Hansard

No; I need to make progress.

Part of the challenge was that there was an overlap as the committee held its inquiry, with a number of announcements and changes made during October and January that were designed to address some of the concerns.

Attempting to untangle the web of legacy benefits and tax credits, split as they are between the Treasury and the DWP, is a challenge, as Westminster’s Social Security Advisory Committee has made clear. A key part of the flexibility of universal credit is its test-and-learn approach. Previously, when the legacy system was not delivering something effectively, there was no ability to change it. Now, new changes are tested, problems can be identified and solutions found. That is a key factor, particularly with regard to the convener’s question.

Paul Gray, the former chair of Westminster’s Social Security Advisory Committee, said that the committee had welcomed the stated intention to test and learn, which on numerous occasions has lent UC a flexibility that is light years ahead of any process offered by the legacy benefits system. As I have visited jobcentres around the country, I have seen that approach in action and I know that it is highly thought of by DWP staff, who recognise that their input is listened to and acted on.

Much of the division about the report came down to a matter of words. For example, in itself, the use of “many” rather than “some” seems insignificant, but we believe that it changes the emphasis of a paragraph and the story that it tells. Unfortunately, the inquiry was often bogged down in political positioning, with colleagues clearly identifying their position on universal credit and seeking answers to support their belief.

I had hoped that we would all agree with the sentiments of Russell Gunson, who said:

“Bringing six means-tested benefits together in one on a single taper is a good and positive idea, but the funding levels that were originally promised have dropped significantly ... Whether universal credit will work or not has to relate to three factors: the structure, the funding and how it is implemented.”

Our report calls for those funding levels to be restored. The UK Government has shown that it is ahead of us, having already increased the levels of funding not once but twice in its past two budget statements.

On the role of work coaches and conditionality, I struggled with the evidence from PCS, as I found it to be politically motivated. I could not support the conclusions that the committee chose to include. Recommending that, unless conditionality and sanctions are removed, there should be a return to the discredited system of tax credits—based on no evidence received by the committee—showed a poor understanding of the system and of the evidence that we heard.

As in any inquiry, it is important that we identify problems and offer solutions, which many of our contributors did. In his evidence to the committee, Russell Gunson said:

“There is an argument about whether any conditionality is right, but we would say that conditionality—even a means test—is likely to be needed as part of any system.”—[Official Report, Social Security Committee, 13 September 2018; c 5-6, 10.]

Submissions from Oxfam and, ironically, PCS said that in-work progression could be positive, if developed in a supportive way. Oxfam wrote that:

“Progression is fundamental in ensuring that work acts as a route out of poverty, but Oxfam has concerns around how in-work progression policy has been conceptualised”.

Victoria Todd of the low incomes tax reform group said:

“Some people who are already working and who would have claimed tax credits but who, because of their area, are now on universal credit have had a positive experience of support from work coaches to increase the number of hours that they work, to look at other options or to get training. The stories that I have heard are not all negative in that respect.”

Kirsty McKechnie said:

“I will reiterate what Rob Gowans said about universal credit being”

a potential improvement

“for people who have fluctuating hours or perhaps have low hours”

because

“it used to be that there would be a cliff edge of 16 hours, where you would no longer be entitled to jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance. There was a bit of a gap before you worked enough hours to get the working tax credit. That group of people will now be supported, but to apply sanctions to anybody will not improve their ability either to look for work or increase their hours”.—[Official Report, Social Security Committee, 27 September 2018; c 19, 26.]

It is a mixed report, some of which I totally agree with and some of which I have difficulty with. We need to keep monitoring the situation and, when we contribute to questions on universal credit and in-work poverty, we must do that constructively, because we have a test-and-learn approach that could improve the situation for everybody.