Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I know that the hon. Lady has been interested in this issue for a number of years following a tragic death in her constituency in 2006 involving a driver with undiagnosed sleep apnoea. The Health and Safety Executive works with the Department for Transport and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and their medical teams to ensure that people driving, particularly commercially, are safe. They will continue that valuable work and I know that she will continue to raise the issue.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

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

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

Today I welcome regulations laid in this House to prevent migrant jobseekers from the EU from accessing universal credit if they have never worked in the UK. This is a clear reversal of the open door policy of the past under the previous Government and we are now delivering a fair system for those who work hard in Britain. It is also in line with the fact that more British people find jobs that ended under the previous Government. A higher proportion of the jobs are taken by British people, which means that more people are in work. With welfare having fallen in real terms and a fairer pension system, this Government, as we come to a close, have a record of which to be proud.

[Julie Hilling]

An undercover reporter from “Dispatches” has found that staff in the Bolton universal credit call centre, where the system crashed nine times in 20 days, have been told not to inform claimants about same-day advance payment, the flexible support fund or the hardship fund, even though payments are taking at least five weeks to arrive. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is the correct way for staff to be told to behave and, if not, what is he going to do about it?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I did read the reports about that and they are wrong. The people the programme talked to are not responsible for talking to claimants about hardship funds. The people who talk about hardship funds are in the jobcentres and I can tell the hon. Lady categorically—she is more than welcome to look at it—that the advice given to them is explicit. They are meant to engage with people immediately if they have any suspicion or if they are asked about this. We are putting up posters in jobcentres to make sure that those people are aware of that and we are also ensuring that all letters on any sanction contain the elements that are relevant. The programme is wrong on this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The moment I heard the hon. Lady’s question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, I immediately said to the Department, “Let me have the news on this”, and I changed the policy on that specifically for Ebola. I am keeping the matter under review to look at whether it is necessary to make a wider exemption, depending on what the embassies say, and I will come back to her about that in due course. I was horrified to see what had happened to her constituents.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

10. What recent estimate he has made of the number of people subject to the under-occupancy penalty who have moved into a smaller home since the introduction of that penalty.

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

The latest published figures showed that, as a result of various actions, 65,000 people were no longer affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy. As at December 2013, around 22,000 had downsized or moved a year ago. New figures to be published in due course show that if that trend continues, up to 50,000 will have moved or downsized by now, with the total no longer affected even higher.

[Julie Hilling]

The justification for the cruel and heartless bedroom tax is that it would force people to move into smaller homes. As only about 5% of people hit by the tax have been able to move, not least because in areas such as mine there are no smaller properties to move to, does the Secretary of State accept that this policy has manifestly failed?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Actually, I do not, and by the way I think the hon. Lady’s figures are not correct. I gave her higher figures even for last December. The rationale for the policy was fairness. The previous Government left us with the situation where some on housing benefit in the private sector were not allowed to occupy houses that had extra rooms, so balancing that is fair. Getting housing benefit spending under control after it nearly doubled in cash terms under the previous Government, and helping those living in overcrowded accommodation while we build more houses, giving them a chance to move into houses where they can fit their families—that is decent and fair.

Affordable Homes Bill

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raynsford]

My right hon. Friend’s point is absolutely valid. The policy is based on extremely unproven and in many cases very suspect assumptions. The idea that people eligible for housing benefit will benefit either themselves or the public purse by moving out of accommodation costing £55 a week into accommodation costing £70 seems absurd. That, however, is the consequence of the bedroom tax as it is currently constituted. The Government have made it clear that they expect people to look for alternative options in the private rented sector, even though that sector is in general hugely more expensive than social housing. There are a whole series of contradictions at the heart of this policy.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Like my right hon. Friend, I absolutely welcome the Bill. Does he agree that from the start there has been a problem about the definition of under-occupation? If someone is disabled and needs a spare room, perhaps to keep their oxygen cylinders in, they are not under-occupying their property.

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point. The definitional issues about what constitutes under-occupation have bedevilled the policy right from the outset. We all know of people who have medical needs that mean they require an extra room or spare bedroom, and of those who for a variety of disability reasons cannot share a bedroom with the partner with whom they are assumed to be able to share. We also know the basic human wish of individuals after a relationship breakdown to have a spare room so that their children can come to stay with them. The appalling way in which the Government have ignored these real human concerns and have imposed rules that have a harsh impact without taking account of such issues is one of the greatest condemnations of the whole policy.

DWP: Performance

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

It is all about ensuring that more people are in work through the compulsory jobs guarantee, ensuring that people have the skills to hold down a job with a basic skills test and a youth allowance, and doing more to ensure that people in work can earn enough to live on—through, for example, an increase in the minimum wage and ensuring that more people are paid the living wage. Those policies will make a huge difference to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Dover and Deal, which will be a Labour constituency after the next election.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute scandal that the Government do not know what they are talking about? They talk about the number of jobs being created, but they do not know how many of them are on zero-hours contracts or how many are on Government schemes or how many have been transferred from the public sector. In fact, the Secretary of State knows absolutely nothing about these so-called jobs that the Government are supposed to have created.

[Rachel Reeves]

What we do know is that more than 5 million people—20% of the work force—are paid less than the living wage. Furthermore, 1.5 million people are on zero-hours contracts and 1.4 million people are working part time who want to work full time.

When it comes to detailing the extent of the Secretary of State’s dereliction, it is hard to know where to start. For a useful overview, we need look no further than the Department’s own annual report and accounts for 2013-14, which was released at the end of last week. It reveals the latest opinion of the DWP’s head of internal audit—that the Department has yet to take the necessary action to “address control weaknesses” and, in his words, to

“provide an improved…environment from which to manage the continuing challenges and risks faced by the Department.”

It lists no fewer than eight areas described as “significant challenges” where the Department still falls short. Universal credit, we are told,

“continues to be a significant challenge for both the Department and delivery partners”,

and it goes on to say that

“there continues to be an inherent level of risk contained in the plans.”

On fraud and error, we are told that the rate has “worsened” with respect to housing benefit and that the chance of the Government achieving their target for reduction

“remains a very substantial challenge and is unlikely to be achieved.”

The report confirms that in the area of contracted-out assessments for employment and support allowance and the new personal independence payments,

“the volume of assessments undertaken by providers…has fallen consistently below demand, with a detrimental impact on customer service and implications for forecast expenditure on sickness and disability benefits”.

In other words, it is hurting, but it certainly is not working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We have already saved over £2 billion on fraud and error. We continue to drive that process forward, and there are more savings to be made. We have done remarkably well considering what we were left by Labour, which, as far as I can make out, did not even bother to try to save any money on fraud and error.

[Julie Hilling]

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why only one in 20 disabled people is getting work? He says that the number of people on benefits has dropped. How many of them have stopped claiming because of sanctions? Can he at least tell us what is the quality of the jobs that people are getting? How many are unpaid, how many are zero-hours contracts, and how many are part time?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

In fact, we have been more successful in getting disabled people back into work. The proportion of disabled people in work is now rising as a result of what we have been doing. On the back of the work capability assessment, some 700,000 people will now be seeking and finding work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Despite the best efforts of DWP staff, no part of the Department seems to be working effectively at the moment. It appears that the Government came into office with the view that those unfortunate enough to be unemployed, sick, disabled or a carer are simply scroungers and malingerers. They decided that the cost of welfare was too high without any empirical evidence and, as a result, have introduced policies that are causing untold misery to my constituents, many of whom have worked all their lives. When they needed the safety net of the welfare state, they discovered that it is now full of massive holes.

The Secretary of State and his Back Benchers tell us that everything is fine, and that there is no problem with universal credit, but the Prime Minister told me on 21 November 2012 that the second phase would be introduced in April 2013. The Secretary of State now says, if we can believe him, that it will be introduced in April 2016—but everything is fine. The Secretary of State and his Back Benchers tell us that everything is fine with PIP, even though at the current rate it would take 42 years to complete all the assessments. They cannot see a problem with the Work programme, even though only one in 20 disabled people is getting a job. They defend the bedroom tax, even when two thirds of the people affected are disabled, and they cannot see fundamental problems with ESA and work capability assessments, particularly for those with mental health issues and fluctuating conditions who, when they win their appeals, are then sent for another assessment. They cannot see how illnesses are getting worse as a result of stress and poverty.

Then there are those with multiple problems who hit the magic 15 points, but not in respect of one measure alone, so they are put in the work-related activity group and have reached 365 days with no prospect of working—and now have no money. Some people are even taking their own lives because they cannot cope with the stress and can see no other way out. Furthermore, the Secretary of State and his Back Benchers cannot see any problems with the sanctions regime in which sanctions are unfairly applied and 58% appealing those sanctions win. They cannot see how people are unable to heat their homes and are driven to food banks and into the arms of payday lenders.

It is very easy when we sit in this place to forget about the real lives of real people outside who have no food in their cupboards tonight and have no gas or electricity in their homes. In my last few minutes, let me say a few things about some of the 91 ESA and 24 PIP problems suffered by my constituents whom we have tried to help.

John, a firefighter, received horrific burns at work. His wife had to give up her job to look after him. He received an initial ESA payment, but had difficulties attending an Atos assessment. He was refused a home visit and was too ill to attend an assessment, so had his ESA suspended and had no income at all. It took 51 weeks to get an award. He said:

“I am currently not making ends meet, yet alone the embarrassment of my wife having to care for me full-time. I have done nothing wrong, only getting injured and I am so upset at my treatment.”

Paul, an ex-serviceman, had serious leg injuries after a walking holiday. He receives DLA, but a processing issue at the DWP resulted in the termination of his benefit, just at the time they decided to amputate his leg. Twenty-five weeks later, he got a PIP payment. With Margaret, a double mastectomy cancer sufferer, it took 46 weeks.

I am grateful to the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has helped me resolve many of my cases, but what about those who do not know where to go for help and who do not come to see their MP? I have so many heart-breaking stories, but no time to tell them. We are the sixth-richest country in the world, yet we have people unable to feed their families. The Secretary of State should move on from his patronising complacency, talk to the people who are being failed by him and sort out the mess in his Department.

Work Capability Assessments

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

As the previous debate wound up earlier than expected, I have the chance to say a few words on this subject.

I do not think anyone is saying that a reconsideration process in deciding whether someone should receive a benefit is a bad thing. I do not think anyone would complain if it cut the number of appeals, caused less stress on the claimant, could be done very quickly—in less than a month—and benefits were secure during the process, but that is not what is happening. People are having to face very long delays before they get a decision the other side of the mandatory reconsideration and that is probably causing the most anxiety.

On top of that, people are never very sure to which benefit they are entitled. Will the Minister confirm that we are talking not only about people who were on incapacity benefit and have been found to be fit enough for work and should therefore be on jobseeker’s allowance, and it is to that that the appeal applies, but about those who in the original assessment were awarded employment and support allowance in the work-related activity group and are appealing because they think that they should have been in the support group? In other words, someone has been found eligible for ESA, appeals to go into the support group but still has to go through the mandatory reconsideration, at which stage their benefit stops and they are expected to apply for JSA. I have heard anecdotal evidence from a number of different people that those who have gone through the mandatory reconsideration find themselves in the support group, so no longer need to visit a personal adviser in Jobcentre Plus. During the period of the mandatory reconsideration, however, they were expected to be signing on for JSA, but were so ill in the meantime—that is why they ended up in the support group—that they could not make the weekly signings, as a result of which they and their benefits have been sanctioned. I would like the Minister to clarify that position.

The other problem is the interrelationship between the benefit someone receives and other benefits. Sometimes, a person undergoing the mandatory reconsideration who is not yet in payment of JSA might find that their housing benefit or council tax rebate has been stopped because the council has been told that they are no longer eligible for ESA, which they are not, but because of some of the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) they have not yet put in an active claim for JSA. As a result, their housing benefit might be disrupted, even though they are entitled to it on the basis of their overall household income. There should not have been a break in the claim, but that is not how the system works.

If the changes could be made smoothly and very quickly, with the person being very clear about the benefits to which they are entitled and being able to remain on them without a break in the claim, the reconsideration might be acceptable. So far, however, that is so far from the reality of what is happening that it is no wonder that people are so anxious.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about other anecdotal evidence that crops up all the time—about people who during this period of reconsideration and upheaval, end up taking their own lives, dying or making themselves much more ill? Financial worries are not the only ones at stake, because people’s health and lives can be put at risk, too.

[Dame Anne Begg]

We know that people can get incredibly anxious about any kind of health assessment that they are put through. We know, too, that people are not only anxious at the time of the mandatory reconsideration; they will have been anxious much earlier, perhaps when they first received an ESA50 form through the door to fill in. That may be followed by the worry of the work capability assessment, after which they might be found fit for work when they do not think they are fit for work; and they may be put in the WRAG when they think that they are ill enough to be in the support group. There is a whole range of pinch points at which people feel extremely anxious.

Let me give an anecdotal example. Two community psychiatric nurses came to see me in my surgery a few months ago. They were very concerned about their clients, whom they had fostered and helped, and who were almost reaching a stage at which they could start thinking about work and how they might return to the workplace. At that very point, however, the ESA50s dropped through the door, and their health suffered a setback.

The nurses were particularly concerned about a very vulnerable group of people who found the whole process—which was not helped by all the publicity surrounding it—terrifying and worrying. The extra burden imposed by the mandatory reconsideration is yet another reason for the deterioration in people’s health as they go through that process. It is not a zero-sum game. A whole range of external forces can worsen the condition of people who are in ill health, who may have mental health problems, and whose condition may fluctuate. People can be made to feel very ill, and we know of cases in which the process of applying for ESA has been cited as the reason for suicides. That is a tragedy. I am not suggesting that mandatory reconsideration is entirely responsible for it, but it constitutes yet another pressure on people who are already vulnerable, already quite ill, and already finding it difficult to cope with illness or disability.

I hope that the Minister will examine the process, and how it is working in practice. I cannot believe that it is working in the way he would like it to work. I am pretty sure that long delays, failures to reach a determination, and the fact that people may not know to which benefit they are entitled and may end up with nothing as a result—perhaps with huge rent arrears because of problems with housing benefit claims—are not part of the Minister’s plan, and I hope that, if they are not, he will be able to give us some idea of how he will improve the process.

Incapacity Benefit Migration

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mike Penning]

As I said, there are some who agree with us that in certain circumstances, face to face is required. I passionately believe that face to face is not required in every case, whether in the WCA or in PIP. We have to make sure that we get it right. There are people who do not think that that should be the case.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I am very sorry that I have not been able to be part of the debate, because I was taking part in the sanctions debate. On that point, would it be possible to consider face to face if a different decision was due to be made? If someone was going to continue in the support group or in the WRAG, they would not need to be called in for the face-to-face interview, but if a different decision was to be made, that is when a face-to-face interview should take place.

[Mike Penning]

I am not certain that that would work, not least because decisions that had been made would also have to be reversed. The decision must be based on the evidence that is before the decision makers. I agree with many of the things that the shadow Minister has said, but it is crucial that we remember that this is not about diagnosis. The diagnosis has been done by the clinical experts. In response to the shadow Minister’s concern about a drain on NHS doctors, a lot of the assessments are done not by doctors, but by trained clinicians.

Like other hon. Members, as a constituency MP I have had correspondence about the matter, so when I took on this portfolio a couple of months ago I desperately wanted to dig down and look at it. Dr Litchfield’s report came out almost simultaneously with my arrival in post. One of the first things I did was to go off to a tribunal and listen, as a member of the public can do, to two cases being put before the tribunal judges. As I left the building, I said to my officials—I have said this in the House before—“Clearly, we are not getting decisions right.” The first case that I listened to should not have been at the tribunal; we should have sorted it out before. In the second one, interestingly enough, the Department had not seen the evidence until the morning of the hearing. Extra evidence was produced, and the judge had used his autonomy to waive the four-week rule and allow it to be presented.

I have been urgently looking at how we get the right decisions by ATOS professionals being sent to our decision makers. The final decision is made by the Department, not by Atos; Atos makes a recommendation and we look at it. I looked carefully at the quality of the decisions that were coming from our contractor, which in this case was Atos. I have said on the record several times that I was not happy at all about the quality of the decisions. Before I arrived, the Department had been putting pressure on Atos to improve quality, so we were also starting to get an ever-increasing backlog. So many cases that could have been decided through paper assessments were instead being assessed face to face. Even then, people were appealing, and because we were getting the assessments wrong, we were losing the appeals.

We will always lose some appeals, as the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), knows. It is for judges to weigh up what the will of Parliament was in making regulations, and apply that to the case before them. I was keen to make sure that we got this right, because we are talking not only about taxpayers’ money, but about individuals. The shadow Minister described the welfare system as a safety net. For some people, it will be there from birth onwards, and for others it will come into play because of circumstances, events, traumas and illnesses over the course of their lives.

The shadow Minister was quite right to say that there will be things that I will be unable to answer, and other things that I will not be able to discuss because of confidentiality within contractual obligations. Regarding Atos’s decision to exit its contract early, I was pressurised by colleagues from both sides of the House to remove or sack Atos. One of the shadow Minister’s colleagues said that I should sack Atos. The problem with that was that because of the form of the contract, we would almost certainly have had to pay compensation to Atos, and I do not think that anybody inside or outside the House would have wanted us to do that. We have negotiated an early exit for Atos and have arranged for a team to work alongside its management as it continues to do the work while we exit it. I cannot simply turn off the tap, because we would have no capacity. The biggest issue with Atos has been with its management controls, rather than with its front-line decision making.

Sanctioning of Benefit Recipients

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Nearly 1 million people have had their benefits stopped—the highest number since jobseeker’s allowance was introduced in 1996—but 58% of those who appealed their sanctions won. That is what this debate is about.

Labour Members do not say that people should not be sanctioned, but we do say that sanctions should be fair. They should be imposed only when claimants wilfully do not do everything that they have agreed to do—unlike the young man I recently met at a protest against Atos, who was like so many people on benefits. He wanted to work, but had suffered a rugby injury and was on ESA. He has worked in construction and had had his own window cleaning company that employed two other people. He went to university but then got his rugby injury, which triggered chronic migraines. He also got depression. The medics are currently trying to work out whether the migraines cause the depression or the depression causes the migraines.

The young man was sacked from his last job because he had three days off with a migraine. He went on to ESA for three months, after which he was sent for another assessment. He contacted Atos to say that he could not attend because he was in hospital, but he was still sanctioned. He appealed, and Atos actually apologised. He was told that he would not have to have another assessment for at least a month, but was then immediately sent for more assessments. He gave up and went on to JSA, but not before he had attempted suicide. He suffers from a double whammy: as a 30-year-old, he has had to give up his flat because he is entitled only to the shared room rate. We should not be treating ill and disabled people in this way.

After pressure from Labour Members, the Government agreed to arrange for an independent inquiry into benefits sanctions. When will we see its report? I, for one, am disgusted by the way in which sanctions are being applied unfairly, without good cause, and with no humanity. I wonder how Mr Oakley, who is conducting the inquiry, is going to produce the report, given that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) asked how many benefit claimants had been sanctioned for different periods of time, the Minister—not this Minister but the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey)—replied that the information was not readily available and it would cost too much to get it.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is not just the number of sanctions but their length? The minimum period is four weeks, so those who are sanctioned spend too much of their time trying to deal with the acute financial problems that that causes rather than looking for work, which might be the purpose of the sanctions in the first place.

[Julie Hilling]

Absolutely; I agree. If the purpose of a sanction is to give somebody a bit of a shock—to say, “Look, you need to comply with the things that the Department is asking you to do”—then it does not need to be four weeks long, a year long, or three years long. We need action to get the person to comply with what they need to do; we do not need them starving, becoming homeless and living in the cold. As my right hon. Friend says, those things do not allow them productively to seek work.

I am a parliamentary patron of the YMCA, which has undertaken research and produced a report called “Feeling the Benefits”. The YMCA found that in the first seven months after the reforms of October 2012, more than a quarter of a million young people were sanctioned—1,000 every day. It also reported that there has been a significant increase in the number of vulnerable young people being sanctioned, detrimentally affecting their physical and mental well-being. Eighty-four per cent. of the young people surveyed reported that they had had to cut back on or go without food. They said things like: “I didn’t cope, I had no one.” Another said: “It’s how long they left me with no money, knowing I was pregnant and had to buy my own food.” Another said: “I was unable to eat and it was lucky that the YMCA could help.” Another said: “You have a much more negative attitude to life as a whole.” Another said: “It cost me my home and food.” Another said: “I went three months living on food parcels, which is really degrading because you lose all your dignity. It’s not just physically hard, it’s mentally hard.”

The YMCA reported that sanctions, instead of helping those young people get into work, actually made it harder. One said: “It stopped me searching for work as I had no money to get to different employers.” Another said, most tellingly: “My focus turned to survival rather than gaining employment.” The young people accepted the need for sanctions for those not doing what is required of them, but all believed that they had to be fairly applied. Three quarters of them felt that the way in which sanctions were currently being applied was not fair. They believed that there were three main areas where communication had failed: they were not given enough support on how they could avoid being sanctioned, an explanation of why they had been sanctioned or practical advice on what they could do once they had been.

The YMCA is calling on the Government to do a number of things, including ensuring that key information on the welfare system is better tailored and communicated to young people. It says that a claimant should have an individual as a single point of contact within their local Jobcentre Plus, who should remain constant wherever a claimant is in the system—whether on a work programme, work experience or wherever.

The YMCA also proposes that young people should receive a clear explanation, in writing and face to face, of why they have been sanctioned, and that claimants who are homeless or in emergency accommodation should be exempt from the same job search rules until they have found somewhere to live. It seems an absolute nonsense that we expect someone who is living on the streets to apply for so many jobs per day when what we need to do is get them into accommodation and make sure they are feeding themselves properly, and then deal with the issue of work. It is a hierarchy of needs—first of all, people need food, water and somewhere to live.

The YMCA has also proposed that where claimants are living in supported accommodation, as well as providing the claimants themselves with information about a sanction, Jobcentre Plus should provide that information to the supported housing provider. There is an absolute logic there: if a young person who is in difficulty and is being supported is suddenly sanctioned and so is no longer able to pay their rent, they run the risk of falling out even of the supported system.

The YMCA also proposes that a duty be placed on Jobcentre Plus to provide people being sanctioned with a suitable notice period and an opportunity to have the decision reconsidered prior to removing any benefit payments. I will go on to talk about cases in which, if a proper review had been done in the first place, the sanction would never had been applied and people would not have been left in dire circumstances with no money for a period of time. I hope the Minister will take the time to read the YMCA’s report and will take action on its contents.

I recently met senior officers in my local Jobcentre Plus. We had a very productive discussion about the difficulties faced by many people and the particular difficulties faced by those whose lives are most chaotic. But as soon as I asked about sanctions, the atmosphere absolutely changed. I asked about targets, and they said that there were definitely no targets—I accept that. However, they then went on to talk about the performance management of Jobcentre Plus staff. An adviser will be spoken to if they do not refer claimants for sanctions often enough. That means the adviser cannot exercise common sense or accept explanations for why a claimant is a few moments late or has been unable to attend their interview that the rest of us would see as perfectly acceptable. The claimant potentially loses benefits immediately until the decision maker either accepts the reasons or applies a sanction. That could push the claimant into debt, leaving them with no food or money for rent, and getting them into difficulty with their housing.

I have been told that people have been given an appointment on a Sunday and have then been told that they should have realised that the appointment was for a day on which the jobcentre would not be open. They have therefore had their benefits suspended because they were not able to sign on and see their adviser—on a Sunday. There are cases of people who have applied for more jobs than are required but because they did so through a job club or through their own initiative rather than applying on universal job match the jobs were not counted and the claimants were sanctioned.

The young man who is now a volunteer in my office was given a job advert once as he was leaving the jobcentre and was told that he may like to apply for the job. The first line of the job description asked for a qualification that he did not have so he did not apply for it. He was honest: the next week he went in and said—even though he could have fibbed and said that he had applied for the job, as the jobcentre staff would not have known—that he had not applied for it and gave his reasons why. They sanctioned him, even though he had applied for more jobs than he needed to.

Another case is that of Peter, who was sent to a Work programme provider. He turned up when he was told to but was told that the programme did not exist and that he should go home. He went back to the jobcentre and explained the situation. The work provider backed up his story, but he was still sanctioned for four weeks, because the provider and the jobcentre could not get their story straight.

I am aware that you are asking me to wind up, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I have many more cases that I would love to tell the House about—really dire, terrible cases, in which my constituents have been wrongly treated and, it seems to me, punished simply for trying to do the right thing. One thing I would say is that if the jobcentre would only talk to the person, find out what had happened and why, start from a point of believing their story and carry out the investigation before they applied the sanctions, we would not have people living in such misery.

Although I hate sanctions, I accept that some people do not engage or do the things that they are called on to do to receive benefits. I accept that those people should face sanctions, but those sanctions have to be based on common sense. If someone is in hospital or at a job interview, or is held up by a traffic accident, they should not have their benefits cut off. If they cannot read, are ill on the day of the appointment or are given the wrong day by the jobcentre they should not be left with no money to feed themselves and their family. The current sanction regime is not fair, is not working properly and needs to be changed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I will not for now, because I only have a short period and I want to respond to all the points that Members have made. [Interruption.] It was a mistake. The hon. Gentleman asks why it was 60%. There was a miscoding. That was not the correct figure.

It is important that the sanctions regime is evaluated. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for his positive comments on the work that is being done by Matthew Oakley, which is looking specifically at the sanctions regime. It is considering communications to claimants. A number of hon. Members have stated that for sanctions to be effective we must communicate to people what has happened to them and why. I accept that entirely, and if right hon. and hon. Members have examples—some of which they cited during the debate—the Employment Minister would be pleased to receive details of individual cases where the processes that we want to work are not working.

To return to the evaluation, Matthew Oakley will soon complete his report. It will come to the Department and we will respond positively and constructively. We will then publish not only our response but the independent findings of the reviewers in full. There is no secrecy about that; it will be in the public domain, and rightly so, together with the actions we are taking. That is not the only evaluation. We have published a range of evidence, including the Jobcentre Plus offer evaluation and the universal credit customer survey, which provide information about customer awareness of sanctions and the effectiveness of the regime in encouraging compliance. We also monitor the use of sanctions and publish quarterly statistics. In a sense, we could have a second and third review and all the rest, but the focus is on seeing what the first independent reviewer says and publicly responding constructively to that, making changes, publishing evidence, monitoring and taking action, rather than on starting another review with another reviewer for perhaps six or nine months, or whatever, so that it is Christmas before things change. We want to get on with learning from these reviews.

The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, asked about sanctions for employment and support allowance, and it is important to stress the low level of ESA sanctions. At any point, fewer than 0.5% of individuals in the work-related activity group are sanctioned, so although volumes have increased because the number of people on ESA has gone up, that rate remains low. It is not the case that people on ESA are being sanctioned all over the place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) mentioned the link to housing benefit—I felt a certain amount of nostalgia when he explained to the House where Sandwell is, because that is where I was born and went to school. He made the important point that if someone is sanctioned on jobseeker’s allowance, that should not lead to the loss of housing benefit. Although income-related JSA passports to housing benefit, housing benefit is available on the basis of low income and not necessarily on whether someone satisfies the requirements for JSA. We entirely accept that we must ensure that people are not incorrectly thrown off housing benefit because their JSA has been sanctioned in some way, and we are considering that issue as part of the Oakley review. It is not our intention for people to lose their housing benefit.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan raised an interesting question of whether, for example, someone who is sanctioned under universal credit risks losing the whole household payment. Funnily enough, that problem is sorted out under universal credit, because instead of having JSA here and housing benefit there, and the JSA computer telling the council that someone is not on JSA any more and their housing benefit stopping, if it is all one payment the sanction is just to the personal allowance bit and housing help remains unaffected. It will be better under universal credit.

I was pleased to hear from a number of hon. Members that the universal sanctions regime is attractive and responds so that when people correct whatever caused the sanction, in many cases that sanction will stop. I will pass to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Employment Minister the view of a number of Members in this debate that the sooner we move forward with the universal credit sanction regime, the better. I am encouraged by that.

On the proportionality of sanctions, there has not been much discussion about the detail of the higher, middle and lower rates, but since the system was introduced the proportion of claimants sanctioned at the highest level fell markedly after the introduction of the new system. Hardship payments are available—again, that has not been discussed much—at a rate of 60% of the benefit. People may not be aware of that, but where someone has no income it is important to be aware that hardship payments are available at a rate of 60% of benefit.

[Julie Hilling]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

I will not, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, because I want to respond to the points already made.

There was some discussion of targets—this is a bit of a chestnut—and to be categorical, there are no targets for sanctions; that is not the way it works. The point was made that statistics are gathered at jobcentre level and among advisers on their use of the sanctions system, and again the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—I am wrecking her credibility here—made exactly the right point. We want consistency, and we cannot know that we have that if we do not gather data on what individual advisers are doing. If people go to a jobcentre and talk to adviser A or adviser B, and adviser A sanctions everyone who walks through the door and adviser B never sanctions anyone, the system is not working.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

There are two separate answers to that question. On WCA, Atos is leaving and we will bring in a new contractor before moving to multiple contractors to ensure that the suppliers can do what is said on the tin, all without paying a single piece of compensation to Atos—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Exactly the opposite, actually—Atos will be paying it to us. Secondly, PIP is being rolled out. We need to ensure that we get it right, as the hon. Gentleman said, and we will make sure that we get it through quicker. We need to make sure that the assessments are correct rather than making mistakes.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T4. My constituent, Lyn Ward, has had a lumpectomy, a mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Eleven months later, she is still waiting for her PIP assessment and in desperation has gone back to work, even though she is not yet fit. When will that be sorted out?

[Mike Penning]

As I said to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), we need to make sure that we get it right as we roll out PIP. The hon. Lady can give me the details of the case if she would like. Thousands of cases have been handled correctly, and if there are mistakes we must ensure that they are addressed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

PIP is replacing disability living allowance, less than 6% of the recipients of which ever had a face-to-face assessment. At the moment, around 90% to 95% of claimants are being called for a face-to-face assessment, which is much too high, and we will bring that down as much as possible. We are working with the relevant lobby groups, particularly the Royal National Institute of Blind People, to ensure that the information is available in a way that can be used across the board.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

This morning I received a letter from my constituent Tracy, a distressed and house-bound disabled woman who put in a claim for PIP last August but is still waiting for a home visit. She has been told that she might have to wait another six months. It is yet another example of how disabled people are being failed. What is the Minister going to do about it?

[Mike Penning]

People are waiting too long for PIP assessments, partly because of the number being called for face-to-face assessments—between 90% and 95%— which is much too high. The policy was for that to be about 70%, so I think that it could be reduced further. We are looking carefully at whether it is absolutely necessary for that number of people to be called for assessment. When a face-to-face assessment is not needed, PIP will be granted without it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

We have been getting to grips with that since we came to power in 2010. For the record, in 1997 there were no FOBTs, yet by 2010, when the Labour party was removed from power, there were more than 30,000. I am afraid that I will not take any lessons from the shadow Minister, as we are the ones who are gathering the evidence, pushing the industry to provide data and taking problem gambling seriously for the first time.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

3. What assessment she has made of the effect of pre-watershed advertising on young people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We have not made an assessment, but I assure the hon. Lady that we take very seriously the need for regulation that is fit for purpose, especially on content that is seen by children and young people. The Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice has specific codes on advertising to children, which are administered independently by the Advertising Standards Authority.

[Julie Hilling]

But the number of gambling commercials has increased by about 1.3 million since 2005 and doubled since 2010. Will the Minister back Labour’s call for a review of pre-watershed gambling advertising to ensure that those adverts are not influencing children to gamble?

[Mr Vaizey]

I assure the hon. Lady that we are working with the Gambling Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority and Ofcom to examine the impact that such advertising may be having on the licensing objectives in the Gambling Act 2005, which include the protection of children and vulnerable people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), and I regularly meet many different groups, including those that represent people of transgender. I gently say to him that, in some circumstances, the Government need to collect gender information to ensure that they target resources correctly and fund public services accurately, for example when estimating pensions. Gender information can also help with identification. That is why we continue to believe that it is necessary to collect that information.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Why will the Minister not follow the lead of Germany and Australia and enable parents to register their child as “x” when they are neither obviously male or female? That would remove the pressure to make a hasty decision on gender immediately after birth.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will know that there are provisions for parents who face such challenges. Her Majesty’s Passport Office carried out an internal review of gender markings for passports. A copy of the review has been laid in the House so that Members may refer to it. It concluded that there would be no significant advantages to including a non-gender specification. Of course, we will continue to look at the matter. I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office and other Departments that issue such documentation will have listened carefully to the comments that have been made today.