Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

T7. There have been reports that a number of offenders remain unallocated to supervising officers following the division of the probation service into probation and community rehabilitation companies, with obvious concerns for public safety. The Secretary of State has said that he will only proceed with the transforming rehabilitation programme if he is confident it is safe to do so. Will he now undertake to publish the findings of the test gates, including the upcoming test gate 4, so that the public can have that reassurance?

[Chris Grayling]

I have expressly asked the chief inspector of probation to come to my office and talk to me if, in the course of the work he and his team do, he identifies any part of the reforms that are jeopardising public safety. He has not done so.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

It comes from my Department’s capital budget and it will lead to a reduction in the annual running costs of institutions. We are creating an institution that provides both high-quality education and better value than we get from the current system, which underperforms and is excessively expensive because of the nature of the provision out there. I believe this institution will be a major step forward and deliver high-quality education in a modern environment and campus setting, with the focus on education rather than simply detention. That is a key difference.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

If this model is considered to be as successful as the Lord Chancellor obviously believes it will be, can he say whether it will be extended to young women as well as young men, and whether they will be co-located in the college?

[Chris Grayling]

On co-location, there are a number of places in our current system where men and women, or indeed different age groups, are located near each other without being mixed together. I expect the secure college to have a range of age groups, but for them to be separated so that 12-year-olds are not mixed with 17-year-olds. Living on the same site, using the same facilities at different times, and maximising the effectiveness of the resource we put into creating those facilities must be a sensible way forward. If the secure college model works, I do not rule out having women’s units on site as well, but that does not mean we mix them. At Peterborough prison, a women’s prison and a male prison adjoin and share many of the same facilities, although the two sides do not mix. It is about making the best use of our resources to deliver the highest quality educational skills outcomes to a group of young people who will not get on in life unless we help them develop those skills. That is the whole purpose of what we are trying to do.

This is a different kind of institution. A few people are saying, “This is just the biggest children’s prison in Europe”, but that is complete nonsense. This is much more akin to a school or college with a fence around it on a site that can deliver quality education and a mix of skills development, in a way that will genuinely help take young people—while we have them under our control—through a period of skill building of the kind they desperately need. That will be a whole lot better than having young offenders institutions with big iron bars and 12 hours in the classroom. This is a new approach that I think can make a real difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

The collection rate of fines and other charges levelled in the courts is in excess of 80%. There is a large block of historical debt, much of which is owed by people who, for reasons that include that they have simply died, for accounting reasons have to stay on the books. I accept that that is daft and it is a matter of debate among accounting figures in government. The figure my hon. Friend cites is not a sum of money that could ever realistically be recouped by the taxpayer, but, of the money that is levied in courts every year, we currently collect about 80%. I have no reason to believe that we will not continue to do that, and I have no reason to believe that these reforms will not lead to the collection of the many tens of millions of pounds we seek to collect to make a contribution to the running of the court system.

[Kate Green]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. When funds are being recovered, will he say in what order they will be disbursed? In particular, will priority be given to payments to the victims compensation fund, ahead of reimbursing court costs?

[Chris Grayling]

We will not change the order of the collection of fines and victims’ charges. The collection of court costs will come after that. It is worth saying that the repayment of the charge will, as is normally the case in the courts in relation to fines and victim surcharges, be set at a rate that offenders can afford, so there will always be an incentive for them to find a job and to work hard. Offenders will be able to earn their way out of the charge if they do not reoffend. We will make provision for the charge, or any outstanding sums of money, to be written off if the offender does not reoffend. There will, therefore, be an incentive to go back into work, get on with it and make regular payments. Then, when they do not reoffend, an amount of money will be written off. That is a fair and balanced way to ensure that we secure a contribution from those who can afford it—there are people in our courts who will be able to afford this money on the spot—and create a system whereby if people do the right thing, we will do the right thing by them and write off any outstanding money.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that we take the enforcement of such payments extremely seriously. We continue to work hard to improve enforcement levels and we will address some of the historical debt by outsourcing the collection of criminal financial impositions in a more effective way. I hope that that will enable us to recover some of that debt. I want to ensure that those who have the means to pay but refuse to do so, do not escape without consequences. The reality is that many people work very hard to avoid paying money to the courts and we need to use every tool at our disposal to ensure that they pay.

We must continue to look at ways to make the court system more efficient and proportionate to crimes committed. Too much of magistrates’ time and court time is currently spent simply going through the motions of hearing a case where the defendant has pleaded guilty by post or has not responded. We currently have the absurd situation of valuable court time being spent on hearings where paperwork is simply read aloud by lawyers. The Bill allows a single magistrate to deal with such cases away from the traditional magistrates courtroom. It will free up valuable court time to focus on cases where they make a real difference to victims and their communities, while preserving a defendant’s right to request a hearing in open court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

That is a very good point, which we should certainly take on board.

[Kate Green]

In the context of this part of the Bill, I should place on record my interest as a life member of the Magistrates Association.

When decisions are made outside open court and entirely on paper, with no public pronouncement being made, how can the public be made aware of sentencing practices in relation to the offences that we are discussing?

[Chris Grayling]

I have made it very clear that we must not lose transparency as a result of our reforms. In today’s world, the local paper reporter obviously will not sit through cases of this kind, because there are not the necessary resources. However, it is vital for the local media, for example, to have access to information about what happens in the courts, and we cannot allow the new process to take place behind closed doors. I am a strong believer in transparency in the courts, and we will provide mechanisms to ensure that the public have access to court decisions. That is only right and proper: we cannot have secret judgments.

Part 3 also deals with the important issue of jury misconduct. Trial by jury is a fundamental feature of our justice system, and juror misconduct can have a devastating effect, causing delays, cost, and damage to public confidence. I am clear about the fact that people should be tried by the courts, not by the internet. When an individual is before the court, the jury must decide on the basis of the evidence presented and principles of justice, not the results of a Google search. The Bill introduces a number of criminal offences in order to tackle such behaviour, based on recommendations by the Law Commission. It also deals with the publication of potentially prejudicial materials during court proceedings, on which the current law is outdated and in need of reform. I think that these provisions represent a careful balance between the right to report and publish freely, and the right to be judged only on the facts before the court, and I thank the Law Commission for its work in this regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I suppose I should declare an interest in this context as well, given that I used to run a pressure group that brought judicial reviews—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Against the previous Government, I must say. Those judicial reviews always addressed matters of significant public interest. How does the Justice Secretary intend to deal with complex cases whose costs are likely to be high, but in which it would be helpful to the court to have the matters properly argued, analysed and brought to the court’s attention, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) described? Does the Secretary of State have a means of ensuring that his proposal will not shut people out from bringing such complex cases?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady certainly did bring cases against the previous Government, but the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I discovered to our surprise when we went into that Department in 2010 that the practice of the previous Government was to guarantee to pay the costs of the pressure group from day one. We got a call from one pressure group saying, “We are going to bring a judicial review. Can we assume that the usual arrangements will apply and you will pay the costs?”, to which the answer was, “Well, actually, no.” It was a strange way for the previous Government to do business.

As I said, protective costs orders will still be available for cases of genuine public interest, but my fear is, and my experience has been all too often, that cases are brought for public relations and campaigning reasons in a way that leaves the taxpayer guaranteed to pick up the bill. I do not think that is fair on the taxpayer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Can the Justice Secretary explain why the Mesothelioma Bill is cited in the Ministry of Justice review of the mesothelioma exemption as one of the recommended criteria for bringing into force sections 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012? Those sections have nothing to do with the Mesothelioma Bill.

[Chris Grayling]

Off the top of my head, no, but I will happily trade letters with the hon. Lady and we will find out.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The problems with the precautionary clause are twofold. First, it is worth saying that this House voted for the reforms by a substantial majority last week. Secondly, the precautionary provision would prevent any change whatever to the entire probation service from being made. The clause is completely flawed. It would prevent any kind of restructuring or reorganisation within an individual trust, let alone any other part of what is proposed. I am afraid that we will therefore seek to overturn that amendment in Committee because, as I say, it would make it impossible to run the probation service, even in its current form.

We are talking about people who have offended before, some of whom are often highly persistent offenders, and far too many of them go on to reoffend. In 2011, about 50,000 adult offenders were released from short prison sentences. Nearly 60% of that group went on to reoffend, committing a total of 85,000 crimes. That is 85,000 crimes too many—a depressing merry-go-round of offending, blighting the lives of men, women and children in all our constituencies.

Labour Members have talked about us taking risks with public safety, so let me tell them what really is taking risks with public safety. It is leaving the situation unchanged. Those 85,000 crimes include some of the most serious crimes that our society knows—thousands of them each year, including hundreds of serious sexual and violent offences. Yet we are leaving the people who commit those crimes to go on and on unsupervised.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The probation service, of course, has never been asked or required to supervise that group of offenders before, so is there any reason why the Justice Secretary could not give the public probation service the opportunity to carry out this supervision when the legislation passes?

[Chris Grayling]

I refer to what Labour said in 2010—that it could not do that. The hon. Lady and her colleagues said very clearly that they could not afford to proceed with custody plus—the scheme that they brought forward that would enable the probation service to provide supervision for these offenders. We have come up with a way of doing that. Labour said that in 2010—just before the last election. That is the reality of what we are dealing with. We are talking about people who go on and on and on committing crimes, unsupervised. I see that as the real public safety scandal; it is a flaw in our system that I want to solve and Labour Members seem not to want to solve.

Sadly, it is no surprise that reoffending rates for this group are so high. The average time served in custody for that group is only nine weeks—not nearly long enough to tackle these issues while in prison. After that, they are released at the halfway point with £46 in their pocket and little or no support. Some engage with voluntary rehabilitation programmes after their release, but at the moment there is no mandatory period of supervision in the community. That is what this Bill changes. The core of the change in this Bill is the delivery of 12 months of supervision for those people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I would like briefly to update the House on proposals for tougher sentencing. I am sure the House will agree that it is simply not acceptable that offenders who commit some truly horrific crimes in this country are automatically released from prison without serving the full sentence regardless of their behaviour, attitude and engagement in their own rehabilitation. The last Government enshrined this automatic early release in legislation. I intend to change that. Given the financial mess left behind by the Labour party it is not possible to end automatic early release for all offenders straight away, but it is my intention to take the first step in that direction. I will shortly be introducing legislation to ensure that criminals convicted of rape or attempted rape of a child or of terrorism offences will no longer be automatically released at the halfway point of their prison sentence. Instead they will have to earn their release by the Parole Board. This means that many serious criminals will end up spending significantly longer in prison.

[Kate Green]

According the Prison Advice and Care Trust, 66% of women in prison have dependent children, but although a minority are looked after by their fathers while their mothers are prison, it is very uncertain who is caring for many of those children during their mother’s sentence. What are the Government doing to ensure sentencers properly take account of the best interests of dependent children in making sentencing decisions?

[Chris Grayling]

We are looking very carefully at the whole issue of the women’s estate, and I very much recognise the issue to which the hon. Lady refers. It is obviously difficult not to imprison somebody guilty of a serious crime, but at the same time I believe we need to do everything we can to move women in detention closer to home and closer to family. When we announce our plans for the women’s estate in due course, I hope she will see we have taken that factor heavily into account.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We are working hard to increase links with employers. The amount of work done in prisons has increased dramatically, and much of that takes place with potential post-prison employers—I pay tribute to the rail industry, for example, and the work it is doing. As we roll out these reforms, I want Jobcentre Plus and Work programme providers to be more closely involved with prisons, and to do everything we can to ensure that people flow from prison into employment. If we talk to most prisoners about what they would like to do when they leave, the answer is get a job. We must help them do so.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that payment in full would be dependent on results. Can he say what proportion of payment will be dependent on success, and what proportion will take the form of an up-front fee?

[Chris Grayling]

The answer to that is: as of yet, not exactly, because there will be a bidding process. I emphasise again, however, that that will not be simply about cost, and that quality will be at least as important as cost and the proportion of the contract put at risk. It will not be 100% payment by results because we must pay for orders of the court. I intend the providers to have some of their money at risk so that they have every incentive to perform on our behalf.

Transforming Rehabilitation

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I intend to legislate in the near future to ensure that, when we do this, the court has the power to require people who have short sentences to go through rehabilitation programmes. It is important that we have a system whereby if someone who has a drug problem has a short sentence and is released from jail having started rehab there, that rehab will carry on and they will be required to do it. That will be the case.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Justice Secretary will be well aware of the special experiences and needs of women in the criminal justice system. There are already some excellent programmes supporting women offenders, such as the women matter programme in Greater Manchester. Will the Justice Secretary assure me that he will use the consultation period to reflect carefully on how a payment-by-results method will need to be adapted to meet the particular needs of women offenders?

[Chris Grayling]

I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who has responsibility for women in prisons, and I are looking at the issue. There are different challenges for adult males, young people and women in prisons, and we need to be careful and ensure that we approach each of those groups with an appropriate understanding of the different circumstances in which they find themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

1. What the Government’s policy is on the use of indeterminate sentences for public protection.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

The widely criticised indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection was abolished on 3 December. It has been replaced by a new regime of mandatory life sentences, which apply to anyone who is convicted for a second time of a very serious sexual or violent offence, and tough extended determinate sentences.

[Kate Green]

In a written answer published on 19 October, I was informed that 193 prisoners over the age of 60 were serving indeterminate sentences for public protection. Approximately 25 elderly high-risk prisoners are expected to be released in Greater Manchester, some of whom will have higher than average social care needs as well as a need for specialist supervision. What discussions have been taking place with local authorities about where those individuals are to be accommodated, and who will bear the cost?

[Chris Grayling]

As the hon. Lady will know, the probation service regularly engages in detailed discussions with local authorities to try to establish the right ways of dealing with individual offenders. In many parts of the country there is integrated offender management, which is designed to ensure that we provide the best possible support. My plans for a rehabilitation revolution will step up the support provided for such people, and will, I hope, ensure that we address issues such as where prisoners are to live after leaving prison.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words of welcome. I look forward to having many dealings with his Committee, and no doubt some sharp questioning. Let me assure him that I view rehabilitation very much as a significant element of our criminal justice system. It will be a major theme of the work I do at the Ministry of Justice. Although people may have to go to prison in recognition of the offences they have committed, it is absolutely right and proper that we should do everything we possibly can to ensure that they do not go back.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am pleased to see the Minister in his new role. Will he take a look at the “Choose change” project, which has been running in Manchester for a number of years, working with offenders in prison to prepare for all aspects of their lives on release? It has been an extremely interesting exercise in dealing with all the things that may lead prisoners back into crime on release, and practitioners in Manchester would very much welcome it if the new Minister paid a visit.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady is making an early bid. I can assure her that I have every intention of spending as much time as I can away from Westminster, looking at the work being done in the public sector, as well as by those working with the public sector, to try to understand where we can improve and build on existing successes. I am sure that if I am in Manchester and the opportunity arises, I shall do as she suggests.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I need only a couple of minutes to ask three questions, particularly in relation to the Lords amendment on leaving child benefit out of the cap.

As has been pointed out many times, families earning £35,000 or £40,000 and families on benefits both receive child benefit—it is a universal benefit. First, then, how can it be right to have the same cap for a single, childless adult as for a family with children? Secondly, why are this Government, of all Governments, importing a new couples penalty into the benefits system? It might make more sense for a couple, each of whom might separately be below the cap, to separate than to stay together and incur it. I have never understood why this Secretary of State, of all Secretaries of State, wants to introduce such a policy.

Thirdly, how will the cap be uprated—if, indeed, it is to be uprated? What will happen if a family is forced to move to cheaper accommodation because its costs exceed the cap, and then rents rise in the new area and it is forced to move again and again and again? Until we know how the cap is to be uprated, children’s well-being and family stability will be put at risk, but I have yet to hear Ministers address that issue.

[Chris Grayling]

In the past hour and 45 minutes, we have listened to a debate that sums up the difference between the Labour party and the parties in government. With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to the remarks that we have heard.

It is my view—and, I believe, the view of the public listening to this debate—that we have to change the nature of our welfare state. We have to move away from the world that existed under the previous Government, where children grew up, generation after generation, in houses where no one worked, and where entire communities had people with no experience of work in their family and who knew nothing about how to improve their lot in life. In the Bill, we have introduced a package of measures that will do nothing short of transforming our welfare state.

The great tragedy of this afternoon’s debate is that Labour just does not get it. We have seen an extraordinary attempt by Labour to get itself off a highly visible public hook over a policy that commands overwhelming public support in every constituency in the country. If we walked out on to the streets this afternoon and asked the public what they thought about a benefit cap, we would discover that virtually everyone was 100% behind this policy. Yet what we have heard from the Opposition over the weeks has been an exercise in dancing around the issue. There have been moments when they have said that they favour the benefits cap, but there have been moments when they have said that they oppose it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I will absolutely do that because, as my hon. Friend knows, we are all about trying to help people out of poverty by getting them back into work. The benefits cap is one part of a portfolio of policies—including universal credit, the Work programme and the migration of people off incapacity benefit—that will deliver the kind of change to our welfare state that we so desperately need and was so desperately lacking in 13 years under Labour.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that it is expected that the number of claimants on employment and support allowance who are routed to the Work programme will be about 150,000 lower than was expected when the contracts were let. What assessment has he made of the impact on their viability?

[Chris Grayling]

Overall, as the hon. Lady will have seen from the figures that we published before Christmas about expected numbers in the Work programme, we are likely to see more people in the harder-to-help groups go into the programme than was previously expected. However, she will also have seen from the previous sets of statistics on ESA that we have a larger than expected support group, which is partly because of policy changes that we have made in areas such as cancer, addiction and mental health in which we are trying to provide better long-term protection for people who are genuinely vulnerable.

Unemployment

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman will learn, if he listens to my speech, that we are already doing things. We have delivered a package of support that will make a significant difference to the lives of the unemployed.

We keep hearing about a mythical two-year gap in provision. I remind the Opposition that the programmes that we inherited from them finished only three months ago. Today’s unemployment figures cover part of the period when the previous Government’s programmes were continuing.

Let me take up the points that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) made about this morning’s unemployment figures. He questioned why I had said this morning that the labour market had showed some signs of stabilisation. Let me explain why. It is because over the past month, employment has risen by 38,000 and unemployment has risen by 16,000, a number that is considerably exceeded by the change in activity levels. The youth unemployment figure, excluding full-time students, has remained static, and the jobseeker’s allowance claimant count has risen by 3,000, whereas the total number of people who have moved off incapacity benefit and income support as a result of our welfare reforms is 10,000. Those are one month’s figures and certainly do not reflect a long-term change, but they are at least a sign of some stabilisation in the labour market. I think he would and should welcome that.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I want to return to the Minister’s point about the previous programmes having only just come to a conclusion. He surely accepts that they were running down. If someone started on a future jobs fund programme at the very end of its life, that individual would inevitably be in work for a further six months. However, that does not mean that there was not a substantial gap between the announcement of the closure of some programmes and the Government finally getting around to opening up a new programme, the youth contract, which we understand will not actually come into effect until next April.

[Chris Grayling]

That is simply not correct. We managed a transition strategy that kept existing programmes going until the first part of this autumn, precisely to ensure that there was not a gap in provision between what we inherited and what we were putting in place.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to make my first contribution to this stage of proceedings on the Bill by welcoming an aspect of Government amendment 2. Specifically, it is enormously welcome that the short paragraph (e) will enable regulations to include

“a level of earnings below which earnings must not be reduced”

when overpayments are being recovered. That echoes the practice in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and other nations, which have legally enforceable, attachment-free limits when debts are being enforced, below which claimants must be protected. The limits relate to a national minimum income standard, which is set by a variety of methods. I am grateful to Professor John Veit-Wilson, Professor Elaine Kempson, Damon Gibbons of Debt on our Doorstep and Rev. Paul Nicolson of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, who have helped me to prepare for this debate.

I would be pleased to see the principle of irreducible attachment-free minimums extended to all debts and to the unemployed, in particular to safeguard children’s, disability and housing benefits. That would prevent the damage that is done to physical and mental health by the enforcement of debt against poverty incomes, and the damage that that does to the capacity of the poorest adults to find and keep work.

In Sweden, the standards for a reasonable standard of living are uprated for price index changes every year and reset every five years by the National Board for Consumer Affairs. The standards are based on survey data on national household consumption patterns and current prices; statisticians and NBCA policy officials decide what is reasonable in terms of deviations from the averages. For example, for the past four years in the UK, the prices of food and domestic fuel have increased faster than the retail prices index and the consumer prices index. The standards are used by the social service board for setting benefits and by the tax authority for setting the tax threshold. The tax threshold is also used by the court enforcement authority to set its attachment-free sum for debt enforcement. That sum consists of two parts: variable housing costs and a fixed standard normal sum for all other living expenses.

There are clearly other methodologies for setting the minimum acceptable income standard below which incomes should be protected and attachment-free. In Committee, we explored work that is under way in this country at the universities of York and Loughborough, among others, to develop a minimum income standard that can command and be informed by the perceptions of the public. There is a range of options for assessing and setting the minimum standard below which there will not be deductions. There are examples from other nations where such a minimum is enforceable by the courts and related to national minimum income standards. In countries that have legally enforceable limits, the courts, in setting payment plans, can ensure that the debtor is left with a minimum level of income, taking account of family size.

I hope that the small but vital paragraph (e) in Government amendment 2 will begin an era of cross-party support for legally enforceable irreducible and attachment-free minimums when people are repaying debts, which are based on minimum income standards. That would contribute to a reduction in the huge cost of mental illness to the health service and the wider economy, and make a significant contribution to the reduction of poverty in the UK. I hope that we have an ambitious approach to setting that minimum.

[Chris Grayling]

I start by saying that I very much appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I listened carefully to her points, a number of which she made in Committee. She has given a great deal of thought to these matters, and although I cannot offer her a guarantee that we will do all the things she wishes, I can say to her that we will take great care, in the regulations attached to the Bill, to ensure that we get the right balance. It has been clear for a long time in this country, and remains absolutely clear under the current Government, that in setting the levels of any deduction we have to be extremely careful not to tip people into hardship. In particular, we must not encourage them to leave work and end up moving them and their families down the poverty scale.

The hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) asked how we would determine the level of earnings below which deductions for overpayments cannot be made. Of course, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and the circumstances of different families are very different. There may be a case in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) suggested, there is a deduction for child support, or the number of children in a family or a disability may be factors. Great care therefore has to be exercised.

The minimum level that we will pursue will be determined to ensure that the debtor is left with sufficient income to maintain themselves and their family, in line with similar provisions in the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971. We therefore plan to use the same basis that the previous Government used—for example, to determine deductions from benefit payments.

In many cases, however, a direct earnings attachment will be implemented with little negotiation with the debtor. There will be a prescribed minimum level that will not take account of individual circumstances. We will try to create a system whereby we are mindful of the need to reflect the circumstances of the individual, but we cannot go the whole way, and we certainly cannot go quite as far as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston would wish.

If a debtor finds that they are unable to cope with the deductions being made from their earnings, they should contact us to discuss an alternative payment rate. Of course, they can avoid being placed in that situation, bearing in mind that we are discussing not people who are struggling to deal with something that they have already agreed but those who have wilfully refused to enter an agreement with us and are basically saying, “I’m not paying the money back”, or who have not even got to the point of saying anything to us at all.

Debtors who are repaying their overpayment by means of a direct earnings attachment will, in line with those repaying by other methods, be able to claim that the repayment rate causes them hardship and ask for it to be reduced. Although we of course have a responsibility to recover overpayments in order to protect public funds, we also take into account an individual’s financial and personal circumstances. The hon. Lady articulated a strong case for her points, but I cannot offer her quite as much as she would wish. However, I can offer her an assurance that we will always take an individual’s circumstances into account, particular where poverty, deprivation and hardship could arise.

The right hon. Member for East Ham made a point about employers. We will, of course, use the same mechanism for the attachment orders in the Bill as is used for child maintenance deductions. That process is well established through the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission system, and prior to that through the Child Support Agency, so it should not cause employers to recast their processes and do things very differently. On that basis, I am confident that it should not represent a significant additional burden on employers.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the provision for a £1,000 fine. In truth, there is no excuse for a refusal to engage in any part of the process. The orders will arise only because an individual claimant has refused to engage, and there is no real excuse for an employer to refuse to engage either. The matter should not be complicated, and it certainly should not be complex enough to cause an employer to decline an expansion in business or a recruitment to fill a vacancy. The process is established and many employers up and down the country are used to dealing with it, and I do not believe there will be significant extra burden on business.

The right hon. Gentleman asked how much employers could deduct for the administration charge, and the answer is an amount not in excess of £1 for each deduction. He asked for an assurance that the measure will not damage work incentives. The answer to that is that, as with all debt recovery, we must of course be mindful of the Department’s welfare obligations. As I said, recovery of overpaid benefits should not cause undue hardship. In the calculation of a repayment, we certainly would not want to push someone into a position in which they have to leave work to avoid payment under a DEA.

The operation of the DEA does not mean that the debtor will commence the repayment of their debt earlier than they would under another repayment method. The debtor will have had ample opportunity to make other arrangements to pay, or indeed to show that suspension of recovery was applicable in their case. We are not talking about people who have had no chance to engage and discuss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The whole purpose of universal credit is to provide assistance to people who are trying to get back to work and to ensure that work always pays. I hope that the women of Bridgend will benefit, like those across the country, from the introduction of universal credit and the extra support that it will provide to ensure that they are better off in work.

[Kate Green]

I noted the Minister’s reminder a few moments ago that transitional protection would also be available in respect of child care costs. Can he confirm that one change in circumstances that can be predicted is that child care costs will vary between term time and school holidays and that that will not trigger a change in circumstances that would lead to the cancellation of transitional protection?

[Chris Grayling]

It is not our intention that routine or minor changes in circumstances would lead to the loss of transitional protection. The requirement for child care clearly fluctuates during the course of the year, but follows a set pattern. It is not our intention for a moment to remove transitional protection in that situation, nor is it our intention to remove it in an environment in which there is an annual increase—RPI or CPI—in the rate of child care. We are looking at material changes in circumstances, and I certainly would not envisage the change from term time to holidays as a material change.

The other issue that I have with the Opposition’s proposals is that they would remove the ability for people to take up mini jobs. For women re-entering the workplace after a lengthy time out of it, there is a bigger barrier than needs to be the case. One of the strengths of the universal credit system is the flexibility for people to take on mini jobs. The level of prescription set out in the Opposition’s proposals would set up unnecessary and inappropriate barriers to getting people back to work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am aware of the very unfortunate incident in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I cannot comment specifically on that investigation, but I can assure him that the HSE is investigating carefully what happened. Clearly, lessons must be learned. However, that underlines my view that the HSE should concentrate its resources on dealing with genuinely serious incidents and problems, and not on trivial matters.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

9. What his policy is on the couple penalty in the benefit system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is particularly true for areas of the country that have high levels of incapacity benefit dependency. For the first time, we will be attempting to provide real support to people who have been on incapacity benefit long term and are found fit for work or potentially fit for work through the work capability assessment. I am convinced that the specialist support that we can bring to bear for those people will make a particular difference in those parts of the country where the problem is substantial.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Most jobseekers will become eligible for entry into the Work programme after they have been on jobseeker’s allowance for a period of 12 months. Can the Minister explain how it is sensible that at precisely the moment at which they become eligible for the extra support of the Work programme, they will see a cut in their housing benefit because of the period that they have spent on JSA?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady must understand that we are seeking to maximise the incentives in the system. What we inherited from the previous Administration is a system that is full of disincentives to go back to work. If we do not remove some of those disincentives, create a push to get people back into work and combine that with support to do so, we will end up with the same 13 years of failure as we saw under the previous Government.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Debate between Kate Green and Lord Grayling

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman is right. What he says about higher education is one reason why I am proud that the present Administration will provide more university places this year than were planned by the previous Administration. He makes a valid point. I remember the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) saying in the House some years ago that in his constituency, a person was seen to be weird if he or she stayed on in education past the age of 16. That underlines the challenge in communities where there is too little experience of educational achievement. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami): there is a need to break down the barriers and to raise aspirations.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that evidence also shows that children from the poorest families are unable to make the most of their education? At as early as 22 months, children from poorer backgrounds are doing less well than children from better-off backgrounds and that gap continues to widen as they go through the school system. Does he agree that efforts to address both educational attainment and aspiration and family incomes need to go hand in hand if children are to make the most of their schooling?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady has extremely extensive experience of these matters and she is absolutely right. We remain firmly of the view that early intervention is important. I mentioned parenting skills earlier; when talking about these matters, I always pay tribute to the charity Home-Start. Enabling people who have good parenting experience to mentor those who do not makes a valuable contribution to helping young people who grow up in more challenging environments to do better than they might otherwise have done. That is hugely important because we have massive divides within communities, between people living side by side.

Here in Westminster, for example, we have the largest difference in life expectancy of any London local authority. In areas such as Knightsbridge and Belgravia, people can expect to live into their mid-80s, but just up the road in Queens Park life expectancy is just over 70—a gap of nearly 15 years. For every two minutes on the tube between Knightsbridge and Queens Park, the life expectancy of the communities through which one travels drops by a year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As we prepare the Work programme, I shall seek to ensure that it includes scope for the voluntary sector organisations that specialise in local communities and individual groups in our society that can make a difference. Groups that best understand rural areas can make the biggest difference to ensure that we help people in rural communities into prosperous and successful working lives, and not leave them stranded on benefits. I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.

We have a moral duty, even in difficult times, to do what we can to break down the cycle of deprivation that affects many of those communities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and his team have committed years to identifying the challenges that face those deprived communities and how to solve them. We have demonstrated a willingness to look at ideas across the political spectrum. I am delighted that we can take advantage of the expertise of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead in his review. He is highly regarded in all parts of the House for the knowledge and insights that he has built up, and we look forward to seeing his conclusions, particularly on how we measure poverty and capture a more accurate understanding of it in all its forms. That work enables us to understand more clearly how to develop solutions for the problems that we face.

I hope that we can maintain dialogue with Members such as the hon. Member for Nottingham North, who is a leading thinker on how to use early intervention to tackle deprivation. He has worked closely with my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and we believe that this is an issue that should capture expertise wherever it lies. In addition, we have established for the first time a cross-departmental Cabinet Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend to ensure that we join up all the thinking and work that we do on social justice across government.

All of that will require radical reforms. It is about stimulating economic growth by moving more people into work; providing more effective routes into truly sustainable jobs; establishing clearer links between work and reward; and helping people to make responsible choices and save for their retirement. And ultimately, in these straitened times, we must ensure that we are using the money available to the best possible effect, both for those individuals and the taxpayer.

[Kate Green]

I agree strongly with the Secretary of State that leading people to, and enabling them to sustain, well-paid jobs is an important route out of poverty, but with only about 0.5 million vacancies—and, as his Government have said, about 5 million on inactive and unemployment benefits—can he confirm that an adequate safety net for people who cannot be in paid work will be sustained, and in particular, that there will be no freezing or cutting of benefits on which families who are out of work rely?

[Chris Grayling]

I am not going to announce the Budget today, but it will remain a Government commitment to provide a security or safety net for people who find themselves in difficulties. That safety net must not be a place in which people simply live their lives. No one benefits from sitting at home on benefits doing nothing, whether it is people with incapacities, people with disabilities or lone parents. There is general agreement—between ourselves, and between representative groups outside—that if we can help people into work it gives them a more fulfilling life, and it provides a job for their families. We regard breaking down the culture of worklessness as a huge priority.

The hon. Lady is right about the economic situation, but we must not make the mistake that has been made over the past 10 years. The previous Government presided over a situation in which jobs that were created tended to go not to people who were stranded on benefits in this country but to people moving here from overseas. That must not happen in the coming decade.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right. We have to make sure that people benefit financially from going back to work. We will do everything that we can as an Administration to ensure that people who do the right thing genuinely benefit from doing so, and that no one is incentivised to say, “There’s no point in getting a job. I’ll stay at home.” That does not do them, or any of us, any good whatsoever.

We are talking not just about individuals but about whole families: two or three generations of the same family who not only do not work but have never worked. That is not simply the result of a lack of opportunity. In many of our most deprived and challenged communities, the culture of dependency and the sense of exclusion from mainstream society has resulted in a sense of hopelessness and poverty of ambition, as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said, which we have to break down. We will do everything that we can to meet that challenge.

I want to set out five key areas that are central to helping people to escape from that poverty trap. First, all the evidence shows that early-years experiences are crucial in determining life chances. A stable home life can make a huge difference to the health and well-being of our children. Family breakdown has been linked to mental health problems, addiction and educational failure, and there is no doubt that the impact of families on life chances seems to be more pronounced in the UK than in neighbouring areas. The earning potential of a child in the UK is more closely related to that of their parents than it is in countries such as the United States, Germany or France. The rate of family breakdown is much higher in the UK than in other major countries, and we have one of the highest proportions of single-parent families in the OECD and the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the EU.

The reality of the links to poverty is clear: 34% of children in families with just one parent in their home were in poverty in 2008-09—a much higher proportion than the national average, which is 22%—and we know that a family with just one parent is twice as likely to have an income in the bottom 20% as families where there are two parents. We want to create a system that supports families, creates a stable environment for children and improves social mobility. That is why we will work to strengthen families by investing in effective early-years provision, including expanding the availability and accessibility of health visitors, so that all parents have access to expert support and advice in the crucial early days of a child’s life. We will recognise marriage in the tax system, and, as soon as we can we will tackle the couple penalty in tax credits. We will encourage shared parenting from the earliest stages of pregnancy, including the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave. We want to restore aspiration, allowing parents to hope for their children and children to dream for themselves. Education plays a central role in that, and it is the second key area that we wish to address.

Education is vital. We know that people with five or more GCSEs at grades A to C earn more than those without, and they are around 3% more likely to be in work. But we also know that of the 75,000 children who receive free school meals every year, almost half do not get a single grade C at GCSE—more than a thousand classrooms of children each year let down by the system. We have some of the most disadvantaged children in the UK. Of the 6,000 children leaving care every year, only 400 are in higher education by the age of 19. Children in care should be a particular priority for us. Every child should have access to good quality education. Too many of the poorest children are stuck in chaotic classrooms in bad schools, so we will give teachers more power over discipline, bring in a pupil premium and provide extra funding for the poorest children so that they go to the best schools, not the worst.

But we are concerned not only about preventing the next generation falling into a cycle of poverty and worklessness. We also have to deal with the challenges that are there right now. So the third area that we will address is the problem of worklessness and welfare dependency. Each week, if one includes tax credits and child benefits, 12 million working-age households receive benefits at a cost of around £85 billion a year. About 5 million people claim out-of-work benefits, and around half of those have spent at least half of the last 10 years on some form of benefit. We know that many of those on out-of-work benefits cannot work for reasons of health, but many with the right help could get back into work.

At its worst, the current system divides people and assigns support based on the type of benefit claimed rather than need. It fails to recognise people who need extra help and it refuses up-front support, allowing people to become so entrenched in the benefit system that they cannot see a way out. Many Members who represent some of the most challenged communities and talk to those people know that we must help them to break out of the environment in which they live, raising their aspirations and showing them that there is a better way forward.

During the last 10 years, an array of programmes was set up by the last Government. They believed that the answer was to create top-down, closely designed programmes, which they imposed on the system. That did not work, so we will do something different. When we introduce our single work programme next year, it will create an environment in which the support that we offer will be tailored to the needs of individuals, not designed in Whitehall by Ministers and officials. Everyone who can work should get the help and advice that they need to get a job and move into sustainable work. That will be our focus and those who deliver that support will be paid on the basis of the success that they have in delivering that support and getting people into work.

Britain is a nation of opportunity. It must be a nation of opportunity. As we tackle the deficit and get the economy back on its feet—I keep returning to this point—we must ensure that the jobs that are created in the next few years go to those who are in the most need, who can get off benefits and make more of their lives. We cannot make the same mistakes all over again. That is what our welfare reforms are all about.

I want to talk briefly about another group—those on incapacity benefits. More than 2 million people claim incapacity benefits, nearly half of whom have been out of work for the last 12 years. They, in particular, need fresh opportunities. Not all will be able to work, but very many can work, and very many would be much better off in work. All of those who work with people with incapacities and disabilities say that if we can get them into mainstream employment, return them to a normal working life, it will do them a power of good, improving their quality of life and making a real difference to them. That can and will be a big priority for us.

As we design the work programme, we will ensure that we have a system and a structure in place that encourages the people who deliver that programme to provide the specialised, tailored support that we need to steer those people who have been on incapacity benefit for so long down a better path and get them into employment. In particular, we recognise that the most disabled, those who have the biggest challenge in their life, will need additional help and support to get into work. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), will no doubt be talking later about some of the ways in which we hope to deliver the best possible support to those people.

[Kate Green]

Many disabled people would welcome the opportunity to be in paid employment. What efforts are being made not just to concentrate on supporting them to find suitable work, but to work with employers to ensure that they respond to the particular needs of disabled people in the workplace?

[Chris Grayling]

That is an important point. We must encourage and work with employers, and we should start at home. Whitehall and Government Departments and agencies should be at the forefront of finding the best ways to provide opportunities for people with disabilities, and that will be a priority for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. If we do not lead from the front, no one else will, and that is something that we certainly want to see happen.