work, it is the lack of support and the lack of jobs that is preventing them from getting into work. Why punish them by taking money away? It is like removing the crutches from someone who has just lost a leg before we give them the new limb. Let us get them into work—then they will not need the support.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady raises a perfectly valid point. There is a philosophical difference here: do we take the difference between what they currently get on ESA and JSA and use that money to help give them the greater support that should get them into jobs, or do we just carry on as we are, knowing that the current programme is not that successful? We have to do something different. We have to do more in the Work programme to make it more likely that people with disabilities will get jobs. The jobs are there; all the statistics tell us that more jobs are available than there are people looking for them, but those with disabilities are not getting them at the moment. They need more help with resilience and confidence—the things that make a difference when people go to an interview. They need employers who understand, so the Disability Confident programme is important. They need—we need—providers to understand that they must do more to help, and in return we probably need to give more cash up front, rather than depending solely on payment by returns for those in the ESA category. We MPs need to do our bit. When we hold job fairs, how many of us focus on those on ESA? It is time to tilt our jobs fairs away from those on JSA and towards those with disabilities and on ESA. We can do that, with the help of the Department for Work and Pensions.

There is much to be done, and I believe Ministers are aware that when they review the Work programme they will have to innovate to make sure that those with disabilities and on ESA stand a better chance of winning jobs in a competitive marketplace. We need to do more to help employers realise the importance of this. All of us need to do more as Members to inspire our residents and our businesses to apply for those jobs and to help them win them. That will be vital in reducing the working age welfare cost from 13% of all public spending at the moment to a more reasonable figure.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

I regret that there is no more time.

Above all, we need to inspire those with disabilities into a job. The Leonard Cheshire Disability charity said:

“We believe that disabled people should have the freedom…to contribute economically and to participate fully in society.”

I believe that all of us agree with that. Now we must do our bit to make sure it happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) described, people’s circumstances can change. People do not have a complete and perfect forecast of how their life is going to pan out, which is why we need a safety net. The problem is that a child living in a family with more than two children is 50% more likely to be living in poverty than the average. Some 35% of the children in this country who live in poverty live in those families, so these measures are precisely targeted at those children. The measures will increase the number of children affected and deepen the poverty they face.

[Richard Graham]

Does the hon. Lady recognise The Children’s Society’s comments? It said it supports plans to add additional reporting requirements on parental employment and educational attainment as these are important in contributing to children’s welfare. I know she would say that these were additional, not a substitute, but does she recognise that they are important measures to study?

[Helen Goodman]

I used to work for The Children’s Society and it does some excellent work. What I am concerned about tonight is that rather like a child who has broken a toy and hides it under the bed, the Chancellor tried to hide the impact of this Budget by not presenting the distribution tables in the normal and proper way after the Budget. Fortunately, the IFS told us the truth, which is that people at the top are losing 0.2% of their income and people at the bottom are losing 7% of theirs. This is a phenomenally regressive Bill and a very regressive Budget. It will take £10 million out of the local economy every single year in my constituency. As hon. Members have said, one of the worst things about the tax credit cuts is that they affect in-work families, who are struggling in low-paid jobs to do their very best for their children. They are being given what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has called a “work penalty”. The Bill worsens work incentives. A top-rate taxpayer who earns an extra pound can take home 55p whereas a lone parent on tax credits can take home only 25p.

The Chancellor believes that his rabbit—a rise in the national minimum wage—solves the problem. Of course we all welcome that increase, but it does not solve the problem. It does not compensate by the right amount, it does not compensate enough people and it does not compensate at the right time. Overall, 13 million people are losing from these measures. Some 3 million are losing £1,000 and 2.7 million people will gain from the national minimum wage. The mismatch is shown by chart B3 on page 208 of the report by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. It says something that surprised me and is very pertinent:

“around half the cash gains”—

from the increase in the minimum wage—

“may accrue to the top half of the household income distribution”.

It shows that people at the bottom gain less than £600 and those at the top gain more than £1,000. Furthermore, in evidence to the Treasury Committee last week, it told us that only 14% of people in the bottom decile receive the national minimum wage.

I have concentrated on the issue of children and tax credits, but I have also had many messages from carers, sick and disabled people, and lone parents who are worried that the 30-hour condition is coming in before the extra childcare provision is in place. There are so many serious issues here, and it is a shame that we do not have time to address them.

Recently, Professor Amartya Sen said:

“Democracy should be about preventing mistakes through participatory deliberations, rather than about making heads roll after mistakes have been made.”

He is right. I have been in this House for 10 years, and I have never voted against my party’s Whip. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham made a good case for the Front-Bench amendment. I shall vote for the amendment, but there are so many issues in this Bill that are deeply worrying that I cannot avoid going into the No Lobby against it tonight.