Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Nigel Mills

Monday 15th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

When we came into office in 2010—and then in 2015 and 2017—it was really important for the country to take difficult decisions about what we needed to do to ensure that the benefit was sustainable and affordable, because it had grown by over 60% under Labour. We still have to ensure that the benefit is sustainable and affordable, and that we support the most vulnerable, and that is what this Conservative Government are doing.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

When we move people over, it is vital that we get them on to the right amount of benefit at the right time, so will the Secretary of State agree to put in place some targets for accurate performance, and to delay the roll-out if those targets are not achieved?

[Ms McVey]

Under the process of managed migration, the roll-out will be slow and measured. It will start not in January 2019, but later in the year. For a further year we will be learning as we go with a small amount of people—maybe 10,000—to ensure that the system is right. The roll-out will then increase from 2020 onwards. It will be slow and measured, and we will adapt and change as we go.

Universal Credit and Welfare Changes

Debate between Esther McVey and Nigel Mills

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

Again, I ask the hon. Lady to read the Court judgment. I had already made the decision on the disability premium. The Court did not ask the Government to alter the severe disability premium—we won on that point of law—so I ask the hon. Lady to digest the judgment properly. We have put in an extra £9 billion of health and disability funding to support people. In the last couple of years, we have got an extra 600,000 disabled people into work. That is what this is about—supporting the most vulnerable and helping more people into work. We have seen 3.2 million people move into work, including 600,000 disabled people. The hon. Lady should stop scaremongering. Should people have difficulties, I ask her to assist them so that they can get the best support for what they need. That is what Government Members are doing, and the figures reflect that.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

The Work and Pensions Committee went to Marylebone jobcentre this morning to see work coaches, who were genuinely excited about the UC roll-out that took place yesterday. I hope to find the same thing in my constituency tomorrow morning. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to making this work is for work coaches to have the necessary skills, training, time and access to outside support so that they can give claimants the support that they need to get ready for work?

[Ms McVey]

That is exactly right. Work coaches have received—and will continue to get—more training. People are talking about work coaches with a renewed enthusiasm because of the support that they are getting. Darren from Wales, who was put on a confidence course—we were utilising our flexible support fund—said:

“My…work coach was fantastic…helped me turn my life around…fulfilling a lifelong dream”.

That is what this is about—turning people’s lives around. I urge hon. Members to visit jobcentres and meet work coaches, who feel liberated for the first time ever because they are helping people into work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Nigel Mills

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. The campaign came about after we looked at where the jobs were going to be over the next decade. There will be 12 million jobs in fields such as IT, engineering and manufacturing, yet only 7% of girls were going into those subjects, so we knew that we had to do more—hence the campaign. Businesses came on board, as did women wanting to be role models. The Department for Education should also take some credit here, because there are now 10,000 more girls studying STEM subjects at A-level than there were in 2010.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

10. What progress his Department has made on the roll-out of universal credit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Nigel Mills

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

First, I would like to remind everybody that the Work programme is the most successful scheme of its kind in getting people from long-term unemployment into work. Some 1.75 million people are now being helped and over 600,000 have got a job. In feedback, participants are saying that they are happy with the frequency of contact and think that that works with them and helps overcome the barriers to finding work. The number of people on ESA shows that it is actually performing well above what was expected. It was expected to apply to only one in 14 people and the figure is now one in 10. All the extra work that we have done on the communications between Jobcentre Plus and work providers is obviously showing results.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

What more can the Minister do to get a better relationship between jobcentres and Work programme providers so that they can provide a warm handover when claimants move into the Work programme and when they return from the programme at the end of their two-year period?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is right. This is all part of the Oakley review. It is about ensuring that communications are better, that that hand-holding is understood, that people get a copy of the claimant commitment, and that they can understand a good cause and work together. At the end of the day, we are trying to get some of the most vulnerable people, who have been unemployed for a long time, into work. What is needed is that communication and that support from Jobcentre Plus and prime contractors.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Nigel Mills

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

What we did is not name absolutely everybody who could have part of the discretionary housing payment. We have allowed discretion for those people who might need it the most, hence it is called “discretionary”, hence it has been trebled and hence we are supporting these people. Obviously, if somebody on housing benefit, or their partner, needs an overnight carer on a regular basis, they would have their spare room subsidy; they would be exempt from this.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

18. What plans he has for the habitual residence test.

Remploy

Debate between Esther McVey and Nigel Mills

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I am led to believe that the etiquette of the House is to come here first to give a statement, which is entirely what I did. I believe, too, that this is a working parliamentary day—a full working day—so all the processes we undertook were carried out to the best possible standard. People were informed through a correct process and in the correct way. I am glad that we can put that on the record.

Moving forward, what this was all about was supporting disabled people. We had a situation in which £50 million—a sixth of the entire budget—was not supporting individuals, but going into failing factories. We cannot allow that to be case. We have therefore made sure that we support those individuals. There are 8,500 disabled people in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), but only 29 of them, along with two non-disabled people, were employed at Remploy, making a total of 31 people. The Remploy factory in her constituency turned over £71,000 a year, but actually lost £439,000 a year.

I have faith in Remploy employment services to be able to find those people jobs. Since 2010, Remploy employment services have found a job for 109 people with the same disabilities. That is 109 in two years, while there are only 29 disabled people at this factory. Those are the statistics for the right hon. Lady’s constituency, and they are the same for many others.

I did indeed look into the MOD contracts. There are various criteria, which have to be adhered to—the cost to taxpayers, for example, and various others—and I also looked at article 19. It was put in place, which meant that Remploy factories could be considered, but article 19 also says that offers have to be viable and value for money, which was not the case.

On the asset bid, I said that no best and final offer came forward, although there were expressions of interest in the Marine and Frontline textiles businesses. An asset bid, however, has now come forward from a social enterprise, so we have faith that this can move forward. Our criteria for the bid involve, first of all, the employment of disabled people.

Let me add, to put the right hon. Lady’s mind at rest, that following the submission of assets bids during stage 1, the factories in Wigan, Wrexham, Oldham, north London, Motherwell, Bridgend, Bolton and Birkenhead have reopened.

I described as a success, and warmly welcomed, the process during stage 1 which led to 400 people obtaining jobs and 328 being involved in some form of training, because that has happened at a faster rate than has been the case following any other regular redundancy. Furthermore, nine factories have reopened.

I have read the written statement made by the right hon. Lady in November 2007, and the report of the oral statement made during the same month by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). At that time, everyone was looking for a way of making the factories work. The Labour Government put in more than half a billion for modernisation, but that did not work. They looked into whether an increase in public sector procurement was possible, but it proved not to be, following an overestimate of 130%.

The right hon. Lady also forgot to mention that she had closed 29 factories in 2008. In that instance, 1,637 people were not tracked, and did not benefit from an investment of £8 million and the provision of personal caseworkers. We have done all those things. I have met ex-Remploy workers. I went to Talit’s house in Oldham, and asked him what he wanted, and I met Chris from Burnley here at the House of Commons. We helped to reshape the whole package with the help of those people.

We have done a great deal, and, although there is more to do, I am proud of what we have done.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that at a time when there are 6.9 million disabled people of working age in the United Kingdom, we need to find a better way of using the budget that is available, rather than supporting loss-making factories which employ only a tiny fraction of those people?

[Esther McVey]

I entirely agree. We must proceed with care and consideration, and we must also listen to the views of disability groups, advisers and experts, all of whom say that they would like to see more disabled people in mainstream work. That is what we must do: provide proper, sustainable, full-time jobs.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Esther McVey and Nigel Mills

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I welcome the right hon. Lady’s words and her acknowledgment of the listening and consultation that we have done and the changes that we have made. I cannot give the assurances that she would like on PIP, as those were not the case for people of working age under DLA. What we can say is that everybody will be viewed as an individual when it comes to assessing their needs and that more people will get the higher awards—nearly 25% of those on PIP will be on the highest awards. As for carers, one thing we all agree on is that they do an incredible job. We will support them as best we can. I can also announce today that the links for carers that were in place under DLA will also be in place under PIP.

The Opposition never conducted a cumulative impact assessment when they were in government, and for good reason. I understand that it would be impossible to measure the impact of such large reforms and changes, particularly as they will not be in place until 2017 and the case load is dynamic. Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that it would be nearly impossible to do that. As I have said, I am delighted that we have listened to the disability groups, taken on board what they have said and made the changes they asked for.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Does the Minister welcome, as I do, the fairer way that fluctuating conditions, mental health conditions and cognitive impairments are assessed under PIP, in contrast to DLA, which tended to focus solely on physical impairment?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend, who quite rightly states that PIP is intended to look at fluctuating conditions, take all the impacts into assessment and deliver for those people.

Local High Streets

Debate between Esther McVey and Nigel Mills

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I am grateful to have the pleasure of speaking in the debate, Mr Gray, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing it. This is an important debate for a constituency such as mine, which has a collection of village high streets and three market towns. I think that I can still refer to them as market towns, as all three have markets, but I suspect that by the end of my term here, I will have to call them supermarket towns. One new supermarket opened in my first six months as an MP, and the threat of another couple in the other two towns is further damaging the high streets.

Perhaps one of the great pleasures of being an MP is supporting “shop local” campaigns. When my girlfriend says, with apologies to the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), “Can we go to the Westfield centre in Derby?” or, “How about Meadowhell?”—sorry, I think I am meant to say “Meadowhall”—I can say, “No, we need to shop local.” I had great pleasure taking her out to Ripley on Sunday to spend far too much money on jewellery. It seems that we have legalised product placement, and with the number of lists of shops that have been cited in this debate, perhaps some of us are having a try at that here.

To return to my point, I have three market towns in my constituency: Alfreton, Heanor and Ripley. I am giving nothing away when I say that they all have challenges to face. As other hon. Members have mentioned, we have empty shops, pubs and business premises, and bits of land that have been set aside for bypasses that will never happen. There is no magic easy fix for such problems. None the less, those towns now have glossy regeneration plans—the previous Government insisted upon them—with 100-page booklets full of glossy pictures. I am a little suspicious, because the plans are very similar for each town, with a slightly different road map to reflect the historic roads. Fundamentally, we are several tens of millions of pounds short of achieving those plans.

Perhaps we need to think a little more strategically about what a town should look like and how it should be changed and sorted out. There is a risk that everyone looks at a town and tries to do the same thing. We tend to think, “How do we get the shops back to where they were 30 years ago? How do we get independent shops to come back here when they have practically all left, and how do we reopen that pub?” We may need to go beyond that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) mentioned, and accept that things have changed and that we do want to shop at supermarkets. I suspect that we are all guilty of getting back at 9 o’clock at night and of doing our shopping when only the supermarket is open. It is much easier to do that than to go down the high street during opening hours. People exercise their right to choose, so we need to find a plan for our towns that lives in the real world and applies to the future world, and that does not try to take us back 30 or 40 years to what used to work then. There are things that national and local government can do to encourage the change. I am pleased with some of the things that the new Government are doing. We must ensure that planning control is actually about planning rather than development. We must look at what we want to have in each town, where we want it and how we get it.

When I look around at least one of my towns, all I see are rows of betting shops, takeaways and charity shops. They are not great for the vibrancy of a town. One of the ways in which we can reduce the number of betting shops in a row is to allow them to have more than four slot machines. The problem is we may then have two empty betting shops rather than two full units. Councils should have the planning power to say, “No, we have enough betting shops and takeaways; we want something different.”

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing this debate. It is wonderful to see so many Members here despite the imminent recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) hit on a key point when he talked about practicalities, the reality and individual choice. In my constituency, this is such a hot topic that should I call such a debate, some 200 people would descend to try to talk about what they want to do about their closed shops and multiple shops of the same style. This issue is definitely about localism, and it cannot be about prescriptive ideas. We must ensure—I hope that the Minister will do this—that we empower local councils and individuals to do what is right for their area.

[Nigel Mills]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. One thing that councils should have the power to do is to say, “Right, we want this town to be a focus for restaurants or for small shops.” They should be able to choose whatever is right for that town and look at how they can encourage that. We have heard talk of granting business rate discounts, and that is certainly something that we can do. We can grant a holiday for the first year, or half rate for a few years, to give businesses a chance to establish themselves. We can try to streamline the planning system so that we can say, “If you want to convert this empty shop or that void into this kind of outlet, we will guarantee that you can get that planning permission.” That would speed up the process and take out some of the costs. Let us look at practical measures.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) talked about trying to rig together freehold ownership. I know that towns have a problem with the numerous different owners in the high street—they might have banks owning closed branches, a few pub landlords owning pubs that are boarded up, individuals who own shops but cannot be found, and a couple of obscure trusts. We must try to find a way in which we can bring that together. Perhaps we could consider innovative land swaps. Councils might have valuable land outside the town that could be attractive for out-of-town parking, while someone’s land in the centre could be used to regenerate the town. We need to get a critical mass of ideas together so that we can do something rather than thinking, “I can fix two of these 27 outlets, but I still have a problem with the other 25.”

I shall now address car parking, which is probably a poisoned chalice. Anyone who talks to small shopkeepers or owners of small businesses will know that they say that they cannot compete with supermarkets because supermarkets can give free parking to all their shoppers, whereas the customers of small shops have to park half a mile away down a hill, and pay various rates for that privilege. They say that they just cannot compete with supermarket parking for either convenience or cost. The situation is difficult, because councils want the revenue from car parking, and it must be right that car parks be maintained—we want safe, clean, well-lit car parks, and the cost of such maintenance must be met from somewhere. However, one of the things that kills town centres is that people just do not want to pay the £1 or £2 they are charged to park in them. When people are spending £5 on petrol to get to a town centre, it is hard to believe that the 50p for parking will put them off, but if anyone looks at the cars along a free-parking residential street, it clearly does.

We need to take a strategic view. If we are going to save our town centres, we need to think, “What can we bring here that will be viable and self-perpetuating? What can we do to help people to come here, even if we cannot chuck millions of pounds at it? What do we need to do to get the infrastructure, parking and public transport access right, and the pavements well lit and attractive?” If we try to bring those things together and create the right conditions, we can make this plan work. I am afraid that the time for trying to find a one-size-fits-all approach and an attitude of saying, “Let’s go back to the 1960s high street”—great as that might be—has now passed.