Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for advance sight of her statement, and I thank the ombudsman and his team for their work on this important matter.

In March this year, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman published its final report into the way that changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. The report took over five years to produce and reflects the complexity of the issue. It spans a 30-year period across different Governments, dating back to Parliament’s decision in 1995 for the state pension age for men and women to be equalised, in a long-overdue move towards gender equality.

As the chief executive of the ombudsman set out, the Department for Work and Pensions fully co-operated with the ombudsman through its investigation and provided thousands of pages of detailed evidence to support it. It is because we took the work of the ombudsman so seriously that it was right for the Government to fully and properly consider the findings, and we were committed to working with Parliament to provide an appropriate and swift response. However, as the House will know, the general election was called less than two months later. Given that it has taken Labour five months since the general election to provide its findings, I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that there was insufficient time to take a considered and fair decision between the publication of the report and the election.

I am glad that the Secretary of State has picked this issue up since coming into office and has brought her statement to the House today. I will be considering it in more detail in the days and weeks to come, as well as the basis on which she has reached her conclusion. I am sure that the Government’s statement today will be a huge disappointment to WASPI women, and I recognise the strength of feeling about the issue.

As a constituency MP, I have met WASPI women who live in Faversham and Mid Kent and heard their personal stories. No doubt campaigners will note the Government’s apology for the decisions made between 2005 and 2007 that led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters, which the ombudsman identified as “maladministration”. But let us be clear: the decision to provide no compensation is the Government’s decision, and they need to own it. I am not going to let them get away with saying that there is no compensation because of a fictional black hole in the public finances. The country’s financial position now is a result of their political choices. They should not try to dodge responsibility by suggesting to WASPI women that, if times were different, they might have come to a different conclusion. Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.

That brings me to some questions. Given the announcement that they will not be providing financial compensation, will the Government put forward any other non-financial form of remedy for the women affected? Will the Secretary of State be involving the WASPI campaigners in the action plan she has referred to and what is the timeline for that?

The Secretary of State claimed that pensioners are better off under Labour, but let us not forget that it was the Conservatives who introduced and protected the triple lock, which has seen the state pension increase by £3,700 since 2010, and there are now 200,000 fewer pensioners living in absolute poverty. Does the right hon. Lady know how many women affected by her decision are on pension credit?

Labour’s own impact assessment shows that its decision to scrap the winter fuel payment will see 5.2 million women lose out. How many of those hit by those cuts to the winter fuel payment are also affected by today’s announcement?

Finally, given that the Government have dismissed the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, will the Secretary of State set out what implications she sees for the future of the ombudsman?

[Liz Kendall]

I welcome the overall tone of the hon. Lady’s comments. I am glad that she is finally considering her party’s response to the ombudsman’s report, and I am sure that the whole House looks forward to its detailed response to the findings and recommendations, which were not provided when the Conservatives were in Government.

I am sorry that the hon. Lady still fails to take responsibility for the state of the public finances. We have taken full responsibility for that and have taken difficult decisions on the public finances. We have also taken this very difficult decision in response to the ombudsman’s report and have provided that to the House as quickly as we have been able, given the huge amount of information we have had to go through.

The hon. Lady asks about next steps. We have three clear things that we intend to do. We will produce a detailed action plan. We want to work with the ombudsman on that so that we can ensure that the delay, the maladministration and the 28-month delay in sending out notifications never happens again, and I am perfectly happy to consider working with the women to make sure we get that right. It is extremely important that, wherever possible, we provide personalised, tailored information. Pensions are a hugely complicated area, and we want people to be empowered with that information and knowledge. We have to do it in all sorts of different formats, because it is individual to the person, and we need to get that right in future.

The hon. Lady also mentioned pension credit and the winter fuel payment. I will say to her, as I did yesterday, that we have seen a 145% increase in the number of claims for pension credit since we launched our campaign. More than 42,000 more people are claiming pension credit now. We want to deal with yet another thing the Conservative Government left us with, which was 880,000 pensioners not getting the pension credit or the winter fuel payment they are entitled to.

These are difficult decisions. We are a responsible Government and we face up to our responsibilities. I look forward to Members on the Conservative Benches finally doing the same.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Whately Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

In the run-up to the election, Labour clearly committed to an employment rate target of 80%, but in the past few weeks I have noticed a shift in language from “target” to “ambition”. Will the Minister clear this up for us: are the Government still committed to the 80% employment target, or will that be another broken Labour promise?

[Alison McGovern]

I make no apologies for having ambition for people in our labour market. The figure was always an ambition, because Labour Members want our jobcentres to shift away from pointless admin towards real ambition for everybody who steps through the door.

[Helen Whately]

I think we all heard that loud and clear: Labour has ditched its employment target. That is already another broken Labour promise. However, I feel for the Minister. How can she be expected to boost employment when her Chancellor is busy taxing jobs and then shrinking the economy? The Government have destroyed business confidence, have put up taxes on jobs, and are piling red tape on employers. Which of those measures will help her to deliver that employment “ambition”?

[Alison McGovern]

I have brought forward proposals to get Britain working, together with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Secretary of State for Education, and Secretaries of State right across Government. That is how we will plot a course towards our ambition of an 80% employment rate. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for being kind enough to refer to our “Get Britain Working” plans as

“rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic”.

It was very brave of her to acknowledge that the last Government’s legacy for us was a sinking ship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

How many people who should get the winter fuel payment will get it this winter?

[Liz Kendall]

We intend to ensure that everybody who is entitled to pension credit, and therefore the winter fuel payment, claims it and gets it. We have seen a 145% increase in claims—far more than was ever achieved under the last Government. If the hon. Lady was so concerned about that, perhaps she should have taken action during her party’s 14 years in government.

[Helen Whately]

Unfortunately, the right hon. Lady simply will not give a straight answer. She will not tell the House what she knows; she knew that the Government’s choices would push 100,000 pensioners into poverty and she did not tell the House that, either. Let us try this question instead. The Government’s own figures show that pensioners applying now will have to wait until the spring to find out whether they will get winter fuel money. What is her advice to a pensioner sitting in the cold and wondering if they can afford to turn on their heating this Christmas?

[Liz Kendall]

If the hon. Lady cared so much about pensioners in the cold, why did her Government leave 880,000 not claiming pension credit? Why did they first promise to bring together housing benefit and pension credit in 2011 and never deliver it? This Government are taking action—42,500 more people are receiving pension credit now than when she left government. We are determined to act; perhaps she should apologise for her failure.

Disability History Month

Helen Whately Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this debate during Disability History Month. As someone with a disability herself, she will likely know that everyday life can be so much harder for those with a disability than for those of us fortunate to be able to take our health more or less for granted.

Before I was elected to Parliament, I had an inspirational colleague who had suffered a spinal injury that left her unable to walk. Our jobs were demanding—a 70-hour week was not uncommon—and somehow my colleague managed to do the work, and do it brilliantly, despite all the extra challenges of life in a wheelchair, including the difficulty of getting to and from work and navigating inaccessible buildings, and all the extra effort it takes to do the everyday things that so many of us do without thinking, like getting dressed or taking a shower. Working alongside her made me realise the importance of the things that we have done to help disabled people over the years, like making buildings and transport more accessible.

I also saw the consequences of people failing to give any thought to those needs: for example, by using disabled toilets as storage cupboards, or leaving them locked so that people have to go on a mission to find the key—a mission that is doubly hard for someone in a wheelchair. My colleague’s disability was obvious, but we should be sure to remember people whose disabilities are hidden and not to underestimate the difficulty that such disabilities can add to life. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) said with great insight that in this job it is the first time her hearing loss has felt like an advantage as she uses her platform as an MP to advocate for others. She argued powerfully for disabled people to be able to access not just a job but a career.

Alongside talking about the challenges, this Disability History Month is a chance to reflect on pivotal moments of progress for disabled people and to celebrate the individual heroes who picked up the cause and made the running—metaphorically and sometimes in practice. If we cast our minds back, for instance, to summer 2012, right here in London the international bar was raised and a new standard was set for what disabled people could imagine achieving.

More than 4,000 para-athletes from 164 countries competed with everything they had in front of a physical audience of 2.7 million people. It was watched on 3.8 billion television screens around the world, with record- breaking audiences, including a record number of young people growing up with a disability who were waking up each day and thinking, “If I put my mind to it, that could be me.” We in this country made a leap forward at that moment, and as we did so, we led the world. The message is repeated at every Paralympic games: never underestimate what someone with a disability can do.

That brings me to disability employment. The Government should recognise the challenges that disabled people face, but must not dissuade anyone of their ability to overcome them. On the contrary, the Government must lean into the barriers to employment and help to knock them aside. On that my party has a strong track record. As a new Back Bencher, I remember being encouraged by a passionate disabilities Minister at the time, Justin Tomlinson, to get involved in our Disability Confident programme to get employers across the country to think differently about disabilities.

In 2017 we set a target to get a million more disabled people into work by 2027, and we met that target five years early; there are now 5.5 million disabled people in work. We took practical steps to achieve that, including working with employers, as I mentioned; funding Access to Work, which helped more than 67,000 people in 2023-24; launching universal support to give personalised support to long-term sick and disabled people to find and stay in work; and providing supported internships for people with special educational needs. Those are just a few examples.

I am a firm believer that work is the best way to improve our standard of living, as well as giving us the satisfaction of a job well done—a view that I am sure is shared by many, if not all, hon. Members present, and also argued for compellingly by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in his extremely well-informed speech. The question is not whether someone can work, but what work they can do and how. If a person with disabilities needs help to work, where does that help come from? Often it comes from family, community, charities—as hon. Members have referred to today, which often have deep expertise—volunteers who give their time and compassion, and, as I have set out, the Government.

The Government’s resources must be targeted. Since the pandemic, we all know that the number of people who are economically inactive due to ill health has surged, reaching 2.8 million people. Apart from the cost, that is a waste of talent and potential. That is why, when the Conservatives were in government, we embarked on reforms to help people to stay in work or get back to work—reforms to fit notes, the launch of WorkWell, the launch of universal support, and our work with employers. We reformed welfare to make sure that financial incentives did not get in the way of work.

I welcome the Government taking forward many of those reforms, but I believe they have made a grave error in kicking the can down the road on the accompanying benefit reforms. Every day that someone who could work is getting money from benefits instead is money that could help a disabled person to live their life to the full.

As I conclude I will return to history, given the topic of the debate. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, which was introduced in response to the second world war, as the hon. Member for Thurrock said, laid the path for disability legislation and protections for the next 80 years. We live in a different era, but our welfare system is built on the vision of our predecessors who were determined to make sure that soldiers who were wounded defending our freedom would be supported on their return home. When the Conservatives were in government, we put our shoulder to the wheel to make our welfare system fit for the 21st century. We made progress, but there is much more to do. Every hon. Member who has spoken today has made important suggestions.

This Disability History Month is a chance to send an emphatic message of encouragement to people with disabilities across the whole United Kingdom. We know how hard every day can be, but let there be no limits to what they can achieve.

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Conservatives are the party of work and aspiration—[Interruption.] In the decade after we took over from Labour, we drove down unemployment—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

[Helen Whately]

In the decade after we took over from Labour, we drove down unemployment and economic inactivity year after year, including youth unemployment, which went down by 400,000 after the mess we inherited from the last Labour Government. During the pandemic, we took unprecedented action to protect jobs and livelihoods, but since the pandemic we have faced a new and difficult challenge in this country: rising economic inactivity, particularly among young people. In government, we were tackling that. I know that, because as a Health Minister I was working on it. I am delighted that the right hon. Lady and the Health Secretary visited one of our WorkWell pilots just the other day. I was working on our fit note reforms, our youth offer, which helped a million young people, and our universal support scheme, which I now hear the Secretary of State has quietly rebranded as her own Connect to Work scheme.

Far from being cross that the Government are pinching our ideas, I welcome the right hon. Lady taking our work forward. She is making the right noises about how important it is to fix this area. Economic inactivity is a big problem for our economy and for each and every individual who risks being written off to a life on benefits. Knowing that, I am disappointed by the substance of what she is announcing today, because far from matching her rhetoric, it appears to be little more than a pot of money for local councils, some disparaging language about the work of jobcentres and a consultation that will be launched in the spring. Given that the Government have had 14 years to prepare for this moment, is that it?

Where are the reforms to benefits that will make material savings to the taxpayer, such as the £12 billion we committed to save in our manifesto? Where are the reforms to fit notes, which we had handed over, ready to go? Where is the Secretary of State’s plan for reforming the work capability assessments? She has banked the £3 billion of savings from our plan, but has failed to set out her own. Her big announcement is making benefits for young people conditional. Did she forget that they already are?

The fact is that the Secretary of State has dodged the tough decisions. Every day that she kicks the can down the road costs the taxpayer millions of pounds. At this rate, spending on sickness benefits will rise to £100 billion by the end of this Parliament. They are taking that money from farmers, from pensioners and from businesses. To get people off benefits, we need jobs for them to go into. Those are the very jobs that businesses are saying, since the Budget, they will no longer be hiring for. While the right hon. Lady tries to get people into work, her Chancellor is busy destroying jobs—50,000 jobs lost from her first Budget alone.

If the Secretary of State wants to get more 18-year-olds into work, she should have a word with her Chancellor, who has made it so that from April it will cost £5,000 more for a business to employ them. She should have a word with her Business Secretary, whose Employment Rights Bill will, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, make it less likely for employers to take on young people. The Government cannot solve this problem on their own. Businesses are the engine of our economy that create jobs for people to do. It is telling that I cannot see a single business representative on the new Labour Market Advisory Board.

I did hear the right hon. Lady talk about some new partnerships, but this announcement is such a song and dance about so little that I feel sure she will qualify for one of her own Royal Shakespeare Company apprenticeships. She has kicked the can so far down the road that her new partner, the Premier League, is sure to be on the phone by the end of the day.

May I for a moment cut through the word soup of the announcement? It is time for the right hon. Lady to tell the House some facts. How many people will it help into work, and by when? What is the total she is saving the taxpayer? When will she reach her 80% employment target? What return on investment is she expecting from these plans? How will she measure her success or failure? This is so far from the bold grasping of the nettle that she is making it out to be and that this country needs for our economy, for taxpayers and for the millions of people missing out on the purpose and freedom that work brings. It is simply not good enough.

[Liz Kendall]

May I say gently to the hon. Lady, who I personally like and have a great deal of time for, that the only people who dodge difficult decisions on welfare are the Conservatives? The facts speak for themselves. By the end of this Parliament, the Office for Budget Responsibility says that 420,000 more people will be on health-related universal credit benefits, rising from a third now to a half at the end of the Parliament. That is her Government’s legacy. One in eight of all our young people are not in education, employment or training. We have seen a doubling in the number of young people out of work due to long-term sickness and a doubling of young people out of work because of mental health problems. After 14 years in government, who does she think is responsible for that? I am afraid that the truth is staring her in the face: the Conservatives are now the party of welfare, and Labour is the party of work.

The hon. Lady talks about British businesses. I know only too well the pressures that many businesses face. We have spoken to the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce, and they are keen to work with us on our proposals. They know that their members have hundreds of thousands of vacancies that they need to fill, one in three of which is because of skills gaps. They know that 300,000 people every single year fall out of work due to a health condition. They need support to try to tackle that problem. I believe that the Department for Work and Pensions and jobcentres should serve businesses’ needs and aspirations, not be the place of last resort. That is precisely what our reforms will deliver.

Finally, the biggest challenge we face today is the growing number of people out of work or at risk of falling out of work due to health problems or a disability. Our entire employment and benefits system is simply not geared up to deal with that. We will take examples of good practice from wherever we find them, but we have got to go much further. We need big reforms, not easy slogans that say people just felt a bit too bluesy to work, which do nothing to help people get to grips with the real issues in their lives. We are facing up to our responsibilities and the difficult decisions necessary to get Britain working again. It is time the hon. Lady and her party did the same.

Social Security Advisory Committee: Winter Fuel Payment

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when she plans to respond to the Social Security Advisory Committee’s letter, published on 17 October 2024, on the means-testing of winter fuel payments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)]

We welcome the letter from the chair of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We were hoping to respond to the letter on the day of the Budget. Regrettably, there has been an unexpected further delay, and we are due to issue the response this week. However, my officials met the committee in August to discuss the regulations, prior to the committee’s formal scrutiny in early September.

I want to explain briefly why it is important to invoke the urgency procedure in this case. We needed to make the necessary Exchequer savings in the current financial year, as the regulations needed to come into force on 16 September. The previous Government left us with a £22 billion black hole, with Treasury reserves spent three times over. The day-to-day departmental spending set out by the previous Government in their spring Budget was not even close to reality. It is now up to us to clear up the mess of the previous Government, so we had to take some difficult decisions, such as means-testing the winter fuel payment, but we remain determined to do everything possible to support the poorest pensioners.

We have taken immediate action to increase the take-up of pension credit, working with charities and local authorities and through a campaign in print and broadcast media. The Government have written to more than 12 million pensioners about the changes to means-testing the winter fuel payment. We have also written to 120,000 pensioners on housing benefit, who could be entitled to pension credit, to encourage them to claim. We have extended the household support fund until March 2026. Thanks to our steadfast commitment to the triple lock, more than 12 million pensioners will see their state pension rise by up to £470 next year, and up to £1,900 over the course of this Parliament. The warm home discount, which we heard about a minute ago, is worth £150 off energy bills for low-income households. The warm homes plan will in the longer term insulate 5 million more homes.

By taking these difficult decisions, we were able to provide a cash injection of £22.6 billion to the NHS budget, which is the largest real-terms growth in day-to-day NHS spending—outside of covid—since 2010. That will bring down waiting times for people across the country, including many pensioners. We are taking the responsible and difficult decisions to clear up the mess of the previous Government, to fix the foundations of our economy and rebuild our public services.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

This Government made a choice to take away the winter fuel payment from 10 million pensioners this winter and to rely on the notoriously under-claimed pension credit as a system of means-testing it. That choice will make life harder for pensioners across the country. It will see 750,000 of the poorest pensioners miss out on much-needed help with the cost of heating, and according to the Labour party’s own research, it could lead to 4,000 additional deaths this winter. The Government know that. That is why they have not done an impact assessment. Perhaps it is why, after seven weeks, they still have not responded to the concerns of their own advisory committee.

The committee wrote the Secretary of State a letter containing its concerns about how the policy will affect the poorest people. It said that 70% of disabled pensioners will miss out on their payment this winter, and it suggested expanding the eligibility for winter fuel payments beyond pension credit because the committee knows that the Government’s savings are based on a third of the poorest pensioners missing out. In direct contrast to the Government, the committee said that

“a more detailed assessment is urgently required”,

as colleagues from all parts of the House—including Labour Members—charities and pensioner groups across the country have also said.

Here we are, seven weeks later, and the Secretary of State is yet to even respond to the advisory committee. In fact, she is not even here to answer this urgent question. I ask the Minister: will the Government now, after seven weeks, respond to their own advisory committee? Will they now, after seven weeks, publish a full impact assessment for everyone to see? Does she accept that her Government have got this wrong? Does she recognise that they have negligently underestimated how many people will fall through the cracks? I suspect that deep down she is worried, as I am, about pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes. I am sure her Secretary of State has been lobbying the Chancellor behind the scenes—perhaps that is where she is right now, instead of being here. Will the hon. Lady go back to her Chancellor one more time and try to make her think again?

[Emma Reynolds]

I do apologise for the delay in responding to the committee’s letter; it is regrettable. The initial delay, as I set out, was because we were waiting for the OBR to come forward with its costings of the policy. Then there was another, unexpected delay. There has been a delay—[Interruption.] I do not know why I am being heckled; I am trying calmly to explain why there has been a delay, for which I do apologise. We will issue a response very shortly, and certainly by the end of the week. It is important that we respond to that letter. I respect that the hon. Lady is asking that question.

Regarding the public sector equality duty, we have done everything in line with the duty, which is to provide an equality analysis of the decision that we have taken. As hon. Members will know, that analysis was published in September. However—I say this gently—after the election we found ourselves in a situation of having a £22 billion black hole, with Treasury reserves spent three times over. The OBR has said that its assessment of the previous Government’s Budget would have been materially different had it known the pressures on spending and the real situation in the Treasury. I note that the hon. Lady does not come with an apology.

We have had to take the decision to means-test winter fuel payments. We did not want to do that, but we have had to take some difficult decisions to clear up the mess, to tackle our fiscal inheritance and to start rebuilding our public services, which pensioners across the country and many others rely on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Whately Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the new shadow Secretary of State, and welcome her to her post.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

May I say how nice it is to be sitting opposite the right hon. Lady again, albeit, regrettably, having swapped places with her? I enjoyed our exchanges on social care during the last Parliament, and appreciated our constructive conversations during the pandemic, although, given how well she knows the care brief, I suspect that she was gutted, as I was, to see the incoming Government abandon the care cap and scrap more than £50 million of funding for social care training. The consistent feedback from jobcentres was that the biggest barrier to young people taking up job opportunities in social care was lack of career progression, hence our reforms to create a career path for care workers and investment in training. Has the right hon. Lady spoken to her counterpart in the Department of Health and Social Care about the impact of those social care cuts on her ambitions to get more young people working or learning?

[Liz Kendall]

I, too, welcome the hon. Lady to her post. As she has said, while we will always have our political differences we have also worked closely and constructively on issues that matter across the House, such as the terrible problems facing social care during the pandemic. I will continue that work, and I hope that the hon. Lady will as well, in her new role.

The hon. Lady asked about the impact of what is happening in social care on people’s opportunities and chances to learn. I have already had many discussions with, among others, members of integrated care boards, and they are passionate about the opportunities that exist to get more people into work and enable them to get on in their work, including jobs in social care. Joined-up working between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Work and Pensions will be at the heart of our plans to get Britain working, because, unlike some Opposition Members, we do not find it acceptable for 2.8 million people to be locked out of the workforce owing to long-term sickness. We have a proper plan to get Britain working and growing again.

[Helen Whately]

The right hon. Lady will know that under the Conservative Government youth unemployment fell by 380,000, and that we were tackling inactivity with our WorkWell programme, helping people to stay in work or return to work, which I am delighted to see the right hon. Lady continuing. Unfortunately, however, as a result of her Government’s Budget and Employment Rights Bill, businesses will slash the number of their employees. Moreover, the Government have just broken another promise and hiked up university fees. What advice would the right hon. Lady give a young person who is currently out of work and education, and must choose between worse job prospects and more expensive university degrees thanks to her Government’s choices?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady’s party left nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, and almost a record number of people—2.8 million— out of work owing to long-term sickness. They failed to introduce reforms to join up work, health and skills properly, and they have not learnt from those mistakes. I am proud that this Government are investing an extra £240 million to get Britain working again, giving people the opportunities that they need to work and build a better life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

The Conservatives are the party of work and aspiration, and once again, we left office with unemployment at a historic low. We all know that Labour always leaves unemployment higher than when it came into office, but rarely has it seemed in such a hurry to achieve that. Its first Budget will, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, cost the country 50,000 jobs in the next few years alone. What assessment has the right hon. Lady made of the cost to her Department of those job losses?

[Liz Kendall]

May I gently say this to the hon. Lady? She should be apologising, because we have record numbers of people out of work due to long-term sickness; one in eight young people is not in education, employment or training; and people are locked out of the world of work because the Conservatives failed to make proper plans to get people into work and on in their work. Until Conservative Members face up to their responsibilities, and to the cost to the taxpayer of their mistakes in not getting people with long-term sickness into work—£25 billion extra over the course of the forecast period—they will remain on the Opposition Benches.

[Helen Whately]

I wonder if the Secretary of State did not hear my earlier question; I said that I was grateful that she is continuing the work that we did in government, through the WorkWell programme, to help people in ill health into work by joining up healthcare and employment. However, the point I was just making, to which she did not respond, was that 50,000 jobs will be lost as a result of Labour’s Budget. That is not the only thing frightening the life out of businesses at the moment—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady can keep pointing at me, but this is topical questions, and I have all these Back Benchers to get in, so questions really need to be shorter.

[Helen Whately]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Budget is not the only thing frightening the life out of businesses at the moment. Labour’s Employment Rights Bill is a wrecking ball for the UK labour market. Labour’s own impact assessment predicts that businesses could cut staff—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did make the suggestion that you might come to the end of your question, but you decided to carry on reading, so I will have to stop you. I call the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Whately Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady for drawing that to my attention. I am aware of the changes that need to be made and some of the things that have already been addressed, but I will write to her further to set out how we are addressing exactly what she raises.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

The roll-out of universal credit is going well in my constituency. Work coaches have told me—[Interruption.] Jobcentre work coaches have told me how they value being able to give extra help to my constituents to help them into work. Will my right hon. Friend advise me what work she is doing to ensure that housing benefit payments reach the landlords of some of my most vulnerable constituents?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I know she shares my concern that we must ensure that universal credit addresses the needs of the most vulnerable and that, where it needs to be paid directly to landlords, it can be. It is right that we have tried to limit that, but it is also right that we do not have one system that does not take into account the particular needs of the most vulnerable in our society. As we have had the opportunity to discuss, I will be looking further at what else can be done.

Universal Credit

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

We are learning as we go along, which is what the “test and learn” process is all about. I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate the roll-out of the landlord portal and the ability to upload childcare costs. The changes we are making are helping the very people whom require that help: her constituents and mine.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I welcome how universal credit is encouraging and enabling people to do more work, but will my hon. Friend assure me that those for whom work is a real challenge, such as single parents of pre-school children, will have sufficient income under universal credit?

[Alok Sharma]

As I have just said, 85% of childcare costs can be recouped under universal credit, which is an improvement on the legacy system.

The Secretary of State’s Handling of Universal Credit

Helen Whately Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

A constituent of mine recently asked when they would be able to move on to universal credit because they had heard very good things about the support and flexibility it could provide. Is it not important to continue to roll out universal credit to give more people the opportunity to go on to a better benefit?

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend is quite right. She is referring to the real people who are going on this benefit who want an opportunity to have a chance. This is not about a politician who is here to oppose—and I understand that—but people who say, “We’d like to go on this new benefit and we’d like to have a simpler system.”

The motion on the Order Paper says that “20% of claimants” are

“unable to make a claim online”.

Well, I will break down the figures so that we all know what happened here. The claimants survey shows that 98% of people successfully make a claim online. Here are the figures that underpin that: 54% make their claim on their own; 21% had help from others, including organisations like Citizens Advice and family members; and 20%—I am assuming that this is the 20% the Opposition are talking about—had help from jobcentre staff. That is what this benefit system is about—people need help and support. We know that some of them might not be able to use IT. We have brought in this system because in this modern age where technology is vital, people can only get a job if they can go online. We are now going to provide that universal support to allow people to go online. We have put £200 million into local authorities to help and support people with budgeting and IT. I will offer Opposition Front Benchers the opportunity to apologise for putting out this information. Would they like to take that opportunity now? It seems they are not doing to be doing that now.

I go back to the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) about fact checks in the Department and what happened there. He is looking for the timeline. I left here having checked what was going on. I then asked the Department to go through the various bits that we did together and said that there were various elements within the letter. That night, I checked it again, and so it was Tuesday when I asked for permission to come to the House. The timeline on which I was allowed to do it—he is quite right—was 48 hours later, but actually it was Tuesday when I asked to come to the House. I then met Amyas Morse on Monday and we discussed the various elements of the report. As I said, I have faith in the organisation—of course I do—but that does not mean that you always have to come to the same conclusion—the same judgments—from a report. I am rather surprised—or maybe not—that so many Opposition Members talk about auditors in another way. People can look at different sets of facts and come to a different result, which is what we did.

I said it was unfortunate that the NAO could not have taken into account all the impacts of those changes; that was not anything against the organisation. Those changes came in in January, February and April, so the NAO could not have taken them into account. I was not casting any aspersions on the organisation. It is interesting to note that paragraph 2.34 of the NAO’s report says:

“It is too early to assess the impact of this change.”

It says that in the report. In that instance, which is what we were talking about, it was too early to have felt the impacts of all those changes, and that is the crunch of it. When I misspoke, I corrected myself, but the impacts of the changes could not have been felt.

Universal Credit

Helen Whately Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

We need to separate two parts of this. One bit is where I came myself to the House to apologise for using the wrong words. I used the words “faster rate” and “speeded up” on the premise that the report had said there was no practical alternative but to continue with universal credit and that there had been a regrettable slowing down. My interpretation of that was incorrect, which is why I came to the House yesterday and apologised for my words. We should separate that from the impact of the changes. I said—and I stand by this—that the impact of the changes could not have been felt because it was still being rolled out and those impacts were still being felt and therefore could not have been taken into account. We need to separate where I used the incorrect words, for which I came to the House to apologise, from the impacts of the changes and therefore the conclusions that can be drawn.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

While my right hon. Friend has apologised, could she confirm that the Labour party has yet to apologise for its misleading statements—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry but questions must be about the policy of the Government, not about other people not apologising for other things. [Interruption.] Order. I do not need any help in these matters. I do have some experience. The hon. Lady is a most assiduous Member, but this is an exploration of Government policy and ministerial accountability to the House. It is not about the Opposition. Sorry, but that is the position.

[Helen Whately]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, the hon. Lady has already had one bite at the cherry. Let us have a masterclass from Sir Desmond Swayne.