Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

First, no one will get away with giving false information. Those who are found to have been abusing the system are subject to the full extent of our enforcement powers. The Child Maintenance Service will pursue those people where appropriate. Parents were asked to report any changes via the self-service portal to ensure that receiving parents did not lose out in the long run. Cases will be updated and people will be notified of any changes. Where payments have been missed, the service will take action to re-establish compliance and collect any unpaid amounts that have accrued.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The National Audit Office told the Work and Pensions Committee two weeks ago that the “sophisticated” analysis of the Trussell Trust has established an association between universal credit roll-out on the one hand and rising food bank demand on the other. Association is not the same as causation, so what plans do the Government have to commission research, as the National Audit Office recommends, into the impact of universal credit on food bank demand?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his question. As he knows, I gave evidence to the Committee recently on this very matter. I have worked closely with food bank providers—the Trussell Trust and others—over the course of the pandemic to ensure that our support has got to those who need it quickly. We continue to better understand the reasons for food insecurity. That is why we have put additional questions in the family resources survey. We keep all policies under review, and of course we listen to the findings of reports such as that of the Trussell Trust.

Kickstart Scheme

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I opposed the closure of the future jobs fund in 2011. The Work and Pensions Committee, in its report in June, highlighted what a great job that scheme did 10 years ago, and I warmly welcome and applaud its return. Will the Secretary of State encourage charities, as happened last time, to take full advantage of the scheme, because they can create jobs that will give many young people a great start to their working lives? What will she do to ensure that disabled young people can take full advantage of it? Will she ensure the collection of sufficient data to allow a thorough evaluation subsequently, like the one published by her Department in November 2012?

[Dr Coffey]

I welcome the endorsement of the Select Committee Chairman. He will recognise some similarities to the future jobs fund, but ours is a much more ambitious programme and we are opening up more gateways into making sure that young people can access work and support. Of course the scheme is open to charitable organisations, which have been part of aspects of our engagement in considering the design of the programme and can be a very useful source here. My ministerial colleague in the Lords, Baroness Stedman-Scott, has great experience from her previous organisation and is already being an active ambassador with not only a variety of companies but other institutions, as is the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies).

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

Our focus today is rightly on what the Government can do to support people financially through these unprecedented times. However, our broader ambition remains to build an economy that ensures that everyone, no matter their background, has opportunities to enter and progress in work where possible, while being supported by the welfare system in their time of need. I just gently remind the hon. Gentleman that, in this financial year, we have spent more than £120 billion on benefits for working-age people.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I welcomed the Minister’s confirmation last week of no appeal in the universal credit court case that the Department lost, but has he yet grasped the full scale of the problem that that issue has raised? He said in the House last week that, at most, 1,500 people were affected and suggested that 85,000 was a figure that had come from the Opposition. I wonder whether he has now had the chance to see that that 85,000 figure comes from the decision of Lady Justice Rose in the Court of Appeal last week. Did he also see that Lord Justice Underhill said:

“It is not simply a matter of uneven cash-flow…affected claimants will receive substantially lower payments”.

[Will Quince]

I answered an urgent question on this matter on Thursday for some 45 minutes, as the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I confirmed that we would not be appealing the decision of the court. As I made clear to him, I am now considering options to address the issue and will keep the House updated on progress. The 85,000 figure, which he references, from the judgment, came, in my understanding, from the Opposition. It is referenced in the judgment, but it came from the Opposition and we do not recognise those figures.

Universal Credit: Court of Appeal Judgment

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement on her Department’s response to the decision of the Court of Appeal of 22 June 2020 in the case Johnson, Woods, Barrett and Stewart v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)]

I can today confirm my Department’s intention not to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 22 June 2020 in the case of Johnson, Woods, Barrett and Stewart v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The judgment relates to an appeal made in January 2019 by the Department against the High Court decision.

As we told the court, identifying claimants is hard; it is a difficult issue. To date, we are aware of around 1,000 claimants who have disputed their earnings and fall within the relevant cohort. We are looking at how we can further identify people in this group. I stress that many people affected by two salary payments will not suffer a financial loss, as their universal credit award will increase in the following month to balance the reduction. However, we do recognise the budgeting issues that may have been caused, and we are now assessing the remedial options. That is not straightforward—it is not the simple click of a switch—particularly at a time when the Department is focused on meeting the challenges of unprecedented demand for its services.

I hope Members will appreciate that as the judgment was passed down on Monday, it would be remiss not to afford more consideration before we press on, particularly when the Court has not called for immediate action. We will now begin the process of carefully considering possible solutions, and we will keep the House updated as progress is made. There are, however, immediate actions that can be taken. We are already working closely with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to work with employers on how to report their employees’ earnings correctly. HMRC has issued updated guidance for employers which, if followed correctly, will further reduce the small numbers affected.

[Stephen Timms]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

If a universal credit claimant is in work and is paid monthly, but those monthly payments do not align precisely with universal credit months—for example, if the claimant works for the NHS and gets paid on the last day of every month—that claimant will, from time to time, be paid twice in a single universal credit month. The universal credit computer system treats that claimant as if they had had a 100% pay rise; their benefit is cut, quite likely to zero; they have to reapply for the benefit; and their income is severely disrupted.

One of those involved in this case says that she was more financially stable out of work than in work. Another turned down an NHS job for which she was expertly qualified because she knew that universal credit would wreck her finances. Surely, nobody will dispute the view of the Appeal Court that the policy is “irrational”. I am grateful that the Minister has accepted the inevitable and is not going to be paying out for even more expensive lawyers to appeal the case. Surely the Department should have given up the fight last year, not waited until the Appeal Court reached this conclusion.

May I ask the Minister to tell us more about how many people are affected? I think the Court heard figures of around 80,000. It is a very significant problem for a lot of claimants. In his keeping the House updated—I am grateful to him for his assurance on that—will he tell us much more about the numbers who are affected, and will he fix the universal credit computer system as soon as possible?

[Will Quince]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and the constructive way in which he has put it. I will, of course, keep him updated as the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee as our work in this area progresses.

The case was before my time as a Minister, but several legal points were considered, and it was on only one of those points that the Department lost. We face and recognise the decision of the Court, and we recognise that some people may face budgeting difficulties. That is why we are working as quickly as we possibly can to identify the solutions and to address the matter in line with the court order.

The scope of this case is limited and we believe the cohort, as I briefly mentioned, to be in the region of 1,500, but I am looking to identify that claimant cohort very carefully. I understand that fewer than 1,000 UC claimants have notified us over the past 18 months that they may be affected by this, and it is important to keep that in the context of the 5.2 million claimants to universal credit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have increased the universal credit and working tax credit standard allowance by more than £1,000 a year, and we have increased local housing allowance rates, putting an average of £600 into people’s pockets. On the benefit cap, it is important to stress that those with sustained work records may benefit from a nine-month grace period in relation to the cap. Exemptions continue to apply, and I feel many people would agree that the equivalent of £24,000—or £28,000 in London—is fair and reasonable.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]]

From the 1940s on, we had a social security system based on handwritten forms that was capable of making the first regular benefit payment within a few days of a person applying; now, after the Government have spent several hundred million pounds on what we were assured was agile technology, that job takes five weeks. That long delay is the main reason why people on universal credit are so much more likely to need a food bank than people on the legacy benefits. Surely the Minister must recognise that that problem must be fixed.

[Will Quince]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, for his question. He knows that we introduced an agile, dynamic online system because the legacy benefits system, which was largely paper-based, was fraught with issues and errors. That is why we moved over. Notwithstanding the points that he has made, I stress that the previous, paper-based system, which relied on face-to-face contact, would not have coped in this situation. It is because of universal credit that we have been able to process more than 2 million claims since mid-March.

Covid-19: DWP Update

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The UC approach remains the same: we make an assessment of people’s incomes, and those already on UC whose income fell substantially will have seen their UC payment increase as a result. So it is working for new claimants once they have got through the initial claim. That is straightforward. I appreciate that there were difficulties early on in getting online identity verification, but the process should be very smooth now, and for those people who cannot make ends meet the advance option is there, and people can get that money very quickly.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]]

I join the Secretary of State and others in commending the Department’s staff for handling the recent surge. I also welcome higher UC, working tax credit and local housing allowance, and it sounds from the Secretary of State’s earlier answer that she agrees that jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance should have been increased as well; it is unfair that they have not been. The unchanged benefit cap is now blocking increased support the Government have decided people should receive, and that is having a particular effect in London. It could be increased, so will the Government now be more consistent in supporting people’s extra costs during this crisis?

[Dr Coffey]

I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we were trying to make a short-term increase, we went through with the Treasury how we could do this quickly, and the quickest ways were by increasing the local housing allowance and UC, rather than other benefits, as I have mentioned. On the situation in London, I am conscious that aspects of the housing benefit regulations went through a month ago, but not all councils have applied them. What we have done with the thresholds means that people in London should be able to see an increase in the amount of money they get in housing support, but otherwise it is not the Government’s intention to change the current threshold of the benefit cap.

Statutory Sick Pay and Protection for Workers

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

Let me make a little progress, because I think I am about to cover some of the things being asked about. I promise that I will take more interventions.

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, which is why we have extended statutory sick pay to those who are self-isolating in line with the latest Government health guidance. The guidance is available online on gov.uk and ensures that eligible individuals, whether they are sick or self-isolating, will be entitled to statutory sick pay if they are unable to work because they are following Government advice.

The upcoming emergency Bill will mean that for people affected by coronavirus, statutory sick pay will be payable from day one, instead of day four, and currently it will be backdated to 13 March. We removed those waiting days to get support to people as quickly as possible. These are crucial measures to ensure that employees do not attend work when they should stay at home to help to keep themselves and others safe. The circumstances are exceptional and we urge employers to do the right thing, use their discretion and respect the medical need to self-isolate.

Statutory sick pay is a legal minimum, and employers can offer more. Where possible, employers should support their employees to work from home to help to slow the spread of the virus. If employers do feel the need to require evidence, people who are advised to self-isolate for coronavirus will soon be able to obtain an alternative to the fit note by contacting NHS 111 rather than visiting a doctor. We are all aware of the need to protect GP surgeries so that they can concentrate on key areas of work.

Accordingly, the Government will ensure that businesses are supported to deal with the temporary economic impact of the outbreak of coronavirus. Small and medium-sized enterprises are at the heart of our economy, symbolising the hard work and enterprising spirit of our nation. To support such employers with the increased costs of sick pay, the emergency Bill will provide that employers with fewer than 250 employees can reclaim up to two weeks’ statutory sick pay for sickness absences related to coronavirus. That includes those who are required to self-isolate in line with Government guidance. The measure could provide more than £2 billion of support for up to 2 million businesses, and will be crucial to ensure that our economy keeps running.

The measure on statutory sick pay is in addition to others to support businesses that were outlined by the Chancellor yesterday: £330 billion of Government-backed and guaranteed loans; additional cash grants of up to £25,000 for businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors with a rateable value of less than £51,000; and cash grants of £10,000 to 700,000 of our smaller businesses. The Government will do whatever it takes to support our economy.

Of course, not everyone is eligible for statutory sick pay, which is paid by employers. Gig workers and those on zero-hours contracts may be entitled to sick pay, and should check with their employer, but millions of hard-working people who are self-employed or in the gig economy will need our help, too. That is why we are making it easier to access benefits during this period.

The shadow Secretary of State talked about disability benefits and the announcement that we made earlier this week. The first decision was to remove face-to-face assessments, because we recognise that a significant proportion of those who could be claiming disability benefits are vulnerable. We want to avoid them needing to travel unnecessarily and to sit in busy waiting rooms, so we decided to stop face-to-face assessments. However, we do not want to stop new people gaining access to the support that they are entitled to, so we are seeking to continue to do paper-based and telephone reviews, but prioritising those who are new claimants, and looking at the workforce on a daily basis.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I very much agree with the policy that the Minister is setting out. Will he clarify the intention for reassessments? He will know that Mind and one or two others have suggested that reassessments ought not to go ahead at the moment, partly because it is very difficult for people to get medical evidence in support of their reassessment claim at a time when doctors are very busy with something else.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I absolutely understand that point, and the right hon. Member and I discussed it when we first made the announcement. The absolute priority has to be new claimants who are seeking to get support through the disability benefit system, so we are looking on a daily basis at what we can do. I do not envisage that we will be able to do much beyond that, but I want to make sure that new claimants can get support. That was why, at the beginning of my speech, I paid tribute to the fantastic work of those who are working on the frontline, who—like all people—are anxious about events, but are still, when they can, coming in to make sure that the vulnerable people in society can access the support that they are entitled to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) mentioned in passing that the Work and Pensions Committee met this morning. We took evidence from five organisations: the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Mind, Scope, Citizens Advice and the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust representing the Disability Benefits Consortium. The main purpose was to take evidence about disability benefit assessments, but of course we took the opportunity to raise some of the current issues that we are discussing in this debate. I thank the members and staff of the Committee, and the witnesses from all those organisations, for being willing to take part in that useful session this morning, despite the current difficult circumstances.

I welcome the announcements that the Government have made. As the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), has recognised, there is going to be a good deal more to do to protect individuals through this very difficult time; that is underlined by the examples from other countries that we have heard today. I very much hope, with others, that those additional announcements will happen very soon because we need them very fast.

I want to raise a couple of issues about universal credit. I put the point to the Chancellor yesterday that somebody who is self-employed and who self-isolates very often will have to forgo their income as a result. The advice is to apply for benefits, but if people apply for universal credit, they do not get any help for the first five weeks other than a loan that has to be repaid. It seems to me that people in that position are not going to be willing to give up their income if all they are going to get is a loan.

In answering my question, the Chancellor correctly said that people can apply for the new contributory employment and support allowance. I welcome the fact that that is now available not only to people who are sick, but to people who are having to self-isolate because others in their household are sick. However, as the Minister will recognise, there are going to be quite a lot of people in that position who do not meet the contribution criteria for ESA because they have not paid 26 weeks’ worth of contributions, having earned above the lower earnings limit, within the last two years. The only opportunity those people will have is to apply for universal credit. However, if they only get a loan, many will feel that they have no alternative but to carry on working—even though they know that they really ought to self-isolate.

The attraction of the proposal made by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts—and which has been made by Citizens Advice and others—is that these advances should be made as non-repayable grants for the duration of this crisis. That is something that the Department could readily do. I recognise that expecting the Department very quickly to make big changes to its IT systems for supporting universal credit may not be practical, but it could quickly make the advances non-repayable.

I am pleased to see both the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), on the Front Bench. They are very familiar with the Select Committee’s concerns about the five-week delay in universal credit anyway. There is growing evidence—including a striking article published in The Lancet this month—that people are being pushed into clinical depression due to being on universal credit rather than on legacy benefits. The Trussell Trust has found that many more people on universal credit need to go to a food bank compared with those on the predecessor benefits. Looking at what it is about universal credit that is causing those problems, the only big structural issue is the five-week delay. As the Ministers know, the Work and Pensions Committee will shortly begin an inquiry on that particular topic. That is a broader issue but, for the duration of the crisis, there is a powerful case for making the advances non-repayable.

I appreciate that this will not be the case everywhere, but it is the case in constituencies like mine. There are many working families who have leave to remain in the UK but do not yet have indefinite leave to remain. They are on what is called the 10-year pathway to securing indefinite leave, which means that every two and a half years they have to apply again for leave to remain. If they are working, they obtain leave to remain, but—I do not know whether this is universal, but it is certainly the case for a lot of my constituents—the card they receive making it clear they have leave to remain and are permitted to work in the UK also says they have no recourse to public funds. They are not allowed to claim any benefits at all, which in the current circumstance puts them in an extraordinarily difficult position. They are not allowed to claim ESA or universal credit at all. If they are in a position where they should self-isolate in accordance with the Government’s guidance, they will find that they suddenly have no income at all if they self-isolate.

There is a related issue with the habitual residence test, which is often applied, perfectly properly, to make sure people are habitually resident in the UK and are therefore entitled to benefits. I wonder whether there is a case for suspending the test, at least in some circumstances, because we want those who are working to be able to self-isolate when it is important that they do so. If they do not have access to public funds for one of those two reasons, they will find it practically impossible to self-isolate. I hope the Ministers and their Home Office colleagues will look at that.

Citizens Advice has argued that there should be a temporary repayment pause for claimants, which is a strong point in the current crisis. People currently have to repay their universal credit advances, or perhaps their past tax credit overpayments, through their universal credit, so there is a case for suspending those repayments.

The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work said in his opening speech that “Everybody will be supported to do the right thing.” He is right to underline the importance of that but, as things stand, those who do not have recourse to public funds, because they do not meet the requirements of the habitual residence test, will not be supported to do the right thing, and it is very important that they should be.

In his Budget statement, the Chancellor said he is

“temporarily removing the minimum income floor in universal credit.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 280.]

When we came to read the Budget documents, we found that the position, as the Minister set out a few minutes ago, is that the removal applies only to those directly affected by covid-19 or by self-isolation according to Government advice. I think the Government should stick with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer actually said, which is that the minimum income floor will be suspended altogether, because a lot of self-employed people—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) gave us such an example—will see a big fall in their income because of what is happening in the wider economy, not because they are directly affected, as yet, by covid-19. Universal credit provides an opportunity to increase support where their income from self-employment falls. That could work very well, I think, if the minimum income floor was suspended altogether, as the Chancellor of Exchequer appeared to indicate would be the case in his Budget speech last week. I do hope that that will be looked at again, that the caveats that have been added to that commitment since might be taken away, and that the minimum income floor will be suspended altogether for self-employed people for the duration of this crisis.

I echo the point that was made a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) about the tax credit disregard. As things stand at the moment, if someone’s income falls by less than £2,500, their tax credits do not increase at all. There is, in the tax credit system, a mechanism that can be used to provide people with help when their income falls, but to get the full benefit of that we would need to remove that £2,500 disregard. I appreciate that that is a matter for the Treasury, rather than for the Department for Work and Pensions, but I hope that it will be done.

Statutory sick pay is a big focus for this debate. The Government consulted last summer on extending statutory sick pay to those who are lower paid—to those who are earning below the current threshold—but the Government have not yet responded to that consultation, which was carried out several months ago. Surely now is the time to act. It was proposed then that statutory sick pay should be paid to people earning less than the lower earnings limit at 80% of their wage. That, I think, was the proposal on which the Government consulted. This is surely the time to fast-track that proposal—to bring it forward and put it in place. I appreciate that it will need legislation to do that, but it is very important that it is done, and I hope that it can be picked up in the legislation that will be published tomorrow.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

On this point about statutory sick pay, there are two additional points on which the Government really do need to act. One is that this should be done in advance, up front, rather than making businesses reclaim, which is putting massive pressure on them. The other is that it is vital for the self- employed. Businesses in my Aberavon constituency are really under the cosh and they need both of these measures to be included in the rethink on statutory sick pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes a couple of very important points. I very much agree with him on the first, but on the second, my understanding is that self-employed people in this position can apply for this new employment and support allowance if they meet the contribution conditions, which, of course, some will not. That is where universal credit needs to be changed. One of those routes is likely to be a solution for them, rather than statutory sick pay, because that depends on there being an employer in place.

My final point is about the argument that has been made by many, and I am sure that will be made again in this debate, that the overall level of benefits should be higher, at least for the duration of this crisis, than it has been up until now. I just want to make one argument in favour of that proposition. We always say, and we have said it on both sides of this House, that work is the best route out of poverty, and the system is designed to encourage people to seek and find work but, at the moment, there are lots of people—and it will be a growing number over the coming weeks—whom we do not want to work. We do not want to force people into jobs. For many, the position will continue to be the same in the next few weeks as it has been in the past, but there is this large and very important group whom we really do not want to be working, and we want them to be at home. That, in particular, makes the case for Ministers who are looking temporarily at raising the levels of benefits—statutory sick pay and universal credit and the others.

I welcome what the Minister said about the suspension of face-to-face assessments

for disability benefits. I think he suggested that, in practice, his Department will not conduct reassessments for disability benefits either. If that is the practical reality, it would be helpful if he stated that explicitly. I think that would be reassuring to a lot of people who are in receipt of disability benefits at the moment and expect to have to be reassessed in the next few months. That is always quite an anxious time for people in that position. If the reality is that they will not be reassessed for several months because everybody is busy with everything else, it would be helpful for that to be made explicit so that reassurance can be provided.

Of course, if it turns out that there are ways of doing the new assessments that do not require face-to-face meetings, and if that works well for new applications, hopefully lessons can be learned for the system in the longer term. However, if it was possible to make it clear that there will not be any disability benefit reassessments in the next few months, I think that would be widely welcomed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for visiting the jobcentre, and he describes the same feedback that my Front-Bench colleagues and I receive when we visit jobcentres. UC is a modern, flexible, personalised benefit, which reflects the rapidly changing world of work. Conservative Members believe that work should always pay and that we need a welfare system that helps people into work, supports those who need help and is fair to everyone who pays for it. I can certainly thank the staff at that jobcentre for all the work they do.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

A major cause of difficulty in transitioning to UC is the five-week delay between applying and being entitled to benefit. The Work and Pensions Committee, at its first meeting last week, chose to make this the subject of its first major inquiry, and I am grateful to the Minister for the conversation we have already had about this. Will he confirm that the Department will do all it can to assist the Select Committee in its inquiry?

[Will Quince]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his question. I start from the premise that we do not believe anybody has to wait five weeks for a payment under universal credit. Advance payments are available at the beginning of a UC claim and budgeting support is available for anybody who needs extra help. We have the two-week roll-on of housing benefit, and as of July this year we will also have the two-week roll-on of other legacy benefits. I will of course look carefully at the findings of the report by the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee.

Social Security Benefits: Claimant Deaths

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I shall go on to show that this has been going on for years now, and that nobody has responded. Systematic errors are coming out in repeated coroners’ reports and other reports, yet there is still no action.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I commend the determined way in which my hon. Friend has pursued this issue consistently over a long time. She has talked about the coroners getting in touch with the Department. Does she share my concern that, as was shown in the National Audit Office’s recent report, there is no systematic way at the moment of compiling what coroners say about suicides and other cases that they report to the Department on?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. There are systemic failures within the Department and they have to be addressed. This is just not good enough.

Jodey Whiting, who was from Stockton, died on 21 February 2017. She was a vulnerable woman with multiple physical and mental health illnesses, which left her housebound and requiring 23 tablets a day. That meant that she was entirely reliant on social security support. In late 2016, the DWP began to reassess Jodey’s entitlement to ESA. Jodey requested a home visit as she rarely left the house due to her health, and she had made it clear in her reply that she had

“suicidal thoughts a lot of the time and could not cope with work or looking for work”.

Despite this, the DWP decided that Jodey should attend a work capability assessment in January 2017. Unfortunately, Jodey missed that appointment and, on 6 February, the DWP decided to stop the fortnightly ESA payments that Jodey relied on. She was immensely distressed to learn that her last payment would be made on 17 February. With the help of her family, Jodey wrote to the DWP to explain the severity of her health conditions and to ask the Department to reconsider the decision to terminate her ESA, but that did not happen until after her death. She also received letters informing her that her housing benefit and council tax benefit would be stopped because they are linked to ESA. She told her mum, Joy, “Mam, I can’t walk out of the house, I can’t breathe, how am I going to work?” Jodey took her own life just three days after her last ESA payment on 21 February.

The Independent Case Examiner concluded that DWP was guilty of “multiple” and “significant” failings in handling Jodey Whiting’s case and found that the DWP failed to follow its own safeguarding rules five times in the weeks leading up to the suicide. In addition, a report by psychiatrist Dr Trevor Turner says that Jodey Whiting’s mental state was likely to have been “substantially affected” by the DWP’s decision to remove her out-of-work benefits for missing a work capability assessment that she did not know about. The case is now the subject of an appeal to the Attorney General for a new inquest, and I know from speaking to Jodey’s family today that they are desperate to know when they may hear from the Attorney General.

Then there is Stephen Smith. Last April, we learned that Stephen, the Liverpool man many people remember from the front pages of various newspapers and whose emaciated body was more reminiscent of someone from a concentration camp than 21st century Britain, had died of multiple organ failure after being found fit for work. But there are many, many more cases of DWP claimants dying, some of which I raised in last year’s Westminster Hall debate.

Jimmy Ballentine took his own life in 2018 after being found fit for work. Amy Nice also took her own life in 2018 after being found fit for work. Kevin Dooley committed suicide in 2018 after losing ESA. Brian Bailey died in July 2018, again taking his own life after being found fit for work. Elaine Morrall died in November 2017, taking her own life. Daniella Obeng died in December 2017, again taking her own life. Brian Sycamore died in September 2017, taking his own life after leaving a note blaming the DWP after failing his work capability assessment.

Mark Scholfield, who died in July 2017, was a terminal cancer patient who did not receive any UC before he died in spite of his illness. Chris Gold, who died in October 2017, was found fit for work following a stroke and was facing foreclosure when he died because he could not work. Lawrence Bond collapsed and died in the street in January 2017 after being found fit for work. Julia Kelly died in 2015, taking her own life after losing ESA for a third time. Ben McDonald took his own life in March 2015 after being found fit for work. Chris Smith, who died in 2015, had cancer and was found fit for work despite a terminal diagnosis.

David Clapson could not afford to power his fridge to store his insulin and died as a result in July 2014. Michael Connolly took his own life on his birthday in 2014 after losing his ESA. George from Chesterfield died of a heart attack in May 2014, eight months after being found fit for work despite having had three previous heart attacks. Robert Barlow died of cancer in April 2014 after losing his ESA. David Barr died in September 2014, taking his own life after losing ESA. Trevor Drakard took his own life in 2014. Shaun Pilkington—

[Debbie Abrahams]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman.

This is unforgivable. These are people’s family members and we are failing them. We must not let this continue.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend will probably have seen, as I did, the comment in the recent National Audit Office report on suicides that internal process reviews, which are perhaps not carried out as frequently as they should be, are often carried out when a claimant takes their own life, but the Department does not know whether the lessons from those reviews are implemented. Does that not point to another dramatic change that is required here?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. There are so many learning points that we should have already picked up on, and I will go through them in a minute.

I will finish the list if I can. Shaun Pilkington died in January 2014, and Terry McGarvey died in February 2014. This is not an exhaustive list, but it shames us all. This inaction shames the Government. I have raised this so many times over the past five years, and there has been no change whatsoever.

For years now, there have been warnings that the Department’s safeguarding policies are not working. In 2014-15, as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, I asked for an inquiry on sanctions policy. From this inquiry, the Committee recommended:

“DWP should seek to establish a body modelled on the Independent Police Complaints Commission, to conduct reviews, at the request of relatives, or automatically where no living relative remains, in all instances where an individual on an out-of-work working-age benefit dies whilst in receipt of that benefit. Such a model, operated within the purview of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, should ensure that the role of all publicly-funded agencies involved in the provision of services or benefits to the individual is scrutinised, so that a learning document can be produced setting out how policy, and the service delivery pathway, can be improved at every stage.”

In their formal response—[Interruption.] Would the Minister like to intervene? I believe there is something he finds amusing about this.

Social Security

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that, for the first time for many years, benefits are being uprated in line with inflation. It is a welcome change and one that is long overdue. But I think we do need to look a little bit at the history of what has happened since 2010, as the shadow Minister has done in part.

In the 2012 autumn statement the then Chancellor, George Osborne, limited increases in most working-age benefits—including those for people in work—to 1% for three years from 2013-14. That was due to end in 2015-16. But then, as we have been reminded, we had the benefits freeze, which froze most working-age benefits at cash levels for a further four years. Thank goodness that freeze is ending, but we have now had seven years without inflation uprating, and the inflation uprating that we are getting through this order is at the lower CPI rate, rather than at the RPI rate that was always used prior to 2010.

The Government have chosen to cut the incomes of those who are assessed as being the poorest, and we all know the consequences. We have been reminded of some of them already in this debate: enormous numbers resorting to food banks; people sleeping rough in Westminster tube station; and child poverty going through the roof.

Social security spending on working-age adults and children amounted to 5.7% of GDP in 2010. It is now down to 4.3%. A single adult’s jobseeker’s allowance will be £74.35 a week from April under this order. It would have been £86.72—one sixth more than it is actually going to be—if RPI uprating had been in place since 2010. Child benefit for the first or oldest child is going to be £21.05 a week after the modest increase that the shadow Minister drew attention to in his speech. If it had been uprated by RPI since 2010, it would have been £26.90 a week—over 25% more than it is actually going to be because, of course, child benefit was frozen in cash terms from 2010, not just from 2015.

This morning Citizens Advice published research entitled “The impact of the benefits freeze on people in debt”, which states:

“Since the benefits freeze began, we’ve seen an increase in the proportion of people we help with debt who have no money left at the end of the month once they’ve covered their living costs. In 2016/17, 32% of all people we helped with debt had no money left after covering their costs, but by 2019/20 this had risen to 38%.”

It argues that the Government should adopt the recommendation of the Work and Pensions Committee to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) has already drawn attention. I think the Committee first made this proposal last July under the chairmanship of Frank Field, to whom I pay tribute and who will be greatly missed in the House. The recommendation was:

“From 2020/21, the Government should increase the rates of frozen benefits by CPI plus 2%. That would mean that benefit rates would, after four years, reach the level at which they would have been set if they had not been frozen.”

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculates a minimum income standard for a minimum acceptable standard of living for different household types. In 2009, the benefits system provided 70% of that standard for a lone parent with two young children. By last year, that was down to 58%. In 2009, the system provided a childless working-age couple with 42% of the standard. Hon. Members might think that that is low enough, but last year it was down to 30%. The household benefit cap is not being uprated at all, when it certainly should be, and there is no change at all to the harshness of the two-child limit.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—the new Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee—for giving way. Many of us are concerned that the Government’s proposed increase is not at all going to rectify the dreadful social security situation that exists at the moment. Is he as concerned as I am about this?

[Stephen Timms]

I am very concerned. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that the Government are making sure that the situation is not going to get worse, or at least not much worse, but they are certainly in no way putting right the damage that has been done over the last few years—indeed, over the past 10 years.

[Kate Green]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a cruel lack of logic in the household benefit cap because it is a blunt instrument that takes no account of different family structures and different forms of need in different households?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is quite right. We were given a rationale when the cap was introduced—it was an extremely blunt one, but it was a rationale—but the benefit was reduced arbitrarily after that.

I have several questions for the Minister. Does he recognise that the freeze has made life much harder for those who depend on benefits, and that they are due a better offer than simply maintaining the current diminished level of income in line with inflation in the years ahead? Does he recognise the force of the case made by the Select Committee under its previous Chair and by Citizens Advice, which is of course drawing in part on its observations from the work it does for the Department, running the help to claim service for universal credit? Does he recognise that benefits need to catch up on ground lost over the past 10 years?

I have one specific technical question. The definition of RPI is to be revised. The Treasury is going to consult on the future definition, which will replace the current definition in a few years’ time. Is it the Government’s intention to make the new RPI the default uprating amount for each year, rather than the CPI figure that is being used this year? I would be grateful if the Minister said a little about the Government’s intentions in that regard.

As has been mentioned already in this debate, there is one part of the system where inflation uprating makes no sense at all, and that is local housing allowance—determining how much housing support claimants in the private rented sector in each locality can receive. Local housing allowance was introduced in 2008 to limit the amount of housing benefit that could be paid. It was set initially at the 50th percentile of rents in a locality, so the effect was to cap housing support at the median rent locally. In 2011, it was then reduced to the 30th percentile, so housing support would cover only the cheapest 30% of accommodation in the area. Since 2016, local housing allowance has been frozen completely in cash terms, while rents have increase by leaps and bounds. That is why, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and others have pointed out, Shelter and others have drawn attention to the fact that there is now hardly anywhere in the country where people can rent accommodation for the amount set by the local housing allowance. The shortfall therefore has to be made up from people’s other income, and if that is benefit income that has been has been frozen since 2015-16, so people have to pay their increasing rent by somehow reducing what they spend on everything else.

What does that mean in practice? Well, it is a very big part of the reason why so many people are sleeping rough in London this winter. I can remember—I imagine that many of us can—when nobody slept in Westminster tube station overnight. We have all seen the large numbers who seem at times to be camping out there at the moment. That is the consequence, to quite a large extent, of the extraordinary unwillingness to allow the local housing allowance to reflect what is actually going on in housing costs in London.

Last summer, I hosted a visit to my constituency by members of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on Housing. We called on one of my constituents who lived with his wife and child in a single small, squalid room above a shop on East Ham High Street. Both those parents work in the NHS part-time, but this room was all they could afford. Their four-year-old son was running around when we visited—a very lively youngster. His mother had given birth to a younger sister, but she had died. It was clear that the housing conditions in that room had contributed in no small part to her death.

That is the impact of the grinding down of housing support since 2010. Surely we can do better than that. In its report last July, the Select Committee recommended

“that the Department unfreeze Local Housing Allowance as planned in 2020/21, and restore rates to at least the 30th percentile of local market rates. Thereafter, the Department should commit to uprating Local Housing Allowance in line with rental prices.”

I want to urge that view from the all-party Select Committee on the Minister this evening.