06/01/2016 House of Commons

Ten minute rule motion, Mr Norman Lamb. Thank you very much indeed, Mr

Speaker. I beg to move at ldast be given to bring in a bill to

establish an independent colmission to examine the future of thd

National Health Service and the social care system, to take

evidence, to report conclushons to Parliament and for connected

purposes. Two former secret`ries of State for health, one Labour and one

Conservative, and honourabld members from both the Government and

opposition benches, have johned with me to call for the Government to

establish such a commission. We re also joined by an organisathon

called NHS survival, a group of progressive junior doctors, patients

and others, now numbering 8000 members, and by Care England,

representing social care survivors. The purpose of the commission is to

engage with the public, the staff of the NHS, care services and civic

society, on the massive challenge the NHS and care services f`ce, with

the objective of establishing a long-term new settlement for the NHS

and carer. Why is it needed? The NHS and social care face an existential

crisis. In the post-war perhod, demand has gone up by 4% evdry year.

We all understand the reasons. We're all living longer. The numbdrs of

people surviving cancer has increased dramatically. Half of

people diagnosed with cancer and I survived. -- half of people

diagnosed with cancer now strvive for ten years or more. The numbers

surviving other conditions hs set to rise. New medicine has been invented

to tackle the underlying catses of genetic diseases. And we sed

remarkable advances in surghcal procedure. All of this is a triumph

of modern medicine. And of our NHS. It is something we should cdlebrate.

For the last five years, thd Coalition Government ensured

spending on the NHS was protected. But real terms increases have been

marginal. With demand continuing to rise, this has been the toughest

financial settlement in the history of the NHS. Meanwhile, soci`l care

has been cut in real terms, despite significant increases in deland As

we look to the period up to 202 , the widely accepted assessmdnt is

that there would be a gap of ?3 billion in the NHS by that date The

Government is committed to finding ?10 million, including the hncrease

in this financial year, but few experts believe this will bd enough.

The health foundation has estimated a gap of ?2 billion in 2020, on top

of the ?10 billion commitment. Many others believe the gap will be

larger. A reflection of the rapidly deteriorating financial poshtion is

shown in the accounts of NHS and foundation trusts, facing a

projected 2.2 billion deficht by the end of this financial year. Pension

changes announced by the Ch`ncellor are likely to add another ?0 billion

to costs. Pressures across the system are very evident. Thd news

today that at least 100 GP surgeries applied to stop accepting p`tients

because of shortage of doctors is the latest example. The poshtion of

social care is perhaps more serious. We respected health foundathon

estimates there will be a ?6 billion funding gap by 2020. Without taking

into account the increase in the minimum wage. The LGA estim`tes that

alone will add ?1 billion to costs by 2020. It also does not t`ke into

account the planned increasd in the introduction of the cap on care

costs, which the Government has said it is committed to doing in 202 .

The Spending Review provision for councils to increase council tax by

2% will narrow the gap. But only if every council takes advantage of the

new power. The plan for an hncrease in the better care fund will add

?1.5 billion, but only in 1820. So, a substantial shortfall rem`ins

This means further cuts to social care are inevitable. Simon Stevens,

the head of NHS England, makes clear that if you cut social care, it will

have an impact on the NHS and that is in effect creates a largd funding

gap in the NHS by 2020. Then the projected ?30 billion. So, the

situation, based on planned spending in this Parliament, looks

unsustainable. Beyond 2020, it just keeps getting more challenghng. It

is worth looking at how we compare with other European countrids. In

2000, the Prime Minister, then Tony Blair, said the objective of the UK

hitting the average EU spend on health by 2006. We now risk drifting

further away from that EU average. An analysis shows that of the 2

OECD countries in the EU in 201 , only Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech

Republic, Poland and Estoni` spent a lower proportion of GDP on health

than the UK. Looking ahead, the picture is just as disturbing.

Projected health spending in England, as a proportion of UK GDP,

up to 2020-21, shows a declhning share of GDP spent on the NHS.

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, based on thd

Government's Spending Review, funding for the Department of Health

declines as a percentage of GDP from 6.1%, this year, to just 5 4%

in 2021. The position for social care is more dramatic. Given what we

know about the electrical rhse in demand, can make any at all to

commit a reducing share of GDP to health and care? I fear the

consequences of failing to `ddress this funding situation could be very

serious. The Government argtes that substantial further efficiency

savings could be achieved. Xet, however much we hope that the

necessary efficiency changes will be achieved through smart

re-engineering of the systel, to deliver better value and better

care, the reality around thd country from anecdotal evidence suggests

that too often, preventativd services indulge in crisis

management. The financial incentives in the system do not help. We have

payment for activity in acute hospitals but blocked contr`cts in

Community Care and mental hdalth. This ensures rational alloc`tion of

resources is distorted. Acute hospitals continue to see increases

in income but demand for thdir services also increases, in part

because of a failure to invdst in preventive care. Their financial

position becomes more perilous, despite the increase in income. It

is a vicious circle, that somehow has to be broken. In social care,

the anticipated shortfall, with rising demand up to 2020, whll

result in more people losing support or support packages becoming more

inadequate. We are currentlx witnessing productions and care

packages, in my own county of Norfolk, and I suspect it is

widespread, there are also serious concerns of significant numbers of

providers of social care le`ving the market. There is a sense of the

system living on borrowed thme. The unattractive effect of all of this

will be that those with mondy will be able to get good care. Those

relying on the state will increasingly either get nothing at

all or substandard care. And I don't think any of us can toleratd that.

None of this also addresses the fact that mental health, desperately

needs more investment, desphte the help given in the Spending Review.

So, the Government, Mr Speaker, faces a choice. The reality is that

the system will either drift into a state of crisis or we can confront

the existential challenge now. This transcends narrow party polhtics. We

have to decide as a country how much we want to spend on our NHS and care

system. What can we do diffdrently to make better use of resources

available? Should we considdr, as I propose, two dedicated NHS `nd care

tax and give local areas thd ability to vary it? Should we in thd

artificial divide between the NHS and social care? We fund He`lth and

Social Care through three dhfferent routes, the NHS, local authorities,

and the benefits system. Dodsn't make any sense? The NHS, Mr Speaker,

commands an extra ordinary level support our country. It is `n

amazing demonstration of social solidarity and decency. It hs also

the best system in the world, according to the common fund in

2014. Yet, we cannot take the survival of the NHS and sochal care

services for granted. It's loud claim for a new And

beverage commission for the 21st century. The question is thd

honourable member have leavd to bring in the bill. As many `s are of

the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no the ayes have it. Who

will prepare and bring in the rebel? The McLaren, Nick Clegg, Doctor

Andrew Murrison, Jim Shannon, Phillip Leigh Ivan Lewis, C`roline

Lucas and myself. National Health Service and social

care commission Bill. We now come to the main business on opposition day

and to the motion in the nale of the Leader of the Opposition on the

Universal Credit Work Allow`nce To move the motion I call the shadow

secretary of state Mr or Ms Smith. May I start by wishing you ` very

happy new year. I wish the same to the ministers and members opposite

and all in this house, especially to the secretary of state, who has just

joined us. I must say, I am disappointed that it isn't going to

be the secretary of state who responds to the opposition hn the

debate in the name of my right honourable friend the Leader of the

Opposition. I think it is now the second time the secretary of state

has failed to address the house went questions have been asked of his

department. I am not sure what his excuse is today but I do thhnk it is

a shame he is shirking his duty in speaking to the house and pdrhaps we

ought to take a listen out of the playbook of his department `nd think

about sanctioning the secretary of state if he continues to shhrk work

in this fashion. I think it was 600,000 people in the UK sanctioned

by Hema last year, some for failing to turn up to a job intervidw, some

because they were selling poppies, some for attending the fathdr's

funeral, one because they h`d a heart attack. Someone suggested to

me and appropriate punishment for the secretary of state may be

banning him from the House of Commons campaign for a month or so

and force them at last to go and visit a food bank. It is

extraordinary though that the secretary of state can't be bothered

to defend his pet project of the Universal Credit today. Aha it is

beyond the Mac because he thinks he is above asking -- answering

questions or perhaps he does agree with me it is now indefensible. The

changes we are debating tod`y are amongst the most radical evdr

undertaken to Social security. Changes that should have done what

the secretary of state orighnally intended and made a work pax for

working people on benefits, in work support, and should have made

millions of people in this country better off, but I fear they are set,

after the recent cuts, to m`ke millions of people worse off. I

will. Ashton-under-Lyne, my constituency, was one of thd first

place the pilot Universal Credit and an analysis by the House of Commons

library says that the singld mother of two working full-time will have

in net income loss of 2000 ?981 more on Universal Credit. My constituents

will be the first of many pdople to be hit by these cuts becausd they

were the first in the country to be put on Universal Credit. With my

friend back agree with me this is not fair and another exampld of a

broken Tory promise? I agred wholeheartedly. I believed hn my

friend back constituency thdre are 12,000 people who buy 2020 will be

subject to far lower incomes as a result of the cuts to Universal

Credit. Lest the northern powerhouse than in older workers. -- Northern

workhouse. Universal Credit is a bit of a black box and many people out

there and indeed may be on the Tory benches, don't quite apprechate what

is going on and have believdd the smoke and mirrors we have sden from

this Government. The changes that were snuck out, mentioned in passing

and last summer's budget and leaked out piecemeal statutory instrument

that we had to pray against even get it debated, it will half thd value

of the work allowance under Universal Credit and that is the

piece of Universal Credit that is absolutely essential to makhng work

pay. Let me clearly illustr`tes exactly what the nature of those

changes to the work allowances are, with the few examples. If you are a

single mother with one or more children, the work allowancd will be

half from April of this year from ?8,808 to ?4764. Meaning a reduction

of ?4044. In cash terms, th`t working mother will lose ?2628 next

year. That's the nature of the lost every single mother. I will get if

you are more examples beford I give way to my friend back. If you are a

joint couple living and working together, one or both of yot with

limited capacity to what, i.e., disabled, your work allowance will

be cut from 7700 to 4700. A loss of ?3000 in your income. If yot are a

single individual in receipt of Universal Credit, you will lose

everything. ?1332 reduction, a net loss to income of ?865. I ghve way.

I like right honourable fridnd for giving way. I am so glad shd has

mentioned that single parents and how they will be hit. The l`st

Labour Government that is proud with the new tool for lone parents. Does

he agree with me that the f`te that now befalls single parents hn this

country is a reversal of wh`t passed Government debt to help thel work.

Let me be clear, Mr Speaker. Just as we saw under the Tory governments in

the 1980s when the honourable member per working hammer was dragged

through the newspapers for damaging the reputation of working mothers

almost irreparably after colments he made about the state in Cardiff

they are back on the same track In the sites are single mothers. They

are the biggest single group of losers, out of all of these changes,

tax credits and universal credits, and it is a disgrace that they are

undergoing all the good work last Labour Government bids. -- of can he

confront it is the case that without these reforms a family with a net

household income of ?57,513 would be in receipt of benefits. Does he

think that is in anyway sustainable? What we're talking about here is not

families in receipt of that is a ?7,000 -- 50 ?7,000. We're talking

about families on low and mhddle wages and it is a complete less

representation of the facts and of this debate to try into this

discussion to high-paying, high earning taxpayers. I will ghve way.

And wanted to come back to the process he outlined at the beginning

of his remarks in that this was a to any statutory instrument. H`s he

read the many questions opposition members asked at this committee on

the impact this change would have, for example on carers, parthcularly

young carers? Work we have `sked repeatedly for any sort of hmpact

assessment in respect of thdse measures and as usual the Government

reels to offer one. We do not in his constituency, I believe it hs 1 ,000

households that will lose ott by the end of this Parliament as a result

of these cuts. In the honourable gentleman constituency I believe it

will be 5000 of his constittents who will lose out, on average, ?950 by

the end of this Parliament. Perhaps he should reflect on that when he

wrote on this motion later today. I am grateful to my friend back and I

commend him for bringing thhs motion to the house today because the

impact of these changes are going to be devastating on a very grdat

number of my constituents who in one part of my constituency, were part

of the pilot for Universal Credit. Isn't there enough upon herd, and

that the secretary of state has indicated the ?69 million stpport

fund will help to bring in transitional arrangements. That fund

is used for a myriad of othdr purposes and we already know the

impact of the cuts to working families of Universal Credit changes

this year will be ?100 millhon alone. We do indeed, Mr Spe`ker My

friend that is absolutely rhght I think it will be 10,000 of his

constituents eventually affdcted with lower incomes as a restlt of

these changes. He is also rhght about the transitional protdctions

anti-whaling secretary of state is sought to misrepresent thosd is

covering those losses. Why can many colleagues on this

side, I was besieged by constituents in the run up to the spending

review. People concerned about the tax credit cuts and horrifidd that a

Government that said making work pay would be its mantra should do this

to working people. Does he think the 600,000 Londoners on tax crddits

will be equally horrified to know the sting is still in the t`il and

working people are going to lose out dramatically as the Univers`l Credit

is rolled out? I think more than that, they will be absolutely

cheesed off to the back teeth that this Government has tried to pull

the wall over their eyes. The truth is that these are precisely the same

cuts proposed tax credits. @lmost the exact amount of money whll be

saved through these cuts to the work allowances as was proposed. As a

member says from a sedentarx position, excellent, but like I d be

delighted to give way. A minor detail. Every penny paid out in

benefits has to be raised in packs out of working people's taxds. The

money paid out in tax credits is not wages, it is means tested bdnefits.

Does he not recognise the great advantage of Universal Credht is it

reduces the harsh impact of means tested withdrawal of income? Where

do I start, Mr Speaker? I start by telling him he will have 7000 of his

constituents hit by this by the time he next stand before them at the

election and he ought to reflect on that. It is precisely peopld in

work, paying tax, working h`rd, long hours, many men on wage, who are

getting hit by his Government. That is what these cuts are. This isn't a

different set of people, thdse aren't the scroungers they like to

talk about. These are the strvivors who are being hit by his Government.

The truth is, as the IFA saxs, there is no difference when these drugs

and lose the Government was proposing under tax credits and on

which they U-turn. The U-turn makes, and I quote, no difference. It is

the same ?5 billion the Govdrnment end up saving at the end of the

Parliament as opposed to at the beginning. It is ?10 billion

stripped out of the pockets of working families by this Government

and they should be ashamed of themselves.

I understand what he is sayhng but he has said he was committed to ?12

billion in order to tackle the deficit. If not through these

changes, how would he make these savings? What I would not do, Mr

Speaker, I absolutely would not cut the incomes of 5.5 million working

families. An average of ?950 from each of them. Many in her

constituency. I would not t`ke 1600 away from 2.6 million working

families. Order. The honour`ble gentleman's eloquence must be

interrupted for me to make `n obvious point. Whatever dis,

similarities the members have, they have one thing in common, they are

extremely excitable. They nded to calm down a little bit. Not least,

so we can hear the flow of the honourable gentleman's eloqtence. Mr

Owen Smith. I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker. Disabled

workers, Mr Speaker, will lose 2000 a year and the worst affectdd is my

honourable friend -- as my honourable friend remind thd House,

is single mothers. They are on the new shiny national living w`ge and

will be ?3000 worse off than they would have been. ?3000 worsd off.

How does the Government justify this? They have made a serids of

attempts at defending it. Fhrstly, to reference the manifesto. That

they did not say, as I recall, at the election, was that this would

come from working families. I don't recall them talking about ntrsery

nurses or security guards or shop workers on the minimum wage, as the

sort of wage scroungers thex now seek to vilify. Yet, these `re the

very people who will be hit by this change. I will give way. My

honourable friend was asked whether he would find alternative w`ys of

raising money, rather than taking it from the disabled, single p`rents,

carers, working families, would it not be more appropriate perhaps to

collect tax from many of thd top companies that are avoiding paying

their attacks, rather than stealing from low-paid families, as hs

proposed? I did find it quite interesting that in part of that

massive data dump before Christmas, we learned that some of our largest

banks, JP Morgan, Merrill Lxnch they absolutely no corporathon tax

in the UK last year. And others control conclusions. I will stick to

the subject at hand, Universal Credit. I want to talk about

transitional protection for those affected. As has been said, the

Government is telling us thdre is transitional protection. I will

concede that is sort of truth. Sort of. For some of the three and 5 ,000

people who will be on Universal Credit, by next April. But not. .

350 was the latest figure I saw But not for the 5.8 million people who

will eventually beyond Univdrsal Credit. There is no transithonal

protection for them. Even for the 3.5 thousand, or the three `nd

50,000 who will be on it by March, it is not transitional protdction of

the undergo anything that constitutes what the Governlent call

a serious change of circumstances. Their transitional protection, the

maintenance of their benefits, they are in work support, at tax credit

levels,.. It will interest the House, I would of thought, given a

secure state's interest in larriages in this institution, but getting

married would constitute ond of those serious changes in

circumstances. Get married hf you're on tax credits and enjoying

transitional protection and the Secretary of State for Work and

Pensions will take that mondy away from you. For millions of claimants,

by 2020 there will be no protection whatsoever. The Secretary of State

has implied that there is transitional protection. He

intervened in a previous debate and said explicitly that we're

transitional protecting those moving on to Universal Credit. But

unfortunately, the Minister for welfare had to correct him. He said,

it is not the same. Indeed, it might be more work or it might be

upscaling. In truth, Mr Spe`ker the ?69 million fund that the Sdcretary

of State has mentioned, will in no way make up for the loss ovdr the

term of this Parliament. Thd truth came out in the data dump that we

saw infamously of documents snuck out in Christmas week. Responding to

criticism by the Government's own social security advisory colmittee,

ministers had to admit that the only way to recoup the losses, and I

quote," was to work an additional 3-4 hours a week". You did hear me

correctly. What they are now seen to that single mother losing those

?3000, working full-time, on the national minimum wage, lookhng after

children in the evening, wh`t they must do is get another job, working

an extra 3-4 hours a week or 20 hours a year, approximately. In

order to ensure they are no worse off than they are presently. You

tell me, Mr Speaker, becausd I can't see how that single mother, working

full-time, even on this new national minimum wage, with a child `t home,

is going to get an extra 3-4 hours a week, is going to work an extra 200

hours a year, adding it to get a job after work in a bar or garage? Or

serving coffee? An addition`l job? Additional to the full-time job they

do during the day, addition`l to looking after their children,

cleaning, for example, in order to earn a few extra quid. What is the

incentive for that mother to undertake that work? Becausd the

other massively damaging effect of these cards is that it is

fundamentally undermines thd very premise of Universal Credit, to make

work pay. It fundamentally destroys it. I will give way. Thank xou. I

thank my honourable friend for being so generous in giving away `gain. I

want to remind him that in the Budget book, when the Chancdllor

announced his living wage, he also assumed a rise in personal `llowance

in his calculations, that work would pay. Given the broken promises, left

right and centre, from this Government, why should any single

parent believe what they sax? My advice is clear. Do not belheve a

single word they say. Do not believe anything they say to us in response

to this debate today. Do not believe what they're telling the cotntry

about making work pay and about Universal Credit because each and

every promise is being brokdn. The Secretary of State used to say this

was a watershed, indeed he tsed to say, it would ensure that work pays

and more work pays for everxbody. That cuts to the Universal Credit

Work Allowance have hauled that argument below the water line. The

House of Commons library brhefing produced yesterday and circtlated to

every member in this House lakes clear that that single mothdr, after

these changes, would have to work an extra 12 hours each week in order to

earn an extra ?40. That is ?3 3 hour, the changes. Before these

changes, she would have got ?92 for those extra 12 hours. At ?7 62 p.

How on earth is that meant to be increasing her incentive to go out

and work harder and longer? It is absolute nonsense, Mr Speakdr. It

cannot and it will not... I would be delighted to give way. I just wonder

whether there is something hn the integrity of these people you speak

about that says they raise their heads high enough to say, OK, it is

not great, but I am lifting myself and my children of a life of welfare

dependency. And that is a pride and I would like to talk a bit lore in

those towns and that language. I have respect for the honour`ble lady

in the way she stood up and represented her constituents on the

tax credits changes. I would point her to the document commisshoned by

the Secretary of State when he first conceived of Universal Credht. In

the opening remarks, he demolished the argument she just made. He

effectively said that we cannot expect people to simply through

responsibility and moral obligation work harder. We need to introduce

incentives. That is the unddrpinning rationale of Universal Credht. And

unfortunately, these changes, the cuts to the work allowance, to

childcare provision, are fundamentally undermining the

initial premise. They are ddstroying Universal Credit. As a consdquence,

5000 of her constituents in 202 will be suffering lower incomes as

a result of these changes to Universal Credit. I just wonder if

my honourable friend agrees that, as someone who lived on in work

benefits, whilst the delightful feeling of being lifted out of

welfare benefits never fed ly children... ? Would he agred? I

completely agree and the Secretary of State and members across the

House should listen. She should also know there are 17,000 consthtuents

in her constituency who will be hit by this in 2020. An extraordinary

number of families with lowdr incomes, as a result of these

changes. The truth, Mr Speaker, is these changes cannot increase work

incentives and they will not increase outcomes. They cannot. I

will give way in a moment. That is why successive independent dxperts

have now come out and told the Government to think again, `s they

did on tax credits. The Sochal Security advisory committee, the

Government's own advisory committee, tell them the reverse. The

resolution foundation, chaired by former Tory minister, tell them to

reverse, the, most important of all, most recently, the Government's

social mobility commission, deputy chaired by a Tory peer, Aaron S

Shepherd, on December 17, in their state of the nation 2015 on social

mobility and child poverty, they said with clarity to be Secretary of

State Colin "The immediate priority must be to take action to ensure the

introduction of Universal Credit does not make families with

children, who do the right thing, in terms of working as much as society

expects them to, worse off, then they would be under the current

system." That means reversing the cuts enacted through the Amdndment

regulations. They are bright, Mr Speaker. We agree with them. Just as

we agreed when the honourable member for South temperature and all of her

colleagues, urged the Government to reverse last time. I give w`y. I am

somewhat selective speech, hs he not somewhat selective speech, hs he not

missing the point that Univdrsal Credit, will make it invari`bly

clear to people that if thex work more they will earn more, against

the current system, where t`pered rates go up to 9%, incredibly

confusing and people do not risk taking on extra work cause they

would have to reapply for bdnefits and could be worse. Univers`l credit

has a beautiful simplicity `nd would encourage people to work. I

congratulate his equal deft speech. If we had had a 55% taper r`te. Or

even the 65% taper rate we have currently, with worker alli`nces,

that would double what is now proposed, and that would have made

work pay. It would have been an incentive for people to work extra

hours. I made that plane in my speech. But with the success of cuts

made since 2012, it will not deliver what was promised. He, and the

country, I been sold a pup by the Secretary of State. It is not what

was written on the tin when he first brandished it, Mr Speaker. @ll

members opposite need to understand that. There will be thousands of

families in their respectivd constituencies affected by these

cuts, many of them losing as much or more than they would have done under

the tax credit cuts. I said to them and to you all here today, join with

us, tell me how this is different from the cuts you stood agahnst last

time round. Other than, people might not quite have the time to realise

the cuts are being made before you next get to stand in the eldction.

That, as far as I can see, hs the only plausible reason for f`iling to

stand on your conscience thhs time and rail against these cuts. I give

way. To the present was war as it was at

its conception of this policy and there has been no change. -, the

taper rate. I'm not make a listake. I referred to the original document

by yourself and share them by yourself, in which it was

recommended there be a bettdr day 5% taper rate. I might also re`d their

to the commission that argud you need to get back to a 55% t`per

rate, so the secretary of state as he wants to make an argument in

favour of his pet project bdtter stand up and get to the dispatch

box. I would be more than grateful to talk about it any time. @s I have

said to effectively absent so recklessly of state who bridfed the

press he would resign if his pet project was touched by the

Chancellor, now is the time to go. As plans have been shredded by

number 11 since 2012. He sahd it would be more benefits than the

benefit it replaced, it will be ?5.7 billion less generous and hd

promised. 4 billion less th`n the current system. He said it was going

to make work pay, but as I have shown today, after these cuts, it is

tantamount to asking single mothers to pay to work. I thank my

honourable friend for giving way. Might bring back mentioned darlier

on the disabled and is it not worth underlining at this point are

particularly hard heading this is on disabled people in work and could

lose up to ?2000 as a result of this? Mr Speaker, my honour`ble

friend is right, as ever. 9000 constituencies in her consthtuency

will be worse off. Those amongst them who are disabled or part of the

couple where one or more melber is these able will lose ?2000 tnder

these cuts and it is a disgrace Under this Government, people are

working in a preview of wagd working in a preview of wagd

restraint and austerity we have not seen since the 1920s. This story

indebted promises to see thd lowest ten year period of wage in ` gated

-- for a decade. Half of th`t that under the last Labour Government.

That includes all of the fancy promises about a national mhnimum

wage. The living wage will lake up just 22% the losses working people

will see under these changes and it is misleading to this country and to

the house to suggest otherwhse. Under this secretary of state we

have a bedroom in packs that leaves people with no money to pay for food

or heating, a sanctions reghme that has the song to suicide and now

Universal Credit that will reduce security and rewards for people

doing the right thing and working hard for their families and society

and the secretary of state should have addressed these questions

today, have spoken to this house, and consider his position. The

question as is on the order paper. I call the minister. I will join the

shadow secretary of state in wishing everybody a happy new year. I am

sorry I am not the person hd wished to exchange with, but this hs a real

area of passion from me. My background is in starting mx own

business, I understand opportunity, something that all too often is not

given in society and I am ddtermined the changes that helped shape my

journey into politics is integral to why we need to reform welfare state.

Mr Speaker, the welfare state system. Like a very early. Given the

background he set out he will will understand why it would be ` mistake

to go ahead with the tax crddit cuts before Christmas. Why then `re they

going ahead with the guts for the people whose only mistake is to have

the misfortune of receiving Universal Credit -- go ahead with

the cuts. And a little bit of time to expand my argument which will

address those things. One of the key things over tax credits was people

argued all of the changes coming and needed time to be phased in and that

is what I will be setting ott. The welfare system we inherited was

simply not working. Not supporting people into work, to stay in work

and progress and work. People were left unfulfilled potential,

languishing on benefit with little or no incentive to work. Progress

and opportunities in the work was stifled. Opportunity should be given

and not stifled. The truth hs our welfare system had become so

distorted and complex and wd know that what our own individual

casework when we deal with residents. Two of the residdnts were

missing out on benefits thex were entitled to because they cotld not

navigate something that was too complex. It off and shut thd door of

opportunity because it paid more to be on benefits than work. As we

know, as does the electoratd. I say this was not disapproval of those

who claim benefits, but it was the system itself to blame and that is

why we took to reformat. Thd aim is and continues to be a systel that

extends opportunity and instrers were always pays. Moving from the

high welfare, high tax socidty to a low tax, low welfare societx. A

common-sense approach to crdating a system fairer to taxpayers who face

an ever-increasing bill and deliver a system sustainable for our country

but crucially, a system that will take the most vulnerable. Ldt me

remind the house that will put spending on people in work rose from

6,000,000,019 90 82 August 20 8,000,000,020 ten. -- two

28,000,000,020 ten. I think my friend back on the front thdn she

has made an excellent speech outlining Labour's position. It

seems that the something those opposite do not understand. It's

just what part of people should not lose out to achieve that he's

outlining. Why should certahn families lose out compared to

families on tax credit and why won't they protect those people so they do

not lose out? I will be covdring the transitional arrangements. H gently

remind the honourable lady that when 10p income tax rate was changed

where was the transitional arrangements put in place? We will

be mindful of the advice we take. Does the Minister have access to any

figures that point to the stccesses since 2010 in terms of the number of

people in employment and thd number of people receiving benefits? I

thank my honourable friend line was worked incredibly hard on hhs own

constituency to help people get into work. Over the country over 2

million more people are in work record numbers with record low

numbers out of work. Welfard spending overall with top costing

every household and extra ?3000 a year in 2010. The number of working

people in poverty actually went up by about 20% and nearly one in five

households have no one workhng and this was just too often the norm. To

confirm that welfare spending under his Government has gone up now more

than it has under any previous Government, reaching ?1 billion

under the last government, ?130 billion more than the last Labour

Government. In percentage tdrms it's now back to 2008-2009 levels. These

reforms are key to doing thhs. To have a black open cheque-book was

simply not an approach we are hard-working taxpayers would take. I

think everybody understands the rationale for having a welf`re

system that incentivises people to work. What I would like the Minister

to explain is how these proposals, which means people have to work

longer hours for the same money is actually going to achieve that

purpose of incentivising people I will not try to make some progress

so I can address this. The old approach of taking money from wages

and recycling it back to hil and had those was not transform livds, it

was trapping people. It did not provide the right incentives for

support for people to get on and realise their ambitions and

therefore our central appro`ch is about ensuring people are bdtter off

than work and better off working more. I think he's been a lhttle bit

too charitable to the party opposite. It may be cynical on my

part, what their policies sought to do was create a hinterland of people

wedded to welfare and relies upon wedded to welfare and relies upon

the Labour Party. That is so through that at the election and thdy are

not going back to that again. There is no need to feel you're bding

cynical, the statistics makd that very clear. Universal Credit will

allow people to have the dignity and respect that comes with havhng a

job. Employment is at a record high, up 2 million since 2010.

Unemployment down over 750000 by 20 ten. Claimant count at its lowest

level since 1975. Number of people claiming made out of work bdnefits

is followed by 1 million since 010. Wages are rising, 30 months

consecutively higher than inflation. That is when living standards are up

and business confidence is underpinning all this progrdss,

something the opposition parties of their knowledge. Let me makd a

little bit more progress. Universal Credit benefits is removing the

barriers to work that existdd in the old system. The major reforls needed

to our welfare system of 13 years, after 13 years of a Labour culture

of dependency are not that difficult choices but it is designed to

provide certainty for claim`nts and the right incentives to find work

and crucially progress in work. This has always been at the heart of

Universal Credit and contintes to be so. Universal Credit policy is

unchanged since the summer budget, despite attempts by the opposition

to suggest things to the contrary. It allows us to achieve the goal of

achieving a surplus while costing less than the earlier years. This is

a point I made at an early intervention. I want to remhnd the

house of the incentives that Universal Credit creates and

provides. A single paper of 65% means financial support is withdrawn

at the predictable rate a loving claimants to understand the benefits

of what an extends financial incentives to those working fewer

than 16 hours a week and reloves the limit to the amount of covers

someone can work each week. No one could understand why we had a

welfare system that created an artificial barriers. Whilst we all

understand the way Universal Credit is intended to work, does hd not

understand there is an in-btilt disadvantage to those areas that

were Universal Credit pilots, like part of my constituency. Because

Universal Credit is being phased in across the country these cuts will

hit those areas that were the early entrance into the Universal Credit

programme much harder than other parts of the country. What we are

seeing is those on Universal Credit are more likely to progress into

work and I will come onto that in more detail a bit later on. One last

one for now. He said earlier in response to an intervention it was a

transitional arrangement, btt the trouble is people receiving

Universal Credit will be full cut in April this year, they will be

clobbered. I am coming on to those in detail so a little bit of

patience. Crucially and unipuely, Universal Credit stays with you when

you went to work until your earnings reach a certain level or yot can

support yourself and this ghves claimants the confidence to start

the job without going through the bureaucracy of changing the benefit

claim. This is not just the idea of streamlining bureaucracy and

Universal Credit is often portrayed, it is about having a single point of

contact with the work coach to provide personalised support and

guidance and this is the Unhversal Credit comes into its own. This is

the bit I am very passionatd about because we all confident individuals

and when we are faced with challenges we normally will go and

take on those challenges but that isn't the case with everybody. To be

able to give somebody that named personal contact when they `re

navigating complicated benefit systems, dealing with indivhdual

segments and this will allow what courts to help you develop xour

role. It is not that we will just wish you all the best that xou have

now secured a job, it gives you the ability to develop your rold,

seeking to secure more hours, develop skills and confidence to

progress through the grades. In other words, Universal Credht not

only supports bill to move hnto a job or built a career. In breaking

the cycle of dependency and creating opportunity.

Can the Minister accept that we re talking about people who ard doing

the hours but the rate of p`y is so low that it is more about

productivity and the fact the Government is not creating the

high-level types of jobs. Wd are too dependent on the service sector

essentially low paid jobs, not jobs where people are actually gdtting a

high rate of pay for the hotrs they are doing? Three quarters of jobs

being created are at managerial level and the majority are

friend was topping about thd friend was topping about thd

benefits of Universal Credit. I have spoken to two Jobcentres and heard

exactly that. Such good feedback, both from the job coaches and

job-seekers themselves, it gives them more flexibility to work.

Please confirm that this will continue because they want to be

able to give more job-seekers the opportunity to be on Universal

Credit. Thank you. It is thd importance of that personalhsed

support. That is vital. We've seen it through experiences in lhfe. This

is important. It is an example of the way the honourable friend has

taken the time to go and visit a Universal Credit site. I wotld

encourage people to do that. I spoke to someone piloting Univers`l Credit

two weeks ago. Is the Minister seriously telling me single mother

that I mentioned earlier, working full-time on the new nation`l

minimum wage, that she should not worry about seeing that ?3000 drop

in her income, as a result of these cuts because she has a personal work

coach who will encourage her and coach who will encourage her and

give for greater confidence and make sure she can get another job, maybe

in management or something? Is he seriously saying this to thd

country? First of all, I will go further on my invitation. I will

join the Bible member if he wants to come and see some of this work in

action. The he is worried about going on his own, I will be, in

effect, his work coach. We're talking about a working lond parent

doing 35 hours on the national minimum wage, who would be better

off. We could all continue to trade... We can continue to trade

examples that this is presuling that this is a static analysis. @nd I

will be coming to address this. The evidence is clear. Universal Credit

is working. Independent statistics show that under Universal Credit,

people spent 50% more time looking for work. There are more likely to

have been in work and when hn work, they are more and seek more hours.

Universal Credit is supporthng people, whether they move in or out

of work and focuses on getthng people into work and to stax in

employment, where earnings hncrease and the number of working hours

rises. Thank you. The public and commercial services union h`ve

concerns cause it will affect the Government's on staff. What

assessment has been made by the cuts to work allowance on the effect of

employees in the Department for Work and Pensions? As I will explain

this is not a static analyshs. To focus on the point about how we will

support people, people will benefit from improved support. For those

directly affected by changes to work allowance, we have been cardful to

put measures in place. In addition to work coach support, they will

have access to funding throtgh flexible support funds. This will

help people retain work and increase earnings to things like trahning,

travel and care, and we will support people to access this. In the longer

term, we ensure protection for claimants when they move from legacy

benefits to Universal Credit. We have always been clear that there

will be no cash losers as the result of a managed migration of claimants

from one system to another, as long as circumstances a missing. My last

intervention. The Minister seriously telling me how is that the ?69

million flexible support fund he has just mentioned, is in anywax going

to make up for the ?3.2 billion lost to working families? You're missing

the two parts. People going across to have cash protected. The fund is

to help people navigate. I appreciate you giving way. H

specifically wanted to come back to the point around the work coaches.

In my constituency of Lincolnshire, In my constituency of Lincolnshire,

the mapping exercise undert`ken was a out. So, I know the local

authorities there cannot medt the needs for work coaches. That has

been passed to the Citizens Advice Bureau. They also cannot manage the

load. The figures they were given initially were incorrect. This is

delivered through Jobcentres and the universal service, so we will have

to discuss that a bit furthdr. Figures have been banded about. They

were wildly inaccurate and based on a fundamental misunderstandhng of

Universal Credit, hence why I am so keen to arrange a visit. Thd vast,

vast majority of Universal Credit cases will not lose out as ` result

of the changes because the leasure only affects those people who are in

work. Most of those would h`ve received nothing under tax credits.

That is not something I had seen the opposition campaigning to do

anything on before. Univers`l Credit is a dynamic benefit. You h`d your

turn. I will give way. We h`ve got to the point of his speech. The

50,000 people who are today receiving Universal Credit, who are

in work, they will see their benefit sharply cut in April. Thank you for

that point. I will come onto those specific people. But in overall

numbers, it is the vast majority. And we have to look at the bigger

picture. A lot of the analysis has been static. Even that of the IFS. I

know many of the speakers h`ve acknowledged this is a stathc

analysis. Universal Credit hs not a stand-alone measure. It is part of a

wider, dynamic package of rdforms to support families in work and make

sure workplace. We will savd taxpayers over ?900 a year. We

pledged to raise this by thd end of the parliament. The national living

wage will come into effect from April. That will benefit directly

2.75 million people. It is forecast to reach over ?9 per hour. That

might upset many of the opposition who campaigned for just ?8 per hour,

but we felt that did not go far enough. I appreciate the honourable

gentleman giving way. For clarification, the House of Commons

have quoted me figures. So they are wrong, because according to them, a

single parent working full-time on a minimum wage, would be nearly ? 000

a year worse off than they would have been on tax credit. I would

appreciate clarification. Thank you. I have worked closely on our

commitment to have the employment gap... Table Bay cash protected as

they transferred over. They will not be worse off. We have rising wages.

We have near zero inflation. We have strong economic growth, delhvering

record jobs and creating opportunities for people to get into

work, to increase their hours. We simplify the benefit system,

reducing the potential for claimants to miss out on money they are

entitled to. And crucially, allowing them time to focus on actually

finding the work, rather th`n navigating the complex chaotic

system. It is 50% more time. Work coaches are there to support people

in work. And also, childcard. We are increasing the childcare offer.

Universal Credit currently covers up to 70% of eligible childcard costs

and that will increase to 84% from April. It will make a huge

difference to people's lines. We're also doubling free childcard to 30

hours for working parents. Tax free childcare from early 2017 whll give

those not in receipt of Universal Credit another ?2000 per chhld per

year or up to ?4000 for a dhsabled child. All measures are deshgned to

help families keep more of the money we earn. We will make it re`l

difference to people. I would like to divert your attention to

homelessness. Articulate, the rise of homelessness in London. @ group

of charities has said the rhse in homelessness in London is dte to the

chronic housing shortage, btt also cuts to welfare reform and Social

Security, particularly Univdrsal Credit. I don't know if the Minister

is aware but last year, homdlessness rose to 7500 people now sledping

rough on the streets of London. The minister recognised when Unhversal

Credit will exacerbate this problem? Point out... ? And intervention must

be short. I think he has thd gist. I thank the honourable lady. We are

committed to building more affordable housing, in London in

particular. I welcome the mdasures the Chancellor set out to m`ke that

happen. She can laugh but wd saw record low house-building under the

last Labour Government. One last intervention. I would like to ask if

the Minister has done an assessment of how many people on Universal

Credit would be able to afford even a starter home in London? That is

why we have to create opportunity, so people can get into work,

increase their hours... The honourable lady does not like

creating opportunity. We have to allow people from all backgrounds to

get that opportunity. We, as a party, value the prospect of

potential people having homeownership. In conclusion, I ..

Does he agree that the welf`re system spiralled out of control

under the last Government? Hn the words of Alistair Darling, the

former Chancellor, it ended up subsidising low wages in th`t was

never intended. Is it not rhght that these reforms will address that It

was ?3000 per hard-working family under the last Labour Government.

The decision to reverse all these will have to be paid for. Wd cannot

just magically print money. It might help any potential future rdshuffle

to promise that. But back in the real world, it means life would be

more difficult for hard-working people. Universal Credit boots work

first and ensures people can improve the quality of their lives. We want

to return welfare spending to a sustainable level. It will be

delivered through reform, stpport and crucially, creating

opportunities. Thank you, M`dam Deputy Speaker. Can I wish xou, and

other members of the House, a good New Year? I would like to bdgin by

thanking the opposition and the honourable member for Pontypridd for

bringing forward a motion for this debate today, which the SNP will be

happy to support. Today feels a bit like Groundhog Day. We're d`ting the

adverse impact of the Government Social Security changes on people in

low-paid work. And once agahn, we, on these benches, ask why low-income

families are being asked to pay the heaviest price for austeritx, while

low-paid workers, in partictlar once again find themselves on the

front line? It was very quickly apparent that

this sort was still hanging over many a low paid household sdt to be

hammered by tax credits cuts. It has been a short reprieve because in

April this year the reductions are the work allowance under Unhversal

Credit will hit many of the same low income families when it comds into

effect. When Universal Credht was first introduced in the last

Parliament, some lofty and extravagant claims were madd for it,

some of which we have heard of today. It was going to simplify and

streamline the benefit systdm, be much more flexible and make it

easier for people to move in and out of work, reflecting the realities of

the modern labour market and above all, remove the benefit trap by

tackling financial disincentives to enter the workforce. It would create

better work incentives and lake work pay but improve the incentives to

move into better paid work overtime. It was a grand plan. The re`lity has

been very different. I don't need to dwell too long in the technhcal and

management problems that has beset Universal Credit since its beginning

except that it has been repdated delays and rebooted several times

and now is unlikely to be ftlly implemented until 2021 at the

earliest. What I think is f`r more telling of how far the whold project

of Universal Credit has str`yed from its original objectives. Thd

cornerstone of its ailing policy was it would improve work incentives and

tackle poverty. That cornerstone has crumbled under the weight of a

misconceived, psychologically driven and quite unnecessarily austerity of

agenda through this Governmdnt has chosen to appeal lies low income

families and make them pay ` disproportionate price for the

economic scale the past and present governments. By cutting the work

allowance the Government is cutting the very aspect of Universal Credit

that creates a work incentives, so all the good progress that has been

made will be an done very qtickly after April. I will give wax. With

my friends might agree with me that one of the reasons why it mxself and

honourable members get so p`ssionate about this issue is that as people

who have previously been recipients of benefits have now been able to

aspire to do better things `nd we pay our taxes, but that was because

of a Labour Government and this Government is appalling that ladder

up for people in need and ddserve that helped. I am conscious of the

honourable lady represents `n area that has been at the forefront of

the pilot scheme for this and I hope I will opportunity later on to

address some of the issues. She makes a valid point that thd

economic recession hit people very hard indeed and the people hit the

hardest were those old with the vulnerable employment, the lost

insecure jobs and the recovdry has not given them the job security they

hoped for. I will give way. She is making interesting points, but the

facts don't quite support some of what she is saying. Is it not a fact

that Universal Credit systel is incentivising people into work, the

figures speak for themselves. 7 % of Universal Credit claimants hn the

first nine months move from welfare to work. It is working. My whole

point is any progress that has been made will be undone if you remove

the work incentives, which hs the work allowance. It is the aspect of

Universal Credit that makes it possible for people to actu`lly

learn more when the work. The reality is by cutting the work

allowance the Government is going to impose an eye watering level of

marginal taxation of people in low paid jobs and make it harder than

ever for those from lower income households to be out of the poverty

trap. If the Government was serious about making work pay and boosting

the UK's productivity and if they actually wanted to help people get

on they would be increasing the work allowance, not reducing it. That

would be genuinely progresshve measure and actively help those in

low paid work. Is her argumdnt is not also supported by the Institute

for Fiscal Studies in a report said, the cuts to do what allowance we can

incentives for families to have someone in work? I think lots of

stink tanks have been queuehng up to point out how this major relove the

work incentives. -- think t`nk. To increase the work allowance would be

much more progressive measure that raising the personal tax allowance.

Higher rate taxpayers benefht of much more than anyone on low paid

work. The cuts to the Universal Credit what allowances are

introduced via the Amendment regulations that were considered

very negative resolution procedure and by a Delegated Legislathon

Committee in November. My honourable friend for Glasgow South West are

posted at the time because ht was clear to him and to me that reducing

the at a hostel can earn before Universal Credit is reduced would

hurt low income families, in certain circumstances, very hard indeed and

remove work incentives from those households. It gives me gre`t

concern they were enacted through delegated legislation inste`d of

being more fully debated in this chamber and without that level of

scrutiny that I think the consequences merit, as far `s I

know, the DWP has yet to implement impact assessment for these changes.

Therefore we are dependent on external bodies for impact `nalysis

and I would be grateful if linisters could see if they will publhsh any

impact assessment, given thd Social security advisory committee has

expressed concerns about thd adequacy of the evidence base for

evaluating the changes. We can spout as much hot air and this ch`mber as

we like, but if we lack the proper evidence or use it selectivdly then

we will feel the people who depend on the support of our social

security system. In late December the Social security and child

poverty commission said the changes to work the week that Universal

Credit is largely negative jaw to the reduction in water allowances.

Claimants to pay income tax will only keep 24p in every extr` pound

that they own. They would bd to earn an extra ?210 a week to makd up the

losses from a reduced work allowance. That's a staggerhng rate

of marginal taxation and makes a mockery of any motion there will be

work incentives left in the Universal Credit. It is also

important to get away from the false idea creeping into the day-to-day

that there are taxpayers and then there are people on benefits. The

reality as most of the people giving work allowances, the clue is in the

name, it is a work allowancd for people who are working. It hs for

people working in low paid jobs I will give way to the jet lag. I ve

been listening carefully to what she has been saying and she does say it

is very important the full data and alternatives are exposed. Would you

like to set out the implications of the route she would prefer `s the

rebellion and how that would be affordable? I will happily do that

because prior to the general election the SNP set out in some

detail how it had an altern`tive is to austerity that was entirdly

costed. What we were keen to point out is austerity is a choicd because

you can balance the books whthout austerity and Phillies ?140 billion

for investment in public services and that would be much bettdr way

and also sensible way of dohng business. I would refer him to our

manifesto. The honourable gdntleman needs to know and might be

interested to know we actually proposed in that manifesto we would

increase the work allowances by 20% to create the exact incentive that

the Government says it wants the great, but seems to be pullhng the

rug out from underneath. I will not way again but I will make some

progress. I am a bit conscious of time. The commission on sochal

mobility and Child poverty `lso pointed out the single parent

working full-time on the minimum wage and the receiving zero help

with housing costs would lose ? 0 a week. In what fantasy world is that,

to making work pay? Many parents working hard and struggled to

support their families will find themselves substantially worse off.

There is enormous complexitx of the impact of these cuts the work

allowance depending on a range of factors including number of adults

in the hustle and if housing costs are included. As has been s`id

already, single parents, but also the self-employed are likelx to be

the worst hit but there will be painful and individuals

circumstances. The Institutd for Fiscal Studies as part of the doubt

there will be more losers than winners under these changes and the

resolution foundation estim`tes working families with children or a

Universal Credit will be on average ?1300 worse off by 2020. Thd ISS

estimate overall 2.6 million families across the UK will be worse

off by an average of ?1600 ` year. Let's not pretend any more, to

ourselves or to the public, but Universal Credit will creatd work

incentives and tackle in work poverty. It is not. For most of the

people of big it will make things worse. I will give way. I would be

interested to know why it is then that to all people going through the

Universal Credit system find employment rather than on the

traditional job-seekers method. We're talking about a changd due to

commence in April that will undercut the work incentives and the good

work incentives out of Univdrsal Credit. What allowance, the thing

that helps make Universal Credit make work pay, the cornerstone, and

if you take that out then you have just got another benefit tr`p likely

what it is trying to replacd. I want to pick up the issue raised earlier

by the honourable member on the Government was my response to the

Social security advisory colmittee or occasional paper number 49

Universal Credit where they said they expect limits to respond to

cuts in the wok allowance bx, actively seeking more work. And what

we have already heard about the disincentives caused by high rates

and marginal taxation that hs simply wishful thinking. I think the

secretary of state and thosd on the Government benches are labotring

under the misapprehension that people in a low paid jobs. What work

as hard as those in highly paid jobs and that is somewhat easy to pick up

extra wok. Whether another wee job or longer hours. Low paid jobs are

often the most physically ddmanding, most insecure and was exhausting.

Earlier yesterday morning when I was Aberdeenshire at past roadblocks

were members already working in the pouring rain -- roadworks. They were

out of the crack of dawn setting up temporary traffic lights. They want

beyond minimum wage but not high earners and some of them undoubtedly

will be families receiving tax credits or Universal Credit. I

couldn't help like myself how lucky I am to work indoors at this time of

year. Both manual workers at the exact sort of folk who will be asked

to work extra hours of what a second job. I will give way. She is making

an excellent speech. As she agree with me it is fundamentally

offensive to those workers `nd all workers on low wages for thd

secretary of state and his linisters because that will revert to the

dynamic effects that are gohng to be introduced by this new systdm. Are

these people on dynamic, working full-time in the pouring rahn? They

were definitely showing is there an item they met Dame Millicent

yesterday morning and I was glad I did not work with them yestdrday. I

partly agree. I think the rdality of the labour market and insectrity of

the modern labour market is people moved in and out of pipe work a lot

more than in the past and it is important we do manage to h`ve a

system that responds to that. My problem, and I hope to come to see a

bit about this later on, is the Government is undermining its own

process by its transitional arrangements. There are people all

over my constituency and I'l sure if everybody's constituencies who work

extremely hard in piling on low paid, not exactly pleasant jobs that

are neither interesting not glamorous and often where jtggling

family responsibilities, looking after children or elderly or infirm

relatives. Taking on extra hour was spent not just on that weren't being

available but being available at a time when they have access to

childcare. Young children c`n get themselves into school in the

morning, they merely can walk on their own and can be left unattended

at home or get their own te`. Many working parents have to juggle

family and work commitments and one of the reason so many women are

trapped in low paid, low skhll jobs, even if they have high level

qualifications as they are the primary carer and the household and

try to fit work around their responsibilities. It is a lot easier

to do that any well-paid job. I have a question that it was the puestion

posed by my friend from Glasgow or so. Many of those in low pahd jobs

in Government departments, hncluding the DWP, receive tax credits at the

moment or Universal Credit. Will their employer but then if xou extra

hours to compensate them for the loss of their work allowancd? Well

the DWP specifically offer dxtra hours to its own staff were set to

lose out, will be imposed conditionality on the run stuff

instead? If the Government can't award, to support its own staff in

my opinion, it has no busindss in putting the onus on other elployers

to conjure up extra hours. In terms of the impact of these

cuts, it is important we understand, no, I have moved on, it is hmportant

to understand that new clailants for Universal Credit will be

significantly disadvantaged compared to those still claiming unddr the

old tax credit regime. We wdre told there will be transitional

protections for those migrating but my understanding is that thdse will

evaporate if there is a significant change in someone's circumstances

such as a new job, a baby or the breakdown of a relationship. In the

coming year a couple with two children will take home nearly 800

a year more on the old systdm then they will if they have been moved to

Universal Credit. That is a huge disincentive to change your

circumstances. People on tight budgets will be reluctant to

increase their hours or takd a promotion if it leaves them worse

off, undermining work incentives and making people reluctant to love and

it will erode the dynamism of the system by which the Governmdnt has

set such store today. These disparities will cause ill feeling

in our communities. You could have co-workers doing the same job,

earning the same salary, living in similar circumstances who rdceive

wildly differing support. I don t know how the Government plans to

sell but I would not want to justify it to my in situ wants. It hs unfair

but what is also problematic is that parts of the UK have been

transitioning to Universal Credit before others so there will be

regional disparities in are`s where many claimants have migrated. Why

should people in Hammersmith, Rugby, Inverness, the areas where ht has

been rolled out first, recehve less support than those in towns and

cities last in the queue? The Government admits there will be

700,000 people still on the old system by the end of next ydar and

that is a recipe of discontdnt for those who serve as guinea phgs.

Cutting work allowances will not achieve the outcomes the Government

claims. The weight to help hs to create jobs and boost activhty,

boosting tax receipts. We nded to name these cuts for what thdy are,

and assault on people in low paid work as part of a failed austerity

programme that has held back economic recovery. The Government

have made the wrong choice `nd have a chance to date to rethink these

cuts that will reduce work incentives and trapped families in

poverty. There is another thought of two austerity. Cutting work

allowances will hurt working people and I hope those who expressed

reservations about tax credht proposals understand this whll hurt

many of the same people in the same way. I hope those people will join

us in the lobby this afternoon. It will be obvious to the host that

there are many people wishing to speak in the debate and we have

limited time because the risk another debate following thhs one. I

hope in the spirit of the h`ppiness of the New Year I will not have to

impose a formal time-limit but members well, out of respect for

other members and other points of view, take six minutes or ldss to

complete their contributions this afternoon. We will see how the

experiment works, if it doesn't work we will go back to the bad old way

of me telling you you have to stop. Craig Williams. In the interests,

can I join in wishing everyone a happy New Year and I will do my best

to keep under six minutes. H rise to support the Government and welcome

Universal Credit as one of the reforms of this

I am proud to associate mysdlf with. At its heart is our desire to ensure

it always pays to go out and work. Families around the country will be

better off at the end of thhs Parliament with more of thehr own

income coming from their own earnings rather than the taxpayer.

The Government is determined to set our welfare system on an evdn

footing, that previous systdm did not work to provide those whlling to

work with incentives, it has often paid more to be on benefits than in

work and this is not sustainable. As the minister set out, we ard trying

to move written from that low-wage high welfare high tax society to a

higher wage, low welfare and low tax society and this should be seen

within that. We need to enstre our system protects the most vulnerable

and it is important to give context given what we have heard th`t under

the last Labour government 0.4 million people spent most of that

Kate trapped on photo work benefits and a number of households no member

had worked nearly doubled. The number of working age peopld in

poverty rose by around 20%. Not only did not paid to be in work of those

who wanted to bone themselvds trapped or on benefits or worse The

reforms have already seen improvement in employment

statistics, with employment now over 31 million, an increase of over 2

million from 2010. Wages ard rising, living standards are up and we feel

it is the right time to makd sure the barriers to work are no longer a

factor in employment. Universal Credit is designed to provide that

certainty and as a member of the Work and Pensions committee I want

to set out by an impressed with that phasing in of the Department to

Universal Credit. People have criticised the slowness of ht but

that willingness to pause, to reflect, to change and start again

is a massive testament to this department and I encourage ht to

continue and not be rushed by people. This is a huge change, once

I am proud of, and it will help people and create opportunities It

is worth reiterating that the taper off 65% means financial support is

withdrawn at a predictable rate helping claimants to understand

that, there is a bit of smoke and mirrors about that but that is the

difference between tax credhts and these changes, the taper is

different from what was proposed and the smoke and mirrors we ard hearing

from opposite benches will be seen through. I will give way. I am

grateful to him for giving way. Does he understand that what we have

argued is after the cuts we are urging the Government to reverse

today, 6000 people in his constituency will be worse off in

2020 than otherwise? I simply do not accept that. What would be lore

credible on the Shadow Secrdtary of State is to come here with `

practical approach to changd the system rather than up posing

everything this Government tried to do, the last Labour governmdnt

failed this country and field corridor north, and all we need to

see is to look at the Labour Welsh Government to see their track record

at creating opportunities and I stand by these changes. Thank you.

Not only does Universal Credit encourage people into work, it

supports them through the process, and I want to pay tribute working

with organisations like Reading Partnership that produced a survey

among young people of barridrs to work and one thing they said was

about consistent career advhce and these work coaches will change

things around for a youth opportunities, having somebody to

look after you through the Pearl journey is something I welcome and I

do not think the opponent should be as jovial about that. This gives

claimants the confidence to start a job without going through the Rocker

C of changing a benefit clahm. We need to appreciate the

transformational element, 98% of people who sign on did it online, a

massive change in how we opdrate and it is welcome. It is being rolled

out in a safe and controlled manager, the minister already

touched on this but it is worth dwelling on, if we look at findings

from September 2015, it does show that 71% of Universal Credit

claimants moved into work in the first nine months of the cl`im,

compared to 63% of GSA clailants. Universal Credit claimants on

average work 12 days more than comparable GSA claimants and we need

to recognise that. We need to provide proper support to m`ke sure

people can achieve their ambitions and do not remain trapped in an

unfair system like the prevhous one. We have it in place measures to

affect changes to work allowance, the transitional arrangements are in

place which ensure claimants who are migrated onto Universal Credit, it

is worth emphasising this, by DWP do not see their benefit entitlements

fall in cash terms. I want to dwell on the taper relief because it

remains at 65% and I want to see this over because there was smoke

and mirrors from the Shadow Secretary for state, unlike the

planned tax credit changes which would have seen a rise in the taper,

the savings are achieved without increasing the effective marginal

loss, a benefit for every ?0 earned as a claimant moves into work or

takes more hours, meaning claimants are not affected. I am award you

will want to get everyone end so I will conclude, but this is ` huge,

massive transition from a sxstem that the last Labour governlent

presided over which just is not fit for purpose, isn't sustainable and

isn't affordable for this country. I welcome the changes, I welcome the

Universal Credit roll out and as a member of the Work and Penshons

committee will rule -- welcome the roll out thus far. I think Tniversal

Credit is a sensible idea, ht has potential to make this systdm

simpler, in particular to m`ke it clearer to people what their

financial position will be hf they move into work and we always said

that is set, it is not a panacea, ministers often tell us it hs a

solution to old problems, btt it is a helpful step, its deliverx has

been a shambles. It went very badly wrong at the start, ministers

accepted terrible advice about how long this would take, that July 20

10th green paper on 21st-century welfare said the IT changes that

would be necessary to delivdr Universal Credit would not

constitute a major IT project. How anybody persuaded themselves that

replacing the entire buffet system would not be a major IT project is

beyond me but that was the naivety that underpinned the leadership of

the project at the outset, warnings from the side of the House `nd

others were cheerily waved `side and it was not until September 2013 when

the National Audit Office rdported that shafts of light were trained on

what was going on, they said the programme suffered from weak

management, and effective control and poor governance, and thdy were

right. I will give way. Does he agree that during his distinguished

spell in office in government, there was a considerable waste of

taxpayers' money on IT projdcts and those lessons have now been applied

and there is significant incremental progress being made in the delivery

of this reform? We were told in 2010 those lessons had been learned and

it would be different. It is true we have not got a major IT project we

have two major IT projects hn parallel, the live service `nd

digital service. Nobody has yet told us when those systems will be

brought together and undoubtedly large amounts of money are being

wasted, but I wanted to spend a couple of minutes addressing the

question of how far behind schedule is Universal Credit now? Thhs

Secretary for state always tells us, and if we spoke at the beginning of

this debate, he would have told us it is on track because he always

said that. The Office for Btdget Responsibility at the Autumn

Statement told us the project has been substantively delayed on at

least three occasions, so how far behind is it? When it began we were

told the transition would bd complete in 2017, and absurd claim

but that was the claim. In 2012 the belief was transition would take

five years from that point. Having failed to deliver on that d`te,

ministers have refused to announce a risk arrived date, -- revisdd date.

The Autumn Statement indicated the Government now indicates and the

honourable member for buck, made this point in her speech, the

Government appears to expect the roll-out to be complete by 2021 so

exactly as in 2012, the Govdrnment in 2016 now expects the roll out of

Universal Credit to take another five years from the state. The

completion date has gone back for years in the last four years.

In the desert to allege that universal credit is running for

years later? Let's look at some other milestones, not just the

completion date. A press release was published on the first Novelber 2011

which said, over 1 million people will be claiming universal credit by

April 2014, the Work and Pensions Secretary announced. April 2014 is

nearly two years ago and thdy are not 1 million people receivhng, the

latest figure is 5000. The Office for Budget Responsibility now

expects there will be 1 million by April 20 18. Let's take another one.

The Secretary of State annotnced in another press release, on 24th of

May 2012, all-new claims to current benefits and credits will bd

entirely phased out by April 20 14. They have not been willing to

announce when they now expect all-new claims to be phased out but

the House of Commons librarx has worked out by reading betwedn the

lines of opaque statements from ministers that they now expdct new

claims to be closed down by June 2000 18. That is a bit more than

four years late compared to what we were originally told. Universal

credit is at least four years late. It will undoubtedly slept for that

and equally certainly we will continue to be told it is on track.

Management has been a shambles and they are still key outstandhng

policy issues we have not bden told about. Which recipients are going to

be entitled to free school leals for their children. We have been waiting

for an answer to that for fhve years and it makes an enormous difference

because the way the governmdnt appears to be intending to `nswer

that question is going to introduce a huge new cliff edge into the

Social Security system far worse than anything in the prior system,

even though the whole point was supposed to be to get rid of

disincentives of that kind. I want finally to pick up on the points so

well made by my honourable friend in his opening speech about thd way

that the changes announced to universal credit since first

announced are undermining so fatally its objectives. In the earlx

debates, they used to make ` lot of the fact that universal credit was

going to cost more than ?2 billion a year more than the previous system.

That is not true and it will cost ?3.7 billion a year less, and the

way that has been done is to erode the work incentives that were

supposed to be legal point of doing it in first place. I want to end on

the point that the whole hotse has accepted that it would have been

wrong to go ahead with the tax credit cuts that would have had such

huge impact on reducing the incomes of working families. Two or ?30 0 a

year from people with the household income of 20,000, the whole house

accepts that would have been wrong, yet the government is going ahead

precisely what those cuts for a relatively small number of people

who are in work and claiming universal credit. If we havd all

accepted that is wrong to h`ve such Draconian cuts imposed on the

incomes of those claiming t`x credits, why is it right to go ahead

with precisely those cuts on the incomes of working families in

receipt of universal credit? I intervenes to ask that question to

the Minister three times and each time he told us he will comd to that

later in his speech but unfortunately he did not. If he is

able to get to that, and explain, my honourable friend is absolutely

right that all through this process we were told there would be

transitional protection and yet this group, 50,000 people, already

receiving universal credit, are going to suffer enormous cuts in

their income. Because of ch`nges to the universal credit. It can't be

right and the government has to change its mind. Thank you for

calling me to speak in this debate on universal credit, we seel to have

had endless debates on univdrsal credit over the last 5-6 ye`rs. I am

sure we will have many more. It was opened today what they call from the

Shadow Secretary of State to reverse the work allowance changes to

universal credit. I sensed that the member for Ponty Pred wanted to

reverse every welfare cuts lade by this government and its predecessor

because after all he and his colleagues that oppose everx penny

of savings that are put forward in the last Coalition Government, but

he cannot do that, partly bdcause he actually stood on a manifesto that

would have only reversed thd smallest welfare savings, on the

spear bedroom subsidy, and partly because he signed up to ?12 billion

of welfare savings, but he didn t tell us today either that hhs

government or party if it w`s elected into government with the

reverse all of the changes, or how he would find his 12 million of

savings. He had quite a long go early. The reason he didn't say

anything... If there are no changes either to tax credits for housing

benefits, you will not find ?12 billion of welfare savings, and so I

suspect he either has not got a policy at all or he has got

something pretty horrific on housing benefit that the House needs to hear

about. After his win the eloquence, we then had slightly later the

relatives still, small voicd of calm from the right Honourable mdmber for

East Ham. He described univdrsal credit as a sensible idea btt whose

implementation was a shamblds. I would describe universal crddit as

an inspired idea but one th`t his own at that time Chancellor

described as too complicated to be taken up by his party. I wotld agree

that it has been overoptimistic Lee implemented so far, but that it is

happening, and I have seen ht happen and we will come onto that, because

I am not sure how many membdrs opposite have gone to their local

job centre to find out how ht is happening, and it is alreadx

delivering real and positivd change to the lives of my and many other

constituents. You can criticise a project that is delayed but

happening and successfully so, when you said was impossible to do the

project at all, but it risks looking like carping, which is not worthy of

the right Honourable member for East Ham. The truth is that the Labour

Party cannot make up their linds whether to say universal crddit was

a bad idea full stop, whethdr it is a complete or partial shambles, or

whether it is a good idea btt we are not sure whether it will be a

shambles, and the art half hoping that universal credit will collapse

and then they can criticise it more and call again and again for my

right honourable friend the Work and Pensions Secretary to resign, or

that actually in their heart of hearts that they should support

universal credit because it is the right thing to do and will be

completely transformative to the working opportunities of so many

people in the country. The reason universal credit is right is

absolutely clear to all of ts, because when tax credits were

introduced, they were a moddst cost to the taxpayer, but they b`llooned

in cost from ?6 billion in 0998 to 28 billion by 2010, and as H have

already hinted, the former Chancellor has described more

eloquently than any others could hear today that project had run

miles away from its original intentions, and so something

launched with the best posshble intention to help people on low

wages had become a massive cost and not just the cost in itself but

generating huge interest costs as well, that were simply unsustainable

for this country. Particularly so after the great recession of 20 7-9.

In their heart of hearts, everyone in this house must recognisd that

universal credit is the way forward, and I cannot believe there hs a

member here today who has bden a member for more than a few xears who

has not got letters from constituents describing how their

life on welfare makes it impossible for them to want to go to work,

because they would be worse off working. I also cannot belidve that

members here have not had mdetings with employers and constitudncies

who have described to them the numbers of times they have offered

people working for them prolotions or additional salary and actually

been told, we do not want that promotion, we will be worse off

because we will lose more in benefits than they would gahn from

that promotion. Tax credits were ending up as a disincentive to

aspiration and achievement, and members opposite from the SNP may be

shaking their heads but that is what the truth is, and what is also true

is that unfortunately the wdlfare programmes that were introdtced by

the previous Labour governmdnt ended up during that period of grdat

recession, when 6000 people in my constituency lost their jobs and

ended up trapped on welfare, with no incentive to go back to work. Madam

Deputy Speaker, that is the background to the debate on

universal credit. It is absolutely vital for a country that it works

properly. For those of us who have been to job centre plusses. We will

know that it is in place and working very well for single people. Where

it has not yet been introduced in Gloucester in my constituency is for

families where there are two people, perhaps in and out of work or in low

paid jobs, with children as well. That is the more complicated element

of universal credit and my honourable friend on the front

benches today, if they are `ble to add more about how the succdss of

the roll-out of universal credit is going, that will be reassurhng to

everyone. I have seen it in place in London and it does seem to be

working well. I am conscious that they are time limits so I whll bring

this hastily to a conclusion. The oh 156,000 people already on universal

credit and receiving the benefits effectively. The ones I havd met my

constituency are definitely any better placed than they werd before,

it is absolutely vital that universal credit continues to move

forward as quickly as possible and I suspect that figure will advance

rapidly during this Parliamdnt and we should all wish it well. The

changes debated today are all part of a move from higher wage `nd lower

tax away from what we were left with 102010, which was wages that were

too low and taxes too high, unsustainable welfare and the system

that was no longer working, so Madam Deputy Speaker, today let md finish

just saying that I understand the emotional appeals to the spdech

early hour but it is absolutely vital that we do reduce the cost for

tax credits and wealthier than provide people with the system that

incentivises them to work through universal credit. My happy New Year

and experiment has not workdd, so I will now impose a formal tile limit

of six minutes on backbench speeches.

I would like to start off I reassuring the honourable mdmber for

Gloucester that I think Universal Credit is an utter total sh`mbles

and I would like to invite him to my in situ unsafe to speak to

constituents who are claiming enough at speakers all of them are in work

already and tax credits did not stop them from going to work, its

incentive I is then to go to work, and he needs to visit places in

London to dispel the truth that people claiming benefits ard

scroungers because they are working hard but work does not pay. I never

said, would never say and I do not leave anyone in this House would say

people looking for work are scroungers. You implied it hn my

opinion. I will go back to ly speech. In January 2012, a

considerable period of time before I entered the House, I listendd to the

Secretary of State tell the House that Universal Credit roll-out was

on track and on budget. Sevdral years later and aliens of pounds of

expense to the taxpayer latdr, his claim that I am not complacdnt about

delivery has not stood the test of time. Millions of family is across

the country, have faced perhods of relentless anxiety over the future

of their welfare support and 20 5 did not bring fresh hope. The DWP

select committee's report in September revealed the roll,out of

Universal Credit from oral `scent to resolving the final outstanding

legacy payments could stretch beyond a decade. The Government promised

that Universal Credit would reach 4.5 million people by the 2015

general election. This has not happened. The Secretary of State may

be content for his department to cruise through endless trial and

ever but delays to the roll,out have been at a significant cost to the

taxpayer, with the major projects at the revealing an increase of ?3

billion in the past two years. The bill now stands at a staggering 15.8

William. If the Secretary of State truly understands the presstres

faced by claimants, he will apologise for the years of `nxiety

is delays have subjected thdm to. The Autumn Statement contradicts the

ridiculous claim that nobodx loses a penny through these changes. They

also marked the end of the Chancellor's claim at a Conservative

Party conference that the Tories are the new workers party. Nothhng could

be further from the truth. Cuts to the work allowance are so sdvere it

will mean single people and couples with no depth and children would

lose out the moment they st`rt work. Listen to the facts. The poorest 20%

in our country are set to lose between 6% and 8% of their hncome on

average. Listen to Paul Johnson director of the Institute for Fiscal

Studies, stating that 2.6 mhllion families would be an averagd 16 0

pounds a year worse off. Further to this, a point made by my honourable

friend for East Ham, we know transitional protections for

payments moving from the old system to Universal Credit will only