← Back to House of Commons Debates
BACKBENCH BUSINESS - UNIVERSAL CREDIT (CHILDREN)BACKBENCH BUSINESS
10 May 2016
Lead MP
Stephen Timms
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Benefits & Welfare
Other Contributors: 33
At a Glance
Stephen Timms raised concerns about backbench business - universal credit (children)backbench business in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Opposition recognises the potential benefits of universal credit, such as simplifying a complex system and making it easier for people to understand how work affects their financial position. However, due to significant delays and cuts in work allowances, many families are worse off than they would be under the old tax credit system. The Resolution Foundation reports that the latest series of cuts risk leaving Universal Credit (UC) as little more than a vehicle for rationalising benefit administration and cutting costs to the Exchequer. This change means UC is now less generous than the tax credit system for working families, leading to significant anomalies and unfairness.
Christina Rees
Lab
Neath
Points out that some families could be more than £3,000 a year worse off due to the piecemeal roll-out of universal credit and cuts to work allowances.
Defends the phased implementation of universal credit as necessary for ensuring its proper nationwide implementation.
Salford
Highlights that disabled children will receive considerably less money under universal credit, with many receiving only around half of what they currently get under tax credits.
Stephen Doughty
Lab Co-op
Cardiff South and Penarth
Raises concerns about the move from weekly or fortnightly payments to monthly payments under universal credit, which could leave families without income for up to five weeks. Emphasises that many people are not being informed about advance payment systems.
Reiterated concerns about guidance from the DWP suggesting people work extra hours without additional pay, which she argued is unrealistic and unacceptable.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Agreed with Christina Rees, noting that working more hours to compensate for lost income is often unrealistic. He cited the Resolution Foundation's report indicating that second earners in couples may find entering work less attractive under current proposals, undermining the original intent of Universal Credit.
Stephen Doughty
Lab Co-op
Cardiff South and Penarth
Described the difficult decisions families have to make when trying to meet basic needs during income shortfalls. He highlighted the risk of further debt due to payday loans, which exacerbates their financial situation.
Argues that Universal Credit should be considered alongside other measures, such as increases in the personal tax allowance and childcare provision. Emphasises the dynamic impact of Universal Credit on encouraging people to move into work and improve their earnings.
Neil Grey
Lab
Points out that the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted an increase in child poverty due to planned tax and benefit reforms, including Universal Credit.
Jeremy Quin
Con
Welcomes the focus on improving job quality and earning potential under Universal Credit.
Mark Durkan
SDLP
Foyle
Questions whether the dynamic impact can compensate for the income loss of families, especially those with disabled children, due to changes in Universal Credit.
He emphasises that although there are concerns about the wording of the motion which isolates universal credit, the Government's approach to welfare reform seeks to ensure the life chances of disadvantaged children. He acknowledges the importance of considering the holistic impact of all measures rather than focusing solely on universal credit.
Kate Osamor
Lab Co-op
Edmonton and Winchmore Hill
She thanks Stephen Timms for his introduction and highlights the significant number of people in her constituency who rely on welfare benefits. She details the financial losses that working families, particularly single parents, will face due to changes in universal credit and tax credits. She raises concerns about childcare support not compensating for these losses and asks the Minister to review the impact of work allowance reductions on working families annually.
He questions Labour's strategy in balancing welfare reforms with reducing the budget deficit. He mentions that Labour opposed every welfare reform pushed through by the coalition government and also opposes measures to improve business conditions, which generate most of the tax revenue. He also argues for ideological compromises if they result in more public money to spend on vital services.
Richard Graham
Con
Gloucester
The hon. Lady prefers to raise taxes and get less tax revenue, which is contrary to the evidence from Reaganomics and Thatcheromics. The married person’s tax allowance contributes to happier families. Universal credit encourages businesses to grow by creating a business-friendly environment. Labour had recommended solutions that have now been implemented but struggled with its implementation due to complexity. Evidence suggests people find universal credit easier to understand than previous benefit systems, despite delays reported by the Trussell Trust.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
The five-week delay in universal credit claims is built into its design and causes significant problems for claimants, as evidenced by reports from the Trussell Trust and Citizens Advice. The assumption that someone can cope with a month's delay if they have last month’s pay cheque is flawed.
Neil Grey
Lab
Aberdeen South
Reports indicate that delays in benefits and cuts to social security support are contributing factors in the need for emergency food aid. This issue is not isolated but reported by multiple organisations across different regions.
Neil Grey
SNP
Airdrie and Shotts
Congratulates the right hon. Member for East Ham on securing the debate, criticises the new Secretary of State's approach to social security policies, emphasises the need for compassion in policy-making, highlights cuts to universal credit and their impact on children's lives and long-term prospects, cites statistics from various reports showing increased child poverty under current policies.
Margaret Ferrier
SNP
Rrenwick
Agrees with Neil Grey regarding the negative impact of Government changes on families who care for disabled children, pointing out that such families will be at least £1,600 a year worse off according to Contact a Family.
Angela Crawley
Con
Wansbeck
Questions the impact of universal credit on child poverty, expresses concern over estimates showing more children being made poorer than helped out of poverty by the system, highlights damaging eligibility criteria such as limiting child elements to only two children per family.
Angela Crawley
Lab
Agrees with her hon. Friend that the Government have no right to dictate family size or place a monetary value on children's lives. Criticises the scrapping of the first child premium, worth £545 annually, arguing it does not prioritise giving every child the best start in life. Highlights Scotland’s initiative for new-borns and points out that support for childcare increased from 70% to 80%, but this is insufficient compared to other benefit system changes. Raises concerns about disabled claimants losing more than half their entitlement under universal credit, with 100,000 disabled children expected to lose over £50 per week in benefits and lone parents losing up to £58 a week due to the loss of severe disability premium.
Eilidh Whiteford
SNP
Critiques the recent cuts to work allowances under universal credit, which will increase child poverty significantly. Notes that 4 million families are on average more than £40 a week worse off due to these changes and despite increases in minimum wage and tax allowances. Argues that the transition to universal credit means that 3 million working families no longer qualify for support they would have received under previous systems, while another 1.2 million will be worse off. Emphasises that cuts to work allowance undermine the original promise of removing financial disincentives to work, leaving many low-income parents struggling more due to higher marginal taxation on additional hours worked.
Carolyn Harris
Lab
Neath and Swansea East
Harris agrees with Thomas-Symonds that expecting families to work an extra 200 hours a year just to cover the cuts in universal credit is unreasonable and insulting.
Christina Rees
Lab
Neath
Rees emphasises the need for a gender impact analysis of government policies since 2010, highlighting that these changes disproportionately affect women who make up the majority of those suffering from welfare cuts.
Mark Durkan
SNP
Foyle
Durkan recalls that the former Secretary of State criticised the Treasury's imposition of the welfare cap, which was supported by both sides of the House in the previous Parliament but now is being used as a tool for further cuts.
Torfaen
Child poverty is a damning indictment of the Government, who have pledged to take millions out of poverty but instead may plunge more people into it by 2020. The Labour Party calls for urgent action and urges the House to support their motion.
Priti Patel
Con
Witham
The Minister emphasises that Universal Credit is designed to make work pay and provide personalised support, transforming employment outcomes and helping people sustain jobs. She acknowledges ongoing issues with roll-out but defends the approach as agile and better than a 'big bang' implementation. The Government also aims to address child poverty through focusing on root causes like family breakdown and addiction.
Owen Smith
Lab
Pontypridd
Questions the Minister about the impact of Universal Credit on child poverty, citing estimates from the Resolution Foundation predicting an increase in absolute poverty among children.
John Glen
Con
Salisbury
Asks for the life chances strategy to integrate lessons learned from the troubled families programme to ensure a comprehensive approach across multiple Departments.
Eilidh Whiteford
SNP
Banff and Buchan
Raises concerns about in-work conditionality affecting DWP staff, questioning whether extra hours will be offered to avoid sanctions and cuts in benefits for those affected.
Priti Patel
Con
Witham
Universal credit supports employment opportunities and provides significant childcare support for working families. It offers up to £13,000 a year in childcare costs reimbursement for families with two children. The Minister also addressed the issue of disabled children's support under universal credit and emphasised that it is designed to provide extra financial assistance to low-income families with disabled children.
Mark Durkan
SNP
Inster
Challenged the Minister on her claims about additional support for children with disabilities, arguing that these additions do not represent an increase in support but rather a reduction from existing benefits.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Acknowledged the value of the debate and expressed disappointment at the Minister's inability to provide specific figures on the impact of universal credit on child poverty. He emphasised concerns about the effectiveness of the IT system and the extent to which universal credit now meets its original objectives.
Government Response
Defends the agile delivery of Universal Credit as a more effective approach than a big bang implementation. Acknowledges ongoing issues but emphasises its role in making work pay and providing personalised support to improve employment outcomes. Universal credit is designed to support work progression and reduce barriers for second earners, with personalised support through work coaches. The Minister highlighted that claimants on universal credit are more likely than those on JSA to seek increased earnings and hours.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.