Universal Credit

Debate between Esther McVey and Margaret Greenwood

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I would like to pay tribute to all the individuals, charities and Members of the House who have been holding the Government to account over their chaotic and damaging universal credit programme, which is pushing families into poverty.

In June, the National Audit Office published a damning report on universal credit. We know that the roll-out of the benefit is leading to people building up debt and rent arrears or being forced to turn to food banks for help. The Budget last week did little to address the very long wait for payments, which is causing significant hardship. Despite that, the Government are now planning to start the next phase of the introduction of universal credit, which they call managed migration, involving the transfer of 2.87 million people on to it.

Under the draft regulations, existing claimants will be sent a letter saying that their benefits will stop and they will need to make a new universal credit claim by a specific deadline. It is wholly unacceptable that the Government are shifting responsibility for ensuring that people get the help they need away from the Government and on to the shoulders of nearly 3 million claimants. It is no wonder that 80 organisations representing disabled people are calling for the Government to change tack. Learning disability charity Mencap has said that the proposals leave disabled people

“vulnerable to having their benefits stopped before they have made a successful claim”.

More than 400 organisations have responded to the Social Security Advisory Committee’s consultation on the managed migration regulations—a record number for the committee, which demonstrates the strength of concern about this issue.

Parliament is being asked to approve regulations that it may have very little chance at all to scrutinise and debate, even though the details of how the process will take place are not yet settled. When asked by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee on 18 October whether the regulations would be debated, the Minister for Employment answered:

“We need to have a debate in the House.”

It was clear from the context that the Chair meant a debate in the main Chamber. However, the shadow Leader of the House raised the issue at business questions on 11, 18 and 25 October without receiving a clear assurance that that would be the case. That is all the more important since Government Members make up a majority of the MPs in Committees, even though they do not have an overall majority in Parliament.

Let us step back and get a broad view of the Government’s supposed flagship social security programme. Universal credit was supposed to lift 350,000 children out of poverty. Instead, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, an extra 1.2 million children may be growing up in poverty by the end of this Parliament. Universal credit was supposed to deliver work incentives and help more people into employment, yet the NAO says that the Department for Work and Pensions will never know whether universal credit leads to more people in work. Universal credit was supposed to simplify the social security system, but instead, around three in 10 claims of universal credit are closed and not paid, within a system that is complex and that people find difficult to navigate. This statement does nothing to address that.

The Government claim that 1 million disabled households will receive an extra £100 a month as a result of universal credit. What the Secretary of State has failed to tell the House is that the same report by the Office for Budget Responsibility reveals that around 1 million sick and disabled households will lose an average of £2,608 a year, or £217 a month.

Universal credit is failing. The Opposition have consistently called on the Government to stop the roll-out, but the Government are pressing ahead, despite the terrible hardship it is causing. We have a right to ask questions on behalf of our constituents, including whether the universal credit managed migration regulations will be debated in full on the Floor of the House so that all MPs get a chance to scrutinise and debate this critical draft legislation.

The Secretary of State says that the Government have accepted all but one of the Social Security Advisory Committee’s recommendations. That is highly questionable. For example, what new action will the Government take to support people who struggle to make and manage a claim online? Will the Department publish the more than 400 responses to the Social Security Advisory Committee’s consultation, to ensure maximum transparency? The Secretary of State must assure the House that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that no existing legacy benefit claimants end up falling into destitution and that none falls out of the social security system altogether.

Given the potential impact of the draft regulations on claimants’ incomes, the large number of people affected and the strength of opposition to the proposals in their current form, it is a matter of real concern that they will receive such little scrutiny by Members. Members are extremely concerned about the impact that universal credit is having on people living in their constituencies. They must be given the opportunity to debate and vote on these regulations on the Floor of the House.

[Ms McVey]

While the Opposition cannot bring themselves to commend the extra £4.5 billion going into universal credit, let me read out what some independent charities have been saying. The Resolution Foundation has hailed this a “very welcome” £1.7 billion commitment. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that this extra investment is

“a tool for tackling poverty”.

The Trussell Trust has talked about

“significant improvements that will make a real difference to many people supported by universal credit”.

The Child Poverty Action Group called this

“unequivocally good news for families receiving universal credit”.

Other charities have been saying that the Department is now listening to what claimants, charities and MPs are saying. The Trussell Trust has said that. Gingerbread has said that. Mind has said that. Mencap has said that.

I would also point out that an extra 1 million disabled people will be getting an extra £100 a month, and that 700,000 people who did not get all they should under the legacy benefits will get nearly an extra £300 a month. There are now 3.4 million more people in work. That is what we do: we help people into work. Youth unemployment has gone down by 50% since 2010—that gives young people a future, it gives them hope and it gives them a job—and that is happening under this Government.

I came into politics for social mobility. Social mobility is about moving forward and getting a job. There is no social mobility on benefits—there is no mobility on benefits. That is what this party believes in. It is the way to get out of poverty. That is why we welcome the extra £4.5 billion. The Opposition have asked for a debate on the Floor of the House, and, of course, there will be a debate on the Floor of the House. We believe in transparency. We are open and straight talking. We say it as it is.

We will be co-designing what happens with claimants. In the words of the publication that the OBR has put out on the Budget, by 2023-24 we will be spending an extra £2 billion on universal credit than on the system it replaces. I want to say a final word on debt under Labour: between 1997 and 2010, benefit claimants’ debt to local authorities increased by £1.8 billion through overpayments and errors in the legacy system, and £5.86 billion of debt was accrued on tax credits. That is a shameful record for the Opposition of putting claimants into debt on benefits and tax credits.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Margaret Greenwood

Monday 15th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Of course I want to thank not just Haywards Heath jobcentre but all the jobcentres across the country, who are saying that this is now enabling them, for the very first time, to help people into work. We know that that is the case, as we have record numbers of people getting into work— 3.4 million more than in 2010.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

At the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister announced that austerity is over. Only a few days later, it was reported in The Times that families who are required to transfer to universal credit could lose up to £2,400 a year. The Prime Minister then denied it, but the following day the Secretary of State admitted that in fact some people would lose out. The confusion of the past week will have caused real concerns for families who will be affected. They have a right to know. If austerity is really over, will the Government ensure that nobody loses out?

[Ms McVey]

As I have said both on TV and in the House, we took difficult decisions, as did the country, in 2015-16 because we had a benefits system that had grown by over 60% under Labour. Now it is on a sustainable footing and is fair to the taxpayer and fair to the claimant. One million more disabled people will be getting, on average, £110 more a month, and 700,000 who were not getting their full amount of benefit now will. There will be transitional protection. We are listening, we are learning, and we will adapt and change as need be.

[Margaret Greenwood]

Almost 30% of universal credit claims started are not completed, according to the latest figures, and the Government do not appear to have any idea about or interest in what happens to those people. In the next phase of the roll-out, the Government are placing all the responsibility for making a universal credit claim on to the 2.87 million people required to move across, and they admit that they do not know how many will need additional support. There is a real danger that hundreds of thousands of people could fall out of the social security system altogether and be pushed into poverty—even left at risk of destitution. So will the Government step back from the brink and stop the roll-out of universal credit?

[Ms McVey]

I have to say that that is some of the worst scaremongering I have ever heard. At the last Budget and this year, we put in another £1.5 billion when we knew that we had to provide more support. I announced in June that we would be helping another half a million disabled people on the severe disability premium. I have agreed to do more for kinship carers and the most vulnerable 18 to 21-year-olds. We are also agreeing to work with Citizens Advice—an independent and trusted organisation—to help people to get on to the benefit. When we hear what we need to do, we will do it.

The Secretary of State’s Handling of Universal Credit

Debate between Esther McVey and Margaret Greenwood

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood]

Will the Secretary of State apologise for the two points she has failed yet to apologise for to the head of the National Audit Office?

[Ms McVey]

The answer is no, they will not be apologising.

As it is about apologies today—and, as I said, I made my apology straight away—let us go back to another apology. I was hoping that the shadow Chancellor would be here today, because I was waiting for years for an apology for the lynching comment against me. Of course, we never got that apology. As the Opposition spokesperson knows all about that campaign in Wirral West, perhaps she would like to apologise on behalf of her party.

[Margaret Greenwood]

The point that the Secretary of State makes had nothing to do with my campaign in Wirral West in 2015.

[Ms McVey]

So that is twice we have not had an apology from the Opposition.

I now move back to tax credits. Tax credits were introduced in 2003 with an error rate, I am told, of 10% to 14%. Some people call this Brown’s burden—or maybe it is just Labour’s burden. I offer this opportunity now: does anybody on the Opposition Front Bench want to apologise for those tax credits and the mistakes therein? Whether it is on scaremongering or on one of the reasons we brought in universal credit—the failings of the tax credits system—we see that nobody is prepared to apologise.

It is not that we cannot all make mistakes. We have all made mistakes on various scales. But for the only mistake I ever made in this House, I just apologised. Most people think you do that in everyday life, but in this House the Opposition do not apologise, whereas I am prepared to do so.

Universal Credit

Debate between Esther McVey and Margaret Greenwood

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the way he said that. That was my interpretation of what I read throughout the report. I therefore apologised when I checked on the words I had used—my interpretation, not the exact words in the report. I would say, however, on the subject of apologies, that I am more than happy to say, “Can I check on those words? Did I get them right? Did I get them wrong?” I then followed through: “What was the right process?” How did I do it? Nobody asked or told me to come to the House. I actually checked the words and came to the House.

Other people, it is true, have questioned and queried—even the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). Sometimes I think we are blessed in this House that the Opposition never get anything wrong, and other MPs do not get anything wrong. Whereas I am more than happy to come and apologise if I do, it seems that sometimes other people are not so happy to come forward and apologise. Perhaps what I did that was surprising to the House was to come of my volition and apologise for my words that were wrong.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State should be ashamed that she has been forced to come to the House again. Yesterday the Comptroller and Auditor General took the extraordinary step of writing an open letter to her pointing out that she had misrepresented the National Audit Office report on numerous occasions. He did so after she had failed to meet him, and she did not have the courtesy to do so before this point.

The NAO report is damning of the Government’s flagship social security policy, but, instead of responding to its findings, the Secretary of State misled the House over them. The report said that universal credit is not meeting the aims set for it, and that currently there is no evidence that it ever will. Why and how did the Secretary of State come to say falsely—on two separate occasions in Parliament—that the report had said that the roll-out of universal credit should be speeded up, that the report was out of date as it did not take account of changes made by the Government in the Budget, and that universal credit was working? How can these statements be inadvertent slips of the tongue?

In response to a point of order, the Secretary of State said that she had

“meant to say that the NAO had said that there was no practical alternative to continuing with universal credit.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 321.]

That is quite different from saying that it should be speeded up. In fact, the report states clearly that the Government should

“ensure that the programme does not expand before business-as-usual operations can cope with higher claimant volumes”.

Has the Secretary of State ever read the NAO report? If she has, how can she have drawn the conclusions that she has?

The Secretary of State has failed to apologise in relation to the other two key points made by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his letter. Will she now do so? If she misread the report so badly, this brings into question her competence and her judgment. If she read the report and chose to misrepresent its findings, she has clearly broken the ministerial code. Either way, she should resign.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Margaret Greenwood

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

My right hon. Friend, who does so much for people in her constituency, and particularly those with autism, raises a very good point. We will look into exactly what we can do to do that for the citizens advice bureaux, as we have a very good working relationship with them.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The National Audit Office’s report on universal credit shows that people such as carers, families needing support with childcare and disabled people are more likely to have to wait for an initial payment. The report shows that, in December 2017, only a third of disabled people were receiving their initial payments in full and on time. As the Secretary of State claims that the NAO report is out of date, can she tell us what the figure is now?

[Ms McVey]

As we said quite clearly, the NAO did not take into consideration all the changes that we had made and their impact. What we can say is that we know that 80% of people will get their payment on time and in full, but what the NAO report has not taken into consideration is that 90% will get some payment within the first month and it is invariably down to non-verification and not fulfilling their claimant commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms McVey]

Not only is it seeing more people into work sooner, but it shows they are staying in work longer and looking to do more hours. It also shows that people who are in work are earning £600 more a year on average. My hon. Friend has raised a good question.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Department for Work and Pensions’ own survey of claimants under universal credit full service found that over 40% were unable to register a claim online unassisted. These people are the most likely to be vulnerable in our society. Universal support is meant to address this, but the NAO report reveals that providers told the NAO that universal support does not meet the needs of claimants and leaves providers insufficient time to assist them. What are the Government going to do to ensure that these people receive the support they need?

[Ms McVey]

As the hon. Lady will know, we have provided £200 million-worth of support for local authorities to help people who will need the help not just for budgeting but for going online through IT; we have a free phone line and we meet with people face to face to do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend is right—that is exactly the number. Actually, Patrick from Newport has said that it helped him with fares to get to a job and with the cost of clothing. He said:

“Thanks for all your help. It was really easy dealing with everyone who helped me back into work quickly and helping me buy what I need and travel back and forth.”

That was an example from Wales.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The National Audit Office report recommended that the Government should

“ensure the programme does not expand before business-as-usual operations can cope with higher claimant volumes”,

yet in her oral statement on 21 June, the Secretary of State said that the NAO report stated that the Government should

“continue with the roll-out and do it faster.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2018; Vol. 643, c. 495.]

Will the Secretary of State tell us where in the report it says that the roll-out should be speeded up?

[Ms McVey]

Yes, in the report it says just that. It says that it needs to continue to go forward and it needs to continue at a faster rate.

Universal Credit and Welfare Changes

Debate between Esther McVey and Margaret Greenwood

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement, but the Opposition believe that she should have come to the House on Monday to make a statement about both the damning National Audit Office report that was published last Friday and the Government’s decision, announced last Thursday, to put back the target for the completion of universal credit by another year—the sixth such delay. Rather than taking pride in not continuing with the appeal on PIP regulations, the Secretary of State should reflect on her Department being forced three times in the past year by legal challenges to review payments to disabled people.

Universal credit is the Government’s flagship social security programme, and the NAO report on it that was published last Friday is damning indeed. It concludes that universal credit is a major failure of public policy: it is failing to achieve its aims and, as it stands, there is no evidence that it ever will. The report suggests that universal credit may cost more to administer than the benefits system that it replaces, and concludes that it has not delivered value for money, that it is uncertain whether it ever will, and that we will never be able to measure whether it has achieved its stated goal.

The Trussell Trust recently reported that food bank referrals have increased by 52% in areas where the full service of universal credit has been introduced in the past year, compared with 13% across the UK as a whole. In Hastings, food bank referrals went up by 80% following the roll-out of the full service. The Department for Work and Pensions does not measure whether claimants are experiencing hardship; is it not time that the Secretary of State woke up to the realities of poverty in the UK and instructed her Department to do so? Some 60% of claimants have asked for advanced payments, showing just how high the level of need out there is.

The Secretary of State says that universal credit is based on leading-edge technology and agile working practices. However, the National Audit Office report says that 38% of claimants were unable to verify their identity online and had to go to a jobcentre to do so. It makes no sense to accelerate the roll-out of universal credit at the same time as rapidly closing jobcentres. The NAO report reveals that a significant number of people struggle to make and manage their claim online. The Department for Work and Pensions’ own survey found that nearly half of claimants are unable to make a claim online unassisted, and that a fifth of claims are failing at an early stage because claimants are not able to navigate the online system.

The Government claim that the introduction of universal credit will result in 200,000 more people finding long-term work than under legacy benefits. They repeatedly cite evidence from 2014-15, but that was before the cuts to work allowances were introduced and covers only single unemployed people without children. If one looks at the range of claimants in areas where universal credit has been rolled out, there is no evidence that it is helping more people find long-term work. Delays in payments are pushing people into debt and rent arrears on such a scale that private and even social landlords are becoming increasingly reluctant to rent to universal credit claimants.

The NAO report also points out that 20% of claimants are not being paid in full and on time, and more than one in 10 are not receiving any payment on time. The people who are most at need from the social security system are the ones most likely to have to wait for payments. A quarter of carers, over 30% of families who need support with childcare and, most shockingly of all, two thirds of disabled people are not being paid in full and on time. The report points out that the Department does not expect the time limits of the payments to improve over the course of this year, and that it believes that it is unreasonable for all claimants to expect that they will be paid on time because of the need to verify each claim. Does the Secretary of State find the expectations of her own Department acceptable? She has made some claims that things have improved greatly since the closure of the report, so will she substantiate that by putting that information in the Library?

The impact of universal credit on some of our most vulnerable people is clear. Universal support is supposed to help people, but funding is severely limited and provision is patchy. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of it? Is she satisfied that her Department is doing enough to support people who are struggling?

Universal credit was supposed to offer personalised support to claimants, but stressed and overloaded staff are often failing to identify vulnerable claimants. The DWP is aiming to increase the workloads of work coaches fourfold and of case managers nearly sixfold as the Government try to cut the cost of universal credit still further.

The NAO is very clear that the DWP should not expand universal credit until it is able to cope with business as usual. The Government must now listen to the NAO, stop the roll-out of universal credit, and fix the flaws before any more people are pushed into poverty by a benefit that is meant to protect them from it. Universal credit is having a devastating impact on many people and will reach 8.5 million by 2024-25. The Secretary of State must now wake up to the misery being caused by her policy.

[Ms McVey]

First off, this was the earliest time that I could come to the House to make an oral statement. I sought to make a statement as soon as possible, which is why I am here today. Obviously, everyone will know what has been happening this week in the House.

On the legal changes that I have made, let me say that I took them from day one. I took them immediately. No one was forced to do that; I actually took the changes on myself with the rest of my team and also with Conservative MPs who came and told me what they would like to do. I also went out to visit various groups up and down the country. I felt that that was the best thing that we could do.

When this system is fully rolled out, it will be £50 cheaper per claim. It is an automated system and it is a personal tailored system. For those who cannot get access, or who are not sure about the IT and how to support it, we have given an extra £200 million to local authorities to support people—to help them with IT and to help them with debt—not that we would ever recognise that from the scaremongering of the Opposition.

Labour talks about poverty figures, but, compared with 2010 when it was last in office, there are now 1 million fewer people in absolute poverty. Rates of material deprivation among children and pensioners have never been lower, inequality has fallen and remains lower than in 2010, and according to the latest figures, out this week, inequality, because of our benefit and tax changes, has fallen by two thirds in the last year. I wish the Opposition would keep up with the rapid changing of things.

We are helping more people into work. More than 3.2 million more people are in work—1,000 jobs every day since 2010. How much evidence do the Opposition need, for heaven’s sake? The support is there, and now the advances. It was key we made those changes in the last Budget. We knew if people were having difficulty with the benefit, which was there to support them, we had to make those changes—the advances, the two-week run-on for housing benefit, stopping the waiting days—and now we find out that 4% of people are moving into work in fewer than six months and that 50% spend more time looking for work. That is the reality.

Please allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to mention some of the real people I have met and spoken to and what they are saying about universal credit. Shafeeq, who was homeless, got an advance that got him temporary accommodation and put him in a better place to look for work. He said it

“helped me out a great deal and I’d have been lost without it”.

He is now in a job. Lisa said an advance payment helped her to secure a place with a childcare provider. She is paying it back over 12 months, which she says means a great deal to her. Gemma, a lone parent, said,

“it’s amazing being able to claim nearly all my childcare costs back, it’s a real incentive to go out to work – I’m going to be better off each week”.

Ben in Devon had a work coach, who helped him to progress in work from day one. Ryan from Essex had a lack of work experience and confidence, and his work coach helped him through universal credit. I will end it there—with the people receiving the benefit.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Esther McVey and Margaret Greenwood

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing this urgent question. I was disappointed to hear the Secretary of State be so dismissive of concerns that have been expressed by Members right across the House. For the second time this year, the Secretary of State has been forced to acknowledge that her Department has made a serious error in assessing claims for personal independence payments. The previous error resulted in potentially 220,000 people being underpaid PIP, causing misery that could and should have been avoided. The Secretary of State now admits a second error, this time relating to activity 3 of the daily living component, “Managing therapy or monitoring a health condition”. The Department has again got the law wrong on interpreting PIP descriptors, leading to perhaps thousands of disabled people not getting the crucial support that they need.

In January, when the DWP last admitted that there had been an error, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) asked the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work a series of questions that should have been answered but still have not been. If anyone is to have confidence in the Department, the Secretary of State must now answer our questions.

How quickly will the Department be able to identify claimants? Will the Secretary of State publish her criteria for reviewing cases? Will she include the cases that did not originally score sufficient points? Exactly how many claimants have been wrongly assessed for PIP? What assessment has she made of the administrative cost to her Department of undertaking yet another complex exercise? Given that this is the second error in the Department’s interpretation of its own guidance to come to light in six months, what reason do disabled people have to believe that her Department is fit for purpose?

[Ms McVey]

This is a brand new benefit that, for the first time, looks not just at people with physical disabilities, but fundamentally at all the disabilities people have—cognitive, sensory, health and mental health conditions—and supports more people than DLA ever did.

Nobody was forced to come here to explain why I did not appeal the mobility case. I made a decision by myself, which I thought was true and in keeping with how PIP was designed, and I made sure that we did not seek leave to appeal that.

There was a period of uncertainty for the five months between the court case and when the new regulations came into play. I agreed that in the cases of AN and JM, they should not be living in uncertainty. I believe that in both instances, I have done the right thing in not seeking leave to appeal.

I appreciate that the Opposition do not like to hear the fact that we have, I would say, made a positive move by not seeking to appeal and by supporting these extra people. No one would believe it from the screams from the Opposition Benches, but what I have decided to do and what this Government have decided to do is to support disabled people as best we can and to provide this new benefit, which is a personalised, forward-looking benefit, which was not the case with DLA.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Margaret Greenwood

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

As it is a brand new benefit, we are providing extra childcare support, which is needed by people with children and lone parents. We are also giving tailored support. The claimant commitment and the one-to-one relationship that people have with their work coach is about really understanding the needs of the individual. That is what we are doing to help people to get into a job, get a career and fulfil their job ambitions.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Department for Work and Pensions has been forced recently to reveal that a fifth of universal credit claims are being turned down because claimants are not managing to negotiate the complex application process, meaning that thousands of people are falling out of the system. Claims must be made and managed online, even though, according to an OECD study, 40% of unemployed adults in England have low basic skills. Meanwhile, one in 10 jobcentres are being closed, removing face-to-face support from communities, and the Government are speeding up the roll-out of the full service yet again. What action are the Government taking to identify the factors leading to such a high level of failure?

[Ms McVey]

Obviously, this benefit is not failing. That is why we are seeing extra support and why we are seeing record numbers of people in employment and record low unemployment. However, the hon. Lady is right to talk about the low IT skills that people have. Part of the universal support we are giving is to educate and to enable people because the IT skills they need to claim a benefit are the same IT skills they need to get a job and to get cheaper deals online. That is what we are providing. Again, if they are in debt, we are providing that personalised support. As we close some of the jobcentres, most important is the outreach work that we do. As we seek to help more people and some of the most difficult to help into work, we are doing outreach work through the flexible support fund.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Margaret Greenwood

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Had the Secretary of State read the full article that she refers to on Channel 4’s FactCheck, she would have seen that it said that our numbers were in fact correct.

[Ms McVey]

indicated dissent.

[Margaret Greenwood]

Well, it did. I recommend that the Secretary of State rereads it.

In less than two weeks’ time, support for mortgage interest will change from a benefit to a loan. Government figures released on Friday show that, even at this late stage, the DWP has still not managed to contact 40% of claimants by phone to explain the change, and 30% of all claimants have already declined a loan. A large proportion of claimants are pensioners, and Age UK is warning that many may instead try to manage by cutting back on essentials such as heating. Why have the Government failed to give claimants adequate notice, and will they call a halt to this policy, which risks inflicting hardship on thousands?

Motability

Debate between Esther McVey and Margaret Greenwood

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. This issue unites Members on both sides of the House. The first step is for the NAO to look into the matter, but my hon. Friend’s suggestions seem fair and right, and they are the kinds of points we should pursue.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing this urgent question. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.

The news that the chief executive of Motability Operations Group plc took home £1.7 million last year and that the group is sitting on reserves of £2.4 billion has shocked people around the country. Particularly shocked are disabled people, 51,000 of whom, according to Motability’s own figures, lost access to the scheme last year after being reassessed for their personal independence payment. More than 3,000 were reinstated on appeal, but many lost their car in the meantime.

From Carillion to Motability, excessive executive pay is completely out of hand. With Motability Operations Ltd paid about £2 billion a year directly by the Department for Work and Pensions on behalf of disabled people in receipt of social security support, there are serious questions for the Secretary of State to answer. When did she or her officials last meet with either Motability or Motability Operations Group? The National Council for Voluntary Organisations’ “Report of the Inquiry into Charity Senior Executive Pay and Guidance for Trustees on Setting Remuneration”, published in April 2014, says that charities should include their highest earners in their accounts, regardless of whether they work for a subsidiary company. Does the Secretary of State agree?

Motability Operations Group is sitting on a surplus of £2.4 billion. That is a staggering amount given its VAT exemption from the Treasury, which means that it does not compete on a level playing field.

When the National Audit Office last examined Motability in detail in 1996, it found that the then £61 million reserves

“exceeded the necessary margin of safety”.

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the current necessary margin of safety, and what assessment has she made of the £200 million annual underspend that has allowed such a large surplus to accumulate? Given that the funding of Motability effectively comes from the taxpayer via social security payments, what assessment has she made of value for money for disabled people who rely on their cars for independence? Finally, value for money for taxpayers is not currently one of the criteria for Motability’s remuneration committee. Does the Secretary of State believe it should be?

[Ms McVey]

The Department has worked closely with Motability to ensure that disabled people get good value for money for the cars that they choose to spend their money on. The Charity Commission, which recently undertook a detailed review of the charity’s financial accounts and its relationship with the non-charitable company Motability Operations, said:

“That review did not identify regulatory concerns about the charity’s governance or its relationship with the commercial company. It is not for the Commission to comment on the pay of the CEO of a large non charitable commercial company. However, we have made clear to the trustees of the charity Motability that the pay of the CEO of its commercial partner Motability Operations may be considered excessive and may raise reputational issues for the charity.”

It also found

“the level of operating capital held by the company in order to guarantee the scheme to be conservative”,

but said that it should be “kept under continuous review.” I would say that that review needs to start again. The Charity Commission should again look into what has happened.

It is the Government who permit disabled people to have a benefit, but where that money is spent is always the choice of the people who receive it. When the scheme was originally set up in the 1970s, with cross-party support, that was deemed the best way forward, but as I said, the NAO must now look into the matter. When I personally looked into it in 2013, I ensured that Motability paid £175 million more to disabled people, and I will continue with that direct action from my new elevated position.