Child Maintenance Service

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Child Maintenance Service.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss this extremely important issue affecting families across the UK. I would also like to extend my thanks to my colleagues present, who may have had to cut short their Easter weekend to attend today. The fact that they are present highlights the importance of this debate.

Many constituents have approached my office regarding issues with the Child Maintenance Service. In their experience and mine, it is an extremely frustrating and inefficient service to deal with. When it is responsible for something as important as financial support for children, and quite often single-parent families, it must execute its duties properly and get it right. That is not happening.

The Child Maintenance Service is under-resourced, unfit for purpose and failing families across the UK. It has disregarded historical maintenance arrears. It allows non-resident parents to renege on their responsibilities by failing to collect current maintenance, and it imposes a tax on parents who desperately require its services. It fails to provide a service of the decent standard that should be expected of any Government agency.

Despite the length of time I get to speak, when writing this speech I was not thinking about which issues to speak about; I was thinking about what things I would have to leave out, as the maintenance system is so rife with issues. The CMS needs a radical overhaul to ensure that parents and their children can access the support they are entitled to. That support is not optional.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate on an issue that is getting attention in lots of areas at the moment. A group that she may want to leave out is those who are able to reach agreement. The Minister will come back and say that family-based assessments have increased and that many more are reaching agreement. Will the hon. Lady drill into the detail of whether or not that shows the success of the current system?

[Marion Fellows]

The hon. Gentleman is right; I am not going to concentrate on that. Family-based arrangements are what everyone wants, but they do not happen in all cases. I am here to support and talk about those who are outwith that scheme.

The support that the CMS gives is not optional; it is a legal right for children. The Child Maintenance Service is failing to secure children and their parents with care their rights, or it is taxing them to gain access to what is theirs. Maintenance payments have had both a current and historical problem with underpayment, people not paying and arrears. To date, the outstanding arrears for child maintenance stand at an astonishing £4 billion. That figure alone shows the extent to which the Child Support Agency and the Child Maintenance Service are failing people. At this point, I should add my thanks to the charity Gingerbread, because I am drawing heavily on its work in its recent report. It is likely that that figure does not represent the full picture, as paying parents under direct pay are assumed to have paid their maintenance in full unless the CMS is told otherwise.

According to Gingerbread, which has been doing fantastic work to raise this issue and support families, during the transfer process from CSA to CMS many parents have been pressured into not transferring their historical arrears over to their new claim. The Department for Work and Pensions calls that a fresh start. However, no equivalent letter is sent to paying parents to encourage them to pay off their arrears. In 2013, the UK Government issued “Preparing for the future, tackling the past”, in which they outlined their strategy of disregarding past debts and instead focusing on the payment of current maintenance. In line with that strategy, between December 2015 and March 2016, debt collections per case dropped from £35 to £22.

The DWP has calculated that as little as 12% of CSA debts on both the CSA and CMS systems will actually be collected. Current arrangements are allowing parents to renege on their responsibilities. Even though these debts were accrued in the past, parents should still be held responsible now. Collecting historical arrears should not mean a trade-off with current arrears; both are a priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Bone, for calling me to speak.

It is a pleasure to take part in this very important debate. It is a cross-party debate and quite rightly so, because this is a matter of cross-party concern; we all have constituents who have come to us and who are dealing with ongoing concerns about child maintenance arrears. So I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing the debate.

In many ways, I will echo the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who has very personal knowledge of this issue, but I also want to bring to bear my constituents’ concerns. In some ways, this will be a dress rehearsal for the consideration of my ten-minute rule Bill tomorrow, although today’s events may prevent that from happening. Nevertheless, I am sure that everyone will want to wait and consider my ten-minute rule Bill before we finish this Parliament. It focuses squarely on equity and justice.

Let me mention a point of principle on which we can all agree—especially Government Members, as it was very much a creature of Margaret Thatcher’s Government, and we want to follow through on it. It is the principle of parental responsibility, which recognises that we have a statutory child maintenance system and that all parents have continued responsibility to make reasonable contributions towards the upkeep of their children. It is an important principle and it covers all children. Whatever system we have in place, whatever statutory arrangement exists and whatever administrative reasons are given by the Government—convenience, expeditiousness, or whatever—we must not lose sight of the overarching principle of ensuring that the ongoing responsibility of providing maintenance for all children is met.

This process is focused on the children and not so much on the parents. Whether a parent is employed or self-employed, there must be an equity in justice for the ongoing maintenance of children; that is at the heart of the debate and it must continue to be at the heart of the Government’s actions as they carry out their review. I am not sure what will happen after today’s news, but we are waiting with bated breath for the Government to lay their report before the House after the 30-month review. It was promised in the spring. We are in spring—spring has sprung—and so we look forward to that report being laid before the House, as it will set out the Government’s view. I know that they have an ongoing five-year review, but the 30-month review is of the current system.

Everything is coming together. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions is also conducting an inquiry on the subject, and the Public Accounts Committee has been waiting to do further work on it with the National Audit Office. The spotlight is very much on the Minister; I hope she feels the heat. It may be the case that when previous Ministers appeared in Westminster Hall and before the rest of Parliament in many debates about the Child Support Agency, child maintenance was the main issue in our constituency casework. That is not the case now, but I would not want the Minister to feel in any way that the situation has been sorted and that she can tell us all, as I am sure she will, that family-based arrangements are on the up, and there were 70,000 or so in 2014-15; that, as I know from her evidence to the Select Committee, and her written evidence, there is a view that the CMS is performing well, with seven out of eight parents now addressing their child maintenance liabilities; and that things are improving. Nevertheless, I would not want her simply to go away and say that she can move on to all the other areas of her brief, because this issue remains a genuine concern.

I want to draw attention to a constituency case that amplifies my point. There is an issue with arrears. For example, my constituent went through the old CSA system and she battled hard. When people come to us as MPs, they are at the very end of their tether, and they come to us only because they have the wherewithal to do so. They have probably been through trauma and conflict in their relationship and they now have to face further trauma and conflict to try to get the just deserts for their children. Eventually, therefore, they come to MPs; we only see a snapshot of the issues that people face.

Many others have given up. In fact, the Minister may need to reflect on the issue of the £20 fee, to establish whether some people have given up because they see that £20 as money that would be better spent on putting food on the table rather than seeking maintenance—they might have heard bad stories and they might not have the confidence to go through the process.

Although the Minister might say there is some good news out there, we must reflect on the deterrent effect, as Lord Freud did when he said that we would have this review. He said that if there was an impact, particularly on the poorest families, as a result of any changes, we would need to reflect on the deterrent effect. I would like the Minister herself to reflect on it.

My constituent went through the whole process, went to a tribunal and eventually got an assessment, as she knew all along she would. Our constituents know that effectively assessments are being made that are completely out of step with what they themselves know about the lifestyle of the non-resident parent, and that are totally out of step with what that parent is contributing, if they contribute anything at all.

In the case of my constituent, there were accumulated assets of some £600,000, which the tribunal eventually found and which plainly needed to be tapped into regularly to support her teenage son. That has now left arrears of £40,000, but she asks, “Where will that come from?” At the end of the day, will she see that money going to support her son?

My constituent has told me, and I have referred to it in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister, that the reality is that the variation grounds that she had been able to rely on have now been abolished. She could rely upon those grounds to get through to the tribunal and eventually to get through that interrogation or inquiry because she was able to get that redress. However, that option has now been taken away from her and from anyone in her position. That rug has been pulled away from them, and so they are very much reliant on, let us say, what is in some ways the “cheap and cheerful” CMS system, but the CMS does not allow—in fact, it actually stymies—redress being pursued through the courts. That redress must be there, particularly in high-value and complex cases, of which there is an increasing number.

My constituent, along with others, is no longer permitted to seek such redress. The reality is that the variation grounds, which allowed for a parent with no apparent income to be treated as having a notional income, have been abolished, and we need to consider whether they should be restored. The issue of jurisdiction is relevant, because it is so limited now within the family courts for child maintenance—dealing with consent orders, and also with top-up payments, but only when there is in excess of £156,000 a year. In all other cases in which the parents cannot agree, this statutory child maintenance system is the only way to seek redress, so we clearly need to consider whether there should, at least, be another option, another way for constituents such as mine, who are not seeing justice, to have the redress they need.

In the case of my constituent, under the current system the non-resident parent would legitimately be able to have a nil maintenance liability. That is the reality. From £600,000 of assets, a £40,000 liability would now be nil. That is madness. It is ridiculous. It does not make sense. It is woefully unfair and goes against the principles that started off the system back with Margaret Thatcher, and now today under the 2012 scheme.

[Ian Paisley in the Chair]

We need, therefore, to look at the situation properly. Since 2012, any review or variation of the calculation can take account only of taxable income on the basis of Revenue and Customs data, primarily from tax returns and pay-as-you-earn. Without the opportunity to interrogate through tribunals, we are reliant on that data. In Select Committee evidence, the Minister has said that she is working hand in glove with HMRC. There is now a financial investigation unit amassed with 50 investigators, and she has stated that she is homing them in on this challenging area of self-employed non-resident parents. I want to see evidence of that, because in some ways it is too little too late for many people who have been through the system.

It really is not good enough. At the moment, there is the invidious situation for many parents of saying, “You go off to HMRC, to their tax hotline, and there will be an investigation of whether it is fraud”. The Minister needs to reassure me that her investigators will bridge the gap regarding something that is not technically fraudulent but is seriously and scandalously avoiding liabilities. But it is almost too late. The system needs to be front-ended not back-ended, with the opportunity of redress. I hope that the review will bring some of that.

We have had the whole debate about national insurance contributions, and we now recognise the larger numbers of people gaining their income through self-employment. The system does not properly cater for the children of traders, company directors or those with financially complex affairs. I pay great tribute to Gingerbread, which gives the example of a haulier who had his tax return assessed for child maintenance liabilities in a year when he had bought a truck. That truck took away pretty much all his liability—the truck was being put before the children. That is a scandal. It is unacceptable. We must have a system in which we are real as to the situation facing parents today and to their different employments. We do not want to prevent people from being self-employed, but there must be fairness. If we are going to have fairness on national insurance we must have it for child maintenance. I look forward to the Government taking advantage of the Matthew Taylor review to get it right before it is too late for many more parents, with the Minister leading the way.

In conclusion, as time is moving on, we need to see how the £20 fee is affecting poorer families. I ask the Minister to do something about that. I want to reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury and to use the parlance of the Prime Minister: we need a child maintenance system that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Some of those who are eligible for PIP may well lose entitlement to the work-related activity group element come 1 April. Will the Minister reassure me that whether through the flexible support fund, the hardship fund or indeed third-party deals, there will be full mitigation for the losses they incur from 1 April?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I can give my hon. Friend such an assurance. People are open to apply to the financial channels he mentions if they need further support. We have been doing some work in the Department on social tariffs and budgeting, which will be rolled out across our Jobcentre Plus network, and all the elements of the support offer for that group are already in place.

Personal Independence Payments

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

That is indeed what I said. We think that there may be a handful of people whose appeals have gone through the courts in this very small period, and that money will not be clawed back from them. That is what I said earlier on.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State make it crystal clear that the Government’s original intention for PIP, as outlined in the Welfare Reform Act 2012, remains? It was stated:

“The PIP assessment will look at disabled people as individuals and not just label them by their health condition or impairment.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 148W.]

[Damian Green]

I am happy to confirm that to my hon. Friend. I think that he and I would agree that that was a significant step forward when it was introduced, and I am determined that we maintain progress in that direction so that people who have a disability—whether a physical or mental impairment—can lead as full a life as possible.

Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

Yes, and I think I have made that very clear. If it is inappropriate for a young person to live at home with their parents, they will be exempt from this policy.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The YMCA tells me that, from April, it may not be able to house young people with the most complex needs, those with addictions and mental health conditions, those who may not be able to learn or earn, and those who cannot or will not stay at home or, indeed, access temporary accommodation. In relation to supported housing for vulnerable people, which is at stake, will the Minister clarify the scope of the exemption in regulation 4B(e), and defer the application of the impact on those at most risk of homelessness until we know the outcome of the supported housing review?

[Caroline Nokes]

The YMCA has been involved in the consultation process. As I believe I said at an event downstairs last night, it is always a trusted adviser that provides excellent advice and information. Absolutely: those with complex needs and mental health conditions will be exempt from this policy.

Personal Independence Payments

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but I do not agree with his assessment. The upper tribunal said that the regulations were not clear enough, so we are clarifying them in a way that restores the original intention of the benefit. That should provide certainty to people, not uncertainty.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I recognise that the Government are retaining the scope of PIP and the funds for it, but does not the focus on vulnerable people with the most challenging needs highlight the need for more integration and more funds for social care?

[Damian Green]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a good point. He is right about greater integration, which is precisely why we created a work and health unit. For the first time, my Department and the Department of Health are working together daily for the many people whose needs fall partly under health and partly under the benefits system, so that we can provide a more integrated, personal and sensitive service.

Marriage Week

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Marriage Week.

It is a privilege to have secured a debate about Marriage Week, which celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. I pipped it to the post when I celebrated my 21st wedding anniversary last weekend, but the last 12 hours have brought home to my dear wife, Janet, the reality of the vow “in sickness and in health,” because there has been a bit of a bug going round our house. I welcome the aim behind Marriage Week: to draw attention to the importance of marriage for individuals, family life and civil society. All of us can take part in the celebration. It is not exclusive to those who are married; it is for everyone, because we all know that marriage is for the common good.

I welcome the Minister to her place. She has already answered my written question about the Government’s plans to promote Marriage Week, saying that

“we cannot afford to overlook the importance of the family as the basic building block upon which we build a successful economy and a stable society.”

That is indeed true, but I want to give her the opportunity to explain further the Government’s plans and the value that they place on marriage.

Many of my hon. Friends support the idea of having a dedicated Minister for the family, so perhaps this is an opportunity to make a bid for the Minister’s promotion—she regularly attends Westminster Hall and speaks about lots of issues. We want a dedicated Minister for the family —indeed, a Cabinet Minister—given that the topic covers so many areas and Departments. When I was looking through some old cuttings the other day I was reminded that back in 2004, the current Prime Minister was the shadow Cabinet Minister for the family. She came to my house when she was supporting my campaign to be the Member of Parliament for Enfield, Southgate, and we talked about families. The current Prime Minister got it, and talked about how important that role is, so who knows? Perhaps in time the Minister can follow that path.

The Minister was absolutely correct: we cannot afford to overlook the importance of family. Family provides social capital to those who have fallen on hard times, as we all have—that experience is common to all human beings. This celebration is not just of a domestic issue. In fact, on Monday Professor Bradford Wilcox will help us to understand the evidence relating to marriage’s global value, which it is important for us to recognise.

However, I would like the Minister to go further. It is important to be unapologetic about the social benefits not just of family, but particularly of marriage. It is difficult to celebrate marriage without using the M-word. As a candidate in 2004-05, I got hissed not when I talked about immigration or Europe, but when I mentioned marriage. Sadly, there is disdain and antagonism towards marriage in some circles, but we can avowedly be great fans of marriage—of the M-word. I am unapologetic about celebrating marriage not only because I am in favour of the family formation, but because of the growing evidence that marriage is socially just.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important issue to the House. Is he aware of the ComRes poll showing that 21% of people support further increases in the personal allowance, but that 60% support increasing the marriage allowance? Does he feel that the Government should consider making the married couple’s allowance that is provided to couples in their 80s and 90s much more generous?

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Gentleman and I share views on many issues, not least on how welcome it is that the marriage allowance is once again a transferable allowance. However, that is just a small dent in properly recognising marriage and giving it its true worth and value. That could perhaps be done not least by following the call from many of us, and from the Centre for Social Justice and others, to focus particularly on couples with young children. I would certainly support that.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Not all marriages last, and external support is often needed when there are difficulties. The Department for Education has said that for every £1 spent on relationship support, the Government save £11.40, yet the Department for Work and Pensions seems to be considering significant cuts in support for face-to-face marriage counselling services. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that would be a terrible mistake?

[Mr Burrowes]

This celebration and debate is not just about putting everyone in a Persil advert of perfect families, where everything goes right. Things go wrong, and resilience is needed. That can come at an early stage through counselling, support or marriage preparation, or after marriage through MOT tests and further support, not least at crucial moments involving young children or debt. Statistics show that the Government spend only 1.6p for every £100 of social harm that is caused by family breakdown. More needs to be done to tackle the associated price tag of £47 billion a year, which is a conservative estimate.

The way in which a marriage plays out in our society should provoke the Government to do all they can to ensure that marriage and the social benefits it affords are accessible to everyone, for richer and for poorer. In 2015, the Marriage Foundation—I very much commend Sir Paul Coleridge, who is here today, and Harry Benson for the great evidence-based work that they have done over the years—found an alarming widening of the marriage gap between rich and poor, with wealthier couples being four times more likely to get married than those from poorer backgrounds. Some 80% of high earners marry, whereas only 24% of low earners do. The rich get married and the poor increasingly do not. That bias in favour of wealthy couples is a social injustice. In fact, to use the words of the former shadow Cabinet Minister for the family—now our Prime Minister—it is a burning injustice, which needs to be tackled by the Government and others. That is vital because marriage supports family stability and provides an important pathway out of poverty.

Marriage must not disappear; in fact, it should be central to Government policy making. I sometimes search Government policy documents on my computer to see where the M-word comes up, but it often does not. There should be family impact statements looking at the impact of marriage and the support it provides in a lot of arenas. The life chances strategy or the social reform strategy, or whatever it will be called, will be published shortly, and I will again search to see where the word “marriage” comes up, because it needs to. If we are tackling burning injustices, we need to support marriage.

I want to spell out some social benefits of marriage. Unmarried parents are six times more likely to break up before their first child’s fifth birthday. Children from broken homes are two-and-a-half times more likely to be in long-term poverty, and 44% of children in lone parent families live in relative poverty—almost twice the figure for children in couple families. Cohabiting couples make up just a fifth of couples with dependent children, but nearly half of all family breakdown. There are a lot of reasons to consider, but marriage is socially just and aids social mobility. Children who experience family breakdown perform less well at school, gain fewer qualifications and are more likely to be expelled from school. I therefore encourage the Government to commit more resources to tackling family breakdown by celebrating marriage.

I welcome the marriage tax allowance. We have mentioned the importance of that; it brings us in line with other OECD countries that have recognised family stability by recognising marriage. However, it is also important to build on that good work. The fact that 90% of a married person’s tax allowance remains transferrable means that although we have that recognition in principle, it does not really get to the heart of the problem.

There are many creative ways of celebrating marriage. As hon. Members have mentioned in their interventions, we can do much more. There is the financial element—we have debated whether that is important in the past—but more than that, it is about practical support and how we provide relationship support. I welcome the previous Prime Minister’s absolute commitment to that and the money that was provided for relationship support, which must continue—indeed, it should increase, because it is money well spent. Supporting fathers, which several hon. Members present have championed through the all-party group on fatherhood, is particularly important, as is broadening access to marriage preparation classes and marriage counselling.

I pay tribute to the Marriage Foundation, which is behind next week’s celebration, and to Harry and Kate Benson, whose life as a couple has recently received a lot of publicity. They recognise that marriage is not just a bed of roses. We all experience problems. Marriage Week is about recognising that we must not take our marriages for granted—we all need to work on them, and that applies to me as much as to anyone else—and nor should society or the Government. We should promote and celebrate this vital institution for a good society.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for his tremendous speech, which I strongly support.

The most powerful statistic in this whole area is that, of all the parents who are still together when their children reach the age of 15, 93% are married. That says so much about why marriage matters. As MPs, we are here for all our constituents—we are here for the single mums who do an amazing job, and we are here for people who are not married—but it is right to celebrate marriage as a massively important social institution that builds resilience and is clearly really good for our children.

Three quarters of 20 to 24-year-olds say that they want to marry, so the aspiration for our younger people is very much there. Likewise, three quarters of lone parents and almost nine in 10 step-parents agree that it is appropriate and necessary for the Government to send the message that having two parents is important. That is all worth putting on record.

The Austrian political economist Joseph Schumpeter said that in a modern consumer economy, people might end up living for the present rather than having projects for the future. That involves things like saving less and borrowing more. Critically, he said that there would be less willingness for people to make long-term commitments to one another. Of course, the greatest long-term commitment that we can make is a marriage in which we bring up children.

There is so much more that we can do, including really good marriage preparation and really good marriage MOTs. We all get our cars serviced once a year; we spend time and money on it because we think it is important. But how much more important it is to have a look under the bonnet of our marriages, to make sure that what started off romantically, but might now feel a bit like running a small business with an ex-girlfriend, stays on track.

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend has been a great champion of marriage for many years. He also has experience in Bedfordshire with voluntary organisations that try to help couples, particularly those who have just had a child. Some Government funding was coming through for such projects; does he know whether any progress has been made?

[Andrew Selous]

I am very pleased that the last Prime Minister doubled the amount of spending on relationship support across Government, as my hon. Friend already mentioned, but there are real pressures on the sector and on the Relationships Alliance. I will meet the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions next week to discuss those issues.

Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I have signed the motion, which represents a cross-party concern and call to the Government. I very much commend the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) not only for securing the debate but for his constructive tone. Some restraint was shown by the Scottish National party in avoiding what the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who is no longer in place, sadly lapsed into, namely seeking to politicise an issue about which there is cross-party concern. When we deal with welfare there is a sad tendency to get into a narrative—one that I wholly reject—about Conservatives not caring for the vulnerable with their austerity cuts. On the right, we then get the narrative that this is all about the workshy. I reject both narratives, which, sadly, can end up weaponising welfare.

Today’s debate is constructive. Reference has been made to bravery on the Conservative side. Frankly, it is not particularly brave to support this motion. But this is not a binary issue. I support the bravery shown by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) when a Minister, and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) as well. It takes a lot of bravery to reform disability welfare, which had been unreformed for too long. There is bravery on the ministerial Bench as well—it would have been easier not to go down this route. But there was nothing brave about a status quo that left only 1% of the group affected able to get into work.

The people who are really brave are those trying to make ends meet. As we know, people who are disabled have disproportionately higher costs than others. They are trying to travel, or to deal with energy costs. They are trying to do what they all want to do—to get better and get into work. Through no fault of their own, some of them are not able to do so. They are brave. They are the people we care about, and we need to do more for them.

Politics at the moment is a topsy-turvy world. Some may say that it is topsy-turvy for me to be involved in a motion that is predominantly supported by SNP Members; nevertheless, the motion is cross-party. It is a topsy-turvy motion, to the extent that it was drafted before the Green Paper was published. In essence, the issue is topsy-turvy, as has been mentioned, because it would have made so much more sense to have a White Paper before the decision was made on this cut, so that we could see the direction of travel and see what the parallel track of financial and practical support for these claimants would be.

Still, here we are. Some might say that I am being somewhat topsy-turvy in my position on this issue. I voted for the cuts in February. I stand by that vote, and maintain that we can look to a better reformed system. But as I said at the time—and many hon. Friends held the same position:

“I recognise that the WRAG is not fit for purpose, as only 1% are getting into work, but it does have a purpose. It has a purpose for the most vulnerable individuals, for whom the financial element of £30 really matters...As we move towards 2017, with the flow of new applicants, we must do all we can to reassure everyone that we are in the business of reform…I will support the Government tonight, but we must get the White Paper out and show our practical support in meaningful ways before 2017.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 235.]

Today’s motion is about making sure we deliver on that. A considerable number of hon. Friends gave conditional support because we want to ensure that we deliver for those claimants.

I recognise that there has been good progress. The latest employment stats, as has been mentioned, show that 590,000 disabled people are in work. That is much better than three years ago, with an increase of some 4%. However, that still constitutes a scandal of five in 10 disabled people in employment compared with eight in 10 non-disabled people. We must do so much more. Recent announcements from Ministers have been encouraging, not least that yesterday on homeless people and people with mental health illness facing sanctions. The Secretary of State said:

“We want our jobseekers to focus on getting into work and enjoying the dignity and security of a good job.”

Those fine words also need to be applied properly to WRAG claimants. We need to realise the vision in the Green Paper of a new era of joint working between the welfare and health systems. By April, that long-term vision must be a reality for this group of people. It is important and encouraging to provide coaches, the Access to Work and Fit for Work schemes, and personalised integrated support. The Disability Confident scheme is also important, as is removing prejudice where some look to difference and otherness rather than positive diversity. All of that comes together, but we need to do something about the £30. Perhaps one way to deal with it is to look at the flexible support fund as a way of bridging the gap.

We must ensure that, as we move into 2017, financial and practical support is available. The 2013 incarnation of the support fund managed only to assist people with getting job interviews. It must be about much more than that. I want to hear from the Minister that this will be a much more integrated package, which incorporates the vision in the Green Paper. Let us grasp that vision and ensure it becomes a reality. Let us make sure there is local discretion on disability that pulls together practical health and welfare needs, not just a one-size-fits-all approach. The words in the Green Paper need to become a reality for the new WRAG claimants.

I appreciate that the Green Paper has far wider aims, aspirations and objectives. Those of us on the Conservative Benches—we have a good track record, which we can be proud of; we spend more than Labour did when it was in office and will continue to do so, despite the cuts for this group of people—must accept that there is a credibility and confidence gap on how we support the most vulnerable and disabled. We must not lose on this, but recognise that the great approach in the Green Paper can be realised by showing real practical support, particularly as we get to April. The new WRAG claimants will still need that £30 support for travel, heating and so on.

I believe that, as we approach April, the way in which we show our support and care for the vulnerable and disabled is a litmus test for the Green Paper. I look forward to hearing from the Minister today. I will be working with Ministers on how we can ensure practical, integrated support to meet that test and to deliver for this group of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I join other hon. Members in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) not only for securing the debate but for mobilising such a cross-party coalition. I must also commend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), for making notes and being attentive during the debate. There are many Ministers that we could all name who do not do that. I know that she will not give much ground at the end of today’s debate, but I hope that she will take away the feeling of the House on this matter and acknowledge the cross-party view that we should delay the implementation of the cuts to the work-related activity component of the employment and support allowance, at least until we have seen the outcome of the Green Paper.

Interestingly, the underlying reason for a delay has been given to us by the Government themselves. They have implicitly admitted that there is something wrong with the disability payments system for those seeking to get into work. They are looking at the matter again, and we know that the Green Paper consultation period will finish in February. There will then be discussions, and the Government will come back with something after that. All this could take a year or perhaps slightly longer, and we might not see any resolution before the autumn statement of 2017 or possibly in the Budget of 2018. So why change the system now? Why give the civil service more difficulties by changing it now and having to change it again in a year or 18 months’ time? The Government have given us the rationale for a delay.

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Gentleman has talked about timing. I want to be more optimistic and give the Government an opportunity here. They are already responding to suggestions about an integrated approach in the Green Paper. We heard announcements yesterday relating to mental health and to homeless jobseekers facing sanctions. I hope that we can look forward to more announcements before April that will mean that we do not need to pause. Let us remain hopeful that we do not have to wait until April for the vision of the Green Paper to come to fruition.

[George Kerevan]

I am happy to accept that optimistic approach. The hon. Gentleman will possibly have more influence on the Government than I will, and the sooner that happens, the better. In the spirit of this debate, I am trying to be as reasonable as possible in giving the Minister information to take back to the Government.

The most frightening statistic that I have read in recent months relates to the rise in the number of people with disabilities in the adult workforce. The figure is something like 400,000 since 2013, so this is not a diminishing issue; it is a social problem that is rising. I suspect that an awful lot, if not the majority, of those citizens with disabilities are suffering from mental health issues. That is precisely the group that comes in and out of employment. It is the strategic group for which we have to craft a benefits system that will help them through the process and give them the support and encouragement they need to get back into work permanently. This is not just another component of the welfare system; it is a key component for dealing with a growing problem, so again we have to ask the Government to look at the issue and not just to make short-term changes. They need to get the Green Paper through and find a permanent solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

The amount of money and how we spend it will be directed by, and based on, the needs of people who currently need the support. The situation was very different a few years ago, and it will not be like that. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Labour’s success in this territory, but I gently point out to him that the disability employment gap closed under Labour because unemployment rose. I gently say to him that a consensus on tone has been set this afternoon, and that is important.

I am going to do something unusual and make some asks of this House, although it is usually the other way around. If the Green Paper is to deliver all that it must, we must all play our part, whatever our political hue and on whichever side of the House we sit. All the organisations and experts in our constituencies need to be involved, too, including the patient and peer support groups that we are not currently engaged with, and all the organisations that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) alluded to in the case of his constituent Simon, who faced a domino effect. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) for alluding to the fact that we have a massive opportunity in the Green Paper, not only in terms of what we do for employers and healthcare, but for our own processes in the DWP.

We have designed the consultation process to facilitate discussion at a very local level, with facilitators’ packs and other support, and I ask all MPs to help to facilitate local meetings, bringing together organisations from across their constituencies. That way, we will get a good result from the Green Paper not just in the policies that will come out of it, but in starting local conversations about how it will work. On 5 December, we will hold an event in Parliament, where there will be a pack for every Member and every constituency to facilitate such dialogue.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to the Minister for her constructive response to the debate. All the people and organisations to which she has referred would no doubt want to hear whether the hardship fund, the flexible support fund and the third-party deals she has mentioned will fully compensate for the loss of the WRAG payments for new claimants? Will she give us such a reassurance?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Yes. Let me give my hon. Friend that reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) not only thanked DWP staff again, but helpfully outlined the detail of the support mentioned in the Green Paper, which we will bring in before there are new claimants from April. I am grateful to him for going doing that. All that support will be in place before the new claims come in.

I have heard the word “pause” a lot this afternoon. I do not think we should pause that support. We need to progress it, and it will come on stream in April.

Autumn Statement Distributional Analysis, Universal Credit and ESA

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

We are working hard on this. When my colleague the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work sums up at the end of the debate, she will no doubt elaborate on that more. To be able to do everything we can as a Government, we need employers to do more as well, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognise. A whole-society approach is required to address this great challenge. Progress is being made but more is needed. He should have no doubt about the Government’s commitment to doing everything possible to achieve that.

One reason why so much more needs to be done is that we still have that yawning gap despite all the progress that has been made—despite the regulatory reform, the medical advances, the advances in assistive and adaptive technology, and, critically, the fact that we know that so many people with disabilities want to move into work and that so much talent is not currently being fully utilised. We know that being in work can have wider benefits for the individual, beyond the purely financial. There is clear evidence that work is linked to better physical and mental health, and to improved wellbeing. That is a key theme in our recently published Green Paper “Improving Lives”, and a driver behind the changes to the employment and support allowance and universal credit that were announced in last summer’s Budget.

ESA was originally introduced—I am happy to acknowledge the bipartisan parts of this debate—in 2008 by the then Labour Government. The expectation at that time was that the Atos-run assessment process would place the clear majority of claimants into the work-related activity group, leaving a relatively smaller number in the support group. Over time it became clear that that was not the case, with around three times as many people in the support group as in the work-related activity group. At the same time, fewer than 1% of people were leaving that benefit for work each month.

That is why we are introducing changes to encourage and support claimants to take steps back to work and to fulfil their full potential. From next April we will no longer include the work-related activity component for new ESA claims, or the equivalent element for people on universal credit with a health condition or disability. I stress that that is for new claims after April next year; there will be no cash losers among those already in receipt of ESA or its universal credit equivalent, and there will be further safeguards meaning that they will not lose the extra payments even if reassessed after April and placed in the work-related activity group.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Green Paper, which many of us have been looking forward to for some time. It sets the direction of travel, providing a much more joined-up approach for this group of very vulnerable people. On the notional cash loss for new WRAG claimants, could there be support from the financial support grant in the Green Paper—

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The flexible support fund.

[Mr Burrowes]

Yes, the flexible support fund, which could provide some flexibility and relief for those particular needy groups.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and to the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to whom I pay tribute for bringing forward the universal credit system and so much else that goes with it. The flexible support fund is part of the package of support there is, through the Jobcentre Plus network and other means, to help people into work. It is the case—I will come on to this in a moment—that more money will go into those support packages to help people into work, or, as some people have very significant barriers and some distance to go, to get closer towards work. About 47% of people in the work-related activity group also receive the personal independence payment, which is, of course, exempt from the benefit freeze, and there will be no change to the support group supplement. In the Green Paper consultation, we are consulting on whether we should decouple the support group rates from the type of support people can receive, so that those in the support group can seek help that goes towards their getting work without worrying about their benefit entitlement being at risk.

The amount we are spending on disability benefits, at £50 billion, is not going down: it is going up. In real terms, it will be higher at the end of this decade than it was at the beginning. We believe that the change in the work-related activity group, working in tandem with the new employment support package announced in the Green Paper, will help to provide the right incentives and support to assist new claimants who have limited capability for work. We believe that this package—representing £60 million of funding in 2017-18, rising to £100 million a year in 2020-21 and developed with external stakeholders, including groups and charities expert in addressing the barriers that can come with disability—can have a much bigger and lasting effect on people’s prospects and their livelihoods than the work-related activity component itself. In addition to the funding package, we are introducing £15 million for the Jobcentre Plus flexible support fund in 2017-18 and 2018-19 to help claimants with limited capability for work. From next April, we are also removing the 52-week permitted work limit that exists in ESA, to allow claimants to continue to undertake up to 16 hours’ part-time paid work and, currently, earn up to £115.50 per week.

I trust that hon. Members will recognise the value in our approach. Today’s employment figures show unemployment at 4.8%—a decade low. Average wages are rising at 2.4%, which in real terms is 1.7%. Since 2010, we have seen a 2.8 million rise in the number of people in a job, 865,000 fewer workless households and 62,000 fewer households where no one has ever worked. Income inequality has fallen and average incomes are the highest on record. There are 300,000 fewer people and 100,000 fewer children in relative low income. This morning’s figures show that the rate of young people who have left full-time education and are not in work is at a new low, and the biggest drop in unemployment was among the long-term unemployed.

We introduced the national living wage—a £900 a year pay rise already for a full-time person on the previous minimum wage, with more to come. We have taken millions out of income tax. We have extended free childcare to disadvantaged two-year-olds and we are upping childcare spend by £1 billion a year. We are being ambitious on skills through school reforms and a dramatic increase in apprenticeships, so that more people can share in the opportunities of the new world economy. We are transforming social security through universal credit. We are stabilising the nation’s finances, and ensuring that low-income families and those with health conditions and disabilities have the support they need to enter and progress in work as we build an economy and a society that works for everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. The shadow Chancellor talked about econometrics; I want, like the Prime Minister, to focus on human metrics. At the outset of her premiership, she rightly said that this would be a Government who wanted to

“stand up for the weak”

and reach out to the “just managing”.

Today’s debate, like the debate that we shall have tomorrow, is about seeking to fulfil those aims.

I intend to concentrate on cuts in the universal credit work allowance today and delay most of my comments about the ESA WRAG payments until tomorrow, although I will say now that I approve of the Green Paper’s direction of travel. Its vision of integrated and personalised employment and health support is overdue, but welcome. However, we need to look out for the disabled people—some 500,000, according to a House of Commons Library estimate—who worked in April as new WRAG claimants. They will still be affected. The flexible support fund—about which I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work—is crucial. Along with other discretionary relief, it needs to meet the wider costs of job seeking for disabled people by April. We cannot deny that those wider costs exist, and we must ensure that we meet them. My support for the Government’s admirable reform agenda for disability depends on that.

Let me now say something about low-income families, who are the main subject of the debate and, in particular, about the first few lines of the Government amendment, which

“notes the role of universal credit in ensuring that work pays”.

That is what we want to happen. It is the very basis of our welfare reforms. We must commend the Government, and previous Governments, for the fact that some 764,000 children will not wake up in workless households today because of the opportunities for work that have been provided. That is extraordinarily important. Work is obviously a primary route out of poverty, and the income tax cuts, the national living wage and the 30 hours of free childcare are all extremely welcome.

What will drive all this through, however, is universal credit that does what it was designed to do, and makes work pay. In Enfield, which rolled the scheme out early, it has been a success. Work coaches have reached out to previously unreached individuals, helping them to find work. More people are working, obtaining work more quickly, staying in work longer, and earning more. The first nine months have been very successful. Universal credit claimants are now 13% more likely than jobseeker’s allowance claimants to be employed, work 12 days more, and are more than twice as likely to try to work for more hours.

That is all extremely welcome. However, there is a risk that the cuts in the universal credit work allowances will unpick the good work of the universal credit: the work coaches, the incentives, the living wage and the free childcare. It will be like a travellator in an airport. We want the travellator to help people—especially those on low incomes—to travel into work. It will now be switched in another direction; actually, it will be going in the opposite direction, which will mean that 2.7 million working families will on average be £1,500 worse off without the benefit of work allowances. It matters greatly to these families. It also does not make sense that these families who are claiming universal credit will be worse off than families protected under legacy tax credits payments living in the same town, the same neighbourhood or even the same street. That is not fair.

There is cross-party concern about this, and a shared concern among campaign groups, which are not always on the same wavelength. Gingerbread, focusing its concerns on single parents as well as couples with children, makes the point that working single parents in the poorest fifth of households are set to lose nearly 7% of their income. A home-owning single parent working full time will be over £3,000 a year worse off without the work allowances, and if a second earner enters work he or she will lose 65p in every pound earned. CARE also made this point in relation to recognising our support for marriage in the tax system, which it says could be undermined. In particular, single-earner married couples on median incomes with two children will lose significantly without the work allowances.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is rightly dealing with the levels and the amounts, but may I take him back to one point that came out of the dynamic study, which was that if we stayed with the purposes of the original universal credit with that allowance, it would amount to a minimum of an extra 300,000 people in work over and above existing forecasts? That is a positive reason for staying with those allowances.

[Mr Burrowes]

I agree, and it helps to revolutionise things for everyone—those on low incomes and those on median incomes. A one-earner married couple on a median income with two children—those with children are particularly impacted, given the costs—will lose some £2,211.04 per year without the allowances.

This Opposition debate is plainly timely as it comes ahead of the autumn statement. Before all the universal credit is rolled out and has its full impact, we want to make sure that that impact fulfils the first line of the amendment: to ensure that work pays. Welfare reform rises and falls on this basis, and that is why I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) for all the work he has done. That is the basis of our welfare reform. We want this to rise to meet the aspirations of everyone who can work—families who have been put in poverty, and vulnerable disabled people who are the subject of this debate.

I urge Ministers to take back to the Chancellor the message coming from both sides of the House and from campaign groups, who are united in their concerns for these low-income families, and to ensure that universal credit, which is doing great work across our country, is given the boost it deserves and that work allowances are regenerating it to ensure that work pays.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

How much of a priority is it that we make changes ahead of this autumn statement, rather than waiting until April?

[Heidi Allen]

I think it would send a message and set the fiscal tone that this Government care and are listening to those who, as I mentioned, are running our engine. It would set the tone by saying that this country is, and will continue to be, open for business and can afford to run itself.

Turning to employment and support allowance, I am, of course, delighted that we have a Green Paper coming, and early signs from disability charities are that it is being very well received. However, it is still only a Green Paper and is still subject to consultation, so I remain uncomfortable, just as I was back in February, that the £30 per week planned cut is still in place.

With a new Prime Minister and a new Government, we have a priceless opportunity to build a system that supports and realises the aspirations of people with disabilities. That clearly and rightly is the Government’s mission, so let us not waste it by retrospectively fitting policies to savings targets agreed in a different era.

Improving Lives: Work, Health and Disability Green Paper

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Because I always seek to improve systems. Even though the appeals system does appear to be producing better results, no system is so good that it cannot be improved, as I said a moment ago.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I welcome the Green Paper’s direction of travel. Will its additional, personalised and tailored support for disabled people reach them by April, when they will lose the WRAG payments—which was a condition of support for the ESA cuts for many of my hon. Friends?

[Damian Green]

I know that my hon. Friend has a deep interest in this area, and, when he reads the Green Paper in full, he will find that there are many measures we can take immediately so that help will flow through in the coming months to many people who have a disability but also have the burning desire to get back into work.

Cross-departmental Strategy on Social Justice

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered cross-departmental strategy on social justice.

I am delighted to have secured this vital debate, which I applied for with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), on the importance of joined-up thinking on social justice. I am delighted, too, that we have obtained it so early in our new Prime Minister’s tenure, because my right hon. Friend has already made it abundantly clear that she is personally interested in social reform and in continuing the one nation tradition that has been a consistent and defining strand of 21st-century conservativism.

I propose to use family policy as an example of an area in which greater cross-departmental strategy, involving several Ministers and one Cabinet-level Minister with overall responsibility as a primary element of his or her portfolio—not only as an adjunct—could reap exponential benefits, in particular for the poorest families in our society. That is crucial, because as many Members present today know—I thank those attending for their support, in particular those on the Government Benches—family breakdown is a key driver of poverty. It causes so many problems, not least financial ones, but also problems in health, including mental health, educational difficulties—leading to employment disadvantages—addiction and housing pressures.

In taking charge of the newly minted Social Reform Cabinet Committee, the Prime Minister has put social justice right up there on her list of priorities, alongside Brexit and the economy. The message could not be clearer. She stood on the steps of No. 10 and talked about governing for everyone:

“That means fighting against the burning injustice that, if you’re born poor, you will die on average 9 years earlier than others”.

She also highlighted the fact that

“If you’re a white, working-class boy, you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university.”

She has indicated that she intends to take personal responsibility for changing such unacceptable realities. To my mind, that is not only encouraging, but exciting.

Moreover, I applaud the Prime Minister’s stated ambition, a

“mission to make Britain a country that works for everyone”.

Most, if not all constituency MPs must have completely agreed with her when she said:

“If you’re from an ordinary working class family, life is much harder than many people in Westminster realise.”

We all very much want to work in harness with a Government who see it as their duty to deliver success on behalf of everyone in the UK, not only the privileged few, and who also have social justice explicitly at their heart.

Let me explain what I mean by using the example of family policy. I am sure that other hon. Members will have other policy areas to share. For too long, there has been a view in Government that an aspiration to help families struggling to nurture their children and to hold down stable relationships was indefensibly interventionist and intrusive. Before my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) laid bare the social, financial and emotional costs of family breakdown in our poorest communities in his paradigm-shifting reports, “Breakdown Britain” and “Breakthrough Britain”, fractured families were simply not considered policy-relevant. He punctured the myth that relationship breakdown was none of the state’s business by pointing out that the public purse was picking up the tab and by exposing the easy complacency of those who are better placed in our society.

I accept that no social stratum is immune to family difficulties. I know that from almost 30 years of leading a law firm specialising in family law. Many people in this House, for example, come from broken homes or have seen their own marriages falter, and no one judges them. However, the social justice narrative articulated so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and the Centre for Social Justice highlights how more advantaged people tend to experience family breakdown somewhat differently from people in our poorest communities—although I have to say from my own experience that children can suffer grief from relationship breakdowns however affluent their background.

When the family relationships of those from better-off backgrounds experience shipwreck, they or their parents can deploy reserves of social and other capital to soften the potentially harmful effects on them and the children involved. For example, in good schools, staff are less embattled than in deprived areas and have more time for each individual pupil; or the family might have enough cash that a split does not plunge the people involved into poverty or they can pay for counselling.

All that stands in stark contrast to what happens for the poorest 20% of society, where debt, educational failure, addictions to substances, and under or unemployment often conspire together to compound the damage of broken relationships. Such pressures make relationships hard to maintain, or for parents to spend time with their child to encourage interaction between them. As a result, half of all children in communities of the 20% least advantaged no longer live with both parents by the time they start school—seven times as many as those in the richest 20%.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Her words are important and resonate with those in a recent speech by the noble Lord Sacks, who referred to the “two nations” we now have—those, perhaps the preserve of the rich, who benefit from the association of children with two parents, and those who do not, the 1 million children who have no contact whatever with their father.

[Fiona Bruce]

Yes, Jonathan Sacks, who is so respected and speaks from a heart of compassion, indeed said that. I very much support those words, because we know that about 1 million children have little or no contact with their fathers, and they are vastly over-represented in our poorest communities.

What I said about the poorest 20% on the income spectrum holds true for those who have a bit, but not a lot more. The Institute for Social and Economic Research found that, on average, women’s incomes dropped by more than 10% after a marital split, and that family breakdown is a route into poverty for many. The single fact of family breakdown can tip people out of a degree of financial security and into a much more precarious and uncertain set of circumstances, in which they are also far more dependent on the state.

As I always state in such debates, I make no criticism or condemnation of single parents. So many of them strive so valiantly to support their children and to do their very best for their family, often in challenging circumstances. However, the fact is that lone-parent households are twice as likely to be in poverty as couple families. In 2015, 44% of children from lone-parent families were in households living on less than 60% of median income, as compared with 24% of children from two-parent families. Inevitably, single parents struggling to juggle their time will face greater challenges to spending time with their children.

Some might suggest that parents raising children on their own should simply receive more support from the state, but single parenthood is a risk factor for poverty internationally. Swedish statistics show that parental separation is the biggest driver into child poverty, by a large margin, and that is in the country with the most generous welfare regime in the world. The state does not and cannot protect a child against the absence of a relationship missed with one parent or another. As this Government’s emphasis on life chances has made clear, however, we cannot look only to the effects on income. Poverty is not only about income, but about many other things in life, not least, particularly in a child’s life, poverty of relationships. How are the nation’s children and young people faring in terms of their mental health and wellbeing?

Research commissioned by the previous Labour Government shows that children who experience family breakdown are more likely to experience behavioural problems, to perform less well in school, to need more medical treatment, to leave school and home earlier, to become sexually active, pregnant or a parent at an early age, and to report more depressive symptoms and higher levels of smoking, drinking and other drug use during adolescence. The most up-to-date research also demonstrates those associations. The recently published “Longitudinal Study of Young People in England” found that young people in single-parent families had greater mental health challenges than those with two parents, and there was a greater likelihood of them being above the “caseness” threshold, which means that someone is suffering from such psychological distress that they need clinical help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). It is noticeable that speeches from my hon. Friends have centred on the family. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), to whom I pay tribute—he has a new title now, which I forget; is it sheriff of Northstead?—quite rightly said, family is

“the best anti-poverty measure ever invented”.

I am sure that that will be endorsed by the new Minister, whom I welcome, and our new Prime Minister, who has made it clear that her focus continues to be fighting against “burning” social injustices. At the root and heart of injustice is the lack of opportunity to have the care of two parents and, indeed, to be part of a commitment of marriage.

The point of this debate, which I was involved in seeking to secure, is for the Minister to do a very straightforward thing: to confirm, as we hope is the case, that there is a cross-departmental strategy on social justice and that the Government will publish a life chances strategy. We look forward to the Minister telling us the date of publication of that strategy, which was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech:

“To tackle poverty and the causes of deprivation, including family instability, addiction and debt, my government will introduce new indicators for measuring life chances.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 May 2016; Vol. 773, c. 3.]

I hope the Minister will reaffirm that commitment.

The House authorities struggled when they saw the title of the debate. Who is the Minister responsible for this cross-departmental strategy? The title of the debate was deliberately designed to raise that question, because we need a clear answer on who is leading the way. Traditionally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), to whom I pay tribute, led that charge, given his background with the CSJ and all the hard work done, not least in opposition. We need to know clearly that this strategy is owned across Government and that not only will a life chances strategy be delivered, but it will have real meaning—that it will not consist of good soundbites and a good press release and then gather dust on civil service shelves. That is important.

While I respect the Minister for responding to this debate—no doubt a lot of concerns focus on the Department for Work and Pensions—this issue goes beyond specific departmental responsibilities and affects all parts of Government. We know the family has to be at the heart of that, because it is in stable families that we can have social justice across Departments. When the life chances strategy is published, I will be doing a word search not only for “family” but for “marriage”. I want to see hits on both those words, because they are key determinants.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned Jobs, Friends & Houses, a cross-departmental approach with the charitable sector. May I take that a stage further? Although there is a question mark about who is responding to the cross-departmental strategy on social justice, we can be in no doubt about the impact of a lack of such a strategy. While there are great opportunities through local charities that bring things together, the impact is on those like Lucy. My test of the Government’s cross-departmental strategy is a “Lucy” test.

Lucy was a child who was sexually abused and placed in care. She later went on to suffer from depression, which caused educational failure. She began shoplifting to pay for a drug habit following a short spell in prison, and she lost touch with her grandmother, her remaining relative. The spiral of complex needs led to injustice for Lucy. She was able to buck the trend, but sadly there are all too many Lucys—58,000 are homeless with substance misuse and criminal justice issues. We must tackle this problem. Lucy is an example of the way forward. We must bring things together properly with a national strategy that enables the Lucys of this world to have joint commissioning from their council to avoid the silos between the Probation Service and the NHS, and to have a dedicated, named mentor and advocate. Lucy is now back in contact with her grandmother, out of contact with the police and on the road to recovery.

I appreciate, Ms Dorries, that you want me to conclude. Those individuals with complex needs do not understand cross-departmental strategies, but they understand when they fall into the gaps between departmental silos, funding streams and statutory responsibilities. We have to ensure that the strategy goes to the root causes of poverty and into entrenched areas so that we do much better for such people. We know we need more residential rehab, which has had 50% cuts. Areas such as Birmingham are not making any referrals to abstinence-based residential rehab. We have to ensure that the Lucys of this world get a better deal. To pay homage to the old Heineken adverts, this life chances strategy has to reach the parts that other strategies do not reach and the lives of the Lucys of this world.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

I will call the Minister at 15.58, so perhaps the Opposition Front Benchers will work out the timing for themselves.