Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Alison Thewliss

Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

That is a very important point. We are looking at additional ways we can support people, through Access to Work, to travel to and from their home to work and in terms of their ability to work from home. There are opportunities for us to make some of those changes more permanent as we start to return to normality.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Minister talks of fairness with regard to the two-child limit, but how can it be fair that the 60,000 families who have made a claim since lockdown began, who could not have anticipated having to claim universal credit, are now struggling to feed their third or subsequent children? They could not have planned for this; how is that fair?

Personal Independence Payments: Supreme Court Ruling

Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

As I have set out, we will be looking carefully at the judgment, but the hon. Gentleman highlights something. As constituency MPs, we all have cases in which it is clear that, with additional written and oral evidence, a different decision could come about. That is why it is right—it is a departmental priority—to improve the mandatory reconsideration stage, so that more people can get the correct decision much quicker, without the long independent appeal process.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

There is a letter in the post to the Minister about this case, but I do not know whether he will be there to receive it, so I thought that I would ask about it here. My constituent has a long-standing diagnosis of Asperger’s, but her PIP assessor ignored the detailed medical evidence that she had provided and performed a five-minute mental state test involving taking 25p away from £1 and spelling the word “world” backwards. Her decision letter stated that she had

“no cognitive sensory impairment diagnosed”

and

“no evidence of a cognitive impairment”.

Surely constituents should not have to come to their MP to get such evident mistakes overturned. The Minister should be getting things right first time, rather than going for mandatory reconsiderations.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I have gone from being the Secretary of State to potentially not having a job in the next couple of days in the space of one question, but I will look at that letter carefully. I actually agree with the hon. Lady’s point that we want the right decision the first time. We want claimants to be able to access the crucial medical evidence that can assist with assessments. Assessments are right more often than not, and only a small percentage of claims ultimately need to be appealed, but we need to learn lessons wherever there are mistakes, and I will take that case seriously.

Severe Disability Premium

Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

I pay tribute to the former Minister, who did a huge amount of work in this area to ensure suitable transitional protection for some of the most vulnerable people in the system. It is absolutely the case that those who are part of the managed migration will get full transitional protection.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

We welcome the High Court decision and commend the individuals who brought their case for their perseverance. It is absolutely extraordinary that the Department for Work and Pensions thought it could get away with short-changing claimants who had already been made worse off by being moved on to universal credit. Because of the entirely arbitrary cut-off point where the DWP decided to stop naturally migrating SDP claimants, many thousands will miss out on £1,000 a month. That is completely unacceptable.

The ruling acknowledges what the SNP has been arguing since December: the Tories in Westminster are short-changing claimants who are owed back payments as a result of having their severe disability payments stopped. It is not only appalling that the DWP is short-changing claimants; it is appalling that people will now have to wait for those back payments until managed migration regulations are put through. Even then, it might take months to administrate them. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) has twice written to the Secretary of State asking for her to immediately initiate back payments, so that people do not have to wait.

Will the Minister tell the House why the payment of that money has been pegged to the managed migration regulations? Now that the ruling has allowed him to take stock, will he sort out this issue once and for all, and immediately put together regulations that legislate for the full back payments as a matter of urgency? There are now not one, not two but three ongoing cases where the DWP needed to investigate and initiate back payments of disability benefits on an enormous scale owing to error or to their policies being deemed unlawful. Will he ensure that no cuts to other areas of Government spending are being made to cover the cost of clearing up his Department’s mess? Does he really believe that, after all this, disabled people who require support can have any confidence whatever that the DWP has their best interests at heart?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Member for the points she raises. To be absolutely clear, those who are part of the managed migration will get the full transitional support. The whole point of the gateway was to provide additional support for those who had changed circumstances that would not have been entitled to the full transitional protection. I absolutely understand the point about the urgency of bringing forward the regulations, but we want to ensure they are done in the correct manner so we do not replicate the errors of the difficult and complex legacy benefit, which we see in our surgeries as individual constituency MPs, whereby some of the most vulnerable people in society are missing out on the benefits to which we all agree they are entitled.

Application of the Family Test

Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Justin Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is spot on. It was clear from my colleagues’ speeches that they have a constructive, proactive and real focus on the absolute principles of the family test, and I shall now turn to that.

Many hon. Members have underlined the importance of the family test, and I am pleased to see sustained interest in that test among colleagues. I restate the Government’s commitment to the family test, which was introduced in 2014 to help put families at the heart of policy making. In designing the test, alongside the Relationships Alliance, we wanted to help policy makers understand how policies might, positively or negatively, affect families.

We want potential impacts on families to be considered early so that they can shape proposals, rather than at the end of the process when we are preparing to announce and implement any changes. That point is key, and the test helps to ensure that potential impacts are properly considered in the advice that Ministers receive. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay was spot on when he said that such issues must be embedded into that early thinking.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will respond to the thrust of the debate. We want the family test to be broad and flexible, reflecting the nature of 21st-century families. The test already encourages policy makers to consider a wide range of impacts, including on family formation, families going through key transitions, the ability of all family members—dads, mums, and the extended family—to play a full role in family life, families who have separated or who are undergoing separation, and those families most at risk of a deterioration in relationship quality and breakdown.

I acknowledge that some would like the family test to be a statutory obligation, but feedback from policy makers, and points highlighted in speeches today, suggest that a statutory test could risk becoming a box-ticking exercise at the end of a policy process, with pass or fail outcomes, rather than something embedded at the beginning of the process, which is key. A legislative test would also risk losing the flexibility to adapt and change.

I welcome the review of the family test by the Centre for Social Justice, and I thank it for highlighting these important issues, many of which my officials have been working to address with the relevant Departments. There is a strong alignment between the report’s recommendations and our approach to strengthening practice in the use of the test. I agree that individual Departments should take responsibility and ownership of their application of the family test—interestingly, the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton highlighted both good and bad practice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Alison Thewliss

Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

The key to universal credit is that, for the first time, a claimant will get personalised, tailored support that can help them navigate all the forms of support available. Under legacy benefits, more than 700,000 people, among whom are some of the most vulnerable people, miss out on an average of £285 a month. Those on universal credit will typically spend 50% longer looking for work. This is key to unlocking the potential of all claimants to improve their life chances.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Thenue housing association in my constituency tells me that errors in universal credit, such as the system retaining the wrong landlord details despite the claimant having asked for that to be corrected, have meant that some tenants have ended up two months in arrears through no fault of their own. What will the Minister do to fix the system before people end up in debt as a result?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I am very sorry to hear of that. If there are specific cases, please do not hesitate to highlight them. Through the roll-out of the landlord portal, which has been warmly welcomed by social housing companies and local authorities, there is an opportunity for claimants and housing bodies to work together to manage this migration process smoothly.

Widowed Parent’s Allowance

Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

This issue was considered at great length in debates on the Pensions Act 2014 and the subsequent regulations. It is not straightforward. How do the Government act as judge and jury in situations in which someone could be living with a different partner? At a time of great distress, the emphasis has to be on providing appropriate and quick support particularly targeted at those in the most need. Following the ruling in the Supreme Court, the points raised will be considered and I will come back as quickly as is appropriate to provide an update to the House.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is an important principle that social security should be a safety net for us all, because we cannot predict circumstances such as the death of a partner or parent, which could happen at any time. Children should not lose out regardless of the marital status of their parents. How much has the Department spent on fighting the decision in the courts, and can the Minister confirm that it has ruled out appealing the decision?

[Justin Tomlinson]

It is right to highlight that we should provide support, and that is why in the new benefit we have widened the support available to anyone of a working age and to younger spouses and civil partners without children. They will now get support, and it will not be lost when someone moves into a new relationship. We will continue to review the situation following the Court decision last week, and I will fully update the House.

Supported Housing: Benefit

Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. The SNP will continue to give him a hard time as much as we can.

I am glad to respond to this debate on behalf of the SNP and supported housing providers and clients in Scotland, who are deeply worried about what the future holds. Supported housing projects provide a range of people with vital support, which saves the Government money in hospital beds, prisons, and resolving homelessness. As the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made clear in an Adjournment debate last Tuesday, a wide range of service provision is under threat due to continued uncertainty over this policy.

I am appalled that the people supported by this sector are being put at risk by the lackadaisical, “speak now, figure it out later” attitude that this Government take to social security. Supported housing covers a range of different housing types, including group homes, hostels, refuges, supported living complexes, and sheltered housing. Those schemes are designed to meet the needs of particular client groups, such as people with mental health issues, learning or physical disabilities, addiction issues, victims and women at risk of domestic violence, ex-service veterans, teenage parents, ex-offenders, or older people.

On Monday 13 June, the Communities and Local Government Committee heard evidence from Peter Searle, director of working age benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions, who told the Committee categorically that

“the intention is to publish the evidence review and policy conclusions before the summer recess.”

More than a month has now passed, but we are no clearer on that. The Secretary of State says that it will happen in the autumn, but I remind him that the Government’s autumn statement last year ended up appearing in November, so I would like more clarity on when those conclusions will be published. I appreciate that the work is complex, but the Government have had a long time to figure it out. I am certain that many housing providers in the sector will have told the Government in a matter of days what they require, and the review has already taken far too long. I hope that the Government will not sneak out a statement on the matter on Thursday when MPs will have limited time to digest it before the House rises for the recess, and I seek confirmation on that.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations told me that the

“proposals for the capping of housing benefit for social housing including supported housing to local Housing Allowance (LHA) maxima will, as they stand, have a catastrophic effect on provision”.

The SFHA is not mincing its words, and it warns that should the cap proceed, most provision of supported housing will be shut down or reduced in scope, future development will be cancelled or mothballed, and—most worryingly of all—tenants of supported housing and their families and carers will find it difficult to plan for the future. If those services go, there are very few options for people who depend on the support they offer.

In Scotland we are limited as to what we can do about the LHA cap. We have already spent in the region of £100 million mitigating the bedroom tax, until we are able to abolish it. The welfare powers that the Scottish Parliament is receiving do not extend to changing the rules on local housing allowance. As one would expect, the Scottish Government have also condemned that delay and uncertainty, with the then Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners Rights, Alex Neil MSP, calling back in February for an end to the “unacceptable state of uncertainty”. That was five months ago, yet today we are no further forward.

Let me provide some illustrations of the types of services currently at risk. The Blue Triangle project in Glasgow city centre provides supported accommodation for young people who are at risk of homelessness. The young people I met just before Christmas told me that they hugely valued the support and advice that they were given by staff on that project. One young man told me that his family situation had deteriorated, and he had found himself on the street. He fell in with a crowd who he thought were his friends, but he woke up in the street having been assaulted and robbed. He felt incredibly vulnerable, and had it not been for the service provided by Blue Triangle, he feared that he would not have survived that experience. Such a service does not come cheap, and the young people that it deals with need to be built up—they need help, and tailored support to develop their skills and get their lives back on track. The flats are based in the city centre, which is important in making the service easy to access, but that accommodation costs Blue Triangle significantly more in rent. The building must also be kept safe and secure. Flats need to be refurbished regularly due to the turnover of tenants, and the quality of those flats is important to give tenants a sense of dignity and self-worth. All that is put at risk by continued uncertainty.

The current LHA shared accommodation rate in Glasgow for those under 35 is £68.28, but rent for Blue Triangle’s accommodation is £341.44 per week—a £273.16 shortfall. For the service over a year, that results in a gap of £355,108. For young people who have nowhere else to go, that service is vital. The limit that the Government want to put on housing benefit for young people would leave them unable to afford accommodation of their own.

The ARCH resettlement service in Bridgeton is a vital service in my constituency. It provides support to men coming out of prison, and those who are homeless or in a range of other circumstances. When I visited recently, I met Donald, who had been affected by a stroke and needed help and support to get back to health. He has lived at the ARCH for around 10 months, and he was excited about taking on a supported tenancy in a nearby scatter flat that is owned by the ARCH Move On service. That seamless service allows people to move on when they feel able and ready to continue with some support. I do not know where Donald would have gone if not for the ARCH, but his pride in what he had overcome, with the help of the staff, and in what he had achieved through the help and support of that service, shone from his face. Donald and others like him need to know what the future holds for that kind of supported accommodation. Importantly, Donald was allowed to stay in that accommodation until he felt ready to move on. If we move people on before they are ready, in order to meet some kind of tick-box target, most people will fail and end up back in some other system, which costs us all more money.

Women fleeing domestic violence need to know that life-saving refuge services provided by women’s aid organisations across the UK will continue—I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) will speak about that later from her expertise. Those services do not often shout about what they do, as understandably a lot of secrecy and privacy is needed to protect the women and children they support. However, if such services did not exist, women and children would be in situations of grave danger.

In a letter to Lord Freud, Minister of State for Welfare Reform, Dr Marsha Scott of Scottish Women’s Aid indicated that the limit on housing benefit will have a “devastating impact”. That organisation has provided some examples of the impact that the LHA cap will have, and stated:

“In one rural area, introducing a cap linked to the LHA rate would result in an annual loss of £5,800 for a 2 bedroom refuge flat. In another urban area the annual loss for a 1 bedroom refuge flat is £7,100. In another semi-urban area the loss on a 3 bedroom refuge is £11,600 per year. In each case this financial cost will be multiplied by the number of refuge spaces provided.”

It is clear that such losses will make the service unsustainable, and they will close.

The letter from Scottish Women’s Aid to Lord Freud also mentioned the shared accommodation rate for those under 35:

“The proposed introduction of the under 35s shared accommodation rate to social rented housing also places women under the age of 35 at much greater risk of further abuse. If women under the age of 35 are unable to access refuge accommodation or move into their own tenancy because of a restriction on their entitlement to housing benefit, this effectively prevents them from leaving an abusive partner. In 2014-15, the 26-30 years old age group had the highest incident rate of domestic abuse recorded by the Police in Scotland. Women in this age group clearly have a significant need for domestic abuse support services—including refuge accommodation.”

It seems clear that the Government have little understanding of the impact of their policies on women, and particularly on women suffering from domestic violence and coercive control. Those policies are in addition to the two-child policy and the rape clause in tax credits, and the single household payment in universal credit. Such measures limit women’s options and put them at risk. The statement that the Secretary of State referred to gives me no reassurance that those aspects regarding the vulnerability of women in the welfare system have been addressed, and I seek further clarity and detail from Ministers on that.

In Scotland, refuges are sublet to women’s aid organisations from local authorities and housing associations, and funded by local and national Government. They are a crucial part of Scotland’s leading “Equally Safe” strategy to protect women and girls. The UK Government are undermining that significant work. We now have a female Prime Minister who claims to be a feminist. She needs to take note, as does her utterly gormless and heartless Welfare Reform Minister, who is unaccountable to this House.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I know that the hon. Lady does a huge amount of important work in this area, but the Government have trebled the funding for women’s refuges. The discretionary housing payment now stands at £870 million in this Parliament, and it is delivered with flexibility—working with the police, social services and medical professionals to provide the best support for the people being highlighted.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Government giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other. That is not good enough. It has also been made absolutely clear by women’s organisations, and a range of other organisations in the sector, that the discretionary housing payments are not enough to guarantee the certainty and future of these services. They are discretionary. That means that they are not part of the funding package; they are at the discretion of those providing that payment. That is not good enough. There needs to be greater certainty.

The Government need to make sure that the infrastructure to protect women and children is not dismantled under this supposedly feminist new Prime Minister. On her watch, these services must be guaranteed with a sound and solid future, because women’s lives depend on it.

I am still not reassured by the language of the Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) at the Dispatch Box last Tuesday night. He said:

“we must also ensure that funding for supported housing is efficient, workable, transparent and sustainable, so that it delivers a secure, quality service that provides for those who need it and makes the best use of the money available”

and that

“Services must be outcomes-focused, accountable, planned and responsive to individual and local needs.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 272.]

That suggests to me an element of a box-ticking exercise for these services. I caution that there are very varied support needs among those accessing supported accommodation. That must be reflected whatever the outcome of the review. A woman with children fleeing from a life of abuse and coercive control does not have the same needs as an elderly man moving into sheltered accommodation or a young person recovering from a stroke. We must be mindful of the needs of each person. When we talk about outcomes, it cannot just be that they move on after six months. As I mentioned earlier with the case of Donald, we are dealing with people who have very complex needs. They must be allowed to stay in that accommodation until such time as they are able to move on. If they are unable to move on and we push them out of that accommodation before time, they will end up on the streets or in prison. They will be very, very vulnerable.

I urge the Government to take the widest possible interpretation of value for money as regards these services. I am deeply concerned by the proposed changes. I have only scratched the surface of the impact of the LHA cap. I am sure that other speakers this afternoon will elaborate on that. Those who depend on accommodation for the elderly, services for those with learning or physical impairments, services for ex-service personnel, or any other type of supported accommodation and the support it provides, will be exceptionally vulnerable without them. Attending to their needs outwith specialist supported accommodation could mean hospital stays that cost about £530 per night or prison, which costs about £194,000 per year, not to mention the huge societal cost we all bear from the loss of those people’s potential. They can live life with a great degree of independence when they receive the right support and this type of accommodation. We need to think long term and invest in these services, and invest in preventive spend. Supported accommodation can save lives and it can turn lives around. The Government must recognise that and ensure the future of supported accommodation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Tomlinson and Alison Thewliss

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am particularly excited about going to visit his constituency to support his excellent Disability Confident event, and I pay tribute to the other 48 MPs who came into our drop-in event last week and have committed to hold their own events in their constituencies.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State believe that the two-child policy and the rape clause are consistent with his Government’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child?