Working-Age Disabled People

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore]

Unfortunately, the statistics do not yet show a huge change. The latest statistics show a small reduction in the number of successful appeals, but the number is still very high. Statistics always lag back a few months, so it may be that further improvements are still to come, which would be good. It is particularly important that we get this benefit reform right.

Many people, including those in the disability field and Opposition Members, have asked whether there is any penalty of any sort on the assessor for not doing the job as they should. We are constantly told that we cannot have the information because it is all commercially sensitive. I can understand that perhaps being the case during the tendering process, but I am not clear why it is deemed to be quite so commercially sensitive once the contract is awarded. We still do not know. Public money is going to these organisations, so it is important that we have confidence that this time there is a system in place.

The Select Committee’s recommendation was:

“DWP contracts with private companies for the delivery of the PIP assessment”

should

“directly link the payment of public funds to the production of reliable assessment reports that are ‘right first time’.”

Now that the contracts have been awarded, I hope that the Minister can tell us whether that has been done and whether it will be monitored and reported on. Obviously, if the assessments are much better, there will not be many penalties, but we need to know now whether that link has been made. It would give people more confidence in the process.

The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), briefly mentioned contracting. The PIP assessments have been let on a regional basis. In Scotland and the north of England, Atos won the contract, but it appears to be subcontracting to NHS Lanarkshire to carry out the assessments.

If Atos is not doing the work, what is it getting out of the contract? How much of the contract price goes to Atos and how much to Salus? Salus is the not-for-profit arm of NHS Lanarkshire; it does other forms of occupational health work, which is why it was selected. It is not unreasonable to ask those questions. Such arrangements are becoming all too typical in this new world of outsourcing to large, all-purpose, public service, private companies.

We saw it in the Work programme. At the apex are the big boys such as G4S, A4e and Serco. Sometimes they do the work themselves; sometimes they subcontract; sometimes the subcontractors subcontract. At the bottom of the heap some of the sub-subcontractors see little of the payments. That is a major problem.

What are some of those big companies being paid to do? Are they being paid just to put the contract together? Are they just creaming something off the top? They are certainly not shouldering the risk for their subcontractors, because when those get into trouble—with the Work programme, at least—they are not bailed out by the prime contractor. The main contractors do not carry a financial risk of that kind.

We need to know what is happening with the process. The question arises whether it might not have been easier to contract the work in the first place directly to the NHS. If we talk about these things a lot, it is because people naturally think there may be a connection. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) pointed out that in statements that have been made in the past the connection with WCA was made overtly. It is not only we who make it.

The question of targets has been controversial. Atos has said there are no targets in relation to WCA. The Government have vehemently denied that there are targets. However, it now seems clear from people who have worked as health care professionals in this field for Atos—and this came out of the television documentaries in the summer as well—that there are expectations about normal and correct outcomes of assessments. Health care professionals whose performance deviates from those expectations are audited so that their performance can improve towards them. We must ask ourselves at what point an expectation becomes a target, or when there is very little difference between the two.

If there are such expectations, what cognisance will there be of regional variations in ill health—and even variations within regions? Partly because of industrial history, certain forms of ill health are more prevalent in some areas and they are likely to have a greater number of people with certain conditions than others. If there are to be targets or expectations, whatever we may call them, such things must be taken into account. However, since we do not know the guidance, we do not know whether they are taken into account. I hope that they are.

If the Government want people to be more confident about the changes, they must be more open and transparent about them. In the absence of such openness and transparency people reach conclusions, rightly or wrongly, which tend, in modern parlance, to go viral around the disability community. People then get very frightened.

Another aspect of the matter that has, I suppose, come out of the WCA experience, is to do with what kind of assessment is being carried out and the attempt to restrict complex conditions to a simple set of descriptors. The aim from the outset seems to have been, certainly with WCA, to create a system that could perform large numbers of assessments and achieve reliable and replicable results. People have often complained about a tick-box approach, and that seems to me to be a direct result of that attempt.

It is not just bad practice by Atos; sometimes, critics concentrate too hard on Atos and not enough on the underlying system. I think that what happens is inherent in the adoption of what is effectively a computerised test approach. I am sure it was sold to the Government as the IT answer to carrying out assessments. I think that we all know that IT magic miracle cures are often oversold by those who sell them. Before the Minister says so, I know that it was the previous Government who introduced the WCA and the form of test in question. The fact that they turned out to have inherent difficulties should not mean that we should not criticise them and consider whether we were perhaps naive to think an IT solution could deliver all that was needed.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that the previous Government had already established some monitoring and evaluation of the WCA as it was initially introduced? They did not go for a big bang approach but were going to role it out gradually, so that lessons could be learned.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Certainly the system had been operating for some time before the roll-out to all the existing invalidity benefit claimants, but it is not clear that the evaluation was put in place first. I think at the time we said that as some concerns were being considered, and new ways of doing things were being found, it would have been more sensible to put those changes in place before moving everyone else across.

The WCA experience tells us that IT is a tool, and should never become the master of the process. The computerised test should not be the whole of the assessment process. What comes through loud and clear from Professor Harrington’s report is the importance of seeing the computerised assessment as only a part of the whole. Gathering essential documentary evidence early in the process is important. I often heard the previous Employment Minister say that people come to WCA appeal tribunals with information that was not there in the first place—as if people keep it hidden at home and deliberately wait for the appeal to produce the information. Many of the appellants say that no one asked them for it. Some people have even said that they turned up at assessments with information that was not looked at. We must ensure that information is made available from the outset.

The other important thing, according to Professor Harrington, was that DWP decision makers should not simply rubber stamp the computerised assessment. They should consider the position in the round—look at the documentary evidence and consider the situation again. That change should now be in place for the WCA, and there are signs that that is happening, although when I have asked the Government questions about how many Atos assessments are changed by DWP decision makers, I have been told that the information is not kept in that form. Again, it is quite difficult to know exactly what is happening.

The Minister’s predecessor gave us to understand that the PIP assessment would be very different. In the Government’s response to our report, they said:

“The face-to-face consultation, as part of the Personal Independence Payment assessment, is fully intended to be a two-way conversation between the claimant and the health professional, allowing a detailed exploration of how the claimant’s health condition or disabilities affect their day-to-day lives. The discussion at the consultations should not be mechanistic and should be tailored to individuals. This is being clearly expressed to potential providers as part of the tendering for Personal Independence Payment assessment contracts and will be set out in detail in the supporting guidance for providers and their staff. The guidance will stress the importance of positive interaction throughout all aspects of the assessment. The contract will require assessors to have excellent interpersonal and communication skills, including the ability to interact with people sensitively and appropriately.

The Department is not placing targets on the time required for face-to-face consultations and is making clear to potential providers that consultations will need to be as long as necessary to reach evidence-based conclusions on individual cases.”

That sounds wonderful, and if it happens we will definitely have a much better assessment process than the WCA one that we have criticised. I have a problem reconciling it with the contract approach. Has it been built into the contracts? How will it work? If an assessment on one day, for one person, takes as long as is needed, what happens to the other people sitting in the building waiting to be assessed?

Are those people going to be sent home or asked to come back another day? What effect will that have on the number of assessments carried out? What are the targets or expectations of how many assessments should be carried out each week or month? There is a conflict—a tension, at least—between those hopeful and optimistic words and a contract-based system that has expectations of putting through a large number of people over a short space of time.

The Committee was also concerned about the frequency of reassessments. Although we accepted that there should be more reassessments than previously, we had concerns about how often people should have to go back through that process. It is very stressful and expensive for claimants. Stress can affect people’s health and make them worse rather than better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Thanks very much, Mr Sheridan, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

First, I welcome the Minister to what I think is her first set-piece debate on an issue in her portfolio. She follows a distinguished line of Conservative Ministers for Disabled People. We should never forget that her colleague, the Foreign Secretary, piloted the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 through the House. Frankly, he did so in the teeth of opposition from his own party, and he should be recognised for the contribution that he made with that first step along the road of legislating for the rights of disabled people. I welcome the new Minister to her post.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) for mentioning Lord Morris of Manchester, who was the first Minister for Disabled People, and certainly a great source of advice and opinion to me when I was the Minister. Along with his colleague, Lord Ashley, he made sure that we all kept on our toes on these issues. They were at the forefront and the pioneers of parliamentary activity, as well as activity outside Parliament, in ensuring that the rights of disabled people were recognised. The memorial service for Lord Morris will be held soon and I hope that many colleagues can attend.

I also particularly thank members of the Work and Pensions Committee for their valuable report. I appreciate the time and effort that have gone into accumulating the evidence and presenting the report to Parliament. It is an interesting comparison that we in Westminster Hall this afternoon are competing with a badger cull debate in the main Chamber. I will let that comment stick to the wall and say no more.

I offer a vote of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South, who has been a Member of the House since 1997. She came into Parliament with me as one of the so-called Blair babes. At times, we felt like Blair’s grannies, but never mind. My hon. Friend has served the House with distinction since that time, no less than during the past two years in her chairmanship of the Work and Pensions Committee. She brought to the report, and indeed to her contribution to our deliberations today, her very particular and personal insight into disability benefits.

Sometimes I think that MPs give the impression that somehow they are not real people, and that we do not live lives out there that have nothing to do with politics. I know from my hon. Friend’s activities, both as a teacher and as a political activist, that she has provided inspiration to many people who are disabled—not only in the way that she conducts campaigns and is articulate on behalf of disabled people, but because of a very particular knowledge. We should recognise that and not hide her particular light under a bushel. I want to pay that particular compliment to her. She has done that work while managing yet another difficulty, having just spent more than three months in hospital.

I thank the Work and Pensions Committee for providing a pretty comprehensive picture of the changes that are taking place. I appreciate that the report is a little dated now in some respects, but the views that underpin it have not dated, not least the view of the context and environment in which the changes are taking place. I will come back to that point shortly.

I also welcome the Government’s response to the report, although I must say that in many places it is pretty inadequate. It is full of fine words, but as some people in some parts of the country say, “Fine words butter no parsnips.” There are a lot of people out there who think the Government response is camouflage rather than one of substance.

However, I welcome the Government’s recognition that more work needs to be done before personal independence payments are introduced in April 2013. We have heard some of the reasons why more work needs to be done. We are talking about an incredibly tight timetable for a change that will throw the financial stability of many disabled people in this country up in the air. We should not run away from that, and I hope that the Minister will not run away from it. Therefore, will she update us on the progress on her deliberations on those changes that are necessary and that the Select Committee report has identified as necessary?

I hope that the new Minister will not underestimate the distress that the uncertainty is causing out there; I do not think she will. Yesterday, I met with some young people from a Royal National Institute of Blind People group called Haggeye. You, Mr Sheridan, will not be surprised to learn that that is a Scottish group; they have amalgamated our national food with their own disability to name the group. They were joined by some other young blind and visually impaired people from other parts of the country. They had a tour of Parliament, and they met with some MPs and Mr Speaker.

At one point during the day, I had a conversation with them and I must say to the Minister that that conversation with those young blind and visually impaired people encapsulated many of the discussions that I have had, and I am sure other Members of the House have had, during the last several months. We talked about their fear of the future. One young woman said to me, “I don’t think I’m going to qualify.” There are grave concerns out there among visually impaired people about whether they will qualify for the new PIP. She also asked, “What happens to me?” The financial underpinning that allows her to conduct her life could be taken away.

The Government must accept responsibility for the environment that they have created. I welcome the words of, I think, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), and indeed of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), who are supporters of the coalition Government. They recognised that throwing a hand grenade into the debate on the disability agenda in June 2010, without any warning or consultation, did not set the right tone for the debate.

The Minister needs to look again at what is meant by “co-production”. The hon. Member for Eastbourne made a valiant attempt to say that that announcement in June 2010 was an example of co-production. It was not co-production; co-production would have meant that disabled people were involved in discussions before the announcement was made. If he wants to see some experience of co-production, in 2005, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) started on the route to our welfare reforms and he did so by talking to disabled people and involving them from the beginning, rather than saying, “The Chancellor has said that and we now need to manufacture a new benefit around it.” The Chancellor effectively said that there would be a cut of whatever billions of pounds he happened to conjure up at that time. I appreciate that the Minister is new to her post, but the Government must accept some responsibility for that environment.

I also want to highlight some other issues that I hope the Minister will address. I note, for example, that the response by the Department for Work and Pensions fails to reply effectively to the evidence given by Professor Sainsbury, who, at paragraph 38 on page 15, says that

“he was ‘at a loss’ as to where the 20% figure came from”

and did not know how it could have been put into the public domain

“before any work had been done on the criteria and thresholds for the benefit.”

Although we have heard fine words that the change is about serving the needs of disabled people and so on—we all know the script—the reality is that the figure was put into the public domain and policy arena as a savings target, not to define a new benefit to meet the needs of disabled people. No matter how much work has been done in recent months to try to ameliorate that impression, it still sticks, because that is where it emanated from. I hope the Minister will allude to that initial statement by the Chancellor.

Moving on, the Government’s response says on, I think, page 5 that the 20% figure was

“a high level assumption”

and that further work is being undertaken on

“assessment criteria and the detailed policy that will underpin primary legislation. More detailed and updated expenditure savings figures will be provided”.

Will the Minister provide us with some of that information to allow people to start to flesh out exactly what is meant by this new benefit? It is disturbing that anguish has been caused to many disabled people on the basis of a high-level assumption of a 20% cut, translated into the withdrawal of benefit from between 500,000 and 640,000 people—that is the rough spectrum, depending on how we cut the statistics. I hope she will refer to that. Are there current working assumptions for the reduction in spend and numbers? If so, will she share them with us?

I was pleased that various Committee members here, and indeed the Committee as a whole, highlighted the issue of media coverage. The reality is that the Government set the initial context. We should not run away from that, and I hope that the Minister will not because some of her ministerial colleagues were disgraceful in how they never or rarely rebutted any of the scrounger stories in the national newspapers. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Eastbourne mentioned some of those issues. Indeed, on occasion, the Secretary of State fuelled such media stories. I remember one about disability living allowance for children and Motability cars. He said—it was in quotation marks—that all people had to do was fill in an application form for DLA and, Bob’s your uncle, they could move almost directly into their new Motability car.

[Dr Whiteford]

The right hon. Lady is making an important point about how disabled people have been vilified in the press in recent months. Does she agree that far from being a benefit paid to people who cannot help themselves, DLA actually helps a lot of disabled people keep themselves in work, making them and their families less dependent on the state?

[Mrs McGuire]

That is right, and it is a part of this debate that has been missed. Although a significant number of people on DLA are not in work, an equally significant number are, and they use their disability cars, if they have them, to get from home to their workplace. If they are not on the higher rate, they can use their allowance to meet some of the additional costs. One of the young visually impaired people I met in my discussions with Haggeye yesterday said that he used his DLA for a taxi to work, because it was too difficult for him to navigate the roads. He worried about that. The hon. Lady is quite right.

I will give the Minister a bit of flexibility, as this is her first outing, but the newspapers have been awash with stories equating in the public mind those on disability benefits with scroungers. Glasgow university, commissioned by Inclusion London, delivered a report showing that the number of negative stories about disability had increased. Frankly, many people felt that the Government had set up an Aunt Sally and then knocked it down. Instead of being honest about what disability living allowance is for, they set up the image that everybody who claimed it was not entitled to it. There have been instances of hate crime, with people being harassed because others did not think they were as disabled as they made out to be. The way that the debate has been conducted has had a domino effect.

I thought optimistically that the Secretary of State had seen the error of his ways but, disappointingly, he has proved himself a serial offender. He was at it again this morning, this time talking not about disabled people but about people with families. I use this to illustrate my point about setting the context. I was aghast to hear him say in his interview this morning that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of families out there on benefits who have multitudes of children. A freedom of information document published by the DWP on 12 September shows that there are 10 families in receipt of benefits who have 13 children. It is not until we get to families with one, two and three children that the numbers run into hundreds of thousands.

I do not think that a family with three children is large. I certainly do not think that a family with four children is large, having come from one myself. To set a context by saying that reform—in this case, reform of other benefits—is essential because tens of thousands of people are out there abusing the system is disrespectful to the people who, more often than not, want to get out of the benefits system. The Government certainly set the context quite nicely in terms of disabled people, because disabled people have been feeling threatened since then.

I was interested to read on page 5 of the Government response that the Department is

“developing a case study approach to illustrate the contribution disabled people make to society”.

Again, what exactly is happening? When is it happening? What newspapers have been approached? It is fine for the Minister for Disabled People to write features for major disability organisations, but it is not the opinions of those organisations that we need to change; it is those of the mainstream press. I am interested to hear her response.

I appreciate that we have taken a lot of time and will probably run out of time, and that the Minister has a lot of questions to answer. On the assessment of the impact of introducing PIP, will she consider a cumulative impact assessment of all the benefits affecting disabled people? The previous Minister used to say that it was too difficult, but it is astonishing to me that a Department with more than 100,000 civil servants should find it too difficult to come up with a cumulative impact assessment of their policies on disabled people. Disabled people know what the impact will be, and if the Government are not prepared to accept some of the findings of the Hardest Hit campaign and Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson’s report earlier last week, they are duty bound to come up with their own impact assessment. They cannot just discredit everyone else’s and say, “We’re not going to do one.” I hope that the new Minister will think about that.

Can the Minister tell us when we will see the final regulations? Time is getting tight; there is no doubt about that. PIP is coming in next April, and we have not yet seen the final regulations. I am also interested in knowing what the Minister’s interpretation of co-production is. It is not just consultation after the effect; it is the involvement that I have mentioned.

I, too, welcomed the comments made by the previous Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), about the idea of there being a “conversation”, but let me test the logistics of that idea because this is a crucial issue. The Government’s response says that there will be no time limit, which I am sure is a welcome statement, but although there might not be explicit targets, if a company has to carry out some 100,000 reassessments in a short time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South has said, there is an implied target. There might not be a target in the contract, but one is certainly implied, particularly I understand that Capita has already found out that 60% of people would like home visits. I just do not know how the Government will do this.

On the prime contractors, many colleagues have identified that there is no great confidence in at least one of them, and the Minister might be aware that in Scotland Atos has contracted with an NHS social enterprise called Salus. Atos told Third Force News, the newspaper of the voluntary sector in Scotland, that

“subcontracting the work to the NHS would help assessors make more informed decisions as they would work alongside local health boards when it came to assessing claimants.”

Why would Atos contract with an NHS unit only in Scotland? Is there a particular reason, perhaps concerning the politics of Scotland or because Atos feels that there is more sensitivity there? To whom is it subcontracting in the other areas in which it has the contract? Regarding the trail of public money, is it not ludicrous that the Department for Work and Pensions, as a public sector organisation, is contracting with a private sector organisation, in this case Atos, which is then subcontracting to a public sector organisation? What way is that to run a business?

[Dr Whiteford]

The right hon. Lady asks a valid question. Does she share my view that we might now get more accurate assessments?

[Mrs McGuire]

The expectation would be that there might be more accurate assessments, but we must also take on board the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), who said that the assessment criteria are set not by Atos but by the Government. The issue is how those assessment criteria are interpreted further down the line. We might get better, more valuable assessments, but as the previous Minister said on more than one occasion in this House, the ultimate decision is made by the decision maker in the Department for Work and Pensions, and the criteria are set down by that Department. We must always remember that.

I want to come on to an issue relating to Atos, of which the Minister may or may not be aware. I understand that this afternoon some major disability organisations are up in arms about the fact that Atos has apparently named them in the contract. They did not know anything about it. As a matter of fact, they are incandescent with rage, because their being named in the contract has given the company an element of credibility. In one instance the contract states, I think, that those voluntary organisations are going to carry out the disability training of Atos staff and do various other kinds of partnership work with the company. Someone in one of the organisations has said, “It is difficult to know whether we should fall about laughing, because it is so ridiculous.”

Will the Minister tell us whether Atos named in the contract organisations that it had not contacted? What is happening now that those organisations are challenging the fact that Atos has put them down there? If the contractual system has proved to be flawed, will the Minister say that she will have to review the contracts? We cannot have a situation in which a private sector contractor uses as cover disability organisations in the voluntary sector, when those organisations have not given their permission and have in some instances said that they would have nothing at all to do with Atos.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is all part of the opacity of the contracts? Public money is going out, and we do not know what is in the contracts or, in the case of the subcontracting, who is getting what money and what Atos is even being paid for, if it is getting other people to do the work.

[Mrs McGuire]

My understanding is that the disability organisations involved did not know that they were listed as Atos partners, if I can call them that, until some of the information was published recently. There are serious questions here. I do not know whether the Minister will have an answer this afternoon, but if she does not, I suggest that she might need one pretty quickly, because some organisations are up in arms.

Finally, I want to come on to young people. I note from page 19 of the Government’s response that they still think that the age of 16 is the appropriate cut-off. There is a myth that the changes will have no impact on young people and children, but by the end of the roll-out of the process a 14-year old who is in receipt of disability living allowance now will be affected by the changes brought in with PIP. The previous Minister told me that 16 was the appropriate age because it is the natural point at which a child transitions to adulthood, but I suggest that the Minister reconsider that. The school-leaving age is going up, and I assume that that will have an effect on disabled young people at school. If a child or a young person was moved from a benefit at the age of 16, when they were still going through their school career, they could be in the ludicrous position of having qualified for DLA but not for what the Government have promoted as the tighter benefit of PIP. Young people in what would be fourth year in the Scottish education system—I do not know what it would be in England—should not be put under such additional stress. I suggest that 16 is no longer the appropriate age. The Government have stated that they are considering a transitional arrangement for people aged 16 to 18, and I am keen to find out the Minister’s view on that.

In conclusion, I will quote an optimistic sentence spoken by the Chancellor just before the emergency Budget, which is highlighted in the Hardest Hit report:

“Too often, when countries undertake major consolidations of this kind, it is the poorest—those who had least to do with the cause of the economic misfortunes—who are hit hardest.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 180.]

There is a strong sense out there that disabled people are the hardest hit. [Interruption.] I am delighted that the hon. Member for Battersea is back in her place. I am sure that she will be a great asset to the Select Committee.

In the Hardest Hit report that I have mentioned, the Paralympian David Clarke stated:

“There are hidden costs [to being disabled]. Computing what those costs are is very difficult…but fundamentally they exist. Withdrawal of [that] additional funding to cover those additional costs, if that is being planned, will jeopardise the independence of disabled people.”

Paralympians did wonderful things this summer, but many of them will say that one reason why they could do those things was because of the additional support from something like disability living allowance. I hope that the Minister will address that issue because we need to consider that there are extra costs to disability. PIP will, according to the Government, recognise the people who are most severely disabled and those in the greatest need, but there are people in great need, and people in greater need. No matter how laudable, if we concentrate all the effort and finance on those who are most severely disabled, there will still be disabled people who require some help to meet those additional costs. That is the dilemma the Government face.

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind colleagues that we are scheduled to conclude at 4.30 pm. As has already been said, the Minister has been asked to answer a number of serious questions, but the Chair of the Select Committee has indicated that she would like a few minutes at the end to conclude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

I checked the numbers before I came here today, and the over-65s are not the vast majority, but a third of the total. Interestingly—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) brought this up, although many people have touched on it—DLA is not a static benefit; it is a dynamic benefit in so far as 3.3 million people are on it and the conditions they have will change. Some might stay the same and some might get worse, but some people’s condition may get better, and we have to acknowledge that when people get better, they will move off the system. There is a natural movement within the system, and we have to consider all those incidents, which is why we believe the reform is required.

I know I am short of time, so I will address the assessment and answer as far as I can some of the specific questions that were raised. If I do not have enough time, because there were so many points, I will write to hon. Members.

[Mrs McGuire]

Will the Minister address the Atos contract for PIP?

[Esther McVey]

I will get to that at the very end. Perhaps the right hon. Lady should wave to me about a minute before the end so I can ensure that I get there with what I have.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. We have worked on the issue immediately. Straight away, she will be pleased to know that everybody affected will have their redundancy pay and, therefore, money. She is right to say that a 50% emergency taxation rate was put on that. We have spoken to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and to the personal caseworkers they will all get, who will help them fill in the forms and get the money back as soon as possible. I thank the right hon. Lady for highlighting that issue.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her post and wish her well. She has a very special role as a champion for disabled people both outside and, perhaps more importantly at times, inside Government.

The hon. Lady wrote to her local paper about her local Remploy factory in Birkenhead and was highly critical of management and very supportive of, in effect, a workers buy-out. Now that she is in a position to make a real difference, will she consider halting the current Remploy programme in order to allow workers throughout the rest of the country to benefit from a workers buy-out, which is the very policy that she supports?

[Esther McVey]

I visited my local Remploy factory and met its workers, and I was hugely impressed with them. I was horrified to find out what had and had not happened with their proposed business plan, so I pursued the matter. The automotive industry on Merseyside was expanding at the time—we now have 24-hour work at Jaguar in Halewood and Vauxhall has been saved—and I thought that something could be done. That did not happen and I tried to get to the bottom of it—I was most disappointed with the management and that is on the record. What we are looking for is viable businesses, which we will support in every which way we can. I am also meeting various disability groups to consider the shape of the Remploy business in the 21st century and what we can do. I will be a champion for disabled people and I am looking at future job opportunities for them.

Child Support Agency

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I echo the comments made by other hon. Members: it is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship today, Mr Weir, for this short debate on the Child Support Agency. I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing the debate, and hope she will agree that she was well supported in the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and the hon. Members for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and, last but not least, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage).

What we have heard today shows how complex child maintenance is. I listened carefully to the various cases with which MPs illustrated what they were saying. Frankly, no two of those cases were the same. If we multiply that by 650 MPs and multiply that again by the number of families who find themselves in a period of stress, perhaps we will appreciate the challenge that all of us face in trying to design a system that reflects all those individual situations. They range from the example that the hon. Member for South Swindon gave of the soldier in Afghanistan to the example that the hon. Member for Gosport gave of the disabled parent trying to keep her children. How do we come up with a system that deals with all those situations?

We should encourage more people to make voluntary arrangements. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East—who is an expert on these issues—indicated, the people who make the voluntary arrangements are not the ones who need the state to intervene or facilitate. They are the people who come to what we could call an amicable separation and who understand that parenting, and the responsibility for parenting, is a joint effort, in terms of providing both emotional support and financial support. Sadly—and it is sad—not every couple can separate in that way. I think that it was the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North, who I understand may also have some experience in—

[Caroline Nokes]

indicated dissent.

[Mrs McGuire]

If the hon. Lady is not a lawyer, she should get a Bachelor of Laws degree, because she certainly sounded as if she had that sort of hinterland; studying an LL.B, perhaps part-time, might be an opportunity for her to take. Anyway, she highlighted some of the issues about how people try to manage these things.

Having said that, I must say to hon. Members that some of the situations that have been described today are hopefully not quite indicative of the changes that have happened in the CSA. I will just refer to a comment from a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, which I think some hon. Members will probably agree with. The BBC reported:

“The public accounts committee said the CSA had a catalogue of complaints, a backlog of cases, and poor enforcement of uncollected payments”

and that the PAC said the CSA was one of the

“greatest public administration disasters of recent times”.

That was the view of the PAC in 2007, when it was under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh).

In May of this year, the PAC said:

“The Commission has made real progress in recent years but the challenges it faces”—

and hon. Members have illustrated some of those challenges today—

“in supporting separated families and securing maintenance payments for children are serious.”

So there have been significant changes, and the hon. Member for South Swindon remarked on the range of enforcement actions that exist and that were supported across the board; the Minister was in the House at the time. We had to realise that sometimes the carrot might not work and that sometimes it is about the stick. We can argue about whether six weeks is an adequate sentence, but the difficulties that people would face if they had their driving licence withdrawn, as well as all the other issues relating to enforcement, would really focus the minds of many people.

As a constituency MP, I have had nothing like the volume of CSA cases recently that I previously had. Ten years ago, I would have had a little queue of parents—both with care and non-resident—complaining about all the issues that have been highlighted today. I can now count on one hand how many live cases about the CSA that I have. I do not know if there is a particular problem in Loughborough, but I am just being frank with hon. Members in saying that I have seen a significant change. That is not to say that I do not occasionally have cases where somebody has had a wage deduction charge that has been wrongly applied—

[Heather Wheeler]

I am sure that my constituency of South Derbyshire is as fragrant as it always is, but I get three CSA cases a week—three a week.

[Mrs McGuire]

Mr Weir, I hope that you will agree with me that there must be a change in the atmosphere in Scotland, although I have to say that it is nothing to do with your political party. My experience is not the same as that of the hon. Lady. I can only put my experience on the table, in the same way that other colleagues have done.

Since the range of enforcement actions have been introduced, I have seen a significant downturn in the number of CSA cases. That is not to say that there have not been occasions when people have come to me and complained about the administrative errors at the CSA, which are unforgivable, or about the fact that the wrong assessment has been made. Those are the types of problems that have been highlighted in the debate today.

The comments that I quoted from the two distinguished Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee are intended to show that there have been changes in the CSA. The reality is that all of us have to wrestle with the legacy of a flawed initial approach; that includes the Minister, who is doing so quite admirably. The introduction of the CSA had joint-party support at the time, but it was rushed. The technology was not up to it and the scale of the problem in those initial years was grossly underestimated. Perhaps because we always want to believe the best of humankind, the idea was that if we suddenly introduced the CSA, everybody would conform. That was not the reality, as we know from individual experiences.

I am sure the Minister could tell us how many connections have to be made just to reach a conclusion in a single CSA case. Reaching a conclusion is quite a complex business; everything has to be tested. As MPs, we all know that someone can have a perspective on a particular case that might not fit with what another person thinks, whether that case is about the CSA, a housing complaint or any other complaint. So, all those checks have to be made in each case. I am trying to illustrate that this problem is not easy to solve, and there are some questions that I hope the Minister will address, which have been raised by colleagues in her own party as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East.

I echo the advert that the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North gave for the Scottish legal system. Minutes of agreement are a good vehicle for getting parents to come to an understanding and to recognise that such an agreement is not something they can sign off and then just park; it is legally enforceable. That makes a significant difference to how those agreements are seen in Scotland.

The hon. Lady also suggested that such an approach could be exported, or perhaps transferred—I do not think we are quite into exports yet, Mr Weir, from Scotland to England—into the English legal system. I echo that suggestion, which the Minister might like to consider, although I appreciate this issue is not totally within her domain. Such an approach is an excellent example of how the legal system can formally—but almost informally—make something happen. Things are done between lawyers, and as a lawyer yourself, Mr Weir, you will know that in Scotland one always trusts the word of a Scottish lawyer. The Minister should look at that issue, which I know the Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Society of Scotland have highlighted in their response to the consultation. Interestingly, the Law Society of England and Wales has said that family-based agreements are unable to command support because they are not enforceable, and that they add to the existing uncertainty.

We have all seen examples of how difficult it is to pin somebody down about their lifestyle and what they tell the CSA is their income. Before there was investigation and enforcement within the CSA, I had a long-standing case involving a woman who was married to a high-profile person who was returning an income of almost zero. Frankly, everybody and their dog knew that that was not the case, but the woman had difficulty in dealing with the situation. I think that is why there is some surprise that, given the Minister’s views on trying to get a consensual approach to arrangements, regulations 18 and 20 will, I understand, be withdrawn, and I hope that the Minister can throw some light on that.

I thank the Law Society of Scotland for its excellent comments in highlighting this problem. It is concerned that a change in the regulations, whereby the parent with care, and the CSA, could challenge the lifestyle of the parent without care,

“could allow non-resident parents with well-informed advisers to be navigated out of the child support system to the detriment of the children concerned.”

I suppose that that is the flipside of the lawyer. The lawyer will act in what he or she sees as the best interests of their client and, in those circumstances, that might be to try to navigate their way around—that is the sort of neutral term I would use.

Finally, I have one or two points to put to the Minister, which have arisen out of the recent Public Accounts Committee report. One is on the charging of parents, and a Member has already asked: if it is only £20, what is the point, because it will not even cover the costs, and there could be an element of tokenism? I certainly agree that that aspect would perhaps have been better left as it was. There is a view that the introduction of fees might well make child poverty worse, and that it might act as a deterrent. Given that some people will be on extremely low incomes, £20 might just be the deterrent that will put them off.

The Public Accounts Committee also identified that the IT system that has been introduced to save money is already running late, and every month’s delay will cost £3 million. [Interruption.] The Minister smiles in that enigmatic way that most Ministers before her have smiled about IT and Departments. Given that IT systems have been the bane of the CSA’s life, we need some—any—reassurance that she has this under control. The other related issue is whether a new IT system can be installed and tested while an existing programme is still being delivered. Those of us with accounts in the Royal Bank of Scotland and NatWest have perhaps seen an example of things going wrong when an incident happens during the running of a new system. I seek the Minister’s reassurance on that matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East asked what would happen to the case load. Is it a zero-sum game? Will the current case load just be wiped, and will people have to say, “I want the CSA to be involved again”?

I hope that this has been a good discussion for everyone here. We have constantly to monitor the CSA. This is not an easy problem, and none of us should ever think that we can invent an IT system or an organisation that will solve the complexity of the emotional problems resulting from the break up of a relationship where children are involved. We only need think of our own families’ and friends’ experiences to see exactly what the pressures are, even in the most amicable of circumstances. In some ways, we are asking the CSA staff to work miracles in very difficult circumstances, and although they have come in for some criticism today, I think the majority of them work efficiently, to a high standard, and as compassionately as they can, within the parameters set by politicians.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. You have a tendency to chair a lot of our debates on welfare.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing the debate. It is difficult to do justice to the wide range of issues raised by Members on both sides, but the debate has left me with the overwhelming feeling that the system is broken much more fundamentally than just a broken IT system. I may have smiled wryly before because, when the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) referenced IT systems, I had a vague recollection, which officials have just confirmed, that the new future scheme was supposed to have been introduced under a Labour Government but has been delayed considerably since its inception—hence the wryness of my smile.

[Mrs McGuire]

Does the hon. Lady accept that the first system was rubbish anyway?

[Maria Miller]

I think the right hon. Lady misunderstands me. I mean the introduction of the future scheme, which was considerably delayed under the previous Administration.

I am also somewhat surprised that Stirling seems to be atypical. Although the right hon. Lady might have only a handful of cases or fewer troubling her postbag, the statistics say something considerably different, which is that the Child Support Agency receives more than 20,000 complaints every year. I know that the agency’s chief executive is absolutely unhappy about that and is doing a great deal, working with staff, to do something about it, but it is indicative of the situation facing us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

What I have said so far is the basis for the reform that this Government are putting in place. I pay tribute to the 8,000 staff at the Child Support Agency and all that they do, with the difficult system they work with, but I share the view hon. Members have expressed today that the current system is not working well enough for the people who need it the most. We inherited two sets of rules, three IT systems and more than 20,000 complaints every year, and reform that has failed to date. It is time to change the role of the child maintenance system and set it in context of the Government’s broader family and social justice policy, which is founded on the evidence that children have a better life with their parents providing support and protection throughout their childhood.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) was right to say that parents need support from each other. Indeed, we have recently set up a customer panel to do just that and we are considering how to develop it further.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East was right to say that we have to take into account the views of those who work in the field. They are indeed vital, but I caution her against focusing simply on the views of the legal profession, because as MPs who deal with such issues day in, day out, we all know that many people have more grass-roots experience, and we need to draw on that. Indeed, we as a Government have drawn on such voluntary and community sector experience in making our plans for the future scheme. A group of experts in the sector have worked with us to set out how we can ensure that parents have the right information and support, particularly early on, to work together post-separation and to make sure that both parents remain actively involved in their children’s lives. We have already announced £20 million to make that happen—that is in the current spending review. That £20 million, previously spent on IT systems and the rest, will now be used to support charitable organisations, which we all know do so much effective work with families. That funding adds to some £45 million that the Government are already spending in 2012-13 alone on supporting families and relationships.

The money will provide the sort of tangible help that makes a real difference to families’ lives when separation is involved, and it will do so in a way that supports children. It will cover the provision of an online distributable web application; training for voluntary and community organisations to provide telephone support and improved face-to-face support; and up to £14 million for the recently launched innovation fund, which will help innovative ideas to get off the ground and measure their success in supporting parents during family separation.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) that we know that not everybody will be able to work together. She is absolutely right about that. The hard work that she does in her constituency proves that not everybody can come to their own arrangements. That is why we will also introduce a new statutory child maintenance service for parents.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) has immeasurable experience, and on a number of occasions I have had the benefit of his wisdom regarding reform in this part of my ministerial portfolio. He is right that tough enforcement action is needed. The Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 contains tough enforcement powers and we are committed to ensuring the implementation of the new statutory scheme, which will be introduced this year, along with powers to manage arrears of maintenance payments that have been accumulated under the existing scheme and are not collectible. We want to make sure, first and foremost, that we have the right statutory scheme before we take on those forcible powers that my hon. Friend thinks—and I agree—could work so well.

I will try to deal with the main issues raised in the debate. One that troubles many Members is that of non-resident parents whose lifestyles are inconsistent with their declared earnings. That is often coupled with being self-employed and other ways of playing the system that hon. Members have said some parents may be exploiting. The problem is not new and we think that our reforms will start to address it. We will use information from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs about taxable income alongside other data to calculate the amount of maintenance that a non-resident parent is required to pay, and that information will be updated every year.

That is an important innovation, because we will no longer have to rely on declared income and will move instead to a system that relies on data provided to HMRC. Of course, some individuals may not declare all their income to HMRC, but that is a different matter. We are working closely with HMRC to do as much as we can to ensure that such income estimates are accurate and kept up to date, which, under the current system, they are not. The right hon. Member for Stirling is probably aware of all those issues from her time in government, and I hope she agrees that this is an important step forward.

[Mrs McGuire]

Given that we are dealing with people who put in a self-employed schedule D return, as opposed to the pay-as-you-earn, can the Minister give us any indication about where she will be taking the declared income figure from? Will it be from declared income, or will it be from income after all the other legitimate deductions come off—car use, boots for work and so on; all of the things that can be taken down—so that the taxable income at the end is far lower than what the person actually draws in?

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. Lady will know that we are looking at those sorts of details right now. I take from her comments that she wants to ensure that we are dealing with an income that is representative of the income that an individual has, rather than an income that may be depressed for the purposes of the calculation that is being made. I assure her that those are exactly the sorts of conversations that we are having.

The change to using HMRC data will also give us a much more efficient system, getting money to children quicker and more effectively tracking down parents who fail to pay. On that note, my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon raised an important issue regarding armed forces personnel. We are reviewing how to provide a service to assist service personnel in this respect. I hope he finds that reassuring.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) raised an important issue relating to the 12-month rule. Since I became a Minister, I have looked at that in some detail. We are looking for the evidence needed to quantify the scale of the problem and to ensure that we understand it fully, but I understand her point. I have received other representations on the matter and officials are working with the legal community and with the Ministry of Justice to consider how we can resolve the problem. It cannot be right to have a system in which people can play the rules to their advantage. We must have a system that works equitably across the piece. I undertake to write to my hon. Friend in more detail about the actions we are taking and to keep her fully informed of how we move forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and various Scottish Members brought up the minute of agreement, which I have looked at in some detail. We do not feel that we can take that forward as part of the child maintenance system for which the Department for Work and Pensions has responsibility, but I know that my colleagues are well aware of it. If time were to permit—it does not today—I could talk a lot about the important innovations being made in the Ministry of Justice on mediation, which may well deal with some of the issues that the minute of agreement deals with.

In the few minutes that I have available, I wanted to address some of the other detailed points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, who is an assiduous constituency MP—

Specialist Disability Employment

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance warning of her statement and indeed an advance copy of it.

I am somewhat surprised, however, that the Minister failed to identify the factories where there are no agreed business plans. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I shall quickly run through them: Acton, Ashington, Barking, Birkenhead, Bolton, Cleator Moor, Gateshead, Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Newcastle, North London, North Staffs, Oldham, Penzance, Pontefract, Preston, Southampton, Spennymoor, Wigan, Worksop and Boston Spa; in Scotland, Wishaw; and in Wales, Aberdare, Abertillery, Merthyr Tydfill, Swansea and Wrexham. Other staff at risk include modernisation staff. It is disappointing that the Minister did not put that on the record.

May I try to lay to rest the issue of segregated employment? As the Minister and many others in the House are aware, there are strong views about so-called segregated employment, but many people who work in Remploy factories, and in other supported businesses throughout the UK, do not see themselves as segregated. They see themselves as exercising the same choice as non-disabled people have when they choose employment. We need to get away from the split between segregated and so-called non-segregated employment. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

May I ask the Minister one or two questions about her statement? Why does she continue to declare that she is implementing the Sayce review, when Liz Sayce stated:

“Employees and management of Enterprise Businesses should be given a sufficient window (for instance, six months) to put forward a business plan to this expert panel setting out how the business will become viable without Government subsidy”?

That refers to six months. What we have had is a 90-day window to implement a closure programme. I am astonished that the Minister continues to use Liz Sayce’s report as some sort of human shield to disguise what she is doing.

The scale of the closures announced today vincidates Liz Sayce’s view that if only nine factories have been able to put together a business proposal in that 90 days, her six-month window would have given a far greater opportunity to some of the other factories to access such business expertise. The Minister made great play of the £10,000 for business advice for employee-led bids. Those involved would be hard pushed to get business consultancies for £10,000 to put together a business plan for some of the factories.

The time frame for closure does not take into account the challenge of winding up businesses and supporting people, many of whom have complex disabilities. Why has the Minister also decided to renege on the agreement made with those in the so-called modernisation group? There was an agreement with former employees that was supported in all parts of the House when the modernisation programme was announced, and many will be disappointed, if not surprised, that what was supported in opposition has been abandoned in government.

Will the Minister clarify the position of the Remploy pension scheme and how the Government will honour their responsibilities to that scheme? Given that the Government’s Work programme is missing its target for disabled workers by 75%, what new support is the Minister putting in place to support Remploy workers who will lose their jobs?

Frankly, there are times when I wonder whether the Secretary of State understands any of Remploy’s arguments as he sits and sniggers when he is not making disparaging comments about disabled workers.

Can the Minister distance herself from the harsh economic climate in which we find ourselves? Even if she is minded to make this decision, doing so in the current economic climate makes it look as if she is abandoning her duty of care to disabled employees who have given many years of service to a company that the Government own—a company that this country owns.

The Minister mentioned the Access to Work programme. She might wish to remind the House that Access to Work numbers are plummeting under this Government—[Interruption.] Well, the DWP figures seem to indicate that the Access to Work uptake has not been as good as she sometimes indicates to the House. In 2007, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) announced the modernisation programme, the now Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), said:

“Let me assure Remploy and its employees that the next Conservative Government will continue the process of identifying additional potential procurement opportunities for them and the public sector work force.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 451.]

Where is that Minister now, and what action has he taken in government to fulfil the promise he so glibly gave in opposition?

Finally, there is a programme that the Government have paraded around, telling us how wonderful it is: the regional growth fund. The National Audit Office has said that jobs created by the regional growth fund cost the taxpayer between £4,000 and £200,000. It has also said that 90% of the jobs could have been delivered at a cost of £26,000 a job, which is slightly more than the subsidy for Remploy workers and those losing their jobs today.

I do not disagree with the Minister that this is a difficult decision—many Opposition Members have been through some of these issues before—but I charge her, in a situation in which tens of people are chasing every job in some of the constituencies where Remploy factories are closing, with having abrogated her responsibility to disabled workers who have given a lifetime of service to Remploy.

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. Lady has very strong views on this matter, but perhaps I could ask her to consider the views of disabled people. Let me bring to the House’s attention a quote from Disability Wales, an organisation whose views many hon. Members on both sides of the House might value:

“Disability Wales… does not see Remploy as either progressive or forward thinking in their approaches to service provision. Although they may once have been seen as providing opportunities for disabled people, they are now standing in the way of full integration and indirectly hampering individuals’ chances of progression.”

I am afraid that that is what the people of Wales feel, and that reflects what many other organisations that represent disabled people in this country feel.

The right hon. Lady talked about the important issue of jobs, but I really wish that she would check her facts before coming to the House. If she were to do so, she would see that Access to Work is actually spending more money than ever before in supporting disabled people across the country. Yes, there is more that we can do, and that we are doing, because what we inherited was what Liz Sayce called the best secret in government. We are going out and marketing Access to Work actively to make sure that more people can use it to get into work. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) says from a sedentary position, “You have to get a job”, and she is absolutely right. The individuals affected by today’s announcements live in areas where Remploy’s employment services arm has actually helped 10,500 disabled people into work over the past year alone, and indeed 35,000 over the past two years. She might be happy about having disabled people shut away in segregated factories but I am not, so on that we will have to disagree.

The modernisation plan is four years into its five-year process, and what is clear to us is that at least we are able potentially to take out of Government control some of the factories that have been subject to the initial phase 1 stage, which were judged by our independent advisers not to be financially viable. We still have to look at phase 2 factories—some 18 of them—that are judged to have more chance of financial viability, and I look forward to bringing hon. Members up to date on our progress with that in the summer.

On the pensions scheme, I reassure the right hon. Lady that we will protect in full all the accrued rights of participating members. As to the modernisation group, I also assure her that we are having ongoing conversations about how we can help to ensure that some of the people involved are not affected by redundancy. Perhaps I can talk to her in detail about that at a more appropriate time.

Disability Benefits and Social Care

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, we need to make some progress in this debate or many hon. Members will not be able to contribute to it.

We are also reforming the disability living allowance, on which, again, the Opposition have failed to give any answers. Labour Members say they want reform, but the reality is that they have voted against reform every step of the way. As far back as 2005, the Labour Government found out that £600 million of DLA was being paid out in overpayments, yet they failed to do anything about it. In 2007, they found out that the independent living fund needed serious reform, but again they did nothing about it.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady will know that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I would ask the right hon. Lady to speak from the Dispatch Box.

[Mrs McGuire]

The hon. Lady knows full well that when the independent living fund was running into difficulty we established an investigation into it, we reformed the fund and we had Sheffield Hallam university carry out an independent review. She does not need advice from her Secretary of State on that one.

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. Lady is obviously a little sensitive on that point, perhaps because the fund was about to run out of money when we took over. We had absolutely no choice at all about the action we took and perhaps Labour Members should take a little more of the responsibility. They lost control of the situation for some of the most vulnerable groups in society and they must stand up and be accountable account for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Poulter]

I am not making that mistake at all. The point is that the previous Government’s benefits system put people in a category in which they were characterised as not fit for work, often for the long term. But it is important that somebody who has a mental health problem, or who has an intermittent or a lapsing physical illness such as multiple sclerosis, can, if they are able to, work. People with mental health problems—there is very good medical evidence to support this—often benefit from engaging in work. It improves their mental health and is an important part of their recovery.

[Mrs McGuire]

Will the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that DLA acted as a facilitator for some of those people to whom he refers and who needed to get into work? It met some of their extra costs, and, to echo my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), I think that he is confusing two different benefits. I hope that he will consider the exact point that he is making.

[Dr Poulter]

The point I am making is that the benefits system, which was complicated, wrote off a certain group of people. There were laudable aims, because it is right, for example, to give additional support to people with mental health problems, but an important part of their recovery also involves engaging in the workplace, often on a part-time basis and then, if suitable to that person, by moving on to more permanent employment. The previous system did not, however, help enough people with mental health problems to engage properly with the workplace. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) earlier represented the position of Mind, which has historically taken that position, in agreement with the comments that I have just made.

On support for, and reform of, the care system, my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) said in an intervention that the Government are providing an additional £3.8 billion to the NHS to support better integration with social care. The key to improving and supplying better support for carers, and for other people who look after the long-term disabled, is to ensure that the NHS and social care services are better integrated.

We inherited from the previous Government a system of silo working, with the NHS traditionally working in one of them. For example, the payment-by-results system in many hospitals reinforces the fact that not enough attention is paid to the discharge of people with illness, or to the prevention of people becoming unwell in the first place, and what we need to move away from in the NHS, for financial and human reasons, is a crisis management service that fails to invest in proper preventive care. This Government have already put an additional £400 million into talking therapies, which will help to support people with mental health problems.

The £3.8 billion investment in the NHS to provide such integrated working with local social services will provide the support that carers need on the ground to make sure that many people with mental health problems and physical disabilities get the preventive care that they need. It will also provide an important link in making sure that the frail elderly and people with dementia are no longer inappropriately rushed into hospital but are better cared for and better looked after in the community, and that their carers get the care and support that they need, which keeps carers and patients well.

For all those reasons, the Government have a very strong programme that will deal with several of the problems that this country faces as a result of an over-complex benefits system. Their reform of the benefits system will help people with mental health problems and the long-term disabled to engage with the workplace, which is good for their mental health and their recovery. The reformed system will also ensure that the important role that carers play in health care and in social care is properly recognised and properly funded.

It is only under this Government that there has been a genuine approach to integrating health care. It is only through the establishment, through the health care reforms, of health and wellbeing boards that there will for the first time be a genuine joining up of social care, housing care and NHS care at a local level which will allow carers and the disabled, and everybody who is in need of a better and more joined-up community-based care, to be put together in the right way. Those are the very good principles behind the reforms to the health care and benefits systems, and I am proud to support the Government today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I am delighted to welcome the contributions to this afternoon’s debate of my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), for Islwyn (Chris Evans), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) who just spoke so powerfully, for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and for Westminster North (Ms Buck). They all made their contributions in their own distinctive ways. We have covered some of the areas identified in the motion.

I kick off by talking about the social care crisis, identified by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) and highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. I hope that we are now at a point in discussion where we can reach a cross-party consensus on social care. Both those Members identified the major difficulties. I think we should remember that it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who invited the Government to come into those cross-party discussions, having had a pretty bruising experience prior to the last general election when we thought we might have had a basis for moving forward. I certainly welcome the fact that we are treating this issue with the seriousness and urgency that it deserves. However, my image of the contribution of the hon. Gentleman is that he goes around working out how much people’s bottoms and legs can be insured for. He is not normally prone to humour, but I thought that was a bit of light-heartedness on his part.

The Minister with responsibility for disabled people paints a picture that, frankly, bears no relation to the reality of the lives of disabled people and their families and carers. When I heard her contribution, I wondered which world she was living in. She is a quiet and impressive speaker, although she showed today that she can sometimes be provoked. She somehow gives the impression that it will be all right on the night and that tens of thousands of people out there can be expected to say, “Well, that’s fine, Minister for Disabled People. We know that we are suffering”—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington identified—“but we do not know what is in front of us; we have been vilified in the press, not just by media reporters, but by some ill-considered briefings from some politicians.”

The words of the Minister do not chime with the reality of what people are feeling out there. Over the past couple of years disabled people have been undermined and their confidence shattered, and they are living in a climate of fear. There has been an increase in hate crime. According to a recent report by the university of Glasgow for Inclusion London, the amount of negative reporting of disability in the print media has increased dramatically. People out there who are not claiming disability benefits now think that everyone who is claiming a disability benefit is a skiver. I hope that one day the Secretary of State will rebut the comments that are being made in some tabloid newspapers.

Let me dispel one or two of the myths that have been perpetrated here today. One is that lifetime and indefinite awards will never see the light of day again. In fact the lifetime award was replaced in 2000, because we recognised that it conveyed a mixed message. There has also been a dodgy use of statistics on all sorts of disability benefits, particularly by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). He said that 75% of incapacity benefit claimants were fit for work, but when the position was examined properly, the figure proved to be as low as 37%.

An image or background has been created to justify a welfare reform programme that is flawed, at least in its implementation. We talk in general terms about disabled people and those who receive disability living allowance, but hundreds of thousands of people who have arthritis, learning disabilities or psychosis rely on the additional cost payment provided by DLA for their everyday lives.

Let me deal very briefly with Remploy, which has already been dealt with extensively today. Yes, we had to wrestle with some of the difficulties—I am certainly not going to run away from that—but the Minister gave only part of the picture. Any Member who was in the House before the last modernisation programme for Remploy knows that we engaged in an extensive and lengthy consultation. All Members of Parliament had all the figures in front of them from the moment that we embarked on that modernisation programme. What we did not do was organise a 90-day consultation involving people who were already feeling vulnerable because of all the other stuff that was going on around them, and embark on a factory programme without building elements of support into it.

Particularly important is the cumulative impact, which has not been addressed today. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its report:

“Given the breadth of the current reforms, the Government should publish a unified assessment of the likely cumulative impact of the proposals”.

The Government replied:

“The ability to undertake cumulative analysis is limited because of the complexity of the modelling required”.

So a Government who have tens of thousands of civil servants in the DWP are telling disabled people that, despite all that expertise, they cannot put together a cumulative assessment of what is happening to their lives. I think that it is to the shame of the Secretary of State that he is not prepared to put the big picture out there in front of people. The Joint Committee also said that we were in danger of breaching our commitment under the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities by posing a threat to their right to independent living.

Let me put a very brief cumulative impact assessment before the House. The DWP’s own analysis concluded that the benefit cap would have a disproportionate impact on households containing a disabled person, which were

“more likely to be affected”.

The Prime Minister has always dodged and weaved on this, but the reality is that the sum will be reduced by half under the new universal credit. The “Counting the Costs 2012” report by Contact a Family found that it costs three times more to raise a disabled child, and 73% of its respondents said they believe welfare reform will make them poorer. Mencap says 32% of local authorities have cut day care services in the past three years. The cumulative effect is growing. Some 57% of people with a learning disability currently receive no services at all, despite being known to their social care departments. Disability Rights UK has highlighted how losing DLA will impact on disabled people’s opportunities to get a job.

[Matthew Hancock]

The right hon. Lady talks about the need to see the big picture. Will she therefore correct something the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) said in his opening speech? He said unemployment is rising, when today’s figures show a fall in unemployment and a rise in employment, and that should be welcomed.

[Mrs McGuire]

I know the hon. Gentleman from our days serving together on the Public Accounts Committee, so I know how good he is with figures, and how he can bandy them around. The reality is that £9 billion more will be needed to pay for unemployment benefit. That is the real statistic.

[Matthew Hancock]

indicated dissent.

[Mrs McGuire]

That is the real statistic. We in this House bandy figures around, but the reality is that we are talking about people who are finding themselves—day after day, week after week, month after month—being unable to get a job. That is the reality: 2.5 million unemployed.

[Ian Lavery]

In my constituency, and in the north-east region, unemployment has increased again, yet the Minister with responsibility for employment did not even turn up to a Westminster Hall debate today to respond to the comments of MPs from the north-east whose constituencies face serious problems. That is a total disgrace.

[Mrs McGuire]

And that is the issue this Government need to attend to. We have a crisis in social care. The directors of adult social care services have identified in excess of £1 billion of cuts to social care budgets.

What in this motion do the Government disagree with? It recognises there should be reform of DLA. It raises concerns about the WCA. It recognises the role of carers. It promotes independence, choice and control for disabled people. It asks the Department to restore, in writing, its commitment to equality for disabled people. It calls for a full cumulative impact assessment of the effect of what is happening on the lives of disabled people. It asks for reform of the WCA descriptors.

I always think it is faintly amusing that when we talk about disabled people in this House, Cabinet Ministers often find more time to talk among themselves—as some of them are doing now on the Treasury Bench—than to listen to the debate. I hope the Minister replying to this debate will recognise that this is a sensible motion that is looking for consensus, and that he will respond in keeping with that spirit of consensus.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I commend the work my hon. Friend has been doing. He has done so much to support disabled people in his constituency get into work, and I look forward to continuing to follow the work he is doing.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Remploy Ltd provides a defined benefit occupational pension scheme for its employees, but it is not eligible for pension protection funding by virtue of regulation 2(1)(d) of the Pension Protection Fund (Entry Rules) Regulations 2005. In the case of Remploy, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions guarantees that the company’s assets are sufficient to meet its liabilities in the event of its winding-up. Under the Minister’s current proposals, will the Secretary of State continue to honour that commitment to current and retired Remploy employees?

[Maria Miller]

I am sure the right hon. Lady is aware of the fact that when this Government took office we inherited an enormous deficit in the Remploy pension fund. We are trying to sort that out. I can absolutely give her the undertaking that pensions that are in place will be fully protected, as she would expect.

Women’s Aid

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod). It is a pleasure to be in Westminster Hall under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I do not think that we have met in these circumstances before. I am delighted to be here today.

I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). I have known him for many years, long before he was a Member of the House. I know from previous experience that he has long been an advocate for support services for women, not only in his own constituency, but across Scotland. For Members who may not be as aware as I am of my right hon. Friend’s history, he was the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities at one point.

My right hon. Friend has done rather a lot in his life—for a man who is only 45. He was president of COSLA when local authorities in Scotland were trying to come to an understanding of what violence against women—it was mainly, but not exclusively, violence against women—meant for those women, their families and their communities. He was part of the drive in Scottish local authorities to recognise the problem and deliver services. It is fair to say that that was not always easy. Many local authorities turned their face against the provision of such services, and many a battle had to be fought to establish the idea that there should be a discrete service focused on women’s needs as part of mainstream activity. I hope my right hon. Friend does not mind my embarrassing him, but we sometimes forget that people had a life before they came into Parliament, and it is worth putting part of that history on the record.

From my right hon. Friend’s analysis, we can see the benefit of the experience that he brings to this subject. He is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament and he keeps in touch in a way many of us might replicate; I am not saying that we are all bad constituency MPs, but I can verify that he is one of those Members who is known to all his constituents and who knows all of them. It is not often that we get the opportunity to pay a little tribute to one of our colleagues, and I hope that his ego can stand it.

My right hon. Friend’s analysis of the situation was telling. He emphasised that it is not only statistics that are important. As politicians, we talk about statistics, but every one of them represents an individual person who is part of a family, a street and a wider community. That was echoed in the contribution by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth and in other Members’ interventions.

There are two themes in the debate, but I want to concentrate more on one of them, although I appreciate that the Minister will wind up on both. One theme is the responsiveness of the benefits system to women—it is mainly women we are talking about. I hope, however, that that is not misunderstood; as the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) mentioned, this is not just about women, and there are men who find themselves in this position. However, the overwhelming majority of cases involve women, so, for shorthand purposes, I will talk about them.

[Amber Rudd]

My point was that welcomed the fact that men are participating in a debate that is primarily about women. I totally support what the right hon. Lady says, but I also welcome the fact that it is not only women who are supporting action on this important issue.

[Mrs McGuire]

I appreciate that. I may not have explained myself properly. I was saying that there are men who find themselves on the receiving end of domestic violence. However, I fully endorse the hon. Lady’s comment that this is not just a women’s issue; it affects women, but we should all be interested in it. I am more than happy to make that clear.

As I was saying, there is the specific issue of how the benefits system responds. There are then the wider elements that have been highlighted, and there is significant expertise at practitioner and political level on some of them. It is fair to say that some of the issues about the benefits system relate to continuing uncertainty about what the new Welfare Reform Act 2012 will deliver. People who rely on some element of benefit support and who are in or—this is increasingly the case, sadly—out of work face uncertainty, as the Government roll out their welfare reform programme. We have had some pretty robust debates on welfare reform, and I will not go back over them. However, we want to see what can be delivered under the new legislation to make sure people understand what its impact on them will be.

I want, therefore, to deal with some specific points about the impact of the new welfare legislation on women who face domestic abuse or domestic violence. As the Minister will be aware, the benefits system is designed for the many, but it must also show sensitivity to individual circumstances. I hope we all agree that such circumstances are sometimes difficult to anticipate and, even when we do anticipate them, difficult to frame provisions for in primary legislation. I hope that she will be able to give Members and, more importantly, those who face the trauma of domestic violence some confidence that what is being put in place can respond to individual circumstances. The test of any benefits system is not the high-level principles or the high-level legislation, but what the system means to an individual when they are at a point of need and how responsive the system is.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The right hon. Lady has come to an important point. Does she agree that one consideration for women who face the threat, or who are victims, of domestic violence in deciding whether to go to Women’s Aid or other such groups is often the impact that that could have on the benefits to which they or their family are entitled? The female at risk often gives more serious consideration to that than to the fact that she is being abused.

[Mrs McGuire]

I totally agree. That echoes the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown)—he is no longer in his place—who said that, given that uncertainty, women go back go the household where they were abused. If they have never engaged with the benefits system—and even if they have—there is an element of uncertainty about the time frames. It may not be entirely clear what will happen to their child benefit. Who gets the child benefit at the moment? Technically, it goes to women, but that might not be the case in some abusive relationships. As well as having to deal with violence and abuse, women face that financial uncertainty. We should not underestimate how difficult it is for women who are trying to get out of a violent situation not only to have to worry about the impact of the violence on them and their children, but to face uncertainty because they might be stepping off the edge of a cliff and they do not know what will happen. I totally endorse what the hon. Gentleman says.

Will the Minister tell us how organisations that offer hostel and supported accommodation will be treated in the assessment of housing support assistance in the new system? Currently, supported accommodation providers are allowed to breach the local housing allowance cap, because an element in the costs allows them to charge for additional support services, such as those provided by Women’s Aid or similar organisations, although Women’s Aid is obviously the principal provider.

We are seeing a real-terms cut in supported housing costs across the country, and we cannot run away from that. Local organisations that offer accommodation will therefore face a cut in any circumstances. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that women’s aid organisations are receiving a greater funding cut than local authorities—there is a differential of 4% or 5%. There is therefore uncertainty, and if organisations that offer supported accommodation cannot make up the additional costs, there will be a real threat—this is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill was alluding to—to the financial viability and, indeed, the very existence of their hostels.

The Minister understands the commitment of those in organisations such as Women’s Aid who are able to give the support that is needed at a very difficult time; but although that voluntary activity is important, it is not the only element of the support that is given. There are services that have a cost attached to them, and we cannot ignore that.

[Kate Green]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that might have an impact on providers of specialist services, such as those for minority ethnic women, or very young women? Such organisations cannot take advantage of economies of scale, by providing for large numbers, as some housing associations can; but if we lose that specialist provision, some very vulnerable young women will be reluctant to go anywhere for support.

[Mrs McGuire]

What my hon. Friend says echoes what I said at the beginning of my speech about how the benefits system relates to specialised individual needs. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort on that matter.

I suppose that my direct question to the Minister is whether those in receipt of local housing allowance who go into women’s hostels will receive just the basic housing allowance; or will the hostels be able to charge an additional amount, to be covered by the local housing allowance? My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill made that point starkly when he talked about the pressure on Monklands Women’s Aid. There may be a misunderstanding, and if so I am sure that we would love to receive clarification.

The Minister appreciates that some women and, as I have said, some men are forced to leave their homes as a result of domestic violence and need not just a roof over their head but significant support. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth highlighted that.Like other hon. Members, I hope that the Minister will consider how to finesse the new system of local housing allowance to take account of those additional services. Otherwise, I fear for the long-term viability of women’s aid organisations that provide hostel accommodation.

I am echoing comments that other hon. Members have made when I say that some women who have left home may have little or no experience of budgeting, or may be in such a state that budgeting is the last thing on their minds. The direct payment of rent in those circumstances would benefit some people. I agree with the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye that, in principle, giving people the independence to pay their own rent is good practice. Indeed, we introduced that when in government, because it lessened some of the stigma effects—the “No DHSS here” signs and other such things—but we must be realistic and say that in some specific circumstances people would benefit from having their rent paid directly. I hope that the Minister will consider a range of exemptions, to allow those who want it and who feel that they need it at the time in question to access direct payment. I may be wrong, but I understand that the Minister, or the Department, is currently considering such exemptions. Perhaps she will be able to give us interesting news.

The Minister will be aware that on Monday a Delegated Legislation Committee debated the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Domestic Violence) (Amendment) Regulations 2012. The Government’s proposal to ease some of the JSA conditionality on those coping with domestic violence was unanimously accepted. We certainly welcome that decision, which implemented elements of the Welfare Reform Act 2009. Although there have been, as I said earlier, some robust Divisions on welfare reform provisions, the regulations in question were welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).

However, I want to ask for the Minister’s view on an issue on which the views were not unanimous: how welfare reform will affect the capacity of women’s aid organisations to seek housing for women. There are serious concerns about the effect of the change to the shared-room rate of local housing allowance under the Welfare Reform Act 2012 on victims of domestic abuse and the possibility that it will make it difficult for some women to move easily from hostels to independent accommodation. The fact that the age limit is being extended from 25 to 35 makes it difficult, particularly for women who have been used to an element of independence. Is the age of 33, given all the other things happening in the life of such a person, really the time—I should not say “you”, Dr McCrea, but in Scotland “you” is the vernacular for “one”—when you should think about going into shared accommodation, perhaps with strangers? There is concern about that; I have certainly picked it up from women’s aid organisations.

[Kate Green]

I agree that that is a concern, particularly for women who have had traumatic experiences of violence. They will be reluctant to move into shared accommodation with people—potentially men—they do not know. Is not the likely result therefore that some of them remain in the refuge, reluctant to leave, so that there will be a sort of bed-blocking situation? Then other women who need to flee to the refuge will not be able to do so.

[Mrs McGuire]

That is the general feedback that many hon. Members are getting from women’s aid organisations. The age of 35, for women in that situation, is perhaps inappropriate.

[Amber Rudd]

It would be interesting to see the evidence for that. I say that in all honesty, because the right hon. Lady’s argument is interesting, but for some women being in shared accommodation with other women in a refuge might be helpful. Shared support is important.

[Mrs McGuire]

That is a fair point, and it was the argument prosecuted by the Minister on Monday. However, it is one thing to offer women the choice to stay in accommodation with other people; for many women that would not be their choice. Although it is anecdotally-based, the view that that requirement might be an impediment to moving women into their own accommodation has a strong resonance in women’s aid organisations.

The regulations passed on Monday proved that the general can be finessed to the specific, and I hope that the Minister will discuss with her departmental colleagues whether some easement of the relevant aspect is possible, so that women, many of whom have been their own person for a long time, will not be forced into a particular choice, but offered a range of choices. Are we really going to say to those women that the only option for them at 33 or 34 is to share a flat with someone else—and not necessarily, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)pointed out—people they know?

Another element on which I wish to question the Minister is the way that the new universal credit regulations will work for those who have had to leave home because of domestic abuse. Universal credit is a household benefit, and a test of its responsiveness to individual circumstances will be how flexibly it enables one allocation to a household to be deconstructed when one partner leaves the household, often in traumatic circumstances. That is a question not just of the speed of response, but of how that will give the confidence that was spoken of earlier. I appreciate that the decision makers dealing with these issues might not deal with them daily, but we need some confidence that they will be able to respond quickly to those who need to establish a second claim for universal credit under the new regulations.

[Kate Green]

I want to ask about women who flee violence and do not go to a refuge, or who leave a refuge to set up their own home. Does my right hon. Friend agree that another concern about the welfare reforms is the uncertainty about the localising of the social fund? Many women fleeing domestic violence depend entirely on the social fund to set up their new homes. Does she agree that it would be useful if the Minister indicated what guidance will be issued to local authorities under the Welfare Reform Act 2012?

[Mrs McGuire]

That is a good point, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has slotted it in.

There is a question about how the social fund will be delivered to the devolved Administrations. Will it go directly to them or to local authorities? Will the devolved Administrations be the intermediaries? The reason why I highlight that in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill is that he has had bitter experience with an allocation of funding at a UK level for respite care for disabled children. As a proportion under the Barnett formula, it went to the Scottish Government, but then—I shall be generous—we could not quickly identify where the money went. It appeared to be wrapped up in other funding packages; it certainly did not appear to be delivered as my right hon. Friend’s Committee intended.

I will wind up with one or two general points. We have focused to a certain extent on the benefits side, but there are wider issues. Although I appreciate that the Minister does not have direct responsibility for those wider issues, I hope that she will take them on board in her discussions with her colleagues. It is fair to say that women’s support services feel that they are facing a precarious future out there, owing to the uncertainty of funding. It is widely recognised that domestic abuse accounts for between 16% and 25% of violent crime in this country. It is not disappearing. It is there, and our police forces are aware of it.

Cuts are being made to policing. We can debate how many and how much. Street lighting is under pressure, as are women’s support services, including refuges. All those factors affect the wider issue of women’s safety in this country. I hope that the Minister will allay some of our fears and give my right hon. Friend and me confidence that she understands the issues and is prepared to see how the Government, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, can respond.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

I am sure that we would all agree that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke)had a distinguished career before first coming to the House. He will be happy to know that we do not need birth certificates to be produced to agree with those comments by the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire).

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing this debate. We have worked together on numerous issues in recent years, and I know that his tenacity and commitment are second to none. I underline how important it is that we debate this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) said that it is an issue for both men and women, and the fact that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill secured this debate underlines that.

On behalf of everybody who has contributed to this debate, I pay tribute to all the organisations involved in supporting women, men and children facing the ordeal of domestic violence. I marvel at the work of the Basingstoke Rape and Sexual Abuse Crisis Centre in my constituency, which employs a dedicated group of people who bring a much-needed service to an important part of my constituency. I am sure that all hon. Members can look to similar organisations in their constituencies.

I am grateful for this timely opportunity to discuss how the welfare system supports and will support those affected by domestic violence. As hon. Members have mentioned, significant changes will take place as a result of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, particularly the introduction of universal credit. Domestic violence is a dreadful act of abuse, and the Government are absolutely determined to tackle it. There are many matters that I would like to discuss in response to the issues raised by hon. Members. I will try to address each in turn.

It is unacceptable that 7% of women and 5% of men reported having experienced domestic abuse in the past year. That is equivalent to around 1.2 million women and 800,000 men. The violence against women and girls action plan, launched in March 2011, was refreshed earlier this month and sets out numerous commitments that the Government have made across the board: to improve prevention, which my hon. Friends discussed in interventions; to challenge attitudes and behaviours by taking action early to ensure that the perpetrators of violence are brought to justice; to support victims of abuse in all its forms better by working with partners to reach out across communities; and to ensure that Government support is appropriately tailored to victims’ individual needs.

To pick up on the points made by my hon. Friends the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), it is absolutely right that prevention must be at the heart of our approach, as well as breaking the cycle that we as constituency MPs all too often see in action. We can do so by working with children, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West highlighted in her contribution.

I am mindful of hon. Members’ concerns about future funding for services that support victims of domestic violence. I hope that hon. Members will be content to hear that the Government constantly consider ways to strengthen protection for victims and that we have taken a different approach by ring-fencing nearly £40 million of stable funding up to 2015 for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services and rape crisis centres in England, as well as funding the national domestic violence and stalking helplines. It is the first time that funding has been ring-fenced on a stable basis for domestic and sexual violence victims, and I am clear that local authorities should view funding for services to support victims of domestic violence as essential.

The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill will also be aware that in Scotland, decisions on funding applications for projects that focus on tackling violence against women will be announced shortly by the Scottish Government. I am pleased, as are key partners such as Scottish Women’s Aid, that funding for violence against women, including victims of domestic abuse, will be maintained throughout the spending review period. I hope that he will welcome that as a concrete commitment.

The right hon. Gentleman’s main point involved housing benefit, but other Members discussed the broader issue of the benefits system, so I will address that first, hopefully providing some of the reassurance that hon. Members seek in these times of change. We heard from the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who spoke for the Opposition, about this week’s approval for proposed changes to jobseeker’s allowance regulations. That legislative change will now come into force on 23 April and allow victims of actual or threatened domestic violence who are in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance to be exempted from job-seeking conditions for a period of up to 13 weeks, provided that evidence from an appropriate representative can be produced and that other conditions are met. That will continue with the introduction of universal credit.

It is right that victims of domestic violence who claim JSA or are new to claiming it can spend some time focusing on stabilising their lives. As we have heard from hon. Members today, that is a challenging time for the individuals concerned, and they need time to get their lives and, where applicable, their children’s lives straight. It is also right that they can do so without having to demonstrate that they are actively seeking or available for employment, or face the threat of sanction. I hope that hon. Members will feel that that is a clear sign of the Government’s commitment.

A further sign of how seriously we take the issue is that alternative support remains available via the existing JSA domestic emergency exemption for victims who are either unable or perhaps unwilling to produce evidence. We have a twin-track approach, which is important to note.

While the easements that operate under JSA are, as I have explained, commendable, they are somewhat complex. That is why the Government are already taking steps to clarify them as we move forward with universal credit. That shows our clear commitment in the area, and I hope hon. Members will welcome that.

On the subject of today’s debate, housing benefit, some victims of domestic violence live in a hostel or a refuge. Currently, many, if not all, refuges have their rents met in full through housing benefit, which is usually paid directly to the hostel. Refuges are exempt from the local housing allowance, and residents have their housing benefit worked out using rules that recognise the additional costs that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) talked about in her intervention.

The Government consulted last year on changes to the way in which housing benefit meets the costs of people living in supported housing, such as refuges. Our consultation paper, “Housing benefit reform—Supported housing”, was published on 19 July 2011, and the consultation period ended on 9 October 2011. We are considering the responses to the consultation and intend to bring forward proposals as soon as possible for implementation in 2013. Let me clarify that we do not intend to change the way in which payments of housing benefit are made to people living in hostels or refuges. All tenants who live in the social rented sector, as well as those living in supported housing, normally have housing benefit paid directly to their landlords. That will continue until housing benefit no longer exists and is replaced by universal credit between 2013 and 2017.

[Mrs McGuire]

As well as the process of payment, will the calculations allow hostels to have a higher charge than that which would be commensurate with social housing in the area?

[Maria Miller]

There are a number of specific points, such as the one just made by the right hon. Lady, that I want to go into. I will deal with her point first.

We currently support around 170,000 claimants living in supported accommodation through housing benefit. They receive on average an extra £40 a week in housing benefit in recognition of extra costs. We expect higher payments for that sector to continue. I hope that the right hon. Lady feels that that starts to answer some of her points.

The right hon. Lady also asked several questions about how hostels will be treated under universal credit. Currently, we are considering how we will support housing costs for people in hostels under universal credit. Our consultation is helping to inform that, and we will involve stakeholders in the process before we issue regulations.

The right hon. Lady asked some important questions about people who are subject to the shared accommodation rate. I reassure her that the situation applies to a distinct group of individuals: those who are under 35, on their own, with no children, and moving into private sector accommodation. She is probably already aware that many exemptions are in place for vulnerable groups—for instance, those who receive the severe disability premium.

We have also introduced several further exemptions from this January—for example, for ex-residents of homeless hostels who have received help to resettle in the community. I reassure the right hon. Lady that if there are still individuals who, local authorities feel, require their own space, discretionary housing payments are also available, and they have been increased by some £130 million. That will allow local flexibility and discretion, which can make all the difference in such cases.

Employment Support

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement, but frankly it was a statement that she obviously did not want to give to this House in person. Let me give this advice to the Minister and to Government Members: even if the situation is difficult, it behoves a Minister to come to this House to explain it. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These exchanges have already been too noisy. The House must calm down. We cannot have a situation in which people trade insults across the Chamber, shouting out “Where is this one or that one?” Let us just cool the temperature and have a decent exchange. The House knows that I will want to facilitate such an exchange.

[Mrs McGuire]

It is fair to say that Remploy is not an ordinary organisation; it is one that has been part of Government’s provision for disabled people since the second world war. We all recognise, in all parts of the House, that it has had to adapt to changing conditions over the years, but there is no point in the Minister trying to hide behind the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain). My right hon. Friend came to this House and answered questions in this House, and he made some of the difficult decisions that we hoped would set Remploy on the road to success. Recently, however, there has been only one debate in this House on the future of Remploy, and that was held, thanks to the courtesy of the Backbench Business Committee, in Westminster Hall on 15 December. Today, the Government have tried to abrogate their responsibility as the custodian of the Remploy legacy and as the ultimate employer of the 1,752 people who today found out by written statement, or in some cases from telephone calls from Members of Parliament, that they will no longer be in a job in three months’ time.

Nobody in this House disagrees with the Minister when she says that disabled people want to have a choice about where they work. Nobody argues that such opportunities have not opened up over the past few years for many disabled people. However, many of the opportunities have been offered by organisations such as Remploy that give disabled people a real job in the jobs market. It was clear even from the Sayce review that the best factories offer job satisfaction, a supportive and accessible environment, and a reasonable income for their employees.

I will not run away from the fact that my Government, and I as a Minister, had to wrestle with the issues relating to Remploy. We cannot rewrite history. However, our position on disabled people in 2007 was astonishingly different from what the Minister has put before us today. If she truly believes in co-production, why was there no co-production with the trade unions, the disabled people who work in Remploy and the Remploy board over the past few months? I have the greatest admiration for Liz Sayce and for some of the work that she has done, but to put forward a closure programme that will potentially put 1,700 on the dole on the basis of a report by an individual is not acceptable.

We must recognise the legitimacy of the position of the mainstream of the disability movement, which is that it does not like supported factories or Remploy. However, that does not mean that it is wrong to support people in these factories. Perhaps the mainstream needs to recognise that Remploy offers a real job in a supported environment.

I will put some questions to the Minister before you call me to order, Mr Speaker. In opposition, the Conservative party supported the five-year modernisation plan, so why did the Minister embark on a review nearly two years before that timetable had been exhausted? Why are the Government pulling the funding from the next financial year, which leaves a period of only a few days? Was warning given to the Remploy board before the last couple of weeks that it would have to manage this speed of change and a massive redundancy programme over the next few weeks?

When the modernisation statement was made to the House in 2007, the now Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—[Interruption.] Please do not laugh if I pronounce “Ewell” wrong. I do not know how it is pronounced. He said at that time:

“Let me assure Remploy and its employees that the next Conservative Government will continue the process of identifying additional potential procurement opportunities for them and the public sector work force.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 451.]

What has the Minister done, now that the Conservative party is in office, to ensure that her ministerial colleagues fulfil that promise? What discussions has she had with the major procurement Departments, including the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence? Did she look at the procurement opportunities that her Department could have offered to Remploy? What discussions has she had with her colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage local authorities to consider opening up opportunities for their local factories? What efforts has she made to encourage her colleagues to identify procurement opportunities under article 19?

Given the Minister’s intention to embark on this course of action, how did she involve the board of Remploy and the trade unions in the discussions about the issues identified in the Sayce report? I am not talking about their responses to the consultation, but about what real co-production she was involved in. What recognition did she give to the trade union analysis of the current operation of Remploy’s enterprises and the questions that it raised about the company’s business practices?

There is a feeling around the House that the consultation was flawed from the beginning because the Minister said that she was

“minded to accept the recommendations of the Sayce review”.

A Government cannot start a consultation if they have already said they are minded to accept the recommendations.

By how much will the Minister reduce the subsidy to Remploy in the next financial year and the one after? She highlighted the fact that there may be options for the so-called stage 2 factories. What will those options be, and what criteria will she lay down for the transfer of any business and its associated assets to the open market?

The Minister says that the support that she will give to disabled people who are made redundant will last for up to 18 months and potentially be a personalised budget of £2,500. How is that £2,500 expected to meet the needs of many of the people in Remploy?

Where will the jobs come from? At the factory in Ashington, 35 people are chasing each job, and in Acton—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the shadow Minister that I know these are extremely important matters, but I feel sure that she is bringing her questions to a close. In fact, I am certain that she is in her last sentence.

[Mrs McGuire]

I am indeed, Mr Speaker.

I finish by saying to the Minister that in each constituency where there are factories at which redundancies will be made, there are tens of people chasing every job. She made a point about the increase in Access to Work, but that scheme requires jobs. Tonight, 1,700 people do not know whether they will have one in three months’ time.

[Maria Miller]

I am very happy to have come to the House today to discuss our proposals. [Interruption.] Communication is very important on this matter, and many Members have had many conversations with me about Remploy over the past two years. I have already laid a written statement and met many of the MPs affected. Indeed, I have spoken to the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who is not in his place.

We take staff communications very seriously indeed on a matter such as this. It is not right for the right hon. Member for Stirling to call into question the way in which it has been managed, because my colleagues at Remploy have put great effort into ensuring that disabled people employed by Remploy are well aware of today’s process. Indeed, we have worked closely together throughout the consultation process. As I have said, there were 1,400 submissions, including from disabled people, Opposition Members and staff at Remploy factories.

Most important of all, this Government decided when we came to office to take forward the modernisation plan that Labour Members had put in place. In these very difficult economic times, we could have taken a different decision, but we chose not to. We chose to stick with that plan and see how things progressed. I am afraid that in year four of the modernisation plan, it is clear that the objectives that Labour set out were simply not going to come to fruition and were not realistic. I think some Opposition Members will know that.

The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions, some of which I believe I may have answered in my statement, but I want to ensure that I have covered every point she made. The Remploy board has been fully informed of all the procedures that we have gone through and all the decisions that have been made, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken to his Opposition counterpart to ensure that he was well informed in advance of today. We ensured that the procurement commitments that Labour put in place were taken forward. In fact, we have been working with Remploy for the past two years to attempt to make the modernisation plan work, but we are where we are and these difficult decisions now needed to be taken.

There has been a great deal of discussion by Opposition Members about the number of jobs that are available to disabled people. I should like to put it on record that the employment services arm of Remploy has done a magnificent job of helping disabled people into work. I believe that many hon. Members will agree with that. Indeed, last year, Remploy’s employment services arm supported 20,000 disabled people throughout the country into work, with 2,000 individuals with disabilities in Wales and another 2,000 in Scotland helped into work. Those jobs are available if individuals can get the support and training to access them.

The decisions are not easy, but we are continuing a policy that the previous Administration started. When we came into government, we confirmed that we would continue that plan. The truth is that the Opposition would have had to make those decisions themselves.

We enlisted the help of experts to try to ensure that our decisions were right. Liz Sayce, in her role in Radar, brings to the matter an expertise that many hon. Members will acknowledge. Today, we are taking forward her recommendations, and I am afraid that I cannot understand the tone or the nature of the right hon. Lady’s remarks.

Labour Members should remember that many factories were closed on their watch, and perhaps they did not make the right decisions then. They would have had to face the same choices. Today’s discussion is not about money because, as Opposition Members know, the money and support for specialist disability employment is protected under the Government—£320 million plus an extra £15 million to ensure that the changes that we are making today will result in more disabled people in work, with more money to support them to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We also inherited a system with far too much in-work poverty. Our aim is to move as many people as possible through universal credit and into work, and to ensure that, through universal credit, they are better off. That is the key point. I have also made the point, however, that the idea of “poverty plus a pound”, by which we just rotate money between people to move them slightly above a particular level before they collapse back, is a mistake and led to poverty rising on the previous Government’s watch.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

A recent report by the Children’s Society indicates that there will be a sharp increase in the number of disabled children living in poverty when universal credit is introduced, as a result of the £1,400 a year reduction. All the statistics show that poverty disproportionately impacts on families with disabled children. Does the Secretary of State think that the current levels of support are too generous? If not, why do the Government continue with this very harsh proposal?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is my belief that universal credit will hugely help people in those situations, and the transitional protection for them will also protect those who move on to a slightly different level. My main point to the hon. Lady, who I know takes this very seriously—

[Mrs McGuire]

Right honourable.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I beg her pardon. I say to the right hon. Lady—quite rightly so and well deserved—that we are in the business of trying to secure life change through all these groups so that they can take control of their lives. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for disabled people is working to ensure that it is far easier than ever before for people to get into work and take control of their lives, and that is what most of the lobby wants us to do.

Welfare Reform Bill

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister has finished her remarks. We are grateful to her.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I will not follow the same order as the Minister. I will deal first with under-occupancy, because rarely have I heard such a pathetic defence of a Government’s position as I have heard here today. Their proposals are not based on fairness, and they are not intended to deal with the under-occupation of social housing. They are a bare-faced attempt to cut housing benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frank Roy]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

Since the Minister did not afford my hon. Friend much opportunity, I will give way to him.

[Mr Roy]

I thank my right hon. Friend. What would she say to the 55-year-old man I met on Saturday, who has lived in his council house with his parents for 43 years and is now on benefit? He was genuinely frightened about the proposals being put forward. What can we say to that particular gentleman?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

That the proposals are unfair and are an attempt to disadvantage those who are already disadvantaged in many respects. They, along with some of the other elements of the Bill, are about to hit the poorest people.

I want to put on record the fantastic work of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who is in her place. The Minister talks as though there were millions of houses out there ready for people to move into, but the Government do not know how many there are. They cannot even agree on what constitutes under-occupancy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs McGuire]

I will certainly not give way at the moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North asked Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government what constituted under-occupancy, and they said that it was two spare bedrooms, whereas the Department for Work and Pensions has a far more restrictive interpretation.

[Ms Buck]

We know from the Government’s own impact assessment that under-occupation is a problem particularly, but not exclusively, in the north of England, and that overcrowding is a problem particularly, but not exclusively, in the south. Local authorities have legal duties to their tenants, and if somebody from Salford is seeking to downsize, local authorities in Doncaster or Hull are not permitted to take them because of residency qualifications. Will my right hon. Friend help me to understand something that the Government have completely failed to explain? How will tenants be able to move from one local authority to another?

[Mrs McGuire]

Frankly, I do not think the Government know how. The DCLG and local authorities certainly do not know.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs McGuire]

I want to make a little progress, and I also intend to leave some time for other Members to contribute.

I shall give the House an illustration of what I have said, for which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell). Northumberland county council, which has a mixture of housing in various types of locality, has estimated that it will take eight long years before it can put in place the Government’s proposals. During that time, people on the housing list will not be able to get into housing that is suitable for them.

[Claire Perry]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

No, I am not going to take an intervention from the hon. Lady just now.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

I will take one from my hon. Friend.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Does not what we have heard highlight the Conservative party’s misunderstanding of how social housing operates in reality? As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said, we are talking about people’s homes. Even if they wanted to downsize, the housing stock is not there for them to move into.

[Mrs McGuire]

Exactly.

[Claire Perry]

rose—

[Mrs McGuire]

Oh, to put the hon. Lady out of her misery, I give way.

[Claire Perry]

I am most grateful. On a point of clarification, I thought I heard the right hon. Lady say that Members of this House continued to occupy social housing. Does she think it is appropriate for MPs earning £64,000 a year to occupy social housing and, presumably, have lifetime tenancy over it?

[Mrs McGuire]

The hon. Lady has a philosophical misunderstanding about people’s homes and houses. My mother lived in a local authority house all her life. She never thought it was anything other than her home. She did not see it as second class or inferior. She lived in it and it was right for her.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that successive Labour and Conservative Governments—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bob Russell]

Successive Labour and Conservative Governments from 1945 to 1980 built a massive supply of family council houses, but for the next 30 years, they did not. It is a question of supply and demand. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need more affordable rented houses?

[Mrs McGuire]

I would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Housing was built in the 1940s and ’50s to deal with the nuclear family that everybody knew at the time. The way in which families have developed, including the growth in the number of single-parent households, was not factored in. That goes for the social rented and private sectors.

[Maria Miller]

rose—

[Mrs McGuire]

The hon. Lady definitely is not getting in—certainly not at the moment.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) said that there are communities in all nations of this country—smaller communities, but sometimes larger ones—where there is an insufficient supply of houses, which is very true. People might have lived in them all their lives and would be unable physically to move.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. This problem is not isolated to Argyll and other island communities. In Scotland, 44% of social tenants need a one-bedroom house, yet only 24% can have one. That is the fundamental nature of the housing stock in the whole country.

[Mrs McGuire]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point.

[Maria Miller]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

All right then.

[Maria Miller]

I thank the right hon. Lady. It is very gracious of her to give way so that I can clarify matters. She will obviously be aware of the new national home swap scheme, which, importantly, will help people to identify housing in other areas, which is what she is talking about. We are also providing funding to councils of some £13 million over the next four years so that they can support under-occupying tenants who wish to move.

The right hon. Lady will also know that there is a great deal of commitment from the Government in terms of helping to build affordable housing: some £4.5 billion will help to deliver up to 170,000 new affordable homes. Those are all ways in which we can make the sort of changes that she wants. Just to clarify, as a lady who was born in a council house—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This really is an abuse. It is a novelty, in my experience, for a Minister to intervene from the Front Bench reading from a folder. That really will not do. Interventions should be brief, and it would be good if the House—both sides—could get back into the courteous mood in which it found itself yesterday and for part of today.

[Mrs McGuire]

I listened to what the hon. Lady said, but she has obviously had no experience of trying to arrange a mutual swap in a small local authority area. We will have not only mutual swaps in small local authority areas, but national swaps, all supported by some anonymous Government agency. Frankly, the hon. Lady is living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Mr Watts]

Will my right hon. Friend encourage people to consider judicial review, because they are being asked to move to smaller accommodation that does not exist, on which basis the Bill is a fine on benefits and a fine on some of the poorest people in Britain?

[Mrs McGuire]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point and no doubt he will pursue it outside this House.

Before I move on, I want the House to hear what Lord Freud said in the other place when asked about how people would cover the reduction in rent. The Minister glibly passed over it, saying that it was only £12 or £14 on average. Lord Freud said:

“Claimants affected by this measure will have to decide whether to meet any shortfall themselves—from their earnings for example, or they could take in a lodger, or someone they know, to fill the extra bedrooms.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. GC72.]

How many times does the Government expect people to take lodgers into their family home? Will social landlords even allow lodgers to be taken in, because in my experience they do not allow it? I see the Liberal Democrats are nodding. Ministers also need to make it clear whether rent received in such circumstances would be taken into account in benefit calculations. They are putting people in an unbelievable bind.

This proposal is ill thought-out and will not achieve its aims. It is predicated on an assumption in the impact assessment that will not work. It will push the poorest people, including those who are working—we should not forget that this is an in-work benefit—into even greater disadvantage. It will force social landlords to take eviction action if people end up in arrears. In other words, it is a disaster of a policy, and we should support the Lords in these amendments.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As well as the socially disastrous consequences that my right hon. Friend has mentioned, does she recognise that under the parity principle this measure would have to be transposed to Northern Ireland? Particular difficulties will be caused in relation to access to social housing in the future and to the demands for new social houses that are benefit-sized to be built in particular locations. Given the geo-sectarian tensions in parts of Northern Ireland, it could be a factor for destabilisation, with certain communities being seen to be punished for their current demographic status.

[Mrs McGuire]

My hon. Friend has highlighted exactly why this particular proposal has been ill thought-out.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

No, I do not want to take up as much time as the Minister. I shall move on to the Child Support Agency—

[Anna Soubry]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

I have made it perfectly clear that I am not giving way: I am moving on to the subject of the CSA.

The Government should never have brought forward this proposal, although I welcome the Minister’s statement today that they have reduced the fee. Why they put everybody through the anxiety of putting a fee—

[Anna Soubry]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs McGuire]

I have not really said anything about the CSA yet, so if the hon. Lady could just be patient—

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me just make it clear. It is obvious that the shadow Minister is not giving way at the moment. On the Government side, during my time in the Chair since 5.30, there was a preference—on the whole—not to give way to Opposition Members and that is now being replicated by the right hon. Lady. Members may make what they like of that, but there is nothing disorderly about it. It is no good people yelling from a sedentary position to express their frustrations. They must try to contain those frustrations, which I notice the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) is now successfully doing.

[Mrs McGuire]

Thank you for your wise words, Mr Speaker.

We welcome the reduction that the Minister announced today, and for the record, we welcomed in the other place the additional funding of £20 million that was going to be put in to encourage—

[Anna Soubry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you help me? If a Member asks a question of the whole House, how does one respond to that question other than by asking that Member to give way?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is asking me to speculate about a hypothetical. We could probably have a seminar about the matter, and it might be instructive. There could be a time for that, but it is not now. I feel sure that the hon. Lady has raised not a point of order, but a point of disappointment.

[Mrs McGuire]

I always hate to disappoint Tories, Mr Speaker.

The Minister mentioned some concessions, but it remains an unfair imposition on parents with caring responsibilities to make them pay a fee to obtain, in her words, a calculation of what they may be entitled to. The Government are always keen to say that people should do the right thing, but what happens when they try to do the right thing and adopt a collaborative approach? Frankly, all the evidence shows that a collaborative approach is often the last thing that people can get when a marriage breaks down—all sorts of issues to do with personalities, emotions and children being part of the bartering process between two parents make that almost impossible.