Welfare Reform Bill
Maria Miller Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 4, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 5 to 14, 16, 20 to 22, 24 and 25.
Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 27 to 46 and 48 to 72.
Lords amendment 73, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 74 to 110.
Maria Miller
As Mr Speaker has indicated, Lords amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 26 and 73 impinge on the financial privileges of the House of Commons. In disagreeing to the amendments, I will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason to the House of Lords. Notwithstanding that, however, the House of Commons has an opportunity to debate the substance of the amendments, and to provide the Government’s full rationale for rejecting them,
Lords amendment 1 concerns elements for disabled children. Let us be clear about the impact of the amendment. It would force the Government to reduce support for severely disabled children and, moreover, would go against our commitment to increase support for such children to £77. I believe that our original policy, as agreed in this House, is the right one, because it targets support for disabled people not on age but on need, and removes the cliff edge of financial support that is currently faced by young adults and their families.
In these difficult times, we must make tough choices about where to target our limited resources. The choice that the Government have made is to protect the money that is available to support disabled people in universal credit, and to use it more effectively to ensure that the people who face the biggest challenge are given more support. I repeat that all the money is recycled to support disabled people. What we are doing is thinking about the whole life of an individual, and removing the current artificial division between childhood and adulthood. I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who spoke earlier about the importance of supporting disabled people. We have ensured that we can protect the money that is so important to them.
As we have reiterated throughout our debates on the Bill, we are overhauling existing support. It does not really make sense to look at any one aspect of universal credit in isolation: it provides families with a new package of support to meet a range of needs, and for that reason we need to consider the overall impact of the offer rather than concentrating on any of its individual components.
A parent with a disabled child and who is working 20 hours a week on the minimum wage is likely to be £73 better off in work under universal credit, rather than only £13 better off under tax credits. About 30,000 more families with a disabled child are in work than are out of work, so it is right for us to target support in a way that helps working families. An out-of-work family with a disabled child can receive just over £8,000 a year in benefits for their child once universal credit has been introduced. That compares with just over £4,000 for an out-of-work family with a non-disabled child, and about £1,000 for a family who only receive child benefit. Our impact assessments and modelling demonstrate that, overall, families are more likely to be better off on universal credit, and that there will be no significant change for disabled children living in poverty.
As all Members know, increasing spending is not an option. We simply cannot maintain the existing rates for disabled children if we are to increase the rates for severely disabled adults. That would cost £200 million, which we simply cannot afford. This is a critical point. If the amendment were agreed to, it would not be possible to increase the addition for the most severely disabled people to £77. Let us be clear: the decision to be made is whether we should maintain rates for moderately disabled children at the expense of raising the limits for severely disabled people. We strongly believe that the fairest approach is to align support between children and adults. We take an holistic view of an individual’s life. In summary, what is fair and right is to simplify benefits within universal credit, and to focus limited resources on the basis of need, not age.
Let me now turn to the amendments that deal with child maintenance:
“we should use every lever at our disposal to make reaching a voluntary agreement more attractive than coming into the Child-Maintenance Enforcement Commission.”
Those are not my words, but those of the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, now Lord, Hutton, to a Select Committee of this House in 2006.
Let me make four brief points to put the debate in context. Conflict when families break down is bad for children, as we all know from our constituency casework, and we all know that all too often that conflict can be embedded and entrenched as a result of problems to do with the Child Support Agency.
The role of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission has changed fundamentally. It is no longer about recovering, pound for pound, the benefits payments made to lone parents. Instead we have a benefits system that gives more than £6.5 billion in welfare payments directly to lone parents, both those in work and those not in work. In the past, change has been piecemeal. That has created the current failing system, which costs taxpayers £500 million every year; has nil-assessed more than 250,000 people, some of whom really should be receiving support; and has 100,000 clerical cases. It would not be putting it too strongly to say that we have inherited a real mess from the Labour party. The reform that we are undertaking is long overdue.
My concern is that the amendment from the other place is not about improving the situation; if anything, it would make the situation worse. It is about attempting to divide parents into those who deserve to be charged, and those who do not. Our reforms are about creating a behavioural change for the benefit of children, and about helping parents to work together. The amendment from the other place would make that approach unworkable.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
I have been listening carefully to what the Minister has to say. This is complex territory that has bewildered previous Conservative Governments and, frankly, the Labour Government. Will she tell the House how many parents with care do not receive any child maintenance from the other party?
Maria Miller
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman how many children do not receive any maintenance from the other party. Given that we spend £500 million a year on a child maintenance system, I think that it will shock the House to learn that for half of children living in separated families, there is no support in place. It is clear for everybody to see that the present system simply does not work, and the reason why it does not work is that it does not support families in coming together.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
May I say how strongly I support the reforms, particularly the link-up with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which seems incredibly sensible to the parents in my constituency who come to see me? Will the Minister tell us what will happen on the ground locally to support families who are separating? I think that is where the rubber hits the road.
Maria Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will come on to this in a bit more detail in a moment, but I have been working with organisations such as Gingerbread, Families Need Fathers, Relate, and the Centre for Separated Families to make sure that we have the sort of support in place that has not been forthcoming for too many years, so that there is a structure for referring individuals to the right level of support via telephone lines, websites and the expert support that already exists. Importantly, we will also make available funding—some £20 million—to support programmes that help families to resolve their differences. That is doubling the amount of Government support for family relationships.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I support a lot of what the Minister is trying to do, and I know how dedicated she is to trying to help the Child Support Agency. However, I support the Lords amendment on charging. I agree with charging later on, when people are refusing to adhere to an order, but if the relationship between parents has already broken down, there is a risk that people will not go for the maintenance that they want because of the charging.
Maria Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to clarify an important aspect of the current situation. More than half of parents within the CMEC system would like to make their own arrangements—they positively want to do that—if they had the right support in place, but they do not have that support. They see the CMEC and the Child Support Agency as the only option open to them, and that cannot be right. It cannot be right that we are not doing more to support families so that they can take responsibility and do the right thing.
Mr Frank Field
Is not the really big change that we are discussing the fact that when the CSA was first established, the maintenance moneys went to the Treasury to offset what taxpayers were putting up because, generally speaking, fathers were not prepared to do so, whereas now that money remains with the family? Is it not reasonable, in such circumstances, if people are going to get a top-up to their benefit that they should contribute to the cost of gaining that extra money? On the timing, should we not charge people once they are getting the money, not before?
Maria Miller
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. He is absolutely right. Indeed, back in 1991 when the Child Support Agency was initially put in place, some £400 million of savings were attached to it because there was a pound-for-pound withdrawal of maintenance and the welfare benefits that an individual received.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
What would the administrative costs be of levying the £20 fee and processing it?
Maria Miller
I just realised that I did not finish my response to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). He challenged me about the up-front cost, and why we were not just making an ongoing charge once money was flowing. It is very simple. We want not simply to use this to enhance a family’s income but to take the opportunity to help parents to consider whether they should go to the Child Support Agency as they could stay outside the system and make their own arrangements.
Maria Miller
Hon. Members will forgive me if I make some progress, as I may answer some of their questions before they ask them.
On the cost of the up-front payment, it is important that we recognise that the system costs the taxpayer almost half a billion pounds a year. We want to ensure that we are using the system to support families properly to take responsibility, but we also need to ensure that we make the prudent savings that taxpayers would expect us to make in these difficult economic times. The cost of charging up front will not disproportionately add cost to the whole system—far from it. We are incentivising people to come to their own arrangements. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), more than half the people currently inside the system would like to make their own arrangements. I know that by putting in place an up-front charge we will get some of those people to consider the actions they take.
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady will forgive me if I try to make some progress. I know that many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate and we have another significant issue to discuss after this one.
We want to support parents in taking responsibility for their child’s financial support post-separation, so that they do not see the costly and heavy-handed CSA as their only option. As I have said, half the parents using the Child Support Agency tell us they would like to make their own arrangements, with the right support, which clearly demonstrates that the CSA has come to be seen as the default option.
We have already announced that we are putting in place the support that parents need to be able to come to their own agreements, with the collaborative arrangements that are best for children.
Maria Miller
I will make a little more progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
We are doubling Government spending on relationship support with an additional £20 million. I want to put on record my thanks to those groups that have worked hard with us to develop what that support should be—they are, as I have said, Gingerbread, Relate, Families Need Fathers, and the Centre for Separated Families. For families that need the more structured approach of the statutory scheme it will remain accessible and heavily subsidised, but there will be in-built incentives for parents always to see the advantages of working collaboratively and in-built incentives for parents to pay maintenance in full and on time.
Maintenance direct will be a no-cost way for parents to make ongoing payments to each other within the statutory scheme and the full statutory collection scheme, with its strong enforcement powers, will be a service that both parents pay for.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my experience that it is not a question of the system but a matter of enforcement? Whether the process is voluntary or goes through the Child Support Agency, the problems of children not receiving any money come about because there is either no enforcement or the enforcement is not effective. How will the system provide the enforcement action that is needed?
Maria Miller
I share the hon. Gentleman’s experiences of the current system and although I pay tribute to the staff who work in the Child Support Agency and the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission for their efforts to make the system work, we all know, as constituency MPs, that there is a big problem with parents’ attitudes towards payment. There is absolutely nothing in place at the moment to prevent parents from simply waiting until enforcement comes into play. Our measures will ensure that that changes, and will mean there is always an incentive for people to pay on time. Importantly, we will ensure that if we have to take heavy enforcement action, the individual who has caused the situation will pay for it, whether through a deduction of earnings order or through other measures we are putting in place.
It is not the Government’s intention to block parents from using the statutory scheme and we are listening hard to the concerns of parliamentarians in both Houses. To that end, the Government have proposed amendment 75 to ensure that there is a review of charging, and a report to Parliament will be completed within 30 months of the introduction of that mechanism. I can announce today that to underline that commitment the up-front charge for parents choosing to use the statutory scheme will be reduced to £20 for all applicants. In return, parents will receive a calculation of maintenance payable that will, for the first time, be based routinely on HMRC data. Additionally, domestic violence victims will be completely exempt from the application charge. I am sure the whole House will welcome this announcement, which demonstrates that no family will be deterred from accessing the statutory system purely on the basis of cost.
Maria Miller
I think it is very important to work with individuals in all the organisations that support families going through separation. We will not always agree on everything but it is important to work together because we must get a solution that is right for mothers, fathers and children.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Will the Minister clarify that the gateway for access by parents will be £20 each and not, as was previously set out, a more complex one? If that is the case, I congratulate her and the Government on listening to people, reducing those charges and making this more simple.
Maria Miller
It will be £20 for the applicant only, because we want to make sure that the system is easy and straightforward to administer. For that, applicants will get a calculation of the amount of money their ex-partner would pay them. I should like to reassure my hon. Friend that, on an ongoing basis, the levels of charges will always sit disproportionately on the non-resident parent, because it is important that there is always an incentive for people to come to an arrangement.
Sheila Gilmore
Obviously, any change of heart is welcome—I do not think we would not welcome this—but there is something I do not understand. If, as the Minister has said, many people are reluctant to pay, how will charging the applicant—the parent with care—make the other parent more likely to pay?
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady and I know that it is very difficult for us to sit in judgment over parents. Family breakdown can be caused by many different things and we need to make sure that the support is there for parents to come together and work together. All our evidence suggests that 50% of people in the CSA system would rather not be there and would rather be working in the way I have described.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
The Minister is absolutely right about the need for collaboration-based arrangements. To respond to the previous intervention, is not the inflexibility of the system one reason why non-resident parents often do not like paying? The constant barrage of letters, telephone calls and everything else means that they feel more and more reluctant but more and more pressured to pay. My constituency cases suggest that collaborative arrangements are sustainable and have worked.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is right that the inflexibility in the system does not reflect true family life. Every single family is different. It is difficult to reflect that in a statutory system, which is why encouraging more people to work on those arrangements together, whether the issue is finance or access, is the way for children to get the best results after family breakdown.
Ian Paisley
It would be churlish to not recognise that the Government have listened, because a £100 access fee would have been prohibitive to families, especially the most vulnerable families, who matter most in all this. I put on record my thanks to the Government for listening on that point, because that will allow more engagement with the statutory agencies, which is how we can get to the bottom of these problems.
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind words. It is important that we have a solution that we feel everybody can work with as we move forward.
Maria Miller
May I address the amendment directly? The Government accept that Lord Mackay had the very best of intentions in tabling amendment 73 in the Lords. However, his approach means that the Government, before deciding who would pay a charge, would have to consider whether parents had tried to be collaborative. In considering that amendment, hon. Members should ask themselves whether it is the Government’s place to monitor and judge parents’ efforts to work collaboratively after their separation.
Maria Miller
I will give way in a moment. The implication of the amendment is that we should say yes to that, but the Government know that the answer absolutely has to be no. Not even under the simplest model of implementation could we see a way to set a level playing field of the sort that parents really need at such a difficult time. It would cost, we estimate, more than £220 million across this spending review and the next—a cost that would not be right for us to accept, and certainly not driving the right outcomes for children.
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who has so much experience in this area.
Mrs Grant
I was a legal aid family lawyer for 23 years before being elected to this place, and I had the opportunity to represent many families seeking maintenance. It would be impossibly difficult, practically and fairly, to assess which families had taken reasonable steps to reach an agreement and which had not, unless we created an intrusive, Big Brother society, which I do not think anyone would want.
Maria Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because she brings with her a wealth of experience of the practical problems that families face in these very difficult times. An additional effect of the amendment would be to put almost 100% of the ongoing charges on the non-resident parent. We agree that non-resident parents should have a clear incentive to pay a greater contribution to the ongoing costs, but I fear that simply loading all those costs on the non-resident parent could drive some perverse incentives and not provide the ability for parents to work in the collaborative way that I have set out.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
We would acknowledge that reducing the amount of money that must be paid up front by the applicant is a step in the right direction, but I am still not clear about the rationale behind the non-resident carer being more likely to pay up because the applicant must pay a charge. I am concerned about conceding the principle of paying up front, because what will stop the Government coming back in a year’s time and hiking up the £20 fee to £100 or £150? Will the Minister explain how the uprating of that amount will be carried out?
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful support. It is really important that the up-front charge does not become a deterrent, which is why we will look at how charging is working 30 months after implementation. I remind her that the parent with care receives, in return for her up-front fee, a clear and detailed calculation of how much money would be payable to her through maintenance, and for the first time the calculation will use HMRC data, which will ensure that she has all the information needed to decide whether it is appropriate to go into either maintenance direct, where there will be no ongoing charges, or the statutory system.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I, too, welcome the fact that the cost for the applicant has come down, but will the Minister explain what the charging will be and how much it will cost the Government to collect the £20, because it seems to me that it will cost far too much to collect a mere £20?
Maria Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Of course, we are all very quizzical about the CSA when it comes to costs, because we know that it has been very difficult to administer over the years. She will be reassured to know that we have taken a very straightforward approach and want to keep it simple. By charging an up-front fee and getting people to reconsider staying outside the system, we will be making considerable savings, as I have outlined. When she considers that each case costs around £26,000, or up to £40,000 if it involves any sort of enforcement, she will quickly see that getting people to reconsider will lead to significant savings.
Claire Perry
My hon. Friend is being most gracious in giving way. I wish to help underpin her point. As MPs we all face multiple challenging CSA cases, the most distressing of which are those where claimants know that their spouse is earning lots of money but not declaring it. Getting a statement that for the first time is based on HMRC’s reported data and sets out clearly what recipients can expect is a huge advantage, and £20 for that is a cheap price.
Maria Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for her support. The key is that we must ensure that we encourage both parents to work together, which is why we have configured the charging system in the way we have. That will always be in the best interests of the child, and hon. Members who work in this area will know that separation can be so damaging for children unless it is dealt with collaboratively.
Mr Watts
I am still not absolutely sure what the enforcement action that will drive some parents to pay will be. On the point that the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) has just made on people who have doubts about their spouse’s income, many of those people are self-employed and do not declare their incomes, so we will not be able to chase them, and that is the problem, not that PAYE will not catch them.
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman and I know that self-employed people, although a small number of individuals, are disproportionately represented in the problem cases that hon. Members have. He will also know that self-employed people still have to do tax returns, so rather than ex-partners having to pursue individuals who might be self-employed and have no office at which we can get hold of them, we will be able to use the HMRC link, which I think is an important improvement.
With regard to the enforcement that we will be taking to ensure that things really stick, first and foremost it is about ensuring that there is an understanding in the House about the charges that we will put in place for that enforcement action. Implementing a deduction of earnings order does not currently cost the person defaulting on their maintenance a bean. We are talking about making sure that those charges are passed on, which I think taxpayers would expect us to do. We will also consider implementing some of the other enforcement measures that Labour Members put in place through the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008.
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend is generous in taking so many interventions. My understanding is that each CSA case costs the taxpayer about £25,000 in administration charges, and that can even go up to £40,000 if enforcement action is taken, so what estimate has she made of the savings to the taxpayer that will result from the new proposals?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend cites those figures accurately, and the savings throughout this spending review period and into the next will be considerable indeed—running, I believe, into about £200 million. That is money we can use to support families directly through organisations such as those I have mentioned, and that is why we have made up-front a very clear commitment to taking £20 million of the money that we will save and directly investing in it in beneficial support for families. That is the right thing to do with the money that we are saving, as is making our contribution to reducing the budget deficit, which we inherited from the Labour party.
Maria Miller
Will the hon. Lady forgive me if I close on child support now?
We know that we have to get parents to work together, and the issue is not simply about maintenance, but about continuing to encourage co-parenting, post-separation. Again, where possible, that is the right thing for children, and that is why the coalition Government, with our commitment to shared parenting, are putting family relationships and responsibility first. I therefore urge right hon. and hon. Members to reject this amendment from the other place, which could seriously undermine the very principled reform that we are undertaking here today.
Maria Miller
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I want to turn to the housing measures in order to ensure that other hon. Members have an opportunity to contribute.
The amendments to clauses 68 and 11 would dilute our proposals to deal with the widespread problem of social tenants under-occupying their accommodation. The proposed changes would effectively allow that group to keep one spare bedroom and, critically, wipe out up to £300 million a year from the estimated £500 million in savings, which we would have to find elsewhere. That approach is quite simply unrealistic, and in the current economic climate it would be totally irresponsible of us not to press ahead with our changes.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Does the Minister not accept that in many areas there is no alternative social rented accommodation to move to, and that people will be expected to move from social rented housing to smaller, private rented accommodation, which will end up being more expensive and, therefore, increase the housing benefit bill, not decrease it?
Maria Miller
I know that my hon. Friend takes a great deal of interest in that issue, as indeed do many other hon. Members, but I simply put it to him that many people in that situation will choose not to move. They will choose to make other arrangements and, perhaps, to get other people in their household to contribute to the bills. Indeed, I am sure he is right that some people will choose to move, and we are ensuring that there is sufficient time for them to consider their options and, importantly, making sure that support and a significant amount of discretionary housing payments are in place, so that local authorities are able to support people who have difficulty with the change.
Simon Hughes
I am grateful for the Minister’s understanding, and, as somebody who represents more people in social housing than probably any other English MP, I know that the Government have absolutely the right policy to ensure that people do not occupy properties that are bigger than they need when the state is paying the rent. But it is not practical to insist that they move when there is nowhere smaller to move to, so Lords amendment 4 is entirely reasonable, because it refers to the situation when
“any such landlord is not able to offer suitable alternative accommodation which would not cause a person to under occupy.”
If a landlord is able to do so, of course the tenants must move, but if the landlord is not, the tenants will not be able to move anywhere appropriate.
Maria Miller
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention; I understand the feeling with which he delivered it. I say clearly to him that we are saying that there is a great deal of time and considerable support for individuals who find themselves in difficult situations. We need to make sure that as many people as possible are able to remain where they are and that they are given the support to do that.
We have made considerable moves to make sure that the right support is in place, particularly for those with disabilities or foster care responsibilities. But I ask my right hon. Friend to consider how we would deal with what would be an enormous loss to the savings. Our basic problem is that there are 1 million spare bedrooms while about 250,000 families live in overcrowded accommodation. It is important for us to try to balance all those factors.
Kate Hoey
Would the Minister like to visit one or two people who I know in my constituency? It is only across the river. They are elderly people with one extra bedroom who have lived where they live all their lives. Their children have moved outside London because they cannot get housing here, but they occasionally visit with the grandchildren. This is just unbelievable—it is genuinely unbelievable that any Government would think of making someone move away from their family home. Will the Minister visit and explain the situation to those elderly people, who are so worried and upset by what has been suggested?
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Again, I understand the thoughtful comments that have been made. We are not making anybody move. The average reduction will be about £14 a week, but for many it will be about £12. Given the amount of notice that we are giving individuals and families, we want people to be able to consider the available options.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
In many islands or remote villages, there is simply no alternative accommodation; the turnover of social housing is so slow that it could take many years for a smaller house to become available. What support will be available for people on islands and in remote villages so that they can stay in their own communities?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend and I have spoken about these matters and I understand the very individual problems that his constituency faces. It is because of those very individual situations that we have put in place significant support so that local authorities can consider different ways to support families living in rural areas some distance from other communities and make sure that they are not dislocated from their support networks.
Guto Bebb
This issue has been of real concern to me. In a recent letter that I received, Community Housing Wales argued that more than 40,000 individual tenants in Wales would be affected by the issue of under-occupancy. What it failed to say is that, according to Welsh Assembly statistics, more than 50,000 tenants in Wales are over-occupying. There is a need for social housing providers to look creatively at how they move tenants within housing stock.
Maria Miller
It is important that that part of the debate is recognised by the House. For every family in a situation of under-occupying, many have considerable problems with over-occupation.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) talked about her real concern for some of her constituents. I remind her, although she will know this already, that the measures that we are talking about are for working-age people only—not for pensioners. I encourage all hon. Members to ensure that the tone of our debate is based on fact and not fictional evidence.
Claire Perry
About a third of my constituency casework is made up of Child Support Agency cases, but another third is made up of housing. In Wiltshire, more than 12,000 people are waiting on the housing list. Week after week, young families come in who simply cannot get the housing that they need. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we must support the principle and do what is being discussed to relieve the pressure on social housing lists?
Maria Miller
Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes a clear point and an important contribution to the debate.
Maria Miller
If hon. Members will forgive me, I will make a little progress, because I know that many people want to contribute to this debate.
Aside from the financial issues, there is the bigger issue of fairness, which hon. Members have talked about in their interventions. Is it fair for taxpayers to take the tough choices about where they live, only to fund tenants in the social sector to live in homes larger than they need? Is it fair that people who are renting from private landlords get housing benefit to live in accommodation that is a suitable size for their household and that those in the social sector are not so restricted?
Maria Miller
If I am allowed to make some progress, I will perhaps answer some of the questions that hon. Members want to ask.
If social sector tenants choose to continue to live in accommodation that is larger than they need, it is only right that they make a contribution towards the cost. They can meet any shortfall through employment or other means. Those are the sorts of everyday choices that people living in the private rented sector and those who are not getting housing benefit have to make every day.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is clear that at the moment, the Minister is not giving way. It is for her to decide whether to give way. I gently make the point that it is now four minutes to 6 and the debate must conclude at 7. If Members were to have the opportunity neither to make their points through interventions nor through speeches, I would anticipate an extensive disappointment. I am sure that the Minister will factor that into her calculations in tailoring her contribution to the debate.
Maria Miller
I reassure you, Mr Speaker, that I will make the rest of my contribution very brief indeed.
The average weekly reduction is likely to be about £14. However, that is the average. Nearly 80% of claimants are under-occupying their accommodation by just one bedroom and will see an average reduction of about £12 a week. Working for just a few hours a week could help to meet that cost. The substantial investment that we are making in the Work programme and universal credit will ensure that people are supported in finding work, and that that work will pay.
We have listened to the concerns about the impact that these changes will have on specific groups, so we have committed to increase the budget for discretionary housing payments by £30 million from 2013-14. That additional money, which could help about 40,000 claimants, is aimed specifically at disabled people and accommodation for foster carers. We are working closely with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that we have an effective implementation plan that will support tenants, their advisers and housing providers.
Ultimately, the country cannot afford to fund what is approaching 1 million spare rooms from the taxes of hardworking families, when those spare rooms could be used by other families who are living in overcrowded accommodation.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The chief executive of Halton Housing Trust has written to me. He states:
“Based on existing turnover of smaller accommodation it will take over seven years to re-house all of those households who are under occupying their current homes.”
He goes on to state that, in particular, it will affect
“homeless households and those leaving care.”
Does the Minister really think that that is fair?
Maria Miller
That is why we are already working with local authorities to ensure that they are well prepared for the changes. We have discretionary payments in place so that local authorities can take account of such problems. We reject the Lords amendment.
I will now move on to the remaining amendments so that I do not incur the wrath of Mr Speaker. The other Lords amendments in this group are minor and technical or simply clarify policy. They have already been announced and I do not intend to go into any further detail so that there is more time for Members to contribute to this important debate.
Mrs McGuire
I would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Housing was built in the 1940s and ’50s to deal with the nuclear family that everybody knew at the time. The way in which families have developed, including the growth in the number of single-parent households, was not factored in. That goes for the social rented and private sectors.
Mrs McGuire
The hon. Lady definitely is not getting in—certainly not at the moment.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) said that there are communities in all nations of this country—smaller communities, but sometimes larger ones—where there is an insufficient supply of houses, which is very true. People might have lived in them all their lives and would be unable physically to move.
Maria Miller
I thank the right hon. Lady. It is very gracious of her to give way so that I can clarify matters. She will obviously be aware of the new national home swap scheme, which, importantly, will help people to identify housing in other areas, which is what she is talking about. We are also providing funding to councils of some £13 million over the next four years so that they can support under-occupying tenants who wish to move.
The right hon. Lady will also know that there is a great deal of commitment from the Government in terms of helping to build affordable housing: some £4.5 billion will help to deliver up to 170,000 new affordable homes. Those are all ways in which we can make the sort of changes that she wants. Just to clarify, as a lady who was born in a council house—
Mr Speaker
Order. This really is an abuse. It is a novelty, in my experience, for a Minister to intervene from the Front Bench reading from a folder. That really will not do. Interventions should be brief, and it would be good if the House—both sides—could get back into the courteous mood in which it found itself yesterday and for part of today.
Malcolm Wicks
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and I shall echo some of his remarks on the child maintenance charge.
I have been privileged to be a Member for 20 years, and I have noted that the issue of child maintenance and child support has been a running controversy and a running sore through Parliament and Government during that whole period. I shall briefly remind the House of the background. While there have, of course, always been children in this and similar countries brought up by only one parent—war widows after the first world war would be an obvious example—it is nevertheless true that in the post-war period there has been a kind of social revolution whereby very significant numbers of children spend either a proportion or all of their childhoods living—usually with their mum but sometimes, in a minority of cases, with their father—in so-called one-parent families. That is about divorce, which remains at a high level; it is about separation—and cohabitation is more likely to lead to separation than marriage; it is about the fact that many children are born “out of wedlock”, to use a quaint term, and live with a single mother.
This has been a major contributory cause to what we call child poverty, which interfaces with economic insecurity. I think that Parliaments and Governments have found it more difficult to grapple with and honestly discuss family insecurity than economic insecurity caused by low wages or unemployment. As I say, Governments have found it difficult. The old maintenance system, which was run by the courts, did not work: it delivered low levels of maintenance or no maintenance to many mothers and children.
The previous Conservative Government established the Child Support Agency—I think they were right to do so—but many former Conservative Ministers bear the scars of trying to make it work. They did not make it work effectively for all children. That was not because of incompetence—there were computer problems and the rest—but because this is one of the most difficult areas of government. It is the state—perfectly properly, in my judgment—trying to mediate during the pain, anger and passions of family breakdown, when issues of access and custody are also present. Although the old Child Support Agency had some successes, it never succeeded in getting maintenance from those fathers—yes, I know, sometimes mothers, but I am going to talk about fathers—who absolutely refused to fulfil their parental obligation and support their own children.
The last Labour Government tried to improve the situation and they might have done to some extent, but if we are honest about this—I am not normally one who tries to take the politics out of politics; otherwise I would have to join the Liberal Democrat party—some humility is justified in this case. For getting on for 20 years, Governments of left and right have failed to tackle this issue adequately. We really need to point again at the sheer scandal of there being too many parents out there who refuse to support their own children financially. That is the reality.
When I intervened on the Minister—it was good of her to give me the statistics—she said that among these families half, fully half, are not receiving child maintenance. What does that mean? It means either that the children are living in relative poverty and/or that other mums and dads in the community, whom we call taxpayers, are being asked in difficult economic circumstances to support not only their own children but other people’s children as well. What I am leading up to is to ask whether the idea of a charge to be able to use the system helps or hinders that process.
I do not think I am against a charge per se. Given that taxpayers have a stake in this, as well as, usually, the mother or “the parent with care” to use the awful jargon, and the child—they are the parties that have an interest in this—I am not against the taxpayer in a sense benefiting through proper payment of maintenance. We could discuss how that might come about; but if there is to be a charge, as was argued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), why should it not be levied when the flows of maintenance are coming to the mother and benefiting the child? Why should a fee be charged immediately rather than later in the process? I think that many Members would agree with that, but perhaps the Minister would like to comment.
Maria Miller
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to answer his question. Fees and charges have been inherent in the child maintenance system from the start, since 1991. As he knows, his own party advocated the use of fees when it was in government, as indeed did Sir David Henshaw. Why? Because charging fees is a way of trying to get people to take responsibility. If that is done up front before an individual gets into the system, we are more likely to effect the behavioural change that I think is so important.
Malcolm Wicks
In general, it is the mothers of Britain—sometimes it is the fathers with care, but it is generally the mothers—who have taken on huge responsibilities. It is the parent who does not pay who is the irresponsible party, and who reneges on his duty to care for his own children. I want a system that can be tough-minded about the fathers who refuse to pay. They are often self-employed, and have become deliberately self-employed. The mothers often know where they live. A mother will have heard about the new person in the father’s life, about the fancy car outside the house, about the foreign holidays—yet the system has failed to make those fathers pay. Let me put the question to the Minister again. Will a charge help in those circumstances?
Many mums will know that the Child Support Agency, or whatever we choose to call it, does not work. We want to make it work, but people say, “My friends didn’t get anywhere.” Only recently I discussed with the Secretary of State the case of one of my constituents who, throughout the lifetime of four children, never received any maintenance. That person thinks that the system does not work. I want it to work, but if some mothers are deterred from using the system, it will be a failure.
This should not be a big party issue, and I hope that the Department will reflect again on when the charge might be levied.
Maria Miller
How does the hon. Lady suggest that the agency should decide which parent stood in the way of an agreement? Would she take the same view as was taken in the debate in the other place, which is that it would always be the non-resident parent’s fault that an agreement was not in place?
Kate Green
The point is that a system is being established whereby the parent with care must access the system. There will be a discussion at that point about the process by which that approach to the agency is made. There is no difficulty at all at that point in taking a decision about the responsibility and behaviour of the parent making that application. I cannot understand why the Government think that it is perfectly okay for other officials in the DWP to make decisions on whether people are making appropriate efforts to make themselves available for employment, but not for a decision to be taken on whether a parent has properly engaged in a process of seeking to reach agreement with a non-resident parent.
I also want to speak briefly about the Government’s proposal to amend the obligation on the child poverty target under the Child Poverty Act. The current obligation is for the Government to report on the progress that must be made to achieve child poverty targets—targets to which every party in this House has signed up. There will now be a far weaker requirement simply to report on proposed measures. In other words, there will be an obligation on the Government to report on what they might or might not do, but absolutely no obligation to report on whether it works or on what difference it makes. That undermines what lies at the heart of the Act, which was a genuine wish across the House in the previous Parliament to see real progress in bringing down child poverty and for every politician in this House to be accountable for that outcome.
I very much regret such a weakening of the Child Poverty Act. In future, the Government could legally produce a child poverty strategy that makes no reference to the number of children in poverty—an extremely important measure in driving progress—and has no clear goals for how the proposed actions will reduce that number. When the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that the cumulative impact of the Government’s welfare reforms on other measures will be to drive up child poverty between now and 2015 and onwards to 2020, one has to wonder whether the proposal is not a rather cynical and calculating step on the part of the Government to wriggle out of an obligation that they know they are not on track to meet.
Jenny Willott
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Will the Minister look at what an appropriate time frame would be and how long it is likely to take housing associations to move people around properties? Will she ensure that discretionary housing payments are available throughout that period so that people do not receive a large cut in their benefit while they are waiting for alternative accommodation to become available? This is a difficult issue and I know that the Government have made provision for those living in adapted accommodation and for foster carers.
Maria Miller
I just want to reassure my hon. Friend on a couple of points. First, we intend to commission an independent evaluation of the impact of the size criteria measure, which will give her some of the information and reassurance she seeks about the impact of the changes. We will also be providing funding of £13 million to councils over four years until 2015-16 for support to tenants who wish to move.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Briefly, I want to make three points about under-occupancy and disabled people. First, I welcome the Minister’s announcement of funds to ensure that disabled people and other special cases are given the help that they need in transition. The other points that I want to make both arise from a constituent’s coming to see me. This particular family has four members, with two disabled people within it, and it needs four rooms. From the outside, someone might say that parents and two children need two or three rooms, which would give them one spare room. Absolutely not: in this case, every single room was needed, and the family was concerned that under the legislation they would be told that they had a spare room and be forced to move. I would like some reassurance on that point—that where people need all the rooms because of disability, certain rooms will not be considered spare, even if the family being of such a size might otherwise justify that decision.
Maria Miller
I can reassure my hon. Friend that if a disabled person has the need for an overnight carer, additional rooms can be allocated. Indeed, if there are disabled people in the house who require rooms, there will be clear support there for them to be able to have those rooms.
Jeremy Lefroy
I thank the Minister for that reassurance. On my second point, as hon. and right hon. Members know, many homes have had thousands of pounds spent on adaptations, and rightly so, for disabled people. It would not make a great deal of sense to ask people to move from a home that had had such adaptations into another home, where making such adaptations would cost plenty of money. Also, in the first home, the adaptations might have to be removed. Again, I ask for reassurance that common sense will prevail.
Oral Answers to Questions
Maria Miller Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
2. What steps he took to consult disabled people and representative organisations on the development of the personal independence payment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
We have consulted disabled people and their representative organisations at all stages of the development of the personal independence payment. That included a formal consultation in December 2010 and our response which was published in April 2011; an informal consultation on the draft assessment criteria in May 2011; and a 15-week formal consultation on the revised assessment criteria, which started on 16 January this year.
Nadine Dorries
I thank the Minister for that answer. Agate house in my constituency, a Leonard Cheshire home in Ampthill, looks after some of the most severely disabled residents. Some are born disabled and many have degenerative illnesses that mean that they will need greater levels of care in future. They will never need less care than they do today or be less disabled, yet they all have to go through the ignominy and bureaucratic process of an assessment of their allowance once a year. Will the Minister examine that matter? It seems an incredible waste of money, a bureaucracy, a waste of civil servants’ time and an embarrassment to residents. Could we change that?
Maria Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and say to her that we absolutely share the objective of ensuring that the people with the severest challenges in living independently in our society do not receive undue assessments. At the moment there is no in-built reassessment under disability living allowance. She put her question in the present tense—I am not sure whether she was referring to other things for which people are assessed. I reassure her that under PIP, we do not intend to have fixed annual reassessments. They will be made based on individuals’ personal circumstances.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
In their report “Responsible Reform”, disabled people and carers analysed the responses to the Government’s consultation and raised many issues about the replacement of disability living allowance. Carers UK has also expressed deep concern about the impact on carers of cuts to disability benefits, yet today we learn that 5,000 carer households will be hit by the mean reduction of £87 a week as a result of the benefits cap. Will the Minister now publish an assessment of the impact on carers of all the Government’s cuts?
Maria Miller
To give the House total clarity I should say that the report that the hon. Lady references was highly selective. It examined only about 10% of the responses that we received on the DLA and PIP consultation.
I will answer the hon. Lady’s question about carers directly as she, like me, wants to ensure that carers get the support that they need. We have already made it clear that carers will be eligible for carer’s allowance as a result of the person for whom they are caring being in receipt of either level of PIP.
Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)
Many disabled people are deeply unhappy about the performance of Atos Origin in administering the work capability assessment. As a result, they are scared about the introduction of the new PIP assessment. What discussions has the Minister had with disability organisations about who will carry out the new assessments, and what reassurance has she been able to give them that the mistakes made with the work capability assessment will not be repeated with PIP?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend will be aware that the new personal independence payment assessment will be separate from the WCA, and that any contracts that are in place for Atos are not at all connected with the new assessment that we need for PIP. In fact, a formal competition document is going out today to start the commercial process. To reassure her about the involvement of disabled people, I say that we already have an implementation development group, which involves disabled people closely at every step of the way.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
Just for balance, I should like to put on record my thanks to those who gave us the Spartacus report, which was a challenging document and took apart some of the Government’s points.
The Dilnot report recommended that universal disability benefits for people of all ages should continue as now. However, under the new PIP the Government are scrapping low-rate care. Some 500,000 people, and probably more, could face escalating unmet needs that will result in pressure on council care services. What specific discussions has the Minister, as lead for the Office for Disability Issues, had on the changes with her colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government, and with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and what action has she taken as a result of any conversations?
Maria Miller
The right hon. Lady will know that we have been having very close conversations with both the devolved authorities and the Department of Health, and she is right that we have to consider the changes that are happening in the round. She should also be mindful of the fact that the changes that we are making under the PIP will remove something that we inherited from the previous Government—£600 million a year going out in overpayments to people whose conditions have changed and who no longer need the same level of support.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
3. What steps he has taken to reduce the level of health and safety regulation affecting business.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
4. What plans he has to support residential training colleges for disabled people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
DWP adult residential training provision is delivered in nine colleges. The Sayce review of specialist disability employment provision recommended that funding should focus on the individual rather than the institution. While the Government consider how to proceed following the recent public consultation, and to support the colleges through any period of transition, I have committed to provision continuing through to the end of the academic year ending summer 2013.
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful for that answer. Residential training colleges have built up a great deal of expertise in supporting disabled people back into work. How will my hon. Friend ensure that that expertise is preserved?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that that expertise is protected and retained. That is why I have given a personal commitment to the colleges for provision to continue through to summer 2013. Indeed, other parts of DWP are supporting colleges to broaden their approach, particularly those such as Enham in Hampshire and near my constituency, which delivers the Work programme in the Thames valley and on the Isle of Wight.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
5. What assessment he has made of the information technology systems which will support universal credit.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
12. What estimate he has made of the number of children who will be living in poverty in 2015.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
The Government do not forecast in the way that the hon. Gentleman’s question suggests. Child poverty is dependent on a number of factors, and we know that the most sustainable way of reducing it is through parents going to work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity, when asking his supplementary question, to show his support for the benefit cap, which will be one of the best ways of ensuring that work pays, for families throughout our country.
Mr Hamilton
The Minister will have a long wait. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that child poverty, as measured by the Child Poverty Act 2010, will rise by 400,000 by 2015, and that 200,000 children will be forced into absolute poverty. That means that the Government have no chance of meeting the targets set out in the Act, which both parties supported. Does the Minister believe that those forecasts are wrong? Also, will she make a commitment not to overturn amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill passed in another place when the Bill comes back here?
Maria Miller
As I have already said, the Government are not really into the forecasts that the hon. Gentleman is looking at, but we are firmly committed to eradicating child poverty. The IFS projections do not tell the whole story; they do not take into account fundamental things such as behaviour change, or our significant investment in early intervention, our education reform policies and our policies in other areas.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Bearing in mind the great importance given to the issue of child poverty across the House, will my hon. Friend tell us what steps she is taking to assess the amount of child benefit being paid to the non-resident children of EU workers in this country? What can be done to ensure that those benefits are minimised?
Maria Miller
We all want to ensure that the money available goes to the children who need it most, and I am sure that we will look carefully at my hon. Friends’s question.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Given that 92% of single parent households are run by women, will the Minister tell me what she is doing about the alarming rise in female unemployment, which is rising at a much higher rate than that of male unemployment?
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady will know that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) is doing a great deal to support women and men back into work in these very difficult times. I should like to commend him for the excellent work that he is doing further to expand the Work programme.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Families with children that are currently in receipt of disability living allowance are among those who are worried about what they read in the papers about the Government’s welfare reforms. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure them that they will not experience any reduction in the cash value of that benefit under the reforms?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is referring to the future of the personal independence payment. He will be aware of my firm commitment to ensuring that that payment is focused on helping those who need help the most. He will have seen from our recently published documentation that our initial work in that area shows that more of that money is going to people who really need it in order to live independent lives.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
13. What steps he is taking to protect the interests of people with small pension pots.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
T9. My constituent, Dr Christine Davies, has contacted me with examples exposing the unfairness of Child Support Agency arrangements, which often fail to take into account the living costs of the non-resident parent. These are parents who are trying to engage with their children and do the right thing, but who are left to live on as little as £30 a week. What are Ministers doing to deal with this unfairness?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I assure him that we are working very hard on reform of the maintenance system, which still fails to support around half of all children in separated families. He talked about cases in which both parents want to stay involved in their children’s upbringing; he and I share that objective, and I hope that he will continue to support the reforms that we are taking forward, which will provide far more family support to enable that to happen.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
T3. What advice can the Minister give the 3,259 people in St Helens who have been told to downsize their home, despite the fact that on existing turnover it will take five and a half years for them to do so while, in the meantime, losing their benefit? What advice would he give those constituents?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Going back to the issue of testing the disability living allowance, will the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) reassure the House that testing will be localised, humane and fair?
Maria Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I pay tribute to him for all the work he does to make sure that things are right as we reform the benefits system. I can absolutely assure him that we will look at ensuring that the new face-to-face assessment is done in a fair manner, and we are going out to commercial contracting on that.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
T5. During the recent Westminster Hall debate on the future of Remploy, I was pleased to be able to tell the Minister that at the Wythenshawe print factory sales continue to increase while operating costs are falling. What action has she taken since then to procure additional print work for the factory from Government Departments and agencies, and when does she expect to be able to confirm that the factory will remain open?
Maria Miller
That was an important and useful debate to ensure that the work that we are doing in government is made clear. I have asked officials to look at the situation that he raised regarding Wythenshawe to make sure that the appropriate sales teams are in place. He asked when we are going to talk about our long-term decisions, and I can assure him that we will respond on that as soon as is practicable. We are in year four of a five-year plan, and it is important that we have those new plans in place.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I was pleased that the Minister affirmed her commitment to residential training colleges, including the college of the Royal National Institute of Blind People in my constituency. She may be aware of recently published figures from the Select Committee on Work and Pensions showing that 1,000 people who have suffered sight loss are still looking for opportunities to be helped back into work. Does she agree that those colleges provide a valuable opportunity to help those people find employment?
Maria Miller
I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does to support her local residential training college. I absolutely agree that colleges such as the one in her constituency have a valuable role to play, particularly to offer specialist advice and support. I hope that the commitment that I have given the colleges to ensure provision through to the summer of 2013 will help them to plan for a future in which we focus more on individuals than on institutions.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
T6. Recent reports have shown that more than £3 billion of pension charges are hidden from consumers. Will the Minister tell us what the Government plan to do to make it possible for pension fund trustees and consumers to compare charges between pension funds?
Child Support Payments
Maria Miller Excerpts(12 years, 11 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) on securing this debate. He has experienced a problem that many other hon. Members have encountered, and the debate gives us an opportunity to ensure that there is absolute clarity on how the Government will address the special occupation rules that he has drawn to the attention of the House today.
First, it is absolutely important for me—I am sure that I also speak for the hon. Gentleman when I say this—to pay tribute to the vital role played by people in the occupations that he has mentioned. Whether part-time firefighters, lifeboat men, servicemen, our councillors or auxiliary coastguards, among others, they carry out absolutely vital roles at the heart of our communities and with our armed forces; roles that keep our communities moving forward. That group of people—I am sure that he will agree with me—give a great deal to our community and understand the importance of duty and service. A broken child maintenance system is failing them, letting them and many other people down.
When the second child maintenance scheme was established in 2003, it was felt that earnings from such occupations should not be included as income when calculating what child maintenance to pay. That decision was taken to simplify the system. Such simplification proved to be desperately necessary, not least because the new IT system introduced in 2003—a specifically designed and built bespoke system—could not cope with the demands made of it.
A great deal has been learned in the intervening eight years about how best to approach computerised databases, and today the Government take an entirely different approach. For example, the new IT system introduced for personal independence payments and the new child maintenance system—the future scheme—will use out-of-the-box solutions; they will be applied to a situation, but have not been developed specifically for that situation. With personal independence payments, we are using an IT solution that is already in use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland.
Back in 2003, the new IT system for the Child Support Agency had been built from scratch. There were significant problems—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember them, because he has served in this place longer than I have—from the word go with the coding and build of untried systems. At that time, the payments made to clients from the occupations that we are talking about tended to be relatively small. That is no longer always the case, and I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.
Although the current position was established for a number of reasons, I believe that it is unsustainable. No matter how praiseworthy the efforts of those in part-time professions are, they are often parents, and their children must be at the forefront of our minds when we develop such policy. I pay tribute to my colleagues in the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, who work tirelessly to secure money for children from separated families.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the current IT system continues to be a source of grave concern, which is why we are launching a new child maintenance scheme next year that will replace the current Child Support Agency schemes and its two IT systems. Hon. Members may also be aware that the second system continues to have significant problems. Some 100,000 cases can no longer be dealt with in the system and must be handled clerically at almost double the cost. In practice, a third IT system must be deployed.
As part of developing the new scheme, I have considered whether non-resident parents should have the income from so-called special occupations taken into account. The effects of the current position can be serious. For example, a non-resident parent, who is a member of the Territorial Army deployed to Afghanistan for a number of months—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, has constituents who are in that position—and who derives their sole income for this period from their pay as a soldier has a child maintenance liability of nil. That is different from the position of the regular soldiers serving alongside them who continue to be liable to pay maintenance and of their colleagues whose children continue to be part of their current family. The effect is to leave the children of TA soldiers and any others who fall into this category who are non-resident parents and are deployed on operations entirely unsupported for an extended period. Not including this income within the child maintenance calculation is unacceptable. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments and believe that we should change the rules.
For the new child maintenance scheme, we propose to base the liability of such non-resident parents on their total weekly income. By using Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs income data, we will avoid the administrative complexities that arose in the original scheme and provide a fairer system for the children of such parents.
A consultation on the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012 was launched on 1 December 2011 and will run until 23 February 2012. The hon. Gentleman referred to the letter that I wrote to him in August. What I said was correct at the time. I was actively looking at the issue, but as I was unable to bring it to the attention of the House, I was not able to fill him in on the details. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to do so today.
The regulations as drafted would remove the special occupation exemptions. The hon. Gentleman is a trail blazer in this area. We are very like-minded, and I hope that, as a sign of some Christmas spirit in this place, we will find a common understanding and a common approach to this really important issue.
Mr David
I thank the Minister for her comments. I welcome the fact that she has accepted my argument and recognised that there is a huge anomaly that morally needs to be addressed and that will be addressed with the new regulations. However, will those who are on the current system be able to transfer to the new regulations? Will those who currently lose out, and whose children lose out, be able to have the situation addressed under the new system?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman was reading my mind; I was about to move on to that very issue. Let me reiterate, though, that I inherited the anomaly. I commend my colleagues for acting so swiftly that we can introduce regulations to address this matter under the future scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support the measures in the Welfare Reform Bill, which will support the introduction of the new scheme, including the IT system, and to encourage his constituents and his hon. Friends to make their views known as part of the consultation. None the less, as he rightly says, people face financial problems now. I should certainly like to make such changes to the existing child maintenance scheme, and I have considered doing so in some detail. However, we inherited a situation in which 100,000 cases have fallen out of the system due to its failings and the prohibitive cost to the taxpayer continues to be borne.
To make fuller changes to the existing scheme rules and the underpinning IT systems risks further problems and added costs to a system that already presents the taxpayer with a bill of £450 million per annum. I share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, but I hope that I can garner his support for the implementation of the new scheme as soon as possible. That is dependent on the enactment of the Welfare Reform Bill.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I agree that it is important to maintain maturity and consensus on this matter if we are to move forward swiftly. Will the Minister ensure that, whenever the Department addresses these anomalies, proper and appropriate training is given to staff, so that they can take the claimant through the process swiftly and with as few problems as possible?
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which gives me the opportunity to talk a little about the staff at the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. I was in Belfast recently, visiting the arm of the commission that deals with his constituents in Northern Ireland and the constituents of a region in England. I was impressed with its capability and its commitment to do a good job for all of our constituents.
The issue lies in the failings of the IT systems, the approaches taken in the past and the complexities of previous systems. As we look to the new scheme, I urge hon. Members to remember that simplicity and replacing the current IT system are critical if we are to effect the sort of changes that the hon. Gentleman advocates.
Mr David
Basically, I understand what the Minister is saying, but it is not a positive message for people such as my constituent who are losing out and whose children are losing out because of the failings of an IT system. It is not of benefit to them to say, “Things will be better in the future with a new IT system and a new scheme, but they will not apply to you.” When MPs get in touch with the CSA, they often find it very helpful. It allocates individuals to specific cases, and quite often individual cases are tremendously complex. It should not be beyond the wit of the Government to ensure that a system is in place that gives special consideration to individuals who lose out at the moment and whose neighbours face similar circumstances, so that they might be okay in the future.
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and we want to ensure that more children benefit from positive financial arrangements. Too often, that is not the case at the moment. Half the children who live in separated families do not have a secure financial arrangement in place. However, more than half the parents within the child maintenance system feel that they could make their own financial arrangements with the right support. So I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider what support he could give to his constituents, so that they can consider making their own financial arrangements. There is no requirement now for anybody to make their financial arrangements through the Child Support Agency or the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, but there is a requirement for people to meet their parental responsibilities and have a financial arrangement in place to support their children.
As I say, more than 50% of people with arrangements within the CSA feel that they could make their own arrangements with the right support, and that is very much at the heart of the approach that we are taking with the new scheme that we will put in place in 2012. The new scheme will address many of the failings that we have discussed today and that hon. Members will have experienced on an ongoing basis. It will be underpinned by a new IT system, which has been tried and tested by using systems in the commercial world. It will use HMRC data to enable parents to get financial support for their children in place, either within the statutory scheme or outside it.
In addition, we will introduce charges for the new scheme, to encourage more people to take responsibility to make the arrangements themselves. That approach is much better not only for the state—in terms of reducing costs—but for the children involved. The application charge, for which there will be an exemption for victims of domestic violence, will provide another vital incentive for people to consider a family-based arrangement before turning to the state for support.
We will also introduce collection charges and penalty fees if we have to use enforcement action. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, all too often people appear to feel that paying child maintenance is an optional extra. It absolutely is not—parents have a clear responsibility to make financial provision for their children. We want to promote a real attitude change, which perhaps has not been achieved before, to help to deter parents from failing to meet their responsibilities and to help them to think carefully about taking responsibility themselves.
The scheme will remain heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, and parents on benefits will still have all their maintenance disregarded, so that they keep all their benefits and all their child maintenance. That will help to ensure that more children have the necessary financial support in place.
The hon. Gentleman rightly asks, “Why can’t we do something now?” My concern is that we must ensure that the current system continues to operate, although in a very difficult set of circumstances, until the new scheme can be put in place. I must take the judgment that adding further complexity to the already broken system that I have inherited will not be best for the vast majority of parents. Put quite simply, the current IT system can barely cope at the moment and to add more complexity to it would cause more concern in the future. However, there is nothing stopping the hon. Gentleman’s constituent or, indeed, anybody else who is following the debate today from taking action to ensure that their children receive fair financial support following separation.
With the new scheme, I am talking about a strong package of reform, not for some distant future but for 2012, when we will roll out the scheme for parents and children who are currently within the statutory system. It will address the hon. Gentleman’s concerns; it will be fairer for parents and the taxpayer; and most importantly, it will support children in the right way, with parents taking real responsibility for their children’s welfare regardless of their own adult relationships.
Child Support Management of Payments and Arrears Amendment Regulations 2012
Maria Miller Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
The Government are committed to tackling the legacy of £3.8 billion in child maintenance arrears owed by non-resident parents. They are determined to pursue every penny which can be collected, and the Child Support Agency is pursuing a range of initiatives and deploying its enforcement powers more effectively to pursue those parents who refuse to pay.
We have, however, to be mindful of the fact that not all of the arrears that are owed can realistically be collected; and indeed, not all arrears are actually wanted by the relevant parents with care.
I am therefore today publishing a consultation document on commencing powers contained within the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 to write off arrears of child maintenance in certain, limited circumstances and to accept a part payment of child maintenance in full and final satisfaction of the total amount due.
The use of the write-off power is limited—by the 2008 Act—to circumstances where it would be “unfair or otherwise inappropriate” to collect or enforce the recovery of child maintenance.
The power to accept a part payment will enable a non-resident parent to pay a proportion of the total amount due, with the full liability being treated as met. A part payment may only be accepted where the parent with care has given his or her express permission.
None of this undermines the Government’s determination to pursue those parents who refuse to live up to their responsibilities. The Government believe that failure to pay child maintenance must never be considered as an option.
The consultation document and draft regulations will be available on the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC) and Department for Work and Pensions websites later today. A link to the CMEC website is attached below.
Copies of the consultation document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. http://www. childmaintenance.org/en/publications/consultations.html
Remploy
Maria Miller Excerpts(12 years, 11 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and under that of Mr Havard, who is no longer in his seat. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this debate and right hon. and hon. Members on making a strong case on their constituents’ behalf for the importance of providing the appropriate support for disabled people to get into employment. I, too, note that many people in this room today other than right hon. and hon. Members have an interest in that.
It is also important to note how much time hon. Members have taken to come talk to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and the right hon. Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and for Cynon Valley have all taken a great deal of their own time to ensure that they put their views in a measured and sensible manner, and I thank them all.
It was interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who speaks for the Opposition. Having been in my place, she is right to say that we face a dilemma. She stated that she understands the tensions. I have no doubt that she does, having done this job before me, but what was not clear is exactly what the Opposition’s position is. She might feel that she has made her position clear, but it was not clear to me.
Mrs McGuire
I have made it clear that we expected the five-year plan that was in place to run its course. The problem is that it is the Minister who has to wrestle with the decisions, but I have made our position very clear.
Maria Miller
The right hon. Lady and I are, therefore, absolutely at one. This Government have made it clear that, despite the very difficult financial situation that we have inherited, we will continue to support the modernisation plan. We are in year four of that plan, and it is absolutely right that we should plan for the future. It would be wrong and a dereliction of our duties not to look to the future, particularly given the fact that the modernisation plan has, it pains me to say, struggled to be achieved.
The right hon. Lady and others have asked a lot of detailed questions. I want to answer as many of them as I can, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I keep interventions to a minimum. The first was the right hon. Lady’s question about whether we support the modernisation plan. The answer is absolutely. We are in year four of it. There is great concern about the failure to meet its targets, but we are continuing to make sure that the money is available and that we put in the required effort to see the plan continue.
I discussed both the modernisation plan and the Sayce report with the trade unions and the Remploy board at a recent meeting in Leicester, and my officials will have further meetings with the unions in, I think, the second week of January. The right hon. Lady should be reassured that we are trying to do the same thing as the previous Administration, which is to take something that was created in 1946 to rehabilitate ex-service personnel after the second world war and try to find a sensible and constructive way forward in these difficult times.
The right hon. Lady also talked about a number of issues in relation to terms and conditions for those in the Remploy plan who took redundancy. I am sure that she already knows this, but I wish to clarify that those terms and conditions were for the period of the plan.
The world has changed immeasurably over the 65 years since Remploy was established. Our responsibility as constituency Members of Parliament, Ministers and Opposition Members is to make sure that we look forward to the future and make sure that we have the right support available for disabled people to be able to reach their full potential in life. That is our responsibility and our Government’s focus.
In Britain, our manufacturing industry faces increasingly competitive markets from overseas. The overall development of Remploy over the years has not been focused on the business environment in which it operates. That is a plain fact. Some sectors, such as the automotive sector and CCTV, have been able to develop offerings of higher value-added products and services, but they are the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of the network continues to produce products that, as a nation, we are more used to seeing imported from overseas and, indeed, at lower costs.
Fifty-five per cent. of disabled people in this country work in offices, shops and public services, and—my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has talked eloquently about this—increasingly want to be involved in all aspects of employment and be part of a national work force. When I talk to employers such as BT, Royal Mail and B&Q, I start to feel heartened about a change in attitude among employers towards employing disabled people. That is only a start, and there is still a great deal more to be done. I do not underestimate the challenges that we all face to overturn entrenched attitudes.
Jim Dobbin
It just so happens that, before I came to this debate, I attended a reception held by the Council for Disabled Children in the Jubilee Room next door. A young man spoke to me about the situation, and I told him about this debate. He told me that he had just lost his job. I asked him why, to which he replied, “Because I am disabled.” I asked him how he was disabled, and he said that he was deaf. He has tried and tried to get re-employed, but he has failed.
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The answer is that there is a great deal of legislation that would support that young man. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s advice to him was to seek legal redress, although the particular instances of the circumstances would need to be taken into consideration. Our responsibility is to plan for the future and for young men like that who want to be able to work in the same jobs as their peer group in a class, and to make sure that they have the ability to do that, not only through legislation, but through the attitudes of their employers.
Procurement has been mentioned a number of times. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley raised the issue right at the beginning of the debate. It has been suggested that an increase in procurement sales, particularly from local authorities, would resolve Remploy’s current problems. In its briefing for this debate, the GMB initially chose to criticise the support provided by local authorities for Remploy, but, for the record, I want to thank local authorities for their support for Remploy. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has talked about his local authority’s work in that regard. Moreover, the local authorities in Blaenau Gwent, Swansea, Merthyr Tydfil and Newcastle already support Remploy. Indeed, my own county council in Hampshire also supports Remploy and is very proud to do so. It is important that we do not underestimate the existing support. We are most grateful and thankful for it.
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman will know that the consultation talks about freeing Remploy from the control of Government and making sure that successful organisations can continue to thrive.
To return to the specific point that Members have addressed at great length, there are examples of local authorities and Remploy working together, but the problems in the factories will not be addressed by that alone. Article 19, to which Members have referred, is clearly a way to help public bodies use supported businesses, but it does not address the issue of value of money that procurement officers always need to consider, nor does it guarantee that Remploy will be given work in competition with other supported businesses.
The issues currently faced by Remploy factories are not new, and concern over the increasing cost, low productivity and sustainable jobs for disabled people has been an issue since the 1990s. The operating loss for the factories has increased into tens of millions of pounds, and the steps taken under the modernisation plan, which was rightly introduced by the previous Administration, including closing and merging 29 sites, has simply not addressed the fundamental weakness in the business model.
The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned my comment that I was minded to accept the consultation’s proposals. I want to make it clear that I have not yet made a final decision about the consultation, but I am persuaded that there is a need for change and that the Sayce review suggests a persuasive model for such change.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware—I believe that she is—of the Blindcraft factory in Glasgow, which is a very successful supported employment workplace? Will she acknowledge that it is the business plan, not the business model, that is failing, as the management themselves acknowledged to her and me earlier this year?
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We have met on several occasions to discuss the issue. There are examples of areas where there can be success. Indeed, the hon. Member for Swansea West has walked the talk and made sure that the procurement issue has been uppermost in his local authority’s mind, and he has been very successful in that regard. There are opportunities for success, but the problem is that that success is not across the board.
I have already confirmed that the amount of money going into specialist disability employment is not the issue, because we have protected that pot of money. This is about ensuring that that money works hardest for disabled people. This is not about reducing funding; it is about using the money most effectively in whatever way that comes about. We have to consider those alternatives.
I have met Remploy trade union representatives on a number of occasions to discuss the matter. I have visited factories and listened to the views of employees, and I attended one of the consultation events in Reading in September. Let me restate that the Government’s commitment is to the five-year modernisation plan introduced in 2008. We are now in year four of that and those targets are not being met.
Last week, Remploy published independently audited annual reports and financial statements for 2010-11, which revealed that the Department for Work and Pensions spent £68.3 million supporting 2,200 disabled people in Remploy enterprise businesses at an annual cost of £25,000 per person. That is £5 million more than in 2009-10 and is more than 20% of the total budget available to help disabled people into work through the specialist employment budgets. We have to take a long hard look at the situation.
Geraint Davies
Does the Minister accept that there is a case for some job subsidy, even if it is as low as the amount that that person would otherwise be paid for unemployment benefit and health on-costs, or is she going to stick to her guns and say that there should be no subsidy and we should therefore make a loss to the Exchequer?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman asks a very detailed question. He knows that we have not yet made the decision about the way forward. A significant amount of money is available to support disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne talked about the Access to Work programme, which he rightly said is exceptionally effective. The Sayce report clearly says that if decisions are made about the prioritisation of the available money, more money—significant amounts of money—could be yielded to support Access to Work. That could well be the sort of support that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Swansea West would want.
Maria Miller
Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I make some progress? He and others have raised a lot of points, and I want to be able to deal with them.
The chairman’s annual report confirms that, last year, on average, half Remploy’s factory employees had little or no work to do and that the operating results for the factories have been significantly out of line with the modernisation plan. The perception that Remploy has turned work away is, I am afraid, simply unfounded. Some bids have been unsuccessful because they do not have the required capability or capacity in the factories, and sometimes Remploy has been outbid on price.
The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley talked about the order books being strong. The simple truth is that, even at full capacity, the factories are still making large losses, which demonstrates that the business model is wrong. That is why I asked Liz Sayce to review not only Remploy, but the specialist disability employment programmes that we have available.
The annual report also confirmed that Remploy employment services have been able to secure 20,000 job outcomes in the past year at a one-off unit cost of £3,300 per job. We should absolutely applaud that. Remploy employment services have been making great headway for many thousands of disabled people. I should like that to be recognised in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne talked about alternative support for disabled people, particularly Access to Work. I absolutely understand his support for that programme, which has great potential if we have the funding available to support it. We should all be pleased that there are opportunities in all our constituencies for Remploy employment services to help disabled people into employment through the work that it does with organisations such as Asda, BT, Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, McDonald’s, the Royal Mail and the NHS. That has been its achievement over the past 12 months; indeed, results of a similar magnitude are predicted for the next 12 months.
I shall talk briefly about some of the specific points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) asked whether I would consider the consortium of trade unions plan. Absolutely. I will look at all the plans that have been put to us. I am particularly interested in the trade unions’ approach. The Secretary of State and I have made it very clear that we would be delighted for the trade unions to propose ways that they want to work with us to free the factories from Government control and to ensure that they can have a successful future. We will always be open to thoughts being given to us on that front.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about the involvement of the workers in the Ashington factory in his constituency. It is absolutely to be commended that the workers in that factory are involved in building a success of the business. There are 27 people in the Ashington factory, but I remind him that there are more than 10,000 disabled people in his constituency. I want to ensure that more of those people get the sort of support that they need, so that we can ensure that they are not only in employment, but reaching their potential in life.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East raised a number of incredibly important points. He and I have had long and, for me, useful discussions about his experience in this area. His main point was the importance of ensuring more local control and autonomy for the factories. He is very much echoing the Sayce review in saying that, if we are to drive effectiveness and have a successful network of factories in the future, it might be useful to consider enabling people such as the manager whom he talked about to have more autonomy. Again, there are 19 people at the factory in his constituency, where more than 15,000 disabled people live. I want to ensure that more help is available for them to be able to succeed in their lives and secure jobs that they can do.
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) talked about the fact that it pays to care. Again, he and I are as one on that. He talked about the importance of ensuring that people who are subject to changes in their jobs are looked after. For the record, some 1,809 redundancies were put in place by the previous Administration. The figures seem to have got jumbled up over time, so I thought it would be useful for hon. Members to have the facts. Some 1,611 of those people were disabled. Indeed, when we consider the facts and figures, we can see that just under 40% of those individuals took early retirement. Some 252 people took modernisation terms and continue to be in employment elsewhere. Of those people who took the support on offer, some 70% found work. The problem was that not enough people took that offer of support. That is the learning from the previous modernisation plans that were put in place.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was very critical of the previous Administration in his comments. I would not be so critical. I think that they were trying to do the right thing.
John McDonnell
Will the Minister be clear about the future before she finishes? She says that she accepts the Sayce report. The Sayce report says that Remploy enterprises will be given six months to prepare a business plan and then 24 months to implement it, by which time all subsidy will be withdrawn. So there will be no subsidy within two years of the implementation of a business plan. Is that what the Government are saying?
Maria Miller
No, that is not what the Government are saying. The Government are still consulting on the Sayce review, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. I have said that we are minded to accept these things, and as we move forward, we might or might not accept proposals in that report. We may accept them piecemeal or in their entirety. That is yet to be decided, so he will have to bear with me—as I am sure that he is willing to do—for a little while longer, so that we go through the proper processes with all these things.
The hon. Member for Swansea West—I see that he is not in his place—talked about there perhaps being problems with recruitment. Yes, indeed, because of the austerity that we are under at the moment, controls on new Government recruitment are in place. Owing to its non-departmental public body status, Remploy is covered by those controls, but I absolutely assure hon. Members in the Chamber today that since the austerity measures came into force, Remploy has successfully applied for exemptions through this process, where requests have been approved, to ensure that we can continue commercial operations. There are absolute safeguards in place to ensure that the business can continue in the way that it needs to.
The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned expensive consultants. She and I have a joint dread of the idea of having expensive consultants in place. I assure her that since austerity measures have been introduced, Remploy has not used consultants. I cannot speak for the previous Administration, but that is something that we feel very strongly about.
The hon. Member for Wrexham talked about when financial information will be available. As I have already made clear, no decision has been made on the recommendations of the Sayce review to date, so it would not be appropriate or possible for me at this stage to release financial information on a decision that is yet to be taken. We have to ensure that we adhere to the right proprieties. He would expect us to do that as a Government, and I assure him that, as soon as decisions are made, the appropriate information will be forthcoming for anybody who is interested in that detail.
The Remploy pension scheme has been mentioned. To assure individuals who may be concerned about comments that have been made about that, the Government have promised to protect fully the accrued benefits of pension scheme members in the event that the pension scheme were to close following the implementation of the Sayce review recommendations. It is an unfortunate fact that we have identified a £104.6 million deficit in the valuation of the pension scheme, which we inherited. A deficit repayment plan has been put in place, which is important because we want to ensure that both employees and pension scheme trustees are confident in the propriety of the finances of the scheme. Payments of £7.4 million, £25.8 million and £21.5 million have already been made into the scheme, which shows the commitment that this Government have, in tough economic times, to ensuring that we stand by our obligations and our commitments to Remploy staff.
I want to ensure that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley who secured the debate has a few minutes at the end to sum up.
Maria Miller
That is extremely kind of the right hon. Lady. I have managed to race through most of the issues that I want to cover—I think that I have actually managed to cover almost everything raised by hon. Members.
Gemma Doyle
The Minister is drawing to a conclusion, but I do not think that she has mentioned the issue of bonuses, which we discussed earlier this year. She promised to look at the scandalous practice of management still collecting millions of pounds in bonuses. Has she decided to take action on that?
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady has raised the issue of bonuses before. I think I can remember either writing to her or perhaps replying in detail. It is vital that any business is run in a proper way. As an incoming Government, 18 months ago we took over a set of commitments that the previous Administration had put in place. That included many things including not only the modernisation plan, but the issue of bonuses for senior managers at Remploy. The performance incentive payments in the annual report—the statement made this year—relate back to 2009-10. The executive directors are contractually entitled to those payments, but, unfortunately, those contracts predate this Administration. The hon. Lady may know that there are legal issues that we have to be aware of. The Department has no power to limit bonuses, but from 2010-11 all Remploy’s executive team and senior managers have agreed to cap their bonuses in line with the senior civil service bonus cap. That was a particular request made by the Secretary of State, so that we can ensure that there is some—[Interruption.]
John McDonnell
Are they getting a bonus? Even though they are failing, are they getting a bonus?
Maria Miller
As the hon. Gentleman has just heard me say, his Government put those contracts in place. [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Benton, I was not giving way.
Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)
Order. Either submit an intervention, or allow the Minister to answer.
Maria Miller
Thank you, Mr Benton. I was in the process of trying to answer that intervention. What is very clear is that there are legal issues. We are contractually obliged to pay those bonuses, and we have been advised that there is no alternative. The hon. Gentleman can take that up with his colleagues.
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the Minister for giving way. I very deliberately have not intervened, because the previous Chair was very kind and gave me a long time and people were very patient, but I am grinding my teeth a wee bit. Does my hon. Friend agree that this has been going on for years under both Governments and is incredibly intractable, which is why we are still here? The whole issue is a complete red herring. We have absolutely no choice, because we have to implement what the previous Government actually agreed.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should not get away from the facts here. Disabled people listening to this debate expect us to show a way forward for the future. All the meetings that I have had with the leading disability organisations on this issue have made it clear that disabled young people, as was said in an earlier intervention, want to ensure that they have sustainable jobs in the future. Those disabled young people want to make sure that they learn the skills that will give them those sustainable jobs into the future, which is my priority. That is where I want to ensure the Government’s funding is being placed. We have made it clear that this money is ring-fenced, so it is secure. The issue is about getting the best outcomes for disabled people. Some hon. Members questioned whether this was the right way forward. I tell them first, second and third that we will make sure that the priority is the best outcome for disabled people. That is what comes first rather than vested interests or the history, because we have to look at the future.
Lindsay Roy
Will the Minister distance herself from the comment that Remploy factories were ghettos?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman is asking me to comment on something that I do not think I would ever say. [Interruption.] What I would say is that we have to listen to what disabled people want. Disabled people tell me that they want to live independent lives in communities like everybody else. To be able to do that, they want to have the jobs that everybody else would expect as well.
I fear that I will run out of time if I do not wind up my remarks quickly. In conclusion, getting this right is absolutely crucial for millions of people—millions of our constituents. It is only right that we take the time to consider the consultation representations before making any decisions. I have not yet made a decision about the future, and an announcement will be made as soon as is practically possible. Hon. Members can be sure that I will consider carefully not only the points that have been raised today, but the points that have been raised by hon. Members and right hon. Members in the many meetings that we have had in recent weeks. However, we need to look at the evidence. We need to be driven by that evidence and ensure that we are committed to the best decision for the future of disabled people. I recognise how vital it is to join up with work across Government to improve employment outcomes for disabled people. I have already answered one of the requests in the Sayce report to establish a cross-Government Committee that considers disabled people’s employment.
Maria Miller
The right hon. Lady makes a timely intervention. She will know that in her constituency 37 people are employed in a Remploy factory, and she has more than 13,000 disabled people in her constituency. My responsibility is to ensure that more of those 13,000 people get the support they need to get into work. We know that there are almost 700 vacancies in Jobcentre Plus in her area, and that Remploy employment services in Merthyr Tydfil has placed 254 disabled people into employment. In the Rhondda, that figure is 163 disabled people into employment; in Bridgend, it is 251.
Remploy (Annual Report)
Maria Miller Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
The Remploy annual report and financial statements 2011 are published today. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office later today. Electronic copies will be available on the Remploy website:
http://www.remploy.co.uk/about-us/corporategovernance/annualreports.ashx
I have written to the chairman of Remploy formally approving the agreed 2011-12 performance and resources agreement between the Department and the company, as follows:
Target Description | Target |
|---|---|
To live within the company’s financial means in the 2011-12 financial year and achieve: | |
operational funding result of | £97.7 million |
modernisation of the business within a cost of | £5.4 million |
Factory businesses to achieve: | |
an operating result (loss) of | £52.5 million |
cost per disabled employee of | £24,000 |
Employment Service business to achieve | |
an operating result of | £28.2 million |
total job outcomes of | 18,000 |
—of which total disabled job outcomes | 16,500 |
—of which Work Choice job outcomes | 7,500 |
—of which other Grant-in-Aid funded outcomes | 1,000 |
—of which other disabled job outcomes | 8,000 |
Independent Living Fund
Maria Miller Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
The independent living fund (ILF) operates as an executive non-departmental public body of the Department for Work and Pensions and provides discretionary cash payments to disabled people to support independent living.
In a written statement on 13 December 2010, Official Report, column 85WS, I announced that, having reviewed the role of the ILF, the fund would remain closed permanently to new applications, but that the care and support packages of current users would be protected until the end of this Parliament.
That decision followed an independent review of the ILF in 2007 which recommended reform to ensure long-term sustainability, and reflected a commitment to ensure that the care and support needs of all disabled people are delivered equitably as part of local authorities’ broader independent living strategies in line with local priorities and accountability.
We committed to a formal consultation in 2011 on how existing users would be supported in the future. That consultation should be placed in the wider context of the reform of the care and support system and will therefore now take place in spring 2012, alongside the publication of the planned White Paper on the future of care and support in England.
DWP remains committed to working with the Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly Government on options for the future support for users in Scotland and Wales.
Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012
Maria Miller Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
I am today publishing a consultation document on the calculation methodology for the new statutory child maintenance scheme, to be launched next year.
The Government want to encourage and support parents to make their own family-based arrangements, but are committed to providing a statutory service for those separated parents who are unable to co-operate.
As part of our programme of reforms, the existing Child Support Agency schemes will be replaced over time with a new, efficient scheme for those parents who are unable to make their own arrangements.
The aim of the new scheme is to produce a faster, more accurate and transparent process for assessing child maintenance payments. Payments will usually be based on the non-resident parent’s latest tax year gross income, sourced directly from HM Revenue and Customs. This will make the scheme less dependent on information from non-resident parents and so make it harder for non-resident parents to avoid their responsibilities by not disclosing their full income.
Annual reviews will ensure that cases are kept up to date in a way they are not on the current CSA schemes.
I am also announcing two proposals today which would provide particular benefit to parents with care, who are generally mothers with children.
The Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 provided for the flat rate paid by non-resident parents on benefit and low income to be increased from the current £5 to £7. I am today consulting on whether this should be increased further to help ensure more children receive the financial support they need.
I am also consulting on achieving a fairer situation for children to get closer to equalising the financial support for children living with, and those living apart from, the non-resident parent.
The consultation document, the impact assessments and draft regulations will be available on the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC) and Department for Work and Pensions websites later today. A link to the CMEC website is attached below.
Copies of the consultation document and the impact assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
http://www.childmaintenance.org/en/publications/consultations.html.
UK Disability Strategy
Maria Miller Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
I am pleased to announce that today the discussion document, “Fulfilling Potential”, was published. This sets out the Government’s vision of enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential and have opportunities to play a full role in society.
“Fulfilling Potential” invites disabled people and their organisations to help shape future policy and develop a cohesive new cross-Government disability strategy. This will be a key part of our commitment to breaking down the barriers to social mobility and equal opportunities faced by disabled people in Britain today.
“Fulfilling Potential” outlines three main areas for discussion: realising aspirations, increasing individual control and changing attitudes and behaviours. It seeks practical ways of making a real difference to disabled people’s lives, even in these difficult economic times.
The Government inherited a wide range of relevant strategic thinking including the Life Chances report, the Independent Living Strategy, and the Roadmap 2025. We will build on this and on the UK’s commitment to the UN convention on the rights of disabled people. We will work closely with the devolved Administrations to share best practice and strategic approaches.
Following a three-month engagement period, we will publish our new strategy in spring next year.
Mobility Component in Residential Care
Maria Miller Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
The Government are today announcing that the mobility component of disability living allowance will not be removed from people living in residential care homes and that the mobility component of personal independence payment, which will replace disability living allowance, will also be payable at both the standard or enhanced rate to people in residential care homes provided they satisfy the entitlement conditions.
In the spending review 2010 it was announced that, from October 2012, the disability living allowance mobility component would be withdrawn from people in residential care homes after 28 days. Our aims have always been to ensure not only protection of public funds but also that disabled people who live in residential care homes retain their independence and are not prevented from getting out and about.
In response to concerns raised about this proposal, the Government announced that they would not remove the mobility component from people in residential care homes from October 2012 and that it would look again at the underlying evidence and gather more, before reaching a final decision on the way forward for the new personal independence payment. We have now gathered and reviewed further evidence, including the helpful contribution provided by Lord Low’s review. Although this does show that the issue of mobility needs for people in residential care homes presents a complex and varied picture there was insufficient evidence of overlaps in funding provision to justify the withdrawal of the mobility component.
Having listened to the concerns raised and carefully considered the evidence, the Government will now table an amendment to the Welfare Reform Bill for consideration at Lords Report stage to remove the provision which allows for withdrawal of the mobility component of personal independence payment from residential care home residents.