Leaseholders and Cladding

Debate between Esther McVey and Paul Blomfield

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey]

I started my speech with the Secretary of State’s remarks about what we are doing, the actions that we have taken, and how we will deliver going forward. I want to ensure that people understand the rigorous work of the expert panel and the advice that we are taking from it. That work is checked and verified, and we are taking it forward at the right pace. Of course, we are here to discuss those issues, which are being dealt with—negotiations are ongoing. What the issue absolutely impresses upon us is how important it is that things are done as quickly and as thoroughly as possible.

[Paul Blomfield]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on students, I wrote to the Secretary of State about HPL cladding after the Bolton fire. After two months, I had received no response. I raised it with him on the Floor of the House and he promised me an early response on 20 January, which I still have not received. Will the Minister give us some assurance about when the work on the risks of HPL cladding will conclude? Do the Government recognise that ACM cladding, about which colleagues on both sides of the House have raised concerns, presents exactly the same issues as HPL?

[Esther McVey]

I will take that message back to the Department and see what happened with the correspondence from the Secretary of State. I know that the Department replied to the letter from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on 6 February, so if she has not already got it, it will be with her shortly.

[Paul Blomfield]

Can the Minister say when that work will be completed?

[Esther McVey]

I will go through exactly what we have done and how we have done it, and note the significant steps that we have taken, including the provision of £600 million to support people and the further work led by an expert panel. We have accepted all the recommendations from the independent review, and are going forward at a rigorous pace, which we can do, obviously, once we have had all those negotiations with the Treasury.

In December 2018, we banned the use of combustible materials in external walls of new high-rise buildings and, after implementing the ban, we checked its effectiveness. In January, we launched a consultation on the ban, which went further and asked whether the limit should be lowered from 18 metres to 11 metres. The Government also announced the fire safety Bill, and the associated regulatory changes, to deliver the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Paul Blomfield

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

The Opposition have been putting across fake news, or maybe it is clumsy research or just misinformation. Even “Channel 4 News” had to put up a factsheet correcting what the Opposition are saying. Some 50,000 more children will be getting free school meals. We are helping those who need support, with not only childcare but free school meals and progression in work. Please listen and learn.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

15. What assessment she has made of the effect on levels of in-work poverty of changes to the eligibility threshold for free school meals for households in receipt of social security benefits.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ms Esther McVey)]

An estimated 50,000 more children will benefit from a taxpayer-funded free school meal by 2022 under universal credit. I will repeat that: 50,000 more children will get a free school meal. We are already ensuring that all existing children receiving free school meals will continue to receive them until roll-out or that phase of education is complete.

[Paul Blomfield]

There clearly is a serious mismatch between the Secretary of State’s figures and those published by the highly respected Children’s Society, which tells me that 7,000 children will lose out in Sheffield alone. Will she undertake to publish the basis on which she has calculated those figures?

[Ms McVey]

The Department for Education will be doing that. Sometimes charities are given the wrong information and therefore say the wrong information, having been led astray by Opposition Members. The Opposition voted against those free school meals. They voted against the removal of waiting days. They voted against advances of up to 100%, and they voted against two weeks of housing benefit support for the most vulnerable people in society. Shame on you.

Benefit Sanctioning

Debate between Esther McVey and Paul Blomfield

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to introduce this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

During the September recess I organised a community consultation across my constituency. With 63 meetings over three weeks, the consultation raised a wide range of issues. A dominant theme from some of my most vulnerable constituents, and from those in the voluntary, community and faith sector who work with them, was the impact of benefit sanctions. I cite the example of the Cathedral Archer Project, which works with the homeless. The project has been visited by Ministers and is held up as a model of good practice in taking people off the streets and getting them back into society by giving them skills and a home. The project’s work has been fundamentally changed by the response that some of its clients receive when they start—

[The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)]

I had the same cough.

[Paul Blomfield]

I didn’t catch it from you, Minister.

Some of the project’s clients, in their first home, will suddenly receive a letter that they either cannot read or do not understand, and they will therefore miss an appointment and find themselves sanctioned, out of their home and back on the streets. They go to the jobcentre and are told, “Go along to the Cathedral Archer Project. They will feed you.” That transforms the role of an important local charity from making a strategic intervention to help people off the streets, into homes and into work to just being a crisis centre.

I am pleased to have secured this debate to raise such concerns directly and to make some practical proposals on how the Government can address the issue. Much of what I have to say is based on the work of Sheffield Citizens Advice, which is a great organisation that provides vital support to people across our city, finds solutions and supports people in complex situations. In doing so, it saves public money by averting crisis further down the line. In May, the organisation’s social policy group produced a report on the experience of jobseeker’s allowance sanctions based on the previous 12 months. I am pleased that the report’s author is in Westminster for today’s debate. The Department for Work and Pensions received a copy of the report when it was published, and it has been in correspondence with Sheffield Citizens Advice. I sent a further copy to the Minister before today’s debate so that we can properly consider its recommendations.

I must stress how helpful it is for such evidence to be gathered and presented so clearly by those working directly with the people affected by Government policy, with concrete recommendations about what can be done to improve the system. I hope the Minister will treat that work by people on the front line as seriously as it deserves to be treated. I make it absolutely clear at the outset that neither the report nor my contribution opposes the principle of sanctioning within the benefit system. Applying sanctions to those who are deliberately not seeking work, who are unavailable for work or who have no intention of working can disincentivise such behaviour and, in combination with the right support and training, can help people on the road to getting a job that provides not only an income but self-esteem, purpose, socialisation and accomplishment, but—and it is a very big but—any sanctioning regime has to be humane. The Sheffield Citizens Advice report clearly shows that there is an increasing number of incidents where the system is neither humane nor—this is important—serving its stated purpose of getting more people into work. In fact, the system is having the opposite effect in many cases.

Some of the stories outlined in the report will be all too familiar to hon. Members. I will briefly share the experiences of a couple of my constituents that are not detailed in the report. One constituent prefers to remain anonymous, so I will call her Mary. She was made redundant from a job as a cleaner, so she had to sign on for the first time in her life. She was told by an officer at the jobcentre that her next appointment with a job adviser would be on her signing-on day. She was told that there was no need to come in and sign on in the morning because she could do it when she came in for her 3 pm appointment. That information was wrong: the job adviser appointment was two days before Mary’s signing-on day. We all make mistakes, but it is simply and clearly not right that Mary, who had gone to the jobcentre for help to find a job, was punished for the officer’s mistake. It was an honest mistake, but it was a mistake, and she faced the consequences. Mary had to borrow money to get by, and I am pleased to say that she is now back in work with a cleaning job, but she got there despite the system, not because of it.

Mary understood what she needed to do, but she was wrongly advised. There are plenty of examples in the Sheffield Citizens Advice report of people who are not clear about what is expected of them:

“Alan was given a 4 week sanction for not actively seeking work. Because of his limited literacy/numeracy skills he had been enrolled for an 8 week course in English and Maths. He thought that as he was taking this course he did not need to complete his work search book for that period.”

That was an honest mistake. The report continues:

“Tony is in his mid 50s and is vulnerable because of his learning disabilities and dyslexia. He can’t read or write. Despite the fact that he gets significant support with looking for work from a local Job Club, he was sanctioned for not doing ‘enough’ jobseeking.”

Another constituent, coincidentally also called Tony, thinks he was sanctioned because the activity on his Universal Jobmatch account was considered too low by the jobcentre. I say that he thinks that was the reason for his being sanctioned because he has not yet been notified of the reasons for the sanctioning. Tony is eager to find employment and has completed an IT course through the jobcentre to help him find work online. He does not have access to a computer at home, so he spends much of the day at the central library waiting for his turn on the computer to show activity on Universal Jobmatch. That is in addition to going to workplaces in Sheffield looking for work, but he has been sanctioned. As a result of that sanctioning, he has been referred to the Salvation Army food bank in my constituency.

The question is whether sanctions are the right response to such situations, and not only because of their impact on people. Will they actually bring about the behavioural change that they purport to seek? Might the sanctions hinder, rather than help, the people who are affected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

I will not give way. I am setting the scene. I will answer the questions raised, and then I will take some more interventions, but not at the moment.

We know that the best route out of poverty is to have a job and that children born into a household where no one works are three times more likely to be in poverty. This year, we have reduced that number by 390,000. We are talking about poverty, and about support and help for people to get a job and to move forward. The Government have done significantly more than anybody else to support people on their way and into work. That is the background of sanctions and why they exist, and what we must do to meet and match and provide support.

We have introduced the youth contract for young people, with an extra 250,000 extra work experience places, and sector-based work academies. This year, we have seen the biggest fall in youth unemployment—by 250,000—since records began. We are fundamentally turning the lives of those people around, and sanctions are a tiny part of a massive system of support.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister is making a wide- ranging contribution, but I am conscious that she is— unintentionally, I am sure—leaving herself insufficient time to answer my specific questions. Will she meet me and Sheffield Citizens Advice to talk about them in more detail?

[Esther McVey]

What I will do first, so that I do not run out of time, is to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions. He referred to various people who did not want their names given but had reasons why they thought they should not have been sanctioned. In many cases, there will have been good reasons for the sanction, but I would like to know what happened to those people.

The claimant commitment is being rolled out to 900,000 people so that the adviser understands what support people need, what journey they need to go on and their individual circumstances, which might mean that they are more vulnerable than other people and need more exemptions or time off because they can work or search for jobs only within certain time frames. That was the point of the claimant commitment and personalising the approach, which we are doing now.

Oakley rightly raised communications, what we were doing and how we could refine the system further. We know what we have done; we have helped people into work. We know what we have done with the sanctions regime, but how do we make it better, which we need to do constantly?

Oakley made 17 recommendations, all of which we have accepted. They include reviewing letters to claimants to ensure that they understand what is going on; work with experts to ensure that communication is better; and work with local authorities to improve communication on housing benefits, to ensure that people do not have their housing benefit stopped unnecessarily, which can make things worse for people. Those recommendations were implemented immediately unless they required substantial changes to the Work programme, in which case they will be introduced as that programme changes.

Remploy

Debate between Esther McVey and Paul Blomfield

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I will meet the hon. Gentleman, because I do not understand why none of them has been helped into a job. The offer was there for them to come forward for personal support, and it was their choice whether to do so. More people have come forward; the number was only 800 previously, but it is now up to 961. Perhaps we could work together and he could ensure that they come forward so that we can track and support them. I believe that that is just as much up to him as it is up to me, so let us work together to help those people.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Remploy Sheffield was described by the Minister in her statement as potentially commercially viable. Does she not accept that her efforts would be better spent securing that potential, rather than risking every job in this ill-considered sell-off, and does she not see that, given the Government’s record, her talk of securing long-term employment for those disabled workers will be viewed with nothing but cynicism?

[Esther McVey]

When we were deciding whether to proceed with stage 2, many factors had to be taken into account. With the factories that were seen as potentially viable, such as those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I was told that, were I to delay, they would become more vulnerable as contracts came to an end and that it was therefore imperative that we pursued stage 2 as soon as possible, because only that would ensure that the staff had a more certain future.