Universal Credit

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

16:50

Division 243

Ayes: 279

---

Labour: 228
Scottish National Party: 31
Liberal Democrat: 10
Plaid Cymru: 4
Independent: 3
Green Party: 1

Noes: 299

---

Conservative: 292
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Independent: 2

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I gave notice of this point of order to your office this afternoon. It relates to three questions that I tabled on Thursday last week pertaining to the trial and sentencing in Preston Crown court of three fracking protesters who have been released by the Court of Appeal without custodial sentences today.

In those questions to the Attorney General, I asked about an investigation into compliance with the judicial code of conduct in relation to the judge’s conduct in that case. Those questions were transferred by the Attorney General’s Office to the Ministry of Justice without any explanation. This lunchtime, the Court of Appeal quashed the custodial sentences. The response that I got from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), was along the lines that no Minister should comment on these areas. However, on looking at the list of ministerial responsibilities, it is quite clear that questions about public interest functions, including the reference of sentences to the Court of Appeal, are valid for the Attorney General. On top of that, the judicial code of conduct, which the Attorney General can look at, talks particularly about family connections.

I seek your guidance Mr Speaker, on the basis on which the Attorney General transferred those questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice. She said in her response:

“It would not be appropriate for me or any other government minister to comment on cases which are, or have been, before the courts”,

but that was not the question that I asked. Incidentally, the gentleman who signed off the judicial guidance in the code of conduct is the Lord Chief Justice himself, who today said that the sentences passed by the judge at Preston Crown court were “manifestly excessive”.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of which I had not myself received notice, but about the absence of which notice transmitted directly to me I make no complaint. I absolutely accept that he informed my office of this matter, but it may have been when I was elsewhere.

What do I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and for the wider benefit of the House? First, the transferability of questions from one Department to another is exclusively the preserve of the Government. That is not something in relation to which, however infuriating to an individual Member, an explanation is required to the Chair or even really the Member. It sounds as though some attempted explanation was given, but it has not satisfied the hon. Gentleman. It is, however, a power of a Department to shift an answer to another Department.

Secondly, by implication, the hon. Gentleman asks what recourse he has. The answer is that he can table further questions in an orderly manner, with the assistance of the Table Office, to press his case. That is the concept of what I call “persist, persist, persist,” which is not an entirely novel phenomenon in the House of Commons and with which the hon. Gentleman, from long experience and perspicacity, is well familiar.

Thirdly, although the hon. Gentleman cannot insist on the presence of a particular Minister—for example, to answer an urgent question, although I am not suggesting this would be such a case—if he thinks that it is relevant to the Attorney General, rather than to the Ministry of Justice, he can seek to raise this matter at questions to the Attorney General. The question whether he is then called to ask a question would of course fall to me, and he might find that he is successful. He must find out when there will next be questions to the Attorney General, and he should table a question. If he is fortunate in the ballot, he will be on to a very good thing. If he is not successful in the ballot, he should cast his beady eye over the successful questions and decide how he can relate his inquiry to one of the successful questions. He then leaps from his feet and hopes to catch my eye—

Welfare

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend raises an important point that has not been mentioned so far. The Government are focused on working with people who have drug and alcohol problems, and I point to the excellent work currently going on with the troubled families programme. That is key to creating lasting pathways out of poverty. It is not just about increasing the jobs available; it is about supporting people who have underlying conditions that prevent them from going into work.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State was keen to say that behind every statistic there is a human being, and in my constituency 1,586 human beings are in receipt of PIP and hundreds are on DLA and Motability. Some 13,000 people with disabilities lost their Motability claim last year. How will the Secretary of State ensure that Motability, which has had such a huge impact on the lives of disabled people, does not disappear down the plughole?

DWP Data

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I think it is fair to say that the fit for work assessment was introduced by the Labour Government. Our focus now is on the fact that—I remind the House—those data are coming, and will be published before the autumn.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

DWP Ministers tried to sit on information from internally generated data which suggested that one in five deaths of benefit claimants had been linked to sanctions. Perhaps we can be forgiven our scepticism about the Minister’s definition of autumn: after all, this Government publish their autumn statements in December.

More important, what steps will the Minister take to look into cases that have led from morbidity to mortality? In my constituency, the failure of Atos to pay home visits to severely ill people on some occasions has caused real health problems. A constituent of mine had motor neurone disease, but failed the assessment for employment and support allowance.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned Atos. We, of course, terminated that contract. [Interruption.] It was part of the Labour legacy that we were there to clear up. As for the data, they will be published, and they will be published before the autumn.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform (Disabled People)

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I listened with care and some sympathy to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer). I remind him of the Quaker saying that he or she who would do good must begin with minute particulars. That is why today I want to touch on some of those particulars, which are not minute at all for my constituents in Blackpool South, which has a larger than average number of people with disabilities, often people who do not have family or close friends in the area. That is why two years ago when we were having all sorts of difficulties with Atos and the work capability assessment, I initiated an Adjournment debate when I pointed out some of the real issues with Motability, the revolving door of appeals, and the inability of Atos to deal with work capability assessment. Sadly, some of those issues are still relevant today. Even though Atos has been removed from the work capability assessment, it has not yet been replaced, and in the north-west it remains in charge of the personal independence payment process. On top of all the problems that we have heard today, my area has a particular problem because people cannot even get to an assessment centre nearby.

Our citizens advice bureau wrote to me last year about a matter that I have raised with Ministers and on the Floor of the House and with all sorts of people. We only have a medical assessment centre for PIP medicals in Preston, which is some way from the centre of Blackpool, not near public transport and certainly off the beaten track. It is fraught with issues such as costing residents more money to get there, longer journeys with people not familiar with where they are going and probably needing a taxi, and so on. When I asked why clients were expected to travel that distance, the reply from the PIP implementation team directed me to the Atos website, which stated that DWP guidance permits a client to travel 90 minutes one way for work or a job interview. Indeed it does, but that totally misses the salient point that these are people with illnesses, disability and stress.

I have spent some time trying to winkle out of Atos and the Minister and his officials where we are up to in the process. I had a meeting with them at our party conference and I was then told by the Atos manager that they were working on it and would have an assessment centre by mid-2015. When I asked whether he had been from Blackpool to the Preston centre, he said he had, and when I asked how, he said, “By car.” That really sums it up. On 17 August the Minister wrote to say that he was sorry that there was nothing that he could usefully add to what I had been told, which was basically that we would have to wait until mid-June. It is not surprising that he had nothing useful to add because neither he nor his officials had had anything useful to say to prod Atos into action on this and a series of other areas.

The best way of looking at these issues is to look at what comes to us from our caseworkers. In particular, I pay tribute to my caseworker, Gillian Tomlinson, who works tirelessly in this area. I want to quote a couple of examples. She talks about Mrs B, who contacted us in June 2014, who receives the highest rate care and mobility and is practically housebound. She applied for employment and support allowance in January and Atos told her that a home visit would not be authorised. Finally she has been placed in the ESA support group. Mrs W contacted us in extreme distress. She failed a work capability assessment and ESA stopped immediately. She is a vulnerable lady who found the whole process difficult to understand.

My caseworker says: “The whole mandatory reconsideration process continues to be concerning, in as much as ESA benefits are stopped immediately after a claimant is advised that they are fit for work. It seems to me that the whole process is now being made so complex that the Government are hoping that people will not go through it and will accept the decision made.” That is indeed the case. The excellent Alan Reid, who manages my Disability First centre, says: “To us people come desperate and, in some cases, suicidal.” That remains the case. That is why Lord Freud’s comments were so damaging and so difficult for disabled people to accept.

DWP: Performance

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend has made a very important point. The PIP contract was awarded to Atos although we knew that there were problems with the work capability assessment. It was this Government’s decision to give a contract to a provider that we already knew was failing.

Since this debate was announced at the end of last week, my office has been inundated by communications from people from all over the country with similar tragic and appalling stories to tell. This morning I spoke to Malcolm Graham from Romford, who last September was diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus. He underwent 10 weeks of chemotherapy and a 10-hour operation. He had been unable to work, and he finds it hard to get around. He applied for a personal independence payment and employment and support allowance on 23 September last year. After phoning the Department nearly every day since then, he finally had his assessment for personal independence payment on 16 May. On 20 June—five weeks later—he received a letter from the Department saying that it now had all the information it needed in order to make a decision, but today, more than nine months after his application, he has yet to receive notification of what support, if any, he will receive. In the meantime, he has had to rely on help from family and friends. He has struggled to keep up with his bills, and has even been visited by a debt recovery firm.

Until he was struck by cancer, Mr Graham had worked all his life. For 40 years he had paid his tax and national insurance. However, he told me today “When I needed it, the help was not there. I never knew what it would be like to be on the other side of the fence.” He added: “But now that I do, I wish that the Secretary of State would imagine what it is like being on this side of the fence—what it is like being in my position.”

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong and moving speech about the impact on individuals of these horrendous fiascos, but does she agree that the issues involving PIP go beyond some of the examples that have been given today? I am thinking particularly of Motability. Many of my constituents have been caught by the double whammy of delays involving, first, the disability living allowance and now PIP. They have waited long periods for a resolution, but because a decision is being reconsidered, their Motability—the lifeline that has enabled them to get out of their homes—has been taken away before that decision has been made. Is that not a horrendous indictment of the Government? [Interruption.]

[Rachel Reeves]

Government Members should listen rather than heckle, because my hon. Friend has made an incredibly important point. I recently went to Ringways garage in Farnley, in my constituency, to give someone the keys to a Motability car. That person talked about the difference that Motability made, in terms of independence and family. However, as my hon. Friend has said, we also know that, as a result of some of the Government’s reforms, many people who need to be helped to obtain the car that will give them the freedom that the rest of us take for granted have had that support taken away from them. The delays and the chaos is one thing, but there is also some of the substance of those decisions.

Jobs and Work

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

No, I want to make some more progress—[Interruption.] I have been quite generous in giving way.

Countless other colleagues have talked about opportunities for young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has drawn attention to the lack of apprenticeship opportunities for people in her constituency. Under-19 apprenticeship starts have fallen by 17,000 over the last academic year, and there are now 2,000 fewer under-19s starting apprenticeships than in 2009-10, and less than 2% of apprenticeship starts last year were at level 4 or above. Where was the Bill in this Queen’s Speech to require all large companies taking on large Government contracts to provide apprenticeships, as we called for? It was not there. Where was the requirement for all apprenticeships to last at least two years and to be at level 3 or above to ensure we maintain their quality? It was not there. We need to see more done on that.

It is important to help those who want to get into work through jobs and training, but it is also important to help those who want to create their own jobs, and they will not be able to do that without the finance. We are told that the small business Bill will make it easier for small businesses to access finance. I really hope so, because in the last year, net lending to small and medium-sized businesses fell by £3.2 billion. Scheme after scheme after scheme—from Project Merlin to funding for lending—has simply failed to resolve these problems. In the last quarter, net lending to businesses by funding for lending participants actually fell by £700 million—an issue on which I know my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) have been campaigning.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Let me inform my hon. Friend that what I hear in my Blackpool surgeries, particularly from small businesses and hoteliers, about the continued failure of a number of banks, including those still supported by this Government, underlines what he is saying. Does that not also underline the fact that we should be looking at the regional initiatives on banks that he and his colleagues have brought forward rather than having the long-standing dithering from the Secretary of State on the whole question of the investment bank?

[Mr Umunna]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem with the Government’s scheme is that, to date, the main transmission mechanism to our small businesses has been the very high street banks that have been the problem. That is why we want to set up not only a British investment bank, but a network of regional banks like the Sparkassen in Germany, to ensure that we get the money to our small businesses.

Finance is one thing, but cash flow is an issue too. If, as we are told, the Government are to extend the obligation for public sector bodies to pay small businesses as their suppliers within 30 days and to apply it all the way down the supply chain, that would be welcome, but on its own it will not be sufficient. We will press Ministers to introduce—I think this will be in the small business Bill—more stringent reporting requirements for customers of small businesses to crack down on those who do not pay on time. I think that the practice of late payment is an absolute national scandal that needs to be dealt with.

I saw the Business Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister make their trip to the pub the other week. On the one hand, I suppose this was a “kiss and make up” event after the activities of a certain rogue pollster—perhaps the Liberal Democrats’ equivalent of Lord Ashcroft; and on the other hand, it was to draw attention to the measures in the Queen’s Speech on a new statutory code and independent adjudicator to ensure that the sole traders and small businesses that run our 20,000 or so tied pubs are treated fairly. To be honest, after the dither and delay we have seen from this Government and the numerous debates we have had to force on the issue, any action from this Government is welcome, but my fear is that the real reforms that we and others across the House have campaigned for will be watered down. We will scrutinise the detail when the provisions are introduced.

I want to say a word about rebalancing, particularly between regions and within regions. It has simply not happened, and I see nothing in this Queen’s Speech to change that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

In the limited time available to me, I will look at the Queen’s Speech and jobs and work through the eyes of my constituents—the people who come to talk to me in my office and bring me casework—and what I hear as I go around. The Business Secretary, who is now in his place, started off a little grumpy, saying that we were not talking enough about today’s unemployment figures. I will certainly talk about the unemployment figures in Blackpool and praise the modest reduction in the overall number of people out of work and the very modest reduction in the number of people out of work for more than 12 months, but the devil, as always, is in the detail.

The unemployment rate in Blackpool is still twice the UK average and 50% more than the north-west average. We have always had challenges, like many coastal towns, with part-time and seasonal work and low skills, but the way in which the Government have failed to tackle those issues has exacerbated the problem enormously. Great work is being done by our small and medium-sized employers, by Blackpool council, by the “Build It” unit, which gets people back into construction, and by our further education colleges, and I have tried to get things moving, in my own modest way, with the skills fair we held last year: some 450 people turned up and we had 44 exhibitors, and we will repeat that event next year. The reality, though, is that we are not moving in anywhere near a strong or fast enough way.

If we want to know why this “recovery”, so widely talked about by the coalition, is not being felt on the ground, perhaps we should look at the TUC’s “Economic Quarterly Report”, which has just come out. It rightly talks about the continuing under-use of resources and the fact that 1.4 million people in part-time jobs say that their first choice would have been full-time work—a figure 700,000 higher than the typical pre-recession level. We need to look much more carefully at why people are going into self-employment, where there has been a big increase. What I and many Members know anecdotally is that many people, particularly women, are going into self-employment because they have lost their full-time or part-time jobs—often, their job has been outsourced. Their incomes, as the TUC reports, can be modest indeed: the average annual income from self-employment is less than £10,000 for women.

There has been a lot of discussion today about the minimum wage and zero-hours contracts, which are big issues for us in Blackpool. There is also the issue of low-hours contracts, which the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has taken up and which particularly affects women. If we want to address those issues, we have to take real measures, not the perfunctory measures on zero-hours contracts that have been suggested, particularly at a time when the reduction in the cost of living gap is modest. In fact, figures today from the Office for National Statistics and the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggest that it is becoming even more modest.

As we know, one key thing is to get young people into skills training and then into decent, meaningful employment. However, as the shadow Secretary of State said, the figures still show that the majority of the significant increase in employment has been among the over-25s. The traineeships programme, which we supported and which the Government quite rightly said was really important, has been a fiasco so far. It has not been promoted properly, and it took the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Work and Pensions months and months to get an agreement on the 16-hour rule. The programme is still not being promoted properly, it is still not clear and we now have a situation in which the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, in a panic about the take-up, proposes to reduce the time involved to as little as three weeks. The disincentives, the problems that people face in getting into work, which I have seen in my Jobcentre Plus in Blackpool, and the sanctioning process are doing nothing to help.

This Government are doing too little for younger people, but they are also doing too little for the 40-somethings and the 50-somethings in my constituency who want to reskill and retrain properly. The Government have got the balance wrong between stuffing people into short-term, low-skilled jobs, which are often temporary, and having a strategy that will produce real growth, real skills and real jobs for those people.

Inherited Social Housing Tenancies

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

If there is one thing that is clear, it is the sheer deficiency of the Opposition. They really do not know what to do with any of the benefit changes. Each time I pick up a newspaper, I read about something that they are doing or not doing, were thinking of doing or of reversing. If they have spent that tax once, they have spent it 20 times.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Has the Minister made any assessment of how much time local authorities, such as my own in Blackpool, will have to spend clearing up this mess, which the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) charitably referred to as “her lacuna”?

[Esther McVey]

Does the hon. Gentleman know how much time local authorities spend trying to find houses for people who are either on a housing waiting list or in overcrowded housing when houses have not been freed up? We have said that we will pay for any extra administrative charges. What we now need to do is move this debate on and think about the families and the individuals who need to live in accommodation that suits their purposes.

DWP Offices (Fylde)

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, and to see so many colleagues from the Fylde coast here, particularly the shadow Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), who has moved back one row following the previous debate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), who would have been here were it not for personal circumstances, would wish me to place on record his support for the points I intend to make today.

At a time of rapid changes in welfare provision, it can be forgotten that we need a large, active, professional and highly qualified staff to deliver those changes. The staff of the Department for Work and Pensions at the numerous sites across the Fylde coast perform with great professionalism, delivering consistently high levels of service against a challenging backdrop.

That backdrop is doubly uncertain because we know the rigours under which the Department is working. Its core budget is to be reduced by 26% by 2014-15, and corporate overheads are to be reduced by 40% by the same date. Clearly, that has resulted in some difficult decisions for Ministers and those who manage the service. As a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) in June 2011 demonstrated, the headcount at the three main sites on the Fylde has declined from 5,116 in 2002 to 4,600 in 2011.

That, of course, raises many questions in the minds of those who work for the DWP on the Fylde about what the future might hold. It is unsurprising—indeed, it is natural—that they wish to see more job opportunities come to the Fylde. I do not think the Minister will be surprised to hear that: it is natural to want more work to come to the Fylde.

In defence of the Minister, the last time I asked how many compulsory redundancies we had seen on the Fylde specifically, the answer was three. The headcount has reduced due to managed programmes of people leaving the service. We have been fortunate on some levels that the cuts on the Fylde coast have not been worse. We must recognise that there will be ongoing challenges. We cannot assume that because we have escaped lightly so far, we will continue to escape lightly in future. For example, we will shortly face the closure of the Marton Mere site, which will mean 300 jobs have to move elsewhere.

The purpose of today’s debate is not to rehearse statistics about job losses or even to demand extra work for Fylde, but to look specifically at how decisions are being taken about which sites are to remain open, which are to close and, most importantly, where to move the staff to from the three main sites. I may end up being arcane in a moment—those who do not live on the Fylde might think, “What is he talking about?”—but although the three sites are only seven or eight miles apart, getting from Norcross to Peel Park is a significant logistical challenge. It is not something that many people who live on the Fylde would voluntarily choose to do, but the decisions being made are forcing many people to make difficult decisions about whether they can continue to work at the DWP, given the caring responsibilities they have in their families.

In 2006, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North secured an Adjournment debate on the identical issue of how decisions were being made about the Fylde. He was successful, in that he got the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), to visit the Fylde coast to look at what was occurring there. We were fortunate in that she agreed to appoint a “cluster lead” for the Fylde, who would have an overall perspective on what was happening on the Fylde coast. Each of the main sites would also have a site lead, who would feed into that pyramid process. The key point I want to communicate to the Minister today is that that model added value to decision making.

Let me also remind the Minister that we are looking at the future of the sites. The future can be a difficult concept in government—we do not know what next week will bring, let alone what will happen in 2018. Many at Warbreck house see 2018, when the transfer from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment will be completed, as something of a crunch point for the future of the DWP on the Fylde. Any comments the Minister can make about the future of Warbreck house in particular will be gratefully received.

Since 2006, we have seen natural wastage, as we would in any organisation. Cluster leads have retired or moved to other jobs, and the architecture has broken down. The decision-making process that made for better decisions has broken down. I shall take one, admittedly convoluted example, which might demonstrate my point. The decision was taken to wind down the most northerly site, Norcross, in September 2012. The last date of occupation was to be 31 August 2013, but on 18 December 2012, it was announced that some 220 staff would remain on the Norcross site at Tomlinson house, while the remaining staff would still transfer to Warbreck and Peel Park. Peel Park is the most southerly of the locations and Warbreck is squarely in the middle. Coping with the changes caused problems for our constituents. We were grateful that jobs were maintained on the Fylde, but the consequences of doing so were difficult.

More recently, the DWP announced that the landlord at Marton Mere wanted the DWP to leave the site, which meant that 265 people had to be rehoused, but there was great confusion. Marton Mere is nearest to Peel Park, at the southern end of the Fylde. There was uncertainty over whether the staff would move to Warbreck or Peel Park. No one could decide; there was oscillation between the two. In the end, the decision was made to switch from Peel Park to Warbreck, specifically because Peel Park had to accommodate those moving from Norcross. The most northerly staff had to go to the most southerly site. A cluster lead might have said, “Hang on a minute. Can’t we put the people nearest to Norcross into the spaces at Warbreck and accommodate the people from Marton Mere at Peel Park?” It might not have been possible, but at least a cluster lead and a system of site leads would have allowed such a debate to occur.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for giving way. I want to reinforce the point he is making. Does he agree that the complexities and difficulties in the area are exacerbated by the fact that public transport access to Peel Park is still problematic?

Disabled People

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the Government should publish, by October 2013, a cumulative impact assessment of the changes made by the Government that affect disabled people.

Five of my right hon. Friends and I have tabled the words of today’s motion, but the words in our argument were inspired by others and are supported by tens of thousands of people up and down this country.

This afternoon, I pay tribute to Pat Onions and her fellow campaigners, to the authors of the WOW petition and to the thousands of people up and down the country who have supported their campaign and will follow this debate closely. They want to send a message to the Government—the message that we have incorporated in our motion. Today we ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to support us and make sure that the message is heard, not just in the Department for Work and Pensions but in Her Majesty’s Treasury, as clearly as possible.

The Opposition believe that how the Government have systematically ignored and tried to disguise and bury the impact of their reforms on disabled people is a national scandal. Reform that should have been approached with care and finesse has been approached with all the finesse of a bull in a china shop. When people have cried about the combined pain of the changes, the Government’s response has been that of the three wise monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Frankly, we demand better of Her Majesty’s Government.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making his position clear with great power and pugnaciousness. Is it not already clear that the chaos around the work capability assessment and the implementation of the personal independence payment is widespread? In the House last year, I cited dozens of cases of disabled people from my constituency who had awful experiences of revolving assessments. Is it not appalling that so many people are going through that process when almost a third of people are winning their appeals at tribunals?

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall come back to his point slightly later.

The Opposition believe in reform of the benefits system and of support and care for disabled people, but we also believe in one thing more—that fewer, not more, disabled people should live in poverty in this country. During our time in office, we drove down the number of disabled people living in poverty from 40% to about a quarter. That was not an accident; it was because of the most ambitious series of reforms to help disabled people that we have ever seen.

There was the appointment of the first ever Minister for Disabled People, the Disability Discrimination Act and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. There were great programmes such as Supporting People, the new deal for disabled people, new strategies for disabled children and Valuing People, and, crucially, there was the Equality Act 2010. Poverty in disabled households fell under Labour and now that progress has gone into reverse.

Housing Benefit

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I am keen to make a little progress.

I rather fear and suspect that the focus on the cap in some interventions owes more to Andy Coulson than to the Secretary of State. As I have already made clear, despite the fact that it will yield £65 million, it is only one part of a package of more than £1.8 billion-worth of proposed housing benefit changes resulting from the cumulative impact of the June Budget and the spending review.

Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to answer some specific questions. Why is it necessary to introduce a cap on rent levels from April next year, and the change in the maximum rate to the 30th percentile in October? Is there not a real risk that some households will be displaced twice within a short period, with all the costs and individual traumas that that would entail?

Let us look at the reality of the matter for a moment. Many households will be making their housing arrangements now without full knowledge of what the proposals will mean. They may be arranging for their children to go to a local school, to sign up for child care support or to buy a season ticket for travel to work. It must be right to give individuals enough notice and clarity about what the first tranche of measures will mean for them to be able to ascertain whether they will be able to avail themselves of the discretionary housing payments that the Government claim will be available.

What estimate has the Department made of the impact of the changes on homelessness? Does the Secretary of State accept the figures provided by London Councils, which expects that 82,000 households will be forced from their homes? What estimate has he made of the cost of the changes to local government? Shelter has said that the costs of introducing all the rushed changes will be as much as £120 million. Does he have an alternative figure that he would like to share with the House?

The Mayor of London’s own director of housing has stated that the introduction of the cap in London alone will lead to a 48% rise in homelessness acceptances, which will mean £78 million being spent in London on temporary accommodation. Yet the Budget Red Book estimates savings of only £65 million a year. Given those figures, why would the Government introduce a policy that could end up costing the taxpayer more than it is intended to save?

I now move from the cap, about which people have been so keen to talk in the newspapers for so many days, to the change to the 30th percentile, which is perhaps more deserving of that level of publicity. Liz Phelps of Citizens Advice UK has remarked that the change

“will potentially affect people across the country. It will mean lower rates…It is very crude, short-term thinking. It will cut the DWP budget but it will explode the homelessness budget. We will see a lot more rent arrears, a lot more debt and acute poverty, and then more homelessness.”

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I wish to put on record that however important the change is in London and the south-east, it is not simply an issue for that area. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Department’s own figures, which show that some 5,500 local housing allowance recipients in Blackpool will lose up to £25 a month, are not acceptable in such areas, which have some of the highest rates of deprivation in the country?

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend speaks with authority about not just Blackpool but a number of seaside towns where there are real communities that are suffering and afflicted by deprivation. That is why it is incumbent on the Secretary of State and the Minister, who is winding up this debate, to offer a clear and unequivocal answer to my hon. Friend. Why is it acceptable that people in Blackpool who are in work but low-paid, and who bear no responsibility for the global financial crisis, are now being asked to bear the burden?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman in a second. In the current static state, we will save money through the reforms that we have made.

[Mr Marsden]

The right hon. Gentleman is setting the cap and justifying the 10% cut for the long-term unemployed on the basis that people will be moved from welfare into work. Does he not realise that part of that process involves retraining and reskilling? If he does realise that, why has there been so little discussion between him and Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I do not quite understand why the hon. Gentleman asks that question. I have been talking about the issue endlessly to Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can take my word for it that I have spent a great deal of time talking to them, but if he would like to attend the next meeting, I should be more than happy to invite him.