Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Kate Green Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Mills
I was not doubting that for a second. With the tax credit changes, we need to be sure that the people who are still claiming tax credits understand that they will be better off doing more hours and earning more than they would have been otherwise. That is why universal credit needs to be rolled out. Everyone will be able to see that they are better off month by month, rather than having to work out if they might have been better off a year ago if they had worked a bit less in a complex way through online calculators. That cannot be a sensible system.
On the child tax credit limit, it has to be right that people who spend a life on welfare have to take the same decisions as people who are going out to work. It is therefore right to draw the line at two children for where the welfare system stops helping. There will still be a lot of help through child benefit and the Prime Minister confirmed that we would not seek to limit that. I think that we have got the line in the right place. It should be clear to people that from 2017, if they have more than two children, there will not be more tax credits.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
We agree that people in work and people not in work should face the same choices, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the proposals on limiting access to child tax credit to the first two children will affect working families and those who are out of work?
Nigel Mills
Yes, but clearly the principle is that people should have to make the same choices if they are claiming benefits in work or are in work and not claiming benefits. It is not entirely clear whether the Labour party supports limiting child tax credit to the first two children. It sounds like it might support it, but that it dare not quite say so tonight.
Finally, the hardest issue in the Bill is the level of welfare for people in the work-related activity group. We have to get work capability assessments right. We have to get people in the right group, and people must believe themselves to be in the right group. I have seen constituents who have been through the assessment and have accepted the WRAG as a compromise on the basis that they will get much the same as they would get in the support group, but will have some requirements put on them. However, they thought that they should be in the support group. People who ought to be in the support group, but have chosen to be in the WRAG need support to put their situation right.
We need people to get the support that they need. Those who can never and will never work again need the right support. It is not in their interests or ours to put them in a different group. Clearly, we have to get the system right so that those who are in the group where they are meant to be able to work at some point in the future have the right incentives to take the support, undergo the training and get into work, rather than trying to stay on benefits claiming the slightly higher rate. We need to see the detail of how we can get that right and make it fair, so that we do not end up with perverse incentives.
Overall, I welcome the Bill. It is an important step forward in sorting out our deficit and making our welfare system fair for those who are claiming from it and those who are paying for it.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
This evening, we have seen the Conservatives breaking their promises to protect the poorest, to reward hard work, to protect disability benefits, and to address relative poverty. Parents, disabled people and millions of children will bear the brunt of the Government’s policies. Working families will be worse off as a result of measures in this Bill and in the summer Budget. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) has said, they will be worse off by as much as £1,000 per year. As numerous Opposition Members have said, including my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), the new increase in the minimum wage does not compensate sufficiently for the loss of tax credits. The Budget makes a mockery of the Tories’ claim to be the party of working people.
However, there are some measures in the Bill that the Labour party welcomes. We support the ambition for full employment and we welcome the provisions to report on that and the apprenticeships reporting obligation. We will insist on an ambitious full employment target, set at a rate of 80% of the working age population. We will require the Commission for Employment and Skills to report on the quality as well as the quantity of apprenticeships, which was acknowledged by a number of Members, including the hon. Members for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes).
Although we recognise the Government’s worthy ambition to halve the disability employment gap, the reporting mechanisms must also set out progress in ensuring that disabled people gain employment and have access to apprenticeships. We also support the reporting obligations in relation to troubled families, although we will seek to ensure that they, too, are strengthened.
I turn to the household benefit cap, which Labour has supported to ensure that people are better off in work. It was Labour that first called for a regional dimension to the benefit cap to recognise high-cost areas. But the cap must operate in a way that protects the most vulnerable, including carers, those looking after young children and victims of domestic violence. The decoupling of the level of the cap from earnings means that the Secretary of State will have an alarmingly wide discretion to set the level, with little scrutiny by Parliament.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has said, we will be tabling amendments to address those concerns. As Parliament has both a right and a duty to scrutinise the policy, we will require the level of the cap to be reviewed every year, based on an annual report on its impact, especially on child poverty.
We also agree that those who can work have a responsibility to do so, but the changes in work requirements for parents whose youngest child is aged three or over must come with guarantees of childcare and protections for lone parents. Although we support the provisions in relation to loans for mortgage interest, we will want to examine them closely. We also want to examine the provisions on social housing rents for their impact on housing supply, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) said, on specialist housing provision. We will require the Government to produce a plan to ensure the supply of affordable homes and the maintenance of existing housing stock.
Those are measures we can accept and build on, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham said, other elements of the Bill present significant problems. Of course we accept the need to make savings, but we do not support a four-year freeze on benefits, which will cost 13 million families £260 a year on average, of which 7.4 million are working families losing £280 a year. Uprating should take place annually to take inflation into account.
Labour Members deplore the provisions to airbrush child poverty from the statute book and to repeal the provisions of the Child Poverty Act 2010 relating to poverty targets. The abolition of the child poverty targets is a disgraceful betrayal of millions of children by a Conservative party that previously said it was signed up both to the legislation and to the relative poverty goal, but perhaps we should not be surprised. Under Tory Governments between 1979 and 1997, child poverty doubled. Between 1999 and 2010, under Labour, the number fell by more than 1 million children. There was a further fall in the first year of the coalition Government, thanks to the continuation of measures put in place by Alistair Darling, but thereafter relative poverty has flatlined—there has been no progress whatsoever—while absolute poverty, disgracefully, has risen.
Although I can accept that there is an important set of measures relating to life chances to be looked at, it is simply wrong to overlook the importance of income poverty. Indeed, the Child Poverty Act encompasses both, with four complementary measures of income poverty and specific recognition of the need for strategies on parental employment, housing, health, education, advice, childcare and support for parenting. We will not stand by and allow the Government to turn their back on Britain’s 2.5 million poor children, two thirds of whom—shamefully—live in working families, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) pointed out.
I come to the changes to child tax credit and payments for children in universal credit. My right hon. Friend demonstrated myriad unfairnesses in the provisions, including the differential treatment of children in families in receipt of universal credit and tax credits, the effect on disabled children, and the complete failure of Conservative Members to realise that child tax credit is paid to families both in and out of work. We understand that people have choices to make and are responsible for the children they bring into the world, but it cannot be right that children are penalised for circumstances over which they have no control. Furthermore, family circumstances change: few people set out to have children they cannot care for; few lone parents set out to bring up their children alone; unplanned pregnancies happen, as do multiple births or the birth of a disabled child; jobs are lost, people get sick, incomes fall, parents die or become unable to care for their children, and others step in to foster, to adopt or to offer kinship care. Child tax credit helps families in those circumstances. It is the duty of this House to ensure that children are protected, whatever their circumstances, and Labour will table amendments to ensure that that happens.
I turn to the provisions on disabled people and the work-related activity group, which were raised by the hon. Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for Enfield, Southgate, for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and many others. Let us be clear: those provisions apply to people who have undergone the work capability assessment and been found to be not fit for work—people with degenerative conditions such as cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease, people with serious mental health problems and people who are suffering from cancer. They are not well enough to work, so, rightly, they are not required to look for work. They are signed off sick by their doctor, and employers do not even want them in the workplace. The idea that such seriously sick people should be “incentivised” to work is not just offensive but misconceived. The incentive will, if anything, be truly perverse, encouraging more people to be placed in the support group.
If the Government believe that something is wrong with the work capability assessment, they should sort out the assessment process. If they believe that we should offer more support to disabled people to get back to work, we can only agree. But slashing their benefit by £30 a week is not going to help those with serious, long-term health barriers to working. It will not make them well or get them jobs; it will just make them poorer.
In conclusion, this Budget and this Bill will increase poverty, hurt disabled people and seriously damage work incentives. We ask the House to support our reasoned amendment so that we have the chance to make this a Bill that protects the vulnerable, especially children, while ensuring that work always pays. I commend our amendment to the House.
Jobcentre Plus
Kate Green Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this debate.
Jobcentre Plus performs a crucial public service, and I put on record my thanks to the staff who are coping with immense changes to the welfare system. Many Jobcentre Plus staff are doing an excellent job in demanding circumstances and are dedicated to improving the lives of the people they serve. Nevertheless, as we have heard clearly this afternoon, there are undoubtedly concerns about service quality, claimant experience and outcomes. There are also questions about staff morale and whether Jobcentre Plus has the resources and capacity it needs.
The major reforms with which Jobcentre Plus staff are grappling—such as universal credit and Universal Jobmatch—have been beset by systems problems, resulting in poor service to claimants and major delays. Although more people are moving into employment and Ministers like to claim that welfare reforms are the reason, people are not moving into work and out of poverty, and in any event there is considerable dispute about the contribution of welfare reforms to the rising employment rate.
Last year, the then Work and Pensions Committee carried out a review of Jobcentre Plus that looked at some of the major challenges it faces and how it is coping with them. The Committee made a number of suggestions for improvements, on which I hope the Minister will be able to update us today. Perhaps I can start with universal credit, which Ministers have claimed will transform the prospects of those who are out of work. The project is in total disarray. Today, some 65,000 people are on universal credit; when it was first introduced, we were told that 1 million people would be on it by April 2014. That is less than 1%—
Hywel Williams (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that that is outwith the scope of the debate.
Kate Green
I accept your ruling on that, Mr Williams, but universal credit has of course been argued to be the tool by which Jobcentre Plus will be able to move people into employment. Clearly, if the universal credit programme is way behind in the number of claimants it is supporting, it cannot be fulfilling its function and Jobcentre Plus cannot be taking advantage of it in order to move people into work. The problem with universal credit is that it is shrouded in secrecy. We have not seen the business case that would show us whether it is indeed going to be an effective tool for Jobcentre Plus staff to use to fulfil their role of supporting people into work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has recently written to the Secretary of State with some questions, and I want to ask the Minister the same ones. Will she ask the National Audit Office to publish quarterly progress reports on universal credit, to be laid before Parliament, and will she publish the full business case and plan? Will she also explain how Jobcentre Plus staff are being supported with the roll-out of universal credit?
As we have heard, Jobcentre Plus has the important role of supporting people into employment and, if they are further from the labour market—perhaps they have been out of work for a long time—routing them on to more specialist support programmes. There are a whole range of interventions under the “Get Britain Working” banner, and for the long-term unemployed there is the opportunity to be routed on to the Work programme or, for some disabled people, the Work Choice programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn was right to observe that those programmes have not often performed well for jobseekers and those experiencing long-term or youth unemployment—particularly long-term youth unemployment.
That is why Labour proposed a compulsory jobs guarantee so that every young person who was unemployed for more than a year would be guaranteed a job, education or training, or the opportunity to undertake proper work experience. That would be modelled on the future jobs fund that we introduced in 2008, or the more successful programme in Wales, which, as my hon. Friend highlighted, draws on factors that make for a successful labour market programme: it is commissioned locally; it involves local authorities, specialist local organisations and, crucially, local employers; and it is designed around the needs of the local labour market.
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Lady mentions working together and programmes that have worked both throughout the UK and in devolved areas; will she join me in welcoming the Scottish Government’s Opportunities for All scheme? The Scottish Government have worked with local authorities, and it has been a huge success, with more than 90% of young people going on to positive destinations. In my own county, West Lothian, that proportion is over 96%. Perhaps, with the Minister, we can have cross-party discussions on the potential to incorporate the various programmes that have been mentioned today into Jobcentre Plus in the short term. That way, we could see how to achieve future success.
Kate Green
I note what the hon. Lady says. She highlights the importance of devolving to a local footprint—although perhaps not to one as small as a local authority area in all cases—that can properly recognise the players in and needs of the local labour market. She is right that Ministers should be working with all authorities, local, regional and national, as well as with Members, to look at which programmes have been successful and what can be learned. It is clear that for many people the Work programme has not been successful.
Last year’s Work and Pensions Committee report on Jobcentre Plus highlighted some significant difficulties with expertise in the needs of people who experience worklessness. It highlighted a particular lack of experience in relation to lone parents, and the need for related training. I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on that. Will she also tell us what is happening with lone parent flexibilities? How are Jobcentre Plus staff applying them?
Will the Minister say something about the disabled people who are being routed by Jobcentre Plus on to the Work Choice programme? The programme was intended for the most severely disabled people who are furthest from the labour market, but increasingly it seems to be used for those who are likely to be able to get into work quite quickly and easily. Mencap in Trafford told me recently that as a Work Choice contractor, it was being measured on getting people work-ready within 13 weeks, and that it was unable to get outcome payments for those with whom it would need to work for a much longer period.
The Select Committee also raised doubts about the flexible support fund. The workings of that fund, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees), are opaque. We cannot see what the money is being spent on and we cannot see who is receiving it. Will the Minister say, for example, whether it is being used to help lone parents with childcare costs? Will she begin to make proper information available to Parliament about the use of the flexible support fund?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) identified problems with Universal Jobmatch in 2014. He highlighted duplicate jobs, fraudulent scams and posts advertising jobs at the other end of the country. The Select Committee highlighted an overemphasis on Universal Jobmatch as a tool to monitor compliance with conditionality, which it said should be secondary to helping claimants find a job, with Universal Jobmatch enabling more time to be spent on advice and support.
What help is being offered to jobseekers and employers to make the best use of Universal Jobmatch? Can the Minister say that scams and duplicates have now been eliminated and that claimants are not being penalised if they do not apply for jobs that are unsuitable or miles away? Do the Government intend to continue with Universal Jobmatch when the contract is up for renewal next year?
My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn and a number of other hon. Members mentioned conditionality and sanctions at Jobcentre Plus, which are an area of big concern. Labour Members are not against a conditional system for benefits, nor are we against sanctions that are fair, proportionate and transparent, or come with appropriate safeguards. Rates of sanctioning, however, remain high. Ministers were caught out only this week by the UK Statistics Authority in a letter to Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, accusing them of presenting figures in a way that is not supported by rigorous statistical analysis.
We have repeated anecdotal reports of irrational and unreasonable decisions. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that Jobcentre Plus is measured on getting people not only into sustained employment, but off flow—so sanctioning people and driving them to cease claiming benefits altogether, because to do so is too difficult and awkward. As a result, we are measuring the wrong thing. I strongly support last year’s call by the Select Committee to move from a measure of those going off flow to one of sustained employment.
Everything points to an oppressive culture. We still have reports of informal sanctioning targets in some Jobcentre Plus offices, which Labour is absolutely opposed to. I hope that the Minister will be clear today and deny the existence of all targets, formal or informal, once and for all, across the whole network, or say that she will be taking steps to stamp them out.
Jobcentre Plus has a vital role in supporting people to look for work, find work and get the financial support that they need. For many years it performed extremely effectively, but now it is under huge pressure and is fraying at the seams. I am interested to hear from the Minister her vision for the future of Jobcentre Plus—for the claimants and its staff. At present it is translating into a poor experience for too many claimants and poor value for money when it fails to get people into sustained work.
Priti Patel
It is important. We want to ensure that we are doing the right thing for individuals and supporting them, because the issue is not only one of institutions, processes and structures, although they are there for a reason.
I will highlight a couple of points about Jobcentre Plus. There has been some criticism of it, but the National Audit Office reported that it responded well to the challenge of the recession from 2008 onwards and the recovery. The OECD stated:
“The UK experience suggests that merging the public employment service and benefit agency has improved employment outcomes”.
Furthermore, Jobcentre Plus has added £5.5 billion to UK GDP since its introduction. In the previous Parliament, the Work and Pensions Committee commented that Jobcentre Plus has performed “effectively” and “is cost-effective”. Last year, Jobcentre Plus achieved or exceeded every one of its labour market performance measures. That is important.
Jobcentre Plus is a high-volume national organisation, and so not every experience will be perfect. That is a fact of life with such an organisation—not everything will be right. We monitor performance and have service standards, but more can always be done to improve quality and professionalism. We are conscious of how we can improve services, and improvements are based on feedback that we receive. I experience that personally when I visit jobcentres.
I turn now to the issue of partnership. The Government cannot achieve our objectives on employment on our own. We can do so only by working in partnership with others in the private and voluntary sectors, at national, regional and local levels. I have touched briefly on my own experiences going out and about to jobcentres, and I have seen that partnership work in action. I know about the partnership work taking place in the constituency of the hon. Member for Islwyn—we see it in case studies and he will be fully aware of it—and I pay tribute to all the community-based and local organisations in his constituency. One is Groundwork’s Routes 2 Life, which provides work experience and skills training for over-50s—again, this issue does not just affect young people but runs across the age range. It is relevant to the fuller working lives agenda, as well as how we can support those young people who may face challenges when trying to get a foot in the labour market because they do not have the right work experience or CV. Borough councils are involved as well. Across Wales, there are plenty of great examples of partnership, and they should be developed further.
Importantly—this is always a challenge for central Government in my view—this is a question of integration: how we join up working, and how that joined-up approach delivers results. We need the right outcomes, not just for the structures and systems but for individuals. I am also clear that I want more local authorities, in particular, to work more closely with voluntary sector, charity and other community and labour market partners.
On a national level, there is much more integration. Following the general election, my party has committed to achieving full employment, with more focus on young people getting the support they need. We have also made a commitment to help more women get work and to support more individuals with disabilities getting into work. We can do that only by working across Government. That is right and proper, and we will use every lever at the disposal of central Government to integrate our services and support everyone across the age range, as well as young people and people with disability or health issues.
On devolution, there is, for example, the Manchester devolution deal for the combined authority. Projects in central London are working with local authorities, and—together with Glasgow City Council—we will launch a programme to support employment and support allowance claimants in finding and remaining in employment. That is the right way forward. We should devolve to our communities, and the Government support that agenda.
I am pleased to say that there is greater partnership integration with the Work programme, including getting people access to apprenticeship opportunities, and there is more to do on that. We want a more constructive joint-working approach to ensure that, for example, claimants in Wales are able to access the full range of support that they need. That includes projects funded through the European social fund, which are targeted at particular disadvantaged communities; naturally, we want to do more to support them.
The Work programme aims to support claimants at risk of long-term unemployment. It has been successful and, to date, has supported over 400,000 long-term unemployed people in getting back into work. As a result, we have been able to get more people back into work and support people through very challenging circumstances.
Kate Green
The Work programme has been improving after a shaky start, but it is still not performing well for disabled people. Will the Minister tell us how she intends to improve performance for disabled people and answer my question about the role of the Work Choice programme in that?
Priti Patel
Absolutely. I will. My point is that the Work programme has been successful—it has been one of the most successful employment programmes in the United Kingdom’s history. At the end of the day, that should be welcomed and supported by all of us.
The Government are clear that we want to support more individuals with disability into work. A lot of work is being done with Work programme contractors and providers to concentrate more resources and investment in that area. If I may just share an anecdote, last week I sat down with Work programme providers to look at what has been working and some of the successes and strengths of the Work programme, and how we can address some of the real challenges for individuals with disabilities. That is the right thing to do, and we should all be focusing on that. We should also look at what support and interventions we can put in place not just for individuals with disability but for other individuals who are further away from the labour market—for example, those with health conditions.
Scotland Bill
Kate Green Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
I shall come on to that. Indeed, new clause 31, which SNP Members have signed, too, incidentally, would essentially give the Scottish Parliament full power to introduce new benefits in all devolved areas and to top up any benefits in reserved areas. Anybody who wished to put together a manifesto for a Scottish parliamentary election would have to determine what they would do with the welfare system and would consequently have to pay for that, but the important principle is that the UK welfare state would remain integral and the Scottish Parliament, as an autonomous and powerful Parliament, would be able to make its own decisions to reflect the interests of the Scottish people.
The exact amount of money that is spent and who spends it are not the key concerns of the Bill, which is about ensuring that powers are exercised where they most benefit the people of Scotland. The Labour party was the architect of the welfare state—the system of social insurance that covers every citizen, regardless of income, from the cradle to the grave and that is perhaps one of our greatest achievements and the purest expression of our common values and shared purpose. As the architect of the modern welfare state, the Labour party will do everything it can to ensure that it serves the needs of people not just across the UK but, crucially in terms of this Bill, in Scotland. That is why we have sought to be the driving force in this section of the Bill, tabling a total of 21 amendments and new clauses, more than any other party, to ensure that the Smith agreement is not only delivered consistently in spirit and in substance but that the Bill goes much further in welfare provisions.
Each and every one of the amendments has a purpose: to improve the lives of families in Scotland while maintaining the fundamental principles of the underpinning of the UK welfare state. May I take the opportunity to thank all the charities and voluntary sector organisations from across Scotland who have assisted me in this task? They do valuable work day to day with those who are most in need, and we should thank them every single day for what they achieve. Without them, society would not operate in Scotland and across the UK. To put it simply, we should all thank them.
I am glad that the SNP has seen fit to support a number of the amendments. We will work closely together to ensure that we can deliver them. In the same spirit of inter-party co-operation and consensus, I have signed a number of the SNP’s amendments that attempt to improve the Bill. Although this is a fairly technical exercise and welfare is hugely complicated, I want to make it clear that fundamentally our amendments will ensure, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), that the Scottish Parliament has the unrestricted power to create any new benefits in areas that are devolved, in addition to the guarantees of the UK benefits and pension system, as well as the power to top up any benefits that remain reserved in this Parliament. That wide-ranging provision effectively gives the Scottish Parliament the power to design its own welfare system in its entirety. However, unlike others, we are determined to ensure that the welfare state remains an integrated and UK-wide system of social security to allow for the continued pooling and sharing of risks and of resources.
We will also actively pursue our policy of double devolution by devolving as many powers as possible to local communities so that they can be tailored to local needs and circumstance, starting with the Work programme, Work Choice and Access to Work, which we will debate later. Subsidiarity should be at the heart of the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the public are engaged and that there is full community spirit in designing the system that is best for community needs.
Before I speak about Labour’s specific amendments, I want to place on record my disappointment at the comments made by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) during yesterday’s debate. He described the proposals in the Smith agreement as “miserable”, and I think that that is quite wrong in the context of this Bill. We should be using this opportunity to improve on the provisions in front of us and to make the system better in Scotland. The Secretary of State has consistently said that he will consider sensible amendments to improve the Bill, both in substance and in spirit, and I hope that he will see many of our amendments on welfare as worth while, tabled in the spirit of co-operation and trying to make the Bill better rather than trying to make political points.
Clauses 19 to 23 concern the devolution to the Scottish Parliament of a number of welfare benefits, including power over disability benefits, industrial injuries allowance and carer’s allowance, the power to introduce top-up payments for people receiving reserve benefits, control over discretionary housing payments and the power to introduce new discretionary payments to help alleviate short-term need. The powers in the clauses are extensive, but there are a number of areas in which I believe they fall short, particularly as regards limiting the scope of the Scottish Parliament to make discretionary payments and create new benefits.
Paragraph 51 of the Smith commission’s report states that the Scottish Parliament
“will have complete autonomy in determining the structure and value of the”
devolved
“benefits…or any new benefits or services which might replace them.”
As I have said, we are committed, wherever possible, to abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the Smith commission’s recommendations. We believe that the term “discretionary”, as applied in this context, should not necessarily refer to the strict definition of the recipient of a payment or the duration or frequency with which they receive that payment. As Professor Paul Spicker stated in evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee:
“A payment is discretionary, not because it is short term or individual, but because it is in the power of the delegated authority to determine whether or not the payment will be made.”
However, the Bill as it stands adheres to a more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a discretionary payment and includes a number of definitions of who can receive benefits and for how long and how often they can receive them, which would limit the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament in a way that, in my opinion, Smith did not intend.
Our amendments seek to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will not face unnecessary restrictions in its provision of discretionary payments to carers, those with disabilities or any other applicant, both in terms of who they are paid to and for how long and how often they are paid.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as being an unnecessary restriction in the legislation, the definition is also likely to give rise to a dispute about the ambit of the Bill? A wider definition that would embrace more people would be much simpler to administer.
Ian Murray
I agree, and we should be removing as much ambiguity as possible from the Bill. If the Scottish Parliament wanted to introduce a new benefit or a top-up benefit in one of these categories, the definition should be as wide as possible to enable it to do so. We do not want to end up with a dispute between two Governments or between recipients and the deliverer of the benefits or services about the definition in the Act. It would be good to get some clarity about what is meant by clauses 19 to 23.
As an example, I will consider disability benefit. As Inclusion Scotland has argued, the definition of disability benefits in clause 19 might “restrict the autonomy” of the Scottish Parliament in constructing a new disability benefits
“system based on empowering disabled people to lead active and productive lives and promoting the human rights of disabled people and independent living.”
We have therefore tabled amendment 128, which offers an alternative, broader and more flexible definition of disability benefit that would, among other things, allow the Scottish Parliament to introduce a benefit to assist people with low-level disabilities or those for whom the effect of their disability is largely financial.
Likewise, the definition of what constitutes a “relevant carer” is also, we believe, too prescriptive. As Enable Scotland observes, it
“prescribes to whom carers benefits would be payable, stipulating that the recipient would be over 16, not in full time education and not gainfully employed; and requiring that the cared-for person is in receipt of disability benefit.”
The Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee’s report of May 2015 on the Smith commission proposals and the UK Government’s response concluded:
“The Committee is concerned that the current definition of carer in the draft clauses appears overly restrictive and could limit the policy discretion of future Scottish administrations in this area. The Committee recommends that the clause should be re-drafted to ensure that the future Scottish administrations are able to define what constitutes a carer.”
I agree with both Enable Scotland and the Scottish Parliament Committee that the clauses as drafted unnecessarily limit the scope of the Scottish Parliament’s powers and might limit their ability in future to create new benefits. We have therefore tabled amendment 48, which seeks to remove the definition from the Bill to allow the Scottish Parliament to arrive at its own definition. I am pleased that the SNP has supported the amendment and want to reciprocate by supporting amendment 115, which provides for the provision of non-financial assistance as regards benefits for maternity, funeral and heating expenses, and amendment 121, which inserts the additional qualifying criteria for provision of discretionary payments and assistance for being part of a family facing exceptional financial pressure.
Kate Green
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It seems to me that the Secretary of State, when he responds, needs to be very precise about his objection to the amendments that have been tabled in relation to a number of key principles. He will first need to be explicit about whether he believes the proposals to be at odds with, and moving in the opposite direction from, the intention of Smith. I think that a number of the amendments would give better effect to Smith than would the Bill as currently drafted. Therefore, the argument is not about whether we share the same intention, but about whether the legislation is adequate for the task. I hope that he will bear that in mind when responding.
The second thing that some of the amendments that I and my hon. Friends have tabled seek to achieve, as indeed do some of the SNP amendments, is to simplify the legislation. It is a little too complicated and hedged about with who is in and who is out of the provision of certain exceptions, for example in relation to definitions of disability, or too narrow in relation to definitions of carers. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to explain precisely what his objections are to the amendments that seek to make the legislation easier to give effect to, and plainer in, its intent.
The third thing, which I think is the substance of this debate, is to a degree a sideline debate. It is not specifically about the legislation; it is about our intentions for the welfare state. I think that the Secretary of State should acknowledge that we are talking about a welfare state that enables people. Where benefits enable people’s full social participation—for example, carers’ benefits and benefits that enable disabled people to live decent and independent lives—there is no case for decrying them on the basis that they create a dependency culture, because what they create is a culture of dignity and participation. I hope that he will be able to distinguish between the two.
Having said that, I do not think that there is a wish, certainly on the part of Labour Members, to say that there should not be a conditionality regime. Our party has always accepted that in a conditional system there must be a backstop of sanctions for people who wilfully refuse to comply. Of course, the vast majority do not wilfully refuse to comply; they get caught up in a completely baffling and increasingly unjust system. The hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) has rightly accepted that that system now needs to be reviewed, because it is clearly well beyond what any reasonable conditionality and sanctions regime should look like. However, that is not really the purpose of this legislation or what this debate is about.
I want to make two or three specific points in support of some of the remarks that were made earlier. First, in relation to disability benefits, I think that the way clause 19 has been written will cause considerable confusion and dispute about who falls within the ambit of the benefits that the Scottish Government can create or top up. For example, does the fact that somebody needs to be suffering significant adverse effects and be unable to carry out day-to-day tasks exclude someone who suffers from double incontinence? Arguably, that person should be within the ambit of the legislation, but why do we need to have any doubt? Does “short-term” mean that someone suffering from a fatal illness that is likely to lead to fatality within three or four months will be within the ambit of the legislation? It seems to me that if we stuck to a much plainer description of disability benefits and of who is eligible, we would avoid a lot of unnecessary dispute and heartache, and we might enable the Scottish Parliament to prescribe much more simply that certain conditions or circumstances would automatically give rise to benefit entitlement, as is the case with the UK’s legislation.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
On that point, my hon. Friend will know that patients who are terminally ill with less than six months to live are automatically entitled to disability living allowance or personal independence payment. The contrast between that specificity and the vagueness before us today is very stark.
Kate Green
That is an extremely good example. Those with a terminal illness and less than six months to live are automatically routed through and fast-tracked to eligibility for PIP. We could also talk about those on dialysis and double amputees, who are automatically able to get the higher rate of mobility, as are those with severe sight impairment. It would be simpler if the Scottish Parliament could legislate to route some of those people through to benefits automatically, as is now the case in UK legislation.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Motor Neurone Disease Association has cited cases in which people with six months left to live who have had the DS1500 assessment have actually been challenged by the Department for Work and Pensions, which is so insulting as to be mind-boggling? That is why we need very clear guidelines and definitions, which the Bill does not provide.
Kate Green
That is insulting, obviously very distressing and quite unjust. I hope that the Secretary of State will look at amendment 128, which seeks to bring clarity to the legislation in relation to entitlement to disability benefits, and, if he is not able to accept the amendment, that he will give us clear reasons why not.
On carers, I recognise that the definitions encompassed in the Bill mirror the current entitlement to carer’s allowance. As I think the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) was trying to explain, carer’s allowance is both a very useful benefit from the point of view of society as a whole and as an enabling benefit to enable people to provide care for their family and loved ones. We should be very keen to extend those enabling benefits as far as possible and, as she rightly said, in alignment with the landscape of social care and support provided through our public services. If Conservative Members will forgive me, I do not think that it is creating a dependency culture to facilitate carers in their caring role. Indeed, from a UK perspective, I must say that I am rather envious of this opportunity to extend the definitions. I again hope that the Secretary of State, if he feels unable to accept amendment 48, will be able to explain clearly why not.
Finally, I want to pick up on amendment 129, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is not in the Chamber at the moment. As I understand it, the effect of his amendment would not be to remove the provision from applying to someone who had been sanctioned, but would mean that someone who had fallen out of the ambit of entitlement to housing benefit altogether—including because the operation of the bedroom tax meant that they could no longer receive that payment—could none the less access a benefit that the Scottish Government might wish to introduce to deal with that situation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said, we intend to address that point in a later amendment that would devolve the whole of housing benefit. However, it is important to understand that amendment 129 is not about trying to subvert the sanctions regime or the conditionality regime, with all its current flaws, but is about trying to reopen access to support with housing costs to those who have fallen foul of a tax, the bedroom tax, which Opposition Members are united across parties in opposing. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that fact.
Priti Patel
That is subject to the discussions taking place on the fiscal framework.
Returning to carers, we recognise and appreciate, as everybody in the House will, the contribution of informal carers, who provide tremendous support to parents and other family members.
Amendment 115 relates to the powers being devolved on the provision of the regulated social fund. Clause 20 will give the Scottish Parliament legislative competence over support currently provided through a number of reserved benefits such as funeral payments and maternity grants, which some Members have briefly touched on today. As with our approach to disability benefits and carers’ benefits, the clause devolves not simply the existing benefits but the subject matter of them. That will give the Scottish Parliament wide-ranging powers to make its own provision for the areas in question.
I wish to respond briefly to Members’ points about amendments 132 and 117—the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is no longer in his place, spoke to the former. The Government have made significant changes to the clauses on discretionary payments since they were first published in draft in January, having listened to the views of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and key stakeholders. The Bill now includes new top-up provisions in clause 21, and we have removed some provisions on discretionary housing payments that people felt would unnecessarily constrain the powers being devolved. Together, clauses 21 to 23 will give the Scottish Parliament significant powers to legislate for discretionary payments to people in Scotland, whether by topping up a reserved benefit or by providing assistance to meet short-term needs. The Scottish Government will be able to provide people with money additional to that provided by the UK Government.
Some Members mentioned welfare reforms and tax credits. I should point out that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will bring his Budget to the House next week, when further measures will be highlighted. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned the letter in today’s Herald and spoke about children, and I want to put it on the record that the proportion of children in poverty is at its lowest level since the mid-1980s.
There has been some discussion of welfare reform. The Government are absolutely committed not just to reforming welfare but to supporting families into work. The best route out of poverty is work, and I make no apology for all our efforts to raise incomes by expanding employment opportunities. We will of course have a debate about employment opportunities in a later group of amendments this afternoon, and because we are short of time I will not touch on that subject now.
Members mentioned sanctions and conditionality. Conditionality is an important feature of our welfare system, and I note that both the Labour party and the Scottish National party have always stated that they agree that there should be conditionality in the system. I put it on the record again that there has been an independent review of sanctions, the Oakley review. The Government have accepted all the recommendations highlighted in it and have already implemented a number of provisions, including improvements to the hardship payments process.
Kate Green
The Minister is right that the Oakley report made a number of recommendations about process, but Oakley was not asked to address the real concerns of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, which were about whether sanctions were being applied fairly and proportionately. What can the Minister say in response to the Select Committee’s recommendations on the problems with the substance of how sanctions are operated?
Priti Patel
I am aware of the Select Committee’s report, and the Department will put its views on the record. I urge Members, particularly SNP Members, who have previously mentioned sanctions cases in the House, to write to me directly with specific cases and the points that they wish to make.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to speak in favour of amendment 118 and new clause 45, which call for the removal of the requirement for the Scottish Government to obtain consent from the UK Secretary of State in relation to universal credit and the cost of claimants who rent accommodation.
In the light of our mandate from the Scottish people, and the lack of democratic mandate that the Conservatives —indeed, any of the other parties—have in Scotland, we urge all in the Committee to support the amendment. We set it out unequivocally in our manifesto that, as part of our welfare priorities, there should be an immediate scrapping of the bedroom tax and a halt to the roll-out of universal credit and PIP payments. We said that we would support an increase in the work allowance. Those policies were supported by both the people of Scotland and civic Scotland and we have a clear democratic mandate for that demand, given the result of the general election.
We are particularly concerned about the work allowance element of universal credit—the amount of income that a household can earn before their universal credit entitlement is reduced. We demand that the work allowance be devolved to the Scottish Government as part of new clause 45, and democratic integrity requires that that demand be met. We support increases in the personal tax allowance, but we also back an increase in the work allowance. In this, we are in keeping with a Resolution Foundation policy proposal paper, which pointed out:
“if we really want to help working families on low and middle incomes, boosting the Work Allowance would be more effective and better value for money than any tax cuts”.
For a lone parent with housing costs, for example, the work allowance is currently set at just over £3,000 per year. After that point benefits start to be withdrawn. For example, those on universal credit lose £65 of benefit for every £100 of post-allowance salary. Of course we need to put in place some sort of tapering system to make work pay, but the complexity of the system allows—indeed, encourages—the Government to focus on simpler measures, even if those simpler measures are far less effective. Take the personal allowance. People begin paying tax at 20% after earning £10,000 a year, but we pay less attention to the fact that a sole working parent faces a 65% deduction rate when they earn over £3,000 a year.
For people who receive universal credit and pay income tax, the Chancellor’s £600 a year increase to their personal allowance is welcome. That would boost their income by £42, but the same increase in work allowance would increase their income by £390.
Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies has weighed into this debate, arguing:
“In-work benefits provide a more precise and cost-effective way of supporting low-earning working families than changes to direct taxes.”
The freezing of work allowance is profoundly misguided and effectively cuts the benefits of workers on low incomes. What happened to making work pay? What we need is a work allowance to help to ensure that those in work have a better chance of lifting themselves and their families out of poverty. We need the power in Scotland to change work allowances in Scotland, so that we can help families to help themselves out of poverty as they go out every day to earn a living through increasingly difficult times.
Universal credit does not help some of our poorest households, but much could be done by increasing work allowance and making work pay. This could be one—only one—of the tools that could help to combat the scandal of those in work having to rely on food banks to put food on their tables and feed themselves and their families. Scotland needs powers over the work allowance element of universal credit—no ifs, no buts.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the letter in The Herald today, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). It is a letter from the third sector in Scotland protesting against the socially divisive and damaging impact of the UK Government’s cuts of a further £12 billion in social security spending—cuts which, despite attempts to rewrite history, the Labour party signed up to prior to the general election. [Interruption.] These cuts—[Interruption.] Let me put the cuts in context. In the pre-election debate the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said that the Labour party was not the party of people on benefits. I notice that there is no retort to that. These cuts first and foremost—
Patricia Gibson
No, thank you. [Interruption.] I have already responded informally to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is on the Front Bench.
These cuts first and foremost will bear down on the most vulnerable and poorest in society. The whole of the third sector in Scotland supports the devolution of working-age benefits to Scotland because there is a recognition that the Scottish Government can and will do things better. They will set out a welfare system competently and with compassion. Make no mistake. Such devolution of welfare powers—
Hannah Bardell
I would certainly be interested in taking a closer look at that and discussing it with my colleagues. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
To deal with youth unemployment, that approach is supported by the EU. We are keen for the powers that we were promised to be delivered to Scotland. Delivery of those powers and agreement on our proposals today would help to create a more joined-up approach to employment service provision for disabled people, as well as for the many others who have been mentioned, and more integrated support for these vulnerable groups.
Although it is demand-led, the current DWP spend on Access to Work in Scotland is disproportionately low. The Scottish Government have previously stated that the programme should be devolved to allow us to promote a more equitable share of spend in Scotland and to get more disabled people into sustained employment.
In summary, it is not just the SNP that sees significant flaws in the Bill. Citizens Advice Scotland notes:
“The Smith Commission Report…provided that the Scottish Parliament should have powers over all employment programmes currently contracted by the DWP. However, Clause 26 of the Bill restricts the powers devolved to employment support programmes that last at least a year. It is unclear why this restriction has been included; the Bill as drafted would appear to only devolve the Work Programme and Work Choice; which is inconsistent with Smith. Clause 26 as currently drafted does not clearly devolve powers over the Access to Work Scheme.”
Both the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Scottish Association for Mental Health support the amendments, which serve to devolve all employment powers and functions to Scotland covering Access to Work, devolution of services and Jobcentre Plus.
In Scotland, with the limited powers we have, we have proven that we can make a difference to people’s lives. The SNP Scottish Government have done their best to mitigate the damage done by Westminster cuts to date, but time is running out. If we do not gain the powers that were promised, we cannot continue to protect the vulnerable and grow our economy.
We have an excellent track record on apprenticeships and training for young people. In 2007, just 15,000 people started modern apprenticeships. We are now delivering more than 25,000 of them, and we will increase the number to 30,000 by 2020. To reply to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), the Scottish Government’s Opportunities for All programme has also been a significant success, with more than 90% of young people going on to positive destinations. In my own county of West Lothian, the figure stands at more than 96%. We are glad to announce today that the Scottish Government has got its 250th business, a nursery in West Lothian, to sign up to the living wage.
The opportunity to work is one that the vast majority of people in Scotland seek. The SNP wants dignity in work for all, and I commend our proposals to the Committee.
Kate Green
I will speak particularly to amendments 113, 9, 114 and 10, and much of what I will say will echo what the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said about the devolution of employment programmes.
It is clear that there are different labour markets not just between England, Scotland and Wales but within those nations. That is why I echo the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made about the opportunity that our amendments and the SNP amendments offer not just for devolution to Scotland but for double devolution of labour market programmes within Scotland.
Andrew Gwynne
As a Greater Manchester MP like myself, my hon. Friend will know that as part of the cities and devolution package, Greater Manchester will be invited to bid for the next phase of the Work programme. Does that not suggest that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said,double devolution is needed in Scotland so that communities can develop work programmes that are specific to them rather than centralised in Holyrood?
Kate Green
I agree. The intention stated in the Labour manifesto was to devolve labour market programmes to what we described as a combined authority footprint. That would enable recognition of the fact that local labour markets differ and recognition of the different industrial history and characteristics of people in particular parts of the country. Importantly, it would allow close alignment with the skills and industrial opportunities in particular communities. We want to see that opportunity for the devolution of labour market programmes to a sensible, localised level; I doubt whether it would be the whole of Scotland, because labour markets differ significantly within Scotland. There are considerable differences between the highlands and the central belt conurbations, for example.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying, but does she not recognise the difficulties for an area such as my own, where unemployment is low but so are wages, and in which there are fairly prosperous parts as well as parts that are not prosperous? It is difficult to say that a local authority area is suitable for devolving responsibility down to.
Kate Green
I readily accept that a local authority area may be too small. What is important is to get the geography right, and the whole of Scotland might not be right. We want the opportunity to explore the right geography for devolution rather than assuming that centralising responsibility in Holyrood will necessarily be the best way of meeting the needs of labour markets across Scotland.
It is also important to recognise that devolving programmes only if they will last longer than a year misses the point for a lot of people who suffer poor employment outcomes. Our amendment 113 specifically addresses that point. Contrary to popular prejudice, it is extremely rare for people never to have worked. People who experience poor labour market outcomes have mostly been in and out of poor-quality, poorly paid work for many decades. That has often been true of many generations of their family. If we devolve the opportunity to develop labour market programmes to the Scottish Parliament at an earlier stage, we can break that cycle not of worklessness but of moving in and out of poor-quality work. Interventions could be developed that would enable people to sustain work and progress in it, which the Work programme has not succeeded in doing.
Kate Green
There is certainly good and long-standing evidence, for example from the United States, that if more time is invested in equipping people with the skills and qualifications they need to move into better jobs with better pay, they are more likely to get into sustainable employment that means they will escape poverty. A shocking characteristic of our labour economy is that people often move into work but do not escape poverty, thereby contributing to the very high levels of in-work poverty in this country today.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I was a Unison activist and I found that the Access to Work programme not only helps people get into work, but helps existing employees who develop a visual impairment, for example, to continue in employment. It is a device that helps people to stay in work, not just get into work.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman is right. The Access to Work programme is a device to help people enter, stay in and progress in work, and it supports very senior people in highly qualified positions. It would be regrettable if changes to the programme were to put that at risk.
There could be real advantage to devolving Access to Work or similar programmes because the decision-making and administration processes might be swifter and more attuned to the needs of the local labour market and workforce with that level of devolution. Given the problems that we know are being experienced with the national programme—which appears quite inflexible in the way it deals with people—perhaps the measure could be devolved as part of this package.
Ian Murray
Perhaps I should sit down and allow my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) to guess what might be in my speech—he could also give us Saturday’s lottery numbers while he is at it.
Child Poverty
Kate Green Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Duncan Smith
We have got more people back into work and more people progressing through work, and more people are better off. They are better off in work than they are out of work—a fact that the hon. Lady seems to miss completely. The tax changes and the reductions in tax on take-home pay mean that people are actually better off. The answer to her question is simple: we will continue to support people who need that support through getting into work and beyond. That is the purpose of universal credit, she should stand assured.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Today’s households below average income survey report, on page 45, makes it quite clear that the percentage of children in relative income poverty has been flatlining since 2011-12, so it is not the policies of either this or the previous coalition Government that have reduced poverty; it is the legacy of the previous Labour Governments. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Oral Answers to Questions
Kate Green Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
Universal credit will be of enormous help to people with caring responsibilities, and others who are periodically required to be at home, because it will pay to be in work for every single hour. Moreover, under universal credit, as part of the in-work allowances, we have included an extra piece of support for those who care for others, on top of the carer’s allowance.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Disabled people do not want kindness; they want justice, and access to the benefits that can help them to live their lives. Will the Secretary of State give them a cast-iron guarantee that there will be no cuts in their benefits, no cuts in tax credits, and no cuts in the disability premiums that tax credits can bring? Disabled people need those assurances, given that, we understand, the Secretary of State has now agreed with the Chancellor that we are to expect welfare cuts amounting to £12 billion.
Mr Duncan Smith
Let me remind the hon. Lady what happened during the last Parliament, under a Conservative Government. Spending on disability living allowance was up by half in the decade before PIP came in, and just 6% of new claimants had face-to-face assessments. Under PIP, 20% of claimants receive both the higher rates, as opposed to 16% under DLA. Our reforms are about helping those in the greatest need. Let me remind the hon. Lady of something else as well, just in case she has forgotten. We did debate the overall figure of £12 billion, and Labour lost the election. I remember something that was said by the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who is not with us for the moment—I send her my best. She said:
“Labour will be tougher than the Tories when it comes to slashing the benefits bill.”
Is it not a bit of hypocrisy on the part of Labour Members to come here and make their claims, having said that they would be tougher than we are?
Kate Green
Labour will be tougher in cutting benefits when that is a response to the wrong drivers of those benefits. What we will not tolerate is cuts in benefits for people who are in work and who need those benefits to enable their work to pay. May I ask the Secretary of State about some of the work-related benefits for disabled people? Will he confirm that there will be no cuts and no downgrading of the payments to people on employment and support allowance in the work-related activity group, and will he tell us whether industrial injuries disablement benefit will be protected from cuts?
Mr Duncan Smith
The hon. Lady really needs to think carefully about what she says. Labour Members say that they will be tougher than us. Let me give the hon. Lady a simple pledge: we will protect the most vulnerable. There is only thing that is tough at the moment —tough on Labour Members: they lost the election. They had no idea of how they were going to end the deficit, and that is why they are sitting on the Opposition Benches.
Personal Independence Payment Applications
Kate Green Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this important debate. I am pleased to congratulate the Minister, too, and welcome him to his new position.
As we have heard, this debate is important for many of our constituents who have applied for PIP and experienced long delays, anxiety and hardship. We heard about the recent case of Ms C and Mr W, where it was found that the delays were unlawful. It is regrettable that we have not yet had any expression of apology from the Government for those delays. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to offer that apology.
Many MPs know of cases in our constituencies where assessments and decisions have taken a long time. In my constituency, in at least one case the waiting time, end to end, was more than a year and the Department had to pay compensation. This afternoon we have all welcomed the improvements in the time taken for assessment and processing since the benefit was first introduced, including welcome improvements to speed up assessment for special terminal illness cases including cancer. We have also welcomed today’s figures from the Department that show further improvements; it is now 15 weeks, end to end, for new claims, and 11 weeks for reassessments. However, we must recognise that these have been achieved because of a significant increase in the number of healthcare professionals and fewer face-to-face assessments than had been envisaged. In fact, this represents a significant policy change by the Department. An early criticism of DLA by the coalition Government was that it lacked face-to-face assessments; those were to be one of the marks of a new approach under PIP.
We are pleased to see the improvements. However, as hon. Members have noted, Ministers now face a significant new challenge in embarking on the mass migration of the 1.5 million DLA cases to PIP, which is due to commence in October. The independent reviewer, Paul Gray, has said that this is the most challenging phase of the roll-out of the benefit. It is not just challenging for the Department and the assessment companies; it is causing uncertainty and anxiety among many DLA recipients. It is also causing uncertainty in respect of the public purse. The Office for Budget Responsibility, which has already revised spending forecasts upwards by £1 billion per annum between 2014 and 2015, said in the welfare trends report last week that structural changes to welfare benefits, such as migration from DLA to the new benefit, PIP, mean that any spending forecasts made are
“subject to even greater uncertainty”.
It is important, as we have heard, that this mass migration is not botched or rushed. That is the lesson from the earlier phases of the roll-out of this benefit, and from the roll-out of other benefits with intrinsic assessment processes, particularly the work capability assessment.
The Minister said on 15 June, in a written answer to my question 1541, that roll-out will be “commensurate with capacity” and
“on a post code basis”.
That still causes a great deal of anxiety to claimants: they are not sure where they fit in that postcode lottery. It is not clear what it means for the overall profile of public spending on the benefit, and it is unclear when the end date of the migration will be. Will the Minister assure us that there will be sufficient capacity, both in the Department and among the independent assessors, and say what extra cost is being incurred to ensure that that capacity is sufficient? During the migration, how many face-to-face assessments does the Minister expect there to be, or what proportion of assessments would be done face to face? How many home visits will there be? What use is the Department making of the opportunity to share information with other assessment processes, as Paul Gray suggested?
The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) rightly highlighted appeals. It has been assumed that 40%—a very high level—will go to appeal. I hope the Minister assures us that not just the Department, but the Courts and Tribunals Service, can handle the appeals that are expected. Can he say how many people are expected to lose benefit or receive a lower payment than under the disability living allowance? We know from Motability that 40% have already lost the higher-rate mobility award and therefore their Motability vehicles. It would be interesting to hear what further forecast the Minister makes.
Most worrying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said, is the backdrop of £12 billion of welfare cuts—“Newsnight” suggested yesterday that it could be as much as £15 billion—and what they might mean for the roll-out of the personal independence payment. In the House of Lords on 10 June, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton pointed out that the Prime Minister said during the general election campaign that PIP would be enhanced and protected. In response, Lord Freud only confirmed that disabled people would be “supported”, which is not quite the same thing. As has been pointed out, in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on 3 June in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister failed to rule out cuts to disability benefits. Indeed, he claimed that the Government had increased the benefits paid to disabled people by introducing PIP, which he said was more generous to the most disabled. That is a startling statement, given that there has been no change in the top rate of payments as regards PIP and DLA, that 40% have already lost the higher-rate mobility award and that the Government introduced the benefit with the intention of making a 20% budget cut.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
A little patience might be useful, might it not? We have heard in this debate about the very vulnerable people who rely on this payment. Rather than shroud-waving and trying to second-guess the Chancellor and what might be announced on 8 July, might it not be better not to further worry people who might already be worried?
Kate Green
What would give disabled people the most reassurance is if the Minister categorically said this afternoon that PIP will not be subject to the proposed £12 billion of cuts. Perhaps he will take that opportunity.
Finally, will the Minister say what progress has been made with the independent reviewer’s recommendations? Paul Gray highlighted a disjointed claimant journey, a lack of trust in the process and a lack of transparency. He also highlighted the nonsense of so-called interventions, which mean starting a new assessment process pretty much as soon as the last one has been decided. He proposed a series of actions to address some of those concerns. We have also heard about ongoing operational problems with venues, inaccessibility, long journeys and difficulties in rural areas. Sheffield citizens advice bureau in particular has highlighted problems in that regard. Inappropriate expertise or behaviour from assessors was mentioned in a recent report from Inclusion Scotland. As one Member said this afternoon, there have been delays when circumstances have changed in the middle of a claim. I am grateful for the chance to ask the Minister questions. This issue is the major challenge facing the Department when it comes to disability benefits, and the history is not entirely encouraging. We need to know that lessons are being learned, and we look forward to his response.