Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Reynolds argues against the cut to universal credit, noting its impact on local economies, work incentives, and future national resilience. He points out that 4,000 households in his constituency will be affected by this cut.

Eagle supports Reynolds' argument, citing the substantial local economic impact of cutting universal credit in her constituency where £10.5 million would be lost from spending capacity.

Cartlidge questions the cost implications of Reynolds' proposal, asking which tax he would raise to cover the estimated £6 billion cost.

Shannon agrees with Reynolds and emphasises the detrimental effect on child poverty in Northern Ireland, expressing concern about plunging families into food poverty and harming health.

Swayne argues for raising employment sights to better-paid jobs rather than maintaining current benefits levels.

Asked whether it is better for people to receive £20 through the benefits system or by working longer hours and making progress in their careers.

Responded that many of her constituents are already working long hours as key workers and argued against reducing universal credit benefits.

Provided statistics indicating 37% of children in their constituency live in poverty, reliant on universal credit for basic needs.

Asked whether the shadow Secretary of State believed that food and fuel prices had fallen since the pandemic, challenging the Government's rationale for benefit cuts.

Expressed concern over the long-term impact on children living in poverty due to benefit reductions, citing a report by the Nuffield Foundation.

Cited statistics from the Resolution Foundation showing that 40% of those on universal credit were food-insecure before the £20 uplift, arguing against cutting benefits now.

The hon. Member argued against the reduction in universal credit uplift, stating it would lower support for unemployed families to the lowest level as a proportion of average earnings since the establishment of the welfare state.

Mr Brown expressed concern about constituents struggling with food and unable to afford basic needs due to the removal of the universal credit uplift, questioning how this can be justified especially for those experiencing it for the first time.

Mr Williams questioned the justification for removing £5 million from his local economy in Arfon despite the Government's support to small businesses during the pandemic.

The hon. Member raised concerns about unemployment potentially spiking following the end of the furlough scheme, questioning why the uplift to universal credit is being removed now when more help is needed.

The hon. Member stated that spending £6 billion on a non-targeted universal credit uplift was never intended to be long-term, and questioned the Secretary of State about considering changes in the taper rate and childcare costs.

The hon. Member supported his right hon. Friend's speech on the resilience of universal credit during the pandemic, arguing that reducing local economy support is counter to Keynesian economics as individuals getting more hours and better-paid work would inject money into their economies sustainably.

The hon. Member praised the universal credit system for its effectiveness during the pandemic, noting it worked despite Opposition's criticisms in previous debates.

Ms Gibson challenged the Minister’s statement that talking about real impacts of losing £20 per week is spreading scare stories, arguing it reflects reality for struggling individuals.

Emphasised the positive feedback from work coaches about the success of universal credit during a difficult period.

Highlighted that single parents and disabled individuals are negatively affected by cuts to universal credit, questioning the cumulative impact on these groups due to increased costs of living.

Asked about the justification for cutting support from those earning minimum wage and questioned the fairness of such a reduction in benefits.

Inquired whether the Secretary of State would reconsider the recent cuts to universal credit given the increase in inflation, affecting those on low incomes despite being employed full-time.

Acknowledged the positive impact of job coaches and the kickstart programme in supporting young people into employment.

Asked why previous Secretaries of State have spoken out against recent cuts to universal credit, despite the current Secretary's endorsement.

Called for retaining investment in the standard allowance of universal credit as it better protects families from poverty compared to other spending approaches.

Asked about how work coaches are assisting disabled individuals back into employment through universal credit.

Discussed the rise in child poverty under the current Government compared to previous measures by Labour, criticising claims of increased funding as merely maintaining existing levels.

Compared current youth employment rates favourably against those inherited from a previous Labour administration and requested continued work on reducing youth unemployment.

Mr. Linden argues against cutting the universal credit uplift, stating its removal will plunge millions of families into poverty and increase child poverty rates. He highlights the impact this would have on working individuals who rely on the benefit to supplement their low incomes, noting that 1.9 million families with children will see cuts. He also draws attention to the stark inequality in rural Scotland and criticises the Tory Government for prioritising austerity over supporting vulnerable communities.

Argued that the level of Universal Credit in March 2020 was too low, believing the Government's decision to increase it by £20 a week was overdue. Emphasised the importance of work and education but also acknowledged the need for adequate welfare policy. Criticised the Government’s approach as insufficiently supportive of those in poverty.

Interjected to express concern over the proposed cut to Universal Credit and its impact on children living in food poverty in Northern Ireland, alongside the increase in national insurance contributions. Suggested that these changes would plunge more people into poverty.

Welcomed Crabb's support for maintaining the £20 a week uplift and argued against cutting it, stating that doing so would reduce real-term support to its lowest level since Margaret Thatcher’s era. Highlighted examples of families struggling due to rising prices and increased costs.

The jobs market is currently showing increasing wage growth and vacancies at a 20-year high, with nearly record low unemployment rates. The £400 billion plan for jobs has been successful in creating these conditions. Additionally, the youth hub and work coaches have been instrumental in aiding individuals to secure employment. She also highlighted the kickstart scheme which is helping young people into quality jobs, and emphasised the importance of the national living wage introduced by her party since 2010.

The Conservative government's approach to universal credit cuts is morally reprehensible and detrimental to families already working full-time but struggling. In his constituency, 4,731 children live in households receiving universal credit, and each family will lose £1,040 annually due to the decision made by the Chancellor and Prime Minister. These cuts are set to snatch away money that would have been spent locally, thus impacting local businesses' ability to employ staff or expand. The Welsh Labour Government's comprehensive support measures during the pandemic illustrate a modern understanding of economic policies.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of the levelling-up agenda, a flagship Conservative policy aimed at improving people’s lives through initiatives such as infrastructure development, better housing, improved health outcomes, and increased skills and education. The levelling-up agenda has seen personal allowances rise above inflation, council tax suppressed, minimum wage increases, and job creation over the past decade. However, last year's pandemic response included measures like the furlough scheme and a £20 per week increase in universal credit, which many families have come to rely on as they struggle with economic uncertainty. In Carlisle alone, this cut will take £9 million out of the local economy, affecting 8,870 people on UC. While I understand the fiscal challenges ahead, retaining the uplift would help improve many people’s lives.

The Government's plan to scrap the £20 universal credit uplift is causing significant worry and concern for millions of working people across the UK. This cut will disproportionately affect those in low-paid work, with 56% of working families in Halifax estimated to be impacted. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reports that 21% of all working age families will experience a yearly income cut over £1,000, with the north and midlands hardest hit. This reduction impacts financial resilience and local economies, as less money is spent locally. Furthermore, it exacerbates poverty rates among children; Child Poverty Action Group data shows nearly a third of UK children are growing up in relative poverty. Save the Children polling reveals 47% of UC claimants doubt they can manage on £20 less per week. My constituents unable to work due to ill health face further hardship without extra hours as an option, leaving them vulnerable.

Mr. Cartlidge argued that the Government's decision to cut the £20 uplift from universal credit and working tax credits, despite its impact on individuals, is fundamentally the right thing for the economy. He highlighted his personal experience of managing a small business and encountered the difficulties employees face with benefit systems due to 'cliff edges'. Emphasising economic opportunities, he stated that there are 1.2 million job vacancies and businesses are desperate for workers. Mr. Cartlidge also discussed the impact on public finances, arguing against Labour's proposal to borrow money to fund benefits permanently. He concluded by stating the focus should be on improving real wages and driving economic recovery.

Mr. Yasin expressed deep concern about the impending cut of £20 a week from universal credit and working tax credits, describing it as devastating for many constituents who will face financial crises and possibly homelessness. He highlighted that this decision hits young people and single parents hardest. The speaker provided examples of letters from distressed single mothers and individuals with disabilities. Mr. Yasin argued against the Chancellor's March 2020 uplifts which acknowledged insufficient welfare support, now being rolled back. He criticised the current government for failing to address rising food prices and mounting pressures on household finances, calling the decision illogical and short-sighted.

The introduction of universal credit during the pandemic has worked well but challenges remain. The £20 uplift should be retained as it helps prevent people from falling into poverty and despair, providing stability for those in work or between jobs to acquire skills for better-paid positions.

The £20 a week uplift is vital for many in Edinburgh East, such as Nicola and Megan, who rely on it for basic necessities. It must be reconsidered due to its impact on nearly 6 million families across the UK. Low-paid workers have been essential during the pandemic but are now facing cuts, which is unjust given their contributions.

Mr. Spencer acknowledged the positive impact of jobcentres on his constituents' lives, noted the fiscal strain from pandemic borrowing, and supported measures to help people return to work while expressing reservations about continuing the universal credit uplift due to its high cost.

Ms. Shah criticised the Government's decision to cut the universal credit uplift, arguing it would push hundreds of thousands of families into poverty and exacerbate existing issues like rising food and energy prices. She highlighted specific impacts on key workers and single mothers, calling for continued support rather than increased taxes.

Praised the Government for schemes such as furlough, self-employed income support, and the temporary £20 uplift during the pandemic. He acknowledged that many people want to retain the £20 uplift but emphasised that it would cost £6 billion without a clear source of funding, stressing that targeted help is necessary instead of universal support.

Critiqued the current benefits system as failing to address poverty effectively. Highlighted increasing destitution and inequality despite economic wealth, supporting the motion for preserving the £20 uplift on universal credit due to institutionalised cruelty in the system.

The Government are willing to give tax breaks to their rich pals in the City and blow billions on often failed covid contracts, at the same time condemning the young and lowest paid to a lifetime of hardship and debt. In my constituency almost 19,000 households receive universal credit or working tax credits, which is 35% of all households and over 50% of families with children. The cut will impact low-income workers in zero-hours contracts and lead to increased poverty levels among the lowest paid, as per TUC research. Emily, a constituent, faces losing £86 due to the proposed universal credit reduction despite her health circumstances. There is opposition from charities, third-sector organisations, campaign groups, and six former Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions against these plans.

The cut to universal credit translates to 11,500 households in Liverpool Wavertree, affecting more than 6,000 children. The Government’s decision is morally reprehensible and bad economics. In my constituency of Liverpool, the cut will remove £12 million from people's pockets. It represents a grotesque act of levelling down. There are no coherent strategies to make work pay on the back of this £20 cut; it is an act of war on low-paid workers and unemployed individuals.

The plans to withdraw the universal credit uplift are regarded as the biggest single welfare cut since World War Two. Anti-poverty campaigners and children’s charities have warned that this will devastate millions of families already facing financial hardship. In my constituency, nearly 6,000 people on universal credit will be affected; 38% of them are in employment. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says 6 million will face an income loss equivalent to £1,040 a year. One hundred organisations have co-signed a letter calling for the UK Government to maintain the £20 uplift and extend it to legacy benefits.

Low-paid workers face a triple whammy of rising prices, increased national insurance contributions, and a £1,000 cut in universal credit. The impact is dire for families who are already struggling to make ends meet. Constituents report not having enough money for basic necessities like food and rent.

The cut will mean people skipping meals, unable to feed their children, and increased reliance on food banks. Working more hours is not a viable solution for many, especially single parents who rely on part-time work. The cut affects families across the UK, but devolved nations such as Scotland are particularly impacted due to additional benefits provided there.

In my constituency, nearly 40% of those receiving universal credit are in work. The cut will leave families who were already living in poverty even worse off. Many claimants use the standard allowance to pay rent in high-rent areas like Hounslow, leaving little for food and utilities.

The cut will push 750,000 people into poverty and 500,000 further into deep poverty. In Wallasey alone, more than 10,000 households will lose £10.5 million in support. This is a political choice by the Government to withdraw crucial support for those struggling throughout this pandemic.

Mr. Khan argued against cutting Universal Credit by stressing its importance for hard-working families and its impact on children's well-being. He mentioned that the cut would affect six million families, potentially pushing 700,000 more people into poverty, including 300,000 children.

Mr. Benn reflected on the historical context of social welfare and highlighted the ongoing issues of poverty and inequality in Leeds. He emphasised that the £20 a week uplift is crucial for many households struggling to meet basic needs.

Ms. Long-Bailey questioned whether Tories understood the systemic issues causing poverty and highlighted that 40% of Universal Credit claimants in Salford are working but still need support. She also criticised the Government's stance on work as a solution to poverty.

Shares personal testimonies from constituents impacted by the cut, including a woman in her 60s and a single mother who escaped domestic violence. Describes the cut as the biggest overnight social security cut in history affecting more than 6 million families. Warns of an increase in extreme poverty among households due to the reduction.

Highlights that one-third of children in her constituency live in poverty, and more than 10,406 constituents will be negatively impacted by the cut. Criticises the government's vision for society as one where disabled people are punished through bedroom tax and local housing allowance is frozen.

Points out that the Government’s cut will cast over half a million people, including 200,000 children, into poverty. Asks if the government has considered whether the cut is a violation of international human rights obligations. Emphasises on community responses to food poverty before and after the universal credit cuts.

Recalls her motivation for entering politics due to public sector cuts and the impact of the bedroom tax. Describes this cut as one that will plunge 730,000 children into poverty along with other factors like inflation rise and national insurance rise. Urges government to cancel the cuts and introduce a real living wage.

Conservative Members do not understand the human cost of cutting universal credit. In Beth Winter's constituency, 43% of families with children receive universal credit or working tax credit. The cut will take approximately £286 million out of the Welsh economy and hinder economic recovery. Sara, a constituent, fears losing her dignity due to the reduction in benefits.

The cut will impact 5 million households, including 3.5 million children, reducing their income by £1,000 per year. In Luton, the local economy faces a loss of approximately £16.5 million due to the reduction in universal credit. The constituency is highly dependent on sectors affected by lockdowns and has seen one of the largest increases in claimant counts during the pandemic.

The cut disproportionately affects WASPI women who have already lost their pensions. The author suggests introducing a universal basic income as an alternative to the reduction in universal credit. He criticises the absence of Scottish Conservative MPs from the debate, indicating a disregard for constituents' views.

14,000 families in Leeds East will be affected by the cut, with two-thirds of people who work and have children impacted. A constituent, formerly homeless due to an abusive home environment, expresses fear about affording basic necessities after the £20 reduction.

South Belfast has seen significant rises in universal credit claimants during the pandemic. Higher utilities costs, food prices, and a shortage of affordable housing add to the pressure on families reliant on benefits. The cut is not progressive or supportive of economic recovery.

The cut will exacerbate absolute poverty and child poverty in Liverpool Riverside. It threatens to push families into Dickensian levels of poverty and misery, highlighting the Government's out-of-touch nature with the realities faced by millions.

The debate has highlighted the harmful impact of cutting universal credit, which affects families' ability to afford basic necessities such as food, warmth, and children's clothing. The speaker emphasises that this decision aligns with other recent measures by the Government that disadvantage working people. She recalls her own childhood experiences of poverty and urges Conservative Members to reconsider their plans for the cut.

The Minister responds by acknowledging the challenges faced during the pandemic and highlights the Government's support measures. He argues that extending the £20 per week uplift to universal credit would require significant tax increases, making it unsustainable. The Minister emphasises the importance of work in reducing poverty and outlines various government initiatives aimed at job creation.

The Government's habit of abstaining from Opposition day votes is a disgrace, showing contempt for the House and fear of the effect on their constituencies. She suggests that when Governments lost such votes previously, they would implement the will of the House.

He points out that there are concerns about the £20 reduction in universal credit and asks how legislation can ensure that this money continues for a period of time to benefit those who need it most.

Responding to the points of order, Rosie Winterton clarifies that while Members have the right to choose whether or not to vote, there is an expectation that a Minister will respond within 12 weeks after an approved Opposition motion.

He raises concerns about the consistency of Government actions when they abstain from voting on the first Opposition day motion and are likely to vote against a second motion, highlighting that these actions affect constituents who rely on universal credit.