Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

Worcestershire received £1.6 million to provide support to vulnerable households and families. This can be used to support the costs of heating, utility bills and various other items, and is available at the local authority’s discretion. Clearly, my hon. Friend should contact her local councillors and the leader of the local authority for further details.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

What steps she is taking to increase pension credit uptake using new awareness raising campaigns.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman) [V]]

In February last year, we launched a nationwide campaign to raise awareness of pension credit and have continued to make that case throughout the past year, notwithstanding the difficulties of the pandemic. The Department for Work and Pensions is currently considering an internal review of communication products to identify further improvements in our messaging, with many more aspects to be pursued this year.

[Andrew Rosindell [V]]

The Minister will know that uptake of pension credit has remained below 65% since 2010. Although, as he said, there was an awareness campaign in 2020, with good intentions, it was only 12 weeks long and partly occurred during the pandemic. Does he agree with me, and others, including the charity Independent Age, that rather than being one-off events, such awareness campaigns should be part of a wider long-term strategy and take advantage of new innovations and channels?

[Guy Opperman]

We plan to use existing Government letters on the attendance allowance and state pension, and other letters that the Government send out, to help to promote pension credit. We are also discussing a joint working arrangement with the BBC. We continue to make all efforts to try to promote pension credit.

Covid-19: Disability-Inclusive Response

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that there have been some changes to the normal practice in order to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones with the cleaning materials provided before they use them, and they should respect the one-way system around the room. Members should speak only from the horseshoe. Members can speak only if they are on the call lists; this applies even if debates are undersubscribed. Members cannot join a debate if they are not on the call list. Members are not expected to remain for the winding ups. Members in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move to the horseshoe when seats become available. I remind hon. Members that there is less of an expectation that Members stay for the next two speeches once they have spoken; this is to help manage attendance in the room. Members may wish to stay beyond their speech, but they should be aware that doing so may prevent Members in seats in the Public Gallery from moving to seats on the horseshoe.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered a disability inclusive covid-19 response.

It is an absolute honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the many Members who have been in touch with me all week and have dedicated their time today to speak in the debate. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, and I thank the organisations that have been in touch and that have supported people with disabilities across the United Kingdom during the pandemic. They include Disability Rights UK, Inclusion Scotland, Sense, Scope, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire, Care England, Age UK and Disability at Work, just to name a few.

Some 14 million people live with a disability in the United Kingdom. Although people with disabilities make up the largest minority group in the country, they have reported feeling largely forgotten in this time of crisis. In many ways, they have been the invisible victims of the coronavirus pandemic across the UK. Tragically, people with disabilities have accounted for six out of 10 deaths involving covid-19.

It is clear that the pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on people with disabilities, and the all-party parliamentary group for disability therefore sent an open letter to the Prime Minister in April of this year. It has since been signed by more than 100 MPs and peers of different parties. It called for five things. First, it called for Government guidance and restrictions to be communicated in a way that is accessible to people with disabilities. Secondly, it called for social distancing measures to be mindful of people with disabilities who need exemptions. Thirdly, it called on the Government to provide clear guidance on the implications of changes to the Care Act 2014 under the covid-19 legislation. Fourthly, it asked the Government to meet the needs of disabled people in the allocation of additional funding, training and personal protective equipment provision throughout the pandemic. Fifthly, it requested that the Government place people with disabilities at the very heart of their economic recovery plan.

It is very difficult to overestimate the disruptive impact that the covid-19 restrictions, which were implemented with little or no notice, have had on the lives of many people with disabilities. The restrictions have fundamentally affected not just whether people can go out socially with friends but whether the care services that many rely on day in, day out, are available to them. Some 75% of unpaid carers have reported receiving no information about support and care being reduced prior to that happening.

I am sure hon. Members would agree that it is of grave importance to ensure that Government guidance, communications and changes regarding the restrictions that we face are accessible for those with disabilities. All televised Government press conferences should, therefore, be interpreted live via British Sign Language and should have televised subtitles as standard. All Government communications about new guidance and policies must be created in accessible formats.

More and more, we rely on mobile devices, although I am quite technologically challenged in many ways. These devices, which we rely on so heavily, should now incorporate disability functionality and accessibility into their design. These issues must be researched and taken forward quickly.

This pandemic, as we know, is not going away. Communications must be improved at all levels of government, including local government. Will the Minister build an inclusive approach to communications and involve people with disabilities in the communications strategy?

Regarding restrictions, a survey conducted in April by the Office for National Statistics found that nearly nine out of 10 disabled adults expressed concern about the effect of the pandemic on their lives and their levels of isolation. Many have found it difficult to build confidence to go out, particularly after shielding for so many months. Some 42% of disabled people have reported feeling lonely or isolated due to the pandemic, and 41% of those interviewed by Scope believe that life will become worse for them over the long term.

Sense’s “Forgotten Families” campaign has demonstrated that the health and wellbeing of disabled adults and their family members has been adversely affected by this pandemic. It is vital that people have confidence to go back out into the community within safe restrictions given by Government.

Individuals with health conditions and disabilities are often exempt from wearing face masks. However, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I have received numerous reports from people with disabilities across the UK who tell me that they have been verbally abused or harassed in the community because they were not wearing a face mask. They have since lost all confidence to go out. Will the Minister support a public awareness campaign about these exemptions and standardise techniques, such as the accessibility of lanyards for people with disabilities or those who may be exempt in a wider group, so that they can go outside with confidence in a safe way, and never again feel the need to justify and explain themselves or deal with harassment?

It would be remiss of me not to highlight the significant consequences of the Coronavirus Act 2020 on the health and care provisions afforded to people with disabilities over the past six months. One service user from Inclusion Scotland described their situation:

“I have gone from 20 hours of care… to ZERO. I am now bedbound completely because of this.”

Another said,

“I am so lonely and feel so depressed. I feel suicidal.”

Research by Leonard Cheshire shows that 55% of disabled people in receipt of social care have experienced changes to their care packages since April and 18% reported difficulties in even accessing food. Action is, therefore, desperately needed to support disabled people and their families to recover from the impact of lockdown. Testing will be fundamental to that, in terms of management in non-community settings; perhaps designating one person per resident as a special visitor in care home accommodation would increase vital contact with family. I would be obliged if the Minister could look at that issue.

The Government must commit to switching off the Care Act easements as soon as it is safely possible and provide reassurance that the high bar set in these easements will not become the new normal in terms of social care for those with disabilities across the UK.

To conclude, I would like to highlight the importance of an inclusive economic recovery plan in education, employment, business and beyond. This is an immense opportunity in many ways for disability inclusion in employment practices across the UK, and to develop strategies to help disabled people start their own businesses and become entrepreneurs.

However, I must begin with a word of caution. Analysis by Disability at Work shows that, historically, disabled people have been disproportionately impacted by economic downturns, in terms of new employment and redundancy. It is therefore vital that inclusion is a core element in the build back better plans that the Government are developing. However, I was incredibly disappointed that the Government’s plan for jobs, which was published recently, mentioned disability only once. I am sure the Minister will highlight that to his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that disability is a priority and retains the status that it should have.

The all-party parliamentary group for disability made several recommendations about employment and preventing people with disabilities from losing their jobs and livelihoods as a result of the long-term consequences of this pandemic. We are asking the Government to monitor and regularly publish data on disability prevalence. Beyond that, we have long recommended that they take steps towards introducing mandatory reporting of employers’ performance on disability inclusion in the workplace. We believe it is vital to make kickstart available to disabled candidates by guaranteeing funding for reasonable adjustments through the Access to Work scheme, but that must be done in a timely manner. We must better promote and fund Access to Work so that it can widen the support that it gives, as it has helped many people into work and to remain in work as disabilities arise.

We believe that there must be a review of the impact and promotion of home working, which might offer flexibility for people with disabilities and help them into employment. The Government should consider introducing a new support scheme or extending furlough for those who are at high risk due to health issues and are unable to return to work safely when furlough comes to an end.

We believe that it is absolutely vital that we change the narrative on entrepreneurship. People with disabilities are pigeonholed unfairly into single issues by the Department for Work and Pensions. There should be a great harnessing of potential, skills and ability. We support self-employment and entrepreneurship among disabled people. I recommend that hon. Members join the new all-party parliamentary group for inclusive entrepreneurship, which has been set up to maximise those ends.

Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I will finish in a moment. I have not been able to touch on education or many of the other areas affected, but I hope other hon. Members will be able to lend their voices to those issues. I agree with the World Health Organisation director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who said that those with disabilities

“must not be left behind”

in the covid-19 response. We must ensure that that is undertaken domestically and internationally. I understand that the Minister will not be able to respond on behalf of all his Cabinet colleagues, but I want to reiterate that UK aid should be supporting people with disabilities internationally. We must have a leadership role in the aim of leaving no one behind and meeting the sustainable development goals. We must show true leadership in the UK and beyond.

I am asking the Minister to cover a wide base, and I realise that he will have to speak to his colleagues in order to do that. I thank everyone who has come to the debate, which has wide, cross-party support. I look forward to hearing people’s thoughts, ideas and recommendations. I hope we can have a consensual debate that highlights the great support that people from across parties and across the United Kingdom have for people with disabilities. It is important that we prioritise and support their needs.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

We are quite short of time, so I ask colleagues to keep their remarks to four minutes or four and a half minutes—

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

We are quite short of time, so I ask colleagues to keep their remarks to no longer than four minutes or four and a half minutes—five minutes maximum—if we are to get everybody in.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for calling this debate on such an important topic.

I want to highlight some of the issues that constituents or local charities have directly contacted me about; I will shamelessly go through them all. However, this debate is really about the wider issue of disability inclusivity and I will ask the Minister to consider a disability awareness charter, whereby we can encourage businesses and local communities to think about the disabled—particularly the visually impaired, the hearing impaired and those with more complex disabilities—in relation to practical things such as shopping and other everyday activities during covid-19.

There is a local charity in Beaconsfield called Blind Ambition, which works with the visually impaired. It is excellent and one of the things that it has highlighted during covid-19 was the difficulty that the visually impaired have at their local supermarket. When someone who is visually impaired goes to a supermarket, they may need to touch items and feel their way around, which was difficult during covid. Oftentimes they bring a buddy with them, but during the total lockdown they were not allowed to bring a companion, the store was not able to give them one and they were unable to get a delivery, so they felt very cut off and isolated. They could not even receive an explanation as to why they could not bring a buddy with them.

In places where there are more restrictive measures in place for covid-19, I ask that we consider encouraging supermarkets to allow a visually impaired person to bring a companion or a volunteer with them, to help them—in a covid-secure way—around the supermarket. That is just so that they have dignity and quality of life, and are not afraid, thinking, “How will I get my daily food delivery?” There is a shortage of supermarket slots for delivery online; there is that challenge for them, as well.

The visually impaired also had challenges around NHS appointments, so it would be very helpful if the NHS could consider how it can help visually impaired people when they come to a hospital or a GP’s surgery. The same restriction applies; they are not allowed to bring a companion. However, they feel very insecure about going through the hospital or even the waiting room, and I have had visually impaired people asking me, “What should I do?” and “What should I wear?”, and feeling very frightened, to the point that they did not want to go to their GP or hospital for any reason, because they were just so afraid. Having that information at the NHS and public health level for the visually impaired would be incredibly helpful.

The same applies for face masks and those who are hearing impaired, because if someone reads lips and they can no longer see what someone is saying, it is very difficult. If they are standing there waiting, say at the bus stop, and someone says, “You are too close”, or is shouting something at them, because of the face mask they cannot actually see what that person is saying. We have had reports of hearing-impaired people being abused, kicked and spat on, because they could not hear and they could not see that someone was speaking to them.

I have a few of the transparent face masks, so that the lips can be seen, but having that level of awareness of other people and trying to help them to carry on in normal society is important. I do not think there is anything that the Minister or anyone can do; it is about having an awareness of other people and how covid is affecting them.

My last point is on community or day centres, which are a lifeline to people who might have an adult living with them who has complex disabilities or severe autism. The day centre is a lifeline for that family. Sometimes, the disabled person may be in the day centre for eight hours a day, or it may just be an hour, but it is perhaps the only time, depending on the level of complex disability, that the care-giver or the parent has to take a shower or indeed do anything. What happened during lockdown was that these carers were given 24/7 care of their loved one, who was usually very disabled. They could cope with that on a normal basis, but they had their support completely removed; carers could not find anyone to speak to for support. This does not just come from speaking to people in my constituency. It was national, across the board. I have an incredible day centre in my constituency, Burnham Opportunities Centre, and they were coming in, helping and volunteering for as long as they possibly could, but as the severity of the lockdown continued, they also had to close. I have heard from family after family that if they had a child, or an adult, with complex disabilities living with them, they could not cope by the end, and then returning to work was more than they could handle. Some of them had to quit their employment because they simply could not handle the stress and ongoing responsibility of full-time care.

I know I have gone over my time, but thank you, Mr Rosindell, and I appreciate this consideration of these wider issues. I hope that we will consider a disability awareness charter.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

I ask Members to try to stick to time, otherwise some people will not be able to make a contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask Members to stick to four minutes, please. I do not want to have to impose a strict rule, but, if we do not stick to that, not everyone will get in to speak.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

This was a policy that was introduced and voted on in the House in 2012. It is right that some people who are paid very low wages and are paying taxes should not have to pay for other people to make different life choices that they feel they cannot afford. The hon. Lady is probably aware—I hope she is—that we changed the retrospective nature of that policy to ensure that families who were already in existence before 2012 were not adversely affected by it. I think that is the right balance.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The House will know that the Government are doing more than ever to support people with disabilities in the workplace. Will the Minister tell us what is currently being done to safeguard the dignity of long-term sufferers on employment and support allowance and universal credit?

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Safeguarding the dignity and wellbeing of people with the most severe lifelong conditions is of paramount importance. A number of Members have raised cases with me where people were receiving the highest levels of support, including in personal independence payment, and they were then reassessed as not needing any support. I was very concerned to hear about that, so I am now ensuring that DWP decision makers review all such cases to make sure that we get the right support to the right people at the right time.

Scottish Welfare Powers

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bill Grant]

I respect the hon. Lady’s intervention, but for clarity, I never indicated or suggested—sorry if you have interpreted it as such—

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that the word “you” refers to the Chair.

[Bill Grant]

My apologies. I checked with the office. Cumnock jobcentre went live on 25 October last year, and in February this year the two other jobcentres in my constituency, Ayr and Girvan, went live. I think we have had six inquiries in total in that time. By the time my office staff got back to them, I think two or three of them had self-resolved and the system had resolved the others. The dark side of universal credit in terms of the changes is not self-evident.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. There will not be time for everyone to speak in the debate unless everyone keeps their remarks down to just over a minute. We have only eight minutes before we have to move on to the SNP spokesman. We will have to be very strict with that timing, because there is very little time left. I call Luke Graham.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I will try to keep my remarks as close to one minute as I possibly can. Welfare is one of the key elements of the modern British state. We launched the NHS together and we built the welfare state together. It started at the turn of the 20th century and was built throughout the last 100 years. Beveridge was the son of a Scottish civil servant and helped lay the infrastructure in which we operate today.

Welfare is also one of the biggest issues that I have experienced as an MP. Constituents regularly come to me with a whole range of welfare issues and my staff and I work incredibly hard to make sure that we resolve them. We have been able to successfully resolve 94% of the universal credit inquiries we have had in just a few days. The greatest concern when we get into the politics of the devolution of welfare powers is the impact on constituents. I have already had constituents coming to me in a state of confusion because they do not know whether to go to the local authority, the MSP or the MP, and that is just with the current system, before we create a whole other agency with a whole other bureaucracy and the costs that go with that.

The Smith commission put the powers in—

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise. I call Patricia Gibson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I will try to be brief. I am bewildered about what this debate is supposed to achieve. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) agreed with many of the points we put to him—for example, that social security is a human right. I wonder what the Minister will think of that.

We will take no lessons from the Labour party. It does not matter what the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) says, £12 billion-worth of cuts on welfare went through in 2015 and 184 Labour MPs abstained. That is why we need to have people in here protecting Scotland’s interests.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock talked of the need for mitigation. By definition, if we need to mitigate Tory cuts in Scotland, that suggests that the Tory cuts should not be taking place.

In setting up the new welfare system in Scotland, there has been widespread consultation. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that it is some dark secret and nobody knows what is happening is clearly nonsense. His colleague, Adam Tomkins MSP, talked about the welfare legislation in Scotland as being landmark legislation and the great consensus around it. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman cannot agree with his Tory colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. Adam Tomkins MSP congratulated the Scottish Government on bringing the legislation forward in the form that they did. It is very clear that the only people who are standing up for the people who find themselves relying on benefits—

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Stephen Kerr.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

It is not a handout; it is a human right. Language is important. The hon. Member for Stirling can shout all he likes—it is social security we should be talking about, not welfare. That is a big difference between my party and his in terms of how we view the issues. We need to ensure—

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Drew Hendry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray]

To paraphrase Mike Russell, I am afraid I have too few minutes and too much to contradict the Tories on. I am very sorry, but I do not have enough time. I have taken other interventions.

We will establish an independent scrutiny body—the Scottish commission on social security—and we have a legal duty to scrutinise proposals for regulations and have regard to human rights. The new agency will seek medical information at the outset of an application—applicants will not be required to collect it at appeal stage—so face-to-face assessments will be reduced. The legislative process required to deal with the successful transition of 11 benefits is still going on in Holyrood, so there may be more detail to come.

Those who contradict the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock are not restricted to SNP Members. I am keen to quote a couple of his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. On 19 December, the Tory spokes- person on social security, Adam Tomkins, described the Scottish Government’s Bill as “landmark legislation” and said that

“the general principles of the bill should be supported.”

His colleague, Michelle Ballantyne MSP, went even further on the same day, and said that our Bill

“has the potential to revolutionise social security in this country.”

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has chosen this topic for debate, given that his colleagues up the road are not quite so keen to denigrate the Scottish Government’s actions. That is one of the reasons why I asked whether he had written to the Scottish Government at any stage about any of his concerns. You will be shocked to learn that he has not, Mr Rosindell. Call me cynical, but I think motives other than just inquiring about the progress in this area might have been at play when he called this debate.

The Scottish Tories were supposed to be coming to Westminster to vote as a bloc to protect Scottish interests and advocate for Scotland. Instead, they have used Westminster as a platform to try to denigrate the Scottish Government to the point of farce. Perhaps if the Scottish Tories had spent less time trying to do the job of MSPs, which many of them left, and more time watching what their own Government are doing, they would not be in the fisheries mess they currently find themselves in.

That leads me to my main questions for the Minister. How are the UK Government’s plans for the new Scottish social security agency going? What work has the Minister commissioned to ensure there is no delay to the smooth progress, which is currently on track to be delivered by the Scottish Government? What work have the UK been doing to keep up with—

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. You are out of time, I’m afraid.

Marriage in Government Policy

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing this debate, and I welcome his inclusion of the importance of protecting families and his focus on providing stability for children. However, I take exception to his claim that family instability is the root cause of poverty, when we know that this Government’s cuts to social security are creating problems for families.

Social security support for low-income families has been cut severely. Most working-age benefits, including child benefit, have been frozen until 2020, and universal credit has been shown to be failing those on low incomes, causing debt and rent arrears. When universal credit was introduced in 2011, the coalition claimed that it would lift 350,000 children out of poverty. By 2013, that estimate had been reduced to 150,000, and by 2016 the Government refused to offer any re-evaluation at all. Can the Minister tell us how many children he believes universal credit will lift out of poverty?

Child Poverty Action Group published an analysis last November estimating that cuts to universal credit would push 1 million more children into poverty by 2020, along with an extra 900,000 adults. When we consider the situation for disabled children, we see that four in 10 are living in poverty, yet the basic level of support for disabled children in universal credit is less than half that available in tax credits.

We have had some interesting contributions; it has been good to hear people talk about how much they have enjoyed their own marriages. I welcome the call from the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) to tread gently, as marriage is often an issue of cultural sensitivity, and the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke of the hundreds of wonderful women he has met who are bringing up families alone. It is important to recognise that many people choose to bring up children on their own, and some people find themselves in that situation due to relationship breakdown or bereavement.

Since 2010, successive Governments have sought to reduce the role of the state wherever possible, especially in social security, yet when it comes to whether or not two people should marry—surely the most private of decisions—the coalition Government sought to influence behaviour in relation to that decision by introducing the marriage allowance in April 2015. Details of how the new transferable allowance would work, given in a note published alongside the 2014 Budget, stated:

“Couples where both partners are basic-rate taxpayers will in almost all cases see no gain or loss…Couples will benefit as a unit, but the majority (84 per cent) of individual gainers will be male.”

One must question the introduction of an allowance that the Government knew would disproportionately benefit men; I would be interested to hear the Minister’s rationale for it.

Take-up of the marriage allowance has been poor. Up to October, 2.4 million couples had claimed it, out of an estimated 4 million who were eligible. According to Government figures, the cost in 2015-16 is expected to be £385 million when backdated claims are ultimately included, and £425 million in 2016-17. It prompts the question whether that is really the best use of taxpayers’ money at a time when child poverty is soaring and the Government are cutting support for disabled people under universal credit and the employment and support allowance work-related activity group.

On pension equality, the question is whether some marriages are more equal than others in the Government’s eyes. The Government have spent a great deal of time and, no doubt, a sizable sum of taxpayers’ money opposing pension equality for same-sex couples. When the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was debated in Parliament, the Opposition called on the Government to close a loophole in the law meaning that married same-sex couples and civil partners were treated differently when it comes to pension entitlement in the event of one partner’s death.

In July, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of equality in a landmark case brought by John Walker, a gay man who found that after 20 years of service to his company, it would provide £1,000 a year in pension to his surviving husband were he to die, whereas if he were married to a woman, she would receive £47,500 a year. Indeed, were he to divorce his male partner and then marry a woman, she would still receive the larger amount. When do the Government intend to respond to the Supreme Court ruling? Will the Minister ensure that the ruling will not be affected by the UK leaving the EU, as it was based in EU law, and will he assure us that the Government will end the disparities in public sector pension schemes?

The Government’s claim that they want to support marriage is also at odds with how cuts in social security since 2010 have put additional pressure on families and parents. Families on low incomes have faced long waits for initial payments of universal credit; figures last week from the Department for Work and Pensions show that one fifth of claimants are still not being paid in full on time, and more than one in 10 are not even receiving partial payment on time. Then there are the cuts to work allowances on universal credit, and the new, lower household benefit cap introduced in November 2016. At the same time, food prices in December were more than 4% higher than the year before. Families on low incomes tend to spend a higher proportion of their wages on basic items such as food and rent.

The Government have recently announced that they intend to create a new cliff edge for eligibility for free school meals, so that families with household earnings of more than £7,400 a year will no longer qualify. The Resolution Foundation has estimated that allowing all children whose parents claim universal credit to receive free school meals would cost £600 million a year. The chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority warned in the autumn of the scale of the problem of household debt, and a recent study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that one in four of Britain’s poorest households are falling behind with debt payments or spending more than a quarter of their monthly income on repayments.

Relate has highlighted how debt problems can easily lead to conflict and relationship breakdown, whether or not partners are married. That can have a serious impact on children, as research suggests that conflict, rather than family structure, has a negative impact on children’s development. The household benefit cap is forcing families to move away from sources of support such as family and friends. People on a low income may not be able to afford to travel back to see them frequently, either. More than 500 Sure Start centres have closed since 2010. They are another important support for more vulnerable parents in particular. If the Government value family, marriage and stability, why are they closing them? Again, I am keen to hear the Minister’s rationale.

Since last April, parents have been required to start looking for work as soon as their youngest child reaches the age of three, rather than five as was previously the case. A new report published by Save the Children last week found that many mothers would like to return to work or increase their hours, but find childcare simply unaffordable and Government help with the costs complex and difficult to access. Under tax credits, childcare costs are paid in advance, whereas under universal credit they will have to be paid up front and then claimed back, which is always likely to be problematic for parents on low incomes.

Of course, parents in many families are not married, and there are many lone-parent families. Government must recognise and value all family types. The alternative is to risk stigmatising families to no good purpose. Lone-parent families are particularly affected by access to childcare, and have been hit hard by cuts to social security since 2010. An independent study by the Equality and Human Rights Commission of the long-term impact of tax and welfare changes between 2010 and 2017 found that lone parents were set to lose an average of about 15% of their net income. That is almost £1 in every £6.

Lone-parent families make up one in four families with children, and have done for more than a decade. They are part of the mainstream of UK family life, and social policy needs to take that into account. Where a separated or divorced couple shares care of the children, the parent who is not the main carer cannot claim for an extra room for those children under the rules of the bedroom tax, for example. That can cause extreme difficulty for a family who must cope with the break-up of a relationship, and can cause parents, often fathers, to struggle to spend quality time with their children. A Labour Government would scrap the bedroom tax altogether. Will the Minister reconsider the rules of the bedroom tax as they currently affect separated couples to ensure that children do not suffer?

Where relationships unfortunately break down, changes to the child maintenance system have clearly not succeeded in supporting care for children or enabling parents to reach agreements themselves.

In 2012, the Government introduced a new system for child maintenance that aimed to nudge couples to reach agreement without the need for Government intervention. However, it does that by charging both parents—including the parent with care of the child or children, known as the “receiving parent”—if they fail to reach agreement independently.

The Department published a survey in December 2016 that found that around a third of receiving parents who paid the Child Maintenance Service application fee reported that it was difficult to afford. Of parents who did not have a maintenance arrangement at three months, 29% said that the £20 application fee was a factor. Of receiving parents with a direct payment arrangement, 42% cited a desire to avoid collect-and-pay charges as a reason for choosing direct pay and half said that the charges were a factor in their decision.

Will the Government take action to widen access—

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the hon. Lady to wind up, so that the Minister has a chance to respond.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I will.

In conclusion, a stable, loving family is undoubtedly what we would want for all children, but there are many types of family in the 21st century. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) once said:

“Families come in all shapes and sizes. We don’t favour one way of family life over another. We want to support and back up all families...Government dictating family structures doesn‘t work.”

She is right. This is a question of respect.

The Government should commit to stable families by putting an end to austerity, by giving our schools, police and health services the funding they need, by banning zero-hours contracts, by ensuring that refuges are available for people fleeing domestic violence and by ensuring that the social security system is there for people in their time of need.

Disability Confident Scheme

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. To try to get all Members in this afternoon, will everyone try to restrict their comments to about three to four minutes maximum, please?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I agree that that is an issue, which is precisely why we have set up the Matthew Taylor review. It is investigating precisely the new types of employment structures that have been set up in recent years and making sure that employment laws keep up with new types of employment.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the increase in the national living wage announced in the autumn statement 2016 on levels of employment in the north of England.

[The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)]

The number of people in employment in the north of England has increased by 112,000 over the past year. The national living wage has already given 1 million people a pay rise, helping to build an economy that works for all.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but has he considered the implications of the national living wage coming in so quickly for small and medium-sized businesses, particularly those in the manufacturing sector? What would he say to those businesses that will not be able to adjust in time, or that simply will not be profitable because the national living wage is being introduced so quickly?

[Damian Hinds]

Everybody should benefit from a strong economy, but as well as introducing the national living wage the Government have announced plans to reduce corporation tax further to 17% and to increase the employment allowance, which could be worth up to £3,000 a year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

This Government are very clear that it is through our welfare policies that we are ensuring that work pays. As the hon. Gentleman heard me say earlier, we are introducing a national living wage next April which will ensure that work always pays and that people in the country are given a pay rise.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

T5. What actions is the Department taking to support the small businesses in Romford and the London borough of Havering that are seeking to provide support and training to adults so that they can develop skills for successful employment?

[Priti Patel]

I know that small businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency are flourishing and expanding at an impressive rate. Jobcentre Plus works with a range of providers to make specialist courses available, covering information and communications technology as well as many construction courses. In particular, we are working with businesses to ensure that the local labour market is growing in the right way and that people are getting access to the skills they need.