The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karen Buck on 2015-10-27.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many and what proportion of households in receipt of tax credits in each of the last five tax years for which data are available did not make a claim in the following tax year.
Damian Hinds
The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karen Buck on 2016-02-01.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many households will be exempted from the household benefit cap in 2015-16 due to the claimant being in receipt of carer’s allowance (a) in total and (b) in each English local authority.
Justin Tomlinson
In 2015-16 no households will be exempt from the benefit cap due to a claimant being in receipt of Carer’s Allowance. The exemption from the benefit cap for those in receipt of Carer’s Allowance will be introduced later this year, subject to Parliamentary approval.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karen Buck on 2016-03-01.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many applications for judicial review have been (a) made and (b) successful in each social services authority in England in each of the last five years.
Caroline Dinenage
HMCTS does not collect data to the level of detail required to identify local authorities or social service authorities, or applications in respect of the Children Act 2004. The information can only be collated at disproportionate cost.
The speech made by Karen Buck, the Labour MP for Westminster North, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 13 December 2022.
It is a pleasure to respond for the Opposition to this short and important debate under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on introducing the debate and making a powerful speech. We have heard powerful contributions, and many who spoke drew on their own experiences of cases as well as cases brought to them by advice agencies in their constituencies.
Before the debate, I asked my local citizens advice bureau about the changes it had experienced in terms of clients with concerns about sanctions. It told me that there has been an increase in calls for help, including appeals from clients who were bedbound when the sanction was imposed because they had covid and were quarantining. I was told about someone who was sanctioned for attending a funeral and about a young woman who was forced to leave her home because she became pregnant outside marriage and feared for her safety. She was sanctioned for not wishing to return to a jobcentre near her family home in order to attend an appointment.
What has come through all of the speeches is the strong theme—it is a theme that has come up time and again whenever we have debated social security issues over recent months and years—of the impact on mental health. So many of the clients who come to us asking for help with sanctions and other aspects of social security problems are highly vulnerable and sometimes chaotic in their vulnerability, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) stated. Sometimes they have significant mental health concerns that should have been a red flag.
As we have heard, this debate is well timed because over the last few months it has become increasingly clear that the DWP’s approach to sanctions has changed in ways that Ministers have so far been unwilling to explain or justify. The evidence lies in the sheer volume of sanctions that the Department has been handing out. Let us not be distracted by the suspension of most forms of conditionality during the pandemic. That was, of course, the right thing to do, and obviously that meant there was bound to be some degree of a resurgence in sanctions once things opened up again. But that does not explain—and this point has been made several times this afternoon—why sanction levels and rates are so much higher now than they were before the pandemic.
Several Members have referred to the work of Dr David Webster, whose regular briefings on sanctions for the Child Poverty Action Group have served to bring the issue to the fore. He finds that the number of sanctions handed out per month in May to July of this year was on average 45,000, equivalent to 2.5% of people on universal credit subject to conditionality, compared with 1.4% in the three months before the pandemic. That increase in the number of adverse sanction decisions is reflected in the cumulative number of people on universal credit serving a sanction at any point in time. Dr Webster writes:
“The number of universal credit claimants who were serving a sanction in August was 115,274…more than three times the pre-pandemic peak of 36,771 in October 2019.”
Of course, there were more people on universal credit in August 2022 than in October 2019, but as Dr Webster shows, the percentage of universal credit claimants subject to conditionality serving a sanction was 6.4% in August, more than double the pre-pandemic peak of 3.1% in October 2019. And for unemployed people—those in the searching for work group—Dr Webster estimates that nearly 8% were under sanction in August 2022. My first question to the Minister is: how have we arrived at a situation where one in 13 unemployed universal credit claimants are currently under sanction?
We should be under no illusion that sanctions are just a slap on the wrist for claimants. Typically, sanctions involve the withdrawal of 100% of the universal credit standard allowance, and even the reduced rate for the lowest level of sanction is 40% of the standard allowance. And except for the lowest level sanctions, the penalties continue after the person sanctioned has complied with the rules—for seven days rising to 28 days for low level sanctions, while higher level sanctions apply for 28 days and 91 days rising to 182 days, depending on whether there have been previous failures to comply in the same year.
An increase in the sanction rate is not just a technical matter. People on universal credit do not have a margin of income that they can fall back on to weather an interruption to benefit payments—all the less as the four-year benefit freeze has permanently eroded the real-term value of benefits.
There is an urgent need to understand what lies behind the increase. Has there been a revolution in people’s behaviour or attitudes since 2019? If so, what is the evidence for that? Has the level of non-compliance with conditionality really doubled since the pandemic? Have there been operational changes leading to more sanctions being issued without any change in the level of compliance? Has there been a change in the Department’s policy on sanctions? Or is the increase an unintended consequence of other factors? in other words, is the sanctions regime out of control?
The purpose of sanctions has been well described by Professor Paul Gregg as a backstop to the system of benefit conditionality. The point is that while sanctions set at a reasonable level serve an important function, they are not an end in themselves. A sudden increase in the number of sanctions such as we have seen should be seen by any responsible Government as a cause for concern rather than for self-congratulation. It raises the fear that the sanctions tail is wagging the conditionality dog, that the Government are more concerned with signalling toughness than with improving employment outcomes, and that the purpose of conditionality has been twisted towards catching people out rather than maintaining contact with the labour market. Or, no less worryingly, it raises the fear that the number of sanctions has shot up because the Government have lost control of the sanctions regime and no longer know what they are doing.
The fact that the Government have suppressed their own research into the effectiveness of the universal credit sanctions regime is hardly reassuring. In 2018, in response to a Work and Pensions Committee report, the Department agreed to
“evaluate the effectiveness of reforms to welfare conditionality and sanctions,”
and said that this would focus
“on whether the sanctions regime within Universal Credit (UC) is effective at supporting claimants to search for work.”
It said that it would publish the results in spring 2019, but we know what happened. The research was undertaken, but earlier this year the last Secretary of State but one—the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)— reneged on the commitment to publish the results. That is the behaviour of a Government who are uninterested in learning lessons, and evasive of public scrutiny.
Chris Stephens
I thank the shadow Minister for making that important point. The same applies to the drivers of food bank use, which include sanctions.
Ms Buck
Sanctions are indeed an important driver of the increase in food banks, which is another symptom of widespread structural failure in the system.
It would be refreshing if the new Secretary of State took a different view of the matter. A doubling in the rate of sanctions in the context of a cost of living crisis and permanent reductions in the value of benefits is a serious matter. I hope that the Minister can give a suitably serious response.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karen Buck on 2015-10-27.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will request from Maximus a report on (a) the number of employment support allowance claimants in the City of Westminster who have been sent a letter mandating them to attend a Work Programme interview that includes incorrect email contact details and (b) the steps taken since that error was identified to ensure that it is remedied.
Priti Patel
Of the overall total number of Initial Appointment letters sent out during the period 16/10/2013 – 19/08/2015 there are 169 customers with a Westminster postcode that could have had these letters sent to them with the incorrect Maximus e-mail address.
Maximus have confirmed that the letter in question was originally created on 16/10/2013 for customers referred from City of Westminster. Customers affected will be those referred to Work Programme who have a Westminster postcode only.
Maximus became aware of this letter containing an error via a customer complaint on 18/08/2015 and had resolved the issue by 19/08/2015 there is therefore no need to publish a report. Maximus has also set up an email address so that any customer responses sent to the incorrect address will be forwarded to the correct email address from 19/08/2015. Maximus are confident that they have remedied this unfortunate mistake.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karen Buck on 2015-10-27.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many employment support allowance claimants in the City of Westminster have been referred to Maximus and the Work Programme since that company took over that contract.
Priti Patel
The information requested (up to June 2015) is published and available at:
http://tabulation-tool.dwp.gov.uk/WorkProg/tabtool.html
Guidance for users can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dwp-tabulation-tool-guidance
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karen Buck on 2015-10-27.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which local authorities are covered by the Maximus Camden Team which is leading on the Work Programme for employment support allowance claimants in the work-related activity group.
Priti Patel
Only claimants in Camden local authority are covered by the Maximus team located in Camden.
The speech made by Karen Buck, the Labour MP for Westminster North, in the House of Commons on 3 November 2022.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) on securing this debate, but I must be honest: I find it disappointing that we are having a general debate on the private rented sector yet again, three years after we were promised legislation. The time is overdue for us to get beyond discussing policy in the round and on to discussing the substance of legislation and amending it.
Having said that, we have had some really strong speeches. I was struck by the speeches of Conservative Back Benchers, who sounded—well—like us, really. I am pleased that it seems to be appreciated that there are limits to deregulation and we have hit the bumpers in that regard—particularly in respect of short-term lets, which have had a devastating effect on lettings in a number of towns and coastal communities and, of course, in inner London, notably my own constituency, which has the largest private rented sector in the country.
In the years during which we have been waiting for the Government to enact the promised legislation, we have been plunged into a deepening affordability crisis for renters, who are facing an increasing squeeze on their incomes. London rents are now averaging £2,000 a month, and since last year have increased by 20% in inner London and just over 15% in London as a whole. Nationally, one in five renters have faced an increase of £100 a month. As 45% of renters have no savings at all, the fact that they have managed to survive for this long is a miracle. However, as we go into the winter with a cost of living crisis, there is a real risk that a catastrophic number of people will be tipped into homelessness, and certainly into poverty. Even more than any other tenure group, these people will face a choice between keeping a roof over the heads, eating and heating.
It needs to be said that there is an inequalities dimension to this. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown was right to say that there are three different rental markets. We are most concerned with the average renters, people who would otherwise be buying but are deferring buying because of the cost of rents, but we must also consider the third or so who constitute the poorer renters. Of those, a disproportionate number are women-led households and black and minority ethnic communities. It is members of black and minority ethnic communities who are least likely to have mortgages, and who are therefore most likely—especially given the squeeze on social housing—to find themselves trapped in the poorest-quality private rented accommodation and the most expensive in proportion to income, with all the consequences that will have for those communities. It is important for the Government to understand the inequalities dimension, and to frame the legislation accordingly.
The Evening Standard, which has rightly had a continuing focus on the private rented market, recently ran a piece headed “London’s renting crisis: brutal choices, heartbreak and escalating costs faced by renters at breaking point”. That is absolutely accurate. The competition for rental properties is unprecedented. We hear stories of auctions with people having to bid against each other, and of deposits and other up-front costs. Every time someone has to move, not only do they have to deal with a deposit, but the moving costs are piled on top of that. It is no wonder that younger renters cannot afford to buy, and are locked out of the housing market that most wish to join, as a result of that combination of rents and recurring one-off costs which eat into their incomes.
Today’s interest rate rises will feed into mortgages, which is entirely due to the Government’s mishandling of the economy, and which means that people will be trapped even deeper and for even longer. Those at the lower end of the market who, in any normal and healthy system, would have been enjoying the security and the fair rents of social housing appropriate to their circumstances and their income are locked out as well, because the number of lettings in social housing has plummeted by more than 100,000 in the last 10 years alone.
Why is that? It is because over the past 12 years the Government have deliberately chosen not to build social housing. One of the first acts of the 2010 Government was to halve the housing investment grant, making it impossible for local authorities to build. But it is also because—this has not been understood by successive Ministers—there always used to be a flow out of social housing and into home ownership, and that has effectively stopped.
People end up trapped in the social housing that we do have. They are unable to move into the home ownership that they aspire to, and that they would have been able to afford a decade or 15 years ago. They are keeping those social housing properties and tenures for longer, so there is not a flow into them from other households, and that of course bleeds into increasing homelessness.
We have an affordability crisis and a security crisis—a section 21 notice is issued every seven minutes. We also have a standards crisis and a decent housing crisis, particularly at the bottom end of the market. Close to 1 million households are in substandard accommodation. The private rented sector is the tenure with the worst standards; more than 500,000 premises have category 1 hazards, which represent serious threats to health or life. We have a growing crisis for older renters, who are trapped in the private rented sector. They never expected to be without the means to improve their accommodation.
Hon. Members have cited case studies, and I too want to read one into the record. This is the kind of story that we hear in our surgeries about people in inappropriate and substandard accommodation:
“I have a special needs boy. He has hypoxia, ischaemic brain injury, epilepsy, global development delay, hepatitis… my flat in the last two months was flooded with rainfall bcz the roof has a big leak. We sleep on the floor, so mattress, furniture, clothes get wet… Recently the ceiling light exploded, so now there’s no power in the property. Our flat is only electric supply, no gas. So now there’s no food, no heater, nothing I can do. We are struggling financially bcz my child needs 24-hour support and he has lots of appointments so that’s why”
my constituent
“can’t go to work… So it’s difficult to survive like this…no one will understand my pain.”
I am afraid that that is not uncommon. This kind of case comes before us time and again. People with no power, and no purchasing power in the private rented sector, get stuck in properties, and landlords—I do not call them rogue, because there are far too many of them for us to regard them as exceptions—will exploit that for their own purposes.
We need the promised legislation, but we need more than that. I want to flag up two other issues that need to be seriously addressed. We have heard reference to enforcement; it should not be an empty word. Enforcement requires resources. If the Government do not resource a policy change, and do not give local authorities the resources to take enforcement action against bad landlords in cases of substandard accommodation, that will be exploited. When a landlord is seeking an eviction under section 8 rather than section 21, it is even more important that the tenants have power, or somebody who is on their side and can support and assist them.
Local authorities prosecute in only 1% of cases in which poor-quality accommodation is brought to their attention. Why is that? Sometimes it is because local authorities do not focus on the issue, but it is also a question of resources; councils in London in particular have lost 20% of their resources in the last 10 years. The Government must address the issue of capacity to deal with environmental health matters, and capacity in legal aid on housing, because once again we see evidence of advice deserts, and of people being unable to access housing lawyers.
I want to raise one more issue, which I do not think the Government have addressed. In a post-section 21 environment, if we get there, there will be even more risk of illegal evictions. I come across illegal evictions in my casework; people ring my office to tell me that a landlord is inside their property illegally, and is driving them out. Unfortunately, we have very little data on this, because the Government do not collect data on the extent of illegal evictions. The Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London are doing very good work teaching the police how to handle illegal evictions, and teaching them not to step back and regard an illegal eviction as a civil matter between two parties. However, that work is not done nationally, and a great deal more needs to be done about that.
There is a lot that we can do. If we ever get the legislation, we would look to amend it to improve protection of tenants from illegal eviction; I hope that the Government can address that.
Renters deserve security, affordability and decency. At the moment, far too many do not have any of these things. They all have to be addressed together and in a wider context that includes advice, representation and enforcement. Above all, they all have to be addressed now.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karen Buck on 2014-04-07.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how much each local authority in England reported as its (a) budgeted and (b) outturn expenditure on all youth work and provision of activities for young people in each year since 2010.
Mr Nick Hurd
The information requested is collected by Department for Education and published on gov.uk. I have asked that this information for each year since 2010 is placed in the Library of the House as soon as is practicable.
Figures for actual spend by local authority in 2013-14 will be available in December 2014.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Karen Buck on 2014-04-07.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will rank each English local authority by the (a) percentage and (b) actual change in (i) total and (ii) per capita expenditure on all provisions for young people since 2010.
Mr Nick Hurd
The information requested is collected by Department for Education and published on gov.uk. I have asked that this information for each year since 2010 is placed in the Library of the House as soon as is practicable.
Figures for actual spend by local authority in 2013-14 will be available in December 2014.