Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate.

The Bill is being rushed through by a Labour Government desperate to paper over the cracks in an economy that they themselves have brought to a shuddering halt. So many of the questions that are coming before the House at the moment are the result of that economic flatlining and the flailing of a Government who are casting around desperately to see how they can get themselves off that economic hook.

Put simply, the Bill is unaffordable. The Prime Minister’s latest concessions to his unruly Back Benchers—now happy and victorious—have left the Exchequer with a £5 billion gap to plug, which inevitably means higher taxes for hard-working families who are already feeling the pinch. Far too few of those voices will be heard today. Too often in debates in this House, Members are consumed with the idea that more spending is a better thing that can always be afforded, and therefore no responsible decisions need to be made. That was the decision of the Labour Back Benchers who wrested from those on the Front Bench control of one of the flagships of this Government’s agenda, leaving the Government—massively endowed as they are with Members of Parliament—like some gigantic ship that has lost all power and propulsion, listing at sea, waiting for the next wave to come along.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

As we in this Chamber know, the next wave that comes along and buffets this Labour Government from the left comes all too often from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), to whom I am happy to give way.

[Ms Creasy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope he is not suggesting that the hard-working families who use PIP to be able to get to work are not voices that we should hear in this Chamber.

[Graham Stuart]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we should consider such people. I think of the lady who came to see me on Saturday at my street surgery. She was concerned about the brutality of the PIP process and the way that she and her husband, who has a degenerative, progressive disease for which there is no cure, are put through the wringer to justify their situation, which anyone with any common sense would see deserves support. But the hon. Lady will be aware of the mushrooming in claims from those with various levels of mental health challenges.

Ultimately, we must balance looking after people with degenerative, progressive diseases in a humane and civilised manner with making sure that we have a system that cuts out fraud, and that seeks to minimise those who do not need aid seeking it and getting it. If only we could have a system in which people did not claim for money that they do not deserve and need, we would be able to look after the people whom I think—this is one area of commonality between the hon. Lady and me—both she and I would agree require fairer and more generous treatment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

At Committee stage, we often table amendments to try to understand the nature of the legislation. Many questions are being put forward in this concertinaed process. The first is whether we should make policy by phone-in rather than on an evidence base. That is the only justification I can see for new clause 12 tabled by the Opposition, who appear not to understand that no recourse to public funds guides the lives of many migrants in our community. It contains a fundamentally un-British perspective on people who come here and work for many years in our national health service, and who then have a stroke or perhaps develop MS. Under the Opposition’s proposals, we would deny such people the support they have paid into as taxpayers. It is a dog whistle so loud that I fear the dogs in Battersea right now are having a terrible time. We should not make policy by phone-in but by evidence, and I pay tribute to the incredible words of my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who bring their own experiences to this debate.

I will speak to new clause 4, which I tabled, as well as to other amendments. Those amendments come from my experience of what makes good policymaking in this place and from my concern that we need to protect our constituents from the vagaries of public policy. I think in particular of a 62-year-old constituent of mine who is physically disabled with a mobility condition called ankylosing spondylitis—I will tell Hansard how to spell that. She works full time and lives alone in a rented flat that has been adapted for her. Removing, messing around with and playing with her benefits—as this Bill would do for millions of people around this country—will not save money; it will simply cost more. My constituent would struggle to get to work and to look after herself, which she can do using the welfare support that she gets under the current system. That means we will face higher costs in the long run.

I wish that Members would learn from the evidence on the bedroom tax. The bedroom tax was brought in under the same metric that we heard from the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who is no longer here—that somehow people who are supported by our welfare system are probably making it up. This is not a moral argument I am making; the bedroom tax did not save the money it was meant to save, because it just pushed costs into other parts of the public sector. That is why it is so important that agree to new clause 4 and weave the principles of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into this legislation. It should be guided by principle not prejudice—in particular the principle that we should respect our fellow human beings and our constituents who have a disability.

New clause 4 covers the question of co-production, and on this point I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) is not in her place. I want to come back to that question, because there is a very important principle about co-production that we have not bottomed out, and I want to hear from the Minister about it. There is a simple premise that we signed up to in the UN convention, which I hope Members across the House would support, that there should be an adequate standard of living—that is identified in article 28. Crucially, article 19 also sets out that there should be an independent living process for our disabled constituents. That is why in 2017, 2024 and indeed 2025, when the UN criticised the previous Government, we rightly held them to account for it. What do we wish for our disabled constituents, if not an independent and equal standard of living? What do we wish for them, if not the basic human right to be treated equally? We must recognise that the world we live in does not work for them, and we must account for that through our welfare system so that they can live freely and, yes, play a part in the world of work while also living with dignity.

It is about very practical things, such as the freedom that comes from someone having a carer who helps them get dressed so that they can go to work. That is supported by our welfare system. It is also about travel costs, especially for those living in my constituency, where Transport for London seems to be hellbent on breaking down all of the stations so that they are not accessible. Covering those costs means that someone can go out to see family and friends. There is also the food that someone might need if they have a condition like phenylketonuria—a metabolic condition that means a person needs a low protein diet. These are not equal experiences, but by using our welfare state to support those people, we can have ensure that they have the human rights we wish them to have.

New clause 4 is about giving due regard to the principles set out in the UN charter so that benefits are calculated in a way that means they are sufficient to allow people to live a life of freedom equally alongside their fellow human beings. The payments we make must meet those tests so that disabled people in our communities can meet their living expenses. That is a question that many hard-working people who are struggling at the moment in their lives can recognise well.

It is about levelling the playing field. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said, about making fools of us all. Those are principles that I hope the Government will commit to weaving throughout the legislation. That is why new clause 4 matters: it goes beyond the principle of co-production, which I know the Minister has recognised, to the basic principle of how we treat people. That would apply to the universal credit health element of the Bill. If we restricted a benefit, it would call on us to ask why we consider somebody to need X amount at this point in time but Y amount in the future, and to ask whether that will live up to the required standard of living.

I want to touch on co-production in particular. Many have talked about it, but people do not necessarily understand what it means. It is not consultation. Co-production means that whoever is included can say no as well as yes. Without a power of veto, all we have is a better managed consultation. Co-production genuinely empowers every participant to shape things, because they can walk out of the room as well as being part of it.

The Minister has talked about seeking consensus, but it is not an equal relationship if disabled people are not given the clear power to veto what is put on the table, such that the Government have to work with them so that they do not use their veto. That is the principle of co-production—that is why it is not consultation—and that is what we should be seeking.

I have much sympathy for new clause 8—I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is not in his place—because I was here in 2015 when George Osborne used statutory instruments to slash the tax credits that our constituents relied on and 3 million people were pushed further into poverty. I was also here when MPs on both sides of the House expressed frustration about the use of that process. We had to watch the House of Lords clear up our mess and stand up to the Chancellor for using delegated legislation to take £1,300 away from our constituents. I hope the Minister will understand that this is not about this individual Bill or even about his good intentions; I know that he has engaged with all of us. It is about the principle that if we are to change the law, we should be able to amend and adjust that law and scrutinise it on behalf of our constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) set out many alternative ways in which we could switch spending to invest in order to save money in the long run. There are many different ways in which we can support our economy to grow; it does not have to be off the backs of our disabled constituents. There is also the important principle here—I know many on the Labour Benches believe this—that socialism is the language of priorities. Our priority must be to empower and enable every single one of our constituents to achieve their potential—and yes, that happens through a growing economy, and also through a welfare state.

I hope that the Minister will address the amendments that seek to ask questions about how we get this right. For many of us those unanswered questions are troubling —we cannot bring back answers for our constituents—because they tell us that we may not achieve those things that I have set out. None of us who have lived through George Osborne and the bedroom tax ever want to go back to that again. We want to be able to say to our constituents, who might find themselves in the position of the father of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, that we can absolutely be proud of the system we are building today, just as we are proud of my hon. Friend himself.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 11 and amendment 38. I am incredibly relieved that the Government have listened—most importantly, they have listened to the people who will be affected by changes to PIP—and taken clause 5 out of the Bill. The terms of reference for the Timms review have already been set without involving disabled people, but there is a chance with new clause 11 to ensure that it moves forward in a truly co-produced way. What worries me is that without the proposals in the new clause, the Bill highlights the need for co-production but provides no assurances that it will be comprehensively done. Disabled people must feel that any changes to the welfare system are made properly with them rather than done to them.

I have walked in the shoes of families in my constituency bringing up children with special educational needs and disabilities. For decades, my son and I have been caught up in the endless cycle of assessments, mandatory reconsiderations and tribunals. That is a situation familiar to many who have turned to the DWP for help to manage life with a disability or disabilities.

This is the reason that so many disabled people are terrified of the Government’s proposed changes: the DWP is too frequently at war with the people it is supposed to protect. Too frequently, it lets down the most vulnerable in our community, and it mostly gets away with it. Recently, the incredible Joy Dove won an eight-year legal fight to link her daughter Jodey Whiting’s suicide to the stopping of her benefits, which the DWP admitted was a mistake. Jodey’s avoidable death is not the only one.

DWP decisions often seem to be completely arbitrary. Once, when I was waiting to go into a tribunal, I received a call from the DWP offering to reinstate my son’s benefits if I dropped the tribunal. That experience cemented in my mind something that I believe to this day: the culture of the DWP is hostile to disabled people. That culture must change if we are to have any chance of building a sustainable, fair and compassionate welfare system for the future.

A constituent of mine in Scarborough and Whitby suffers from a variety of complex physical and mental health conditions, including PTSD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorder, polycystic kidney disease and liver disease. In May, after reporting a deterioration in his health, he submitted new evidence to support reassessment for a higher rate of PIP, which led to the DWP removing his award entirely. He was left with no income or support despite his ongoing need for care.

This is the reality: many disabled people who are turned down for PIP rely on the health element of universal credit. Many of my constituents have fluctuating conditions, such as MS, ME and mental health conditions. The reality of their conditions means that during periods of remission they return to employment. However, once their condition deteriorates, they return to universal credit. If that happens, with this Bill they would return on a lower level than before, down to just £50 a week. That completely ignores the realities faced by disabled people and their experience of their conditions. Without the protections provided for in amendment 38, we would create a two-tier system where people with unpredictable conditions would be valued less than those with more predictable ones.

I urge hon. Members to support new clause 11 and amendment 38. I also ask the Government to please pull the Bill. Even at this late stage, let us get it right for the people who really matter; let us get it right for disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Ms Creasy]

rose—

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Let me make just a little more headway. I will give away a little bit later.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge and I have discussed, I do not agree that the review must be finished within 12 months. We want to complete the review by autumn of next year, and with no four-point threshold, I do not think it is in anybody’s interest to rush it. I accept her proposal, in subsection (4) of her new clause, for a group to co-produce the review, not so much to provide independent oversight as to lead and deliver it. I will chair the group, and we will work with her and others to include disabled people with lived and professional experience in its leadership and in shaping its meetings, with around a dozen members and with capacity to engage others as needed on specific topics.

My hon. Friend has made helpful suggestions for who some members of the group might be. We will want disabled parliamentary representation to be involved in the process as well, and arrangements to involve disabled people more broadly. I agree with her that the majority of the group’s members need to be disabled people or representatives of disabled people’s organisations, and that they need to be provided with adequate support, including towards their costs of travel and taking part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman raised that point very reasonably in the debate, and it is certainly something we need to consider as well.

[Ms Creasy]

I welcome the commitment to work with disabled people. The Minister will know that the difference between consultation and co-production is that every participant has to have a veto of the outcomes in order to co-produce. Otherwise, with the greatest will in the world, it is just another form of consultation. Can he give us an assurance that disabled groups will have a veto over the proposals, to engage the consultation process?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We will aim for a consensus among all those taking part, and that is what I hope we will achieve.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her diligent and careful work over recent months. I am sad that we have ended up here. No matter what, and regardless of the concessions, a vote for this Bill today is a vote to plunge 150,000 people into poverty and to tighten the eligibility criteria for those who need support the most.

Some of us have been here before. In 2015, when the Tories pushed through their Welfare Reform and Work Bill, I and other colleagues were persuaded to vote for it on the promise that we could change it in Committee. It did not change, and although we voted against it on Third Reading, the damage was done, because the nuances of the stages of a Bill are completely lost outside this place. The result was that the savings predicted never materialised and employment levels did not increase. Instead, there was an increase in poverty, an increase in suicides, strain on the NHS and other public services, and, in the long run, higher welfare spending and reduced growth.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case. None of us should take any lectures from the Conservatives. She and I were here when the bedroom tax was introduced. We can have many moral arguments about welfare reform, but the bedroom tax saved very little in the end, which shows that this way forward is not the way to help people into work and ultimately cut our welfare bill.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I remember well the UN rapporteur saying that the Conservatives were engaged in cruelty towards people in this country who needed help the most.

What I cannot fathom is why a Labour Government are not first putting in the support and then letting it bed in, which is what will reduce the welfare bill and increase employment levels. The impact of any cuts would then not be as drastic. The starting point should never be cuts before proper support. The review led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, who I have a lot of respect for, is starting to look a little bit predetermined as the change in criteria will happen at the same time as the review concludes. It remains unclear how existing claimants with fluctuating conditions will be assessed, and the impact that these changes will have on the carer’s allowance. However, we do know that disability living allowance claimants and those on other legacy benefits will be assessed under the new criteria, putting almost 800,000 disabled children at risk of losing support.

The north-east region has the highest number of disabled people in England, and the number of people searching for work outpaces the number of available jobs. How on earth will cutting the health element of universal credit incentivise those people to go out and find a job that does not even exist? Since PIP is an in-work benefit, restricting the very support that could keep people in work will only help to increase unemployment. All of this for £2.5 billion of savings, when we know that savings can be made elsewhere and when we know that those with the broadest shoulders could pay more. Instead, we are once again making disabled people pay the price for the economic mess that the Conservative party left us.

As it stands, we are being asked to vote blind today. There is no new Bill, no new explanatory notes and no fully updated impact assessment. There is no time for sufficient scrutiny, and no formal consultation has taken place with disabled people. The majority of employment support will not be in place until the end of the decade, and Access to Work remains worse than ever before. We are creating a two-tier, possibly three-tier, benefit system, and we know for certain that disabled people are going to be worse off. This is not a responsible way for any of us to legislate. It is predicted that disabled people will lose on average £4,500 per year, yet we know they already need an extra £1,095 per month just to have the same standard of living as those in non-disabled households. There is a reason why 138 organisations representing disabled people are against this Bill, and there is a reason why not a single organisation has come out in support of it.

I am pleading with MPs today to please do not do this. For those on my own Labour Benches, staying loyal to your party today may feel good in this place, but once you go home and are in your individual constituency, the reality of this will hit—and it will hit very hard.

Welfare Reform

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I can indeed confirm that we have complied with all our legal requirements.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s commitment to getting this right. She will be very aware that, as it stands, the legal advice we have had is that these proposals will breach our obligations under the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The previous Government did that, and we rightly challenged them on it. So that we do not make the same mistake, will she give a commitment to write into a Bill that these proposals will be compliant with that commitment to ensure that persons with disabilities have social protection and the enjoyment of that right without discrimination on the basis of their disability?

[Liz Kendall]

I simply say to my hon. Friend, who knows that I have deep respect for her, that I would not be making any changes that I believed were incompatible with the law.

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I know my hon. Friend is a very powerful champion for employment in her Great Grimsby constituency and I will indeed make sure that a Minister is available for the discussions she has sought.

Given that we know how important high-quality occupational health is for helping people with health conditions to stay in work, we will support businesses to develop voluntary minimum levels of intervention that employers can adopt to help to improve employee health.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is also introducing measures to reinforce our efforts to join up employment and health support by tackling one of the main reasons for sickness absence. Our expansion of access to mental health services will support almost 400,000 extra people through NHS talking therapies, and an additional 100,000 places will be made available through individual placement and support to help people who experience severe mental health conditions to start and stay in employment. With that significant expansion of extra support, we are breaking down the barriers that for too many have been a roadblock to the rewards of work. That requires bold reform.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mel Stride]

While the world of work has transformed significantly in recent years, the way we assess someone’s ability to work, or to prepare for work, has not changed for over a decade—not since the work capability assessment was last comprehensively reviewed in 2011. Since then, we have seen the rise of flexible working and new legislation giving workers the right to request it from day one of a new job. We have seen big increases in hybrid and home working, and there is a much greater understanding on the part of employers of the importance of reasonable adjustments and how to support disabled people in the workplace.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mel Stride]

Those changes have opened many more opportunities for disabled people and those with health conditions to participate in work, and for employers to benefit from their talents, but the fact is that too many people who could work are being denied access to those opportunities because they are deemed not fit to work or even to prepare for work. The proportion of people going through a work capability assessment and receiving the highest level of health-related benefits, where there is no requirement to look or prepare for work, rose from 21% in 2011 to 65% in 2022.

However, crucially, one in five in that group would like to work in the future with the right support, and more than half of those who felt that they could work within the next two years saw a fear of not being able to return to benefits as a barrier to work. With our new chance to work guarantee, we are removing that barrier and that fear for millions of disabled claimants who want to try work.

The reform will effectively abolish the work capability assessment for the vast majority of existing claimants who have already been assessed and do not have any work-related requirements. They will be free to do some work without the prospect of having to be reassessed and potentially losing their benefits if a job does not work out. It brings forward a major part of our longer-term plan, set out in the health and disability White Paper published earlier in the year, which will see the work capability assessment abolished completely.

In the meantime, for new claimants, we are ensuring that the work capability assessment is fit for the modern world of work and reflects the greater opportunities for disabled people. To that end, we are updating some of the criteria we use to assess whether someone can work or prepare for work, including the “mobilising” and “getting about” activities, as well as the substantial risk rules. Those reforms will come in from 2025, and it is important to emphasise that we will continue to protect the most vulnerable and those with the most significant limitations.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mel Stride]

The changes will help many more people who can work—who want to work—to gain all the benefits of a job. That is my mission. It is a mission that extends to helping anyone who falls out of work, for whatever reason, to get back into work quickly. It is a mission to ensure that a spell out of work does not turn into the scourge of long-term unemployment, because we know that the longer someone remains out of work, the harder it is for them to return. That is why we are ensuring that people who are deemed fit to look for work are put on a stronger path to employment, rather than being parked on benefits indefinitely.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

[Mel Stride]

I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Stella Creasy]

Another scheme intended to help ensure that people can get back into work is the expansion of childcare. Last week’s report showed us that the Office for Budget Responsibility believes that the Government’s childcare reform will mean a reduction in welfare spending, and that the £5.2 billion pledged to childcare will need to be only £4.6 billion—a reduction of more than 10% in the funding available for childcare. We all agree that childcare will help people back into work, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to pledge on the record that the Government will put directly into childcare the full £5.2 billion that our constituents were promised in March?

Baby Banks: Government Support

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Friday 9th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Children are expensive and wasteful. The amount of stuff they go through and the cost to a parent’s pocket is horrific. In this country, it should be our collective mission to put food banks out of business, because nobody should go hungry in a modern, dignified democracy. But would we have the same ambition for baby banks? What, Madam Speaker, do I mean by baby banks? I promise you that this is not about a very strange form of deposit, or loan or even withdrawal. This is about how we change the stigma that somehow says that sustainability is a middle class indulgence, because in the time of a cost of living crisis, we cannot afford to do anything but for our parents’ pockets and for our planet.

To date, those efforts about being green have focused on things such as jobs and wind farms, but now it is time to focus on the role of give and take. I would venture that everybody in this Chamber—those who are left—probably remembers that from being a child. I was the youngest of a number of cousins. During the 1980s, I did not want for leg warmers, because I had multiple pairs of those donated to me. The truth is that for parents facing those costs of children, sharing is absolutely integral.

Research from the Child Poverty Action Group shows that it costs around £160,000 to raise a child. For single parents, it is £190,000. Every penny matters. But it is not just about the costs; it is about the cost of carbon and the waste that it means when a parent has to buy new things for every individual child. Parents are facing a cost of living crisis as never before. Since 2020, the costs facing new parents have risen by a third, as the cost of living and inflation have pushed up the price of essential goods such as nappies. Indeed, over the last two years, the price of a pack of nappies has risen by a shocking 75%, meaning that, for most families with a new baby, the spend on nappies alone has gone up by £41 a month. The prices of other consumable goods have also gone up, with baby formula costing an extra £12 a month, and baby wipes up 16%.

It is not just about those everyday costs when someone has a new baby; it is also about the one-off, massive purchases. Car seats and pushchairs cost 38% and 25% more respectively than they did in 2020. Yet, during the same period, statutory maternity pay has risen by only 3.6%.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making a good case. I wonder whether safety is a big aspect where children are concerned. If parents cannot afford to buy new all the time, the children’s safety might be compromised. That is where food banks, by providing safe alternatives, could be helpful.

[Stella Creasy]

It is precisely this issue about how parents make sure they look after their child, which is what every parent wants to do well. That is why baby banks need to become the norm; I want to put food banks out of business, but I want baby banks to become the norm.

One of the issues for us in the This Mum Votes campaign is that we need to understand the pressures on families across the country and to join up Government action. Baby banks provide a solution by giving parents the opportunity to swap and reuse equipment, toys and clothes, as well as access to vital support networks. They are a response to two challenges at the same time: the deepening poverty we see in our communities and the need to care for our environment through the greater reuse of items. There are currently around 200 baby banks in this country. They are often run by women—by volunteers—who have recognised the need to join up the dots to help everybody share. That is as much about bringing those new parents together as it is about the practicalities and the costs that families face.

Half of the 4.2 million children living in poverty in this country live in a family with a child under the age of five. Younger children, in particular, who go through so much stuff and need so much stuff so quickly, are expensive. That is why having the This Mum Votes perspective and understanding should be part of our policymaking. Some 1.3 million of those 4.2 million children are babies and children under the age of five. The total number of children in poverty is predicted to rise in the next year alone to 5.2 million—that is an additional 1 million children, many of whom will be of that younger generation.

We know that investing in the early years reaps a reward, but we do not always invest in helping parents with those early years. That is why fantastic organisations such as Little Village, which supports families with children under five living in poverty across London, are such a godsend, and why I am calling on the Government to make sure that every community has a baby bank—somewhere that collects and distributes pre-loved clothes and equipment. As Little Village’s amazing chief executive, Sophie Livingstone, points out, it fixes the systems that trap families in poverty.

Since launching in 2016, Little Village has supported over 25,000 children. Last year alone, it supported over 6,000 children, including 1,000 new-born babies. It takes referrals from across our statutory sector, because anyone working with young families knows about baby banks. In my community, we have a brilliant baby bank run by the Lloyd Park children’s centre, and I make referrals to it, as do midwives, social workers and health visitors. Baby banks aid the work of our statutory sector.

Baby banks also help at that immediate crisis point. We have maternity wards saying that they have mums without anything and that they will not let them leave the hospital. It is the baby banks that step in to help, providing vital goods for those newborns, whether it is the nappies, wipes, creams, clothes, blankets or hats that people will not be allowed to leave the hospital without.

Baby banks are also often a vital link for parents who are sceptical about the statutory sector. These are organisations that those parents can trust and that definitely have their child’s best interests at heart. They can also be a bridge to further services.

This week, we have seen the worrying reports from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service of families who are watering down their baby formula to save money. Little Village’s work shows similar horror stories about what is happening right now in this country: a family that was using sanitary towels as nappies because they did not have the money to buy nappies; a mum of three who could not afford to heat her home was coming to the baby bank with her child to keep warm; a child with grade 3 pressure sores due to the extreme rationing of nappies; a parent who was reusing nappies that had already been soiled in order to save money; and a family rationing Calpol in order to get through the day.

Despite the amazing work that baby banks do in this country to try to tackle these problems, not every local authority welcomes them. Some refuse to provide access to community spaces that are vacant because they do not want to admit that that kind of poverty exists in their local community. Space is crucial. Any parent knows that new children take up a lot of space, so just imagine a baby bank having to find space for multiple buggies, cots, baby baths and jumperoos. Having local authority support with space is crucial, as is taking into account the costs of running these places, including the costs of energy and of buying things such as nappies to hand out.

Ministers and people listening may think that this is a debate about poverty, but it is not just about that; it is also about the planet, because an estimated 350,000 tonnes of clothing goes to landfill every year. Even if we ended poverty in this country tomorrow, we would still want baby banks to exist, in order to tackle that problem at the same time and to promote the reuse, repair and sharing of items. Little Village gifted 26 tonnes of clothing, 26 tonnes of furniture, 3.5 tonnes of small electricals, 2 tonnes of books and more than 1 tonne of small plastics last year alone, and that is just one baby bank. That saved 85 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions , which is the equivalent of taking 18 cars off the road. More than 8.5 million new toys are thrown away—they head to landfill or incinerators—in the UK every year. There is a mountain of clothes, toys, plastic and tat that every family acquires and then no longer needs because their child has grown out of it and is then abandoned on an almost weekly basis. These things also represent a cost that a lot of families feel they have no choice but to incur.

We saw that most clearly in Walthamstow with our amazing “swap shop” project. I wish to pay testament to it, because it shows a model of a way forward. We have been running swap shops in our local community, where parents bring items they no longer need and take the items they do need; we have helped thousands of parents since we started doing this in August, enabling them not only to take items out of our landfill and our incinerators, but to manage the costs that they face. I wish to say thank you to my local Salvation Army; The Mill community centre; Waltham Forest Council; our amazing Walthamstow toy library; all the volunteers; the 17&Central shopping centre, which hosted us so that parents could find us easily; and, in particular, the members of my team, Safa, Jess and Ashley, who helped to run that project, which meant that during the weeks it was open nothing that came into our centre went to a landfill or an incinerator.

Failing to reduce waste and deal with climate changes often hits the poorest in our communities, as we have seen with those who have been repeatedly flooded out of their houses or from the evidence that shows that incinerators are three times more likely to be sited in areas of deprivation than affluent regions. Yet asking the public to look ahead to that green future and to be more climate conscious is impossible to do when they do not know where the next meal is going to come from for their families or they are thinking that they cannot afford to put their baby in warm clothing that evening.

If Ministers will not listen to me about why we should make sure that every community has access to baby banks, please listen to the Princess of Wales, because she has been championing them. She has visited Little Village and she is bringing together 19 British brands to donate to these baby banks so that they have items to hand out. The Minister may be wondering and saying, “This is all very well, but what does this MP want the Government to do?” There are some simple things they could do. First and foremost, we should invest in baby banks as a way of saving money, because this country is spending hundreds of thousands of pounds every years on sending things to landfill and to incinerators. Baby banks are not recognised in this country in the way that food banks are. That is what we have to change, because this is as much about the donations and the networks that come from that, as it is about the people who need their support. The Trussell Trust does amazing work for food banks; it is an almost £60 million a year organisation. We need to invest in baby banks in every community as a way of matching that, so that it becomes the norm to reuse, repair and support your local community and other local parents in the same way.

Little Village, the Baby Bank Network in Bristol, Save The Children and the Association for Real Change are working together to create a new national baby bank network. I ask the Minister to put on record the Government’s support for that process, along with a commitment to do what they can to roll it out as quickly as possible. It is not enough for these organisations to be scrabbling around for funds with which to do the work they are doing; we should be investing in them. There are some minor things we could do to raise the money, because we are not talking about hundreds of millions of pounds, and we are not talking about a state-run initiative. The brilliant volunteers do not need us to do it for them; they need us to work with them.

If we were to make a small increase—0.2%—in the stamp duty paid on second homes to provide for our nought to two-year-olds, we could raise £880 million a year. We could invest all that and have a baby bank overnight. I know that that may not be something to which the Minister would want to commit herself, so let us look at something a bit simpler. The landfill tax is currently set at £96.70 a tonne, and is raising £660 million this year. Even an increase of a mere £4 would raise £687 million, creating an additional £27 million that could be put towards funding baby banks and could help to remove items from landfill and incinerators altogether.

There are other things that local authorities could do with the Government’s help. For many parents, it is the size of the item that they want to donate that creates the risk of their not donating it. Those who are dealing with fly-tipping are often taking out goods that could be reused for children. We could also advertise those services. The point is that this is a win-win for all of us. Kids may be expensive and wasteful, but they are going to inherit this earth, and right now millions of them in this country are living in poverty. Baby banks are not the only solution, but they are absolutely the one investment, the one deposit, that the Government could make that would give a better future to millions of us overnight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Speaking to many mums and grandmums, having baby in the garden in the pram and pegging out the reusable nappies—those lovely white nappies—is a moment of pride: “I’m getting this right and it’s going well.” It is extortionately challenging to try to balance the environmental problem with nappies and also reusing; I know many mums who have managed to do that successfully; I must admit, to my shame, that that was not me, but I was very admiring of anyone who did manage it. We need to make those schemes more acceptable and understandable. Some people think they are strange and that the only option is disposable.

[Stella Creasy]

I hope the Minister will agree perhaps to meet me and representatives of Little Village and my own local baby bank to discuss this point. Many of our environmental organisations, particularly within local government, have schemes to encourage reusable nappies and recycling. However, that does not join up with a recognition of how that can help to tackle poverty, and it is baby banks that are doing that joining up. I am pleading for Government to do that joining up as well, so that is not just brilliant volunteers at a local level saying, “Actually, there is a scheme for reusable nappies from our local environmental charity”, but Government helping to make that network happen. If she meets the organisations I mentioned, she will find people who would be fantastic advocates to take to other Government Departments on these issues, for example.

[Mims Davies]

The hon. Lady makes in important point: the cost of living, nappies and the environment, Healthy Start and ensuring that those most in need know where to turn and are not overlooked are all cross-Government issues. I will take her point away across Government to look at the right way to take forward what she is asking for. I hope that is helpful to her.

I want to mention the work that many people do knitting hats and supporting newborns. One of the biggest things I learned as a new mum is how much warmth newborns need. People in this space add so much that, whether through knitting, advice, or creating baby banks. I was certainly quite surprised to see just how much the sector has grown. I understand the hon. Lady’s passion for and interest in this particular area, and this debate has certainly sparked my interest, so I thank her very much for bringing it to the House.

The Sure Start maternity grant provides £500 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for costs associated with the expenses of caring for a baby—as we have heard, becoming a parent is a very expensive business—if there are no other children under the age of 16 in the claimant’s family. The Sure Start maternity grant was devolved to Scotland in December 2018, and the Scottish Government have established alternative support through the Best Start scheme.

The NHS Healthy Start scheme also provides £4.25 a week to eligible low-income families in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to buy fresh fruit and vegetables, with recipients also eligible for free Healthy Start vitamins to help them to boost their children’s long-term health.

To give families holistic support, family hubs are bringing together services for children of all ages. I am particularly interested in how that links into the start for life offer, which is at the core of those. The Government are investing more than £300 million jointly with the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care to transform our start for life services from conception to age two. That includes boosting family support services in 75 local authorities in England.

The Government are providing a network of family hubs. I note that that is not the same thing that the hon. Lady talked about, but that is how we assist positive parent and infant relationships, support perinatal mental health and infant feeding, and boost and help people with their parenting skills. In addition, the DFE will ask all those 75 local areas to publish their start for life offer and will provide funding on innovative trials of workforce models for a smaller number of authorities. I wonder whether that is a way to link in some of what has been discussed today.

I reiterate that the Government’s universal credit childcare offer aims to make it easier for low-income families to choose to work, stay in work and progress in work, so that after the baby comes, parents can move to a point where they can be more financially resilient. I remind people that eligible UC claimants can claim back 85% of their registered childcare costs each month, regardless of the number of hours that they work, compared with 70% in tax credits.

Additionally, those who need extra financial support with their first set of childcare costs or when moving into work or taking on additional hours can apply for further help from the flexible support fund. That discretionary, non-repayable payment will pay their initial childcare costs directly to the provider. Help is available for eligible universal credit claimants through budgeting advances.

I say to anybody struggling, listening, or helping and advising in the sector, “Please look at the benefits calculator on gov.uk and at the cost of living website. Please make sure that you are claiming everything that you are entitled to, because there may be further help out there that you are not aware of. There is also the Help for Households campaign. We are helping with £37 billion of support for cost of living pressures between 2022 and 2023, and an extra £26 billion was announced for that purpose in the autumn statement, so please make sure that you reach out. For households on eligible means-tested benefits, up to £900 in cost of living payments is available for people to take up.”

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister is setting out the help that the Government believe there is for those on low incomes. Baby banks are a big boost for tackling poverty, but there is an environmentally sustainable element. We want to encourage everybody, whether they are wealthy or not, to donate, because families do not need a cot or a pushchair for that long. They will be perfectly serviceable for someone else to use. One of the benefits of baby banks is that they ensure that the quality of the items is such that people will want to reuse them. That revolution in thinking is not one for those on the lowest incomes alone but for everyone if we are to save the planet as well as saving parents cash.

[Mims Davies]

I absolutely agree. This is not revolutionary thinking but old-fashioned sensible thinking that is suitable for our environment and our families. An issue that parents often worry about is quality, and sharing and responsibility when it comes to reusing items. I take the hon. Lady’s point about safety. We have seen that particular charities are willing to take some products but not others. That means that, as she pointed out, sometimes very large, useful products are the things that you see stuck on the side of the road, creating fly-tipping problems. But they could be incredibly useful for young families if they can be accredited.

I want to reassure the House that the Government are taking action to support families on low incomes. We will continue to remain vigilant about what people need in these challenging times, particularly those who are most vulnerable, or indeed those who are on the just-about-managing list—a lot of people who have come into focus due to the impact of the covid pandemic. I urge those people to reach out and know that there is help for them.

I thank the hon. Lady for her work and for securing this debate on the value of baby banks. I remind people of the Sure Start maternity grant, Healthy Start, family hubs, the childcare offer, cost of living payments, the household support fund and our benefit uprating. We will tackle the root cause of poverty, but it is right that, where communities can, they do everything they can to help families in need.

Question put and agreed to.

Supporting Single Parents into Work

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, ma’am. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmadamship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing this crucial debate, which highlights an example of the disjuncture between what happens here in Westminster and what happens in real life. In real life, over the past two years, families across all our constituencies have really struggled, and those people having to lead a family on their own have struggled most.

The single parents in our communities are utter heroes for being able to manage a family, trying to keep in work and trying to stay sane, given the pressures we put on them. A number have been outlined, including the craziness of saying that, somehow, for a single parent under the age of 25 on universal credit, it must be cheaper, so they do not need the same level of entitlement. I have never known a child to be cheap only because of the age of the parent; perhaps, at 44, I should have learned my lesson. We also pay childcare costs retrospectively, so someone who does not have savings—as single parents disproportionately do not—cannot get childcare so that they get back into work, as they want to.

In my short contribution, I flag to the Minister that there might be one parent, but it is the same bill, particularly when it comes to childcare. In this country, the cost of childcare and nursery fees for the under-fives has risen three times faster than pay in the past decade. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that, when splitting the cost, that might be marginally more manageable than just one wage trying to cover the bill. Childcare is not just a nice add-on, it is not just good for children, it does not just help women—mainly—get back into work. It is, economically, one of the best investments we can make, because universal childcare pays for itself, as Women’s Budget Group research shows. We get a higher tax take, and crucially for this debate, it lowers welfare bills.

I say to the Minister: not only do we desperately need urgent reform to universal credit, particularly for single parents—penalising a parent for being under 25 penalises their child; I hope he thinks of the children when he does that—but we need to reform childcare costs so that we can actually get people into work so they can earn the money to not need universal credit in the first place. We also need to see universal childcare as one of the best investments we can make, and one of the best things that his Department can lobby the Treasury for, to make sure that not only single parents but all parents can manage their children. However, single parents in particular face these costs, and it is absolutely right that we recognise that childcare is the cost of living crisis for most families.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes—or should I call you ma’am? I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for securing this debate. I am grateful for the work that she does in chairing the all-party parliamentary group on single-parent families, and for the contributions from Members of the APPG that we have heard today. Like them, I recognise the heroic work that so many single parents do across the country, supporting businesses and organisations in the work they do—and supporting their children as well. We recognise that important contribution.

We want everyone to be able to find a job, progress in work and to thrive in the labour market—whoever they are and wherever they live. It is good to see the proportion of single parents in employment increasing. It has grown by 11.4% since 2010, and is now at 68.5%. However, we want to go further. Through the support that we are providing as the economy bounces back from the debilitating effects of the pandemic we will see employment rates continuing to improve. We are committed to continuing to see an increase in the number of single parents in the workforce, which is why we have a comprehensive package of support that helps lone parents to enter and, importantly, progress in employment.

First, I reiterate that universal credit provides incentives to work as part of its fundamental design. In the Budget, as has been recognised by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, we have gone further; we have taken decisive action to ensure that work pays by cutting the universal credit taper rate from 63% to 55% and increasing universal credit work allowances by £500 a year. This is essentially a tax cut for the lowest- paid in society, worth around £2.2 billion in 2022-23; it means that 1.9 million households will keep, on average, around £1,000 on an annual basis. This will be complemented by a generous increase to the national living wage. The Government are extending the national living wage, from April 2022, to £9.50 per hour to all those aged 23 and over. We want people to be able to work, and we are making work pay.

The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), cannot be here today as she is attending a Select Committee hearing. Crucially, she is pushing hard for our comprehensive £30-billion plan for jobs, which will enable more single parents to take advantage of the nearly 1.2 million vacancies we currently have in the labour market. As part of our plan for jobs, the rapid estates expansion programme has led to the opening of around 180 new job centre sites all around the country; I am sure Members will be experiencing that in their own constituencies.

Those job centres will help us to meet the growing demand for our employment services, and help to ensure that all claimants looking for work receive the right support. The new estates are helping us to house the 13,500 new work coaches whom the Department for Work and Pensions recruited in the last financial year. I recognise the important contribution that they make; I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton does as well. They are real heroes in our local communities, and in my view they are too often unsung. Our plan for jobs programme will support more single parents to find the role that is right for them, no matter what their age or their experience.

[Stella Creasy]

We agree with the Minister about the importance of helping people get into work. Can he explain why he thinks that, during that process¸ the universal credit support we give to families, and particularly to single parents, should be assigned by age? What is it about a child of someone who is under the age of 25 that makes the Government think that they are cheaper, and do not need the same rate of universal credit—can he justify that anomaly? This is something that makes it harder for parents under the age of 25 to get into work because they do not have the money to pay those up- front child care costs. Why is it that the child of an under 25-year-old is cheaper?

[David Rutley]

The hon. Member makes an important point, and asks her question with characteristic commitment to the cause—I understand where she is coming from. We want to make sure that this safety net is available to everyone, and that we help people get into work—that is the most important thing. The lower rates for younger claimants who are under 25 reflects the fact that they are more likely to live in someone else’s household and have lower earning expectations. I will repeat: what we want to do is help more people get into work and then progress in that work so they have more money of their own in their pocket.

The other way that we can help young people, in particular, is through the kickstart scheme. I hope that hon. Members can see the effect that that is having in their constituencies, by helping 16 to 24-year-olds to secure fully-funded six-month job roles. The good news is that we have now seen over 100,000 young people supported into kickstart jobs. To complement this, our new DWP youth offer is providing extra wrap-around support to young people.

For older single parents who are looking to return to employment, the restart scheme offers a fresh start, helping more than 1 million people who have been unemployed for over 12 months. That is in addition to our job entry targeted support scheme—JETS—which supports people who have been unemployed for at least 13 weeks.

It is important to understand the success of the plan for jobs at a macro level, but it is also important to share the excellent work that our jobcentres are doing at a more local level for single parents in particular. Some of the case studies are very interesting. In Merseyside, for example, we have dedicated sector-based work academy programmes—SWAPs—that support lone parents to apply for and move into employment opportunities, with working hours that work for them and their childcare needs. In Birmingham, we support the YMCA to deliver a programme called parent journeys, which aims to provide tailored work and lifestyle-focused support for 42 lone parents over a 12-month period. There are many more examples of these tailored, local approaches, but time does not permit me to elaborate; I would be more than willing to share them with the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton. I would also like to recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), who talked about the importance of community outreach. We see examples of that in our own constituencies, and those should be praised.

I turn now to in-work progression, which is also a very important priority for members of APPG. We are enhancing our programme of support for workers on universal credit. Starting in April 2022—just a few months’ time—more people who are in work and on universal credit, including single parents, will be able to access work coach support, focused on progression advice and removing barriers. That could include signposting to careers advice and job-related skills provision, and helping claimants overcome practical barriers to progression, for example childcare costs, which we have discussed. Jobcentre Plus specialists will also work with local employers and other organisations, including skills providers, to identify opportunities for people to progress in work.

Widowed Parent’s Allowance

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and that is why under the new benefit payments any income that is gained is not means-tested and the benefit cap does not apply to it, to make sure that people are not given money on the one hand that is taken away on the other, and that the most vulnerable people get the support that they need.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have to tell the Minister that I met his predecessors about this issue, because it is clear that legislation written in 1958 should not mean that children in 2018 live in poverty. We have cases of parents having to get married in intensive care units to avoid the humiliation that this legislation entails. Will he learn from Germany, where the money follows the child through orphan pensions and parenting is the requirement, not marriage? Telling parents that they have only 18 months to grieve is hurtful. Telling them that their family does not exist because they did not put a ring on it is unforgivable. I hope that he will take up my offer of a meeting with the campaigners from Walthamstow—women who have been directly affected by this—and I hope we will finally bring the legislation up to 2018.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will be happy to meet the hon. Lady and her colleagues. I have worked with her before on several issues, and I am happy to extend that invitation. It is a balance: contributory benefits have always followed the principle that inheritable benefits are based on the concept of legal marriage or civil partnership because that provides legal certainty. I understand the points that have been raised, and we are considering them following the judgment.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Frank Field]

I could not agree more, although I have been here a little longer than the right hon. Lady and I never thought that as an MP I would be speaking like this, about this, with my job being adapted in this way. Of course we have had summits, and we are continuing to have them, bringing all the people together, including Jobcentre Plus, to try to prevent these things from happening. Despite those efforts, these are the cases of horror that are resulting and that I am presenting to the House.

Constituent No. 4 waited 12 months for universal credit. The Secretary of State, bless him, not here today, admitted that some error had occurred. My constituent is sinking in debt, despite the role of citizens advice bureaux, MPs, food banks, and getting welfare rights advisers in—despite all that. Constituent No. 5 was migrated from housing benefit to UC, with their housing benefit stopped immediately. They then waited seven weeks for UC, but when it came there was no housing component. Again, this constituent risks being evicted.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I have already been contacted by constituents terrified about what they are going to do because they have rent arrears, and they know that if those hit £1,000 they will face eviction procedures and that any delay in getting their payments means they will hit that £1,000 mark. So even when the system works perfectly, the inherent delays push these people into debt and eviction, which will cost us all more.

[Frank Field]

I could not agree more. We will come on to discuss, briefly, I hope, the reforms we want and will push for. I will certainly do that, as perhaps others will. We will review these things in our Select Committee. We must base this on evidence, but the evidence is mounting up.

Support for the Bereaved

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to take part in the debate. I would normally have been in the Chamber for the debate on International Women’s Day, but I am here to speak about widowed parent’s allowance on behalf of two of my constituents in particular. They are here today, and their voices need to be heard in debates such as this.

Theirs are the voices of women who never wanted to be in the position they are in and who never expected to claim widowed parent’s allowance—one is not, which I will come to. Tragedy struck their families in the most cruel and horrific way, and their partners were taken from them. The strength and courage they have shown in campaigning on the issue has inspired me as their MP, so I am proud to be here to talk about their experiences and why they should be heard, instead of taking part in the debate on International Women’s Day. There are so many challenges when it comes to inequality and we must fight them all. What is happening with widowed parent’s allowance feels to me like one of the most basic examples of that and of the unintended consequences of the Minister’s and the Government’s thinking. In reading into the record some of my constituents’ experiences, I hope the Minister will think again about some of the choices the Government have made and the devastating consequences they are likely to have.

I will talk first about Ros. Her husband sadly died in 2014. He had been ill for some time before that, so Ros had given up work to support her children as their father deteriorated. That is an horrific experience for anyone to deal with at a young age. To then have to deal with the financial consequences only compounded her family’s grief. Ros suddenly became a single parent to two children and found that widowed parent’s allowance was, as she described it to me, a lifeline. The work that she did, in the theatre, was not easy to combine with being a full-time carer for her young children, and she was struggling with the grief of losing her husband.

Ros has done the calculations for what the Government’s proposed changes in the scheme would have meant for her and her family. The Minister claims that this is not about making money, but is a fair change in the system. When I look at the figures and how Ros is affected, I do not think that that is the case. I think this is clearly a cut in the budget designed to save the Government money, but it is a short-term saving with a long-term loss.

Ros and her family would, under the new scheme, have lost out on more than £100,000 over the lifetime of her children. That money allows her to look after her children, keep her family and household going, be a mother to two children who are grieving for their father and start to put her family’s life back together again. When she looks at what the new scheme would mean, she points out that the new lump sum would probably have been taken up by the funeral costs straight away. That is not a more welcome situation.

The pressure of not having a consistent income and worrying about what would happen after 18 months would have consumed her. As she says, after six months she was still drowning in paperwork relating to the death of her husband and trying to cope with the impact on her children. Grieving does not stop at 18 months, so why should the support that we offer to families affected by this sort of tragedy?

As Ros points out, these payments are a recognition of the contribution her husband made to the system when he was alive, through his national insurance payments. Indeed, as she points out, that creates quirks; a friend who has four children gets £50 less a week than Ros because her husband was 10 years younger. If we accept the principle that these payments are based on what the partner has paid into the system, surely what matters is whether those payments have been made and whether the partner was part of that relationship.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) supports terminating the support at 18 months. I disagree with him. I do not understand why 18 months is an appropriate cut-off date.

[Frank Field]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stella Creasy]

I am happy to. I was about to say that I do agree with my right hon. Friend on some other things.

[Frank Field]

The Government’s original proposal was to stop the support after a year, and I thought 18 months was better than a year.

[Stella Creasy]

I understand that. I hope to make the case that we should support families who are in grief. We should not ask them to take on poverty and possible debt on top of dealing with grief, and we should not put a time limit on grief in these sorts of cases. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of families, but we are talking about families facing one of the most horrific, soul-destroying experiences one can have. I agree with my right hon. Friend about the need to update the way in which our welfare system works.

The second case I want to talk about is, I hope, familiar, because I have written to the Minister before about this lady. Joanna has two beautiful young girls. I am lucky enough to see their pictures on Facebook and feel as if I am watching them grow up vicariously. One of her daughters was born, sadly, after her partner suddenly died. Joanna had to fight to get her partner’s name, David, on to the baby’s birth certificate because they were not married. They were clearly in a loving relationship. They had been together for a long period and had chosen not to be married. That should surely be their choice. The state should not use that to penalise Joanna and her family yet, as far as I can see, over the past couple of years we have penalised Joanna in many different ways. She had to pay £1,500 for a DNA test to prove that this gentleman was the father of her daughter and to have his name on the birth certificate. She does not receive a penny in widowed parent’s allowance, despite her partner paying into the system, just as Ros’s partner did. They are no less a family because they do not have a piece of paper.

In 2017, surely we should recognise those children’s need for the support that widowed parent’s allowance would provide to their family. That money would help not only to keep a roof above their head but to remove the pressure of debt, so that Joanna could be a mum to her two lovely daughters and start to put their lives back together following the sudden death of their father. It is those sorts of real issues and real people that our welfare system has to be able to work with. The cuts that the Government are making, particularly when it comes to widowed parent’s allowance, make no sense to me at all because they do not see the people behind these cases.

I have been lucky enough, through the organisation Widowed & Young, to see other examples that are similar to the stories of my two constituents, Ros and Joanna. Their cases are no less compelling. Will the Minister reconsider this 18-month bar and look again at the actual people behind the statistics by meeting them and hearing their stories, to understand the reality of being widowed at a young age and what impact that has on a family? Will the Minister ask again how we can do what we all want the welfare system to do—to support people and be a lifeline at a critical time, to help get these families back on their feet?

The changes that the Government are making, I fear, will not simply not help; they could actually make things worse for these families. They could bring debt, because the fear of what will happen will force people who are still grieving after a mere 18 months to make decisions that may be against the best interests of their family because they are short of cash.

As Ros said, this money has been a lifeline for her. She is one of the lucky ones because she qualified under the old scheme, but none of these people are lucky, because after all, they have lost a loved one. That is what we are trying to get at here. Ros, Joanna and all the women and men involved in this campaign deserve better from us. I hope that the Minister will at least commit today to meet them, to understand better the situation they will be in when these changes are introduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Field]

Sorry about that.

[Stella Creasy]

He is showing how the telephone system works.

[Richard Harrington]

Yes. Thank you, Mr Stringer. I was able to take a deep breath while the right hon. Member for Birkenhead attended to his electronic device.

Let me get back to the rising cost of funerals. We do not believe that the Government should be mandating or promoting a specific form of funeral provision for benefits claimants. Although my Department does not have responsibility for regulating the funeral industry, we are encouraging it to be more open and transparent in the way that I have explained, because people have to make informed decisions.

A number of low-cost alternative options are emerging in the funeral industry, such as direct cremations and municipal funeral arrangements offered by several local authorities. We recognise that those are not geographically widely available yet, and are not relevant to all religious and cultural practices. However, when it is appropriate, the industry should signpost people to direct cremations schemes and other low-cost alternatives so that bereaved people know they have the choice. We believe that improved pre-planning for funerals is just one way of helping individuals to focus on planning for a life event that is not always considered in advance.

Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wirral West, discussed the £700 limit. We know that some people need help with short-term needs, such as funeral expenses. Our priority has been to ensure that the scheme meets the full necessary costs of a cremation or burial for such people. The average payments have increased year on year to meet the necessary costs in full. Although we have had to make difficult choices about welfare spending, we have protected the £700 limit for other funeral costs, and we have continued to give people a choice on how they can spend that money on funeral expenses. However, the majority of funeral cost claims exceed the £700 limit, which is why, as I explained, we make interest-free social fund budgeting loans for funeral costs in addition to the funeral expenses payment.

The online eligibility checker was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—I think in his second question—and by other hon. Members. As I have explained, the dedicated bereavement service telephone line already offers an eligibility check and research shows that that has been well received by callers. We believe—I accept that hon. Members may feel differently—that an online checker could cause confusion. User research has identified that individuals would rather speak to an individual during these times—that is based on user research, not on cost. At these very difficult times—at one of the most traumatic times in their lives—they would rather speak to a well-trained human being than deal with a website.

We have been working closely with the bereavement service to ensure that the scripts and messaging are incorporated and updated for funeral expenses payments and to ensure that the staff can adequately offer support to a bereaved person or funeral provider when they access our services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I was absolutely certain of it, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

I confirm that we assign priority to applications received for children’s funerals and aim to process them without delay. We have listened to stakeholders’ concerns about the need to support bereaved parents of children, and we are currently considering how we can introduce a separate application form and system to help simplify the process in those tragic circumstances. We are keen to know how else to support individuals who require support for children’s funerals. The view of most funeral industry representatives at the round table that I mentioned was that the vast majority of funeral directors already waive fees or offer significant discounts for child funerals, although there are no industry-wide arrangements and there is no guidance in place. The National Association of Funeral Directors offered to do a survey of its members on current practice.

Moving on to bereavement support payments, I will respond to the points made by the right hon. Gentleman and others. As has been stated, both Houses of Parliament have approved, under the affirmative procedure, the Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017. The new bereavement support payment, which is due to be launched in April 2017, will replace three current bereavement benefits: the bereavement payment, bereavement allowance and widowed parent’s allowance.

Losing a spouse or civil partner is obviously tragic, and bereavement benefits provide vital support during this distressing time. Previous reforms have tended to be limited and made in response to specific pressures. No one had really considered how bereavement support fitted in with wider changes to the benefits system, and indeed to the social landscape as a whole. The aim is to provide targeted financial support at the time when it is needed most, without affecting access to additional forms of support that are available through other parts of the welfare system.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister just said that the reforms are designed to provide targeted help when it is needed most. On what evidence has the concept of “most” been based, in his calculations? What does he define as a time when less help might be needed, as opposed to the most help? It would be helpful to understand the Government’s thinking.

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. I used the word “most” to refer to the most critical short-term time, which is what I was discussing, but I am prepared to accept her point, without getting into a competition about when “most” is most. It is all the time, and I am happy to say that, but that is not the context that I was referring to.

I hope the hon. Lady will agree that the old system could be unfair and complex, and could act as a trap preventing people from readjusting. Reform is essential to simplify and modernise the system. The history of bereavement benefits is rooted in the Widows’, Orphans’ and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act 1925. The way that people thought in those days was that most women were wholly dependent on their husband’s income. If a woman was widowed, her sole source of income would disappear completely, so it was considered necessary to provide a replacement income for her to survive.

Today, women as well as men actively participate in the workforce, and many households now benefit from dual careers and dual incomes. That is why we are modernising bereavement support into a simple, uniform and easy-to-understand benefit that better reflects society. We listened to the recommendation of the Work and Pensions Committee that there was merit in considering the length of the new bereavement support payment. For that reason, the bereavement support payment is now payable over 18 months.

[Richard Harrington]

If the hon. Lady will be patient with me a little longer, I will mention the financial point that she has made. I am sure that she will intervene to castigate me if I do not.

The new bereavement support payment restores fairness to the system and focuses support during the 18-month period after a loved one dies, when people need it the most. I accept the view of the hon. Member for Walthamstow that “most” can mean a lot of things. If I said “when people need it” without “the most”, it would still mean the same thing. People need it in those 18 months. The support is not taxed and is subject to a disregard for income-related benefits. The idea is, hopefully, to help those on the lowest incomes. Those who are least well off will gain the most, as for the first time they will be able to receive payments of bereavement benefit in full alongside any other benefit entitlements.

In her case studies, the hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned the duration of payment and interactions with universal credit. We do not believe that the period of payment could or should be equivalent to the period of grief following spousal bereavement. As I know from the experience of many people known to me, grief can go on for one’s whole life. The payment is not designed for that; it is designed to support people with the additional costs associated with bereavement, rather than providing an income replacement. That is probably the contradiction with the points that she made.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Minister for trying to clarify the Government’s thinking, but as he goes along, he is making rather a different case. He says that the changes needed to happen because women are now entering the workforce. The old system was taxed, so if he is concerned that women might have additional income, continuing the old system might deal with that challenge better.

The Minister talks as well about people needing it most, but surely he recognises that although the loss of a partner is emotionally difficult, the practical financial concerns are paramount here. Does he recognise that the picture that he is painting of the issues is slightly askew from the reality of what the issues are for these women?

[Richard Harrington]

Obviously I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s subjective point that I do not recognise the reality of the situation. We are not trying to replicate the period of grief with this benefit. As I have said, it is designed to support people with the additional cost associated with bereavement, rather than providing an income replacement. Her view, from what she has said, is that the support should be an alternative to the other income support systems.

[Stella Creasy]

Let me be absolutely clear: the support is predicated on the contributions that the partner will have paid into the national insurance system, just as they might get a pension from their partner. We are talking about fairness to the children so that they benefit from the contributions that their father made and about the impact on the family’s income. Actually, it is not about replacing income support; it is about the fact that the father has paid in a contribution that should be recognised to the children’s benefit.

[Richard Harrington]

What the hon. Lady talks about is not really what I am talking about, but I accept what she has said. I was actually talking about the bereavement support payment, which is a lump sum payment.

We believe that income-based benefits are more suited to providing longer-term assistance with everyday living costs. Unlike bereavement allowance and widowed parent’s allowance, bereavement support payment will be paid in addition to any other benefits the recipient is entitled to, thus ensuring that the least well off receive the extra cash in their pocket to help with those extra financial strains brought about by the unexpected loss of a spouse or civil partner of working age. Long-term ongoing income-related support will be provided through universal credit, which better targets support to those with the greatest need.

The regulations make no changes to conditionality, which has been mentioned. Like the bereavement benefits it replaces, the bereavement support payment sets no work-related conditions. Any obligation to participate in any work-related activity will come from claiming other benefits. That said, it is well known that long periods out of work can have a negative effect on an individual’s prospects of future employment. That is why the Government think it is important that people are encouraged to maintain, as much as they can, a link with the labour market.

Recipients of bereavement support payment who also receive universal credit will therefore be able to access Jobcentre Plus support on a voluntary basis from three months after bereavement. They will then not be subject to conditionality for a further three months. Those exemptions from conditionality will also apply after the death of a child or partner, even where there is no entitlement to the bereavement support payment. At the end of the six months, advisers will use their discretion to ensure individuals’ capability and requirements are taken into account. That is the best way of ensuring that the support we give is tailored to the individual.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead and others mentioned the extension of the bereavement support payment to cohabitees. That was discussed in detail during the passage of the Pensions Act 2014. Marriage and civil partnerships are legal arrangements that are associated with certain rights, including inheritance and recognition in the tax system. Extending eligibility to cohabitees would not only increase spend, but be complex to administer. Having to prove cohabitation could be a lengthy, complex process, which could cause distress at a time of bereavement.

Many critics have suggested that it is unfair that those who choose not to formalise their relationship are treated as a couple for income-related benefits, but not for contributory benefits. Income-related benefits serve a different purpose, however: they are for the ongoing day-to-day needs of a household, irrespective of whether the relationship is formal. When assessing entitlement to income-related benefit payments, the state rightly assumes that couples, whatever the legal status of their relationship, have joint outgoings and share resources such as earnings or other income.

The position with bereavement benefits is different, because they are contributory. The founding principle of the contributory benefit system is that all rights to inheritable benefits derive from another person’s contributions. That is based on the concept of legal marriage, which has extended to civil partnership in recent times. Unmarried or non-civil partnership couples will, of course, have access to a full range of income-related benefits and will benefit from the removal of conditionality requirements in exactly the same way as those in a legal marriage or civil partnership.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

I am not trying to suppress the hon. Lady’s comments, but I was about to explain about widowed parents under the new system, which, if I may boldly suggest it, was probably what she was going to ask me about.

[Stella Creasy]

I was simply going to ask whether the Minister will clarify whether he considers children to be a joint outgoing. If he does, the contributions that a partner would make to a household would also be eligible. The idea that if people are not married, their relationship to those joint outgoings somehow stops at their death seems rather misplaced, does it not? I have certainly heard that children are expensive.

[Richard Harrington]

I can personally verify the latter part of the hon. Lady’s comments on the expense.

The new bereavement support payment restores fairness to the system and focuses support just on that 18-month period after a loved one dies, when it is most needed. It is not taxed and will be subject to a disregard for income-related benefits, helping those on the lowest incomes the most. Widowed parents will no longer lose their benefits if they decide to remarry or repartner. We do not believe that the period of payment could or should be equivalent to the recovery period following spousal bereavement. I am sure most people would agree that that is a totally different amount of time.

Unlike with the widowed parent’s allowance, claimants of the bereavement support payment will be entitled to receive all the other benefits at the same time. Disregarding bereavement support payment in the calculation of other benefits will ensure that the immediate additional costs of bereavement are met. Those requiring support will be able to obtain it from other areas of the welfare system, and I cannot stress that enough. Its purpose is better placed to provide longer-term, means-tested financial assistance.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead, the hon. Member for Walthamstow and other Members made a reasonably cynical, but well-made point about the changes to the bereavement benefit. They basically said that it was just an austerity measure, delivering savings of £100 million to the Treasury after two years. Over the first two years of the reform, we will actually spend an additional £45 million, but any savings, like in anything else in the public finances, will be for future Governments to reinvest as they choose. I therefore cannot undertake, as I have been asked, to ensure that savings are reinvested in this field.

It is important to emphasise for the record that nobody in receipt of the current bereavement benefit stands to lose out as a result of the reforms. Recipients of the current benefit will continue to receive it for the natural lifetime of their award. Furthermore, households with dependent children will receive higher payments in recognition of that fact. Analysis shows that more people stand to gain than to lose from the changes. That is particularly so for the least well off, because—I have made this point several times—bereavement support will be paid on top of any income-related benefits that the household receives.

The Government have been asked here and elsewhere to extend the duration to three years and make the BSP cost-neutral. If we did that, we would have to fund it by reducing other elements of the payments. There seems to be little rationale for reducing the monthly payments for parents to make extending the duration cost-neutral. It would reduce payments to a token amount, which would not meet the intention of dealing with the immediate costs relating to bereavement.

With the introduction of the bereavement support payment, short-term financial support will be provided based on six months of national insurance contributions. The amount and duration of the award will be clear from the outset, allowing people time to plan ahead. Those requiring further support will be able to obtain it from other areas of the welfare system that are better placed to provide longer-term, means-tested financial assistance.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made a point on uprating. Any decisions on future changes will be taken as part of the annual process in the context of the wider public finances. I cannot say much more on that, other than that section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides for the rate of BSP to be reviewed annually. The Government committed to review the bereavement support payment reform in the impact assessment of 2013, but we cannot do that until sufficient evidence is available to assess all aspects of the policy, including its effectiveness and the impact on different groups of claimants.

The hon. Lady also made a point about the consequences for children of bereavement support payments. She said that, as a result of the shorter duration of payments, 75% of new claimants with children will be worse off. No one in receipt of the current bereavement benefits stands to lose out as a result of these reforms. As I said, recipients of the current benefits will continue to receive them for the natural lifetime of their award. Furthermore, for those households where there are dependent children, a higher level of payments will be made in recognition of that fact.

In conclusion, let me reassure hon. Members that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting the bereaved and ensuring that individuals have the opportunity to access the funeral expenses payment scheme. Our priorities remain to improve the funeral expenses scheme, to raise awareness of the scheme and to ensure that we are doing what we can to offer a provision of support for vulnerable claimants.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

Yes.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What recent estimate his Department has made of the number of children living in relative poverty in the UK.

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

There are 100,000 fewer children in relative poverty than in 2010 and 557,000 fewer children living in workless households. The forthcoming Green Paper on social justice will identify and address the root causes of poverty, building on the two statutory indicators set out in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016—namely, worklessness and educational attainment.

[Stella Creasy]

I note that the Minister uses the figures for relative poverty, and I am a little surprised. We know that absolute poverty in this country has been in decline for the past 10 years, except among children. We know that 500,000 more children in this country are living in absolute poverty than was the case in 2010. What responsibility does he think this Government and the previous Government have for that?

[Damian Green]

The Government have a responsibility to make sure that as many households as possible have work, particularly households with children. Working-age adults in non-working families are almost four times more likely to be living on a low income. The “Child Poverty Transitions” report of June 2015 found that 74% of poor children in workless families who moved into full employment exited poverty. That is what we can do, and are doing, for children who have been in poverty.

The hon. Lady neglected to say it, but there are now 500,000 fewer people living in absolute poverty than in 2010. The key point is about getting people into work. As a reasonable Opposition Member, I hope she would acknowledge that achieving historically low levels of unemployment is actually the best thing we can do for children—it is the best way to get children and the households they live in out of poverty. I am happy to tell her that, in her constituency, the claimant count is down by 47% since 2010 and the youth claimant count has fallen by 2% in the past year.