Income Tax (Charge)

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is a sensible man to give way to, and I will do so in a moment.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently admitted on Sky that putting up national insurance for employers will directly impact working people—of course it will. The Office for Budget Responsibility lays out in black and white that the consequence will be over 50,000 fewer jobs, with about 70% of the cost of this increase in taxation ultimately being borne by those who work, through lower wages. Are these not working people?

The Secretary of State mentioned her youth guarantee and the importance of youth. I simply observe that youth unemployment fell by over 40% under the previous Government, whereas it rose by over 40% under the last Labour Government. That is how successful the Labour party is.

Of course, because both the rate and the threshold have been increased, the national insurance increase will disproportionately impact those on lower wages, including the youngest workers.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I warmly congratulate the new shadow Chancellor on his appointment. It is richly deserved, given his tremendous work as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in getting people back to work.

In opening this debate, the Secretary of State said that she is only attacking wealthy people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) is talking about working people, so will he emphasise that our party stands four-square behind working farmers? These people, with only 250 acres, just want to pass on their business to their son, but they are being cruelly attacked by this Government.

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is right that this is another broken promise. At the general election, the now Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave an unequivocal guarantee to farmers across the country that there was no question of farms being brought into inheritance tax. There is a good reason for the exemptions and relief, because if inheritance tax is levied on family farms that are passed down to another generation, those farms will have to be broken up, with parts sold off to pay the tax.

I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned this, because the OBR has said that, by 2030, this measure will raise the princely sum of £520 million, which is enough to run the national health service for just one day. Has a more modest sum ever raised so much misery? I think not.

The Chancellor assured us that she will not fiddle the figures by changing the fiscal targets, yet we have seen the fiscal targets changed to allow this Government to borrow an additional £140 billion.

This is not a good time for the Secretary of State to talk about pensioners, but she mentioned them at the end of her speech. They were so badly let down by the means-testing of the winter fuel payment, and they were not told in advance to expect anything like it. Ten million pensioners across the country will lose up to £300 as a consequence of this measure. The Government claim that only the wealthiest, only the millionaires, will be affected, but two thirds of pensioners below the poverty line will have this benefit removed.

Social Security

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

If I can reach out to the Labour party for a moment, there is a case for having a serious debate about the total package that we give to pensioners. We could have done that in a sensible way—I have raised it myself, having questioned some aspects of the triple lock a couple of years ago. It is a very difficult debate, but I understand that the total package paid to pensioners as a proportion of gross national product must not keep increasing every year, because that is the way ultimately to bankrupt the country. We need to have a social contract between older people like myself and younger people, particularly when it comes to house building. I understand all that. That is the debate we should have been having today, and we could have combined as a House to have that debate and protect the public finances.

However, that is not the debate we are having. We are debating the action of a Government who have not just gone against a manifesto commitment—there was no manifesto commitment to do this—but actually gave a specific promise that they would not do it. This is surely a question of public trust. They gave an absolute guarantee and I think that is why people are so upset.

I know that some people will say, and here I declare an interest: why should somebody like me receive the winter fuel allowance? All right, let us have a serious debate about that. But what about the people—these are the people I feel so strongly about—who have worked hard all their life, have served their country, receive a very small occupational pension, do not receive pension credit and are looking after every penny, and suddenly, because they do not and cannot receive pension credit because they have a very small occupational pension, their winter fuel allowance is taken away? That will make a real difference to them, so we really have to consider them, and have a serious debate about how we are going to protect those people.

May I make one suggestion to the Government? The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) alluded to the fact that there should have been a serious debate about tapering, or something similar. I will tell the House what this is all about. This is about a punishment beating. The New Labour Government decided they had to make their case that the public finances were in a dire state and that there was this—[Interruption.] Hang on—there was this £22 billion black hole. We spend £1,200 billion every year. The £22 billion so-called black hole is a mere accounting device. The Labour Government are trying to make the political point that the Conservative party ran the country into the ground, so we have to punish the pensioners. It is absolute and complete rubbish.

What those we represent cannot understand—the people who worked hard all of their life, who have done their bit for the country and whose total package is perhaps £13,000 or £14,000 a year—is that this so-called saving of public money is actually going to go to the train drivers, who earn £70,000 a year. So for God’s sake, let us have a serious debate, let us try to unite on this issue and let us not keep taking away benefits from people just above the pension credit limit. Of course, there are many pensioners who are entitled to pension credit who, for all sorts of reasons, will never claim it. They are suffering, so they will be even worse off.

There is another point to be made. The Government will argue that the total package will be worth more after the increase in the triple lock next year, but actually a pensioner who drew their pension before 2016, by the time they have had this cut, will probably be even worse off. The first cut in the state pension for years! This is not acceptable. This is not the right way to go about things. We should unite around a sensible package that rewards pensioners for their hard work, but does not just indulge in a political gesture.

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

Securing good jobs for more people is the best way out of poverty, and the best route to raising living standards. That is why, in his autumn statement, the Chancellor announced a cut in the main rate of employee national insurance from 12% to 10%. That is why we have raised the national living wage, representing a boost of more than £1,800 to the annual earnings of a full-time worker. That is why we are delivering the next generation of welfare reforms to help thousands more people into work. That is why, Madam Deputy Speaker, we on the Conservative Benches will never tire of reminding Opposition Members of our record since 2010: nearly 4 million more people in work; numbers on company payrolls at a near-record high; the unemployment rate around halved; more than a million fewer people in poverty; and UK economic inactivity lower than the G7, the EU and the OECD average, and down nearly 300,000 from its pandemic peak.

As Conservatives, we believe in making sure that those who can work have every opportunity to do so. Indeed, that is precisely how we can afford a strong welfare safety net for those who are unable to work and support for the most vulnerable in our society.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

If we were to insist on work visas being given only to people who are on average UK earnings, would that not create a virtuous circle by which only skilled people came here, and care homes would be forced to pay proper wages, ensuring that more people came off my right hon. Friend’s books and got into productive work?

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is attempting to tempt me into matters that I know are under discussion at the highest levels of Government at the moment around the policy that we should adopt on immigration, but I will not be drawn immediately in that direction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady refers to the fact that people without recourse to public funds are not eligible for benefits. When people arrive, I accept that they are not going to be eligible for child benefit. Any family in a state of difficulty can apply to the Home Office for a review of that status; it is for them to do so. At the same time, as I think we confirmed to the Select Committee when we discussed the matter at the hearing last week, it is for local councils to design the way they do the household support fund. It may be possible for people without recourse to public funds to apply to their local authority.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that support for the welfare state depends on a kind of social contract where people realise that those who are pensioners or out of work should be helped because they have paid their taxes? How is support for the welfare state improved when 60,000 people a year are pouring across the channel, paying illegal smugglers—these are not the poorest of the poor—and being kept on social security, maybe for 10 years, without ever being deported? By the way, what does it cost?

[Dr Coffey]

I am conscious that through the help—the visa schemes—being put forward for Ukrainian citizens and for Afghan resettlement, there is access to public funds. My right hon. Friend will be aware that people who arrive in the country illegally are given a payment via the Home Office, I think, of a very small amount of money to pay for the day-to-day, but they are not eligible directly for benefits.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The House has just recently voted through the uprating order, recognising the traditional way in which the inflation index is used. We will continue to strive to get more people working than ever before. We have seen that certainly on payrolls. I am conscious that the surveys on self-employment may differ in that regard. That is why we will keep working in different ways to try to make sure that we try to lift as many people out of poverty as we can, and we will do that the best way we know: through our work coaches.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to tackle deprivation through its benefits policy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

We know that moving into work—particularly full-time work—is the best way to tackle poverty. We are taking decisive action to make work pay, giving nearly 2 million families an extra £1,000 a year through our changes to the universal credit taper rate and work allowances.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I represent Gainsborough South West ward, the 24th most deprived in the country. I wonder whether the Minister would like to come to Gainsborough and discuss with me how we can have pilot schemes, perhaps in the 100 most deprived wards in the country, to really tackle the problem of deprivation with a cross-Government approach that would improve universal credit and tax credits to get people into work and keep them in work, help businesses create jobs in those wards and, above all, help with housing. Is that not a good idea?

[David Rutley]

It is always a good idea to meet my right hon. Friend, and I will look forward to that. He is absolutely right: the best way to assist people is to help them gain the skills they need to move into work and to progress in work. In Gainsborough, the local jobcentre has worked in partnership with the local council, training providers and the owners of a local business park to recruit staff for a new hospitality venue called the Caldero Lounge through a sector-based work academy programme to help get unemployed people back into work, and there is another SWAP already in train in his constituency. I look forward to meeting him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

11. What assessment she has made of the (a) utility and (b) value of universal credit compared to predecessor schemes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

Universal credit is a modern, tailored, resilient benefit responding effectively to economic conditions. It replaces six outdated and complex benefits with one, helping to simplify the benefits system and providing a safety net in times of need and, of course, making work pay.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

When the Centre for Social Justice originally designed the universal credit system, it was with a 55p taper, so this reform is long overdue and very welcome. The fact remains, though, that there are still record numbers of people on universal credit, 60% of whom are not working at all, yet we have record job vacancies and a labour shortage. Will the Minister tell me what more can we do? How can we get more people back into work?

[David Rutley]

The thing that has impressed me the most since taking on this ministerial responsibility is the sheer enthusiasm of our work coaches. I definitely recommend that my right hon. Friend’s constituents speak to the work coaches to find out what opportunities are available to them, particularly through skills and through restart, to get involved in new sectors through the sector-based work academy programme. Huge opportunities are available for people, and they need to be explored.

Child Maintenance Service

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Child Maintenance Service.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank everyone for attending, and the House of Commons Library and the digital engagement team for their contributions to the debate.

Members are likely all aware that the Child Maintenance Service, which administers the 2012 child maintenance scheme, is frequently raised by various means in this place. This year alone, up until the end of last week, 28 cross-party MPs, including me, have asked a total of 109 parliamentary questions directly related to child maintenance. On the Floor of the House, three MPs have suggested holding a debate. All those instances correlate to the processes and the performance of the Child Maintenance Service, which is failing many constituents across the British Isles—both paying and receiving parents.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Could you speak a bit louder, please? The acoustics are not very good in here.

[Martyn Day]

No problem—I appreciate that.

The last request for a debate on improving the Child Maintenance Service was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), who secured an Adjournment debate on the Child Maintenance Service some 20 months ago, to highlight concerns about the inadequacies of the service that she had become aware of through her constituency work. Those concerns include the struggles and inconsistencies faced by constituents dealing with the Child Maintenance Service, as well as sensitive safety issues faced by domestic abuse survivors.

I commend my hon. Friend’s efforts to remove the 4% charge that parents with care who have survived domestic abuse have to pay when they are left with no option but to use the collect and pay service. Besides effectively meaning that 4% of children’s maintenance entitlement goes to the Treasury, it is also a means for an abusive paying parent to perpetuate their control over the receiving parent, thereby continuing the cycle of abuse. As my hon. Friend highlighted in November 2017, it is commonly known that one of the biggest impediments to domestic abuse survivors achieving independence from the abusive relationship relates to financial control.

All those months ago, the Minister responding to my hon. Friend’s debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), advised that the Government aimed

“to take immediate action to re-establish compliance wherever a parent fails to pay what they owe”

and that one of their priorities was ensuring that action was taken

“to maintain compliance in the statutory scheme, so that…children can benefit from maintenance payments.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 701-704.]

It will shortly become evident that that prioritisation is not happening, certainly in the cases that I will raise.

Another way the Child Maintenance Service has been raised is through a private Member’s Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). The Child Maintenance Bill aims to remove certain fees charged by the Child Maintenance Service, and to make provisions for child maintenance payment calculations. The Bill was read the First time on 6 November last year, but still awaits its Second Reading. Perhaps the time has come for it to make some progress.

Furthermore, just last month the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019, which amend child maintenance legislation to enable the delivery of the child maintenance compliance and arrears strategy, were approved in the House. The then Minister, who is also present today, announced that the Child Maintenance Service was working well, and pointed to the

“tough new sanctions for those who evade their responsibilities”.—[Official Report, 11 June 2019; Vol. 661, c. 583.]

However, I called for today’s debate because, as its regular appearances in parliamentary matters, which I have just highlighted, clearly show, the Child Maintenance Service might be working well for some but is certainly not working well for all. The debate requests that relate in particular to the processes and performance of the Child Maintenance Service show that many constituents across the British Isles, both paying and receiving parents, are being let down by the current system.

I warmly welcome the introduction of tough new sanctions for those who evade their parental responsibilities, but if the enforcement actions are not applied they are a blunt tool that does nothing to encourage paying parents to meet their obligations. We must not see a repeat of the National Audit Office report of March 2017, which noted that, compared with 2012-13, in 2015-16 there had been, with regard to the use of some types of collection and enforcement action in respect of arrears due for the 1993 and 2003 schemes, a 69% decrease in the use of deductions from earnings orders; a 73% decrease in bailiff referrals; a 77% decrease in liability orders, which allow enforcement powers to be used; and a 98% decrease in prosecutions.

Today’s debate will consider the difficulties faced by so many of our constituents and the reasons why the Child Maintenance Service is failing them. In doing so, our discussions will hopefully also consider what can be done to remedy those failings, so that all children can benefit from receiving maintenance payments that are consistent and compatible with the paying parent’s income level.

In my constituency alone, I have been contacted by 55 people who have essentially reached crisis point due to the treatment that they have received because of the Child Maintenance Service procedures. Those 55 cases represent the tip of the iceberg in my opinion. It has an impact across extended families as well. A father of one parent with care felt compelled to speak to me independently to describe the financial and emotional devastation that his daughter and grandchildren were experiencing because the paying parent was doing everything in his power to dodge his responsibilities.

I will momentarily discuss that case in more detail, and others in my constituency, but there must be a fundamental deficit in any system that allows that to happen. We must do all that we can to address that deficiency. The numbers that I am seeing suggest hundreds of detrimentally affected family members in my constituency alone, and tens of thousands across the UK. Clearly, the ineffectiveness of the Child Maintenance Service has a negative impact on a significant number of people.

That is certainly supported by the nearly 1,000 people who responded to the House of Commons Facebook post and the Mumsnet thread that invited comments ahead of the debate. I thank each and every person who made the effort to share their experiences on those forums —many of them were quite traumatic tales. Unfortunately, time limitations restrict me from disseminating individual accounts, although I will highlight the stories of my constituents, which mirror many of the issues raised on those forums. However, I can state that almost none of the paying and receiving parents who responded had had a positive experience in dealing with the Child Maintenance Service. Recurring themes included problems arising from payments being calculated on gross income and on incorrect and out-of-date information, and how calculations result in poverty and debt, which lead to mental health impairment and even suicidal tendencies. Additionally, users experience inconsistent information and standards of service.

My constituent Susie first approached me nearly four years ago, in September 2015, after the father of her children moved to self-employed status and dramatically decreased the maintenance he paid for his children’s upkeep. Indeed, during the non-resident parent’s change of employment status he paid nothing towards his children’s upkeep for almost a year. Susie suspected that he was not being truthful about his declared earnings, as they did not equate with the lifestyle he enjoyed. She approached the Child Maintenance Service to investigate but was duly advised to contact Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which in turn told her to contact a private investigator—an unlikely financial priority when someone is struggling to provide for their children. HMRC procedures are arguably another matter for debate in this place, but that will have to wait for another day.

Before the 2012 child maintenance scheme was introduced, the resident parent could apply for a variation if a non-resident parent had either a lifestyle inconsistent with their income or assets of more than £65,000. In May 2017, the Work and Pensions Committee called for those provisions for parents to challenge child maintenance awards on the grounds of assets and lifestyle inconsistent with income to be reinstated—a call that I reiterate and support—and two private Members’ Bills have been introduced since April 2017 that have, thus far unsuccessfully, sought to implement such a change. However, although the Government’s position is that they have

“no plans to reintroduce this provision”,

they have, since December 2018, introduced a new notional income criterion that they say would

“be useful in a range of scenarios including where we believe paying parents have made an effort to use complex financial arrangements to evade their responsibility.”

At least one step has therefore been made in tackling that type of liability dodging, but it needs decisive action to back it up, not the decrease in action that I have witnessed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

My door is always open to colleagues from both sides of the House, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that particular case in detail.

I mentioned the shortcomings of the CSA, which did not provide the right support to parents and was expensive to run. We have learned from mistakes of the past: where the previous system often drove a wedge between parents by taking away their responsibility and choice, the new system encourages collaboration at every stage. We know that a constructive, co-operative relationship between separated parents has a direct positive impact on child outcomes such as health, emotional wellbeing and academic attainment—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). That is why, wherever possible, we support separated mothers and fathers to work together in the interests of their children and set up their own family-based maintenance arrangements.

Private family-based arrangements allow families to create flexible arrangements that work for their individual circumstances. Such flexible arrangements can include sharing of care, agreements over who will pay for essentials and treats, and financial transfers. They can change as the children grow and can help children to experience having both their parents take an active role in their lives.

We recognise that, post separation, the majority of parents want to continue to do the right thing for their children. We want to ensure that as many families as possible have an effective arrangement for maintenance in place; for those who are unable to make a private arrangement, the Child Maintenance Service provides the support of a statutory scheme. The Child Maintenance Service delivers a simplified statutory system with increased levels of automation, which allows cases to be processed much more quickly and with higher levels of accuracy than was achieved under previous schemes.

The CMS provides an effective, efficient service, to be used as a last resort where parents are unwilling to meet their responsibility to financially support their children voluntarily. This means that cases in the statutory service tend to be more difficult and relationships between the parents in these cases are often fraught and conflicted. While we continue to use all the tools at our disposal to maintain compliance and recover arrears, it is sadly inevitable that some arrears will accrue, as some parents go to great lengths to avoid their responsibilities. That is not acceptable and we are taking action to tackle it. Last November, this House approved regulations tackling a number of issues—closing down loopholes, introducing tough new sanctions for those who evade their responsibilities, and dealing with the historic arrears that built up under the Child Support Agency.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) raised questions about the CMS’s performance. The Child Maintenance Service is performing well. The most recent statistics show that 94% of new applications were cleared within 12 weeks and 79% of change of circumstances actions were cleared within 28 days. We are seeing unprecedentedly high levels of compliance, with 67% of parents due to pay child maintenance through the collect and pay service having paid some maintenance in the quarter ending March 2019, up from 60% one year earlier.

Although the case load on the service has been growing steadily since it opened in 2012, the number of complaints and appeals received still represents less than 1% of that case load. We have continued to refine our processes to maximise compliance and debt recovery. Debt as a proportion of all maintenance arranged by the service has fallen since the launch of the 2012 scheme, from 17% in March 2015 to 11% in March 2019.

A number of colleagues, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), rightly mentioned customer service. The focus so far has largely been on tackling arrears and on recovery of debt, but my clear steer to officials is that I want the focus to be on customer services. We know that more than 80% of calls are answered, although I still think the 20% that are not is too many, and I want them answered in a timely fashion. My focus, while I remain in this role, will be on customer service.

A number of hon. Members raised the issue of enforcement, and we are taking far more action in that regard. We now have several court-based powers, including the use of enforcement agents, otherwise known as bailiffs, to seize goods, forcing the sale of the paying parent’s property. Approximately 7,100 paying parents in England and Wales are currently being pursued by civil enforcement agents for unpaid maintenance following a referral by the CMS.

Hon. Members also mentioned that the service can apply to have the paying parent sanctioned—by being committed to prison or disqualified from driving, for example. In addition to that, in regulations in November last year we launched the ability to disqualify non-compliant parents from holding a UK passport, which we believe will act as a strong deterrent. The service initiated 900 sanctions in the quarter ending March 2019 as a last resort against non-compliant paying parents.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the question of complex earners. We are aware of a small number of parents whose maintenance liability is inconsistent with their financial resources. Some choose to support themselves via a complex arrangement of assets rather than taking a salary. We are taking action to address that.

Parents can request a variation so that most forms of taxable income can be taken into account in the maintenance calculation, which will make it harder for individuals to avoid their responsibilities by minimising the amount of child maintenance they pay. The new powers that we introduced last year allow us to target complex earners via a calculation of notional income based on assets. In addition to the gross annual income provided by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, we can capture income derived from property, savings and investments, including dividends, and other miscellaneous income. We also have the Financial Investigation Unit, which can investigate those parents who declare suspicious earnings or, where appropriate, refer to HMRC for tax fraud.

The FIU was first introduced in 2014, and since 2017 we have tripled the number of staff in that unit. It will look at any case where the receiving parent raises a concern over income and provides basic evidence to support it. I should stress that around 60% of FIU cases show no evidence of suppression of income. Nevertheless, it is an important part of the service. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the self-employed, which I suppose is similar to the situation of complex earners. We have new powers, enabling us to do deep-dive exercises and get to the bottom of cases where individuals are trying to suppress or disguise income. Perhaps I will meet him separately to go through that in a little more detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley raised a number of points about the accuracy of CMS assessments. The accuracy of maintenance assessments has significantly improved; our annual client fund account shows that it is at 99%. Furthermore, the National Audit Office has not qualified CMS accounts for the past two years, which represents a significant improvement.

The hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Motherwell and Wishaw brought up the 25% threshold. I understand the concerns that they have raised. The point of the 25% threshold is to ensure that maintenance calculations are relatively stable, so both clients know what to expect in terms of payments. It also ensures that both parents are able to budget with certainty and provide ongoing maintenance for the child. I have met with the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw to discuss this, and it is important to stress that most people’s income does not change to that degree over the course of one year.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Could the Minister allow time for the mover to sum up the debate?

[Will Quince]

I am sorry, Sir Edward. I am conscious that I have not been able to cover many of the issues raised, but I hope hon. Members can see that the latest statistics show that the reformed Child Maintenance System is already making a big difference to the lives of separated families. We are seeing progressive improvements to the efficiency of the service. Our priority remains ensuring that this service is fit for purpose and, while I am in post, I will continue to ensure that it is.

Personal Independence Payments: Merseyside

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on securing the debate, and on her speech.

Personal independence payment has been debated in this House on many occasions. Members have highlighted their constituents’ experiences and the failings of the system in their constituencies. The fact that we are here today yet again highlighting the failures of the PIP system and the resulting impact on our constituents speaks volumes about the Government’s inaction on the issue. We already know that there are too many people being denied the support that they need. We need only look at the figure of 28,000 mandatory reconsiderations of benefit decisions taken by the DWP, or the fact that the Ministry of Justice cleared nearly 21,000 benefit appeals in the quarter leading to December 2018. The figures for mandatory reconsiderations and appeals are even more staggering when we consider the rates of success: 89% of mandatory reconsiderations in January 2019 led to a change in the DWP’s original decision, and 73% of appeals were decided in favour of the claimant in the quarter leading to December 2018. It is clear that people are being denied the support that they need, not because of their own actions but because of a systematic failure at the heart of the Government’s welfare reforms. The success of claimants in challenging the decisions taken by the DWP highlights that clearly.

As I have said, the Government’s inaction is shameful and impacts negatively on the lives of ordinary people every day. There have been repeated calls for action, from charities, third sector organisations, parliamentarians, claimants and even the United Nations. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions made some key recommendations in its 2018 report on PIP and employment and support allowance assessments, including that face-to-face assessments should be recorded, and that claimants should be provided with a copy of the assessor’s report. Another recommendation related to using contractual levers to improve contractor performance. Yet claimants are still being denied access to assessors’ reports and most assessments pass with no record of the proceedings. Private companies such as Atos that hold contracts for PIP and ESA assessments in both Scotland and Merseyside continue to make profits while denying vital support to claimants.

I am pleased that there is now a commitment that the next Labour Government will ban the outsourcing of public services for vulnerable people to companies such as Atos. We should be looking after the vulnerable, not penalising them so that private companies can turn a profit. In preparation for the debate, I looked at the statistics produced by the Library about the administration of PIP on Merseyside. I was struck by how much the Merseyside situation resembles that in my constituency. Liverpool Walton, Birkenhead and Knowsley all have higher PIP claimant rates than most constituencies and the overall rate for Merseyside is higher at 7.1% than the UK rate of 4.4%. The figure of 5,040 PIP claimants in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill contrasts sharply to the 3,700 average per Scottish constituency. A majority of PIP claimants in Merseyside were reassessed from disability living allowance, as were a significant proportion of claimants—46%—in my constituency. In Merseyside, the percentage of awards decreased following reassessment is higher than the national average, and that is also true of the rate in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, compared with the Scottish average. We are twin towns. It is clear that the people of Merseyside are, just like my constituents, being let down by the Government. The next Labour Government will end unfair PIP assessments and invest in proper support for vulnerable people across the country.

To conclude, I would briefly like to refer to the situation in Scotland. Members will be aware that the Scottish Parliament is due to take responsibility for 11 benefits, including PIP. The Scottish Government have established a new agency, Social Security Scotland, which will be responsible for the administration of those benefits.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. We must relate the debate to Merseyside at all times.

[Hugh Gaffney]

It is still related to Merseyside, Sir Edward. The point I am trying to make is that the Merseyside connection is the same as the Scottish connection. We can see that there are no Tory or Scottish National party MPs here to stand up for their constituents as I am doing. There is a twin connection between Scotland and Merseyside. In 2024 the SNP will get that administration of benefits—but they have rejected it just now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is deeply moving and troubling that so many people’s lives are affected in this way by what appears to be poor quality administration by some staff in the Department. I realise that civil servants are under intense pressure, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is perhaps a need for much greater training to try to avoid the terrible problems of delays and people having to resort to foodbanks?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. If one is going to intervene, it is normal courtesy to be present for most of the debate beforehand.

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend makes a valid contribution to the debate, and he is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside spoke about the assessment frameworks and providers, such as Atos, with which there are countless issues.

When PIP was first introduced, make no mistake, it was a cost-cutting exercise. The Government wanted to cut expenditure and the disability living allowance case load. However, that has not happened, and the Government have spent £4 billion more than anticipated, despite thousands of disabled people losing out on vital support. I frequently hear from disabled people from Merseyside to Merton who have been pushed into destitution by the poor administration of PIP.

Earlier this month, the Liverpool Echo covered a case of a lady whose epileptic mother had been left penniless after her PIP was suddenly withdrawn. In Merseyside, as in the rest of the country, disabled people are suffering because of the fundamentally flawed PIP assessment framework. Thousands of disabled people on DLA have been denied vital support when reassessed for PIP as a result of the assessment criteria.

There is no better example of that than the changed criteria for those who claimed the enhanced mobility component. Under the DLA, a person qualified for that component if they were unable to walk 50 metres, but under PIP that has reduced to 20 metres. That has impacted on many people who received the higher rate mobility component and who had access to the Motability scheme. Indeed, 51,000 disabled people have lost their Motability vehicles, as have those who challenged decisions, and who then had to get their vehicle back when the decision was overturned in their favour. One lady who wrote to me said that having her car taken away was like “losing her independence”, which is unacceptable. Why will the Government not take note of such experiences, and understand that the criteria must change?

We know that 72% of PIP decisions brought to tribunal are overturned, which demonstrates the appalling inaccuracy of the assessment framework and the poor decision making. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey highlighted, in her constituency 76% of appeals are overturned, and disabled people are forced to wait on average for nine months, or 36 weeks, for cases to be heard.

In the past year, the Ministry of Justice has spent £104 million administering social security and child support tribunals. The Government have spent more than £1 billion on outsourced contracts to assessment providers such as Atos and Capita, which have repeatedly failed to meet the Department’s own quality standards. A survey by the Disability Benefits Consortium found that almost two thirds of people claiming PIP felt that their evidence was not taken into account by their assessor. Recent figures released by the DWP show that more than 3,500 people died within three months of being denied PIP. Does the Minister agree that there is no stronger indictment of a failing system than thousands dying after being deprived of social security? When will he finally recognise that it is time to bring those assessments back in house and end the outsourcing?

The DWP is currently carrying out seven reviews into disabled people being wrongly deprived of social security, and four of those are due to the unfit-for-purpose PIP assessment. Most recently, we learned that the DWP is conducting a review into 4,500 people who were on DLA but wrongly denied PIP. In 2017, the tightening of the criteria for those experiencing psychological distress was ruled by the High Court as “unlawfully discriminatory”. That led to a review of 1.6 million people’s PIP cases.

We have heard that Liverpool City Council is introducing a support scheme, but it should not have to do that. I urge the Minister to think about overhauling the assessment framework for PIP, rather than merging the assessment frameworks for PIP and ESA. It is time for a radical overhaul of the system, because PIP has created a hostile environment for disabled people—the very people we should be supporting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Angela Eagle]

The Minister is making a case for the benefit, but nobody is arguing that it is fatally flawed. We are asking for the assessments to be more accurate, because they are causing problems. He is making a case about conditions that deteriorate, but I have brought to his notice cases of people with deteriorating conditions whose awards have been lowered.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. May I just make one point? This debate is about the administration of personal independence payments on Merseyside, so we want from the Minister talk about administration and Merseyside.

[Justin Tomlinson]

It is important to set out the overview of where we are. That is why it was so important to highlight those cases in Liverpool and Merseyside, which shape how we do the administration. All our work is done in conjunction with stakeholders that have frontline experience. Hon. Members highlighted the excellent charities and support groups in Liverpool and Merseyside, which are feeding in. They are right to challenge, shape and help us implement the changes. I have seen many cases in which their frontline experience has brought to our attention common sense that should be applied. That has been done, but that work is not complete. I do not know all the details of the examples that hon. Members highlighted—sometimes there are two sides to a story—but presumably their offices have looked into the cases extensively. There are clearly issues that need to be looked at. Hon. Members have my commitment that we will look at those cases very carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

As I said, we introduced a £1,000 increase in work allowances in the Budget. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), talked about the living wage, which was introduced by this Government and has risen by 4.4% this year. At the end of the day, however, we also want to ensure that people are getting into work. If the hon. Gentleman is particularly focusing on children, he will know that children living in workless households are five times more likely to be living in poverty than those in households in which the adults work.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

15. What estimate the Government have made of the number of jobs created since 2010.

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

Employment has increased by more than 3.3 million people since 2010 to a record high of 32.4 million. This is on average 1,000 more people in work every day under this Government. In the recent Budget, the Chancellor was able to confirm that our economy is growing strongly and that we will see increases in opportunities for people to be able to work.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Surely it is not enough for us to stress the record number of new jobs created; we have to convince people that these are real jobs, with workers’ rights being protected, and above all we have to convince people that the pay of indigenous workers is not being undercut by mass immigration.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that it is really important that we want to build on our strong record of protecting and enhancing employment rights. We are determined to grow full-time high-quality jobs, and that is just what we are doing. The latest labour market statistics show that the number of full-time jobs is up 82,000 on the quarter, up 416,000 on the year and up almost 2.7 million since 2010. That is a record high. The statistics also show that average earnings are rising in real terms.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I must be absolutely explicit in response to the hon. Gentleman, for his benefit and that of the House, and the short answer is that it is not within the powers of the Speaker to compel a Minister, including the Leader of the House, to do anything in this situation. We very much depend in this House, this institution, this great place, on conventions, precedent and a sense of respect for the will of the House. He is a very experienced Member of this place and will know that mechanisms are available to him and others, on both sides of the House, to try to secure a governmental response, if they wish. If they do, they will certainly not find the Speaker an obstacle to their endeavours.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not quite understand something. For 34 years, I have been trooping through hundreds of Divisions on Wednesdays under successive Labour and Conservative Governments. When I was required to be here for those Divisions, I was under the impression that it served some purpose. What worries me is that surely there is some precedent here. You mentioned precedent a moment ago, Mr Speaker. This is not, and should not be, a university debating society. What is the point of the House of Commons if we just express opinions for the sake of it? Surely, when we vote, it should have some effect. I hope that you will use your influence, through the usual channels, to ensure that the House of Commons is at the centre of our national life.

[Mr Speaker]

I absolutely respect what the hon. Gentleman has said. There have been occasions on which, for example, Opposition day debates have expressed a view different from that of the Government. I think there was a case some years ago, when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in opposition, in which that party was successful in a motion that it brought to the House, and the policy of the Government changed thereafter; but it is not for me to say that that has to happen. I have tried to tread a delicate path on this matter, and to explain factually to the House what the result of the vote does signify, but equally, in response to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), what it does not automatically signify.

I must say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not for me to seek to compel. What I will say to occupants of the Treasury Bench is that it is blindingly obvious that this is an unusual situation about which there is strong opinion, and I think it would be respectful to the House if a Minister, sooner rather than later, were to come to the House—perhaps after due consideration and collegiate exchange with other members of the Government—to give an indication of the Government’s thinking.

This institution is bigger than any one party, and, frankly, it is bigger than any one Government. This place, and what we do here, matter very much. I know that the Secretary of State will share that view, and will want to reflect on what colleagues have said.