Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

At the moment, discussions are taking place in the working groups. One discussion has taken place so far and I believe that there will be another in the new year. There is currently a blocking minority that is opposed to the regulation. A number of member states that are concerned about the EU budget and the multi-annual financial framework are keen to oppose the proposal. Of course, the money will come out of the structural and cohesion funds, so it will not be spent on other ways to improve the economy across Europe.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hoban]

I will make a bit more progress. I am sure that the hon. Lady has some interesting views on subsidiarity that she will want to share a little later.

The Government’s view has not changed. We are unconvinced of the merits or appropriateness of the proposal. The principle of subsidiarity, which is enshrined in article 5 of the treaty on European Union, states that the EU should act collectively only when

“the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States”

on their own, but can “be better achieved” by action on the part of the Union. We consider that the measures to assist the neediest members of society, as set out in the proposal, can be better and more effectively delivered by individual member states through their own social programmes, not at an EU level. Member states and their regional and local authorities are best placed to identify and meet the needs of deprived people in their countries and communities in ways that are administratively simple and efficient.

In the explanatory memorandum, the European Commission states that the ability of member states to support those who are at the margins of society has been diminished and that social cohesion is threatened by fiscal constraints. We recognise the need to protect the most vulnerable in society and are taking action to do so. However, as I have said, there is nothing in the proposal that could not be organised and financed by member states. The Commission provides no convincing argument for why it is necessary to superimpose a European scheme. The solution must lie with the member state, not at EU level. Member states have that responsibility and must take it. The Commission may argue that the response of member states to these issues is inadequate or that some member states make use of the food distribution programme. However, the Commission does not make the case that the situation is the same in all member states. There is, therefore, no justification for making the fund mandatory for all member states.

[Kate Green]

In a debate on food poverty a few days ago in Westminster Hall, which was called by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) made much play of the fact that food poverty was being caused not, this Minister will be pleased to hear, by the actions of the Government—although some of us were sceptical—but by rising food and commodity prices around the world. Is that not exactly the kind of issue that is susceptible to collective European solutions, particularly when this country is seeing a rising number of people, including working people, having to access food banks because of the Government’s failure to act?

[Mr Hoban]

I am not entirely sure what European action the hon. Lady thinks would tackle that problem. We do need to examine the regulation of commodity markets, which is happening in connection with MIFID II—the second markets in financial instruments directive —at the moment. However, European Governments intervening to buy up food stocks might not be the most helpful action. Those with long memories, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), will acknowledge that the source of the programme in question was the intention to tackle another problem—the wine lakes, butter mountains and so on. European intervention perhaps causes as many problems as it is intended to solve.

In justifying its position, the Commission points to the Europe 2020 strategy and its headline target of reducing poverty and tackling social inclusion. However, as the European Scrutiny Committee indicated in its report, the proposal was not envisaged when the Europe 2020 strategy was devised, nor does the existence of an EU target mean that action must be taken at EU level. In any case, the EU already has instruments to strengthen cohesion in the form of structural funds. We believe that EU cohesion policy should contribute to tackling poverty and the European social fund programme should contribute to helping disadvantaged people into work.

We are also concerned that the proposal does not represent value for money and would be burdensome to administer. Using EU structural and cohesion fund processes to deliver the instrument in question would lead to heavy and costly administrative burdens on member states and partner organisations. The structural and cohesion funds are there for very different activities from the new fund. They do not buy and distribute food and consumer goods. The new fund will require different, and probably more burdensome, procurement, monitoring and auditing processes. Not only is it inconsistent with subsidiarity, it will also use resources that would be better deployed at national or local level.

If the fund were removed from the proposals, the UK could argue for an equivalent reduction of €2.5 billion in the EU budget over the seven years of the multi-annual financial framework. Given the Labour party’s view, I assume it would support that.

In opposing the Commission’s proposal, I reiterate that the Government strongly support measures to tackle poverty and social exclusion at member state level. In the UK, we have a full range of benefits and tax credits in place to cover financial needs for those in and out of work. We are investing £400 million in the current spending review period in helping local authorities prevent and tackle homelessness, and we are committed to eradicating child poverty. We are taking a new approach to tackling the root causes of such problems, including worklessness, educational failure and family breakdown. The EU structural and cohesion funds are better used in tackling the root causes of poverty than its symptoms.

On food aid, the Healthy Start scheme provides a nutritional safety net in the form of vouchers for basic healthy foods and free vitamin supplements for pregnant women and children under four from disadvantaged and low-income families. Initiatives such as FareShare and FoodCycle are good examples of essential work that charities are doing to support communities. We therefore believe that member states are capable of taking such action to help the most deprived, and we are not convinced that the European Union is better placed to take such action.

We agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that the Commission has provided no convincing argument that the proposal meets the principle of subsidiarity, and I thank the Committee for its work and for proposing the motion for debate.

Welfare Reform (Disabled People and Carers)

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Mearns]

Returning to “The Tipping Point” report, it found that 84% of disabled people believe that losing their DLA would drive them into isolation and into struggling to manage their condition. Nine in 10 disabled people fear that losing their DLA would be detrimental to their health.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate, my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Many disabled people will be pleased to see it happening this afternoon. Does he agree that a further concern and uncertainty about DLA is whether it will be used by local authorities in the calculation of income for determining housing benefit? While the Burnip case remains unresolved—the Government are planning to appeal—we really do not know how much DLA people will have to spend on their needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on securing this debate.

It is important to discuss the Welfare Reform Act 2012, but a lot that has already been said in this debate makes for unhappy listening. The campaigns that exist about the effects of the Government’s welfare reforms on disabled people have led to an outbreak of fear-mongering and panic. It was important to have this debate to put a balanced argument on the record, so that people understand that the Government are doing all they can for disabled people and their families in a harsh economic climate.

The recent Welfare Reform Act was an attempt to help disabled people and their families. I welcome the fact that, in recognition of the additional needs that disability brings, all households with somebody who is receiving disability living allowance or constant attendance allowance will be exempt from the cap.

[Kate Green]

It is not absolutely correct that all households with somebody in receipt of disability living allowance will be exempt. If there is an adult non-dependent child in receipt of DLA in the household, that exemption will not apply to the main household.

[Sheryll Murray]

The hon. Lady is obviously going along the fear-mongering route, and perhaps the Minister will address that. The exemption will be extended to include a person in receipt of a personal independence payment, which will replace DLA for individuals of working age from April 2013.

The current system has its faults. One of my constituents has applied for DLA, because he is partially sighted and his sight is deteriorating rapidly. Medical records that were used in determining whether he was eligible for DLA were out of date, despite his ophthalmologist having issued up-to-date information more than once. My constituent was refused DLA, but he is appealing. I hope that, under the new system, he will receive what he needs, and that any appeals can be dealt with promptly and in a way that assists and protects those in need. Another constituent was so poorly that my senior caseworker had to go to his home to help him fill out his ESA and DLA forms. I want the Government to assure me that the application process will be accessible for the most vulnerable in our society and that there will be help for those who have difficulty with any application.

I will continue to fight for constituents who are not getting the benefits they need because of their disability. I am determined not to let the most vulnerable in our society suffer at the hands of bureaucracy. There were issues with the system as it stood, but I hope the Welfare Reform Act will address them. It does a wide range of things, such as reducing the culture of welfare dependency for those who can work. It has the intention of protecting and helping the disabled, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures produced by the ERSA last month show that more than 200,000 people have found work through the Work programme. They also show that the programme is effective at moving people into work and that job entries are rising from month to month. They clearly show improvements in performance as the programme matures.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The DWP’s own evaluation has shown that the Work programme is proving less successful at getting women than men into work, that it is particularly poor at getting lone parents into work, and that the black box approach is failing to deliver substantive personalised support. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that the Work programme genuinely meets the needs of those furthest from the labour market?

[Mr Hoban]

The Work programme has been designed to allow providers to use a range of ways to help people back into work. We give them that flexibility. In return, they are paid only when they are successful. That contrasts with the schemes introduced by the previous Government, in which most of the money went in up front and providers were not paid by results. I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that, under this Government, there are more women in work than ever before.

Jobs and Social Security

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I just want to pick up on one point and then I will happily give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

The same scant regard for general facts is apparent throughout the motion. The Opposition claim that long-term unemployment is now soaring, yet long-term unemployment nearly doubled in the two years before Labour left office, going from 396,000 to 783,000 in 2010. By the way, just so that the record is absolutely straight, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill says that Labour had got spending down, but welfare spending rose by 60% under the previous Government.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will give way in a moment, but I said that I was going to make these points.

Labour’s policies then went on to try to hide the true scale of the problem, by automatically moving people off jobseeker’s allowance into training allowances or short-term jobs, thus breaking their claim just before they reached the 12-month point. The Opposition claim today that long-term unemployment is up by more than 200,000 since the Work programme began, but in actual fact, comparing like for like, which means counting all those who were previously hidden on training allowances and other support, the total number on jobseeker’s allowance is about the same as it was at the start of the Work programme, so that point is complete nonsense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Guided by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall simply tell the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill that he is wrong. I do not agree with his figures, and anyway, he served in government while the bill for welfare rose by 60% in real terms over the lifetime of that Government. Enough said: we took on a massive problem, and we have to deal with it.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I shall make some progress, but I promise to give way to the hon. Lady.

Let us deal with the final point made by the right hon. Gentleman in the motion: that somehow all this could be solved if only we did not cut, change or reform anything and implemented a bank bonus tax to fund a real jobs guarantee. Such a one-off tax would be worth £3.5 million. However, we have introduced an annual bank levy, which raises much more money over the period. The Opposition did not introduce such a levy when they were in power.

Let us look at the bank bonus tax that they propose. I love the fact that that tax is wheeled out whenever they are in a corner. It has already been used to cover the spending of £13.5 billion that they committed to make when reversing the VAT increase. It has been used for more capital spending—£5.8 billion—and again to reverse tax credit savings of £5.5 billion. It was used to build 25,000 extra homes—£1.2 billion. It was used again to reverse child benefit savings of £1.7 billion, and more and more.

It is a joke to keep wheeling out that ridiculous programme as an excuse for what the Opposition should be doing, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said earlier, is telling us what they would do instead, where they would make the necessary savings and how they would reform welfare. That is the main issue.

[Kate Green]

The debate has moved on, but I wanted to say that the rise in social security spending under the Labour Administration was not all in relation to out-of-work benefits. A large proportion related to better payments for children and working tax credit, which subsidised low pay.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree. The only way to look at these things is to consider the overall state of welfare spending. That is exactly how I look at it. As for the point about tax credit, much of it had nothing to do with going back to work, but it supported families for other reasons. The Opposition cannot separate what suits them from the other bits. We have a welfare budget, and they must own up to the fact that it rose by 60%.

Let me deal with what the Work programme really is. It supports 800,000 people—more than any previous programme—and data published yesterday show that it is successfully moving claimants off welfare rolls into jobs, so generating savings in the process. More than half those referred to the programme in June 2011 have since come off benefits, and about a third have spent the past three months off benefit, and a fifth have spent six months off benefit. Independent statistics published on Monday show that 207,000 people, as I have said, have been in work—a fifth of everyone on the programme. What is more, job entries are rising month on month. The figures that we published yesterday showed that in the past two months there was a 40% increase in attachments lasting six months.

We have rejected the old tendency that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill keeps coming back to—chucking money at programmes in the hope that people will say we are doing something because we are spending money. With the FND, Labour paid out 40% of the fee up front just for signing up someone. Firms never had to do much at all. Under the flexible new deal, the average up-front attachment fee was more than £1,500. More than £500 million was paid out in total, without any assurance of success at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

As others have said, the Work programme builds on a direction of travel that those on both sides of the House have been pursuing for a number of years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) said, the difficulty is not particularly with the concept; it is that there simply is not enough investment in the programme to produce the outcomes we need. The problem is that a lot of over-simplification of the issues that long-term workless people face means that we are failing to address some of the real drivers of worklessness and are allowing ourselves to be carried away by some incorrect and pervasive myths.

The first myth, which I am sorry to say has been repeated again this afternoon, is about a culture of worklessness and three generations of households where nobody has ever worked. These households do not exist; researchers have gone out looking for them and they are not there. The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) looks doubtful, but what is there are households that have experienced, over the generations, sporadic and insecure employment. As Joseph Rowntree Foundation research carried out in 2010 by Teesside university has shown, there is no evidence whatever of a pervasive culture of worklessness among these households. Actually, the opposite is the case; many of the people now accessing the Work programme are and have always been desperate to work, and they have a history of employment, although it has not been sustainable employment. It is really important that we address the true underlying causes of worklessness.

Secondly, we recognise that skills are important in enabling people to access employment and to progress at work, but it is important to recognise that when that low-income group of workless people move into work, skills are not particularly well correlated with a long-term improvement in their incomes and do not predict particularly strong labour market success for that group. A lot of difficulties remain in respect of how skills strategies do not improve people’s labour market prospects. Some of the initiatives being taken forward by the Government are going to miss the mark. Too many apprenticeships are being offered at level 2, and we need to increase access to apprenticeships at higher levels. We are seeing a reduction in employer levels of training—they are down to low levels not seen since 1996. Poor-quality jobs also inhibit the demand for skills. Even if we upskill our work force, the skills investment will be wasted if the skilled jobs are not there for them to do. So one thing we have to invest in is the leadership and entrepreneurial skills of those who start up businesses and create jobs.

It is also important to understand that different groups in the workplace and in the labour market experience different barriers and obstructions to progressing at work. The Work programme has proved uneven in how some groups have done better and some have fared worse; interestingly, women and lone parents are shown to be doing quite badly in these early Work programme figures. That contrasts with a very strong record of success on lone parent employment under the new deal for lone parents offered by the previous Government. It is also deeply concerning that we still have an alarmingly high rate of unemployment among young black men—twice the rate among young white people—yet the Government are determined that the Work programme will be, in the words of Ministers, “colour-blind”. No specific measures will be taken to address the particular characteristics that affect that hard-hit group.

Equally, it is of concern—the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who is no longer in his place, referred to this—that many of the new private sector jobs that are being created are part-time jobs. Some people prefer part-time work, but a large proportion are unable to access the full-time work that they want.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

rose—

[Kate Green]

The Minister clearly has a figure that he wants to offer me and I will be interested to hear it. I have heard reports just this week that in one workplace, employers are refusing to extend hours of work and are holding people to part-time contracts because they know that they do not have the resources to pay more.

[Mr Hoban]

As the hon. Lady is so keen on evidence-based policy making, let me point out that the last unemployment figures demonstrated that 80% of the people working part time wanted part-time work, as it helps them get back into the labour market after years of caring for people and being off sick.

[Kate Green]

That might be the case, but the Minister must also recognise that 40% of the new private sector jobs that have been created have been part time. He needs to be confident that that part-time work will lift families out of poverty, because far too often the evidence suggests that it will not. It certainly will not do so under the newly structured universal credit, as the rewards for working will be for one full-time breadwinner earner, reducing the opportunities for a second member of the same household to undertake the part-time work that the Minister is suggesting is a stepping stone into more work. There will be very little incentive for people to take the part-time work that improves their labour market prospects and it is to be regretted that he is not grappling with that point.

We still have a real issue with pay in the labour market and gender segregation in the workplace. The apprenticeship figures over the past few months show that women are still going down the traditional routes of care, business administration and retail, where pay is lower, and that men are more likely to go into information and communications technology, construction or engineering, where pay is typically higher. We have heard very little today about how apprenticeship strategies will be developed to widen access at a higher level and to ensure much more diverse participation in industry sectors that offer the best prospects of work and pay.

Finally, we have all been guilty of focusing too much on what we might call the supply side of the worklessness problem, as if the difficulty was that individuals needed help to be got into work. We have not considered the demand side nearly sufficiently. The problem is not a lack of willingness to work, related to what the individual seeks to achieve; the problem is that the jobs are not available. They are not available at the rates of pay that enable people to support their families, in places that people can travel to and at the hours that match up with domestic and caring responsibilities. Also, frankly, they are often not permanent, which means that people repeatedly fall in and out of low-paid and insecure work. That is the labour market failure we ought to be tackling and that I am afraid the Work programme is so far failing to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

This useful debate has exposed comprehensively the emptiness of the Opposition’s policies on welfare reform and their deeply patronising attitude to part-time work and apprenticeships. I shall come back to those points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) was right to point out the scale of the ambition of the programme. It meets a wide range of needs and provides tailored, personal support to some of the hardest-to-help and hardest-to-reach people to get back into work. It supports people who have been on incapacity benefit for 10 or 15 years. They had been condemned to a life on benefit, but the programme gives them the opportunity to get back into work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) was right to highlight the importance of self-employment as a route back into the labour market. We see many examples of people who are able to juggle self-employment with caring responsibilities and people who return to the labour market after ill health through self-employment. That is why we have extended eligibility for the new enterprise allowance. We have seen good examples—for instance, in Humberside—of people using the enterprise allowance to get back into work and creating businesses for themselves and their community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) will be pleased to know that 80% of the increase in employment in the past year was for UK nationals. That demonstrates progress compared with the empty slogans of the previous Government. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) was right to hold Labour Members to account for their record in government, the legacy that they left this country and the appalling economic mess that this Government must clear up.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) spoke of the deep-seated structural challenges that we face. He is right: we are in a global race, and we need to respond to threats from overseas. The model that we have set out to broaden the economic base and move away from Labour’s debt-fuelled model of consumption provides sure foundations for us to win that global race.

The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) gave an accomplished speech. I particularly liked the bit when she said she was delighted that the baton had passed from red to blue, but perhaps she was talking about football. As the son of a former miner, I know just how much family pride there is in achievements such as hers and mine.

The hon. Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) were dismissive of people who have part-time jobs. For so many people, taking part-time work is the right thing to do. It gets them back into employment.

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hoban]

I will not give way; the hon. Lady had her chance earlier.

The last labour market survey showed that 80% of people in part-time work wanted part-time work—it is right for them to do so. It is the right route back into employment for many people.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I agree with my hon. Friend—that is obviously a very talented group of women. She is correct that 3.5% is lower than before. It is half the total unemployment rate, which is 7.8%.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Last month in Women and Equalities questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), said she did not accept that the figure of 50% unemployment among young black men was accurate. On 24 October, in a written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), Glen Watson of the UK Statistics Authority confirmed that the figure is actually 52%. I listened carefully to the answers the Minister gave a moment ago about the definition of the unemployment rate. Is she saying that she does not accept the official figures? What will the Government do about the scandalously high level of black youth unemployment?

[Esther McVey]

We are doing a lot about this. Again, unemployment for that group is under a third—the figures the hon. Lady presents do not include people who are in education.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My noble friend Lord Freud has already discussed with all the financial institutions how to construct systems that support people who may have budgeting issues. The phrase “jam-jar accounts” is an unsophisticated term for such systems, but by and large they help people apportion the money necessary for their rent, food and so on, so that they can see that money flow in and then take it out. On housing benefit, a key area of the local housing allowance will be that we will not allow people to build up arrears of debt. We will intervene early to make sure that that does not happen, which should help landlords understand that we will support them.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Ministers assured us that the flexibilities introduced for lone parents on jobseeker’s allowance under Labour would continue, yet the number of lone parents who have been sanctioned has risen dramatically. In a written answer on 24 October the Minister said that the reasons for sanctions were exactly the same as those for other jobseekers. Can the Secretary of State explain exactly how those flexibilities are being properly applied and what training is being delivered to personal advisers in Jobcentre Plus?

[Mr Hoban]

I think we all believe that it is important that where lone parents can work, they should work, because that helps to boost their income and that of their family. Guidance is given to personal advisers on jobseeker’s allowance to ensure that the sanctions regime is applied appropriately to lone parents, as in the case of all jobseekers.

Universal Credit and Welfare Reform

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

Exactly—as if British businesses were not struggling enough. The point is that the 500 pages of evidence submitted to the Select Committee on Friday present to the Secretary of State a whole range of issues to which we have received no answers, despite the fact that the system will go live in 150 days. The system is already over budget and late, and I am afraid that we now need some urgent answers from the Secretary of State this afternoon.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great concerns of the many agencies that he has mentioned—they are worried about how universal credit will affect the client groups that they work with—is that the funding of those advice agencies that could support individuals is being squeezed and that there will simply be no access to support, either to make applications or to sort out problems when things go wrong?

[Mr Byrne]

That is a real concern. I know from the fact that a number of advice centres in Birmingham have been forced to close that advice is simply not available for many people in some of the most deprived parts of our country. They are being asked to contend with a new benefit system that is complicated and vital to their living standards, so that is a real worry. I hope that the Secretary of State will take that into account in his response.

I am going to draw my remarks to a close, because I know that many hon. and right hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. All I will say to the Secretary of State is that, following the recent attacks on him by the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and No. 10, he could be forgiven for wanting to retreat to the deepest, darkest bunker in Whitehall. The truth is that his Department is already one of the most secretive in Government. He is refusing to publish information about the Work programme and he has refused Labour’s freedom of information request to release the business case for universal credit. I know that he does not always see eye to eye with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, but I hope that he will pay heed to his words:

“Transparency is at the heart of our agenda for government…We are unflinching in our belief that data that can be published should be published.”

Unflinching indeed.

Universal credit is a massive project—it is too big to be allowed to fail. We need to make sure that it is on track and I hope that the House will join us in sending an unequivocal message to that effect this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

First, I will answer the second question. That is exactly what we intend and we believe that we are on track to do just that. The right hon. Gentleman and the House should realise that this is not, as has been the case with previous IT programmes, a “waterfall” approach whereby everything explodes and is launched on one date, which I think the previous Government used to realise was probably not a good idea. This will be a progression over four years, so that, as we bring in different groups, such as jobseeker’s allowance recipients, and first address the flow, then the stock, and then look at tax credits and how they fit in, we can make sure that we get this absolutely right at every stage. We know that there are important things to consider so that people do not suffer as a result of universal credit. We want to get this right, even as we do it.

We agreed on the £2.5 billion figure. That is our position. As we look at all these things, including the disregards, we see that we can realise better ways of doing them. It is a work in progress. That is how we are able to achieve these things, just as when we looked at them originally.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has peppered us with freedom of information requests, which is exactly what an Opposition Member should do. However, it does him and the shadow Secretary of State ill to lecture us about releasing business cases. When they developed employment and support allowance, a system about as large and complicated as this one—I think that the right hon. Member for East Ham was a Minister in the Department at the time—at no stage, despite the request, did they ever release their business plan to us.

[Kate Green]

I wonder whether the Secretary of State will clarify something that he said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). He said that the change would be implemented in stages, with first the flow, then the stock and then tax credits. Surely the tax credits for the first claimants to receive universal credit will have to be brought in on the first day of universal credit.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No; it has always been part of the process that jobseeker’s allowance will be the first to move across. I am happy to discuss that further. Universal credit will run in parallel with the other systems until we shut them down and move them across. That is the way it will work. That has always been clear. I think that the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee knows that, because I have been open with her about it from the word go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman lives a bit more in the past than I do; I am the second earner in my household, as many men are in theirs. We Conservatives, as the more progressive party, understand that. He should know—[Interruption.] He has had his go. He should know that second earners in households will not lose out under the universal credit.

One thing that I particularly welcome is that universal credit is progressive; the poorest will gain most, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It says that the bottom six tenths on income distribution will gain on average, while the richest four tenths will lose out slightly in the long run. This is therefore a progressive policy, benefiting the poorest most.

[Kate Green]

I wish to take the hon. Gentleman up on this point about second earners. The logic of the system is that for the second earner in a couple it will not be worth working more than a very few hours a week. The problem with that is that it will, in the longer run, inhibit that person’s labour market prospects and have an impact on that family’s future prosperity.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Six million second earners will be better off. Importantly, 2.5 million working families will gain in the long run from the introduction of universal credit—again, that is according to IFS figures, not the Government’s figures. The Opposition are normally so keen to use the IFS figures, so it is worth quoting those figures to them and underlining how many people will be better off. That contrasts sharply with the scaremongering that we have heard from the Opposition today.

The other really important thing is that universal credit will help to lift children out of poverty. Universal credit is a transformational change which will affect some 8 million households, and we hope that 900,000 individuals, including more than 350,000 children and more than half a million working-age adults, will be lifted out of poverty as a result. The real question is: why did the previous Government not do it? Why do the Opposition not embrace it and work constructively with the Government on the fine tuning and detailing of this policy to get the best for all our electors, in whichever constituency we represent.

We are also investing an additional £300 million in child care support under universal credit, on top of £2 billion already being spent under the current system. That is worth pointing out, given a lot of the scaremongering we have heard about child care, as it shows the Government’s seriousness about helping out with child care. That will mean that more families than ever before will receive child care support, including 80,000 prevented from doing so by the current hours rule.

Universal credit is the right policy and this is the right time for it. We know that government and IT systems do not make good bedfellows—they do not make happy couples—and that there have been difficulties in the past. However, the previous Government should not judge this Government by their standards, and we should look at the implementation of employment and support allowance, as that was not an IT disaster. The Department for Work and Pensions has a good record, so we should give it the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, we should watch carefully to make sure that all goes well and all continues to be moving on time. Universal credit is important because it is very much for the many, with 2.5 million households that will gain. That is an important part of the reform.

Finally, we should trust people. There is too much of a tendency in the House to think that no one can manage, that we have to spoon-feed everyone and that no one can take responsibility. It is assumed that if they find it difficult to take responsibility, they should be spoon-fed rather than encouraged, helped and enabled to take more responsibility for their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate. Of course I welcome the universal credit to the extent that it may encourage people to work at all. However, there is a danger that the fact that it has been designed to provide incentives to many people to work only in short-hours jobs will mean that more people will choose to work in short-hours jobs. Although those jobs can be a valuable stepping stone into further employment, particularly for those with caring responsibilities, we know that long periods spent trapped in mini-jobs can damage individuals’ future earning prospects. Mini-jobs are often more badly paid and more insecure than established jobs with more hours, yet those are exactly the trends that we do not want if we are to tackle in-work poverty.

It is clear that the Government are worried about that aspect of the design of universal credit, because they are planning to introduce into our benefits system—for the first time, I think—a measure of in-work conditionality, to push people working in mini-jobs into working more hours or perhaps getting a better-paid job. We currently have very little information on how in-work conditionality will work. We have not been told what additional resources will be available to Jobcentre Plus to implement it, who it will apply to or what additional training might be given to advisers to cope with the different challenge of dealing with people who are already in work. What we do know—from the DWP’s own research—is that in-work conditionality is one of the least popular aspects of what the Government are proposing when it is raised in the DWP’s research. I therefore invite the Minister to say a little more about in-work conditionality. It has been completely airbrushed out of the debate so far, but it will be extremely important to a substantial number of people who begin in low-hours, low-paid work.

I also want to reiterate the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), as well as others, about how the logic of the system will push some people to reduce their hours of work, not increase them. My right hon. Friend mentioned the interaction with the rise in the personal tax threshold which, as the charity Gingerbread has shown, means that a £1,000 increase in the personal tax allowance will give £200 a year to every basic rate taxpayer, except those on universal credit, who will gain only £70. Similarly, as we know, the new system will disincentivise second earners in couples, the majority of whom will be women. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that a second earner who is entitled to universal credit when out of work will initially lose 65% of every pound earned when they move into work, rather than 41%, as they do under the current, tax credits system. Indeed, the DWP’s own modelling shows that 900,000 potential second earners will face lower incentives to work under the new policy.

I am concerned about the payment mechanism, with payments typically going to one member of a household. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) pointed out that there are particular concerns where there is a risk of domestic violence or abuse. There is also a concern that money might not get through to children when the element of the benefit that is related to child care or child costs is intended for them. I invite the Minister to explain whether he thinks it is feasible for a woman—or man—experiencing abuse in their relationship to ask the DWP for the benefit to be split or paid all to her, rather than to him. Surely that will precipitate further abuse. I would also like to know whether the Department intends to move towards allowing the benefit to be paid partly to each member of the household and what cost assessment has been made of taking on board requests to pay the benefit in a different way. Would it not be simpler to return to the model, which has been tried and tested—as this Minister knows particularly well—of paying benefits for children to the main carer and benefits for housing to the person with the rental obligation?

Finally, let me ask some quick questions about refuges. I welcome the assurances given today. However, as people are in refuges for only two or three days, because they are dealing with an emergency, can the Minister confirm that rent will be paid directly to the landlord in those circumstances? Can he confirm that where people are in receipt of dual benefits—for their own home and the time in the refuge—they will not be hit by the benefits cap? Can he also confirm that housing costs that are currently met by the benefits system will continue to be met in full? In fact, will the Department publish an equality impact assessment of the proposals? Regrettably, we have so far seen no such thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. Needless to say, I do not share much of the scepticism of so many Opposition Members, who I fear are, in some cases, substituting extended concern about the detail, however right and proper, as a proxy for opposing the reform. Some of the support we have seen even for the principle of these reforms is half hearted at best. Given what we have heard in one or two speeches, one would have thought that this Government inherited some sort of welfare utopia in which all was working smoothly, nothing needed amending and only the uprating of benefits was necessary each year.

The situation we inherited was a complete shambles, which is apparent in a constituency such as mine. We are lucky in that many jobs have been created over the past decade in London, yet young people in my constituency have said to my face, “It isn’t worth getting a job; I’m better off sitting at home, playing on the internet and living on benefits”. If that is the case, we have to do something about it. The problem I see is an inter-generational one.

I have listened to many of the detailed speeches given by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) in Public Bill Committee and elsewhere, and I know she makes many good points about the detail that have to be addressed, but this is also about committing ourselves to a principle, quite apart from the rising costs of the whole system. I have seen intelligent women in my constituency being infantilised and reduced to a position in which they do not even back themselves to manage their own finances monthly, and I have seen people with qualifications and degrees who have been out of work for a very long time.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Jane Ellison]

I shall take just this one intervention, as we are running out of time.

[Kate Green]

No one is pretending that the previous benefit system was perfect, but we should equally acknowledge that for the overwhelming majority of people in it, work did pay more than being on benefits. One instance of how the system was effective in helping to support that is the fact that lone parent employment—mostly female employment—rose from 44% in the mid-1990s to approaching 60% today.

[Jane Ellison]

That intervention misses one essential point—that there were too many in the system altogether. We cannot go on as we are.

Concerns have been expressed about monthly budgeting and other issues, and it is right to look at them. One particular point I want to make in my limited time is about what I hope will be a real engine for creativity in respect of new products to help people. We cannot say that it is only a matter of providing advice services; we need to work harder as a society to create products that work for people who are vulnerable or less financially skilled and so forth.

I do not believe the point has been made this afternoon that there is a real opportunity for a degree of rehabilitation of the banking sector. I represent an area in Battersea where the Clapham sect was active between 1790 and 1830. Its members included Wilberforce and others who were great pioneers of social reform. Not every Member may know that nearly all the Clapham sect were from banking families. I was reminded of this fact by the vicar of St Luke’s church in my constituency this week. She is piloting a meeting to discuss how the world of finance can do more to help the poor and the vulnerable in today’s society, building on the work of the Clapham sect.

I think there is a real opportunity here for the banking sector to use some genuine creativity and to step into the breach and look at ways of providing practical assistance, putting something back into society in the form of serving vulnerable people who, to date, have largely not been catered for by proper banking products or the right support from that sector. It should not be all about the voluntary sector; there is an opportunity for people involved in banks to be true to some of the heritage of the social reformers who have gone before them. I am thinking about jam jar accounts and individual banking, which I know the Department is looking at, as they could prove to be important and life changing for many vulnerable citizens.

My main point is that the Labour party has got itself on the wrong side of this debate. I believe in the welfare state, which is one of this country’s most important and civilised achievements, but if we do not make it work, not just for the people in it but for society as a whole, and if we do not restore confidence in it, we fatally undermine something that represents, as I say, such an important and civilising aspect of this country.

Before I was an MP, when I was candidate, I received an e-mail that was rather similar to the letter my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) told us he received. My e-mail was from a young woman who was a trainee nurse and lived on one of the tougher estates in my constituency. She was a single mum bringing up two children, and she wanted to work. Every morning, however, as she walked down the walkway on her estate, she was mocked, as people shouted at her through the windows of other flats. They said she was a fool to go to work and asked why she was doing it. It is absolutely appalling that we have created a situation in which someone like that, trying to do the right thing for her family, is mocked by the people around her.

Unless the Labour party puts itself on the right side of this debate and understands that we create and maintain confidence in the welfare state as an important aspect of our country by being on the side of that nurse who wanted to go to work and by ensuring that the system always works for her, it will find itself left behind in this debate. I applaud the Government for what they are trying to do. There are risks, and the Secretary of State has been open about them today—of course there are risks in major reform—but it is about meeting those risks head on and making the reform work, not about naysaying it before it has even started.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. We already have an issue that should be dealt with beyond that, with people who declare themselves as self-employed on arrival here—some coming in as sellers on the street, and so on. There is a way in which they can claim benefits. We do not want to open that up to everybody; we would rather deal with that but not lose the habitual residence test, which is my plan.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State none the less acknowledge that, in fact, migrant workers are more likely to be in work and disproportionately less likely to be claiming benefits than non-migrants? Does he not think it important that we conduct the debate with the facts accurately and reliably portrayed?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree that we want to ensure that the door is open to those who want to come and work here and benefit the UK. That is part of the agreements in the European Union. However, we have concerns, and we are not alone: 17 countries and others are beginning to ask why this is necessary. Freedom of movement exists; what the habitual residence test does is protect our understanding of that, not damage it. Indeed, we have no intention of damaging it, but we certainly want to protect British taxpayers from any kind of change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful for those comments; I wish that everybody else on his side of the House approached this issue with the same attitude. Work experience has resulted in about half those going on to it getting off the benefits roll. They want to do it—this is really important—and what they are getting from it is experience they cannot otherwise get. Employers say to people time and again, “We can’t employ you because you don’t have experience,” yet they could not get that experience. Surely this has got to be a good thing for them and a good thing for all of us.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I, too, support good quality work experience that genuinely enhances employability, but as the Secretary of State seeks to roll out this initiative, what steps are his Department taking to ensure that high quality is maintained and that such work experience does not become a way for employers to churn cheap labour at the bottom?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Of course, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), is absolutely focusing on this issue with Jobcentre Plus. If we hear of any programmes that are not in that category, we will not allow young people to go on them. However, the key thing to bear in mind here is that this gives young people a real chance to get something they can sell to an employer. We should all back that, and I wish that more people were like the hon. Members who have just spoken.

Disability Benefits and Social Care

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will know that they will be pleased that they have a Government who have protected the specialist disability employment budget—£320 million—and we want to make sure that it is working better for more people. We estimate that we could support an extra 8,000 people into employment if we were to use the money in a more compelling way. None of this reform was the sort of reform that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill was looking at.

Let us also consider the work capability assessment, as Labour Members raised it. They will know that we inherited the programme from the right hon. Gentleman, but it was a harder, harsher and tougher process than the one we have now put in place. Since taking office, this Government have brought in Professor Harrington to renew these arrangements. Furthermore, we have listened to and implemented all the recommendations made in his independent review. The changes softened the system—

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I try to make a little more progress, as I know that we want to cover a number of issues in this debate.

These changes have softened the system and made it fairer for people, recognising that many people with a health condition want to work and can do so with the right support. We have asked Professor Harrington to continue to review this process for us and make recommendations, because for too long under the last Government people were written off on benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to be concerned about such a difficult circumstance. I think he would only expect the Department to make sure that staff were handling such cases correctly. Of course every case like that is an absolute tragedy, and we want to make sure that the system works really well for the individuals concerned. I am sure that he will want to applaud the work that the Government are doing to try to make the system better. I repeat that the system we inherited was harsh and difficult, and we have softened that further.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, we need to make some progress in this debate or many hon. Members will not be able to contribute to it.

We are also reforming the disability living allowance, on which, again, the Opposition have failed to give any answers. Labour Members say they want reform, but the reality is that they have voted against reform every step of the way. As far back as 2005, the Labour Government found out that £600 million of DLA was being paid out in overpayments, yet they failed to do anything about it. In 2007, they found out that the independent living fund needed serious reform, but again they did nothing about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

We certainly need to ensure that lessons are learned from some of the problems we inherited on the work capability assessment. Many have already been learned and there is a clear read-across in the work we are doing. Although the PIP assessment is very different from the work capability assessment, there are many lessons to be learned.

[Kate Green]

The Minister is proposing to take a substantial proportion of the current DLA budget out of the new PIP budget—the figure we have heard is 20%—and to target the spending on people with a higher level of need. Does she not accept that reducing access to financial support for those with lower levels of need who are enabled as a result to remain in paid employment is a false economy and that prevention is probably better than cure in this case?

[Maria Miller]

I do not think that it can be a false economy to make a change that will see the end of £600 million going out in overpayments. The change is long overdue. We need a benefit that supports disabled people in a flexible, non-means tested way that is not related to their work status, with a firmer gateway to ensure that we get the money to the people who need it. That will mean that we are not left in the situation we are in now, where 70% of people have a benefit for life and there is no inbuilt way of reassessing that. We need to see an end to that inaccurate use of much-needed money.