Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Evans Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

In “A Christmas Carol”, published 180 years ago, Charles Dickens wrote of a world where children lacked shelter, clothing, heating and food. They were represented by a boy called Ignorance and a girl called Want. Dickens died in 1870 and we live in the sixth-largest economy in the world, so why, in 2022, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, did 1 million children experience the type of destitution he chronicled long ago? We have heard the Minister quote figures and programmes, and launch attacks on previous Governments, but simply, as a human, would he not agree that just one child living in destitution is one child too many?

[Mel Stride]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that one child in destitution is one too many. One person in poverty is one too many. One person who is unemployed and badly wants a job to support their family is one too many. The question we have to ask is how best to go about improving those situations. I say it is through encouraging people into work and through those cost of living transfer payments for those targeted through universal credit, which his party originally opposed, so that we can help those who are most vulnerable and most in need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Evans Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I regularly meet Ministers from DFE and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that we are doing exactly that. Work includes figuring out how claimants can be supported to gain those key skills and to pivot into those sectors where there are vacancies as the economy recovers. Jobcentres work with their local training providers to ensure that a range of courses is available to help claimants to find that new opportunity or some better-paid work.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

When she plans to publish the findings of the Government’s review announced in July 2019 of how the welfare system supports people who are terminally ill.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

When she plans to publish the findings of the Government’s review announced in July 2019 of how the welfare system supports people who are terminally ill.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)]

The evaluation remains a priority for the Department. We have made good progress and expect to be able to provide an update on the outcome of the evaluation shortly.

[Chris Evans]

Motor neurone disease is an utterly wicked, terrible disease. Those who have it are locked in and see their bodies waste away, while their families watch their loved ones slowly slide away. However, only 50% of those people diagnosed with motor neurone disease can claim under the personal independence payment special rules—about which the Minister knows—because of the six-month life expectancy rule; the others have to go through the standard procedures, which can lead to delays. The Department launched a terminal illness review more than a year ago. The Minister has it in his gift to change the rules and ensure that all people with motor neurone disease are allowed to claim under the PIP special rules. On behalf of all those families who are suffering—it is only a small number—I ask him: will he make that change today?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Member for setting out powerfully the torment and challenges that MND sufferers face; he has been a champion of their cause in Parliament. I am grateful for the part that the Motor Neurone Disease Association, Hospice UK, Macmillan, Marie Curie, Sue Ryder, the national nurse consultant group and others have played in the evaluation. The Secretary of State and I are passionate about making changes: it will not be the status quo. Covid-19 caused a delay to the final part of the consultation with the medical professionals, but we will bring forward a change shortly.

Draft Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017

Chris Evans Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 General Committees

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I did not intend to speak today, but I started thinking about losing my father in my mid-20s. Even though I was a grown man at the time, it took me a long period to overcome that loss.

I think of the young children who tonight may have lost a parent, and how devastating that must be for their family. Suddenly the mother or father has to provide parental care and also meet the emotional needs of that child. We debate and talk about bereavement support payments, but to the Department, it might be an accountancy exercise or a measure that will save hundreds of millions, as we have been told in Committee. Tonight we have to think before we vote. I ask Government Members to think about how they would have felt when they were 10 years of age if they came home to find that their father was not coming home, or that they would never see their mother again. These are real issues that people have to face when they are bereaved.

The Minister has said that the legislation is old and came in during a different period, when women were reliant on their fathers and partners. I agree with the Minister that thankfully that is not the case any more, but what is lacking is an understanding of what comes with bereavement. The world feels as though it is spinning at 100 miles an hour, and you just want to get off that carousel. The world has stopped. There is so much to think about. What deeply concerns me is that we are reducing the payment from 20 years to 18 months. For so many families, that will be devastating. Some 75% of widowed parents will be worse off. I always quote figures—we all do—but for those 75%, this is the most important thing in the world. When someone needs support, they need to know that financial support is there.

The Government have said that the measure is not a cost-saving exercise, but we cannot overcome the fact that £100 million a year will be saved. Politicians and parliamentarians of whatever party should support the most vulnerable in society, and there is nobody more vulnerable than somebody who has just lost a parent.

The BSP will not automatically be uprated in line with inflation. Over time, its value for families will be cut in real terms because the cost of childcare and other expenses always go up. It costs more to bury someone than it did 30 years ago. The average cost of clothes and food keep going up. We hear all the time about people who are just about managing, even though the Prime Minister has said that she does not like that phrase any more. When someone is bereaved, they are not just about managing; they are struggling to cope. I ask the Minister to look again at this policy, to look at adding to the list of benefits, to have an annual review, and to uprate the payment in line with inflation. I understand that she wants to cut the period from 20 years to 18 months, but she should ensure that the link is not broken, because so many families are depending on this.

Access to Jobs: Disabled People

Chris Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian C. Lucas]

I have no doubt that they can be, but I am afraid they are not happening.

The 2014 labour force survey recognised that,

“disabled people remain significantly less likely to be in employment than non-disabled people.”

There is a 30.1% gap between levels of employment for disabled people and non-disabled people. I welcome any efforts to find internships and support individuals into work, which is what we all want. Margaret was in work when the Government decided to close Remploy factories, and we were told at the time that they would support those disabled people into jobs in the mainstream. When Remploy in Wrexham was closed and Margaret was put out of work, we received all sorts of assurances about how disabled employees would be helped into the mainstream jobs market.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I lost a Remploy factory in Croespenmaen in my constituency, and the Welsh Government Minister at the time offered to take on the Remploy factories on the proviso that the Westminster Government devolve the Remploy budget to the Welsh Assembly. Does my hon. Friend think it is an absolute shame that, rather than looking at that proposal properly, the Westminster Government flatly said no to those Remploy workers?

[Ian C. Lucas]

It is a matter of profound regret that the Welsh Government’s helpful offer to take over responsibility for the Remploy factories in Wales was not taken up. Their constructive effort to address this issue was rejected out of hand. Consequently, the 35 or so people in Wrexham who would have been in work if the Welsh Government had taken on the responsibility for ensuring that the factories remained viable lost their jobs, and Margaret has remained out of work ever since.

Margaret is not alone. I am grateful to the large number of organisations that are interested in the fact that I secured this debate and forwarded me numerous briefings, all of which I have read. Time does not allow me to refer to them in detail, but Mencap said:

“Current back-to-work support for disabled people has proved ineffective. Job outcomes for disabled people on the Work Programme are low at only 8.7 percent”—

nine people out of 100—

“for new ESA claimants, and 4.3 percent for other ESA/Incapacity Benefit customers.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) on securing this timely debate. Like him, whenever I think of Remploy, and particularly its Croespenmaen factory in my constituency, I feel anger, because I remember standing in the factory canteen on the day when it was announced that the Remploy factories were going to be closed. Some people were in tears and many were angry, begging me to save their jobs, but there was nothing I could do. That was one of my worst days as a Member of Parliament.

When that factory was under threat in 2007, the Remploy workers and the management did not sit back and protest. They went out and found business in the market. Indeed, one of the last acts of my predecessor, Lord Touhig, in 2010 was overseeing the signing of a contract between the blue chip company BAE Systems and Remploy to provide packaging.

What made me even more angry during that period was not only all the hard work that had gone to waste, but, as I mentioned in my intervention, what happened when the Welsh Assembly asked whether the Westminster Government would consider devolving the budgets so that it could provide a future for Remploy. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister gave a commitment to look at it. Unfortunately, the question was met by the Department with a big fat “no”.

The comment by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions at the time that Remploy workers were only good to make a cup of coffee rubbed salt into the wounds and was absolutely damning. I try to hold back my anger when I think of comments like that. There was never an apology, and I am ashamed to say that that man is still in post.

I will, however, say this: there is nothing that can be done about Remploy now. It is no good looking back to the past. Those factories are gone. The workers unfortunately do not have a job, as in the case of Margaret, who my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham spoke of. She has no future and is parked, like many of my constituents who worked in Remploy on employment and support allowance.

The worst thing is that, according to the solicitors firm Leigh Day, one in five people who have disabilities and find themselves in work still believe they are under pressure and under duress, and are fearful of announcing that they have some sort of disability. People who have short-term disabilities, such as those who have been diagnosed with Crohn’s or colitis, find themselves in disabling situations where they cannot work and find it difficult to come back to work. They rely on understanding employers, but many of them do not have that. Many of them find themselves out of work because of that.

I always want to give the Minister some suggestions, as the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) did; he made a very good speech and spoke from the heart, with great knowledge as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. I think the Minister knows what I am about to say, as I have said it to him on a number of occasions until I am blue in the face: the main tool for getting people back into work—Jobcentre Plus—is not fit for purpose. I am basing that not on anecdotal evidence but on the fact that 80% of people who gain a job through Jobcentre Plus are back out of work in six months. The fact is that statistical evidence shows that the most effective systems are not provided through Jobcentre Plus but based in the community. A job club or a training scheme based in a local library or supermarket is more effective.

Anybody who has ever had to walk into a jobcentre will know that it is akin to walking through Pentonville prison. There is a security guard on the doorstep. The seats are screwed into the floor. If someone is not there on time, the adviser will sanction them. They are not good places to look for jobs. What jobcentres are essentially doing when they sanction people is reaching at the most vulnerable. Those who are stuck in the system are being pushed further into it, and they are not being provided with the help and support they need. I have said over and over again that it does not matter how many schemes we have.

[Richard Graham]

Has the hon. Gentleman had the experience I have had of a really good Access to Work programme provider—in my case, Pluss, which has had considerable success in helping people with disabilities back into work? Does he agree that one thing we might do is put together some films of agencies and businesses that have had real success, so that we can show them in Parliament and spread the word about some of the great success stories, to encourage other employers to do more?

[Chris Evans]

I have come across Pluss. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I was once the unsuccessful candidate in the constituency of Cheltenham, right next door to his constituency. The work that Pluss does is absolutely fantastic, and I agree that we need to do more inside and outside Parliament to promote such training organisations.

The point I was coming to, which ties in well with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, is that since the 1970s we have had 43 schemes in this country, introduced by Governments of all colours, and all of them have failed. Long-term unemployment is still stubbornly high, particularly for young people and those with disabilities. We now have to think outside the box. We can rebrand all our schemes—whether it is the youth training scheme, employment training, the new deal or even the Work programme—but they are not getting the outcomes we want.

I expect the Minister to defend Jobcentre Plus, which is a Government scheme; that is his right, but I want him to give people some hope that we will start thinking outside the box more.

Child Poverty

Chris Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing this timely debate. I enjoyed listening to the contributions of the hon. Members for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). The passion that has been shown on this subject shows that Scotland and Northern Ireland are well served by those Members. I feel sorry for the Minister, as he is surrounded by the Celtic fringe, somewhat.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)]

What about Manchester?

[Chris Evans]

We will let you get away with that.

Child poverty is an age-old problem. Writers such as Charles Dickens, in the 19th century, J.B. Priestley, whose “An Inspector Calls” was recently adapted by the BBC, and the great socialist George Orwell have all chronicled poverty and its effects throughout the years. Yet however much great literary works and great authors have covered the scourge of poverty in all its forms, the problem has still not been solved.

Poverty at its extreme affects the two most vulnerable groups of people in society, the very old, who often have to make the choice between heating and eating, and the very young. We have heard many statistics, but for so many people across the country, in constituencies we have already heard from, in Scotland, in the north—including Manchester—and in Wales, poverty is a way of life. Extreme poverty means young people go to school hungry, not having been able to eat breakfast that morning. They do not have the equipment they need to gain the skills to succeed. Very often, they will return to substandard accommodation that is damp, and they will become ill. They have failed before they have even begun.

The sad fact is that, despite all the campaigns throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, poverty still comes down to one thing: someone born into poverty will probably die in poverty. As in the time of the great writers I mentioned, the challenge for society is to end poverty in all its forms.

I do not believe that people become politicians—come to the House of Commons or, indeed, go into Government—to oversee an increase in poverty, but that is what we have seen from this Government. If we look at the figures after housing costs have been taken into account, over 27% of children in my south Wales constituency are living in poverty. Across Wales, one fifth of all children grow up poor. In the UK—the fifth richest country in the world—more than 4 million children are living in poverty. None of their parents wants things to stay the same; they want to provide more for their families. Not one of them does not want to escape the tiring, punishing reality of being poor.

It is no good, however, simply setting out the challenge we face, which other Members have eloquently described. Anyone who cares about our country’s future and our constituents’ lives must now seek solutions, because it falls to this generation to eliminate poverty in all its forms.

The problem cannot be solved by simply throwing more money at it. That has been tried, and we still see poverty on a scale we cannot imagine. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report “What will it take to end child poverty?” stated:

“Ending child poverty is only partly about transferring money to poor households. A long-term solution must involve much more, tackling the root causes of poverty and in particular giving families opportunities that help them gain greater control of their own lives.”

We can do that only if people work. We can have all the Government schemes we want, but the best way to end poverty is to have working households. While people are stuck—dependent on the welfare system—they will never have control over their own destiny or the ability to break their family out of poverty. They will suffer poverty of money and, yes, poverty of ambition.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation states that truly tackling child poverty will require us to provide considerable personal support to people who are likely to face a combination of disadvantages in terms of entering the labour market. We can overcome those disadvantages, but only with targeted, personalised and localised support. That cannot be done just through existing public sector structures. Instead, there needs to be a partnership between public bodies, private bodies and, above all, local communities. We must harness the financial power of the Government, the innovation of the private sector and people’s knowledge of their own lives and communities—the people who know what is best for communities are those who live in them. We must put in place strategies that reach the poorest, the hardest to help and the most disadvantaged.

The last Labour Government made great strides with a public sector approach, but the world has moved on. The challenges in 2015 are not the same as they were in 1997.

[Drew Hendry]

Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s wise words about tackling the issue on a longer-term basis using a real plan, which I absolutely subscribe to, does he agree that the actions taken by this Government in the short term do nothing to help those who are already working, but who are below the poverty threshold, and nothing to achieve the long-term ambitions we should all share?

[Chris Evans]

I agree. The hon. Gentleman used the phrase “short term”, and the problem with this Government’s approach from the beginning is that there has been too much short-term thinking. The problem in politics may be that we think from one election to the next and do not plan for the long term. I believe that poverty is at its highest level at the moment because people are too fixated on the stereotypes perpetuated by the press—the idea that someone finds themselves on benefits not because they have fallen on hard times, but because they are some sort of scrounger. We must end that stereotype if we are to move on. That is where the long term comes in.

Child poverty will be solved only by a Government who are firmly focused on the issue in the long term. The distinction between the public, private and third sectors must be broken down. In the pursuit of a country where no child is born poor, there can be no qualms about harnessing the best of private enterprise and the best of social action. In practice, that will mean contracting diverse providers from charities to recruitment companies and agencies to deliver employment support. It will mean private companies showing the social responsibility we have always talked about and working with people who face severe disadvantages in terms of entering the labour market to put in place individual strategies to overcome those problems. It will mean families who are stuck in poverty receiving one-on-one support that is tailored to their needs from any willing provider who can provide the best support.

The one-size-fits-all model of Jobcentre Plus and the welfare system has comprehensively failed, to the extent that Ofsted found that Jobcentre schemes have a success rate of less than 1%. Rather than pursue that model, the Government should work with any company or organisation that can help. No stone should be left unturned. This is not about taking an ideological approach and saying the public sector is always right or the private sector is always better. This is not about left or right, or about Welsh, English Scottish or Irish; this is about doing what works to end child poverty.

The people trapped in the punishing reality of being poor will not care where the support comes from, as long as it works. However, it must be part of a new contract with them. The Government will work with anyone who can provide support, but individuals must take responsibility; they must accept that if the country is there for their family, they must be as well. It must be Britain’s moral mission to end child poverty, but all the support we can provide will not be enough if people do not take responsibility. They cannot be allowed to see welfare as a way of life, to be the worst possible example to their children and to sustain the culture we see in far too many communities where joblessness is the norm. The deal must be: “We will help you, and you will get the support you need, but, in return, you have to work, to provide for your family and to be responsible for your spending.” That is how we end child poverty and lock in a country where no child is born poor. Without ensuring personal responsibility, any action we take to help the poorest children will be reversed, and we will never break the poverty of ambition that traps poor children into a life of poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)]

I congratulate the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), on her promotion. She is widely respected and it is well deserved; I wish her the best of luck in her new role.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing this important debate. There have been several excellent speeches from right across the Chamber, and I will do my best to cover as many of the points made as I can. I am also grateful that I have slightly longer than four minutes to speak—which was how long I had to respond to the last debate I had here in Westminster Hall.

There is clearly a lot of passion and real determination among hon. Members. We disagree on how the aim should be achieved, but I think there is a shared consensus that more needs to be done and that this issue is incredibly important. I speak as an individual who went to a school at the bottom of the league tables, back in my home town. My father passed away at an early age. I absolutely understand the importance of this issue, and I stress that I think we all share that determination, even if we perhaps see different ways to achieve that aim.

Before I focus on the UK, I will pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). I was very proud to serve as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global education for all. I was the warm-up act before the former Prime Minister stepped in and significantly increased the group’s profile, but I did that role for about 18 months, and I was very proud to do so.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on his speech. I have contributed in a number of debates in which he has spoken, and I am always impressed with his pragmatic, proactive approach. I absolutely echo his points about needing to look at local, individual solutions. That does him real credit; he is easily one of the most articulate speakers, and I was pleased that he was able to sneak in with his speech.

Our Government are committed to working to eliminate child poverty and improving children’s life chances. Our new approach is focused on transforming lives through tackling the root causes of child poverty, rather than through just focusing on the symptoms. Our new life chances measures will drive real action on work and education which will make the biggest difference to disadvantaged children now and in the future. That is crucial. The point was raised that too often, all Governments in the past have looked at short-term solutions, and the reality is that to break the cycle, there have to be long-term, sustainable solutions. We are taking action and looking at family breakdown, problem debt, addiction and ways to transform lives to ensure that all children get the best start in life, regardless of the circumstances that they find themselves in.

On work and poverty, the Government believe that work is the best route out of poverty. Children in workless families are around three times as likely to be in poverty as those in which at least one parent works. The “Child poverty transitions” report published in June found that nearly three quarters of poor workless families who found full-time employment escaped poverty. The report also found that the highest poverty exit rate—75%—was for children living in families who went from part-time to full-time employment. By 2010, after over a decade of welfare spending increases, one in five households had nobody in work. Frankly, that was shameful.

[Chris Evans]

Last July, I had a Westminster Hall debate in which I talked about what I felt was the ineffectiveness of Jobcentre Plus. Will the Minister accept that there is a serious problem with Jobcentre Plus actually getting long-term unemployed people back into work? What usually happens is that people find jobs through it, and within eight months, they are back on welfare benefits and out of work. What does the Minister believe is the cure for that problem?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. That is a fair point. At the moment, we are seeing about 1% a month coming off the ESA benefit. It is a poor success rate and we would expect far better. In his speech, the hon. Gentleman was bang on, in that we need to have localised individual responses. We need better support and to have more businesses signing up to provide those opportunities. We are looking to reform that and are in consultation. I spent much of the summer with my Minister for Disabled People hat on, doing visits and looking at the best ways that that can be done in the changes. Given the record of 1% a month coming off that benefit, and with people often then slipping back in, it is incredibly important to address that looping effect.

The wider issue is a tragedy for each and every family, because families in which no one works lose their sense of self-worth.

Jobcentre Plus

Chris Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reform of Jobcentre Plus.

It is once again an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. It is good to see you back in your place. This is the first time we have been in a debate together since you were re-elected, on which I congratulate you.

Since the early 1970s, we have tried 34 different schemes in an effort to get long-term and young unemployed people back to work, at a cost to the country of more than £13 billion. Each scheme has had varying results, but in the main has failed. Welfare dependency and long-term joblessness continue to scar our society. That is not just a failure of policy, but a moral failure. Joblessness damages families for generations. It sets people and groups against each other. It divides people into tribes with no common purpose. William Beveridge said:

“Unemployment is like a headache or a high temperature—unpleasant and exhausting but not carrying in itself any explanation of its cause.”

From the youth training scheme to the new deal for young people, and now the Work programme, multiple schemes have not tackled the causes of unemployment. Long-term joblessness remains stubbornly high, at over 32% of the unemployment rate. No real effort has been made to reverse decades of long-term unemployment or welfare dependency. Our attitude, across this House, needs to change. We cannot accept that long-term unemployment is here to stay or that people will waste their lives on welfare. People should never accept that they will have to lower their ambitions to go into low-paid, insecure jobs. Our welfare system has to be a ladder to success, not a way of life. It is not attitudes that must be shifted; we can deliver change only if the right processes are in place.

The first port of call for any jobseeker is Jobcentre Plus. Jobcentre Plus should exist to get people back into work. Despite claims over the weekend that Jobcentre Plus has helped 100,000 people into work, it still has a record of failure. Policy Exchange research, as outlined in its report “Joined Up Welfare: The next steps for personalisation”, found that only 36% of JSA claimants found a job within six months of claiming benefits and kept it over a seven to eight-month period. Others did not find employment or cycled in and out of work. Only one in five people sent to colleges to increase their vocational training ended up in employment. That research is underlined by Ofsted, which found that in some examples the success rate of Jobcentre Plus schemes is as low as 1%.

The Policy Exchange report identified the root causes of the problem, which is that the design of our employment services has two main issues: the signposting of services does not occur from identifiable points and the delivery of services is nowhere near specialised enough. Policy Exchange could not have been clearer:

“The dominance of Jobcentre Plus on employment support services prevents the development of more specialist providers and personalised welfare services.”

Policy Exchange concluded that Jobcentre Plus is not fit for purpose. Given my experience as a constituency MP over the past five years, I tend to agree. It does not reflect the modern job market, where employees no longer stay in the same job for life—it is more like less than a decade, and falling. It also does not reflect globalisation, whereby people have multiple careers in their lifetime. It is not suited to supporting, helping and retraining people, as necessary.

If someone were to ask for help now, Jobcentre Plus would direct them to the Universal Jobmatch site. The good jobcentres would offer to help people with their CV, but in effect someone would have to wait for six months before a jobcentre really started to help them. Jobcentres are not even attractive places to visit. For far too many people, they are the places they go to be sanctioned; furniture is nailed to the floor and there is a security guard at the front door. Beyond that, the system’s one-size-fits-all model does not reflect the individual needs of jobseekers or understand what employers are looking for.

The situation is even worse for young people. We all know the stories about the Work programme, whereby people with degrees were forced to leave volunteering programmes that would help their future to work in jobs that would not. Some progress has been made, especially in south-east Wales with the work coach delivery model, which provides a single “work coach” for a jobseeker’s entire period of unemployment. However, it seems that much of this activity is too little, too late. Even now, people are getting just a maximum of 20 minutes with a single person—20 minutes to help someone to begin a life-changing process. It is all part of another attempt to make a broken system function just a little bit better.

It is time to change the entire system. Doing anything less would mean that long-term unemployment was not being tackled, and we would create yet another generation of people dependent on welfare. That would fail not only the young people who cannot get a job, their families who often have to support them and the long-term unemployed who are stuck on welfare and want nothing more than to work; it would fail our entire country.

The Prince’s Trust calculates that the cost of youth unemployment to the nation is £10 million a day. To put that into context, that amounts to more each year than the combined budgets for the Cabinet Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Change will cause pain in many areas, but the decisions that secure long-term, sustainable employment for everyone in our country are worth the short-term hurt that would be caused. It will require a generational effort, but we must start now. The first stage is to abolish Jobcentre Plus.

Jobcentre Plus must be replaced with an agency that exists to contract charities and private recruitment companies to provide a service based firmly in the communities of the long-term unemployed. That service would ensure that there is localised, individualised and specialist support for jobseekers, delivered by groups with a proven track record of success in their locality.

As the Policy Exchange report identified, it would be more effective for funding to flow to different providers, following the individual jobseeker to the service provider best able to get them into work, rather than funding remaining static in one organisation, as it is now with Jobcentre Plus. If someone loses their job on Friday, they should expect to have a personalised discussion with a jobsearch expert by Monday about what employers in the area are looking for, what they want to achieve, what barriers are stopping them from achieving their goal and how they can get the skills that they need and that employers want.

The providers must work hand in hand with local employers. They must know the skills that employers need, the jobs that need to be filled and how candidates can be successful. Once these things have been identified, the local providers should work with jobseekers to get them the skills that employers want, rather than forcing them into jobs through sanctions.

This is not a matter of right versus left; it is simply a matter of following what works. The OECD’s 2010 report, “Off to a Good Start”, found that countries such as Australia, which have moved from a “work first” approach to a “train/learn first” approach, achieved much greater progress in helping people out of work into sustainable, long-term employment. The same report highlighted that

“A move towards early and selective intervention…helps to avoid the build-up of a large pool of youth at risk of becoming long-term unemployed”.

It is by partnering with the people providing jobs, determining what they need and then delivering it that we will tackle long-term unemployment.

A similar model has worked before. In the 1960s, Bobby Kennedy, the New York Senator and presidential candidate, pioneered a community development corporation in Bedford-Stuyvesant, in Brooklyn. That organisation succeeded in turning Bedford-Stuyvesant from one of the poorest areas of New York into one of the most desirable places to live in New York. The CDC is a not-for-profit, community-based corporation that is free from central Government control. It provides a localised and personalised service, and supplements employment programmes with economic development activities and community development. It is driven by a board made up of established local business leaders, charities and—most importantly—local residents, who are brought together in partnership by government to harness the best of private enterprise and the best of social action, with the clear aim of creating and expanding locally owned businesses, and providing residents with the training they need to work in those companies.

The CDC designates each local entrepreneur with a single contract person, who is given full responsibility for helping them to establish and grow their new business, creating growth, jobs and prosperity for the entire community. The CDC contract-holder provides a range of services, including providing guidance in gaining funding, negotiating with banks, finding the best location, and selecting the right equipment, staff and resources. In effect, it provides the services that an entrepreneur needs to start their company and make it a success.

Once the company opens its doors, the CDC increases its efforts. It will be the responsibility of the contract-holder to make that company a success, so that it adds to the economic prosperity of the community. These new companies will be good for communities and for reducing unemployment. The CDCs will support entrepreneurs and help to grow companies, which will create new employment opportunities.

The CDC model has worked before, but it must be updated for the modern world. Employment service providers must bring about a system targeted purely at need and demand. We should use this form of partnership and competition to deliver the jobs that we need for the future.

However, as with all things, there is an elephant in the room. Anyone who has worked in business—especially in small and medium-sized enterprises, as I did in my days at a bookmaker—knows that taking on a new employee is a risk, especially one who has been long-term unemployed. I can understand why firms often choose not to do so. That is where the Government must step in and encourage companies to employ the long-term unemployed. The Government are large enough to take the risk away from companies. We can give employers tax breaks for taking on the long-term unemployed. Yes, there will be a cost, but doing nothing has a greater cost; there is a greater cost in allowing joblessness and welfare dependency to continue.

That is why we must be clear to people. The Government will play their part, creating the new jobs and helping the jobless to get the skills they need to fill them, but jobseekers must play their part as well. As the philosopher John Rawls has said, in a just society

“all citizens are to do their part in society’s co-operative work.”

For me, that means that no-one can be allowed to have a life on welfare. I support the Government’s welfare cap—work must always pay more than benefits. However, for far too long sanctions on jobseekers have had exactly the opposite effect to the one we want. Often through no fault of their own, and in many cases because of the faults of Jobcentre Plus, people are being sanctioned, which traps them in a cycle where they cannot find work and cannot receive the support they need.

In the last Parliament, a Work and Pensions Committee report, “Benefit sanctions policy beyond the Oakley review”, found that at present the sanctions regime does not achieve its aims, and that often all sanctions achieve is harming vulnerable people and causing financial hardship, further trapping the jobless in welfare dependency.

The solution illustrates how, more than any other problem, the issue can be solved only by using both the left and the right. The Policy Exchange report called for the creation of “citizen support centres”, operating separately but alongside employment support providers. These centres would act as the primary and central hub for accessing Government services, including all benefits. That would make the process of receiving payments distinct from receiving help into work.

However, that is not enough. What is also needed was identified in the Institute for Public Policy Research report, “It’s All About You: Citizen-centred welfare”, and it is welfare responsibility contracts. They are legally binding contracts between jobseekers and the Government that outline in plain terms what is expected of jobseekers, what sanctions they will face if they do not fulfil their obligations, the Government’s responsibility to them and the responsibility that they have to the Government and society.

I will end by restating a simple fact. This issue is not about Labour or Tory; it is not about left versus right; and it is not about political advantage. It is about doing what works. In the past 40 years, welfare dependency has been allowed to become a way of life in many of our communities. Joblessness has become the norm for too many families. Low pay, insecure jobs and the lack of a future have been allowed to become part and parcel of people’s lives. Poverty of money and ambition are all too often just facts of life now. No Government of any hue have managed to solve this. Simply put, we have failed our country and our constituents. We have tried the same thing over and over: ineffective training programmes, irrelevant to the real needs of business; sanctions for those who cannot get jobs; and subsidies for low pay through tax credits. We have tried time and again to reform jobcentres, but to no avail.

We need a new approach built around partnership between Government, charities, private enterprise and local residents, in which the individual needs of the jobless and of businesses are properly catered for, in which we harness the right structures and right techniques to create new jobs for the unemployed at a local level and in which support from Government is matched by responsibility from the jobless. We have no future as a country if these problems continue to exist. Communities across the country such as the one I represent have no future when unemployment and poverty are a fact of life.

Let me be clear. It is our duty in this place to get Britain back to work. This is the only future our country has: one in which we work our way out of poverty, out of low pay and off welfare dependency. The great American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that to govern:

“demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another.”

We have tried the current method of getting people back into work for the past 40 years. It has failed. It is time to try another.

Welfare Reform (People with Disabilities)

Chris Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for making a necessary and pertinent examination of what is happening in the welfare state, with particular regard to disabilities. As the SNP spokesperson on disability, this is a matter of great importance to me.

We have had some good speeches today, and I particularly welcome the conversation about the narrative that we spin around disability. The general election was particularly bruising, and for disabled people to hear parties talk not about being the party of people with disabilities, but about hard-working people, with the inference that people who are not in work are not hard-working and do not aspire to be, damages the debate. Today in the Chamber, my SNP colleagues are debating the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill, in particular welfare and disabilities. Many of the amendments in our name are aimed at ensuring that the Scotland Bill delivers more devolution and does not devolve further austerity and shackle the Scottish Parliament to further Tory attacks on the welfare state. They are the result of extensive consultation with civic Scotland and work done in partnership with other organisations.

Just this morning, 12 of Scotland’s leading third sector organisations published a letter in The Herald, timed to coincide with today’s debate and ahead of the emergency Budget next week, expressing grave concerns about the severe detrimental impact of the Government’s austerity measures on low and middle-income families. In particular, they highlight the threat to tax credits and other support that would fall within universal credit and say to us, here in this House, that as, we begin the process of defining the shape of Scotland’s social security system, we need to

“understand how high the stakes are”.

It is incumbent on every one of us—not just those from Scotland—to listen to those voices. The groups that have put their heads above the parapet on this matter are some of Scotland’s largest and most influential civil society organisations, including Citizens Advice Scotland, Barnardo’s Scotland, the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, the Church of Scotland, Inclusion Scotland, One Parent Families Scotland, Oxfam Scotland, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Trussell Trust. These organisations bear on their shoulders much of the burden of mopping up some of the worst effects of austerity on the most vulnerable in our society.

The UK Government’s programme of welfare reform has had a devastating impact on too many people across the country. In Scotland, the Scottish Government estimate that UK Government welfare cuts have reduced welfare funding in Scotland by almost £2.5 billion in 2015-16 alone. That estimate comes before the additional planned welfare cuts of perhaps £12 billion across the UK, which can only have a further devastating impact on communities across Scotland and the UK. Where will those cuts be made? How much more can be cut?

What is absolutely clear is that people with disabilities are disproportionately impacted by welfare reform, which fits in perfectly with a pattern whereby the UK Government’s cuts programme hits the most vulnerable in our society hardest, punishing them for the reckless damage done to the economy by the few at the top. Further planned cuts can only cause greater and sustained damage, driving yet more households into poverty and desperation. The roll-out of the personal independence payment has been riddled with delays and errors, which have caused a great deal of distress and hardship for people with disabilities. BBC News reports that 78,700 people are currently waiting to hear whether they can claim PIP, 3,200 of whom have waited more than a year to have their claims processed and 22,800 have waited more than 20 weeks. In June 2015, a High Court judge ruled in favour of two PIP claimants who had had their applications delayed by around nine months, to the detriment of their health and financial security.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the hon. Lady as concerned as I am by the Motor Neurone Disease Association finding that, accompanied with the move to PIP and universal credit, people with MND are now expected to attend face-to-face assessments, despite clear medical evidence that such assessments have a severe impact on their condition?

Remploy Workers

Chris Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lucas]

Indeed. That was very much the case. Such was the commitment to the factory that it seemed to me, certainly in Wrexham, that people were willing to consider any proposal at all. The workers and the unions looked at any way at all of keeping the factory open. The history of the Wrexham factory, which I will come to, is that exactly that happened. There was a very strong effort to keep the factory open.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend will remember that one of the callous decisions that this Government made was when the Welsh Assembly asked whether the Remploy budget could be devolved to the Assembly. It was a very good plan; it could have saved jobs and kept the factories open, but the Government said no. Would my hon. Friend say that that was quite cruel?

[Ian Lucas]

It was cruel and unnecessary. The Government very often fall over themselves to pass on difficult problems to the Welsh Government. In this case, the Welsh Government came forward and suggested that the Remploy budget be devolved, but the UK Government refused. There was an absolute dedication on their part to close the factories. They were determined that they were going to close them, and despite what the Minister has indicated previously, I am convinced that that was part of a cost-cutting exercise on the part of the Government. They have a stated commitment not to reduce the budget, but I will come on to the figures that show that the money the Government are spending on disabled people is decreasing.

I have made the argument repeatedly to the Secretary of State and to the then Minister for the disabled, who is now the Minister for Employment, that there was a group of people who wanted to continue to work in Remploy factories, doing gainful, positive work, and working for the most part with other disabled people. That argument was consistently ignored and the factory closed, despite a further and intense campaign to keep it open. Efforts were made in Wrexham to secure private investment to keep the factory open, and additional support, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) mentioned, was suggested by the Welsh Government. However, the UK Government were not prepared to consider allowing the Remploy site in Wrexham to be used and, as a result, it was very shortly thereafter sold off for housing development, which two and a half years on is proceeding in Wrexham town.

There was a private sector effort to keep the factory open. A business called Enterprising Employment, which worked with the Welsh Government for a period, employed about a dozen former Remploy workers for a time, but it was unable to continue and those workers were ultimately made redundant and lost their jobs.

We therefore have a picture of the people who worked for Remploy, many of whom had worked for many years on the site, being made redundant. The site in central Wrexham was sold off for housing development. I make no criticism of the fact that the site is now being used—thankfully, in a positive way—but it would have been much better if those people who were working there continued to work there.

The Government’s rationale for closing the Remploy factories was that they wanted to spend the budget of the Department for Work and Pensions more efficiently, so two and a half years on from the publication of the Government’s response to the Sayce review, back in March 2012, is an appropriate time to look at the Government’s record on those vulnerable people. What is their record?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. It is fitting that you are in the Chair today because, like me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), you also had a Remploy factory in your constituency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend not only for securing this debate but for the passion and fire with which he spoke. He articulated how Opposition Members feel about the way in which Remploy workers were treated by this Government.

A great many things have made me angry since I first came to this House. I have been angry about the way that people, and working people in particular, have been treated. I have been angry about the way that those who find themselves on welfare have been treated like scroungers when they are just looking for a second chance. I have been angry about the way in which those who find themselves ill are being let down by the NHS. But the thing that makes me the angriest is the treatment of Remploy workers in Croespenmaen.

I worked for my predecessor, Lord Touhig, for a number of years, and I remember when, similar to Wrexham, Croespenmaen first came under threat of closure in 2008-09. Workers in Croespenmaen did not stand back and let it happen to them. They fought back in the way that any business would fight back. Instead of sitting back and letting things go, they went out looking for business. They went out asking people and businesses whether they needed packaging. They were not afraid about whom they asked. One of the proudest moments of Lord Touhig’s career—I remember him saying this, and it was one of his last acts as Member of Parliament for Islwyn—was overseeing the signing of a packaging contract between Remploy Croespenmaen and BAE Systems. As you serve on the Select Committee on Defence, Mr Havard, you know that BAE Systems is not a Ronnie and Reggie outfit; it is a blue-chip, FTSE 100 company. BAE Systems does not sign contracts for the fun of it; it signed the contract because it saw Remploy as the best provider of that product.

Two years later, the then Minister with responsibility for disabilities, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), effectively told Remploy Croespenmaen in a side room—it was not even announced in Parliament—that it was closing. Remploy Croespenmaen was told via a press release through BBC news. The House was not told until that Minister was forced to come to make a statement at the end of the day. Hundreds of people lost their jobs, and what a shabby way to treat them. That was just the start. I remember standing up and saying that the workers of Remploy Croespenmaen had worked hard and felt that they had been kicked in the teeth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, I pay tribute to the trade unions. Much of the work to secure new business was done by the trade unions, particularly by Ian Lloyd, the GMB trade union representative. To say that the unions are anti-business is a mistake, and it is another myth peddled by the Government.

What happened next was even worse. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) stood up at Prime Minister’s questions and asked directly whether the Prime Minister would seriously consider the idea of devolving Remploy budgets to the Welsh Assembly, which would give Remploy hope. A couple of weeks later, Remploy was met with a big, fat no. The worst thing is that, of all the packaging companies, Croespenmaen was the only one that closed; the others stayed.

We now found ourselves in a far worse situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said, since the 1940s Remploy factories have provided good, well paid jobs for thousands of people with disabilities, mainly those who were injured during war. Most people employed in the factories had job satisfaction, a supportive and accessible environment and a sense of community, and I have an example. When the announcement was made, I went to Remploy Croespenmaen as quickly as possible. I stood in its canteen and saw many people in tears because the future suddenly went from being hopeful and bright to looking bleak. Those people stood and said, “Is there any way you could save our jobs?” We MPs are very privileged because we can do a great many things and help many people, but there are times when we feel powerless. Unfortunately, that was one of those times.

Remploy employees made a valuable contribution to UK manufacturing. They worked hard, and it was the same across the country—it was not just in Islwyn or Croespenmaen. Remploy employees did not, as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions suggested at the time, sit around and make coffee. For someone with responsibility for disabilities to make such a comment is crass and unhelpful. We have heard other Ministers say exactly the same things about people with disabilities, and they are still not condemned and it is still not seen as shameful. I have looked all over Hansard for the Secretary of State’s apology, and I have not got anywhere. All we have seen from this Government is a total disregard for people with disabilities and ignorance of what workers actually do. The Government are out of touch and downright disrespectful.

I asked the Secretary of State at the time—he does not have to do it now, because I asked him at the time—whether he had ever visited a Remploy factory, looked into the workers’ eyes and said, “You are only good for making a cup of coffee.” I doubt that very much. If he had gone into a Remploy factory, he would have seen people with skills who are able to manufacture and make things, which is the one thing that the Government are talking about. Do the Government really believe that those people counted for nothing? Are we to believe that the Secretary of State’s comments represent exactly what the Government mean? I know the Minister quite well, and I respect him, but will he now apologise for those comments on behalf of the Secretary of State? Despite claims that Remploy was closed because it no longer made commercial sense, the Secretary of State’s comments suggest otherwise.

I believe that people with disabilities should be valued. People work their best when they feel valued. The worst thing is that I raised with the then Minister with responsibility for disabilities, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke, the fact that we had a 90-day consultation. That was 90 days to formulate a business plan, to cost it, to find suitable funding sources and partners, to review the plan, to contact key stakeholders, to consult unions and Remploy management and to write and submit the report. I would never suggest that the Government wanted most of those plans to fail, but it seems that they did not give the plans the best chance to succeed.

The Government have made much of how they have followed the independent Sayce review—I have a lot of time for Liz Sayce—so why did they not follow her recommendation for

“a sufficient window (for instance, six months) to put forward a business plan”?

We will never know how many jobs would have been saved if the Government had followed that recommendation. We will never know how many communities in which Remploy prospered have now been damaged. We will never know how many former employees have been left depressed and isolated.

What we do know, however, is that less than one in four former Remploy employees had found work by October 2014. Most of those people are working fewer hours for less pay than when they worked for Remploy. The facts are simple. In the year since Remploy closed, only 24.1% of its former employees are in work; 45.7% are working fewer hours; 59.5% are on worse pay; 64.7% have worse benefits, holiday time and pensions; and 69% preferred their time at Remploy to what they are doing now. The simple truth is that they have been let down. They were promised help into new jobs, but most are still unemployed. They were promised support to keep leading active lives, but unfortunately most cannot do so.

There is a lot of talk about welfare reform, but the only way out of welfare is work, which I am afraid is not happening. We are getting closer and closer to the end of the 18-month period of extra support for former Remploy employees, yet so many remain unemployed. The fears we raised at the time are unfortunately being realised. How do the Government expect to help people back into work when they could not do so during the time in which Ministers planned to provide more funding and support? I would welcome the Minister’s answer to that question. The people whose lives are currently more difficult and the communities that built up the Remploy factories that the Government closed will be grateful for the answer as well.

I remind the Minister that for nearly 70 years, under Labour and Conservative Governments, Remploy existed and flourished as a way to provide disabled people with work at good pay. For many people, over the years, working at the Remploy factories was the only time they got out of the house to socialise. They were their communities and their social lives and they gave them purpose in life. They helped them to be productive, active and, above all, happy.

Since the Government closed most of the factories, many of the disabled people who were employed by them have lost all that. They have lost their community and some have become isolated and, in the worst cases, depressed. We can argue back and forth on the economic reasons for that. I would say that closing the factories was wrong economically, but what is undeniable is that it was the wrong choice not only on a business level, but on a moral and social level. That has shown once and for all what the Government really think about the most vulnerable in society. For the Government to say that they are on their side is a joke that is not funny to those former Remploy workers. The sad thing today is that it is far too late to reopen any of those factories, but it is not too late for the Government to repair their mistake. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but, of all the crass decisions, closing the Remploy factories was among the most cruel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The thing is, we know about the Remploy workers who lost their jobs through out factory closures; we know nothing about those who lost their jobs under the previous Government. More of them lost their jobs under the previous Government, who did not track the progress of such employees, but we did so, which was welcome.

Let me say more about what the hon. Member for Llanelli was asking about. The other thing that we built into the package of support was a community support fund, providing grants to local voluntary sector and user-led organisations so that they could run job club projects to support disabled Remploy employees. In Wales, three local organisations have successfully delivered such community support fund projects, supporting 90 participants, 72 of whom have moved successfully into employment. In July I had the chance to visit one of those community support fund projects at the Lennox Partnership in Glasgow. I understand that 833 former Remploy employees have participated in such projects, which have enabled 352 people to take up new employment opportunities.

On the statistics, we can of course only track employees who have given us permission to do so—we cannot find out what is happening to employees if they did not wish us to know that. On the figures that we have, therefore, 774 of the 1,507 people who were made redundant are in work, which is more than half of them. At the end of October, to update the figures that the hon. Lady had, we had spent £5.7 million of the £8 million support fund; we expect the budget to be fully spent.

It is also worth mentioning Remploy employment services. When the right hon. Member for Neath made his statement, which I remember clearly, he said that the employment services part of the Remploy business had got some 5,000 people into work that year, which was the same as the total number employed in the factory network. The employment services business has continued to be successful. Since 2010, it has supported more than 100,000 disabled and disadvantaged people into work. As Members know, a commercial process is under way at the moment and on track to be completed by next March. The employment services business has been successful in getting a significant number of people into work. As shadow Minister, I had the opportunity to visit some of the successful people whom it had placed in work.

The hon. Member for Islwyn mentioned the consultation process and the time line. I deliberately read out the relevant section from the 2007 speech of the right hon. Member for Neath, so it is not as if the factories did not know that there was an issue. From 2007, he put on the table the fact that those factories that were not closed by the previous Labour Government had to hit what he described as stretching targets and a tough forward plan if they were to be successful. The idea that people only started thinking about such things when we set out our proposals is not true; those factories all knew that they were losing money, and that there was a significant challenge to get profitable work from 2007, or five years before we set out our proposals.

Furthermore, when the Sayce review was under way, there was a consultation on our process in which people could commit to things. That process was not as swift as the hon. Gentleman made out. There were two stages: in stage 1, the Government reduced its subsidy to Remploy from the beginning of the new financial year, so that we ceased funding factories that made significant losses and restricted funding to those factories that might have the prospect of a viable future. The Remploy board looked at all the factories and decided which ones had a reasonable chance of being successful. At the end of that early stage, therefore, some factories were closed.

In a further commercial process, the board worked with bidders and interested parties to see if there were other viable options. The fact is, however, there were no viable options for most of those businesses. Some of the businesses successfully exited Government control. At stage 1, the health care business in Chesterfield and the filters business in Barrow successfully moved into the private sector, and the employees there have ongoing employment. At the end of stage 2 of the commercial process, three businesses successfully exited Government control, completing the process.

A reasonable chance was given to those businesses that had a reasonable prospect of being successful, but in the commercial judgment of the board some businesses simply did not have a viable future. That is why the decision to close them was taken at that time.

[Chris Evans]

Did the Secretary of State not rub salt into the wounds when he commented that workers at Remploy were not doing real jobs, but only making a cup of coffee? Will the Minister condemn those comments as crass, out of date and offensive to so many Remploy workers throughout the country?

Universal Credit (Wales)

Chris Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

As the hon. Gentleman says, it was before my time in this place, so I will refrain from commenting and make some progress.

I am happy to report that Cadwyn is taking proactive measures to help its tenants adapt to the swathe of changes, including help with jam jar accounts, visits in person to vulnerable tenants and organising property swapping mechanisms on Facebook. Those are the types of methods to which it is resorting. There is, however, a limit to what it can do to mitigate the impact of all the changes coming together, particularly with the hard core of tenants who will prove difficult to access, reach and support and who will find it difficult fundamentally to adapt to universal credit and other changes. On the bedroom tax, there are simply not the properties to move into.

If that is not enough, let us take the perspective of Cardiff, the largest local authority in Wales. I know that its concerns are shared by many neighbouring local authorities, including Vale of Glamorgan, which is also in my constituency. Last week, I spoke to officials at Cardiff council last week who said:

“With regard to Universal Credit, this is expected to start in Cardiff from February 2014 but there is still considerable uncertainty about when this will be fully implemented. This will affect 140 jobs in Cardiff.”

They face concerns such as a

“lack of clarity about how face to face services will be delivered. Cardiff currently sees 1000 customers a week about housing benefit face to face. The insistence on digital by default fails to recognise how many low income households cannot afford broadband and how much help is needed by vulnerable tenants to claim benefits. Payment direct to tenants in social housing…is likely to result in arrears, evictions and homelessness. Indications from the pilots are that tenants are falling into arrears.”

I have already mentioned that evidence. The concerns continue:

“There is still no clarity about the circumstances in which payments will be made to the landlord.”

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like me, my hon. Friend is a supporter of the Co-op’s campaign against legal loan sharks. Does he agree that, in the case of his and my constituencies, legal loan sharks are positively rubbing their hands and waiting for residents to come to them?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen an explosion in legal loan-shark activity on our streets, whether that be people knocking on doors or opening up offices on the high street. I commend the work of organisations such as the Cardiff and Vale credit union that are trying to provide alternative options.

Cardiff council was also concerned about the following:

“Budgeting issues are also a concern as Universal Credit will be paid monthly in arrears. This is one of the major concerns expressed by customers visiting our roadshows.”

It has been taking proactive steps. It was also concerned that:

“Low income families who depend on this money will have no resource at all if there are any problems with receipt of the payment.”

I do not want to guess the future, but a serious concern is that the record of all Governments in implementing large-scale IT projects leaves much to be desired.

Lynda Thorne, the cabinet member for housing at Cardiff council, wrote to me just yesterday and said:

“I am concerned that the end result of many of these changes will be an increase in homelessness and the transfer of extra financial burdens falling on local council tax payers in terms of picking up the cost of a reduction in the collection rate of council tax, the extra cost of providing help and support to those who need support completing claims and a rise in homelessness created from direct payments.”

She makes the point that Cardiff has

“more private Landlords providing accommodation to those on benefits than all the RSLs, housing Associations, put together. Private Landlords have indicated that they are likely to revert back to only letting to those in work resulting in even more families and individuals becoming homeless thus costing council tax payers more. We currently have more than 500 families and individuals in temporary accommodation at any one time.”

What are the Minister’s reflections on those legitimate concerns raised by a major housing association in my constituency and the largest local authority in Wales?

Under-occupancy Penalty (Wales)

Chris Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jessica Morden]

I am here to talk about under-occupancy and housing benefit. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I want to continue to press my point.

Even if someone is able to move from a community such as Underwood, they will often leave behind family who are able to care for their children while they work. I cannot be alone in often meeting people in my surgery who seek houses near their parents precisely so that they can have help in looking after their children. Those with two children of the same sex under 16 could have to move to a two-bedroom property. In somewhere such as Underwood, the likelihood is that the children would have to move schools, with all the disruption that that would cause.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, and I congratulate her on securing this debate. Does she agree that there is an inflexibility in the system? Children of the same sex but far apart in ages might have to share a bedroom. Single parents are also penalised, because they often do not have rooms for their children to stay in.

[Jessica Morden]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I will come on to make those points. Again, the study by Bron Afon in Torfaen highlights such cases.

Faced with no social housing and the need to stay in a community, it is hardly surprising, but none the less shocking, that one of the findings of a survey of social housing tenants by Bron Afon was that some tenants had concluded that the only possible solution for them was to eat two meals fewer a week to make up the shortfall. They felt that that was the only area on which they could economise.