THE complexities of individuals’s lives “don’t all the time fit into neat economic models”, the Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, told the House of Lords on Tuesday, in a debate on proposed changes to Universal Credit.
In her introduction to the controversy, the Minister for the Department of Work and Pensions, Baroness Sherlock, who’s an Anglican priest, suggested that there was broad agreement that “some reform is required.”
Because the Bill is designated as one concerned primarily with economic issues, the Lords don’t have any power to amend the proposals — a designation that was criticised by the incapacity campaigner and former athlete Baroness Grey-Thompson (cross-bench).
Personal independence payments (PIP) were often misunderstood as an unemployment profit, she said, when in actual fact they were “integral to disabled people’s lives” and existed “because society is inaccessible”.
The Government had not taken the chance to alter the eligibility criteria for PIP. Instead, it had asked the Minister for Social Security and Disability, Sir Stephen Timms, to steer a review.
“There is a granularity to this debate concerning the complexity of individuals’s lives, which don’t all the time fit into neat economic models,” Dr Hartley said.
She expressed concern concerning the disproportionate variety of disabled people living in poverty, and spoke the actual effect that this might have on children, “making their start in life all of the tougher and deepening systemic injustices”.
Dr Hartley referred to correspondence that she had had with a person in her diocese, whose son has complex disabilities. He would really like to work, she said, but was struggling to navigate the changes to Universal Credit.
“His capability to enter the workforce faces barriers even before he can contemplate exploring opportunities. Our values should hold us to account for the way we raise up probably the most weak and vulnerable.”
Dr Hartley called on the Government to take “proportionate actions” that enabled people to benefit from their abilities, and never to draw back from the “difficult questions” on PIP, concerning the eligibility threshold and other matters.
But it was also vital, she said, to tackle the causes of ailing health. She referred to under-investment in social security and housing, lack of mental-health services, and “the results of insecure, demoralising work”.
“I’m glad that the Government are addressing a few of these challenges, but I hope they may not be considered in isolation, that the Government will monitor the impact of this Bill closely and that the lives of all our residents might be improved so we may all flourish together, each in line with their capability and wish,” Dr Hartley concluded.
Lord Rook (Labour), who can be an Anglican priest, and is a former adviser to Sir Keir Starmer, welcomed support and incentives within the Bill which were designed to get more young people into work.
“As with other laws, I’m keen that we prioritise young people. After all, this generation has been disproportionately affected by the Covid pandemic and other societal challenges,” he said. Mental health was a selected concern.
His passion for this issue had developed when he was a youth employee, he said. “While my youth-work skills are actually less in demand here in your Lordships’ House, my heart still goes out to those young people struggling to make their way in our country today.”
The Bill was passed and now proceeds to Royal Assent.
