(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
()
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.
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?
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.
(Forest of Dean) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s decision to deal with this issue and
not pursue a further appeal, but, having been in his position as
the Commons Minister responsible for universal credit in the
past, I do not underestimate how complicated it is to put in
place a fix. As the Minister does so, he should reflect that we
should remain clear about the central purpose of universal
credit, which is ensuring that everyone is better off in work,
and on the fact that it has very flexibly dealt with the huge
increase of claimants as a result of covid-19 and will no doubt
face challenges later this year.
My specific question is this: we only have a few weeks now until
the House rises for the summer, and the Minister may not be able
to solve the problem before then, but will he at least update the
House before we rise, to set out what further steps he is going
to take?
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. We received the
judgment only on Monday, and it is a complex issue, as he rightly
recognised and as I believe was recognised by the Court. The fix
will not be a simple one, and we are facing unprecedented
pressures on the Department at the moment. I will of course
continue to keep the House and the Chair of the Select Committee
updated as that work progresses.
My right hon. Friend is right absolutely about the universal
credit system; it has not been easy over the course of the past
six or so weeks. I must say that our people across the DWP have
worked incredibly hard, but the system has also worked exactly as
it should have done, with around 90% of claimants consistently
paid in full and on time—more than 3.2 million people since 16
March.
(Stalybridge and Hyde)
(Lab/Co-op)
I add my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham
() for securing this important
question.
This Government are “irrational” and they are “unlawful”. Those
are not my words, but those of Lady Justice Rose, who delivered
the verdict in this week’s Court of Appeal decision against the
Department of Work and Pensions. Reading that decision, there is
really only one question to ask: what on earth were Ministers
doing fighting this case for so many years, only to be told by
the Court of Appeal something that seems to most people a matter
of basic common sense?
If universal credit cannot cope with the date when people are
paid and the impact of bank holidays and weekends on that payment
date, the solution should always have been to change how the
system works, not to persist with something that leaves thousands
of people with wildly fluctuating payments from month to month. I
have a constituent affected, Mr Speaker, and the first time I saw
the problem in my constituency surgery in Stalybridge, I could
not believe that the regulations would work the way they do.
This issue goes to the heart of the problems with universal
credit. Time and time again we are told by Ministers that
universal credit is more flexible, that it is more agile and that
it can be adapted to meet new requirements and respond to
problems that are identified. Yet when it comes to making
seemingly simple changes such as these, claimants are faced with
a rigid, unbending, uncaring response.
The Government always seem unwilling to listen to the experiences
of the people who actually use the system. I ask the Minister,
first, how much public money has the Department has wasted
fighting the case? Secondly, I welcome the Minister’s statement
that the Government now accept this decision, so how, and how
quickly, will the universal credit regulations be changed to
accommodate the ruling? Thirdly, do the Government accept that
four single mums should not have to go to the Court of Appeal to
be listened to by their own Government? Will the Department
acknowledge that there is an overwhelming need to recognise the
lived experiences of people who are actually in receipt of
universal credit and review a whole range of policies, including
the five-week wait, the frequency of payments and how the initial
assessment period works, so that we can then get a social
security system that is fair and effective and works the way that
it should?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Each and every
judicial review has its own grounds for being brought and is
looked at on a case-by-case basis, and with each JR, the
Secretary of State, Ministers and officials look closely at the
grounds and respond accordingly. I gently point out to him that
the Court of Appeal accepted our interpretation of the UC
regulations. However, the point that some people may face
budgeting issues is why we are acting.
I am disappointed, if not surprised, that the hon. Gentleman has
taken the opportunity to launch yet another attack—a baseless,
unwarranted and unfounded attack—on universal credit. We all
know, and he knows, the truth: the system has worked incredibly
well and Labour’s broken legacy benefits system simply would not
have coped with the unprecedented demand that we have seen during
covid-19. Universal credit has passed that test with flying
colours. There have been over 3 million claims, and I am so proud
of our DWP employees and the universal credit system. It is time
that Labour got behind this Government and universal credit and
worked with us to make the system even better.
(North West Durham)
(Con)
I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of
Dean (Mr Harper) and welcome the decision by the Government not
to appeal this judgment, because this has also affected
constituents in North West Durham. I also welcome the fact that
the Government have invested an extra £7 billion into the welfare
system to support people during the coronavirus pandemic, which
has clearly strengthened the safety net for a large number of my
constituents. Will the Minister confirm how many families across
the country have benefited from this extra support through the
universal credit system at this difficult time?
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a firm champion of his
constituents in this place. He is absolutely right that we have
introduced a series of changes during the covid-19 pandemic,
targeted at those facing the most financial disruption, that
could be operationalised as quickly as possible, ensuring that
people get the support that they need. He is right that that is
close to £7 billion in the welfare system alone and it will
benefit approximately 10 million families.
(Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
I pay tribute to the four women who brought this case and all
those who supported them, including the Child Poverty Action
Group, and I thank the Work and Pensions Committee Chair, the
right hon. Member for East Ham (), for securing this question.
This really is damning for the Government and successive
Secretaries of State, who have belligerently fought this in the
courts. Why should women and disabled people have to go to court
to get basic fairness? I am sorry that the Secretary of State is
not here to respond.
The issue of people getting paid salaries on irregular but
predictable days of the month is something that the Scottish
National party has been raising as an issue with UC for years,
and the Court of Appeal has ruled that it was irrational for the
Work and Pensions Secretary not to act to resolve the problem.
Why should claimants lose UC support simply because of the day of
the month that they are paid? That question has not been
answered. As part of the process of accepting this ruling, will
the Minister at the very least ensure that the predicted 85,000
people thought to be directly impacted have their situations
resolved? Will the Minister work with the Chancellor to finally
add flexibility to the monthly assessment period to resolve this
issue and the five-week wait, which is also impoverishing people?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I stress that we
received the judgment only on Monday and it is a hugely complex
issue. That is recognised by the court—it is not a simple fix, as
the hon. Gentleman points out. He knows that we are facing
unprecedented demand, because he has raised this question with me
before. I said that I will keep the House and the right hon.
Member for East Ham (), the Chair of the Work and
Pensions Committee, updated as we progress.
On the hon. Gentleman’s points relating to assessment periods,
there are some aspects of the universal credit system that are
fundamental to its design and are deliberately designed to
achieve its original objectives—to mirror the world of work. This
includes the mechanism of a monthly assessment period and, of
course, the initial assessment period at the beginning of a
claim. It is important to stress that over 75% of people in this
country are paid monthly and the majority of countries in the
European Union also have systems that operate on a monthly basis.
(Broadland) (Con)
In March alone, about 1.24 million new applicants relied on the
universal credit system to be able to process their claims and
pay them within days vitally important sums of money to help them
live. While the case has properly highlighted about 1,500 outlier
cases, does my hon. Friend agree that it was the Government’s
decision to invest in an automated digital system that does not
require manual intervention by DWP officers to carry out
individual calculations of the amount of an award that has
allowed this to happen?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was this Conservative
Government who introduced our modern, dynamic, agile new benefits
system, tailored for the claimant’s personal circumstances. The
fact it is online means we have been able to process the claims
of more than 3 million people, getting them the support they
desperately need as quickly as possible. Just imagine for a
moment, Mr Speaker, the chaos that would have ensued had we been
relying on Labour’s broken legacy benefits system alone. Thank
heavens for universal credit.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I have had many similar cases over the years, so I am really
pleased first to see the court decision, but secondly to see the
Government and the Minister in particular responding in a very
positive fashion. The judge referred to common sense; it is about
not just common sense, but the practical effects on families at a
time of financial stringency over Christmas and the new year. Can
the Minister confirm whether he will retrospectively correct the
mistake, which quite simply boggles the mind and common sense? He
referred to solutions, and I can give him one very quickly. Will
those who have had to take out loans to cover the month where
they lost full payment receive help to pay the interest on those
loans? Some took out loans with tremendously large interest
rates. It is important that people have help right now.
I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those cases in
more detail. As I said, I am absolutely committed to finding a
fix. The court has not mandated any specific fix or action, but I
am committing us to finding a solution, and I will do all I can
to do so. The court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of
discrimination. He mentioned families. The Department is
absolutely clear in its firm support for all claimants. We
continue to support families with things such as childcare costs,
and I stress that childcare support under universal credit is far
more generous than the old legacy benefits system, with the
ability to claim back 85%, as compared with 70%. I would be very
happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those concerns in
further detail.
(Bracknell) (Con)
Many of my constituents in Bracknell work in the creative arts
sector. We heard earlier about the millions of families who
benefited from universal credit during the pandemic, but will the
Minister please assure me that the minimum income floor will be
maintained for this important area of the economy for the
foreseeable future?
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and he is right to
raise the issue, because I know that those who work in the
creative arts are particularly exercised and concerned by it. The
issue is covered by the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend
the Member for Mid Sussex (). The minimum income floor
rules are suspended at the moment. I will put the Minister for
Employment in touch with my hon. Friend and ensure that his
concerns are raised, but he has rightly put them on record.
(Dudley North) (Con)
The universal credit system has come under unprecedented
pressures for obvious reasons during the past few weeks. Having
interrogated my office systems, I have encountered only 10
inquiries relating to universal credit, which were largely
inquiries wanting more information. That is out of thousands of
other cases that my office has received. Does my hon. Friend
agree that that is in fact indicative of a system that is both
resilient and working very well?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: universal credit is standing
up to the challenge during this unprecedented time. The digital
approach of universal credit, as he rightly points out, has
allowed us to get support to more than 3 million people over the
past three months, which simply would not have happened under
Labour’s legacy benefits system.
(Runnymede and Weybridge)
(Con)
I thank the Minister for his answers today. It is important to
reflect on the fact that the computer system has been able to
deal with an unprecedented crisis in terms of people claiming UC,
which the legacy benefits system just would not have been able to
cope with, but with automation comes inflexibility. Could he say
whether this is a case of “computer says no” or “computer says
not yet”?
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful question. My universal
credit programme colleagues may well have their heads in their
hands as we speak, depending on what I now commit them to, but I
am absolutely determined to find a fix to this issue.
Yes, a number of items are in the pipeline, ready to be changed
on universal credit. Despite criticism from Opposition Members,
we have made significant changes to universal credit, and much
more is to come, such as the roll-on of legacy benefits next
month, which will benefit people to the tune of £200. Those are
all in the pipeline to be done, and this will be added to that. I
will try to expedite it as much as I possibly can.
(Wirral West) (Lab)
[V]
Many people on low incomes have suffered real hardship as a
result of the Government’s failure to address this fundamental
flaw in universal credit. I pay tribute to the women who took the
Government to court to seek justice on this matter, but they
should not have had to do so. A number of my constituents have
been affected. One is a single working mother who has fallen into
arrears with her rent, has seen an increase in her anxiety and
depression, and has had to turn to food banks and local welfare
assistance as a result. I wrote to the Secretary of State and
Ministers several times about this last year, so will the
Government now look at the cases of my constituents and all those
affected as a matter of urgency, and pay them the money that they
should have received?
I am certainly happy to look at the cases raised by the hon.
Lady. I have said clearly that I am determined to find a fix.
That will involve looking at numerous solutions, identifying the
cohort of people and the fix, and putting it into action. That
may take a little time but, as I say, I am determined to find
that solution. I am happy to meet her when we are able to do so
to look at those individual cases she raises in more detail.
(North Devon) (Con)
Three million people have claimed universal credit since the
beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, which is a huge success. I
thank the Department for Work and Pensions team who enabled that.
Indeed, the robustness of the computer system behind universal
credit has facilitated rapid and easy access to welfare support
for so many additional claimants. However, does the Minister
agree that, on occasion, human intervention when the computer
does indeed say no might help prevent cases like those falling
through the cracks?
I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful question. The system is
largely automated, and that brings huge benefits—that is why we
have been able to deal with those claims—but, inevitably, that
also means that issues come up that we need to address. This is
one of those issues and, yes, in some cases, they require a
manual intervention. My first instinct is to look at whether we
can find an automated fix, but we will of course look at manual
fixes, if that is necessary. I know that my hon. Friend is on the
Select Committee and, if she has any particular ideas in that
regard, I am happy to meet her to discuss them.
(Newport East) (Lab) [V]
The Court of Appeal ruling rightly draws attention to one of the
problems with the universal credit system, but will the Minister
also address why under-25-year-old single parents receive less on
universal credit than they would have done under legacy benefits?
I have lobbied Ministers with the Newport GoGirls group on
that—it is unfair and it needs to change.
I did not entirely catch the question, but I think the hon. Lady
is referring to the disparity between universal credit and legacy
benefits. I would say that this Department acted at incredible
pace to operationalise and bring in measures as quickly as
possible to help those who have been most financially
disadvantaged as a result of covid-19. That is why we did it
through the vehicle of universal credit. Legacy benefits will be
reviewed and uprated ahead of April 2021 as per usual.
(Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Is there any merit in having another look at the timing of
assessment periods, such as having them generally fixed to the
end of the month to remove some of the issues that seem to keep
arising?
It is something I am exploring as I look at our different
options. My hon. Friend is an experienced member of the Select
Committee, and I am happy to work with him and to hear his ideas.
It is important to stress that for the majority of the circa 5
million claimants, the date of their assessment period works
well. Changing assessment periods to align with pay dates is
problematic. Nevertheless, everything is on the table, and I am
looking at all options. The court judgment was very recent—only
on Monday—so I hope that the House will give me the time and
space to look at this in the granularity of detail that it
requires.
(Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]
This is, in truth, just the latest failing in a pernicious and
punitive welfare system. When Beveridge wrote his famous report
in 1943, he said:
“A revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for
revolutions, not for patching.”
As we attempt to enter a post covid-19 world, will the UK
Government give their support to the Scottish Government and
ensure collaboration from HMRC and DWP as we seek to run basic
income pilots in Scotland?
At the heart of this problem is an interaction between employers
and HMRC. If more employers followed the very clear and beefed-up
guidance from HMRC, there would be far fewer people affected.
That is why we are beefing up our work with HMRC colleagues and
counterparts, to ensure that the guidance is absolutely clear. If
employers follow it and report the correct dates, this issue
simply will not occur.
(Arundel and South Downs)
(Con)
One key test of a benefits system must be the dignity that it
confers on the recipient. Does the Minister agree that there is
great dignity in an automated solution that is modern, simple and
straightforward and that there is potentially a role for
employers to align their dates with a system that is in the best
interests of their employees?
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right. The
universal credit system and tens of thousands of dedicated DWP
staff have processed an unprecedented 3 million claims since
mid-March. As I have said before and will keep repeating,
Labour’s legacy benefit system, based on paper forms and a lot of
face-to-face interaction and meetings, simply would not have
coped with the pressures of covid-19. It has not been easy, and
our people have had to work incredibly hard, but the important
thing is that the system has held up, and people have been able
to make their claims online, in their own time and in their
homes. We have not seen the queues outside jobcentres that there
have been in other countries, and that is because we have
universal credit, and this Government invested in it.
(City of Durham) (Lab)
I would like to congratulate these four women on their victory
for social justice. It is shameful that the Government have
pursued this case to the Court of Appeal. These were working
women who were paid a regular monthly salary. Welfare rights
experts described them as perfect candidates for universal
credit. Does the Minister agree that a system that does not work
for people like them does not work at all?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I do not recognise
the picture she paints. As I said earlier, judicial reviews are
brought for all sorts of reason. Like her, I pay tribute to the
ladies involved in bringing this case, but I point out gently to
her that the Court of Appeal accepted our interpretation of the
UC regulations. Nevertheless, we accept and note that some people
may face budgeting difficulties. That is why I have committed to
take this action.
(Harlow) (Con) [V]
Will my hon. Friend congratulate and thank the staff at Harlow
jobcentre on all the work they have been doing on jobs and
universal credit at this difficult time? I have had communication
with a single parent in my constituency who says that if she puts
her child into childcare, she may end up earning more, but then
universal credit will cut £400, so it is better to be with her
child. In essence, she is saying that she is worse off if she
goes to work under universal credit. Will my hon. Friend look
again at helping single parents, to ensure that it is better for
them financially to work than stay at home?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He is a firm
champion of universal credit and the benefits of it, and I
certainly join him in paying tribute to all the staff at Harlow
jobcentre who have done incredible work during this most
difficult and unprecedented time. He raises an important point
about childcare. One of the fundamental principles of universal
credit is that work should always pay. That is why, under
universal credit, childcare is at a higher rate of 85% as opposed
to 70%. I will look at the case that he raises in detail and meet
him at our earliest possible convenience.
(Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
(SNP) [V]
While I welcome the Government’s decision not to draw this matter
out further, it seems that it is always someone else’s fault.
This week in the Court of Appeal, the Department could not offer
a single reason for its flawed and, in the words of Lady Justice
Rose, “irrational” approach to universal credit’s monthly
assessment period. This is not the first time that this
Government have been found wanting, only to be dragged through
the courts to do the right thing. If they will not tell the
courts, the Minister must advise the House: what exactly was
their alleged defence this time?
I gently suggest—[Interruption.]—as my right hon. Friend the
Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) says from a sedentary
position, that the hon. Gentleman reads the judgment, because the
Court of Appeal accepted our interpretation of the universal
credit regulations. Nevertheless, we accept that there may be
people who face budgeting pressures, and that is why we are
committing to take this action.
(Oldham East and
Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
Women and disabled people have had to resort to law to get the
Government to listen to the unfairness and the hardship that
universal credit creates. Danielle, a dinner lady, was losing
about £500 a year as a result of being paid on the last day of
the month. She has ended up in debt and behind with her rent, and
she does not know how she will recover. If the computer system is
as agile as it is meant to be, why has this, and so many other
issues, occurred? Why is there a difference in the 1,000 people
that the Government say have been affected, as opposed to the
85,000 people whom the court has identified?
I will certainly look at the individual case that the hon. Lady
raises, but I would gently say that it is such a shame that the
Labour party—and she is no exception to this—is constantly so
negative about universal credit. It is a modern, flexible,
personalised benefit, which reflects the rapidly changing world
of work. Let us remind ourselves of Labour’s position, which is
to scrap universal credit with no plan whatever with which to
replace it. That seems pretty foolish to me, but do not take my
word for it; the Institute for Fiscal Studies has slammed
Labour’s pledge as uncosted and
“unwise…expensive, disruptive and unnecessary.”
I could not have put that better myself.
(Rother Valley)
(Con)
More than 1 million people have claimed universal credit since
the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic and have been able to
access an advance first payment, giving them access to support in
just a few days. Does my hon. Friend agree that this has been
vital for dealing with hardship during this difficult period in
my constituency of Rother Valley and across the whole of
Yorkshire?
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right. We have
had more than 3 million claims to universal credit since the
middle of March and more than 1 million applications for
advances, getting support to people who need it quickly, often
within just a couple of days. That support is important, but I
would stress that, for the cohort coming on to universal credit
at the moment, the take-up of advances is lower, which often
reflects personal circumstances. Therefore, taking an advance is
not for everybody. It is interest-free and repayable over 12
months—as of next year, that goes up to 24 months. We are making
the changes, but I agree with him that we are supporting people
who need it the most in a timely manner.
(Hackney South and Shoreditch)
(Lab/Co-op)
Understandably, the Minister wants to talk a lot about the people
who have had to claim universal credit in recent months. I, too,
pay tribute to the staff at Hackney jobcentre, who have worked
very hard to make sure that people in need get it, but there is
nothing wrong with being critical of this big failure by the
Department. He said that 1,000 people have complained about
mistreatment, but the court identifies 85,000 people who could be
affected. Can he assure us that work is going on to identify
them—perhaps through an algorithm with a human element added if
something unusual is thrown up—so that people are treated fairly
and do not have to complain, and the Department acknowledges its
mistake and seeks them out?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and join her in paying
tribute to the staff at Hackney jobcentre who have done an
incredible job under the most difficult of circumstances. We
will, of course, be doing a deep-dive exercise into the cohort
that is affected. I do not recognise the 85,000 figure. If I am
honest, I think that that may be a figure that came from the
Opposition, but I will look at that in detail. I gently point out
to her that we now spend more than £100 billion a year on
benefits for working-age people—that is more than £100,000
million pounds. We will continue to reform our welfare system to
ensure that work always pays, and universal credit is at the
heart of that.
Mr Speaker
Ground control to first officer .
(Harrow East) (Con) [V]
If you knew the broadband experience in north London, Mr Speaker,
you would know why I need to wear this headset.
One advantage of the universal credit system is that it takes
input from claimants that would otherwise have to be re-input
several times, resulting in the correct level of benefit, but one
problem is that it does not deal with the exceptions. Could my
hon. Friend consider a system whereby, when people suddenly see
huge increases in their pay and therefore a reduction in
benefits, an alert is triggered to allow someone to look at what
is going on and correct the position?
I thank my hon. Friend. That is a helpful suggestion and
certainly one that I will be exploring. He is right to extol the
virtues of real-time earnings information. Among many other
reasons, it is what makes universal credit much superior to the
legacy benefits system, because we are able to ensure that as
people’s income fluctuates their support can fluctuate too. His
suggestion is a good one, and it is one that I will be looking at
along with a suite of numerous other measures no doubt. I would
be very happy to meet him to discuss it in further detail.
(Arfon) (PC) [V]
I am glad of the court’s sensible judgment and the Minister’s
response, but this case highlights the flaws in UC, the need to
adapt it to particular circumstances and the difficulties in
doing so. With one third of Welsh households to receive UC by
2023, will he take this opportunity to respond to the Senedd’s
Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee’s
recommendations and look to devolve aspects of social security
administration to Wales?
That is probably a letter that has gone to the Secretary of
State, as opposed to me, and is well above my pay grade. I gently
suggest to the hon. Gentleman that UC is good news for the whole
UK, including, of course, Wales. I remind him that, once fully
rolled out, it will be £2 billion more generous a year than the
legacy benefits system it replaces. About 1 million disabled
households will be £100 per calendar month better off, and
claimants will have access to about £2.4 billion in benefits that
previously went unclaimed under the confusing and clunky Labour
legacy benefits system.
(Birmingham, Selly Oak)
(Lab)
The Minister is right to say that this judgment did not rely on
an interpretation of regulation 54, as did the earlier one, but
will his solution necessitate an interpretation based on the real
income that people earn, as opposed to the false one that the
Department has been assuming because of the technical judgment it
has made about the assessment period and earned income?
The assessment period is fundamental to the design.
[Interruption.] It is not fundamentally flawed. A small number of
people do have fluctuations, which is why we are looking to take
action in this area. We recognise that there is an issue, but it
is important that it is kept in the context of 5.2 million UC
claimants. I would hazard a guess, because this is certainly the
case for my inbox, that despite there being more than 3.2 million
new UC claimants, Members’ postbags are not full of complaints
about UC. That is because the system is working very well.
(Glasgow South West) (SNP)
[V]
The Department’s assessment period has resulted in one of my
constituents earning £846 a month with a double calculation. As a
consequence, they have now received a council bill that has
increased from £36 a month to more than £200 a month. Will the
Minister also have discussions with local government to ensure
that claimants do not have bills that they simply cannot afford
due to the Department’s errors?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and I am happy to
look at that case in detail. He is right to raise the point about
passported benefits, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss
it in further detail.
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central)
(Lab)
Newcastle was a pathfinder for UC, but the Minister seems to have
learnt nothing from the experiences of my constituents. Having
dealt with their experiences over years on these issues, I know
not only the financial impact, which is devastating enough, but
the impact on claimants’ trust in government, in our welfare
system and in technology itself. I find his lack of contrition
astounding. Will he not apologise and learn the lessons of this
mistake?
UC is working and it is working well. The point I make to the
hon. Lady is that we constantly and consistently listen to
Members from across the House, stakeholders and members of the
public who raise issues associated with UC. It is a new system
and we have made significant changes. We have pumped additional
billions of pounds into this system to improve it. Instead of
scaremongering on UC, which the Opposition continue to do and
which is the biggest thing that damages public trust in our
system, I suggest they work with this Government to improve a
system that is already working well, in order to make it even
better.
