Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I hope that I can provide the hon. Gentleman with some comfort. First, let me say that saving money is not a bad thing in itself; it is a good thing, and this overall programme will save some £180 million nationwide. That means that we can reinvest in frontline staff, which will have the biggest effect on helping people to return to work. As for the specific case of Sheffield, the changes will increase the utilisation of the entire estate from 51% to 69% when some of the business moves, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, to the other two sites.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on surviving a recent grilling from young ambassadors at a meeting of the all-party group on youth employment. I welcome the news that fewer young people are unemployed to start with but, at 554,000, the figure is still too high. Will the Minister read the all-party group’s report with a view to ensuring that there are fewer young claimants in the first place?

[Damian Hinds]

I look forward very much to reading the report. We know that any day spent unemployed can have a lasting effect on people, especially at the start of their careers when they are young, and it is therefore particularly important for us to redouble our efforts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

We are doing more for that group of people, which is why, despite the hon. Lady’s request, I will not be pulling the personalised support package that will take effect in April.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

3. What assessment his Department has made of recent trends in the number of young people in work.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)]

The number of young people in work has increased by 235,000 since 2010, and is up 38,000 in the past three months. Nearly nine in 10 young people are in education or work, and youth unemployment is the lowest it has been since 2005.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. I warmly welcome the fact that the youth employment jobs figures are at near record levels. Will he join me in welcoming the work of the Dorset Young Chamber, which helps to match individual businesses in and around my constituency with particular schools and to bridge the gap between education and employment?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the work of the Dorset Young Chamber. I have seen the great work that my local chamber of commerce, Kent Invicta, does in schools. My hon. Friend chairs the all-party parliamentary group for youth employment, so he will be pleased to know that the youth claimant count in his constituency has gone down by 74% since 2010 and by 7% in the past year alone.

Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

I am very comfortable with the figures that I have given the House, and I see the Minister nodding his affirmation that those figures are indeed correct.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am happy to confirm that my hon. Friend is correct. I have the House of Commons Library briefing paper here and it confirms exactly what he has said about JSA claimants falling to around 2% in each of the first six months of 2016 and ESA claimants falling to around 1% between May 2011 and May 2016. He is absolutely right to say that Conservative Members do not lack compassion and empathy. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) was right to say that we are dealing with individual human beings, not statistics, but the statistics are nevertheless important.

[Conor Burns]

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. I could not have put that more eloquently myself.

Sanctions regimes are not uncommon. In fact, most developed economies attach conditions to the receipt of benefits. Recent European studies in Switzerland in 2005, in the Netherlands in 2013, in Denmark in 2011 and in Germany in 2014 found that benefit cuts substantially increased employment take-up among sanctioned persons. In 2013, the Government commissioned an independent review into sanctions and implemented all its recommendations.

We should put aside the misconception sometimes portrayed by Members that sanctions are the automatic default that the system rushes towards. In fact, a claimant has to go through an incredibly long journey before they reach the point of sanction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am sorry, but I am going to carry on.

We must ensure that all of us, as leaders, use the appropriate language. I can point to speeches that have been made in the past in which that has not been the case.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has outlined the provisions of her Bill, which requires an assessment of social security claimants’ circumstances before a sanction is applied. Measures in the Bill include a code of conduct for those responsible for imposing sanctions and the important principle of just cause, which is applied in defined circumstances. It will be applied, for example, where undertaking a job is in clear conflict with the claimant’s caring responsibility, and where there is just cause for not undertaking particular employment or job-search activity. In such cases, it is proposed that sanctions should not be applied.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the need for assessment for hardship payments after a sanction has been applied. Again, that is absolutely right. It was in fact one recommendation from the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry on this issue last year.

I have been heartened by the slightly different tone taken by the new Secretary of State, particularly in what has been said about work capability assessment and sanctions for homeless people and other vulnerable groups. I see this Bill as an important step forward, as it builds on what we have said should be happening. It would also make the process much fairer. I support this Bill in abolishing the punitive sanctions regime that the Tories and the Liberal Democrats introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

Let me provide a bit of background to what has been going on over the past four years. We have heard about the exponential rise in sanctions that have been applied to people on JSA, incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance, but we did not really touch on the new application to people on universal credit who are in work. I am referring to the taxpayers whom the hon. Member for Bournemouth West was talking about—the taxpayers who are already contributing to the Exchequer and who are, through the universal credit regulations, likely to be subjected to a sanction. That would be the case if, for example, they are not working full time, or if they have not got a permanent contract and want a few days off. They can be sanctioned and that is happening now.

I have been campaigning on this issue for more than four years. A constituent came to me after he had been sanctioned. He was in the middle of a work capability assessment when he suffered a heart attack. He was told by the nurse undertaking the assessment that he needed to go to hospital. He did that, and two weeks later he had a letter in the post saying that he had been sanctioned.

I mentioned another case to the Minister when we were in an interview recently. John Ruane from my constituency has a brain tumour, which means that he has three to four epileptic fits a week. His clinical team contacted me because he was refusing to have a life-saving operation on the grounds that he feared he would be sanctioned. He had already had his ESA stopped after a work capability assessment—that is another story, which I cannot go into today, but which certainly needs to be looked at again. He was frightened of being sanctioned. Fortunately, I have been able to intervene and his ESA has been re-established, but that fear of being sanctioned is what people are experiencing.

Yet another constituent of mine, who was a Jobcentre Plus adviser for more than 25 years, came to me four years ago, saying how troubled he was about the targets that he was being set—or aspirations as a Member said earlier—to sanction claimants. Targets were being set for sanctions even when people had done nothing wrong. He explained how the system works—that appointments would be made when people were meant to come in for a work-related interview, and the people would then not be told. That was investigated by the Department for Work and Pensions and, shamefully, it did nothing.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

On that point alone.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady mentions sanctions. Does she approve of the sanctions regime overall, or would she also advocate getting rid of it in its totality?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I said, “On that point alone,” and the hon. Gentleman has not asked specifically about the investigation of the fraudulent activity that was going on in the DWP, so I am afraid I am not going to respond to his intervention. [Interruption.] I will come on to putting our position very clearly to the Minister.

This Jobcentre Plus adviser said people were being set up to fail to get them off flow. If claimants are off flow, they are not signing in. Not only do they not count in the JSA claimant statistics, but they are not drawing social security support. Wednesday’s National Audit Office report estimated that, last year alone, £132 million was not paid in social security support, but a significant amount—not quite as much as that—was spent on administering the sanctions process.

What many people are surprised to hear is that sanctions apply immediately and last for a minimum of a month. They are referred to a DWP decision maker, as we have heard, to decide whether they should be upheld, but that in itself can take a month. On top of that, although housing benefit payments are not meant to be stopped, they have been, and that was confirmed during the Select Committee inquiry last year. As has also been said, the ensuing debt builds up, and Sheffield Hallam University has shown the implications for sanctions-related homelessness.

Then I started to hear about the deaths of claimants following a sanction—first Mark Wood, and then David Clapson, and there have been many more. Of the 49 claimants who died between 2012 and 2014, and whose deaths were investigated by the DWP, 10 followed a sanction. By the way, I am still waiting for the Department to get back to me on the peer review details of nine subsequent claimant deaths.

It was after David’s death, and when I had met his sister, Gill Thompson, who is absolutely devastated—I pay tribute to her for the campaign she has launched to try to raise awareness of what is happening—that I managed to persuade the Select Committee to undertake an inquiry into sanctions that would explore the impacts of the Government’s 2012 sanctions regime. We found that, between 2012 and 2014, 3.2 million sanctions were applied. At a peak, in one month in 2014, 90,000 JSA claimants were sanctioned. The sanctions for sick and disabled people increased fivefold. One in five JSA claimants were sanctioned at that time; as we have heard, that has increased to one in four. Single parents and people with mental health conditions were particularly affected. Again, the variation across the country was quite staggering.

We found that 43% of claimants who are sanctioned leave JSA—they move off flow, distorting the JSA claimant count. Over 80%—this is a really important point—of those leaving JSA after a sanction do so for reasons other than work. One would think that the Government wanted to know what was happening to those people and where they were going. If they are not going into work, what exactly is happening to them? One recommendation from the all-party Select Committee inquiry was that we should follow up these cases. As the NAO has shown, that has not happened. We do not know what happens to the nearly half of the JSA claimants who leave and the 80% who do so for reasons other than going into work.

The rise in food bank usage was also linked to the increase in sanctions, and both the physical and the mental health issues of claimants were found to be exacerbated by the punitive sanctions regime. The Select Committee made more than 20 recommendations, including for the pre-sanction process that the Bill also calls for. It also said that all financial sanctions on vulnerable JSA and ESA claimants, as well as those on people who are on universal credit and in work but not full-time work, should be stopped.

Fundamentally, the Select Committee called for an independent inquiry into sanctions as a whole, and the NAO made the same recommendation in its report on Wednesday. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept the majority of the recommendations. They made some moves on hardship payments. We have heard about that already and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Wednesday’s NAO report was the third in a month reaffirming and adding to the Select Committee inquiry’s findings. There is no evidence that sanctioning someone motivates them or modifies their behaviour in such a way that they move into work. Even the Government’s own behavioural insights team found exactly that in its review. We have discussed the fact that one in four JSA claimants were sanctioned between 2010 and 2015, and I have mentioned the appalling headline that said that they were abusing the system. As I have said, the Jobcentre Plus whistleblower said that claimants are being set up to fail.

We also know that 42% of UC decisions about sanctions took longer than 28 days, and that £132 million was withheld last year. Last month, the University of Oxford and the London School of Economics quantified the association between the increase in sanctioning and food bank usage: for every 10 sanctions, five more adults were referred to food banks.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Absolutely. Last week, the food bank in my own area launched a fuel bank, because people are choosing between heating and eating. That is what is going to happen up and down the country this Christmas.

Where do we go from here? I hope that, given the evidence and the new tone being used by this Government—I was disappointed with the autumn statement, but I am an eternal optimist and hope that the Minister is listening—they will support the Bill and implement it at the earliest opportunity.

I turn to the question asked by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) about our position. I made it very clear in my conference speech in September.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I wasn’t there, but the hon. Lady can invite me next time!

[Debbie Abrahams]

I will certainly do that. The hon. Gentleman is very welcome to cross the Floor.

I said—and this was widely reported at the time—that we want to scrap the system. We must be driven by evidence, and the evidence shows that it does not work. It does not motivate people or change behaviour. All it does is have a very harmful effect on the most vulnerable in society. It also has some very difficult spin-off effects.

[Michael Tomlinson]

rose—

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am coming to a conclusion. As part of my party’s sanctions review, I want to explore approaches that better reflect the change that I want to see in the culture of our social security system. I want it to be based on support and positive reinforcement, not harassment and punishment. Again, if we look at the evidence from the Netherlands, we see that such an approach is much more effective at moving people into sustainable employment.

Our social security system is, like our NHS, there for all of us in our time of need. It is based on the principles of inclusion, support and security for all, and it should assure all of us of our dignity at all times. I do not think that we can say that about the present system, and we certainly cannot say that about the sanctions system. I hope that the Government are listening, because this is so important. I implore them to implement the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I have read the report, and it states, as I have said, that the international evidence suggests that sanctions increase the number of people who go from benefits into employment. It is incredibly important that we get people into work.

Having set out the system, I would like to identify, thirdly, the things we need to ward against. We absolutely need to protect the vulnerable in our society. Those who cannot work must not be penalised, and we need to ensure that those who suffer sanctions are still able to maintain a proper standard of living.

As I said at the outset, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South rightly spoke about the importance of mental health, so the following principles are important. Sanctioning must be a last resort, and the sanctions must be monitored. It is right that there is a right of appeal, and that there is a further appeal to an independent decision maker. It is right that there is a hardship fund, and that that fund protects the most vulnerable.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Does my hon. and learned Friend, like me, welcome the Government’s broadening of the hardship fund to cover those points, including the homeless and those who suffer from mental ill health?

[Lucy Frazer]

Yes, I welcome that. I am also delighted that 90% of JSA claimants who apply to the hardship fund are successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I normally say that I am very pleased to take part in a debate, but, unfortunately, I am not very pleased to do so today because we are having to discuss a terrible subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) on the way she introduced this very important Bill. I cannot match her passion and, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to hear that I will not match her length, but I want to make a few points.

I listened very carefully to what the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) said. Nobody on the SNP Benches disputes the fact that working is important—we all want everybody who is able to work to be in work, and that should be fundamental for everybody in every political party—but when she was talking about decision makers, she mentioned that we have a judicial system in which the judge does not know anything about the case. The fundamental difference is that such a person can go to court and present their case to the judge, but that is not possible in relation to decision makers in this process.

I want to comment on some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). I have always found him to be a reasonable chap, but I was disappointed by what he said. He made a point—it is often made by Conservative Members—that taxpayers and benefit claimants are somehow different and neither the twain shall meet. He must realise that many benefits claimants were taxpayers and probably will be taxpayers again in the future. He quoted Beveridge, but these people have paid into the system for many years, and they often find themselves having to claim benefits because they have had an accident, they are ill or have a mental illness, or for many other reasons. It is totally wrong to look at the two as different: benefits claimants have been and will be taxpayers, and they are trying to get from the system what they are entitled to, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to accept that.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I, too, heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). I understood that he was making a broader point about taxpayers. Will the hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir) answer this question, please: what is his view on the principle of sanctions? Should there be sanctions at all, yes or no?

[Mike Weir]

We are not discussing the principle of sanctions today. We are discussing a Bill that sensibly seeks to mitigate the current system. Whether there should be sanctions at all is another debate for another day, but it is not what we are debating today. Many Government Members have spoken about mitigations in the system. It is true that people can get hardship payments, but it can take many weeks. Not only that, but the hardship payments are a percentage of what people would get from benefits. Despite what many people seem to think, benefits are hardly over-generous in the first instance. People who get by on benefits find that they cannot get by on hardship payments.

Parts of my constituency are relatively prosperous. Many people work in the North sea oil industry, for example. In the downturn in that industry, people lost well-paid jobs. Many of them came to me absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of money they got by signing on because they had believed for so many years the rubbish pushed by some of our media that all people on benefits live the life of Riley, which is absolute nonsense.

The point has been made that there is nothing new in the sanctions system, which is correct—sanctions have been part of the system since at least 1996—but what is new is the number of sanctions and how they are imposed. The system is deeply flawed, and SNP Members have long called for a full independent review of it. Even the National Audit Office found in its recent report that a shocking 24% of jobseeker’s allowance claimants received a sanction between 2010 and 2015 and that the rate of sanctions varies dramatically. That is not right and the Government must listen to the concerns about the damage that the application of benefit sanctions has on individuals and their families.

The report also states starkly:

“sanctions are not rare. A quarter of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants receive them at some point”,

which blows apart the Government’s assertion that only a small minority receive them. Worse still, there is absolutely no consistency in the figures. The report finds that some Work programme providers made more than twice as many sanctions referrals as other providers within the same geographical area, even though claimants are randomly allocated, so that case load characteristics are identical for each provider. That would not happen in a fair system.

There should be no more than a minor variation if the system is used uniformly. Clearly it is not, which the Bill would address by adding a clear code of conduct. The point is that, wherever someone is subject to the system up and down the United Kingdom, the same principles would be applied, and it would not be left to individual variance from place to place. The NAO believes that the DWP does not use sanctions consistently, noting that sanctions referral rates

“have risen and fallen over time in ways that cannot be explained by changes in claimant compliance.”

The Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has introduced would make a start on the process. Hon. Members accept that it does not do away with the sanctions regime. She is very intelligent and knows perfectly well that such a Bill would never get through the House in its current form. However, the Bill would go a long way to ensure that there is a coherent, unified process for all jobcentres and that advisers take a claimant’s personal circumstances into account before issuing sanctions. Advisers would be compelled to take into account whether a person is at risk of homelessness and whether they have caring responsibilities or a mental health condition that could be exacerbated if their benefits were sanctioned.

It is interesting to note that in March 2015 the Work and Pensions Committee published a report, “Benefit sanctions policy beyond the Oakley Review”, which recommended, among other things, that the Government take urgent steps to implement fully the outstanding recommendations of that report. To be scrupulously fair, the Government have taken some measures. They have trialled the yellow card system and we still wait to see what the outcome of that trial will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Today started so well. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) took us on an incredible journey through the sanctions system, explaining why we need the Bill to pass, and many of my colleagues and many Labour Members made really powerful interventions—but then things just started to go wrong. I am standing here feeling like I am banging my head on a brick wall. I feel powerless. As an MP, I feel that I can do nothing to get the message through and to make people understand. If I feel powerless, depressed and, to be honest, close to tears at times, how on earth must somebody who actually has no power and who is at the mercy of this Government when they are using the benefits system be feeling? I do not even want to make this speech, but I will anyway.

As MPs, we often have to manage the expectations of our constituents. I would say that I am pretty good at fighting for them, sometimes tooth and nail—as no doubt are many others who have talked about supporting people in difficult situations—but we have to let them know that we do not have a magic wand. If I did have a magic wand and could make it do something today, I would get rid of the pernicious sanctions in the benefit system, because they are cruel and unnecessary.

I always say that the Conservative party knows the cost of everything and the value of absolutely nothing, but the sanctions do not even tick the Conservative box of being cost-effective. The irony is that, despite all their clamouring to reposition themselves as the party of working people—that is even more laughable—the Tories are simply showing their true colours by allowing the system to persist.

My hon. Friend’s Bill is based, quite rightly, on the premise that having a decent job is in an individual’s interest, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). I agree with that, and the vast majority of people will try their level best to get one where one is available. The Government, with their usual deeply cynical view of humankind, have developed this policy based not on their view of the value of work, but entirely on their disdain for those who happen to be without it.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Not yet. I am going to talk about my mother, who is slightly more important to me than the hon. Gentleman. My mother regularly told me—I was a not-too-confident child—that I was as good as anyone else. She said that I was no worse and, being Scottish, no better, but as good. Let me tell those on the Government Benches today—not all of them need to hear this, but most of them do—that the same goes for us all. My constituents, whether they are in work or not, and whatever their reason for being out of work— illness, lack of jobs or a lack of self-confidence—are every bit as good as every one of them. Government Members are not better than my constituents. They may have been treated better in life and had better opportunities, but that does not mean that they deserve better, because they do not.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Truly, I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She and I have had many discussions and exchanges about this subject, the first almost exactly a year ago. She speaks with great passion, but Government Members have no less compassion than Opposition Members. She has mentioned her constituents, but all our constituencies have examples such as those that she has cited. She spoke a few moments ago about the principle of sanctions. Will she be crystal clear: would she get rid of the sanctions system altogether?

[Anne McLaughlin]

That is not what we are talking about, but as a special treat for the hon. Gentleman, I will come on to that and be very clear about what I think about the sanctions regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

No. I want to talk about the people who need to be talked about.

It is a struggle. If that person’s washing machine breaks down, they cannot get it fixed on £73 a week. They have holes in the bottom of their shoes and it is raining non-stop—perhaps that is just a Glasgow thing—and cannot afford to buy new shoes. They cannot afford to be part of what their friends and family are part of. The Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said that they can apply for 60% of their benefits, which means they can get £40 a week if they know about it and if they are successful. They cannot live on £73 a week, never mind £40 a week. That is immoral. The only reason for sanctioning is to say to people, “You are too lazy and you are workshy.” It is punishment and that is all it is.

I had bad and good experiences. My good experience was that I had an adviser who had faith in me. He built my confidence. I had already been a Member of the Scottish Parliament. It was not as if I was lacking in confidence, but it goes instantly when people are treated as if they are children, or as if they are work shy and do not want to go out and earn their own living. Nobody wants not to work. There are reasons why people do not apply for work, and we need to investigate them. They might be lacking in confidence. I have met so many people who say, “Who would employ me?” So they are not applying for jobs because they think, “Who would employ me?” Nobody is helping them and people are taking their money away from them, so that they lose even more confidence. It is unacceptable and it just does not work.

I have not seen the film, “I, Daniel Blake”; I just need to go to a constituency surgery; I do not need to see the film. However, I will see it and we should all thank Ken Loach for making it—I want everyone to see it. I am not saying that members of the Conservative party do not know anything about real life—I would not say that—but for those who have not experienced anything like this situation, please go and watch it. Government Members said it was fiction but it is based on fact.

[Michael Tomlinson]

You have not seen it.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I have not seen it—I do not have to see it.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

No, I will not, but I will respond to that point. The hon. Gentleman is saying, “She’s not seen it”—incredulously. I do not need to see it; I have lived it. I do not have to see it, but I will go and see it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South mentioned our top-notch researcher, Tanya. Tanya told me that she went to see “I, Daniel Blake”, and came away thinking, “What is the point of any of this that we’re doing?” Are Government Members proud that they have made her feel that way, that they have made her feel as if she is powerless to help anybody? She was in tears. I guess that is what the sanctions are all about. They are about grinding people down, so that they know who the bosses are, making them know exactly how powerless they are—

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I will not give way to somebody with lots of power; I want to talk about people with no power. The reality is that the true motivation behind these sanctions is political ideology that says, “We are better than you”.

Now, if this Bill is not passed today—I am guessing that we will not get it through today—[Interruption.] There they go again, Madam Deputy Speaker, telling me that I do not have the right to speak. I am sick of hearing that in this House. It is important that what we are saying to people here is—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for her considered intervention.

Today we have heard about a “postcode sanctions lottery”, about formalising and consistency, and about efforts to ensure that no one falls into the gap. The people who make the decisions will not always be in possession of the full facts, which is why we need a process to examine the sanctions system. The four principles of the Gregg review offer a useful set of tools for assessment of the strength of the policy, and were endorsed in the Oakley review. The additional pillar described in the Oakley review has also provided a clearer recourse in terms of appeal, and that must be welcomed.

We are talking—and have been all day—not about statistics, but about people, livelihoods, aspirations, children, families, homes and security, and that is absolutely right. I strongly believe that this is a listening Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) said what worried her about the Bill was the risk of duplication and pure bureaucracy in a system that would continue to be tweaked and would continue to evolve. That system will have to change to meet new challenges, and there are people in the middle of the process. I know that, in this area as in many others, the Government are listening and proceeding with reform based on constructive criticism and research, and that they are taking a pragmatic stance. I like to think that the Minister, who is a Hampshire neighbour, is always listening, although I see that he is talking to a colleague at the moment

A new sanctions regime was introduced in 2012 with the important aim of increasing the effectiveness of categorisation. Again, this was about people, not just statistics. The categories were higher, intermediate and lower, depending on whether a transgression had been repeated and on the nature of the fault. I think that that was a good reform. Proportional responses mean a system where one size does not fit all, and we have an opportunity to approach people and their personal circumstances differently.

[Michael Tomlinson]

We have heard many examples of hard cases in which things have gone wrong, but the current legislation contains a safety net—a “catch system”. It used to be called good cause, and is now called good reason. The examples that have been cited—such as people who are five minutes late because they missed the bus, or because they were having a baby—are already covered by good cause, or good reason.

[Mims Davies]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The entire legal system based on common law is about applying the law in a consistent way historically and geographically, so we must make sure that the application of sanctions is consistent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I hear the hon. Gentleman, and I genuinely came into this debate with the view that the Bill has some real benefits. However, I believe that better and more up-to-date guidance, rather than legislation via the Department, is the right way to proceed. But I still do believe that through the Bill and this debate we can learn a lot about how sanctions can be operated humanely.

I realise that for those, few in number, who are given sanctions, that makes a big difference to their lives. Those people will be suffering huge hardship because of their sanctions and because certain criteria mean they do not receive safety-net payments. I recognise that 60% of a very small amount of money for those in a very difficult situation is an unpleasant place to be, but this does give us a layer of protection. I have great sympathy with the measures in the Bill limiting the use of higher level sanctions in certain circumstances.

There might be mental health issues, homelessness and caring responsibilities. Just yesterday, I heard from one of my caseworkers that we had managed to deal with a slightly different issue in terms of homelessness: someone was moving from north London, who was without family and who was in a difficult position because of disability. We have managed to get him on to the right level of support in the local area where his friends and family are located. That had been affecting his mental health, and we were all crying when we were speaking and listening to this constituent.

Every single time I meet my constituents, I am moved by the plight people find themselves in, and mental health issues and homelessness issues play a huge part in them. In fact, there were very few sanctions cases in our casework, but where we had intervened and got to the bottom of it we had made progress. I am very pleased the system is working in that way.

As co-chair of the all-party group on carers, I recently led a debate on carers in this House. I am a former carer, supporting my mum and dad, and we know the enormous sacrifice the 6.5 million carers undertake daily for their loved ones. Two million more people a year will come into caring responsibilities in some way or other. We need to be able to reflect that in the way we support our constituents.

There is a quiet carers army on which all of us depend, which is why I always speak to my constituents about making sure they are aware of the benefits system and are making sure they get all the support they need. The benefit sanctions system should consistently recognise that people have caring responsibilities, and if it does not we need to ensure that the Government pour support into this area, just as they are in the area of mental health. The pledge to provide an additional £1 billion for mental health provision by 2020-21 is welcome. Mental health issues reach every part of the way in which the state operates, including the sanctions regime. I have had a constituency case in which the parents of a young lad with mental health issues had a problem with sanctions. We managed to deal with it because the way through to him was via his parents. They were able to come to me to ask for help.

Every one of us in this House who is a former councillor will be aware of the link between mental health and homelessness, and of the urgent decisions that have to be made in order to get people into a place of safety urgently.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend has mentioned homelessness and mental health. She might have heard in a previous intervention that the Government are already moving to extend hardship payments to at-risk individuals. Does she welcome that development, given that it will help the groups she is describing in her powerful speech?

[Mims Davies]

That is absolutely the spirit in which I am approaching the Bill. I do not want to pick holes in it, because it has clearly been introduced with fortitude and passion based on casework. Bringing these matters to our attention today has given us an opportunity to have a really welcome debate and for all Members to consider how these things are working in their constituencies and bring any issues to the Minister. However, I am not sure that another layer of bureaucracy and legislation is the way to deal with these matters.

For me, this is an instance—[Interruption.] I shall turn my phone off. I think it was a constituent calling. This is an instance that highlights the need for a greater understanding of mental health issues. We have heard about caring responsibilities. I am here today juggling family commitments. They include the need to be here as well as in my constituency, and finding a way to look after the dog. The dog is always the hard bit. No one can ever get an appointment at a time that suits, and we need to ensure that people who work with benefit claimants understand that what might seem a small challenge to us can be a very big challenge indeed to someone who is in peril.

I have great sympathy for people whose caring responsibilities, mental health issues or homelessness create a situation that attracts a sanction. It would be uncaring of us to penalise carers through the system, because this country relies heavily on them. It would be out of sync with the rest of Government policy for us not to give due consideration to people with mental health needs, and I welcome the recent announcement that homeless claimants with mental health problems will be able to access hardship payments within 14 days.

As we can see, a new policy is being trialled without the need for a Bill, and I am sure that all Members will be keen to read the outcomes of the sanctions warning system trial. I hope that the evaluations will be available for us to study soon. Giving claimants notice and an opportunity to explain the reasons behind a breach is a fair way of approaching the sanctions system. I understand that we can expect the final report around April next year, and I look forward to seeing how the trial is going and how these measures could be taken up nationally.

We must not lose sight of the overall objectives of the programmes. They are designed to ensure that people have the stability of a job and a pay packet, and that we never again see children being brought up in homes where getting a job is discouraged. We must always remember not only the claimants but those who pay in to the system. There are 800,000 fewer workless households today than there were in 2010, and unemployment in Eastleigh has fallen by 63% in that time. I welcome the continued support and focus that the Government are providing for our society so that people can have the security of a pay packet and so that it always pays to work.

Wherever I find injustice in the benefits and sanctions system, I vow to bring it to the attention of Ministers. I have spoken for 20 minutes on this important Bill and, on balance, the most important thing is to make things fair for those who claim and those who work. We must be sure that the Bill does not add to the bureaucracy and make things more difficult for those facing challenges to go on to better things after receiving support.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South once again, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) for bringing this important Bill to Parliament. It is detailed and compelling and it is crystal clear about the need for a code of conduct and consistency of application. Let me be clear from the outset, because I have heard this questioned too often in the Chamber today: while the SNP would like a complete review of the UK Government’s sanctions system, this small Bill is about making the system fairer with cross-party support. It seeks to build on the good practice that is already happening in some jobcentres, where advisers look at the circumstances of an individual when imposing a sanction. The Bill will ensure that that happens across the board, protecting the most vulnerable in society from being pushed into absolute poverty.

Make no mistake: the UK Government’s current benefit sanctions regime is brutally draconian and undignified. An individual can be sanctioned so heavily that they have nothing left to feed themselves or their family, in effect becoming destitute through state-sponsored starvation. At a St Andrew’s Day dinner last night, I was reminded that, less than 200 years ago, Dickens was a journalist up in the Press Gallery. He got sick and fed up of debates in here about whether or not they needed to legislate for the poor, and I am shocked today to hear that we again do not need legislation for the most vulnerable in our society. Dickens quit his job and went on to write some of the most seminal works of the terrible and draconian Victorian period. For those who have not seen Ken Loach’s “I, Daniel Blake”, it is deeply compelling and reminds me of the spirit of Dickens. While some think it to be a work of fiction, it will go on to teach future students and others who look back at history about this appalling time in this country.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Law]

No, I will not, owing to the short amount of time left. I do apologise.

Only a couple of years ago, my constituency of Dundee was named sanctions city. Today, we might as well call it bloody marvellous sanctions city, because I have been hearing so much appeasement about sanctions and about how great they are—until someone is on the receiving end. Common outcomes include eviction threats, increased debt, anxiety and ill health, resulting in some constituents having to turn to petty theft. There is clear evidence of a link between the use of food banks and benefit sanctions, and I am saddened to say that Dundee also has Scotland’s busiest food bank. The Trussell Trust estimates that benefits issues account for 44% of all referrals—nearly half. Everyone in the House should hang their head in shame and do something about that. We should protect the Bill and ensure that it progresses.

There is a story behind every statistic. In Dundee, a woman with learning difficulties ended up with two concurrent 13-week sanctions after DWP staff declared she that she was not filling in her “work commitment booklet” properly. I recently chaired a Trussell Trust event at which I met a single mother whose benefits would be cut if she failed to send her husband’s death certificate to DWP every six weeks. Imagine the grief that that woman was feeling and how it must feel to be hounded for that kind of documentation on a regular basis.

It is no exaggeration to say that the UK Government are treating people like criminals, but if they were criminals, they would be treated more fairly. When a court imposes a fine on an individual for a driving offence, for example, their basic rights are protected by court proceedings. There is no expectation that the fine will lead to them being unable to heat their home or feed their children. We do not hear about people committing suicide as a result of a conviction for a driving offence. There is a direct correlation between driving too fast or using a mobile phone when driving and fatal road accidents, but those who commit such offences are penalised less than someone who misses an appointment at the jobcentre because their child was ill. The sanctions system is severe and cruel and so clearly needs to change, and today’s Bill represents positive steps towards that.

As I said earlier, the National Audit Office analysis showed that there was absolutely no evidence that the sanction regime imposed by the DWP has a positive effect on job outcomes, but judging by some of the information coming out today, we are experiencing post-truth politics. It is abundantly clear from the NAO evidence that vulnerable people are more likely to be sanctioned—I am talking about homeless people, those with mental health problems and immigrants with a limited understanding of English. Those are the people who need most help to find jobs, but, rather than being helped, they receive a sanction, and their already fragile living situation is sent into crisis. They need to concentrate on how to live from one day to the next; they need to go to a food bank; their confidence is eroded, and they worry. Rather than stepping up their job-search activities, the main effect of imposing sanctions is to distance such claimants from the world of work, contrary to the whole purpose of sanctions in the first place.

The Bill is made up of 11 clauses, which are small administrative changes to the current legislation, and they seek to establish a long overdue code of conduct and official procedures for the current sanctions system. The aim is to end the postcode lottery of sanction regimes operated at different centres, therefore ensuing a fairer system of sanctions for everyone who uses the social security system, no matter what area of the country they live in.

The Bill will mean that a person in receipt of benefits cannot have them reduced unless two requirements have been met. Let me make this crystal clear in plain simple English for those who have not yet read the Bill. First, the claimant’s circumstances have to be assessed. Secondly, a number of conditions set out in the Bill have to be met. These focus on the individual’s situation, in particular the claimant’s caring commitments, whether they are at risk of homelessness, and whether they suffer from a mental or physical health condition. Such difficulties can be intensified—and are intensified—by these cruel sanctions. What this means in practice is that an individual’s circumstances would be taken into account before—and I underline the word “before”—cutting off their financial support.

In essence, this Bill proposes minor administrative changes, which do no more than humanise a fundamentally unjust and inappropriate system, and formally establish adequate protections for the most vulnerable. Although my SNP colleagues and I would like to see an entire review of the system, this Bill goes some small way towards putting dignity and respect into people’s lives. It is for that reason that I wholeheartedly support every aspect of this Bill.

AEA Pension Scheme

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend brilliantly waited until this moment to ask that pertinent question, but he has asked exactly the right question at exactly the right moment. It was generally the case that undertakings were given—I was involved as a financial adviser in many privatisations—about the solidity of the pension scheme that was going to be available for pensioners if they transferred to the new undertaking. I strongly suspect, although I cannot prove, that many of the AEA Technology pensioners who later suffered imagined at the time, not least because the Government Actuary’s Department did not say anything about a difference of risk, that such undertakings were available.

Moreover, the pensioners were probably led to have greater faith by the accident that the provisions of the law that gave rise to the transfer of the undertaking suggested—although did not say, if we read them carefully —that it would be just as good a pension scheme as the one they were leaving. In fact, in this case there were no such undertakings, and therefore there was a difference between this and many other privatisations. That was never brought out in the documentation, and the Government Actuary’s Department did not refer to it. That further strengthens, to my mind, the point that the Government Actuary’s Department advice served to mislead the pensioners.

I apologise, Ms Dorries, for the fact that that was all just the shaggy dog story, and now I am coming to the actual point of the debate. Everything I have described is a series of allegations by a Back-Bench MP—namely me—about what I think the Government Actuary’s Department did, and who the hell cares whether a Back- Bench MP thinks the Government Actuary’s Department behaved well, badly or indifferently? There is another body that judges these things that is much more important than a Back-Bench MP for these purposes, and that is the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. That body gets to judge whether a Government agency—the Government Actuary’s Department is certainly one of those—has acted in such a way as to maladminister. That is the task of the ombudsman.

It is well established in the case law surrounding the ombudsman that if a Government Department misleads people, that is a form of maladministration, and if it causes them loss, that is a form of maladministration that the ombudsman can rule requires remedy. That is a perfectly well established chain of thought. We might think, therefore, that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman would be able to rule on whether I am right in asserting that the Government Actuary’s Department misled these pensioners and therefore engaged in an act of maladministration.

If we look at the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967—although it has often been amended since—and its original description of what the ombudsman should do, our heart lifts to begin with, because section 4 says clearly that the Act applies to

“government departments, corporations and unincorporated bodies”

listed in schedule 2. If we turn to schedule 2 of the Act, lo and behold, one of the bodies listed is none other than our friend the Government Actuary’s Department. We might therefore think that we do not need to speculate about this; we just need to write a letter—I have written letters, as a matter of fact—to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to ask it to investigate the Government Actuary’s Department action in this case.

Alas, it ain’t so, because schedule 2 is subject to the notes to schedule 2, and in those notes—I do not know how this happened—the Government Actuary’s Department is specifically included in the purview of the ombudsman only

“relating to the exercise of functions under—

(a) Part 2 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, or

(b) any other enactment relating to the regulation of insurance companies within the meaning of that Act.”

I will not trouble the Chamber with what goes on in the Insurance Companies Act 1982, but I assure hon. Members that I have been through it—it is incredibly boring—and there is absolutely nothing that would in any way enable the ombudsman to look at the Government Actuary’s Department’s action in this case.

I imagine that the underlying purpose of that massive exclusion was that someone at the time—in 1967 or later—wanted to ensure that the parliamentary ombudsman would not be able to second-guess the actuarial calculations of the Government Actuary’s Department. I thoroughly sympathise with that. As a former Minister, I would certainly not want to see the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman trying to be an amateur Government Actuary’s Department No. 2. That would be mad, and I am not asking for that.

In this case, we are not talking about an actuarial calculation. I am assuming, as I have done throughout my remarks, that Government Actuary’s Department calculations of the value of the two schemes to the pensioners, if they had been of equal risk, were perfect. My problem is what the calculation did not bring to light. It was not an actuarial calculation. It was a failure of a duty to point out the obvious in an extremely important way to people who may not have known it was obvious.

It is arguably clear that that is maladministration that the parliamentary and health service ombudsmen should be able to adjudicate on. It would require only a small amendment to section 4(1) of the 1967 Act in the forthcoming parliamentary ombudsman Bill to remedy that. We would then be able to go back to the ombudsman and say, “Now you have the power to look at what the Government Actuary’s Department did, whether it constituted maladministration and whether in your view that maladministration was material in having an effect on the pensioners, the choices they made, and hence the losses they incurred.” Then, as with Equitable Life—I threatened to go on hunger strike if the then Government did not bring in the ombudsman and agree to follow its ruling—it would be possible to introduce a scheme with compensation proportionate to the extent to which the losses to the pensioners were caused by the maladministration.

We all know that the Equitable Life scheme is not perfect and does not fully compensate the pensioners, because much of the problem was due to the directors and not the regulators. However, to the extent that it was due to the regulators, there has been a compensation scheme exactly like my proposal. We could do that in this case if we changed section 4(1) of the 1967 Act.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I, too, have constituents who are affected by this issue. My right hon. Friend set the problem out in detail and helpfully, and is now getting to the solution. Is there not a difficulty, in that it would have to be retrospective, or are there ways around that to help his constituents and mine?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend raises that point. I do not think it would be retrospective in any noxious meaning of the word. The decision that the incoming coalition Administration made on Equitable Life in 2010—to implement commitments that the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats had entered into in opposition that we should follow the ombudsman’s ruling—was post facto. It was after all the damage had been done to the pensioners, and it was not regarded as retrospective. We implemented the scheme, and many Equitable Life pensioners have received compensation.

The case I am talking about is exactly the same. The ombudsman could rule ex post—not retrospectively, but simply with a ruling about what occurred. That ruling would undoubtedly be followed by the Exchequer in constructing a proportionate scheme. That is what we need to achieve.

I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) wants to take part in the debate, and I welcome that. I will sit down, because I have made the points I wanted to make.

Disability Employment Gap

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets the Government's lack of progress towards halving the disability employment gap; further regrets that the Government has not yet published its White Paper on improving support for disabled people; notes with concern that commitments made in the Autumn Statement 2015 to help more disabled people through Access to Work and expanding Fit for Work have not materialised; further notes that the Government is reducing funding for specialist support for claimants with health conditions and disabilities through the Work and Health Programme; and calls on the Government to reverse cuts to the work-related activity component of Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit work allowances that risk widening the disability employment gap.

In my opinion and that of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, the Government are failing disabled people in Britain—failing to support them into work and failing to support those unable to work—and they are doing so deliberately, with calculation, care and even premeditation. It was entirely premeditated to go into the election boasting about cutting a further £12 billion from social security but forgetting to mention it would come from disabled people and those on low wages in need of tax credits and universal credit. I would like to say that we do not know why the Government are doing this, but we do know, because the Secretary of State’s predecessor told us in his tearful goodbye:

“we see benefits as a pot of money to cut because they don’t vote for us”.

It still shocks me to repeat that demolition of the Government’s one nation credentials—indicted by their own words.

I welcome the successor Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box, because all too often the last one failed to turn up in the House to accept scrutiny or difficult questions on issues such as this one, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign or the bedroom tax. I welcome the decision he took on his first day in the job to stop the plans to take personal independence payments away from people unable to dress themselves or use the toilet unaided, and I also welcome the fact that in the same speech he said that there would be “no more welfare cuts”, but I deplore the fact that he must have known, even as he made that statement, that the deepest cuts had already been made. The cuts from disability living allowance to personal independence payments, the cuts to employment support allowance, the cuts to the Work programme, the cuts to universal credit: all those sharp incisions had already been made. The effects were yet to be felt, but now, a few months down the line, the pain is evident, the harm is clear and these things can be measured in the widening gap in employment between disabled people and the wider population.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman take a step back from the rhetoric and have a look at the facts for a second? Does he not welcome the 365,000 more disabled people in work over the past two years, and the 3.3 million in total who are in employment? Will he not welcome those facts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) on securing it.

We absolutely agree with the Government’s aim of halving the disability employment gap, but we have serious concerns about the actions they are supposedly taking to achieve it. With just three-and-a-half years in which to achieve their goal, they are failing. The Resolution Foundation estimates that halving the gap by 2020 will require 1.5 million people with disabilities to be supported into work. I agree with what the Resolution Foundation said in yesterday’s report, “Retention deficit”, in which it highlights that work

“is not right for everyone”

and that the Government could damage their aims by pushing work at all costs, but that there is an opportunity in the discussions on health and work.

Opposition Members have said on numerous occasions —during and since the passage of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016—that the Government are doing things in the wrong order and are, as a result, harming their own objectives. They cut off support from ESA WRAG and universal credit work allowance, and we will now be waiting even longer before the replacement system is up and running.

I welcome the reference in the Labour party motion to the frustration over the delay in the publication of the long-promised White Paper. However, while I remain sceptical about the Government’s real intentions in their change of heart, I welcome the announcement of the Green Paper on health and work—assuming that there is a genuine consultation process, a genuine listening on the Government’s part to stakeholders and a genuine investment in the resulting service—but why were those things not done before the cut to ESA WRAG and before the cut to universal credit work allowance?

The now not-so-new Secretary of State must quickly set out a timetable for the Green Paper consultation and for publication. We cannot allow the Green Paper to follow the White Paper. We in the SNP are deeply concerned that valuable time in which to make progress on disability employment is being lost as a result of this delay. The Tories cannot be allowed to kick this into the long grass. The Green Paper should be brought forward urgently, with real engagement with the community and voluntary sector, to shape the new framework. The Secretary of State must formally make a statement of his intentions and lay out a road map for the development of the new programme and time frame.

The Resolution Foundation also said yesterday that benefit off-flows do not always equate to sustained employment and that the Government’s policy is focusing too much on their rhetoric about getting people off benefits, while not supporting people who are currently in employment to keep them in it. The Resolution Foundation has made a number of recommendations, which I hope the Government will read and consider.

The Secretary of State rightly said he wanted to turn the discussion on social security away from statistics and towards the people involved, and I have some people who desperately want to be listened to and who have agreed to have their cases raised today. These people highlight the issues being faced by disabled people throughout the social security, access-to-employment and workplace processes. Their stories highlight how they are being let down.

At the end of last year, I was contacted by a young woman with autism, who was being forced through round after round of assessment, form-filling and evidence-offering. She was in receipt of PIP and had only recently taken part in the assessment process for it when she was told she would need to go through a work capability assessment and to submit evidence to receive ESA, which she was being cut from. She had to compile and submit all the same evidence a few short months after the same Government Department had requested it. She had to go through very similar and, for her, equally traumatic assessment processes for the same Department for which she had done it a few short months prior. For anyone, that would be an upheaval and an unnecessary burden, and it would result in increased anxiety, but for someone with autism, it is painfully traumatic.

Most galling for me, however, was that my constituent’s placement was put at risk by the decision over ESA. She would not be able to continue if she failed the WCA and was forced back on to JSA. That is why removing ESA WRAG is so damaging to the prospects of those who are on the cusp of finding employment, but who need that extra support and additional resource to get there—in the case of someone with autism, for instance, so that they can finance a familiar taxi, rather than use the daunting, potentially dangerous and unknown world of public transport—and to stay on a training placement, which builds their confidence towards the workplace.

The National Autistic Society has said that its research shows that only 15% of autistic adults are in full-time paid employment. It says the Government cannot rely on an improving economy alone to ensure that disabled people, including autistic people, share the same employment opportunities.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman is citing some good cases, as he always does when this issue comes up for debate, but does he not agree that the underlying problem with ESA was that only 1% of those on the programme actually went into work, when 60% or more wanted to find work? The programme simply was not working. Does he recognise that?

[Neil Gray]

Absolutely, but I also recognise that cutting off support cuts off the access to work available to some people, including the constituent I described, and puts the cart before the horse.

The changed system should have been put before the House for debate and scrutiny before the cuts to ESA and universal credit were applied. That was simply ludicrous, and I suspect that we are now going to pay the price. Mencap estimates that

“less than two in ten people with a learning disability are in employment”,

despite, in its estimation,

“eight out of ten being able to work with the right support”,

and a majority wanting to work. The key phrase is

“being able to work with the right support”.

Mencap’s criticism is that the

“support is often not available or those giving that support often do not understand learning disability.”

My nephew and his parents have been through the wringer to get support for him for almost all his life. He is approaching his 17th birthday and is sitting his GCSEs in Lancashire—I wish him well as he goes through that. He has cerebral palsy, which limits his mobility but has not limited his communication skills—far from it. Getting the right wheelchairs, accessing school transport and getting additional support when he needs it at school has been a constant fight for the family, and now he is anxious about what happens as he transitions from school into work. This is what he said to me when I asked him, ahead of this debate, about entering the employment market:

“I’m not sure what I can ask of an employer, for example, if I want to work at an Apple Store but all the tables are too high for me to reach can I ask the employer to make the tables accessible to me? I also sometimes worry that employers may choose another applicant for a position because they believe it would be easier to employ them, even if I am the best person for the job. I would however like to say that when I went for the interview for my apprenticeship my school were very supportive, but that may be because they already know me and I’ve been there for the past five years.”

That tells me of the lack of confidence that many disabled people have about entering the employment market. My nephew is the most gregarious, confident and engaging young man you could wish to meet, yet he feels he will be held back at work. He feels—unsurprisingly because of the way he has had to fight for support throughout his life—that he will have to ask employers for help: that he will be a burden on his future employers because of his disability, and that that will lead to him losing out.

That tells me, and it should ring loud and clear to the Government, that for the employment gap to be halved and for people with disabilities get fair access to employment we need to address how we treat them in all areas of social security support. Making them feel as though they have to fight for help and support that should be their right and expectation damages their long-term prospects and confidence to enter the employment market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. As you always remind us, Mr Speaker, we are responsible for what we say in the Chamber. My point to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was that rather than interrupting my speech, I was more than happy to continue the debate about proper standards of addressing Members in the Chamber after we had completed our speeches. On that note, I think we will move on.

I was touched by what the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) said about his nephew in Lancashire and his perception of engaging in the jobs market. That spoke to me quite a lot because there was a time when I often felt I would be a burden to an employer. An implicit assumption built into how I viewed the world was that, for some reason, employers would somehow not want to touch me with a bargepole, that I would have to be better than the best and that the hurdle would always be that much higher. I very much understand his mindset.

To me, the biggest challenge in trying to overcome the disability employment gap is that some of our assumptions about what will happen to us in the workplace are so low to start with that it is very hard to give people the confidence to engage in the process. One of my concerns—this is partly why I agreed to participate in the review organised by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People—is my belief that percentages can be a very difficult way to measure what is actually going on. We had a very helpful contribution from the Labour party to the review. I welcome the fact that it felt able to make a submission, and I hope it will do so on the Green Paper as well. The contribution was actually interesting. Again, it focused on percentages—the percentage of people with a disability who are in work or engaging in an apprenticeship—but such figures are always hampered by the fact that those are self-declared disabilities. Many potential applicants simply do not want to acknowledge somewhere on a form that they have a disability in the first place, in case it affects the employer’s perception of how they will be treated during any interview process.

[Michael Tomlinson]

On my hon. Friend’s point about confidence, does he agree that that is not just the confidence of the applicant, although that is absolutely vital, but the confidence of employers to take on disabled people and people with disabilities? As the Secretary of State set out, reverse jobs fairs and such things can help employers to have the confidence to take on employees with disabilities.

[Paul Maynard]

It is very important that we use such opportunities to allow employers a broader range of mechanisms to test whether someone is suitable for a job, over and above a simple face-to-face interview.

I will not go into the findings of our review because they have not yet been agreed or sent to the Minister, but some themes strike me as particularly important. One relates to the very useful occasion when we saw Departments—the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions—working together and, with shared objectives, trying to iron out the differences between them. That alone was very worth while.

It was interesting to see that, despite how much the Government have already changed to improve the situation, employers and potential employees are not aware of what has changed. We may have changed regulations in Parliament, but are we adequately communicating such changes to the outside world so that people know they can take advantage of them?

There is always more that the Government can do in setting a good example. All Departments take on apprentices. I would like something written into each Department’s plans to state what percentage of apprenticeships should go to people with various types of disability. Some important points raised were not about learning or developmental disabilities, but about other hidden impairments such as hearing loss, and I hope that can be built on in any future examination of what goes on.

I welcome the Green Paper, although it is not mentioned in the Opposition motion. For me, the Green Paper is a real opportunity to reset a conversation that I think has gone awry during the years that I have been in this place—surely I am not the only person who is pleased to hear about a fundamental reassessment of the work capability assessment. We set so many hurdles between a disabled person and the job they want that it can make things that much harder. There are two separate assessments—one for ESA, and one for DLA or PIP—and time and again we put hurdles in people’s way. I would far rather try to reduce the number of assessments and make them more about how the state can help the individual. It should be much more personalised, and about acting as a gateway to all the different types of help that should be available.

There is much evidence to show us what works, and supported employment, indented training qualifications and supported internships have by far the best outcomes, although they are also the most costly to deliver per individual. The challenge for the Government is how to square that circle in the medium term. We know what helps to get people into a sustained job—the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) was right to stress that it needs to be sustained—but often, getting the job is not the challenge; it is about enabling a person to stay in that job and thrive in that place of employment. The Government can do a lot more on that front, and the Green Paper is a chance to reset the clock. I cannot wait to get stuck in and contribute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am sorry, but I will not—I have a lot that I want to say.

The Government set the tone for the culture of society explicitly through their policies and laws, and more subtly through the language they use and what they imply. Collectively, those things tell us who they think is worthy or not. The Government have made their views abundantly clear. Their swingeing cuts to social security support for disabled people—including the recent ESA WRAG cut of £1,500 a year—total nearly £30 billion since 2010 to 3.7 million disabled people.

The Government’s overhaul of the work capability assessment manages to be both dehumanising and ineffective, and it has been associated with profound mental health effects, including suicide. Their sanctions policy targets the most vulnerable, bringing people to the brink, and some have died under it. The PIP debacle is making it harder for disabled people to stay in work. There is also the closure of the independent living fund. I could go on and on. This is happening across all Government Departments—Business, Innovation and Skills; housing; Transport; Education; Justice; and Culture, Media and Sport. Disabled people are being completely marginalised.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am sorry, but I will not. As I said, I have a lot to say.

What needs to happen? Addressing these issues, including the disability employment gap, needs political will and leadership. The Labour party’s disability equality roadshow will work with disabled people, their carers, disabled people’s organisations and providers across the UK, listening to them and developing with them policies that address their needs and that will work. However, we will also engage the public at large, providing an alternative to the Government’s negative narrative and casual inaction.

If 90% of disability is acquired, why are we doing so little to help employers retain skilled and experienced employees who may become poorly or disabled? We need practical measures to support disabled people at work, enabling them to thrive, and protecting them from prematurely leaving the labour market. Some disability charities have recommended more flexible leave arrangements, as well as extending the Access to Work programme. Clearly, if the Government increase the 37,000 or so who used Access to Work last year by another 25,000, that will still be only a tiny, tiny proportion of the 1.3 million people who are fit for work.

The Disability Confident scheme needs to be rebooted. The latest revelation that only 40 mainstream private sector employers across the UK have joined it since its inception three years ago shows that it is, to put it mildly, completely inadequate. What measures are in place to measure the scheme’s efficacy? Where employers work hard to recruit and retain disabled employees, how does that apply to their procurement policies and supply chains?

More needs to be done to help disabled people back into work. As we have been arguing for over a year, the work capability assessment needs to be replaced with a more holistic, whole-person assessment. The current system that assesses eligibility for social security support is not fit for purpose and should be completely overhauled. I welcome some of the change in language on disabled people on this matter. That needs to be reflected in departmental and Jobcentre Plus performance indicators that do not just focus on getting people “off flow” as a successful outcome. Since so many of the same people also have PIP assessments, we should also look at how we could bring these together. It is pleasing that the Government say that they are considering this.

Instead of the increasingly punitive sanctions system, more appropriate support needs to be provided. It is essential to maintain and increase specialist disability employment advisers in jobcentres. There is currently one adviser to 600 disabled people, and even if that is doubled to one to 300, that is still a very low ratio for the Government to be working to. I would also like their role to be extended to working with businesses. The current commissioning and payments system for the Work programme and other welfare-to-work programmes also needs rethinking. We need to improve specialist support, looking at what works. Work Choice, while it has better outcomes than other programmes, may not be the only solution. The individual placement and support scheme for people with mental health conditions is another example. As I have said before, there needs to be greater integration between Departments —not just between the DWP and the NHS but with BIS and economic development. For example, if someone who has musculoskeletal conditions or mental health issues has to take time off work, they need appropriate early intervention to help them get back to work. That is not happening at the moment. We need to understand the bottlenecks in the local system that my impact on this. We need to reflect on the drive for “flexible” labour markets and what this means for supporting people with long-term and fluctuating conditions back into work, and most probably out of work and then back into work, and so on.

There are clear geographical variations in the disability employment gap, but also in the strength of local economies and the availability and types of jobs. It is well established that the prevalence and geographical pattern of sick and disabled people reflects the industrial heritage of our country. Contrary to the Government’s “shirkers and scroungers” narrative, incapacity benefit and ESA are recognised as good population health indicators. Local economic conditions, whether the economy is thriving or not, will determine how readily sick and disabled people will be able return to work. Geographical analysis shows that people with equivalent conditions in the economically buoyant London and south-east are more likely to be in work that those in Northern Ireland, Scotland, the north-east, the north-west, and Wales.

It is over 70 years since legislation was first introduced to prohibit employment-related discrimination against disabled people. Sadly, we are still fighting to address this discrimination and the inequality in employment that disabled people still face. Changing attitudes and behaviour needs cultural change and it needs leadership, and we will provide it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

We are doing more to support working households. The proportion of people in relative poverty who live in a family with someone who is disabled has fallen since 2010. There are a number of exemptions to all our benefit cap and freeze announcements, including for those on PIP, DLA, industrial injuries benefit, attendance allowance and employment and support allowance. Following further talks, we will include carer’s allowance and guardian’s allowance.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that Disability Confident events can be crucial in this regard? I am holding my own event in Mid Dorset and North Poole, to which the Minister would be more than welcome to attend. Will he join me in encouraging all Members from both sides of the House to get involved?

[Justin Tomlinson]

So far, 22 MPs have held Disability Confident events, including a joint event between a Conservative MP and a Labour MP—there’s a future coalition for you. Some 515 employers have registered an interest in Disability Confident, up 169 since 23 March. We are getting over 100 registrations a month. This is all about creating additional opportunities for disabled people who are looking for work.

Welfare

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

The kind of research that the hon. Gentleman talks about is always published by a Department ahead of any major policy change. There is a duty on Departments to publish impact assessments and to conduct their policy making in an open and transparent way. What I hope he has taken away from my statement today is my personal commitment to ensuring that as we look again at these really challenging long-term issues around disabled people moving into employment, I will be doing so in a way that is transparent, open and based on sound evidence.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Before coming up to London this afternoon, I held one of my regular surgeries in Upton in my constituency. One constituent who came was a disabled lady who was in work but wanted support from her employer and support in finding new work. What practical steps will the Secretary of State take through conversations with the disabled, with disability groups, and, importantly, with employers to ensure that we halve the disability employment gap?

[Stephen Crabb]

One of the big challenges we have as a Government is working with employers to reassure them and support them in making good decisions about recruiting and hiring disabled people. We have a really important initiative in my Department called Access to Work. We need to publicise it a lot more and get more employers looking at it and accessing it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

T2. JPMorgan Chase, Sunseeker, Lush, Cobham and many other local businesses are supporting the inaugural Mid Dorset and North Poole apprenticeships and jobs fair. Does the Minister agree that supporting young people into apprenticeships is vital, and will she agree to open my jobs fair in Wimborne?

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind invitation. I would be happy to look into it and try to come to his constituency. It is National Apprenticeship Week as well. He is right of course that employers, such as the outstanding ones he referred to, continue to do their utmost to support young people. I myself will be visiting many employers in Essex this week just to make that point to them.

State Pension Age

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As I understand it, that specific issue is not within the scope of the review, but I am certainly happy to talk to the hon. Lady about it. In general, the point about the review is that it is the first time—I would have hoped this would therefore be welcomed—that someone has asked an independent body to review such anomalies. I am very happy to speak to her if she wants to come and see me.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

This is a policy on which there should be consensus and cross-party support. The evidence is that we are living longer and healthier lives, and not just in Mid Dorset and North Poole, so there should be optimism across the country. Does the Secretary of State agree that the responsible thing to do is to have an independent review, follow the statutory regime and examine the evidence and all the options, rather than scaremongering and using phrases such as “working until they drop”?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I must say that I was slightly surprised earlier today when I saw the Opposition spokesman tweeting the most inflammatory comments about people retiring. I can understand that those in opposition need to try to get attention, but to start worrying and scaring people without foundation or reality is nothing short of appalling. I wish the hon. Gentleman would get up and apologise for that.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that we continue to publish data on low-income households. This information is still being published—[Interruption.] It might not be the information that the hon. Gentleman wants to know about, but we are publishing it, alongside doing something that previous Labour Governments successively failed to do—transforming lives, addressing the root causes of poverty and, importantly, ensuring that we tackle the causes that have led to child poverty in the long run.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who made a point about child poverty but is no longer in his place, seemed to indicate that owing to the recession under the last Labour Government, child poverty fell. Does that not show the fallacy of Labour arguments and reveal that we are trying to seek the root causes of poverty rather than provide some measure that simply does not work?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right. It is absolutely clear that when children are the future of our country, it is right to focus on delivering better life chances for them. When we publish the life chances strategy in spring, we will make the biggest difference to children’s life chances now and in the future. We must seek to rescue a generation from poverty by extending life chances right across our country. We must build a country where opportunity is more equal, with stronger communities and young people who can face the world with a background of experiences and characteristics that we know are vital for their success. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we must seek to

“transform the life chances of the poorest in our country and offer every child who has had a difficult start the promise of a brighter future.”