Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Social Security Recipients: Employment and Earnings

Monday 24 April 2023 · 3 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 3 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Florence Eshalomi raised concerns about rising food prices, household bills, and rents impacting constituents in Vauxhall while real-terms pay has been decreasing for 18 months.
  • The Minister highlighted efforts to boost in-work progression through various initiatives, including assistance for people to move to full-time work and support for training programs.
  • Stephen Crabb inquired about the impact of sanctions on claimant earnings and asked how these findings would influence future sanctions policy, to which the Minister responded that there would be no change to the current approach of setting and agreeing reasonable requirements with work coaches.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Florence Eshalomi Labour (Co-op) Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
Context

Concern about constituents facing rising food prices, household bills, and rent while experiencing real-terms pay decline.

Question

I am concerned that my constituents in Vauxhall are seeing food prices increase by nearly 20%, their household bills skyrocketing, and rents going up by up to 16.5%. This is happening while real-terms pay has been falling for 18 months. How does the Minister propose to give workers in Vauxhall, and those on benefits, a real pay rise?

Answer from Guy Opperman

A whole host of things are being done on in-work progression. Vacancies have fallen for nine successive quarters, employment is up, the claimant count is down, economic inactivity has fallen, and disability employment is up.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The question specifically asked about providing a real pay rise, but the answer focused on general employment trends without addressing the specific ask for a pay increase.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Florence Eshalomi Labour (Co-op) Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
Context

Discussion on enhancing universal credit to boost earnings through better contracts.

Question

I strongly support the efforts my hon. Friend is making to boost in-work progression. The original vision behind universal credit was to see more people on benefits earning more and increasing their income over time. Does he agree that one key to success, alongside tailored training, is better contracts? Research shows claimants on permanent contracts do significantly better with in-work progression than those on zero-hours or temporary contracts.

Answer from Guy Opperman

My right hon. Friend makes a number of very good points. The Department is providing an in-work progression offer, assisting people to progress to greater hours and full-time work. We support training through sector-based work academies or skills bootcamps.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The answer acknowledges the importance of permanent contracts but does not explicitly commit to implementing better employment contracts for in-work progression.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Context

Recent research indicates that sanctions negatively impact claimant earnings. Question seeks to address future policy.

Question

The Department's recently published research shows that sanctions have a negative impact on claimant earnings, including those related to in-work conditionality. How will the Minister take account of these findings in setting future sanctions policy?

Answer from Guy Opperman

We want to encourage claimants to comply with reasonable requirements, which are set and agreed with their work coach in the claimant commitment. I see no change to that.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The answer does not address how recent research findings will influence future sanctions policy specifically.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)