Supported Housing

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments earlier today that the Government have listened to the concerns of all interested parties and that as part of the wider review they will not be applying the 1% cap for supported housing.

I thank the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) for his contribution. He mentioned the National Housing Federation. After the comment this morning, David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, reiterated its pleasure in seeing that the cap had been lifted. I know that it will also be welcomed by housing associations such as Havebury Housing Partnership in my constituency, as housing associations provide about 71% of all homes in the area.

I believe that we all want a funding model that is secure, sustainable and understandable for tenants and providers in the long term, and that supports vulnerable people. I thank the previous Work and Pensions Secretary for getting the consultation started. It has to take some time, for supported housing rent levels are higher and the need is greater. I would like to address a couple of areas where we need to think more broadly—standards and supply. This feeds into the DCLG-DWP joint Select Committee report “Future of supported housing”, which recommended using a simple banded supported housing allowance taking into account regional variations and ensuring that London does not overly benefit, as well as dealing with anomalies in the system through a separate model that works with short-term accommodation for those of my constituents who live in refuges and hostels.

People are at the centre of the proposals that we bring forward. We should recognise that in the light of the debate about social care that we had earlier. Whether in social care or supported housing, different groups have different needs, and we must have systems that are attuned to this. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the built environment, I am very keen that we improve standards in our housing, because arguably we need homes for a lifetime. Government need to be more attuned to all parts of the mix when granting planning permissions, as the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) pointed out.

We need to understand that challenges in rural areas require a more holistic approach with regard to housing. A recent survey by one of my district councils frightened the people it consulted. In rural areas such as Stowlangtoft, Needham Market and Rattlesden, we need to gently explain to our constituents the nature of any changes that we are going to make. The great staff who work with them are often peripatetic and are asked to do a difficult job. With regard to space standards, people must not be put in too small houses, and housing must be flexible. For instance, houses should accommodate designs for a wet room, modifications, and places for support equipment. We can do this, but we need to think across Departments. It is also important to utilise modern methods such as quality insulation, which brings down the cost of housing for these vulnerable groups. It seems anomalous that we do not build to a very high standard that saves the very poorest people costs on their everyday household bills.

The Home Group housing association has 1,842 homes in the pipeline, some of which are in my constituency. We want to see those built so that people can have proper homes. What is being fed back from my local authorities is not just the lack of integrated supported housing but the need to ensure that it is part of the planning process, and that many wardens can live in the areas that they help to serve. Recent statistics show that 90,000 carers are over 85. This problem is going to grow, not go away. Our older people want to stay near the communities that they know and love, and younger people, like my young constituent who found it hard to travel to work because of her health requirements, need to be nearer to their places of work. We need systems that are attuned to our homeless people and refuges.

I look forward to a positive report on 31 October that gives clarity in looking at a banded system of sheltered, standard supported and specialised supported housing to ensure appropriate care and dignity for every one of our constituents.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Like the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), I too have universal credit rolling out in the main town of my constituency. I do not consider that incidental or insignificant, and I am very saddened by some of the comments that have come from those on the Opposition Benches.

I recognise the significance of the roll-out of universal credit, which has gone live today in Bury St Edmunds, with the Stowmarket area in my constituency following in February. To that end, I have been engaging with the DWP, the local authority, housing agencies, charities and others. As the system rolls out, we must ensure that that close working continues. For example, I know that recently there has been a spike in food bank use locally, which is helpful to know. As we go forward, the success of people’s lives is absolutely the responsibility of every one of us in this place.

As for universal credit itself, I welcome the simplification and streamlining of a complicated and frustrating system and the fact that it encourages people back into work. It is welcomed by staff on the frontline and by charities that I have met.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

So far, everyone has talked about getting people into work, but there is a group of people who are in work—the self-employed. One problem with universal credit is that because of their housing problems those people often end up needing support in that principal area. There is some evidence that the self-employed are particularly badly affected by universal credit. Would it not be worthwhile to look at that aspect in particular and to delay the roll-out?

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but if he will bear with me I will come on to the areas that I have concerns about.

The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) was talking on this topic on the “Today” programme, and, interestingly, did not offer any concrete reasons why the scheme should be paused; nor has she done so during this debate. This is an agile system and we are learning. It was first rolled out in Lowestoft in Suffolk, and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) indicated the problems. I have spoken to the DWP leads to ensure that we understand those problems and that we are looking at concrete solutions. The system has to be fair to claimants and taxpayers. Indeed, some claimants are taxpayers. It will always offer challenges, and there is always a case to improve and ask how the system can be made better.

I represent an area where the average wage is below the national average. It is important to understand that the people I meet in my surgeries are not well off and we need to take time to understand their individual circumstances. Although the number of people who are unemployed in my constituency is comparatively low figure 645, those are 645 people whom my everyday work aims to get into employment. That is why I also talk to employers in the engagement groups to which I reach out.

Of the individuals out of work, about 20% struggle to manage their finances for a multitude of reasons, so being simplistic about the problem does no one any favours. For instance, it is likely that single parents are a group with specific needs, and I have spoken to somebody in the police force who is worried about people with addictions. Are the work support coaches allowed to advocate for the payments of rents in difficult circumstances? I also draw people’s attention to the fact that they will get help filling in paper forms, particularly if they have problems using a computer. There were enormous problems in 2003 when tax credits were rolled out. Universal credit is being steadily rolled out—we are only approaching 10% roll-out. We need to work with the system, rather than against it.

I would like the Minister to talk about the portal for trusted partners. I spoke to my local housing association yesterday and it is not yet able to get to it. It is important that housing associations do have access in order to ameliorate some of the problems around rent arrears that we have discussed.

I am keen to see partnership working and a timeline for the trusted partners portal. I am also keen to ensure that we support the most vulnerable people, who we know need that support. Where direct rent payments are needed, we must ensure that they are made speedily with advance payments and all the other support we can give. We need real-time data that show improvements, so that we can show we have a supportive welfare system, not a chaotic one. That is what we are about.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

On jobcentres, the Department is sensibly making use of the fact that a contract has ended to make a number of improvements to the service provided. Yes, that does mean that some jobcentres will close, but it also means that the provision of services throughout the country will be done in a modernised and effective way. On employment, the fact is that more people are employed than ever before, including older members of the workforce.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

T3. In the light of the worrying figures, both nationally and for my constituency, will my hon. Friend the Minister outline the steps the Department is taking to reduce the level of personal independence payment reassessments, so that individuals in my constituency can access at the earliest opportunity the benefits that are due to them?

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)]

We have implemented a wide range of initiatives across the whole claim process, including speeding up the process to clear more claims, increasing the number of healthcare professionals and extending working hours, and making improvements to IT systems.

Jobcentre Plus: Closures

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Let us be clear about the employment record over the past seven years. We have nearly 3 million people in work, youth unemployment has fallen by 375,000, the employment rate is at a record high and unemployment is at the lowest level since 1975. Some of the credit has to go to what jobcentres are delivering and the policies that the Government have pursued—those things have assisted. It is right that we continue to seek good value for money for the taxpayer, and I do not foresee any move towards further devolution in this area.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

What arrangements are being made to help vulnerable claimants to access jobcentres? I am thinking particularly of those in rural areas, for example by offering help with travel.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are steps that we take to assist more vulnerable claimants, such as being able to make visits, where necessary, in particular circumstances. That will continue, but it is absolutely right that we require those who are able to visit a jobcentre to do so.

Long-term Health Problems and Work Outcomes

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Craig Tracey]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I will touch on tax incentives later. There are lots of opportunities there. The Green Paper is a good and innovative start in looking at how we can move things forward.

The earlier those open supportive conversations between employers and employees happen, the more effective the support will be. Well-managed employees can focus on their recovery and are more likely to successfully come back to work when they are ready.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

By 2035, one in two people will get cancer. In the two short years I have been in Parliament, I can think of perhaps half a dozen colleagues across the House who have had cancer. Cancer is often defined by its survivorship, such as the great work that Macmillan does. Does my hon. Friend agree that a more open dialogue allows people to be helped through that illness—which is not necessarily a long-term condition or a terminal illness—so that they can return to work and enjoy fulfilling careers and supporting their families?

[Craig Tracey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know she speaks from experience. She is a few steps ahead, mind-reading my speech. I will come to the valid point she makes, but I definitely agree with her comments.

Obviously such conditions can have many knock-on effects for families. When someone gives up work for health reasons, their partner will often cut back or stop working to become their carer. That can double the financial impact. Employers clearly have an enormous role to play in the health and working lives of disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. As the number of working people living with chronic health problems grows, the impact employers have on the population’s work and health outcomes—both positive and negative—will grow, too. Around 21 million people of working age in the UK will have at least one long-term condition by 2030. By the same year, the number of working-age people with cancer is set to increase from the current figure of 750,000 to an estimated 1.7 million. Ensuring that employers retain as many of those people as possible and support them to progress their careers will also help the Government to tackle some of the other big challenges facing our society.

The Government’s report “Fuller Working Lives: a partnership approach” and the recent independent review of the state pension age by John Cridland are both responses to our ageing workforce. Demographic change is sometimes presented as a problem for the long term, but we need to confront some implications now. In five years’ time, there will be 763,000 more people in the UK aged 50 to 64 and 292,000 fewer aged 16 to 49. One in eight people stop working before reaching the current state pension age due to ill health or disability, and raising the pension age will only increase that figure. It is inevitable that as people age, they are more likely to have health problems—half of over-50s have a long-term health problem—but it is not inevitable that so many should be forced to give up work.

More flexible and understanding employers would retain a greater amount of those people, and it would also mean that people would retire with bigger pension pots. The DWP has said that if the average earner worked to 65 instead of 55, they could have more than £200,000 in extra income and increase their pension by 60%. It would also be good for people’s health and the sustainability of the health service. The “Five Year Forward View” for the NHS in England recognises the need for “new partnerships” with employers to help people

“get and stay in employment”

as part of a

“radical upgrade in prevention and public health”

to protect

“the sustainability of the NHS, and the economic prosperity of Britain”.

I am pleased that the Government prioritised the critical role of employers in the Green Paper, which also makes a strong business case for employers to invest in inclusive workplaces and health and wellbeing. It would reduce the £9 billion direct cost of sickness absence and boost productivity through healthier, more engaged employees. The Green Paper includes welcome plans to ensure that the public sector

“leads the way in developing employment practices that allow disabled people and people with health conditions to flourish.”

But it is the Government’s proposals for the 26 million people working in the private and third sectors that could have the biggest impact on work and health outcomes, and it is on those that I wish to focus. The Green Paper asks how those employers could be incentivised to invest in the things we know create healthy workplaces and prevent people from falling out of work. How can we create a culture where people feel confident about disclosing health problems? How can we ensure employers have regular conversations with employees who are off work to agree steps to support their return? How can employers put in place timely access to occupational health and vocational rehabilitation support? The Green Paper proposes sensible reforms to statutory sick pay to ensure that people are not penalised financially by returning to work. It also proposes putting in place a one-stop shop for employers with information on the different things they can do to support staff and the return on investment they can expect to see from such measures.

While such measures would be welcome, they would not alone bring about the vision set out in the Green Paper of a society where everyone is ambitious for disabled people and those with long-term conditions, where jobs actively support and nurture health and wellbeing and where everyone at risk of long-term absence or falling out of work due to ill health gets early action as needed to stay in or return to work. The Government acknowledge that much more needs to be done.

The Green Paper is a call for bold, ambitious ideas and I understand the response from individuals, charities, employers and others has been very encouraging, with thousands already putting their views forward. That momentum must not be lost. Making progress towards the Government’s vision will bring enormous benefits to working people who live with long-term health problems, and to their families, employers, the economy and taxpayers. My first question to the Minister is therefore how the Government will involve those outside Parliament who have engaged so valuably up to now and have so much to bring to the debate.

My second question relates to one of the bold ideas put forward to rapidly improve the ability of employers to provide effective early support for those at risk of long-term sickness absence. The Green Paper includes a section on group income protection insurance, recognising that it not only provides an income to those who are too ill to work, but also includes vocational rehabilitation and practical support for employers, which together prevents and reduces sickness absence and stops people from falling out of work altogether. Group income protection insurance is purchased by employers, who cover their staff. One virtue of that is that, save for the very highest earners, there is no medical underwriting, which means that insurers do not ask any questions about employees’ medical history or existing conditions. People with health problems are covered at no additional cost.

The evidence is that group income protection is highly effective. The Green Paper cites a report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which found that such insurance reduces the length of sickness absence by an average of 16.6%. Research from one provider, Unum, found that seven out of 10 people with serious health problems who used its return-to-work service got back to work with the same employer. The most common conditions for those returning to work were mental health and musculoskeletal problems, which are the two health problems prioritised in the Green Paper.

Currently, just 7% to 8% of employees have group income protection from their employer. The Green Paper states that the Government think group income protection insurance has a much greater role to play. Coverage is particularly low among female workers and those working for small and medium-sized employers, yet both are most likely to benefit from the support it provides. Rates of sickness absence and disability are higher among female workers than men, yet for some reason employers fail to protect them in equal numbers.

SMEs are less likely to have experience of managing someone with a serious health problem or to have access to human resources, occupational health or vocational rehab expertise. As a former small business owner myself, I know what an impact it has when one of a small team needs to take time off. I know how difficult it can be to try to support an employee with a long-term condition, while also meeting legal obligations and keeping a business on track.

In my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on insurance and financial services, I have received representations from across the sector that make the case for tax incentives for employers to invest in group income protection for their staff. Insurers, their trade bodies and employers, through EEF, make the case that a tax incentive for employers would be the most effective way to increase coverage. They argue it would raise awareness of the benefits of providing the insurance, would act as a signal from the Government that group income protection is something good that employers should consider investing in, and would stimulate demand for and supply of this insurance.

Working with its members, the Association of British Insurers has produced an economic evaluation highlighting the gains to taxpayers if a modest incentive increased coverage. Fewer people would fall out of work or would require state support. Those in work and those who were too ill to work and so receiving an insured income would continue paying taxes on their salaries. Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to support a much greater role for group income protection insurance? Are they minded to consider the case for a temporary tax incentive for employers, particularly SMEs, to invest in it?

The Green Paper vision is rightly ambitious and I am sure it will have broad support from those inside and outside the House who follow the debate. The Green Paper talks of a 10-year plan to achieve that, but there is clearly potential to make great strides in a much shorter timeframe. The Government can take action now that will make a huge difference to the lives of working people with long-term health problems, their families, employers and the taxpayer.

Janey, a solicitor who shares her story in a guide from the British Heart Foundation, was 35 when she was diagnosed with a serious heart condition after giving birth to a baby boy. Janey’s employer communicated with her and together they agreed a successful plan so she could return slowly and steadily to her job, starting after a long absence on a two-day week and building up to four days a week over six months. She got back to work doing longer hours, but always making sure she was home in time to be with her son. That is the kind of positive experience we want everyone to have. So my final question is how the Government will measure success in delivering their vision. What are their top priorities in supporting employers to improve the work and health outcomes of people with long-term health problems?

I welcome the Government’s approach to this important subject. There are some exciting opportunities for innovative solutions to help those with long-term problems to remain in work. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I shall start standing, but will take you up on your kind offer if it becomes too much.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) on securing this debate on a critical issue that faces the country, at an opportune moment, with the Green Paper consultation having just finished. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). We have had a lean but fit debate, and I thank them personally for their contributions.

As has been stated, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health published the “Improving Lives” Green Paper in October last year, to start a national discussion about how we can support more disabled people and people with health conditions to get into work, stay in work and have full and fulfilling careers. The consultation ended in February and we have received a huge response from a wide range of employers, disabled people, people with health conditions and organisations with an interest. I thank Members who held events during the consultation period, and healthcare professionals who have also responded. We are now taking stock of what we have heard and will decide the next steps on this important agenda.

In moving forward, we want to continue working with stakeholders—that includes employers—to build on those contributions to the debate and to keep the momentum going. It was always going to be tricky to give my hon. Friend satisfaction about exactly when a White Paper would appear; it is even more tricky bearing in mind announcements made earlier today. I can assure my hon. Friends that we want to seize the momentum that the Green Paper has built and bring forward a White Paper very swiftly. Work can continue outside of the civil service, in the private sector and the third sector, which will play a critical role in delivering the support. We want those organisations to continue thrashing out the issues so that we can arrive at a White Paper in good time.

Let me focus on the case for employer action. It is clear that there are compelling reasons for employers to take action on health and work. Employers who invest in inclusive workplaces and in the health and wellbeing of their staff can expect wider access to talent and skills, improved engagement and retention of employees and consequential gains for the performance and productivity of their businesses, reduced sickness absence and also reduced presenteeism, which is an issue, although it is not often spoken about. They will be more able to capitalise on the purple pound’s nearly £250 billion of spending power in this country because of the insight that their workforce will have.

Employers will increasingly need to help their employees remain healthy and manage their conditions if they are to benefit as much as possible from the skills and experience of our ageing population, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire referred to. Older people will make up an even greater part of the workforce in the future. In the next five years, it is estimated that the number of people aged 50 to 64 will increase by 800,000, while the number of people aged 16 to 49 will fall by about 300,000. We know that older workers bring great benefits to businesses by drawing on their knowledge, skills and experience, and can help businesses to remain competitive.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds spoke about cancer, which is becoming a chronic condition. Although we are living longer, we are living more years in ill health. There is clearly a correlation between our ageing population and the increased prevalence of long-term chronic conditions and multiple health issues, so this is an incredibly important agenda for the nation.

[Jo Churchill]

Cancer is often referred to as a generic, but various forms present very differently. The TUC has a great campaign called Dying to Work, which is driven by someone with metastatic cancer. They have a limited lifespan, but they want to carry on working. That is part of this agenda. If a person feels fit and able, whatever their condition, the Government should be doing all they can to encourage them.

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Part of the importance of the Green Paper is that it tries to push the concept of work as a health outcome. Whatever someone’s circumstances, meaningful activity is a key part of keeping them healthy, and it benefits their emotional wellbeing.

We can already move forward with many of the things we trailed in the Green Paper. The one-stop shop will be not just a passive repository for Government information to support employers, but a shop window to the third sector and other organisations that can provide the expert, bespoke support that employers want. If, for example, a business has employed someone with autism, it will want expertise and expert advice, so we want to move forward with that immediately. The Disability Confident scheme is gathering pace, and there are many other things we can do to improve services, such as Access to Work.

On the issue of statutory sick pay and income protection, through the consultation we have been exploring how employers can actively promote health and wellbeing and manage sickness absence, including whether statutory sick pay should be reformed to better enable supportive consultations and a phased return to work. We also know that group income protection insurance, which offers preventive programmes, wellbeing services and income protection elements, can offer benefits and has the potential to help employers retain disabled employees and those with health conditions.

Analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research indicates that long-term absences among employees who have access to and use early intervention and rehabilitation services tend to be nearly 17% shorter than those among employees who do not. We want employers to do more to invest in their employees’ health and wellbeing, and thereby to reap the benefits that such investment brings. That includes actively considering whether group income protection could be part of the answer in promoting the health and wellbeing of their workforce. That was a key focus of the Green Paper, and we want to focus on it as we go forward.

We welcomed the responses to the consultation, in which we asked questions about the role the insurance sector should play in supporting the recruitment and retention of disabled people and people with health conditions. We also asked for feedback on the barriers and opportunities for employers of different sizes when adopting those insurance products for their staff. In particular, we asked why larger employers are not making better use of such protection schemes, and how take-up among SMEs in particular can be encouraged. We are now reviewing the full range of opinions expressed in the consultation, and we look forward to continuing to work with the industry to consider how those barriers can be overcome. We will consider what role the Government might play in reducing those barriers to take-up, and what the industry might need to do. We welcome offers to continue to work with the Government on these issues to encourage wider employer action to help employees stay in or return to work.

A number of health trials are going on at the moment, and we wish to run further trials with our innovation fund. Many of them touch on the incentives for employers to make the investments and follow good practice in their workplace. For example, one trial is introducing a wellbeing premium—a reduction in local business rates provided the business puts in place particular things to support the mental health and emotional wellbeing of its staff.

As we explore what works and what is good practice for employers, we need to remember that we are already asking employers to do a lot. They have done a lot on pensions, and some of them are doing a lot on the apprenticeship levy. Those are really good things, and businesses clearly see the merits of investing in them. We must also bear in mind that we want employers to create jobs, so we have got to get the balance right. That is why I think this is one of the interesting parts of the Green Paper consultation and the White Paper that will follow.

It is important that any efforts to improve opportunities and outcomes for disabled people and those with long-term conditions also focus on mental health. Only one in three disabled people with a mental health condition is in employment, and 49% of the 2.4 million employment and support allowance claimants have a mental health condition as their primary condition.

In January, the Prime Minister announced the first steps in our plan to transform the way we deal with mental health problems at every stage of a person’s life—not just in our hospitals, but in our classrooms, at work and in our communities. An important strand of that plan is to support mental wellbeing in the workplace. That is why Dennis Stevenson, who has campaigned for a better evidence base for mental health for many years, and Paul Farmer, the chief executive of Mind, have been commissioned to review how employers can better support all employees, including those with mental ill health or poor wellbeing, to remain in and thrive through work. They are considering best practice across the full range of employers, and engaging with individuals with lived experience. They will present evidence and recommendations for employers and the Government to consider.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire made a point about measurement, which will clearly be a focus for us as we bring forward our ideas in the White Paper. Although we will continue to report the labour market statistics and look at the disability employment gap and other such numbers, we need locally driven solutions in health and employment services and education, so we need to focus on the current unmet need, whether in healthcare or employment support. By looking at the local numbers and getting local ownership so the different stakeholders can wrap support around the individual, we will get really good things to happen at a local level. That is what we need to enable and encourage—so expect some of those targets, which will look at the actual numbers, and formulas surrounding the disability employment gap. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and all hon. Members who took part in it.

Question put and agreed to.

State Pension Age: Women

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

There has been much agreement in the Chamber today about equalisation, but I am probably unusual in that I am not actually sure I agree. Maybe, when the majority of men become carers, and when all men have a menopause, I might, but I am not sure I do now.

I feel very sorry for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because he has come to the Dispatch Box to pick up a mess that has been created by others. We knew equalisation was taking place, but the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), decided he would move things from 2026 to 2020.

I am terribly sorry to say this to the Secretary of State, but I am one of the WASPI women. I am also one of those who were not written to and informed about this, and I think the DWP knows where I live—I have made that point before. Many of these women were not informed and not able to plan, and that is because the former Chancellor wanted to save £30 billion.

I understand that the former Chancellor may have wanted to save that money. I also understand that the SNP is never going to be able to achieve anything in this debate. It is never going to be in power. When it makes financial claims, as it is trying to at the moment, that absolutely shows how unprepared it would ever be to be a party of government. The claim about the £30 billion is ridiculous, and the SNP is doing the WASPI women an injustice.

The crude way the former Chancellor tried to slip this £30 billion saving under the fence by moving from 2026 to 2020 without informing women was wrong, and many women are suffering as a result. I am not saying that, financially, we can achieve what most people are asking for. However, in the spirit of fairness, amelioration and pouring some oil on troubled waters, would the Secretary of State please go away and have a look at whether we can do something just around the edges, for some of the women, or perhaps the older women, in this group—I am 21 May 1957, by the way. I do not mean that we should deal with all of it or do something for everybody, but that in the spirit of fairness, there may be something we could do.

Obviously, I have constituents who are in this situation, and I have heard from lots of the WASPI women. I am actually appalled at some of the comments I have seen on social media, and I have stopped engaging with the WASPI women on social media—not the core campaigners, who are a very decent bunch of ladies—because some people have hijacked their cause for social media and unpleasant purposes. However, I have engaged with many of the WASPI women, and their stories are very difficult.

I do not know how many women in the Chamber or the House are of my age, but I would not like to be in the position where I thought I was going to get my pension but then had to get another job, because nobody would employ me. Who would employ a woman facing her 60th birthday? Despite the fact that we have a lot of skills and life experience, and that we are probably very good employees, it is difficult for women of a certain age to get employed. You become faceless when you reach a certain age.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving such a powerful and impassioned speech, but could I correct her in saying, “Who would give me a job at my age?” I gave two ladies in my office who are in exactly that age group a job, because—I think this is what the Secretary of State was driving at—there is a change in culture.

[Nadine Dorries]

I thank my hon. Friend. I actually have a member of staff in my office who is older than I am, but I also know of many friends who are being made redundant and have lost their jobs. Recently, in fact, a whole group of people in a company—all women over a certain age—were made redundant, and they all know that it was because of their age. It is not the case that most employers want to take on women in their 50s and 60s—it just does not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I will try to keep this swift in order to give other colleagues a chance. I agree with just about everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) said, although there is one point: the Work and Pensions Committee has stated that with hindsight previous Governments could have done a lot better in communicating. I would throw a slight challenge to Labour Members: they had 13 years—[Interruption.] The changes had been announced, and women like myself did not receive any communication about them. I too have met my WASPI women, and I sympathise with the principles of their campaign. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) that this is a complex issue.

My first point is about affordability. This is not a movable feast, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) pointed out. If the proposal is indeed affordable, I would urge SNP Members to put their money where their mouth is—as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth suggested—and to pay those 100,000 women.

[Patricia Gibson]

rose—

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Jo Churchill]

I am sorry; I am not taking interventions.

I draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland has called into question the reliability of the figures that the SNP has been trying to sell to us. So let us look at this problem. We are living longer. If I start work at 16 and get a pension at 66, I will be receiving that pension for a third of my life. A third of babies born this year will live to 100. We are not a party that kicks the can of difficult decisions down the road. Can we create a policy without a cliff edge? No. My sister and I will go through a difficult period between 2026 and 2028, because she is 18 months older than me and will retire a full year earlier. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), I have seen the pension age go up. We have had to make adaptations and it is tough.

Should we not be looking at this differently? The motion tells us that all women want this solution. That is not the case. I have had women write to me to say that they felt they had been informed. I would not want us to go backwards in this regard. I believe, as many hon. Members do, in the equalisation of the pension age. That is right and proper. Moreover, we should be fighting to remove the gender pay gap, which is not due to be equalised for 43 years. That is a much bigger problem. There are some exceptions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said. A constituent of mine volunteered overseas and lost her professional registration. She now has a low-paid job, but she plans and she saves. I am grateful that the Minister is looking into these cases.

I will not support the motion. It ignores our children. Our generation has done better than they have done. They have tuition fees, soaring rents and difficulties with housing. I oppose the motion because it is financially unsustainable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

The right hon. Lady identifies the issue around four-weekly versus two-weekly versus monthly cycles of pay. As she mentions, it came up at the Select Committee. I know that Lord Freud is considering what the implications are and is continuing his discussions.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

T8. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the news that there are now more women in work, including in my constituency, than ever before. Furthermore, does he agree that this Government’s childcare offer, which ensures that universal credit covers 85% of childcare costs for claimants, is critical in helping families and in helping mothers back into work?

[Damian Hinds]

Indeed, I welcome the news of the record levels of female employment. My hon. Friend is right that enhancements in childcare are an important part of this. Within that, the extension in universal credit support from 70% to 85% of costs is important, coupled with the fact that it applies at lower levels of hours, which will enable some mums to get back into the workplace sooner than might otherwise be the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

As a Government, we recognise that 45% of private sector jobs are created by small businesses, and so such businesses are key to the success of creating new opportunities. This will be very much at the heart of the Green Paper, making sure that they are aware of initiatives, particularly the commitment to have 3 million more apprentices by 2020.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to assist disabled young people into work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)]

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions have received the recommendations from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and agree that the requirement to achieve level 1 English and Maths in an apprenticeship is a hurdle for some young people with learning disabilities. Therefore, subject to a candidate demonstrating need, we will look to adjust this requirement to entry level 3 as soon as possible and monitor the impact.

[Jo Churchill]

Last month, I received a wonderful letter from a 13-year-old constituent, Eleanor, who wrote to me about her 20-year-old brother. Richard has autism and learning difficulties, and struggles to find work with the right support. The news about the educational assistance is therefore very welcome. However, he is met with frustration and discrimination in employment. Eleanor said:

“seeing how the public can treat him is terrible and it’s hard on me, him, and the rest of our family. Please help him and people with disabilities to have a fairer life with employment opportunities.”

Does the Minister agree that the enormous contribution of disabled employees such as Richard is not yet fully recognised by employers?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The Select Committee and many others have said that the Work programme has been one of the most successful employment programmes that the country has seen. Naturally, we constantly review our work in respect of assessments, but we are focusing on targeted support for individuals, because we all want the right outcomes for them. We all want to help them to return to work, and to give them the tailor-made support that they need. Rather than adopting the hon. Lady’s disparaging approach, we are saying that those people need help, and that we will give them help so that they can get back into work.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

17. What his policy is on requiring injured veterans to attend work capability assessments.

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

When a service medical board decides that a disabled person should be discharged from the forces, we will use its evidence to determine eligibility whenever possible.

[Jo Churchill]

I raise this matter on behalf of my constituent Private Troy Watkins, an ex-serviceman who receives payments from the war pensions scheme and who was also awarded a lifetime disability living allowance. Private Watkins is excluded from access to the armed forces independent payment scheme, which, unlike the war pensions scheme, requires just one assessment. Does the Minister agree that what we have at present is a two-tier system which discriminates against service personnel such as Private Watkins, and will she meet me to discuss the way in which it affects him?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case, and I shall of course be happy to meet her. I think it right for the House to recognise the sacrifices made by all members of our armed forces who have been injured as a result of service to our nation.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (First sitting)

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I am conscious of the time, and of the fact that Mr Holmes and Mr Little have not had the opportunity to answer questions yet. Stephen, I think you want to put some questions, but before then, Jo, do you want to ask a question of Mr Mason or Rebecca Plant? Quickly, please—then they can have a rest.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Q 16 It is just a quick one, to Rebecca and Marcus, really, as to how Government can be more innovative.

You have outlined many of the problems. Perhaps I should declare an interest: I am a shareholder of an SME and have run an SME for some decades. What you are saying is exactly right. The big problem is not the lack of will. Sometimes it is the lack of skills both from the business and from the joined-up agencies. There is a problem with always having a job at the end of an apprenticeship, because you do not always know what your economic environment in a small business is going to look like in two years’ time, and that is something that very much needs to be taken on board.

So are there ways of looking at this in an innovative sense? Farming would be one example, where often the work is seasonal and therefore the farmer can offer practical work; but maybe there could be some alignment with colleges in order to make up that difference. One of the problems that we are having is that bums on seats in schools mean money, so they are unlikely to encourage apprenticeships at that stage because of that trade-off. Is there some positive way that we as a Government can help incentivise innovative thinking around apprenticeships, particularly for small businesses, which make up 99.9% in volume terms of all the companies in this country?

Marcus Mason: There are programmes by apprenticeship training agencies, for example, to pool apprentices so that they can work with different employers. That can help where there is seasonal working or—for example, in the construction industry—where work is project-based and they might be on one project with one business and then another project with another. Those can work in certain sectors. Looking at some of the lessons from those programmes and thinking about how to scale those up could be one area.

Also, you could encourage large businesses to work more effectively with their supply chain. At the moment, apart from the very best examples, small businesses and large businesses operate in silos, and a lot of recent announcements on apprenticeship policy have been aimed at larger employers. There is a bit of a gap between the two. I do not have the answer, but perhaps it might be worth investigating how you could encourage and incentivise larger businesses to help support training in their supply chain.

Rebecca Plant: There is an amazing man called David Barlow up north who has an electrician’s business. He is a larger employer, although not large. He supports his SMEs by bringing apprentices back into his business to train when they have periods of downtime. That is such an innovative model that we should be rolling it out further.

[Stephen Timms]

Q 17 I would like to ask David and Geoff about the troubled families programme. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to report on the progress made by households benefiting from the programme. I would be interested to know how you think progress should be measured. What is success for a family who have been in the troubled families programme? How fair, in your view, is the criticism I have sometimes heard that although a lot of families have been helped by the troubled families programme, not many unemployed family members have gone into jobs? Is that a fair criticism of the programme? Would you say that it has been a success so far?

David Holmes: Family Action delivers a range of troubled families schemes in different parts of the country. We strongly support the troubled families programme inasmuch as it supports and helps fund family support. I begin my comments by saying that troubled families are inevitably complex families, with a range of difficulties that they need help to manage.

If you will permit me a quick case study, we worked with a single-parent family: a mum with daughters aged 14 and two. The mum had experienced domestic violence in previous relationships and had had to leave where she was living. She had come with her two daughters into an area where she did not have support networks or family; she was quite isolated. The two-year-old was sharing a bed with mum. There was a lot of poverty in the family, and there were concerns about parenting and the child’s development, including her not meeting speech and language milestones. The 14-year-old was missing a lot of school and had had three exclusions from school over the past year; there were problems with mum’s relationship with the 14-year-old. There were concerns about mum’s mental health. Mum was also in debt.

I would say that in a lot of ways, that is a typical troubled family. It shows the range of issues with which the family is grappling. Mum has not worked for more than 14 years, and is on benefits. In order to make a difference to that family, we cannot just focus on getting mum back into work or getting the 14-year-old back into school; we need to think about all the issues that that family has and try to address as many of them as we can at the same time. We worked on mum’s relationship with the 14-year-old, we got the two-year-old into nursery provision, and we got the mum on a debt repayment scheme so that she could manage her finances better and got her counselling through the local GP service. We did as much as we could to address as many of that family’s problems as possible. The good news is that the relationship with the 14-year-old is much better and she is now back in school, the two-year-old is doing well in nursery and things are looking up for her, and that family is making progress.

I make those comments because in the current troubled families programme, one measure of success is to look at whether we can demonstrate significant and sustained progress. In the report that is going to be delivered under the provisions of the Bill, we need to be sophisticated in recording how significant and sustained progress has been made. It is about not only single factors such as whether someone has got back into employment, but what has happened to that family across all their needs to help them move forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Corri Wilson]

Q 21 My question is to David. With increased conditionality, there are likely to be more sanctions. Would you foresee any additional cost to the Government as a result of this?

David Holmes: I do have a general concern. One of the great things about the troubled families programme is that it enables a holistic approach to be taken to working with families. In the broader context of the Bill, we also have to be holistic about Government policy, and we need to be careful to ensure that if we are working with troubled families to try to improve their lives, we don’t have changes to welfare legislation that impact negatively on those same families, without being very conscious that that is the course that we want to take.

[Jo Churchill]

Q 22 My question is to Geoff. Did you extrapolate any of the findings out? I like the programme—it has huge benefit for these families—but one of the evidence-based things that I drew from it was about those people who you could get into either volunteering or work, because it is that construct that is valuable. One of the unforeseen consequences, which to me was brilliant looking forward, was that school attendance improved hugely, and then you start to break a cycle. So are we looking at any further reporting like that, which obviously has long-term effects on positive results in the job market going forward?

Geoff Little: We have been measuring families through this programme for over five years now. We started by measuring people’s progress 12 months before they came on to our programme, and then 12 months afterwards. We have been doing that year on year for five years now, so we have a body of very robust evidence, and that tells us that, yes, there are sustained changes in people’s lives here. This is not a quick fix; the problems that people have take decades, sometimes generations, to develop. You are not going to turn that round in a 12-month, quick-fix, dip-in dip-out programme. You have got to do this in a sustained way and understand how the place impacts on the family as well. Seeing how it can impact on a family who may have all kinds of complex problems but who live in a relatively affluent area is a different task than dealing with the same type of family, with the same type of problems, but who are surrounded by families who also have complex problems.

The context absolutely matters, and I think we can measure the impact in different types of places. Then, the key thing for me is that you have to respond in an appropriate way for the appropriate place, and I think the programme allows us to do that, because what we are reporting on is outcomes in the place as a whole, and not simply family by family.

The important thing for me is that the reporting programme that we are being asked to comply with asks for no more information than we are already providing, so it is not an extra burden. It asks us to provide information on a cross-cutting basis. It is not about whether you are getting work outcomes, or school attendance outcomes, or domestic violence outcomes. You report on the outcomes in the round, and I think that is so different from the normal reporting on individual requirements to individual Departments of State, backed by an individual inspectorate, which simply leads you to front-line staff behaving accordingly. I think that this cross-cutting reporting changes the way people behave.

[The Chair]

One final brief question, and if we can have brief answers that would be good. Then if there is anything else you need to say, or you feel you have not the opportunity to say it, please supply some written evidence and it will be circulated.