Disability Employment Gap

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray]

I find nothing in the hon. Gentleman’s comments that I can disagree with, but the fact is that they do not have that confidence at the moment. That is clear from the examples I am giving and from the expert third-sector organisations. They do not have the confidence because of the way they have been treated throughout their lives in having to fight for appropriate wheelchairs and go through traumatic work capability, PIP and DLA assessments, which they find demeaning. The whole process reduces their confidence not just to enter the workplace but to maintain a dignified level in society. I take his point, but there is far more for us to do.

This view is echoed in many ways by Sue Bott, deputy CEO of Disability Rights UK, who said:

“It is bad enough that the government spends so much of its time and resources on finding ways to deny”

disabled people

“benefits and support but then not to put measures in place that would increase employment opportunities really is a double whammy for disabled people. The fact is that it is only when we see a government seriously committed to equality will we get progress.”

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Last Friday, I saw a constituent, a 37-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease, who had gone through a PIP assessment. The assessment report described him throughout as “it” rather than “him”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an example of exactly how the approach he advocates is not being put into practice under this scheme?

[Neil Gray]

That is absolutely sickening, and it should reduce us all to shame. That goes to the heart of why we have said throughout the election campaign in Scotland that when we create our social security agency we will put dignity and respect at its heart for those very reasons. Sadly, in some cases—not all, but some—those things have been lacking.

There was another case that I wanted to highlight about the work capability assessment, but time is pressing. Suffice it to say that the failings of the assessment stage make it far more difficult for the Government to achieve their goal of supporting disabled people who, with the correct support and guidance, would be able to find employment. Jobcentres, which are there to provide such help and support, are dealing with people who are not capable of working because of their ill health and disabilities, but who have mistakenly been sent there as a result of the flawed ESA decision-making process.

Another disabled constituent of mine who is in work contacted me regarding problems with the progress of his DLA and PIP application. He informed me that he had had numerous problems with the process. Despite supplying detailed medical evidence of the effect the health problems had on his life and the type of support he requires—the evidence clearly highlighted why that support was needed—he was told that he had to attend an assessment with ATOS. My constituent requested that that be carried out at an assessment centre, but was sent a letter by ATOS telling him, in language that he found threatening, that it would need to be a home visit.

Given that my constituent is trying to maintain a full-time job, the unavailability of weekend appointments makes it very difficult for him to adhere to strict appointment times during the week. The assessor did not attend on the day that was eventually scheduled. When my constituent inquired about that, he was told that no appointment had been made for him. This led to ATOS stating that it would consider the application on the basis of the evidence that my constituent had supplied, which left him understandably confused about why that had not been done in the first place. Supporting people with disabilities who are already in work is essential to ensuring that the disability employment gap is not widened still further. The Resolution Foundation referred directly to that in its report yesterday.

In conclusion, I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect on the personal testimonies that I have presented, as others across the House no doubt will, as he progresses towards the Green Paper. SNP Members are committed to seeing disabled people supported into employment when they are able to be, but that can come about only through appropriate support, and not simply by honouring the rhetoric of getting people off benefits and into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not, because I understand that we are only about 20 minutes away from the closing speeches and I want to give everyone the opportunity to speak.

Secondly, the motion says that the House

“regrets that the Government has not yet published its White Paper”.

That does not even take account of the Secretary of State’s clear statement that he now intends to bring forward a Green Paper. I am surprised to hear the Labour party say that we should be doing this quicker, because its usual complaint is that we do not listen enough. Now, it appears to want us to rush out proposals without talking to the people we should be listening to. A proper consultation in which we talk to people with disabilities and the third-party, voluntary and charity sector organisations that represent them will take time. It is absolutely right for us to do that.

The motion goes on to note

“with concern that commitments made in the Autumn Statement 2015 to help more disabled people through Access to Work and expanding Fit for Work have not materialised”.

I have the autumn statement here. It is clear in its commitment that there will be

“a real terms increase in spending on Access to Work…to help a further 25,000 disabled people each year remain in work”.

It talks of

“expanding the Fit for Work service”

and of

“over £115 million of funding for the Joint Work and Health Unit”.

I say gently to the Labour party that the autumn statement is still in place. We are still in the period that it covers. I do not understand why Labour is suggesting that we are in some way reneging on it, when the period is still current.

[Jo Stevens]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way for the reasons I have given. I am sorry.

The motion

“further notes that the Government is reducing funding”.

That just does not add up. We are increasing spending on disability support. In the last Parliament, spending rose by £3 billion. We are now spending £50 billion on benefits alone to support people with disabilities and health conditions.

Last Friday, I attended a meeting of the North Devon and Torridge disability access forum. It was an extraordinarily positive meeting. Yes, it has concerns about the people it represents, but it wants to have a positive way of working with me and, through me, with the Government. That is typical of the positive attitude in North Devon. In Ilfracombe just two months ago, I organised a Disability Confident event, which the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People attended. It was an extraordinarily positive event that showed what can be done when people get together and work for the good of the majority of people. That is what we should be do doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to speak briefly in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile). I want to use the opportunity to describe the experience of one of my constituents, who came to see me because of her concern and frustration about the Fit for Work scheme that is mentioned in the motion.

My constituent is a highly trained occupational therapist with decades of experience. She was employed by Fit for Work, the company under the umbrella of Health Management Ltd which is part of Maximus, the company to which the Government have awarded a lucrative contract to work with people with disabilities to get them back into work.

When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was the Secretary of State for Wales, he announced that the Fit for Work service was to be provided in Wales. The service was to provide support and advice to employed people if they had been or were likely to be off work for four weeks or more. According to Government statistics, about 48,000 Welsh workers a year are off sick for that length of time. Fit for Work was to be gradually rolled out across Wales and England. It was seen as a particularly important scheme in Wales, where a higher than average proportion of the workforce is employed in smaller companies, which do not have occupational health services to support absent staff.

The then Welsh Secretary said:

“The Fit for Work initiative will give tens of thousands of people across Wales the support they need to return to their jobs more quickly. This is clearly good for the Welsh economy.”

GPs in Wales were to offer patients a referral to the service, which included an in-depth assessment, followed by a personal return to work plan and managed support to get back to their jobs. That was in June 2015.

My constituent came to see me because, as she put it, both as an employee of Fit for Work and as a taxpayer she was concerned about how that contract was being delivered. She started working for Fit for Work in November 2015, a few months after the Secretary of State’s announcement, at the centre in Nantgarw in the constituency of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). However, by April 2016 Fit for Work was making staff redundant because of insufficient referrals of clients, and the centre was closed.

My constituent asked me why the Government were not supporting a service that they had instigated. Twelve months after the start of the scheme the public, GPs and employers did not appear to know about it on any kind of meaningful scale. It was inadequately advertised, so it is little wonder that the number of referrals was too low. She told me that Fit for Work did only a few employer engagement activities. The implementation was poorly managed and badly promoted. Matters even got to the stage where highly qualified medical assessors—case managers like my constituent—were taken off assessments with clients and told to ring round employers to tout the service.

Fit for Work had been predicated on 13,500 referrals a month, but the service was getting only about 450 referrals. Not only had it been badly advertised and implemented, but the process that case managers implemented was not effective in helping people achieve the aims of the scheme. My constituent described it to me as very standardised and commoditised. Speed and light touch were its hallmark.

The assessments were expected to be carried out very strictly, which had the effect of diluting the wealth of professional experience that my constituent could bring to her role. Assessors were expected to complete six assessments a day. She told me that she struggled to even do two or three properly because of the time it took. Everything is done over the telephone. Calls are meant to take 45 minutes and the referrals were supposed to be for people who had, for example, back pain, depression or anxiety and had been off work for four weeks. However, some of the people being referred had been off work for two years and their problems were much more complex.

I was just thinking about how one would try to gain, in 45 minutes, not only the trust of the person but sufficient information to understand properly their condition and the context they were living in. To do the assessment properly, my constituent felt it required preparation, including: reading all the information from the employer and the GP; making the telephone call; gathering the information from the client; considering all that evidence; considering what a return-to-work plan might look like; transcribing that information; and giving recommendations and an opinion within the production of that return-to-work plan. She told me that to do that properly would take three hours.

The targets set for the Fit for Work programme had the effect of removing much of her clinical judgment from the process. Fit for Work auditors would listen in on the calls with clients and tell the case manager whether the call they had made had passed or failed the requirements of the process—not whether it would deliver a proper return-to-work plan. It was very difficult to pass the test. She described the scheme and its implementation as being entirely data-driven, rather than people-driven. On his appointment, the Secretary of State said, laudably, that he wanted to ensure his Department realised there was a human being behind every DWP number. This direct account from someone who was employed to deliver his Department’s scheme flies in the face of that.

My constituent left me with a message for the Secretary of State. She says she is convinced of the need for this service. It could help a lot of people to get the right help and get back into work sooner after illness or injury. Her team was a fantastic group of highly skilled, empathetic and knowledgeable health professionals. They had very many valuable strengths and experiences to make people’s health and wellbeing better, allowing them to return to work at a time that was right for them. They were not utilised. They lost their jobs, the centre was closed and that support did not materialise.

Under-occupancy Penalty

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the regional effects of the under-occupancy penalty.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Dorries.

Our debate today on the regional impact of the bedroom tax is important and comes on the back of the Government’s recent judicial review defeat in the Court of Appeal, where it was determined that the bedroom tax discriminates against victims of domestic violence and the families of severely disabled children. I pay tribute to campaigners throughout the country who have put considerable energy and effort into challenging this iniquitous tax and raising public awareness of the Government’s continuing attempt to defend the indefensible. People such as Paul and Susan Rutherford have led the charge in one of the Court of Appeal cases on behalf of their severely disabled grandson, Warren, and Alan Lloyd of Cardiff Against the Bedroom Tax gives voluntary help to victims of the bedroom tax in my constituency of Cardiff Central and across south Wales by preparing and presenting appeals. I spoke to Alan Lloyd yesterday as he was on his way to appear at yet another tribunal to present an appeal on behalf of a woman whose long-time home is at risk because of the tax.

It is clear from the number of hon. Members present here today that the impact of the tax remains an important issue to many people and is not limited to those who pay the tax itself. The Opposition have opposed the bedroom tax since its introduction. Since this grossly unpopular Conservative and Liberal Democrat policy was forced on the public, exactly what we warned would happen has happened. The bedroom tax is not working; it is not achieving the aims that the Government set out to implement; and it is hurting some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society and giving them a problem that is absolutely no fault of their own.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a lawyer for many years, for bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House. Normally, people adhere to Court of Appeal judgments, but in the case of the bedroom tax, the Government are once again ignoring what the court said. In what way—the right, decent and honourable way—should the Government deal with the Court of Appeal judgment and listen to what is happening to the thousands of people out there who are suffering as a consequence of this now unlawful and illegal tax?

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Can we keep interventions short and not make speeches, please?

[Jo Stevens]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The honourable thing would be to accept the decision of the Court of Appeal, but instead the Government are proceeding to the Supreme Court, where a decision is expected at the end of this month or early next month.

The bedroom tax and the tripling of tuition fees for students are two of the most painful scars left by five years of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition, and I will take every opportunity to continue to remind the House that the bedroom tax would never have been introduced without the eager help of the Liberal Democrats, including my predecessor. Nearly 500,000 households and almost 750,000 people have been hit by this cruel policy. Two thirds of the households affected by the bedroom tax include a person with a disability. The tax impacts on 60,000 carers—people who undertake demanding and challenging responsibilities and are punished for doing so. Some 57% of those who have to pay the tax have had to cut back on household basics such as food and heating—things that we all take for granted. The bedroom tax has had a corrosive effect on many different households, including the single parent who needs a spare room for when their children visit as part of agreed contact visit arrangements following separation or divorce; grandparents who help with looking after their grandchildren, allowing parents to manage shift working and other working patterns, or following family breakdown; and people with severe disabilities who use their spare room for their medical equipment or care, such as kidney dialysis.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

This issue is big in my constituency of Hackney South and Shoreditch. There is an invidious part to this tax. If two children are of an age when they are supposed to share a bedroom, but one is within reach of their next birthday, when they would qualify for their own bedroom, the family are hit by the bedroom tax. So it is a fluctuating tax that hits people particularly hard.

[Jo Stevens]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point; the tax increases uncertainty. People cannot budget. Their circumstances change and the fluctuating nature of the tax impacts on them more heavily at different times. Then there are victims of domestic violence and rape whose lives are at risk and need the protection of a panic room.

The particular focus of this debate is the regional impact of the bedroom tax, and I want to outline its impact on my constituents in Cardiff Central and more broadly within the nation of Wales, where 31,217 people are affected by the tax. Across Wales, just under 500,000 people live in social rented accommodation. The tax has had a huge impact, affecting proportionally more housing benefit claimants than anywhere else in Great Britain. Some 46% of claimants in Wales pay the tax, compared with 31% for the UK as a whole. In Cardiff, 3,015 households currently pay the tax, and nearly 500 of those live in my constituency of Cardiff Central.

The cost of the bedroom tax to each household affected will be £3,500 during this Parliament. I am sure I do not need to explain to most hon. Members what £3,500 means to the families in our constituencies, especially the poorest families who visit our surgeries every week. That £3,500 would otherwise be spent on basic necessities such as food, heating, clothes and shoes. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions claimed that the bedroom tax would encourage societal movement. However, when the bedroom tax was introduced, it affected about 3,500 households in Cardiff, and only just over 100 smaller properties were available for people to move into. I readily admit that maths is not my strong point, but even I can work out that that sum does not work.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. She knows that Northern Ireland did not implement the bedroom tax, although it has cost us financially not to do so. We looked at the issues that she has rightly highlighted, especially those affecting our older generation. In the first place, we did not have the housing stock, but, from a moral point of view, we felt that the hardship was simply too great to impose on older people.

[Jo Stevens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which again shows the iniquitous nature of the bedroom tax.

Therein lies the truth about the bedroom tax and its impact and the number of properties that are available for people to move to. The Government knew before they introduced the policy that insufficient smaller properties were available for people to move to. That was the picture right across the country. Even if we gave the Government the benefit of the doubt about their motives before implementation, their own interim report on the bedroom tax after implementation revealed that the policy was not meeting its key aim of freeing up larger council properties. Only 4.5% of affected tenants have been able to move to smaller accommodation. At the same time, with just 4.5% of people able to move and be rehoused, 60% of people affected were in arrears within the first six months of the introduction of the tax. The policy is simply not working. People are not able to move to smaller accommodation because that accommodation simply does not exist, so long-standing, reliable tenants who were previously able to budget and pay their rent regularly now cannot pay it and have built up significant arrears.

[Meg Hillier]

In parts of London we are seeing people pushing to get two-bedroom properties because they are frightened they will be hit by the bedroom tax, but that also reduces, if there was availability, the stock for people to move down to, if they have the extra bedroom, so it causes a squeeze in both directions.

[Jo Stevens]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

The most vulnerable have been hit the hardest and, in the words of the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues just a few weeks ago, the Government’s “admitted discrimination” in the judicial review cases to which I referred earlier

“has not been justified by the Secretary of State”.

We now have a farcical situation in which the Government have appealed that decision and the legal costs of pursuing the appeal are likely to be greater than the amount it would cost them to exempt all victims of rape and domestic violence with panic rooms who are paying the bedroom tax. I can conclude only that the Government would rather pay money to lawyers than to rape victims. I challenge the Minister to justify that action.

I think I can predict that, when he responds to the debate, the Minister will say that the Government have made additional funding available to local authorities in the regions and in Wales in the form of discretionary housing payments, but my local authority, City of Cardiff Council, has had its DHP funding cut by more than 26% between 2013-14 and 2015-16. The regional impact of Cardiff losing more than a quarter of its DHP funding has been hard, so it is disingenuous to argue that the DHP system justifies the bedroom tax.

At the same time as imposing the tax and relying on DHP as justification, the Government are cutting DHP funding. Their own report, which they sneaked out in a huge data dump on the very last day of the parliamentary term in December 2015—obviously in the hope that no one would notice—admitted that 75% of bedroom tax victims did not get DHP; that three quarters of those hit by bedroom tax were cutting back on food; that only 5% had been able to move; and that 80% regularly ran out of money.

The policy implementation of DHP has also been called into question. Evidence on its use has raised serious questions about local authorities adopting different practices, leading to allegations of a postcode lottery. There are references to disabled tenants—particularly those living in specially adapted properties—struggling to get DHP in some areas, and needing to submit repeated applications, with the consequential uncertainty and anxiety. That is not to mention the exclusion of people with lower levels of literacy.

This debate is not the first time that DHP and its impact on disabled people has been raised here. As long ago as 9 April 2014, five Welsh Government Ministers wrote to Lord Freud to call for an exemption from the bedroom tax for disabled tenants who had had adaptations made to their homes. They cited issues with DHP as one reason why such a broad exemption was necessary. They said:

“Disabled tenants cannot easily up sticks and move home. They should be exempt from these reforms and should not be left to rely on help from the discretionary housing benefit system…Our analysis of the discretionary housing payments system shows that demand far outweighs the number of applications being approved. In the first half of the financial year 2013/14 demand increased by around 260 per cent compared to the same period a year earlier in 15 Welsh local authorities.”

Cardiff’s 26%-plus cut in DHP funding, coupled with the increase in applications, presents another one of those stark sums that even I can work out. It simply does not add up to have households with disabled tenants having to pay the bedroom tax if that cannot be offset through DHP because DHP funding has been cut. It is another example of the Government’s policy hitting hardest those who can least afford it.

Tomorrow, we have an Opposition day debate on another of the policy responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: the adverse impact on around 2.6 million women of the speeding up of the state pension age. I know from discussions with constituents that many of those being advised and represented in bedroom tax appeals in my constituency are those very same women who are adversely affected by the changes to the state pension age. They are also women who are disabled or carers, so there is a double, triple or quadruple whammy on women. As with so many of the Government’s policies, it seems that women are bearing the brunt yet again.

It is time for the Government finally to accept that the bedroom tax is a bad policy. In the words of David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, it is:

“an unfair, ill-planned disaster that is hurting our poorest families”.

It does not work, it causes severe hardship and it hits the most vulnerable, so I say to the Minister: please, listen to the public. It is time for the bedroom tax to be binned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens]

On the point about the bedroom tax financially punishing people, does my hon. Friend think that it causes people to go to payday lenders such as Wonga and take out loans with extortionate interest rates to survive?

[Carolyn Harris]

I certainly do. I have casework involving people who have taken out payday loans from Wonga and other organisations and have been unable to repay them without not paying their bedroom tax. It is a Catch-22.

The bedroom tax financially punishes those forced to pay it. It discriminates against communities and individuals, and makes them unable to gel and enjoy stable, sustainable and adequate housing in a community where they can nurture and mutually support each other, and be part of a productive citizenship and community enterprise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will cover in detail some of those points, but I can tell the hon. Lady that a significant difference was that no additional discretionary housing payment was provided when the policy was implemented in the private sector. It was very much a case of, “Cross your fingers and hope for the best. You will not be getting any support.”

The legal case mentioned is ongoing, so I cannot dwell on it too much. The Court of Appeal previously said that discretionary housing payments were appropriate support. Crucially, it was not about the wider policy; it was about just these very specific categories. In that particular case, those people were in receipt of discretionary housing payments, but that is an ongoing legal dispute.

[Jo Stevens]

In relation to the receipt of discretionary housing payments, is it not the case that the Rutherfords had been denied DHP in the first instance?

[Justin Tomlinson]

My understanding is that that is right, but they then got the money on appeal. This comes down to whether we should have discretion in the powers of local authorities or an exhaustive list of those who should be exempted. My view is that if we try to set strict categories, we will not be able to ensure with 100% certainty that everyone will be covered, because people—particularly those with unique issues—do not neatly conform to tidy boxes. If an individual falls just below the line, they will miss out; that is a crucial point. If it is black and white, there will be winners and losers.

Discretionary housing payments allow for everybody’s individual circumstances to be considered and for a flexible multi-agency approach. For example, that approach could involve working with the police, social services and medical professionals. Underlying all those decisions is the public sector equality duty to ensure that the vulnerable in society are protected.

A number of speakers talked about support for the disabled, victims and those who are homeless. I will reel off some of the measures we have introduced to provide support in those areas: £400 million to deliver 8,000 specialist homes for the vulnerable, elderly and those with disabilities; a 79% increase, from £220 million to £394 million, in the disabled facilities grant, which helps about 40,000 people; £40 million for victims of domestic abuse, which triples the support previously in place, so that no one is turned away; £500 million to tackle homelessness since 2010; and £25 million a year to support disabled people living in significantly adapted accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens]

I thank the Minister for his response and all my Opposition colleagues for their contributions to today’s debate. It is very disappointing that no Government Back Benchers were here to participate. Although I have listened to the Minister’s points, I do not recognise what he has said in the impact of the bedroom tax that I see every day in my constituency and which I am sure my hon. Friends do too. I ask him to take away the case studies, stories and points that we have made, and to review the policy again. It is iniquitous, unfair and discriminatory, and it really needs to go.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the regional effects of the under-occupancy penalty.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

To clarify, this will be a flow measure so there will be no cash losers among those already in the system. We will be looking at the protections in place, recognising those in the private sector which include protection for care leavers.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

I am pleased to be able to update the House today on the next stage of universal credit roll-out. Universal credit is available now in three quarters of all jobcentres, and by April next year will be available nationally. Building on that, the digital service is already in a number of jobcentres, and I can announce that it is being extended to a further five jobcentres as early as next year—to Hounslow, Musselburgh, Purley, Thornton Heath and Great Yarmouth prior to May 2016, when the digital service will be rolled out nationally.

[Jo Stevens]

I invite the Secretary of State to confirm that current claimants of universal credit will face losses next April as a result of cuts to the work allowance. Can he explain to the House why there is no transitional protection for universal credit, as there is for tax credit recipients?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I thought I had made this clear, but I will make it clear again. For those already on universal credit, advisers will support them through the additional resources and the flexible support fund to ensure that their status remains the same. Those moving from tax credit to universal credit are transitionally protected, as has already been stated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Stevens Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effect of Government policies on the number of children living in poverty.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

16. What representations he has received on changing the Government’s child poverty targets.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

This Government are committed to working to eliminate child poverty and improve the life chances of children. Our approach is to focus on the root causes of poverty and not just on the symptoms, which will deliver the best improvement in children’s life chances. Our consultation on child poverty measurement in 2013 received more than 250 responses, capturing views across the spectrum from local authorities, charities, academics and members of the public.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not notice that at the time of the Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced one of the biggest rises in the living wage. I make no apology for punching the air, because that was a huge announcement. This is the whole point: as we get people back to work, they should be earning more in work—rather than being paid for by taxpayers, they should be paid for by their businesses.

[Jo Stevens]

Can the Secretary of State explain why the Government are scrapping all child poverty targets?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are not scrapping all the child poverty targets; what we have said is that we are going to look at all the life chances measures. We want to know what they are doing and how well they are performing. Alongside that, we are still publishing income measures; HBAI statistics—households below average income—will still be published. The hon. Lady is therefore wrong in what she says. What we are doing is focusing on what we can actually do to help families get out of poverty, rather than rotating them around a 60% median income line, as the last Labour Government did. That did not make any sense and cost a huge amount of money.