Universal Credit: Delayed Roll-Out

Explained that due to unexpected stability in claimants' lives, the full roll-out of universal credit has been delayed until December 2024. Emphasised that natural migration is happening less frequently than expected and estimated 900,000 fewer households would naturally migrate by December 2023 compared to previous forecasts.

Pressed the Minister on why a written ministerial statement was not made prior to the announcement, questioned the decision-making process of the Secretary of State, and highlighted the potential cost implications (£500 million). Also asked whether the delay would mean more people will be part of natural rather than managed migration.

Welcomed the Minister's clarification on reforecasting and reiterated that universal credit simplifies the system, helps people get into work faster, and supports their transition thereafter.

Critiqued the Government for delaying universal credit yet again due to lack of confidence in the system. Questioned why claimants are scared of moving onto it and highlighted issues such as the five-week wait, two-child limit, sanctions regime, and difficulty in making claims online.

Asked whether constituents would be better off because of the way migration works. The Minister confirmed that around 900,000 people will now be eligible for transitional protection and as a result they will be better off.

Congratulated Neil Grey on securing the urgent question. Stated claimants are extremely reluctant to move onto universal credit due to its reputation, particularly because of the five-week wait for help and their increased likelihood of needing food banks compared to those on legacy benefits.

Defended the improvements brought by universal credit despite issues. Emphasised that it helps people get into work and makes work pay, and should not be embarrassed about it.

Eagle criticises universal credit for causing a tenfold increase in food bank usage and significant hardship, arguing that the Government's roll-out has been incompetent.

Tomlinson questions why Opposition Members oppose universal credit which helps people into work. He notes that jobcentre staff are positive about it, aiding in getting people to work and progressing.

Williams queries the lack of data on the impacts of the two-child limit policy since its introduction in 2017, suggesting that proper statistics should be gathered at local authority and parliamentary constituency levels.

Maclean supports universal credit for its positive impacts on work coaches and their clients. She criticises the Opposition's constant scaremongering over the system, suggesting that they are not on the side of people.

Thewliss raises an instance of incompetence in the universal credit system leading to hardship for her constituent. She questions why the Minister has not apologised for such mistakes.

Cartlidge confirms that today’s announcement does not change the fundamental course of policy, moving from a system that incentivises minimising work hours to one that encourages maximisation, thus helping people move away from long-term benefit dependency.

Fovargue cites evidence showing the five-week wait causing further debt problems. She urges reconsideration of this policy urgently to mitigate these issues.

Drax notes some hiccups with universal credit payments, particularly when employers tend to pay early, and asks if the issue is being resolved.

Abrahams raises issues about disabled people losing an average of £3,000 a year under universal credit. She calls for examination of increased support for this group.

Jones highlights positive feedback on the system from claimants, employers, and jobcentre staff in his constituency. He encourages a focus on making work pay.

Daby points out an increase of two thirds in food bank usage due to policies such as universal credit, questioning if the Government will accept this impact.

My hon. Friend recognises that the opening of food banks in his constituency in 2009 was a response to deep-seated problems during Labour welfare spending. He agrees that feedback from local authorities indicates universal credit is more supportive than the previous system.

Acknowledges it is a better system, stating employment rates have increased by over 3.8 million since 2010 with an employment rate of 76.3%, which is at its highest record. He assures that legacy systems will be maintained and any changes in forecasts will lead to policy adjustments.

Asks for assurances on maintaining the legacy system given recent delays, suggesting it may have to last seven and a half years longer than originally planned.

Supports universal credit over forecasts changing; highlights that claimants notice minimal differences except for an additional 900,000 becoming eligible for transitional protection. She criticises Labour's pledge to scrap the system as uncosted and unwise.

Points out delays from the Minister; questions the five-week wait period in universal credit payments and suggests scrapping it entirely, advocating that the first payment should not be an advance but a full payment.

Commissions Government for delaying roll-out and changes made over four years, yet urges consideration of removing the five-week wait as it causes serious challenges for constituents.

Requests to see improvements in delays experienced by applicants; seeks commitment from Minister to publish performance statistics on delays.

Questions the Minister about extending help-to-claim service through Citizens Advice for the duration of roll-out.

Raises concerns over pace and ambitious nature of policy since its beginning, requesting support to local authorities who are having to backfill mistakes by his Department.

Agrees with the Minister on the positive aspects of universal credit incentivising people to find a job compared to previous benefits system.

Critiques that since its introduction, universal credit has led to debt, poverty, hunger and homelessness in his constituency. He questions how it prioritises the claimant's needs.

Suggests that some fear around universal credit is due to opposition parties' irresponsible scaremongering which doesn't reflect jobcentre conditions.

Asks if the Minister would consider an automatic right for those wrongly transferred to Universal Credit to have their legacy benefits restored.

Encourages the Minister to make a case for improving universal credit further, suggesting it may require additional resources from the Treasury.

The Barnsley food bank gave out over 4,000 food parcels to people in crisis in a year. The Minister appears to be in complete denial. Why will the Government not accept that the increase in food bank use has a direct link to policies such as universal credit, and that it is about time it was scrapped?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I could not disagree more, but I do agree with her that I do not want to see anybody feeling that they have no choice but to visit a food bank. I want to better understand this issue, which is why I visit food banks and meet food bank organisations and other organisations that help to tackle food insecurity. I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this further. There is a huge amount of ongoing work.

I very much welcome the approach that the Minister and his predecessors have taken on this issue, keeping universal credit under review and making changes where appropriate, but can he assure me that some things about universal credit will not change—that it will always be a system that is fair to claimants and the taxpayer, and that being in work will always pay?

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Under universal credit, it will always pay to work and it will always pay to do more hours. That is the principle that we stand by, and we will stick by it.

My constituency was the guinea pig for universal credit, and we had no protection over our transition. By 2024, Inverness will have endured 10 years of chaos, delays and hardship. What will the Minister do to compensate those claimants who have already been through this mill, and will he do something about repaying the £3 million in additional administration costs that Highland Council has incurred in order to operate universal credit?

First, I do not recognise the statistics and figures that the hon. Gentleman raises. I feel that he has a permanent prejudice against universal credit in principle. If he would like to write to me with any statistics or figures that support his claims, I would be happy to look at them.

The Minister accuses charities of scaremongering, but are not people right to fear the debt, poverty, food bank reliance, homelessness and even survival sex work that universal credit and the five-week wait have been evidenced to create—even seen by the Work and Pensions Committee?

I have worked very closely with the hon. Gentleman on issues such as homelessness. He knows that I share his passion to ensure that our welfare system works, and supports the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society. However, it is important to point out that we spend £95 billion a year on benefits for working-age people, so we will continue to reform our welfare system so that it encourages work while supporting those who need help—an approach that is based on the clear evidence that work offers families the best opportunity to get out of poverty.

On Friday I visited Coventry food bank, where demand has shot up in the past few years. I asked the staff why. Their answer was immediate and unequivocal—universal credit. Will the Government finally accept that many more people than ever before, many of whom are in employment, are using food banks as a direct result of universal credit, the five-week wait and the two-child limit?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question but do not accept the anecdotal points that she makes. Governments and Ministers make and take decisions based on evidence. I am building the evidence base within the Department based on the family resource survey and the questions in it in relation to food insecurity, and working with food bank providers—the Trussell Trust being one, but there are around 800 independent food bank providers—to better understand the issues and how we can tackle food insecurity in the round and for good.

This Government need to take a long, hard look at themselves and the pressures they are placing on hard-working, low-income families and individuals. I do not trust the Minister’s pledges. For a hard-working, loving parent, it is absolutely, gut-wrenchingly worrying—which is no doubt beyond the comprehension of many of the privileged folk of this place—to find out that the moneys they are depending on, and entitled to, will not be coming. I ask the Minister to scrap the five-week wait and stop plunging hard-working families and individuals into further debt by making it necessary for them to avail themselves of a loan from the DWP.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I would suggest very strongly that he should visit his local jobcentre, because he would have a better understanding.

Will the Minister reconsider the ill-advised and, frankly, insulting use of the word “scaremongering”? It is not scaremongering when food banks talk about a massive increase in demand, and when local authorities report huge increases in rent arrears; nor is it scaremongering for local authorities to report having to spend a lot of their scarce resources to make up for the shortfalls of universal credit. If the Minister wants to insult me by accusing me of scaremongering, that is fair enough; when he insults me for raising the concerns of my constituents, he insults my constituents. Will he apologise for that, and will he reconsider the inflammatory language he has used?

I meet stakeholders in relation to the Department every single week, and I take the concerns and issues they raise very seriously because they are largely based on evidence. When I refer to scaremongering, I refer to the tone and language and rhetoric so often used by Opposition Members. The national living wage will rise to £8.72 in April, and to £10.50 by 2024. Our tax changes will make a basic rate taxpayer more than £1,200 better off. We have doubled the free childcare available to working parents.

I think the Minister is quite a fair-minded man, but does he agree that the best policies for our welfare state are evidence-based? That means not just visiting constituencies and looking at jobcentres, but looking at the health sector. Ask GPs; ask the people running our hospitals and healthcare. They will tell us, and him, the real impact on people’s health up and down the country as one of the side effects of this silly, misguided policy.

I meet all sorts of organisations up and down the country, and they often raise some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. Where there are issues with our system that I can make changes to quickly, I look at them, and if they do not have a huge fiscal impact, I will make them. Otherwise, we have to look to fiscal events.

The National Audit Office has said there is no evidence that universal credit gets people into work, and that there is no way of measuring it from the Government’s perspective. The roll-out of universal credit in my constituency has caused council housing rent arrears to double, so that is putting a burden on local rent payers. In November 2018, income assessment period deductions for people getting two pay packets were found to be illegal. The Minister says he has lots of ideas to improve universal credit; can he give us an idea to improve at least one of those aspects?

Let us look at some facts: the number of people in work has increased by more than 3.8 million since 2010; the employment rate is 76.3%, which is a record high; the unemployment rate is 3.8%, having gone down by more than half since 2010; and 80% of the growth in employment since 2010 has been in full-time work.

Perhaps if the Tory MPs had my case load, they would recognise the misery and poverty that their policies cause. This week, another constituent contacted me because she had been denied the vital UC cash she needs, as she is paid four-weekly and this last month she received two payments from her employers. When will this anomaly be sorted out and people not be left unable to pay their bills?

I believe I answered this question a little earlier today. I am looking at the issue, and I will invite the hon. Gentleman, along with other colleagues who have an interest in this area, to the Department to raise it with officials. We are looking at solutions.

I see the delay as a wise step by government to reassess, and I congratulate the Minister on not enforcing a transfer to UC on people, who know it will see them in a five-week freeze. Will he use this delay to introduce a smoother, more workable transition period, to prevent people from getting into debt?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. The important point here is that when we talk about the £500 million cost, we are talking about £500 million that will go into the pockets of claimants up and down the country, including some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our country.

Although I would visit jobcentres in my constituency on a more regular basis, it does not help when the Department shuts them, as it did the one in the Vale of Leven. Given a substantial increase in the uptake of support through the two food banks, Food for Thought and West Dunbartonshire Community Foodshare, although we may disagree on the implementation, I hope the Minister takes the opportunity to agree with me that with this extension and additional moneys going into the process there is an opportunity to reflect on what has gone on before, especially for those Members, such as myself, whose constituents do not feel as though they have been treated properly.

We have more than 630 jobcentres up and down our country, so there will be a jobcentre within reach of the hon. Gentleman. He raises a number of points. We are always looking at how we can improve UC, and if he has ideas, he can either write to me or come to see me, because I am very approachable—we could even share a deep fried Mars bar together.

No one should agree an embargo with the BBC and expect it to be kept, should they?