Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Sixth sitting)

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. It is also an enormous pleasure to serve on this Committee, to have heard contributions such as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, who is departing from her current position on the Front Bench, and to hear the passion with which she gave voice to the beating heart of the Labour party and the outrage at how the Bill is being introduced and its extraordinary justification. If anyone ever questions where the Labour party’s heart is, they just need to hear her speech from before lunch.

I wish to speak to amendment 71. According to the Book of Ecclesiastes:

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”

Those words have survived for thousands of years, but could almost have been written yesterday by an author scratching his head over some of the perverse measures in the Bill. I suspect that historians will one day look back on these debates and cite the benefit cap as a classic example of an increasingly prevalent phenomenon in modern politics: a solution without a problem. After all, we have had a household benefit cap for more than two years.

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

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early. She may be about to say this, in which case I apologise for stealing her moment. As she says, nothing is new under the sun. We had a benefit cap in the 1960s when it was called the wage stop rule. Women in particular campaigned to end it, which was to the benefit of poor children.

[Emily Thornberry]

And of course, as we will see, those who will be hit most adversely by the benefit cap are, yet again, women.

Ministers seem to be no closer to pinning down a convincing rationale for the policy today than they were four years ago when the Welfare Reform Act 2012 was debated. To the extent that there has been an underlying theme throughout this period, however, it has been the ever-slippery concept of fairness. As the Secretary of State put it when introducing the Welfare Reform Bill on Second Reading in March 2011:

“The principle is that people who are unemployed and on benefits should not be receiving more than average earnings. It is a matter of fairness, so that those who are working hard and paying their taxes do not feel that someone else will benefit more by not playing a full part in society.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 921-922.]

It is almost quaint, with more than four years’ worth of hindsight, to imagine Government policy being drawn up with such sensitivity to people’s feelings, but the Secretary of State’s words are revealing to the extent that they disclose that the closest thing there was to a principled reason for introducing the cap was the perception of the problem, rather than evidence of one.

As I said, that has come to be a tendency over the past few years. In fact, further evidence appeared just a few days ago when the House was asked to consider the Trade Union Bill, which seems to have been designed to allay tabloid hysteria more than to deal with a real problem. When the issue in question is out-of-work benefits, tabloid hysteria is in abundant supply. Goaded by Ministers, the entire debate has become hijacked by splashy headlines that generated heat rather than light. It is time that the plane of discussion was brought back down to earth.

I said that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to Tory welfare reform, but that is not strictly true, because lowering the cap requires an innovation that is a novel twist to the idea of fairness. The link between the household cap and estimated average earnings has been severed. That is quite a spanner in the works in terms of the Government’s efforts to prop up one of their primary justifications for the cap. The principle that working taxpayers, when they are fortunate enough not to have to claim benefits in order to survive, must be helped to feel positive about the way that the benefit system operates was always a dubious basis on which to make policy. The fact that that was supposed to have been achieved by setting the cap at the level of earnings makes clause 7(3) even more extraordinary.

Returning to the debates of the 2012 Act, the last Welfare Reform Bill, we might find the comments of the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) particularly instructive. He was the poor, unfortunate Minister saddled with the unenviable task of defending the cap and attempting to provide a coherent rationale for it. Fortunately for him, he did have a link with average earnings to fall back on. As he explained:

“Our policy approach, and the Government’s clear intent, is to have a cap that bears reference to average earnings. That is necessary for the credibility of our benefit system. It is the right place to set the cap.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 17 May 2011; c. 952.]

He was either right then or he was wrong, but are we not being contradicted by the changes to the law that the Government are intending now? Evidently, the new generation of Ministers take a different view. While there may be many problems that can be laid at Ministers’ feet, a fall in average earnings over the past two years is not, probably, one of them. According to the much-quoted Office for National Statistics, since the level of the cap was first established at £26,000 a year, average earnings have risen, not by much—just 0.1%, in fact—but they have risen. If wages are going up, why is the cap coming down if it is supposed to be, in any way, linked to average earnings? It is a simple question and I am sure that there will be a simple answer.

It has therefore proved necessary for the Government to take a different tack in arguing the increasingly tenuous case for lowering the cap. The alternative explanation that Ministers have increasingly relied on is that the cap is a cost-saving measure on one hand, and that it provides an incentive for people to move into work on the other. We now do not have a link to average incomes; we have the cap as an incentive to get people into work and that it will be a cost-saving measure.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. May I ask her to comment on recent evidence that emerged over the summer, which showed that although some people did move into work—Tony Wilson, in his oral evidence, told us a little bit about that—those who did not probably could not? They were either the parents of very young children, were suffering from ill health or there was a disability in the household.

[Emily Thornberry]

Absolutely right. Indeed, some of the evidence that we heard was that those who did move into work were not in what would be called sustainable work. For example, a single mother of many children who perhaps had been moved into 16 hours a week of work to avoid the cap, would find it impossible to sustain that work during the school holidays when her four children were back at home and she did not have childcare.

People temporarily may have been able to move into work and back out again, but we can see the continued high level of spend on discretionary housing payments to support these people. That in itself is evidence that it is not sustainable to try to push people for whom it is not possible to find work into work. Indeed, the evidence shows—I am sorry to keep harping on about evidence, but I always thought that policy was based on it—that most people who were affected by the benefit cap are not even deemed fit for work.

I will just go back. Having abandoned the idea of linking the cap with earnings, the Ministers are now relying on it being a cost-saving measure and an incentive for people to move into work. Of course, neither of those arguments stack up. I will come back to that. There continues to be a bad smell of unfairness, which will not go away. Just two days ago, the Minister was trotting out the same old argument. She said:

“The cap is a simple matter of fairness”.––[Official Report, Welfare Reform and Work Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2015; c. 144.]

However, she left us guessing, as we still are, exactly what was meant and how this could be fair as the cap seems to have been set at an arbitrary level.

Amendment 71 would remove subsection (3) and maintain the link between the level of the cap and estimated average earnings. If we are to accept the argument of the previous Minister that this connection is necessary for the credibility of the cap—a tall order, frankly—I can see no good reason for removing this requirement from the legislation. If the very concept of the benefit cap is to inspire even a shred of public confidence, it is incumbent on Ministers to explain why they propose to hand themselves extraordinarily broad powers to lower the cap at any time for any reason.

Ministers are essentially asking us to trust them to make decisions on the basis of fairness. Frankly, given their track record and given what the Minister said before the luncheon Adjournment—that she did not want to continue throwing good money after bad—it would be fair, for some people at least, to be somewhat sceptical of their understanding of fairness. To trust them to make these decisions on the basis of fairness is a slippery concept if there ever was one. The definition of the word seems in any event to be the subject of regular revisions apparently based on nothing more than political whimsy and the need of George Osborne to continue to save money.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

Good afternoon to everyone. These grouped amendments, in simple terms, are intended to counteract the changes that we are introducing to the benefit cap, as we have already heard. Amendment 25 would prevent the proposed reduction in its rate. Amendments 26 and 27 would prevent our plans to introduce a tiered structure to the cap, which will have different rates for claimants living in Greater London and for claimants living elsewhere. The two amendments would also keep the cap at its current rate with the same split between the level for lone parents and couples and the level for single people without children.

Amendment 71 would prevent us from establishing a new mechanism for reviewing the future level for the cap by maintaining the current link with average earnings. Amendment 38 is a more technical amendment that appears to attempt to direct future parliamentary procedures for introducing regulations for the cap. I will come to that amendment later. The cap was introduced in 2013 at the level of £26,000 a year with a lower rate of £18,200 a year for single people without children. Currently, the cap remains at that level.

The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury has mentioned why the Government introduced the cap, but I will remind the Committee that it was introduced because it was felt—and is felt—that it was not fair for out-of-work households to receive considerably more in benefits than many working households earn. That view is shared by many people across the country, with around 70% of the public supporting a cap. The cap is also a key part of the overall plan to reform not only the structure of welfare benefits but attitudes towards welfare benefits, and it was introduced to increase incentives to work and to promote fairness to those on benefits and those in work. At the time, as we recall, we were trying to address the bigger economic issues of the deficit.

[Kate Green]

I understand the point about work incentives. We heard from Tony Wilson that a small number of people have moved into work, but is it fair to talk about changing the attitudes of people who are too sick to work? They are caught by the benefit cap, too.

[Priti Patel]

This is part of the wider welfare reforms. The Government are supporting people who are sick and ill. Depending on their health conditions, they are receiving support in welfare.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady will be perfectly aware that people who are very ill, particularly those in the support group, are supported by the Government through many, many welfare measures. That covers a range of conditions.

[Kate Green]

I am sorry to interrupt, but the Minister will understand that this is terribly important to people with long-term health problems. Some 80,000 people have been placed in the work-related activity group with a long-term prognosis that they are unlikely to see a change in their condition in at least the next two years. That was the finding of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions report last year. Further, 8,000 people in that group over time and, from the figures announced by the Secretary of State the other day, some 4,500 people in that group now have degenerative conditions, which means that they will never be more well than they currently are.

[Priti Patel]

Those in receipt of the support component of employment and support allowance are, of course, exempt from the cap. The Secretary of State has recently spoken about ESA and the additional support that can be given to individuals with particular health conditions. The Government are working on that right now, completely outside of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I understand that the evaluation has been published, and since its introduction, more than 35,000 households who had previously been capped have moved off the cap. As I have said, the evaluation shows that the cap is working, with households 41% more likely to enter work than similar households who were just below the benefit cap. This is of course about the behavioural effects, but we have to, and should, put it into the context of incentivising work and supporting people to help them get into work, which is clearly part of what the Government are doing through their welfare reform agenda.

[Kate Green]

This is genuinely a request for clarification. The Minister said a moment ago that 35,000 people—I think she said this—had moved off the cap. Is she saying that those 35,000 people moved into work? Or is she saying that they stopped claiming benefits, or that they moved house? What actually happened to them?

[Priti Patel]

It is a combination of factors. The most common reason for people moving off the cap is a movement into work. There will be a variety in terms of the nature of work roles, depending on individual circumstances, but it is also a reflection of the fact that they have been supported into work.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Fourth sitting)

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Hannah Bardell]

Amendment 23 is about the Secretary of State appearing before a Committee in the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales to answer questions about the report. The amendments in this group would ensure that Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland and Wales, was fully briefed on the full employment report, as they have a responsibility for policies that can contribute to full employment.

Finally, amendment 24 would leave out subsection (2) because we want to remove the provision that repeals the full employment reporting obligation at the end of the current Parliament. We feel strongly that clause 1 places a new duty on the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on progress towards full employment during the Parliament.

Amendment 22 is simply to ensure that the Secretary of State lays the report before the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. We welcome the reporting obligations in clause 1, as they ensure that the Government are progressing full employment and that the definition made by the Department is brought before all the devolved Administrations.

As we well know, unemployment is a UK-wide problem and employment challenges facing different parts of the UK can be different. It is vital that the Secretary of State represents the devolved institutions and recognises the challenges that the Bill will have for devolved areas dealing with unemployment.

Amendment 23 adds extra scrutiny function to the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State will appear before a Committee to answer questions on the report within each devolved institution. As the definition of full employment is not clear, the amendment would ensure that, whatever definition is decided on, the devolved institutions will be able to hold the Secretary of State to account. We are concerned that the Secretary of State could use the term to mask under-employment by defining full employment in narrow terms. Office for National Statistics figures for 2014 put the number of zero-hours contracts at approximately 700,000. People in those positions worked an average of 25 hours a week, and one third of them would prefer more hours. It is vital that the devolved institutions can scrutinise the Secretary of State’s report in order to deal with unemployment effectively.

Amendment 24 would remove the provision that repeals the full employment reporting obligation at the end of the current Parliament. If the Government are serious about reporting unemployment in order to address it, they would not dissolve the reporting duty after one Parliament. We really cannot understand that. In the current uncertain economic times, the Government cannot predict what employment opportunities lie ahead for people across the UK. It is imperative that full employment reporting continues, as it will be a useful indicator for the Government and the devolved institutions to formulate policies that respond to the demands of unemployment. Finally, the continuation of a reporting duty means that the definition will be tested and refined. Oxfam has supported the retention of the obligation to report.

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

I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Lady propose amendments 22 to 24, which are interesting. Although she did not talk about this, I read the amendments in the context of the wider constitutional debate being played out in the passage of the Scotland Bill, which is also before the House and covers a number of matters relating to welfare reform. While I fully understand why she wants to promote the amendments—to expose more clearly the effectiveness of the Government’s strategies and to increase scrutiny of them—I think we are stepping into quite new territory in terms of some of the reporting arrangements and the obligation of Westminster Ministers to report to the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, and to appear before their Committees.

We know that devolved matters are wholly the responsibility of devolved Parliaments. I expect them to be scrutinised there and for Ministers in those Parliaments to be held to account for them. However, reserved matters are rightly scrutinised in this Parliament by Members of Parliament from all parties. Indeed, I venture to suggest that if we pursue this argument too far, we may start to give succour to the English votes for English laws argument, which some of us are very unenthusiastic about.

While I understand the hon. Lady’s wish to shed more light on the Government’s policies, I question some of the implications of her amendments. That is not to say that I do not understand what she seeks to achieve, but I am keen to understand the constitutional consequences of proceeding with amendment 22.

Amendment 23 is also very interesting. I read it with real interest when the hon. Lady and her colleagues tabled it, and I went off to dig a little bit into the history of what it might be about. I am sure she knows this, but other Committee members may not: the Government have some form in relation to appearing before Committees in the Scottish Parliament. Attempts were made by the Scottish Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee—perhaps the hon. Lady can confirm this—to bring Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions before it between 2012 and 2014, in order for Members of the Scottish Parliament to quiz them about some of the provisions of what became the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

When the Convenor of the Scottish Welfare Reform Committee sought to invite the Secretary of State to the Committee, I am afraid to say that he received a rather dusty reply. On 12 December 2012, in a letter to the Convenor of that Committee, the Secretary of State said that he would not be coming, that as a Westminster Minister he was accountable first and foremost to the UK Parliament and, slightly tongue in cheek, he strongly encouraged the Scottish Committee to scrutinise the Scottish Government’s implementation of the UK legislation. I will not get into the private grief between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Scottish National party on that, but it was clear that the Secretary of State was alert to some of the constitutional questions I alluded to a few moments ago.

In defence of the Scottish Committee, I have to say that it did not take that lying down—indeed, I would not have expected it to. The saga ran and ran—there was a series of letters, which are fun to read if anyone has a few spare minutes. In 2012, 2013 and 2014, the Committee noted that UK Ministers from other Departments had been prepared to appear before Scottish parliamentary committees, so the matter rumbled on.

In the event, no willingness was shown on the part of Ministers from the immediate past Government to appear before the Scottish Welfare Reform Committee. Since then, we have moved into another set of changes to the constitutional arrangements on reserved matters with the ongoing proceedings of the Scotland Bill.

In this Bill, we have a complex patchwork of devolved and non-devolved matters. Indeed, this is probably the Bill to exemplify the difficulties that Mr Speaker will face in certifying whether a Bill or parts of a Bill will be subject to the provisions of English votes for English laws—we might use it as a case study as we proceed through each clause, Mr Streeter, if you will indulge us.

The Scotland Bill will create further complexity. We are in a period of some uncertainty about which welfare reform provisions will be devolved and which will obviously depend on Parliament’s will, and that legislation is far from completing its parliamentary passage. Labour has tabled several amendments to the Scotland Bill that I confidently expect us to consider on Report that propose further devolution of several welfare and employment matters to the Scottish Parliament. For example, it has long been our intention—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham talked a great deal about this in the previous Parliament—to devolve employment programmes such as the Work programme to the Scottish Parliament. We have developed our thinking in that field so that we now have amendments to the Scotland Bill that would also devolve the Access to Work programme, jobs guarantees programmes and employment programmes of less than one year’s duration.

There are question marks around amendments 22 and 23. They are interesting and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Livingston moved them for debate, but I would prefer to await developments on the Scotland Bill before arriving at a firm conclusion about what my party’s position might be on them. However, the hon. Lady is really on to something with amendment 24, which deals with what is effectively a sunset clause on the Secretary of State’s obligation to report on the full employment targets. Since I saw the SNP amendment and my mind became focused on that provision, I wondered why the Government drafted it. Will the Minister tell us in a few minutes that the Government are confident that, on full employment, by the end of this Parliament, “Job will be done”? As the hon. Lady said, we are keen to understand what the Minister means by full employment. That debate will be developed by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham and I know we are all very much looking forward to his erudite speech.

[The Chair]

Very much.

[Kate Green]

It is good to have your endorsement, Mr Streeter.

We also know that progress on tackling unemployment is not necessarily linear. Even if the Government’s programmes are entirely commendable, effective and produce very positive results—hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that we may have some questions about the efficacy of some of them—as we famously heard from our political forebears, events happen that can blow the finest ministerial plans off course. Looking at the recent history of employment figures, if we are prepared to accept that the definition of full unemployment is, let us say, an employment rate of 80%, we were nearly at full employment in 2008. Then, of course, there was a significant rise in unemployment as a result of the world financial crash.

Although we have begun to see the very preliminary shoots of recovery—it is notable that people tended to stay in work after the 2008 recession, compared with previous recessions—the progress has not been constant since the economy began to recover after the recession. The last two sets of unemployment figures we have seen—we expect some more tomorrow—show unemployment rising again, and there are particularly worrying trends in relation to youth unemployment, which has proven to be a particularly stubborn nut for the Government to crack.

Amendment 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Livingston, is really interesting. I hope the Minister will tell us why she thinks it is right to have a sunset clause. Is she trying to protect future Governments? It is very kind of her to think about protecting future Labour Governments, but we are ambitious about full employment. We were the first to speak about it 10 years ago.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Twenty.

[Kate Green]

Twenty, my right hon. Friend says; I am too young to remember.

We would be happy for an incoming Labour Government to be held to account for full employment. It is an ambition that goes to the heart of my party; indeed, it is embedded in our name. This is an interesting amendment. I want the Minister to explain to the Committee why the Government want to put a sunset clause in the Bill. I very much look forward to the debate we are going to have.

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, as we begin line-by-line scrutiny.

The Bill introduces a statutory duty to report on the progress towards full employment. It is the right moment, as we start our scrutiny, to debate full employment. I am pleased that the statutory duty to report on progress has been welcomed by both Opposition parties in the Committee. The clause extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. All right hon. and hon. Members in the Committee will have heard in the run-up to the general election and in subsequent debates that the Government want everyone, regardless of where they live, to fulfil their ambitions relating to work if they can do so.

As the Government set out in our manifesto, we aspire for the country to be the best place in the world to start a business and we want to achieve the highest level of employment. Therefore, producing an annual report illustrating progress towards full employment across the UK demonstrates the Government’s clear and transparent intention to continue to commit to those aspirations. We want the UK to be the best place in the world to create a job, get a job, keep a job, have long-term, sustained employment and be helped to look for another job if one’s circumstances change. Over the next five years, we want to move from a low-wage, high-tax, high-welfare economy to a higher-wage, lower-tax, lower-welfare economy.

It is worth pausing to put this in context. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned a raft of measures, including employment programmes, that have enabled more people to be in work than previously. The labour market has improved since 2010. Employment is up at 31 million, and there have been steady increases. The employment rate is now 73.4%. We recognise that there is more to do; hence the commitment to full employment.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned at some length the Scotland Bill and the extensive debates that we had during its Committee stage. That Bill is still progressing. For the record, on the hon. Lady’s illustrative point about DWP Ministers not attending the Select Committee in Scotland, I will be going in the next two to three weeks. I look at that as very much a part of the ongoing dialogue that we should have with the devolved Administrations in this important space.

[Kate Green]

That is interesting information. I know that informal meetings have taken place and have been referred to in some of the correspondence that I mentioned between DWP Ministers and the Scottish Parliament. Would the Minister welcome a legislative requirement upon her to attend?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

Thank you, Mr Streeter. This has been an interesting debate. I heard some encouraging remarks from Labour Members, and I hear what the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston says about waiting for the Scotland Bill. However, I would say that, disappointingly, we have not seen any movement or support from the Government on the Scotland Bill. It is important that we have reporting mechanisms and commitments put down in legislation.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Lady is right that we have not yet seen a great deal of progress on the Scotland Bill, and it is difficult to predict whether that Bill will be overtaken by this one. It seems to have become stuck somewhere in the long grass. Does the hon. Lady agree, having rightly exposed this question this afternoon, that we might hope that Ministers will take note and accelerate the progress of the Scotland Bill? Does she also agree that if they fail to address the points that she has raised today, it would be a good idea to bring the issue back when we discuss this Bill on Report?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) In this report the Secretary of State must also set out the progress that has been made toward halving the disability employment gap.”

To require the report on progress towards full employment to also report on progress towards the Government’s stated aim to halve the disability employment gap.

The amendment is in my name and in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham. In it, we make the case for a requirement to report on disability employment. I believe all hon. and right hon. Members share our concern about the substantial gap in employment rate between disabled and non-disabled people. Despite efforts over many years and some progress, the gap still stands at an unacceptable 30%. That has to be a worry for everybody.

It is, however, quite unclear from the Bill how Ministers intend to narrow the disability employment gap, how doing so will contribute to the overall full employment target that we have discussed, and what timescale they have in mind for reducing that gap. We warmly welcome the ambition of, as I understand it, halving the disability employment gap, but our amendment is designed to explore the fact that that is an ambitious target, unsupported by either targets or plans.

Not only does the employment gap between disabled people and the rest of the working age population stand at an alarmingly high 30%—only around 48% of disabled people are in work—but different groups within that very low level of employment experience different employment outcomes. The employment rate for people with learning disabilities, for example, is a shockingly low 8%. For people with autism, I believe it is around 15%, and for people with mental health difficulties it is relatively high. Around one in four people in the workplace will experience a mental health problem at some point in their working life, but despite the prevalence of mental health problems, employers remain suspicious, and they are often reluctant to employ people with mental health problems. As I often say, however, in reality they probably already do, but they just do not know it. We think the Government’s aim of halving the disability employment gap is ambitious, but we think it is right. We support that aim, and we want to discuss with the Minister this afternoon the steps she can take to ensure that it is achieved.

[Emily Thornberry]

I have been listening with great interest to what my hon. Friend has been saying, but I might have missed something. When did the Government make that promise to halve unemployment among people with disabilities?

[Kate Green]

I cannot recall exactly, but perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us. She may even wish to intervene on me to do so. I believe that that aim was announced very recently. My impression is that that has happened since the general election, and possibly over the summer. Perhaps her officials will be able to advise her if she, like me, cannot recall the exact date.

We agree that it is important to have that ambition for the level of employment among disabled people. It is important for our economy. We are massively wasting the talents and contribution of many disabled people. In written evidence from Leonard Cheshire, the Committee was informed that the achievement of the Government’s ambition could make an immense contribution to the economy of between £13 billion and £68 billion a year. That, by any measure, is a substantial difference. Of course, it would also make a tremendous difference to disabled individuals, many of whom would love to be working but cannot obtain the work they would like. For a whole range of reasons, they experience significant barriers to labour market participation. It is, of course, absolutely right that we should work systematically through dismantling those barriers. In my opinion, disabled people should have the right to work. They should have the right to good work, and to the dignity of good work, which I think all of us in the House value. I commend Ministers on their ambition, but we will want to test them on the substance that sits behind it.

As I said, many disabled people who would like to work are not working, although they certainly have no lack of ambition to work. Indeed, their ambition to work is substantially higher than among non-disabled people who are not working. For example, among those with qualifications at level 3, 14% of disabled people who are not working would like to be working, compared with 6% of non-disabled people. That shows in just one set of statistics—many more could be pulled out—that disabled people are keen to work where that can be made possible.

However, we have many significant concerns about how the Government are approaching the delivery and achievement of their ambition. We have concerns that Government policies are playing out in a way that is not helping at all. For example, the Work programme has failed to deliver specialist employment support that meets the particular circumstances and needs of disabled people. Today it delivers employment outcomes—jobs, in other words—for only about one in 10 of those on the Work programme and on employment and support allowance. That is not good enough. At that rate of progress, it will take us a very long time to achieve Ministers’ ambition of halving the disability employment gap.

Many disabled people are not even receiving the support that they need while on ESA to take the steps that they need to enter or to facilitate their entry into the workplace. Later in our debates, the Committee can look forward to extensive discussions of the Government’s proposals on those in the work-related activity group. We know that the Government are making a case to cut the benefits of people in that group, which my colleagues and I will firmly oppose. We do not believe that taking money away from disabled people is the way to facilitate their return to work. We also know that the Government have made a broad-brush case that it will be part of a process of offering additional employment-related support to disabled people in the WRAG, but we have heard no details at all yet about what that additional support will look like.

If we cannot debate that at this point in the Committee’s deliberations, I give notice to the Minister that we will be very keen to have a full discussion of what is intended and what is in Ministers’ minds in relation to that additional support when we debate the relevant provisions in the Bill, which are very worrying with regard to the work-related activity group. They worry me, but they are causing huge anxiety to many of the 500,000 or so people in the work-related activity group.

[Neil Coyle]

Does my hon. Friend not think that disabled people’s confidence in the Government’s ability to support them with this commendable target has been somewhat undermined by the reduction in the number of disabled people supported by Access to Work, the number of disability employment advisers and the amount of employment for disabled people in Remploy factories? However in context or out of context they were, the comments made by a Department for Work and Pensions Minister were unfortunate. Does my hon. Friend think that that has affected disabled people’s confidence in the Government’s ability and commitment to ensure that decent employment opportunities are available?

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is real scepticism about what the Government really intend. I think the Minister is incredibly well intentioned in her ambitions for good-quality, sustainable job outcomes for disabled people. However, wishing for the ends is not the same as achieving them. We need the right steps and the right measures to provide support for disabled people and crucially, as my hon. Friend says, to give them the sense of confidence they need to take advantage of the support on offer. If they feel that the Government’s motivations are, in fact, to make it harder for them to survive while preparing for work, or to push them into unsuitable work—work that may actually make those with serious health conditions even less well—that is naturally not a frame of mind in which we would wish anybody to enter an employment support programme.

The barriers faced by disabled people to an equal chance and an equal right to participate in the labour market are myriad, and many were referred to in the written and oral evidence received by the Committee. For example, we heard from Mind, which I thought gave some interesting and illuminating evidence to us last week, that there is a particular concern for people with mental health problems who are looking for work. It needs to be the right sort of work and the right sort of support to get people back to work.

According to Mind, just 8% of people with mental health problems who have gone through the Work programme have achieved a sustained job outcome. Furthermore, 83% said that their experience of being on the Work programme had made their health worse, and 76% said it made them feel less able to work. Those are really depressing statistics. I know the Minister will share my huge concern about those figures and the experiences of people with mental health problems. It is not a good sign for halving the disability employment gap given that, as I said earlier, so many of us will experience a mental health problem at some point in our lives.

We all share a real concern about young people’s employment prospects. We all know the scarring effects on a young person at the beginning of their working life of not being able to get into the labour market in order to build up their experience of work and ultimately progress and develop their career. I am absolutely passionate about that. I am of the generation that experienced a collapse in employment for young people at the beginning of the 1980s, and I remember the fear and anxiety we lived with at the time. We have seen it happen to subsequent generations, and I know that there is real concern about ensuring our young people have the very best chances to start their careers and get into the world of work.

The anxiety we rightly have about our young people’s employment prospects is massively amplified for disabled young people. Their employment chances, and the educational experiences many of them have that lead to their employment chances, are so much worse. We must all be concerned about that. We know that disabled young people are four times more likely to be unemployed at the age of 26 than non-disabled young people. They are twice as likely to be not in education, employment or training. To the extent that the Minister’s ambition to halve the disability employment gap can bear down on those shocking statistics and improve on the very poor performance we are achieving for our young people, she will have the wholehearted support of the Labour party.

There is widespread support for significant and radical reform of the employment support being delivered to disabled people. We heard it from our witnesses, we saw it in the written evidence and it is widely debated around the House. It is therefore a huge disappointment to us that nothing in the Bill gives any sense of what the Government are actually going to do about the disability employment gap. There is not even any specific reference to it in the Bill, with its full employment reporting obligation. That must call into question the seriousness with which the Government are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. A reporting obligation would really put a spotlight on what the Government are doing and what their programmes and initiatives are achieving to halve the disability employment gap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

I commend the hon. Lady on a great speech. I agree with much of what she says. Remploy was one of the organisations that gave evidence. Although it is now successful, it previously had funding pulled by the Government, who took away vital opportunities. In Scotland, hundreds of disabled people lost the opportunity to work. The Scottish Government intervened and have now developed an organisation called Haven PTS, which I have visited personally. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need investment in such organisations so that employment opportunities are out there for people with disabilities?

[Kate Green]

I have never been a purist on Remploy. It seems there is a place for such employment support for some people; it helps with their sense of dignity and pride. That has in many cases been taken away from those who lost their jobs on the closure of the factories. Their chances of returning to work have been pretty poor.

Even more concerning is what happened when the Government closed the Remploy factories on the back of the independent report that they had commissioned from Liz Sayce. It was said that the money could be better applied to giving disabled people a chance in the mainstream labour market, and we expected that that money would go into, for example, the Access to Work programme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned. In the previous Parliament, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions found that it appeared no such thing had occurred. Indeed, it seemed impossible to find out what had happened to money released from the closure of the Remploy factories. That is hugely regrettable. It does not seem to have done much to benefit those who had lost their jobs as a result of the closure. I very much share the hon. Lady’s concerns.

We heard from many of our witnesses about the need for personalised specialist support designed and delivered more locally. Kirsty McHugh told us about that last week, and she highlighted the importance of the adviser relationship and building confidence. We heard a lot about the need for a better payment mechanism for providers. For example, Matt Oakley said in his evidence that he thought the Government might need to look again at the attachment fee for providers who were supporting disabled people with programmes to get them back to work.

Will the Minister say something about what has happened with Work Choice, a specialist programme for disabled people that witnesses in our evidence session last week were positive about? We know that the proportion of people who go into work having been on Work Choice is 10 times the proportion of disabled people who go into work having been on the Work programme, but it is underused. I have been told that in my constituency the payment structures are being changed to make it less likely that providers will work with those with the highest barriers to labour market participation, who are the group that we understood Work Choice was intended to help.

We also heard, and have had written evidence, about the importance of joining up the health and social care agendas with the employment agenda to facilitate a return to work. For example, people need flexible health provision so that they can get an appointment with a doctor or a specialist at a time that does not clash with when they wants to go to work, and they need social care that helps them go to work. Perhaps somebody can arrive to help them get up that bit earlier in the morning, so that they have time to prepare themselves and go out to work. Although the integration of health and social care is welcome, I suggest to the Government that the missing bit of the jigsaw, if I may suggest this to the Government, is employment. Joining them up would facilitate and maximise the chances of people moving into work. We can also question whether the criteria by which local authorities are required to provide social care should include access to employment.

Routes to work are important. Later we will debate participation in apprenticeships, internships and traineeships, and we also heard that it would be very important for the Government to act as an exemplar and a good commissioner. Self-employment has been raised.

[The Chair]

Order. This is a very powerful speech, but if the hon. Lady could relate it more to the reporting of the employment gap, that would be helpful.

[Kate Green]

I understand, Mr Streeter; you are quite correct.

It is important that the Government come forward with a report on how things are progressing and on what measures we can have to understand the nature of the progress, but I think Parliament would also welcome a report that described the steps the Government were taking, the different labour market approaches that were being used and how each of those was more or less effective for people with different health conditions or disabled people with different impairments. I am particularly interested in any report that might be prepared that properly analyses the use of self-employment for disabled people. We heard some interesting and, I think, ambivalent views from our witnesses last week, who said that it could be good and give disabled people more freedom, autonomy and choice, but that it could also be quite isolating, which would be a concern.

We heard a great deal about employer engagement. Public reporting might be one way to enthuse employers and drive up employer engagement, because it would be very much in the public domain and visible, and that would facilitate public debate.

I hope that the Minister welcomes amendment 2. I understand that, if she feels unable to accept it in full today, she may wish to reflect on it and come back with some of her own suggestions. I am open to hearing from her, but we must all agree that a focus on this issue is really important to every single one of us, and that a proper statutory report of progress would be extremely helpful in achieving the ambition that Ministers have.

[Emily Thornberry]

It has come to my attention that the first time we were aware that the Conservatives said that they wanted to halve the disability employment gap was in a brochure snappily entitled “Strong Leadership. A Clear Economic Plan. A Brighter, More Secure Future.” On page 17 of this book of fiction, there is the title “Jobs for all”, and following that, it is stated:

“We will fight for equal opportunity”,

and that

“the jobless rate for this group”—

people with disabilities—

“remains too high and, as part of our objective to achieve full employment, we will aim to halve the disability employment gap: we will transform policy, practice and public attitudes, so that hundreds of thousands more disabled people who can and want to be in work find employment.”

What is interesting is the context within which the Government made that promise—that solemn vow—to the country about what they would provide. They said that they would provide full employment and, if I can repeat it for emphasis,

“as part of our objective to achieve full employment, we will aim to halve the disability employment gap”.

If the Government have decided to put into legislation the solemn vow to have full employment—clause 1 states that they are going to report to Parliament to tell us how well they are doing on that—it makes complete sense, as part of that, for them to have an obligation to tell us how they are doing with halving the disability employment gap.

That is the only point I wanted to make.

[Priti Patel]

I welcome the debate and the points made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, because this is an important area for discussion.

The amendment’s purpose is to require the annual report to Parliament to include progress on the measures that have been made towards halving the disability employment gap. To put that into context, as she touched on, the Government are absolutely committed to the ambition to halve the disability employment gap. It is a challenging one—there is no doubt about it, which is why I welcome her contribution—because it requires us all, in my view, to transform policy, practice and public attitudes, and the Government are committed to doing all that they can to ensure that disabled people who can and want to work are supported and able to move into work as well.

The hon. Lady will know—we have discussed this in previous debates—that there has been an increase of more than 200,000 in the number of disabled people in work in the last year. That is why it is important to bring together—again, I touched on this issue in the previous discussion—other aspects of Government to work together to achieve the objective in the right way, so that the right kind of support and provision can be made.

As progress against the disability employment gap commitment is, of course, a key factor in achieving the wider commitment of full employment, that is why we take the view that it is not necessary for progress on that commitment to be reported on in the annual report. We believe that that is consistent with the Government’s manifesto commitment, which we said was part of our objective to achieve full employment, in addition to the aim of halving the disability employment gap. We will be able to achieve full employment only by achieving progress towards halving the disability employment gap.

I will touch on some of the points that the hon. Lady mentioned, particularly with regard to support for groups and with regard to how we will do more to halve the disability employment gap. She will know there are a range of Government programmes and initiatives. She mentioned Access to Work. Indeed, we have extended Access to Work to provide more support to disabled people in pre-employment, through work experience and obviously through employment-based training, internships and traineeships.

The hon. Lady touched on the Work programme as well. With regard to both the Work programme and the Work Choice programme, we take the view that they are not directly comparable, but of course the contracts for both programmes will end in 2017 and we are already working with the providers to get a better understanding of how we can develop them, including the support that is required, and so we can invest in the right way. She mentioned payment models. We are having those discussions right now, and it is right and proper that we work with those providers. We have also launched a specialist employment support programme, which is an innovative new programme that again provides extensive specialist support to those disabled people who need help and support.

Those are just illustrative examples of the work that is taking place in this area. However, in relation to the amendment, I will just restate that we will be able to achieve full employment only by achieving progress towards halving the disability employment gap. The annual report will include an update on the Government’s progress in achieving that ambition. That is why in our view the amendment is unnecessary, and I therefore urge the hon. Members who tabled it to withdraw it.

[Kate Green]

I welcome what the Minister has said about recognising the importance of halving the disability employment gap, and what she has said about its being a prerequisite for achieving the ambition of full employment, which I think is right. However, it always drives purposeful and effective policy when the spotlight of reporting and monitoring is put into the public domain, and therefore I wish to divide the Committee on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Child Poverty

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure, Mr Howarth, to respond to this debate and to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on introducing it this afternoon.

As the debate has proceeded, we have understood the complexity and multi-layering that is intrinsic in child poverty, but we should also recognise that we know what works to tackle it. Looking at the track record and progress that was made under Labour Governments between 1997 and 2010, I am proud that we saw huge progress with more than 1 million children in the UK lifted out of poverty.

We know what led to that massive reduction in child poverty. As the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire acknowledged, it was in no small measure due to the effectiveness of tax credits, and to the rise in employment, particularly the employment of lone parents, which increased from 44% in the mid-1990s to approaching 60% when we entered this decade.

None the less and despite that progress, today, as we have heard, 3.7 million children in this country live in relative poverty. Perhaps even more depressing, since 2011-12, progress to reduce that number further has stalled. There was no progress whatever under the coalition Government after 2011-12, and the prediction is that under this Parliament, we will start to see a substantial rise in child poverty. None of us can be satisfied or complacent about that.

We have, rightly, heard a lot about the importance of measuring child poverty and having meaningful targets for tracking and tackling progress. At one time, there was cross-party consensus on the importance of measuring relative income poverty and targets for its reduction, but that consensus has broken down between the parties. It seems to have broken down in the Prime Minister’s mind—we have heard him say that he is in favour of targets and measuring and addressing relative poverty, and that he is not and believes that that is irrelevant. We have heard that the Government intend in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which is now being debated in Committee, to remove the targets altogether and no longer to set that hard ambition for us to improve our performance. I cannot help feeling—the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) hinted at this—that that is motivated by fear that the targets will not be met, fear that the position will worsen and fear that the Government will be held to account, as they should be.

We know the importance of having targets and an agreed definition of poverty. Targets drive action. They drive progress and they allow for comparisons that show the direction of travel and the trends, and enable us to compare ourselves with our international peers. No one would pretend that child poverty in this country is like child poverty in some of the poorest economies of the world, but the measures in the Child Poverty Act 2010 have presented a very useful picture that has enabled us to compare performance here with the best performing countries in Europe. Indeed, that was the ambition. It was not to eliminate child poverty to zero, because we all recognise the existence of frictional poverty, but to be at the level of the best in Europe. Until the arrival of the coalition Government, we were on track to achieve that.

It may be that recognition of the importance of targets is why in 2013, when the Government consulted on changing or abolishing the targets, 97% of those who responded said there was no need for any change, so it is highly regrettable that there are proposals from Ministers today to do something that has been roundly rubbished by all the respondents to that consultation. I am shocked by the lack of notice that the Government have taken.

We also heard today, rightly, about the importance and centrality of income in defining, measuring and tackling child poverty. Indeed, Kitty Stewart of the London School of Economics has shown that income is the single most significant factor and indicator of poor outcomes for children across a whole range of measures, including educational attainment and poor health. We also know that poverty has a cost to society as a whole. Estimates by the Child Poverty Action Group suggest that the cost to society of failing to tackle child poverty is £29 billion a year.

In recognition of the intrinsic link between low income and poor outcomes for children, the Child Poverty Act 2010, which received cross-party consensus, covered not just income poverty and did not require measures only on income poverty, but also required strategies on, for example, education, health, parental employment, debt and parenting. All those are associated with high levels of child poverty, but they are not the same as child poverty and it is important not to confuse the two.

None the less, one of my regrets about the abolition of much of the 2010 Act is that we will lose the requirement to produce those strategies. This morning, we heard in the Standing Committee considering the Welfare Reform and Work Bill—the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire may have repeated this this afternoon—that the intention in Scotland is to continue to produce that strategy and I understand from this morning’s evidence session with witnesses that that is also the case in Wales. However, there is no expectation that that will happen in England. Ministers will not expect local authorities to produce comprehensive strategies to address child poverty. If I am wrong about that, I shall be very pleased to hear it and I hope that the Minister will be able to contradict my assertion this afternoon.

We know that the Government know that income is important. Their own evidence review in 2014 showed that it was the most important factor, and not just, as we have heard today, that low income arises because families are out of work, but when there is insufficient income from earnings. It was right for hon. Members to point out this afternoon the absolute inadequacy and insufficiency of measuring only worklessness when two thirds of children in poverty are growing up in working households. We know the reasons for that. They are not laziness on the part of those parents, but poorly paid jobs, lack of access to flexible jobs that can be combined with family responsibilities, high child care costs, high housing costs and ill health. The need to care for a family member suffering ill health or their own ill health curtails employment chances.

[Jim Shannon]

I mentioned during my contribution the effect on those on low incomes of buying cheaply because it is better financially for their pocket, but that affects their diet and health. Does the hon. Lady believe that we should also address that issue?

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman made a useful contribution on the poverty premium: that the poor pay more for the basics. He now adds another important dimension: that lack of income means that the poorest in our society are unable to afford to have the quality of life that protects health, wellbeing and social participation.

The critique of measures on which the Government are relying to underpin their rejection of the Child Poverty Act 2010 is simply wrong. Let us remember that it is not that the income measure in the Act does not capture the full picture of poverty. There is not one income poverty measure, but four to give us a rounded view. It is important to continue to measure relative income poverty, which we expect to rise. None the less, Ministers should be grateful for the four measures in the 2010 Act because it is possible that at the same time as seeing a rise in relative income poverty, we may see a fall in absolute poverty in the next few years. If median wages rise, but benefits are frozen or rise only with prices, we will see a rise in relative poverty. Conversely, absolute poverty could fall if benefits rise in line with the consumer prices index. It is important for Ministers to recognise that we have a good mix of measures in the 2010 Act, which would enable them to point to the complexity of the picture, rather than rejecting the Act on the misleading grounds that it measures relative poverty alone.

We have no analysis yet of the impact on child poverty of the measures in either the Welfare Reform and Work Bill or the others announced in the summer Budget, some of which we are debating this afternoon. However, we know that the impact of those measures will not be felt in the same way across all family types and structures. Lone parents, couples with several children and those with high housing costs will be hit particularly hard.

As we have heard this afternoon, it is important also to understand that the effect of the so-called national living wage will not wholly compensate for the cuts that are being made. Indeed, the cuts are particularly perverse when we consider that many of them are to in-work benefits, increasing, not reducing work disincentives. I am quite at a loss to understand why Ministers think that is a sensible way to proceed.

There is also a massive amount of ignorance about the purpose of different policy instruments to tackle poverty. Everybody welcomes higher minimum pay. Of course it is right that people should be paid properly for the work that they do, and of course it is right that the taxpayer should not subsidise low-pay economies, although we should recognise that achieving a minimum income standard for some families from earnings alone would simply drive businesses out of business. We have heard the projections that even a national living wage may lead to the loss of some tens of thousands of jobs. That is why, in addition to measures to tackle low pay, it is important to invest in tax credits, because many low-paid people who will benefit from the increase in the national living wage may not live in poor households. Conversely, many of those who are going to receive the national living wage will not be lifted out of poverty by that alone, because of their family and household structure and size. Therefore, it is important that we proceed on both fronts, and we cannot expect, at the lower end of the labour market, for wages alone to lift all families out of poverty.

Income poverty is crucial, and the Government’s analysis of the limitations of the Child Poverty Act and the limited approach that they will take to address rising family poverty, frankly, are simply wrong. It is regrettable that, with so much evidence before us and such a long history of having seen what works and what does not, Ministers are so uninterested in looking at the facts and the evidence, and instead insist on pursuing an ideology that will cause hardship for many, and, for the most vulnerable, destitution, the likes of which we have not seen for two decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will address that later, so please be patient for a little bit longer.

Children grow up without the aspiration to achieve. They become almost certain to repeat the difficult lives of their parents, following a path from dependency to despondency, rather than to independence. At the beginning of my remarks, I talked about my background. That is what drove me into politics. We all have our calling, our passions and our priorities. That very much was what drove me into politics. As I said, I think we all share the same end goal; there is just disagreement on how we would look to achieve it.

On our record on worklessness and poverty, I highlight that many hon. Members have referred to the IFS statistics throughout the debate. I sound a strong note of caution on that. The statistics have been wrong every single year since 2011, and in the summer, they were half a million out, so I attach a big note of caution to the predictions and doom-mongering.

[Kate Green]

The Minister will know that one of the reasons why there may have been a discrepancy between the IFS prediction and the out-turn is to do with the use of survey data and different datasets. Does he agree that there is no doubt at all that the accumulation of measures announced in the summer Budget will increase child poverty, perhaps by many hundreds of thousands of pounds? They cannot fail to, because they will make working families worse off.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the shadow Minister, but I am afraid we disagree on that, and I am setting out why I think that is not going to be the case.

Despite a huge increase in spending, by 2010, the number of households where no member ever worked nearly doubled, in-work poverty rose and the Labour Government missed their own 2010 child poverty target by 600,000 children. Compare that with our record. During the previous Parliament, we turned around Labour’s legacy of worklessness. There are now 2 million more people in work. To put that in context, it is more than the figure for the whole of Europe put together. We have the fastest growing major economy.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (First sitting)

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

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

Q 24 Thank you very much for coming. My first question is to Neera, about proposals in the Bill in relation to the Child Poverty Act 2010.

The Government have obviously criticised the Child Poverty Act, in relation to its focus on measuring relative income poverty and ignoring other aspects of child poverty. What is your critique of the proposals in the Bill in relation to measuring and tracking progress on child poverty? Can you also say something about how important it is to understand the impact on different families?

Neera Sharma: Our key concern is that measures in the Bill are likely to increase child poverty now and in future, and that families that are already struggling on low incomes could become even poorer. We are absolutely very concerned that the mere repeal of the Child Poverty Act—it was passed with cross-party support—will send the message that the UK Government no longer considers ending child poverty to be an important goal.

We feel that the Government cannot ignore the impact of growing up in a family that is struggling on a very low income. While we agree that income is not the only measurement that affects a child’s life chances, it does have an impact on health, on life expectancy, on academic outcomes and on future successes in the workplace. So we feel that it is vital that the Government continues to report on an income measure and considers the needs of children living in poverty whose parents are in work, as well as those in workless households.

[Kate Green]

Q 25 Can you say something about the way in which the Government should or should not track different kinds of family structure, different kinds of family background, and whether you see this legislation as facilitating that?

Neera Sharma: We believe that the Government should look at the situation of different families. For example, we know that children in certain black and minority ethnic families are much more likely to grow up in poverty. So some of the proposals in the Bill, such as limiting tax credits to two children, will impact harshly on larger families, many of whom are likely to be BME families.

[Emily Thornberry]

Q 26 I represent a constituency that is part of a London borough which has the sixth highest child poverty figures in the whole country, and we have already been hit very hard by the benefit cap, with many families having to move out of Islington to outer London, so children are having to commute for many hours to go to school. Can you tell us what it means for children to be uprooted from their local communities at an early age, and how their education can be affected, either by changing schools or by having to travel 20 or 30 miles to get to school each morning? How might that impact on child poverty and their life chances?

Neera Sharma: We know that children who grow up in poor families do less well in terms of their education. Uprooting those children from the communities and the support they need, as you have said, has an impact on their life chances. We are concerned that families will have less income as a result of the cap, but we are also very concerned about the mechanisms for reviewing that cap, because the Bill allows the Government to review that cap without having to report to Parliament. It is really important that there is full scrutiny and that the Government do report to Parliament, and that they ask the Social Security Advisory Committee to undertake an annual review of the cap that is reported to Parliament before any decisions are made about increasing, or decreasing—as it probably will be—the cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

Q 36 I have a question about resources. A significant number of women will be affected and will need potentially to get back to work. Surely extra resources are required to cater for that. Do you feel that there is adequate—

Emma Stewart: There is a genuine challenge on the ground in Jobcentre Plus, but other front-line providers can support parents. There is a capability issue as well as a capacity issue. It goes back to the point that we do not have lone parent specialist advisers any more. We have advisers, and there is a need to educate and inform advisers—we are, in our organisation, involved with this—to understand the parameters that lone parents face, and to provide a coaching intervention that effectively understands and supports them to find the kind of work that they need.

Two thirds of women currently underutilise their skills in the workplace. So for example, finding a job with a higher salary as opposed to just more hours, as a simple line of communication to advisers, is really critical. There is also an opportunity with the Work programme to look at the fact that providers will do what they get paid for in a commercial welfare-to-work environment. If providers are commissioned on the basis of job quality and job type outputs as much as volume of people into work, you will see a shift in approach.

[Kate Green]

Q 37 I want to tease out the issue about flexibilities for parents, especially lone parents, in the proposed new conditionality. There are, within guidance, opportunities for flexibility in the requirements that are imposed on lone parents now. In your experience, have you seen those well applied, badly applied or not applied? What difference can they make to the ability of a lone parent to make that journey to work?

Emma Stewart: It is very mixed. It depends, at a regional level in the Jobcentre Plus, on what the senior management team is like. In some districts that we work in, there is a real investment and there has been a focus on getting this right. In others there is a genuine lack of awareness.

The churn in Jobcentre Plus does not help at the moment. There is a need to think about consistent learning and development programmes for Jobcentre Plus advisers. If guidance, as opposed to an explicit framework, is going to be applied, that guidance for Jobcentre Plus advisers needs to be really clear about what good practice looks like to support lone parents in particular.

[Kate Green]

Q 38 Are parents and independent advisers aware of these flexibilities and able to encourage, in the negotiation of the claimant commitment, that the lone parent should raise these issues and talk to the jobcentre adviser about them?

Emma Stewart: How information is cascaded is really challenging within Jobcentre. We know that the Government have lost their ability to run campaigns effectively, but some investment is needed into how parents are made aware. For us, the issue of local enterprise partnerships, devolved activity, and how local authorities and LEPs work together at a district level to ensure that communication is made available to advisers is important. It cannot all be centralised.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

Q 39 Picking up on the point about the support that is available for lone parents at Jobcentre Plus, we have seen a steady increase in the employment rate among lone parents. Is that because the advisory role being undertaken by Jobcentre Plus is working?

Neera Sharma: I believe that in some areas it is working, but there are huge geographical variations, especially for parents who have been out of the labour market for a long time or for vulnerable parents who may have disabilities or have a child with a disability. It varies incredibly from one area to another. Also, advisers have quite a lot of discretion in how they support families and deal with conditionality and sanctions, so I would reinforce Emma’s point around better training and guidance for staff in Jobcentre Plus, especially in their dealings with families who are vulnerable. They will see more of those families seeking their advice as the conditionality of parents with younger children starts to commence.

Emma Stewart: Can I just add that we have also seen a large increase in in-work poverty? The data on more lone parents working is clearly true, but the extent to which they are working in sustainable, quality jobs is not yet fully evidenced. We know from Work programme sustainability rates that the churn is still quite high for lone parents who are moved into work and moved off benefits, but then come back on because they find it hard to sustain a job as it is not paying enough.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

We have already had a review. Specifically with regard to the statistics, the trend is that the number of people dying, as a proportion of the population, is going down. I bring the House back to my point that any attempt to extrapolate anything beyond the figures is completely wrong.

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

On Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, the Secretary of State said that if someone is in the work-related activity group, they should be

“capable of doing some work very soon.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1260.]

But in July 2014, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions said that 80,000 people had been placed in the WRAG with a prognosis that a change in their condition was unlikely in the long term. Does the Minister agree that those people should not be in the WRAG?

[Priti Patel]

Of course, all claimants in the WRAG are assessed, and that assessment determines that they should be in that group. Importantly, people in that group who need more support to prepare for work receive employment and support allowance. I emphasise that that support helps them to prepare to go back to work, whether in the short or medium term. Importantly, claimants are asked to participate in activities that are both appropriate and reasonable for each individual claimant.

[Kate Green]

But 80,000 people who are not expected to get better have been placed in the WRAG, including 8,000 with degenerative conditions, which by definition mean they will become less well. Cutting £30 a week from such people’s benefit will not make them better or help them work; surely it will just make them poorer.

[Priti Patel]

I reiterate what has been said previously: no one will lose out in financial support. [Interruption.] This is for those who are already on the benefit. Importantly, those in the WRAG will be given support to prepare for a return to work in the short or medium term. It is wrong to assume that their condition will automatically deteriorate. Everyone who participates in that group will have the appropriate support, and the expectation on them is both appropriate and reasonable for the individual claimant, with their circumstances taken into account.

DWP Data

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

Absolutely; we will be doing exactly that.

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

There is huge disquiet among disabled people, as story after story surfaces in the media about disabled people being found fit for work and dying shortly afterwards—last week another story appeared in the Daily Mirror about a disabled man who died two weeks after his assessment. The shenanigans in the DWP around the release of the statistics are concerning—and puzzling, if the Department has nothing to hide. First, the Secretary of State told Parliament that the DWP did not collect the data, in the teeth of the Information Commissioner’s ruling to release them. Within days, he was flatly contradicted by the Prime Minister, and now we hear that the DWP is appealing publication of the data that the Secretary of State first said were not collected.

Will the Minister come clean before the House? She said the data would be published “shortly”, “very soon” and “no later than the autumn”. Why is it taking so long? On what grounds is the DWP appealing publication, and will the data, when eventually published, be timely? It is feared that by the time this procrastination has finally resulted in publication, the data will be so out of date as to be pretty well useless. Will the raw data be published, and what analysis will accompany them to meet the high standards for the publication of Government statistics to which she claims the Department aspires? Finally, will she explain why the Secretary of State first claimed the data were not being collected, when blatantly they were and are, as he now apparently acknowledges?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I think it is fair to say that, as I stated earlier, the Government are going to publish these statistics. Despite the scaremongering and the gross misrepresentation from the Opposition—scaremongering about suicides, I should hasten to add, which is a complete misrepresentation —I should say that Labour introduced the work capability assessment back in 2008, and at that time Labour Members did not say that it was leading to people committing suicide.

When it comes to publication, this is complex statistical information. As the hon. Lady and, I am sure, all Opposition Members will know, we are bound as a Department by the Statistics Authority on the quality of information that is published, so it is very important that we get this right. Let me emphasise that officials are working as we speak to prepare the data, and we will be publishing them very soon. I have said it already and I will say it again: we will publish before the autumn this year, and once the data are published I will be very happy to take questions on the content and any other aspect of the data that the hon. Lady and hon. Members see fit.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills]

I was not doubting that for a second. With the tax credit changes, we need to be sure that the people who are still claiming tax credits understand that they will be better off doing more hours and earning more than they would have been otherwise. That is why universal credit needs to be rolled out. Everyone will be able to see that they are better off month by month, rather than having to work out if they might have been better off a year ago if they had worked a bit less in a complex way through online calculators. That cannot be a sensible system.

On the child tax credit limit, it has to be right that people who spend a life on welfare have to take the same decisions as people who are going out to work. It is therefore right to draw the line at two children for where the welfare system stops helping. There will still be a lot of help through child benefit and the Prime Minister confirmed that we would not seek to limit that. I think that we have got the line in the right place. It should be clear to people that from 2017, if they have more than two children, there will not be more tax credits.

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

We agree that people in work and people not in work should face the same choices, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the proposals on limiting access to child tax credit to the first two children will affect working families and those who are out of work?

[Nigel Mills]

Yes, but clearly the principle is that people should have to make the same choices if they are claiming benefits in work or are in work and not claiming benefits. It is not entirely clear whether the Labour party supports limiting child tax credit to the first two children. It sounds like it might support it, but that it dare not quite say so tonight.

Finally, the hardest issue in the Bill is the level of welfare for people in the work-related activity group. We have to get work capability assessments right. We have to get people in the right group, and people must believe themselves to be in the right group. I have seen constituents who have been through the assessment and have accepted the WRAG as a compromise on the basis that they will get much the same as they would get in the support group, but will have some requirements put on them. However, they thought that they should be in the support group. People who ought to be in the support group, but have chosen to be in the WRAG need support to put their situation right.

We need people to get the support that they need. Those who can never and will never work again need the right support. It is not in their interests or ours to put them in a different group. Clearly, we have to get the system right so that those who are in the group where they are meant to be able to work at some point in the future have the right incentives to take the support, undergo the training and get into work, rather than trying to stay on benefits claiming the slightly higher rate. We need to see the detail of how we can get that right and make it fair, so that we do not end up with perverse incentives.

Overall, I welcome the Bill. It is an important step forward in sorting out our deficit and making our welfare system fair for those who are claiming from it and those who are paying for it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This evening, we have seen the Conservatives breaking their promises to protect the poorest, to reward hard work, to protect disability benefits, and to address relative poverty. Parents, disabled people and millions of children will bear the brunt of the Government’s policies. Working families will be worse off as a result of measures in this Bill and in the summer Budget. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) has said, they will be worse off by as much as £1,000 per year. As numerous Opposition Members have said, including my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), the new increase in the minimum wage does not compensate sufficiently for the loss of tax credits. The Budget makes a mockery of the Tories’ claim to be the party of working people.

However, there are some measures in the Bill that the Labour party welcomes. We support the ambition for full employment and we welcome the provisions to report on that and the apprenticeships reporting obligation. We will insist on an ambitious full employment target, set at a rate of 80% of the working age population. We will require the Commission for Employment and Skills to report on the quality as well as the quantity of apprenticeships, which was acknowledged by a number of Members, including the hon. Members for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes).

Although we recognise the Government’s worthy ambition to halve the disability employment gap, the reporting mechanisms must also set out progress in ensuring that disabled people gain employment and have access to apprenticeships. We also support the reporting obligations in relation to troubled families, although we will seek to ensure that they, too, are strengthened.

I turn to the household benefit cap, which Labour has supported to ensure that people are better off in work. It was Labour that first called for a regional dimension to the benefit cap to recognise high-cost areas. But the cap must operate in a way that protects the most vulnerable, including carers, those looking after young children and victims of domestic violence. The decoupling of the level of the cap from earnings means that the Secretary of State will have an alarmingly wide discretion to set the level, with little scrutiny by Parliament.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has said, we will be tabling amendments to address those concerns. As Parliament has both a right and a duty to scrutinise the policy, we will require the level of the cap to be reviewed every year, based on an annual report on its impact, especially on child poverty.

We also agree that those who can work have a responsibility to do so, but the changes in work requirements for parents whose youngest child is aged three or over must come with guarantees of childcare and protections for lone parents. Although we support the provisions in relation to loans for mortgage interest, we will want to examine them closely. We also want to examine the provisions on social housing rents for their impact on housing supply, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) said, on specialist housing provision. We will require the Government to produce a plan to ensure the supply of affordable homes and the maintenance of existing housing stock.

Those are measures we can accept and build on, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham said, other elements of the Bill present significant problems. Of course we accept the need to make savings, but we do not support a four-year freeze on benefits, which will cost 13 million families £260 a year on average, of which 7.4 million are working families losing £280 a year. Uprating should take place annually to take inflation into account.

Labour Members deplore the provisions to airbrush child poverty from the statute book and to repeal the provisions of the Child Poverty Act 2010 relating to poverty targets. The abolition of the child poverty targets is a disgraceful betrayal of millions of children by a Conservative party that previously said it was signed up both to the legislation and to the relative poverty goal, but perhaps we should not be surprised. Under Tory Governments between 1979 and 1997, child poverty doubled. Between 1999 and 2010, under Labour, the number fell by more than 1 million children. There was a further fall in the first year of the coalition Government, thanks to the continuation of measures put in place by Alistair Darling, but thereafter relative poverty has flatlined—there has been no progress whatsoever—while absolute poverty, disgracefully, has risen.

Although I can accept that there is an important set of measures relating to life chances to be looked at, it is simply wrong to overlook the importance of income poverty. Indeed, the Child Poverty Act encompasses both, with four complementary measures of income poverty and specific recognition of the need for strategies on parental employment, housing, health, education, advice, childcare and support for parenting. We will not stand by and allow the Government to turn their back on Britain’s 2.5 million poor children, two thirds of whom—shamefully—live in working families, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) pointed out.

I come to the changes to child tax credit and payments for children in universal credit. My right hon. Friend demonstrated myriad unfairnesses in the provisions, including the differential treatment of children in families in receipt of universal credit and tax credits, the effect on disabled children, and the complete failure of Conservative Members to realise that child tax credit is paid to families both in and out of work. We understand that people have choices to make and are responsible for the children they bring into the world, but it cannot be right that children are penalised for circumstances over which they have no control. Furthermore, family circumstances change: few people set out to have children they cannot care for; few lone parents set out to bring up their children alone; unplanned pregnancies happen, as do multiple births or the birth of a disabled child; jobs are lost, people get sick, incomes fall, parents die or become unable to care for their children, and others step in to foster, to adopt or to offer kinship care. Child tax credit helps families in those circumstances. It is the duty of this House to ensure that children are protected, whatever their circumstances, and Labour will table amendments to ensure that that happens.

I turn to the provisions on disabled people and the work-related activity group, which were raised by the hon. Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for Enfield, Southgate, for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and many others. Let us be clear: those provisions apply to people who have undergone the work capability assessment and been found to be not fit for work—people with degenerative conditions such as cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease, people with serious mental health problems and people who are suffering from cancer. They are not well enough to work, so, rightly, they are not required to look for work. They are signed off sick by their doctor, and employers do not even want them in the workplace. The idea that such seriously sick people should be “incentivised” to work is not just offensive but misconceived. The incentive will, if anything, be truly perverse, encouraging more people to be placed in the support group.

If the Government believe that something is wrong with the work capability assessment, they should sort out the assessment process. If they believe that we should offer more support to disabled people to get back to work, we can only agree. But slashing their benefit by £30 a week is not going to help those with serious, long-term health barriers to working. It will not make them well or get them jobs; it will just make them poorer.

In conclusion, this Budget and this Bill will increase poverty, hurt disabled people and seriously damage work incentives. We ask the House to support our reasoned amendment so that we have the chance to make this a Bill that protects the vulnerable, especially children, while ensuring that work always pays. I commend our amendment to the House.

Jobcentre Plus

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this debate.

Jobcentre Plus performs a crucial public service, and I put on record my thanks to the staff who are coping with immense changes to the welfare system. Many Jobcentre Plus staff are doing an excellent job in demanding circumstances and are dedicated to improving the lives of the people they serve. Nevertheless, as we have heard clearly this afternoon, there are undoubtedly concerns about service quality, claimant experience and outcomes. There are also questions about staff morale and whether Jobcentre Plus has the resources and capacity it needs.

The major reforms with which Jobcentre Plus staff are grappling—such as universal credit and Universal Jobmatch—have been beset by systems problems, resulting in poor service to claimants and major delays. Although more people are moving into employment and Ministers like to claim that welfare reforms are the reason, people are not moving into work and out of poverty, and in any event there is considerable dispute about the contribution of welfare reforms to the rising employment rate.

Last year, the then Work and Pensions Committee carried out a review of Jobcentre Plus that looked at some of the major challenges it faces and how it is coping with them. The Committee made a number of suggestions for improvements, on which I hope the Minister will be able to update us today. Perhaps I can start with universal credit, which Ministers have claimed will transform the prospects of those who are out of work. The project is in total disarray. Today, some 65,000 people are on universal credit; when it was first introduced, we were told that 1 million people would be on it by April 2014. That is less than 1%—

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid that that is outwith the scope of the debate.

[Kate Green]

I accept your ruling on that, Mr Williams, but universal credit has of course been argued to be the tool by which Jobcentre Plus will be able to move people into employment. Clearly, if the universal credit programme is way behind in the number of claimants it is supporting, it cannot be fulfilling its function and Jobcentre Plus cannot be taking advantage of it in order to move people into work. The problem with universal credit is that it is shrouded in secrecy. We have not seen the business case that would show us whether it is indeed going to be an effective tool for Jobcentre Plus staff to use to fulfil their role of supporting people into work.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has recently written to the Secretary of State with some questions, and I want to ask the Minister the same ones. Will she ask the National Audit Office to publish quarterly progress reports on universal credit, to be laid before Parliament, and will she publish the full business case and plan? Will she also explain how Jobcentre Plus staff are being supported with the roll-out of universal credit?

As we have heard, Jobcentre Plus has the important role of supporting people into employment and, if they are further from the labour market—perhaps they have been out of work for a long time—routing them on to more specialist support programmes. There are a whole range of interventions under the “Get Britain Working” banner, and for the long-term unemployed there is the opportunity to be routed on to the Work programme or, for some disabled people, the Work Choice programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn was right to observe that those programmes have not often performed well for jobseekers and those experiencing long-term or youth unemployment—particularly long-term youth unemployment.

That is why Labour proposed a compulsory jobs guarantee so that every young person who was unemployed for more than a year would be guaranteed a job, education or training, or the opportunity to undertake proper work experience. That would be modelled on the future jobs fund that we introduced in 2008, or the more successful programme in Wales, which, as my hon. Friend highlighted, draws on factors that make for a successful labour market programme: it is commissioned locally; it involves local authorities, specialist local organisations and, crucially, local employers; and it is designed around the needs of the local labour market.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady mentions working together and programmes that have worked both throughout the UK and in devolved areas; will she join me in welcoming the Scottish Government’s Opportunities for All scheme? The Scottish Government have worked with local authorities, and it has been a huge success, with more than 90% of young people going on to positive destinations. In my own county, West Lothian, that proportion is over 96%. Perhaps, with the Minister, we can have cross-party discussions on the potential to incorporate the various programmes that have been mentioned today into Jobcentre Plus in the short term. That way, we could see how to achieve future success.

[Kate Green]

I note what the hon. Lady says. She highlights the importance of devolving to a local footprint—although perhaps not to one as small as a local authority area in all cases—that can properly recognise the players in and needs of the local labour market. She is right that Ministers should be working with all authorities, local, regional and national, as well as with Members, to look at which programmes have been successful and what can be learned. It is clear that for many people the Work programme has not been successful.

Last year’s Work and Pensions Committee report on Jobcentre Plus highlighted some significant difficulties with expertise in the needs of people who experience worklessness. It highlighted a particular lack of experience in relation to lone parents, and the need for related training. I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on that. Will she also tell us what is happening with lone parent flexibilities? How are Jobcentre Plus staff applying them?

Will the Minister say something about the disabled people who are being routed by Jobcentre Plus on to the Work Choice programme? The programme was intended for the most severely disabled people who are furthest from the labour market, but increasingly it seems to be used for those who are likely to be able to get into work quite quickly and easily. Mencap in Trafford told me recently that as a Work Choice contractor, it was being measured on getting people work-ready within 13 weeks, and that it was unable to get outcome payments for those with whom it would need to work for a much longer period.

The Select Committee also raised doubts about the flexible support fund. The workings of that fund, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees), are opaque. We cannot see what the money is being spent on and we cannot see who is receiving it. Will the Minister say, for example, whether it is being used to help lone parents with childcare costs? Will she begin to make proper information available to Parliament about the use of the flexible support fund?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) identified problems with Universal Jobmatch in 2014. He highlighted duplicate jobs, fraudulent scams and posts advertising jobs at the other end of the country. The Select Committee highlighted an overemphasis on Universal Jobmatch as a tool to monitor compliance with conditionality, which it said should be secondary to helping claimants find a job, with Universal Jobmatch enabling more time to be spent on advice and support.

What help is being offered to jobseekers and employers to make the best use of Universal Jobmatch? Can the Minister say that scams and duplicates have now been eliminated and that claimants are not being penalised if they do not apply for jobs that are unsuitable or miles away? Do the Government intend to continue with Universal Jobmatch when the contract is up for renewal next year?

My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn and a number of other hon. Members mentioned conditionality and sanctions at Jobcentre Plus, which are an area of big concern. Labour Members are not against a conditional system for benefits, nor are we against sanctions that are fair, proportionate and transparent, or come with appropriate safeguards. Rates of sanctioning, however, remain high. Ministers were caught out only this week by the UK Statistics Authority in a letter to Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, accusing them of presenting figures in a way that is not supported by rigorous statistical analysis.

We have repeated anecdotal reports of irrational and unreasonable decisions. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that Jobcentre Plus is measured on getting people not only into sustained employment, but off flow—so sanctioning people and driving them to cease claiming benefits altogether, because to do so is too difficult and awkward. As a result, we are measuring the wrong thing. I strongly support last year’s call by the Select Committee to move from a measure of those going off flow to one of sustained employment.

Everything points to an oppressive culture. We still have reports of informal sanctioning targets in some Jobcentre Plus offices, which Labour is absolutely opposed to. I hope that the Minister will be clear today and deny the existence of all targets, formal or informal, once and for all, across the whole network, or say that she will be taking steps to stamp them out.

Jobcentre Plus has a vital role in supporting people to look for work, find work and get the financial support that they need. For many years it performed extremely effectively, but now it is under huge pressure and is fraying at the seams. I am interested to hear from the Minister her vision for the future of Jobcentre Plus—for the claimants and its staff. At present it is translating into a poor experience for too many claimants and poor value for money when it fails to get people into sustained work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

It is important. We want to ensure that we are doing the right thing for individuals and supporting them, because the issue is not only one of institutions, processes and structures, although they are there for a reason.

I will highlight a couple of points about Jobcentre Plus. There has been some criticism of it, but the National Audit Office reported that it responded well to the challenge of the recession from 2008 onwards and the recovery. The OECD stated:

“The UK experience suggests that merging the public employment service and benefit agency has improved employment outcomes”.

Furthermore, Jobcentre Plus has added £5.5 billion to UK GDP since its introduction. In the previous Parliament, the Work and Pensions Committee commented that Jobcentre Plus has performed “effectively” and “is cost-effective”. Last year, Jobcentre Plus achieved or exceeded every one of its labour market performance measures. That is important.

Jobcentre Plus is a high-volume national organisation, and so not every experience will be perfect. That is a fact of life with such an organisation—not everything will be right. We monitor performance and have service standards, but more can always be done to improve quality and professionalism. We are conscious of how we can improve services, and improvements are based on feedback that we receive. I experience that personally when I visit jobcentres.

I turn now to the issue of partnership. The Government cannot achieve our objectives on employment on our own. We can do so only by working in partnership with others in the private and voluntary sectors, at national, regional and local levels. I have touched briefly on my own experiences going out and about to jobcentres, and I have seen that partnership work in action. I know about the partnership work taking place in the constituency of the hon. Member for Islwyn—we see it in case studies and he will be fully aware of it—and I pay tribute to all the community-based and local organisations in his constituency. One is Groundwork’s Routes 2 Life, which provides work experience and skills training for over-50s—again, this issue does not just affect young people but runs across the age range. It is relevant to the fuller working lives agenda, as well as how we can support those young people who may face challenges when trying to get a foot in the labour market because they do not have the right work experience or CV. Borough councils are involved as well. Across Wales, there are plenty of great examples of partnership, and they should be developed further.

Importantly—this is always a challenge for central Government in my view—this is a question of integration: how we join up working, and how that joined-up approach delivers results. We need the right outcomes, not just for the structures and systems but for individuals. I am also clear that I want more local authorities, in particular, to work more closely with voluntary sector, charity and other community and labour market partners.

On a national level, there is much more integration. Following the general election, my party has committed to achieving full employment, with more focus on young people getting the support they need. We have also made a commitment to help more women get work and to support more individuals with disabilities getting into work. We can do that only by working across Government. That is right and proper, and we will use every lever at the disposal of central Government to integrate our services and support everyone across the age range, as well as young people and people with disability or health issues.

On devolution, there is, for example, the Manchester devolution deal for the combined authority. Projects in central London are working with local authorities, and—together with Glasgow City Council—we will launch a programme to support employment and support allowance claimants in finding and remaining in employment. That is the right way forward. We should devolve to our communities, and the Government support that agenda.

I am pleased to say that there is greater partnership integration with the Work programme, including getting people access to apprenticeship opportunities, and there is more to do on that. We want a more constructive joint-working approach to ensure that, for example, claimants in Wales are able to access the full range of support that they need. That includes projects funded through the European social fund, which are targeted at particular disadvantaged communities; naturally, we want to do more to support them.

The Work programme aims to support claimants at risk of long-term unemployment. It has been successful and, to date, has supported over 400,000 long-term unemployed people in getting back into work. As a result, we have been able to get more people back into work and support people through very challenging circumstances.

[Kate Green]

The Work programme has been improving after a shaky start, but it is still not performing well for disabled people. Will the Minister tell us how she intends to improve performance for disabled people and answer my question about the role of the Work Choice programme in that?

[Priti Patel]

Absolutely. I will. My point is that the Work programme has been successful—it has been one of the most successful employment programmes in the United Kingdom’s history. At the end of the day, that should be welcomed and supported by all of us.

The Government are clear that we want to support more individuals with disability into work. A lot of work is being done with Work programme contractors and providers to concentrate more resources and investment in that area. If I may just share an anecdote, last week I sat down with Work programme providers to look at what has been working and some of the successes and strengths of the Work programme, and how we can address some of the real challenges for individuals with disabilities. That is the right thing to do, and we should all be focusing on that. We should also look at what support and interventions we can put in place not just for individuals with disability but for other individuals who are further away from the labour market—for example, those with health conditions.

Scotland Bill

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I shall come on to that. Indeed, new clause 31, which SNP Members have signed, too, incidentally, would essentially give the Scottish Parliament full power to introduce new benefits in all devolved areas and to top up any benefits in reserved areas. Anybody who wished to put together a manifesto for a Scottish parliamentary election would have to determine what they would do with the welfare system and would consequently have to pay for that, but the important principle is that the UK welfare state would remain integral and the Scottish Parliament, as an autonomous and powerful Parliament, would be able to make its own decisions to reflect the interests of the Scottish people.

The exact amount of money that is spent and who spends it are not the key concerns of the Bill, which is about ensuring that powers are exercised where they most benefit the people of Scotland. The Labour party was the architect of the welfare state—the system of social insurance that covers every citizen, regardless of income, from the cradle to the grave and that is perhaps one of our greatest achievements and the purest expression of our common values and shared purpose. As the architect of the modern welfare state, the Labour party will do everything it can to ensure that it serves the needs of people not just across the UK but, crucially in terms of this Bill, in Scotland. That is why we have sought to be the driving force in this section of the Bill, tabling a total of 21 amendments and new clauses, more than any other party, to ensure that the Smith agreement is not only delivered consistently in spirit and in substance but that the Bill goes much further in welfare provisions.

Each and every one of the amendments has a purpose: to improve the lives of families in Scotland while maintaining the fundamental principles of the underpinning of the UK welfare state. May I take the opportunity to thank all the charities and voluntary sector organisations from across Scotland who have assisted me in this task? They do valuable work day to day with those who are most in need, and we should thank them every single day for what they achieve. Without them, society would not operate in Scotland and across the UK. To put it simply, we should all thank them.

I am glad that the SNP has seen fit to support a number of the amendments. We will work closely together to ensure that we can deliver them. In the same spirit of inter-party co-operation and consensus, I have signed a number of the SNP’s amendments that attempt to improve the Bill. Although this is a fairly technical exercise and welfare is hugely complicated, I want to make it clear that fundamentally our amendments will ensure, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), that the Scottish Parliament has the unrestricted power to create any new benefits in areas that are devolved, in addition to the guarantees of the UK benefits and pension system, as well as the power to top up any benefits that remain reserved in this Parliament. That wide-ranging provision effectively gives the Scottish Parliament the power to design its own welfare system in its entirety. However, unlike others, we are determined to ensure that the welfare state remains an integrated and UK-wide system of social security to allow for the continued pooling and sharing of risks and of resources.

We will also actively pursue our policy of double devolution by devolving as many powers as possible to local communities so that they can be tailored to local needs and circumstance, starting with the Work programme, Work Choice and Access to Work, which we will debate later. Subsidiarity should be at the heart of the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the public are engaged and that there is full community spirit in designing the system that is best for community needs.

Before I speak about Labour’s specific amendments, I want to place on record my disappointment at the comments made by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) during yesterday’s debate. He described the proposals in the Smith agreement as “miserable”, and I think that that is quite wrong in the context of this Bill. We should be using this opportunity to improve on the provisions in front of us and to make the system better in Scotland. The Secretary of State has consistently said that he will consider sensible amendments to improve the Bill, both in substance and in spirit, and I hope that he will see many of our amendments on welfare as worth while, tabled in the spirit of co-operation and trying to make the Bill better rather than trying to make political points.

Clauses 19 to 23 concern the devolution to the Scottish Parliament of a number of welfare benefits, including power over disability benefits, industrial injuries allowance and carer’s allowance, the power to introduce top-up payments for people receiving reserve benefits, control over discretionary housing payments and the power to introduce new discretionary payments to help alleviate short-term need. The powers in the clauses are extensive, but there are a number of areas in which I believe they fall short, particularly as regards limiting the scope of the Scottish Parliament to make discretionary payments and create new benefits.

Paragraph 51 of the Smith commission’s report states that the Scottish Parliament

“will have complete autonomy in determining the structure and value of the”

devolved

“benefits…or any new benefits or services which might replace them.”

As I have said, we are committed, wherever possible, to abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the Smith commission’s recommendations. We believe that the term “discretionary”, as applied in this context, should not necessarily refer to the strict definition of the recipient of a payment or the duration or frequency with which they receive that payment. As Professor Paul Spicker stated in evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee:

“A payment is discretionary, not because it is short term or individual, but because it is in the power of the delegated authority to determine whether or not the payment will be made.”

However, the Bill as it stands adheres to a more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a discretionary payment and includes a number of definitions of who can receive benefits and for how long and how often they can receive them, which would limit the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament in a way that, in my opinion, Smith did not intend.

Our amendments seek to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will not face unnecessary restrictions in its provision of discretionary payments to carers, those with disabilities or any other applicant, both in terms of who they are paid to and for how long and how often they are paid.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as being an unnecessary restriction in the legislation, the definition is also likely to give rise to a dispute about the ambit of the Bill? A wider definition that would embrace more people would be much simpler to administer.

[Ian Murray]

I agree, and we should be removing as much ambiguity as possible from the Bill. If the Scottish Parliament wanted to introduce a new benefit or a top-up benefit in one of these categories, the definition should be as wide as possible to enable it to do so. We do not want to end up with a dispute between two Governments or between recipients and the deliverer of the benefits or services about the definition in the Act. It would be good to get some clarity about what is meant by clauses 19 to 23.

As an example, I will consider disability benefit. As Inclusion Scotland has argued, the definition of disability benefits in clause 19 might “restrict the autonomy” of the Scottish Parliament in constructing a new disability benefits

“system based on empowering disabled people to lead active and productive lives and promoting the human rights of disabled people and independent living.”

We have therefore tabled amendment 128, which offers an alternative, broader and more flexible definition of disability benefit that would, among other things, allow the Scottish Parliament to introduce a benefit to assist people with low-level disabilities or those for whom the effect of their disability is largely financial.

Likewise, the definition of what constitutes a “relevant carer” is also, we believe, too prescriptive. As Enable Scotland observes, it

“prescribes to whom carers benefits would be payable, stipulating that the recipient would be over 16, not in full time education and not gainfully employed; and requiring that the cared-for person is in receipt of disability benefit.”

The Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee’s report of May 2015 on the Smith commission proposals and the UK Government’s response concluded:

“The Committee is concerned that the current definition of carer in the draft clauses appears overly restrictive and could limit the policy discretion of future Scottish administrations in this area. The Committee recommends that the clause should be re-drafted to ensure that the future Scottish administrations are able to define what constitutes a carer.”

I agree with both Enable Scotland and the Scottish Parliament Committee that the clauses as drafted unnecessarily limit the scope of the Scottish Parliament’s powers and might limit their ability in future to create new benefits. We have therefore tabled amendment 48, which seeks to remove the definition from the Bill to allow the Scottish Parliament to arrive at its own definition. I am pleased that the SNP has supported the amendment and want to reciprocate by supporting amendment 115, which provides for the provision of non-financial assistance as regards benefits for maternity, funeral and heating expenses, and amendment 121, which inserts the additional qualifying criteria for provision of discretionary payments and assistance for being part of a family facing exceptional financial pressure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It seems to me that the Secretary of State, when he responds, needs to be very precise about his objection to the amendments that have been tabled in relation to a number of key principles. He will first need to be explicit about whether he believes the proposals to be at odds with, and moving in the opposite direction from, the intention of Smith. I think that a number of the amendments would give better effect to Smith than would the Bill as currently drafted. Therefore, the argument is not about whether we share the same intention, but about whether the legislation is adequate for the task. I hope that he will bear that in mind when responding.

The second thing that some of the amendments that I and my hon. Friends have tabled seek to achieve, as indeed do some of the SNP amendments, is to simplify the legislation. It is a little too complicated and hedged about with who is in and who is out of the provision of certain exceptions, for example in relation to definitions of disability, or too narrow in relation to definitions of carers. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to explain precisely what his objections are to the amendments that seek to make the legislation easier to give effect to, and plainer in, its intent.

The third thing, which I think is the substance of this debate, is to a degree a sideline debate. It is not specifically about the legislation; it is about our intentions for the welfare state. I think that the Secretary of State should acknowledge that we are talking about a welfare state that enables people. Where benefits enable people’s full social participation—for example, carers’ benefits and benefits that enable disabled people to live decent and independent lives—there is no case for decrying them on the basis that they create a dependency culture, because what they create is a culture of dignity and participation. I hope that he will be able to distinguish between the two.

Having said that, I do not think that there is a wish, certainly on the part of Labour Members, to say that there should not be a conditionality regime. Our party has always accepted that in a conditional system there must be a backstop of sanctions for people who wilfully refuse to comply. Of course, the vast majority do not wilfully refuse to comply; they get caught up in a completely baffling and increasingly unjust system. The hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) has rightly accepted that that system now needs to be reviewed, because it is clearly well beyond what any reasonable conditionality and sanctions regime should look like. However, that is not really the purpose of this legislation or what this debate is about.

I want to make two or three specific points in support of some of the remarks that were made earlier. First, in relation to disability benefits, I think that the way clause 19 has been written will cause considerable confusion and dispute about who falls within the ambit of the benefits that the Scottish Government can create or top up. For example, does the fact that somebody needs to be suffering significant adverse effects and be unable to carry out day-to-day tasks exclude someone who suffers from double incontinence? Arguably, that person should be within the ambit of the legislation, but why do we need to have any doubt? Does “short-term” mean that someone suffering from a fatal illness that is likely to lead to fatality within three or four months will be within the ambit of the legislation? It seems to me that if we stuck to a much plainer description of disability benefits and of who is eligible, we would avoid a lot of unnecessary dispute and heartache, and we might enable the Scottish Parliament to prescribe much more simply that certain conditions or circumstances would automatically give rise to benefit entitlement, as is the case with the UK’s legislation.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On that point, my hon. Friend will know that patients who are terminally ill with less than six months to live are automatically entitled to disability living allowance or personal independence payment. The contrast between that specificity and the vagueness before us today is very stark.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

That is an extremely good example. Those with a terminal illness and less than six months to live are automatically routed through and fast-tracked to eligibility for PIP. We could also talk about those on dialysis and double amputees, who are automatically able to get the higher rate of mobility, as are those with severe sight impairment. It would be simpler if the Scottish Parliament could legislate to route some of those people through to benefits automatically, as is now the case in UK legislation.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Motor Neurone Disease Association has cited cases in which people with six months left to live who have had the DS1500 assessment have actually been challenged by the Department for Work and Pensions, which is so insulting as to be mind-boggling? That is why we need very clear guidelines and definitions, which the Bill does not provide.

[Kate Green]

That is insulting, obviously very distressing and quite unjust. I hope that the Secretary of State will look at amendment 128, which seeks to bring clarity to the legislation in relation to entitlement to disability benefits, and, if he is not able to accept the amendment, that he will give us clear reasons why not.

On carers, I recognise that the definitions encompassed in the Bill mirror the current entitlement to carer’s allowance. As I think the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) was trying to explain, carer’s allowance is both a very useful benefit from the point of view of society as a whole and as an enabling benefit to enable people to provide care for their family and loved ones. We should be very keen to extend those enabling benefits as far as possible and, as she rightly said, in alignment with the landscape of social care and support provided through our public services. If Conservative Members will forgive me, I do not think that it is creating a dependency culture to facilitate carers in their caring role. Indeed, from a UK perspective, I must say that I am rather envious of this opportunity to extend the definitions. I again hope that the Secretary of State, if he feels unable to accept amendment 48, will be able to explain clearly why not.

Finally, I want to pick up on amendment 129, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is not in the Chamber at the moment. As I understand it, the effect of his amendment would not be to remove the provision from applying to someone who had been sanctioned, but would mean that someone who had fallen out of the ambit of entitlement to housing benefit altogether—including because the operation of the bedroom tax meant that they could no longer receive that payment—could none the less access a benefit that the Scottish Government might wish to introduce to deal with that situation.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said, we intend to address that point in a later amendment that would devolve the whole of housing benefit. However, it is important to understand that amendment 129 is not about trying to subvert the sanctions regime or the conditionality regime, with all its current flaws, but is about trying to reopen access to support with housing costs to those who have fallen foul of a tax, the bedroom tax, which Opposition Members are united across parties in opposing. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

That is subject to the discussions taking place on the fiscal framework.

Returning to carers, we recognise and appreciate, as everybody in the House will, the contribution of informal carers, who provide tremendous support to parents and other family members.

Amendment 115 relates to the powers being devolved on the provision of the regulated social fund. Clause 20 will give the Scottish Parliament legislative competence over support currently provided through a number of reserved benefits such as funeral payments and maternity grants, which some Members have briefly touched on today. As with our approach to disability benefits and carers’ benefits, the clause devolves not simply the existing benefits but the subject matter of them. That will give the Scottish Parliament wide-ranging powers to make its own provision for the areas in question.

I wish to respond briefly to Members’ points about amendments 132 and 117—the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is no longer in his place, spoke to the former. The Government have made significant changes to the clauses on discretionary payments since they were first published in draft in January, having listened to the views of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and key stakeholders. The Bill now includes new top-up provisions in clause 21, and we have removed some provisions on discretionary housing payments that people felt would unnecessarily constrain the powers being devolved. Together, clauses 21 to 23 will give the Scottish Parliament significant powers to legislate for discretionary payments to people in Scotland, whether by topping up a reserved benefit or by providing assistance to meet short-term needs. The Scottish Government will be able to provide people with money additional to that provided by the UK Government.

Some Members mentioned welfare reforms and tax credits. I should point out that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will bring his Budget to the House next week, when further measures will be highlighted. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned the letter in today’s Herald and spoke about children, and I want to put it on the record that the proportion of children in poverty is at its lowest level since the mid-1980s.

There has been some discussion of welfare reform. The Government are absolutely committed not just to reforming welfare but to supporting families into work. The best route out of poverty is work, and I make no apology for all our efforts to raise incomes by expanding employment opportunities. We will of course have a debate about employment opportunities in a later group of amendments this afternoon, and because we are short of time I will not touch on that subject now.

Members mentioned sanctions and conditionality. Conditionality is an important feature of our welfare system, and I note that both the Labour party and the Scottish National party have always stated that they agree that there should be conditionality in the system. I put it on the record again that there has been an independent review of sanctions, the Oakley review. The Government have accepted all the recommendations highlighted in it and have already implemented a number of provisions, including improvements to the hardship payments process.

[Kate Green]

The Minister is right that the Oakley report made a number of recommendations about process, but Oakley was not asked to address the real concerns of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, which were about whether sanctions were being applied fairly and proportionately. What can the Minister say in response to the Select Committee’s recommendations on the problems with the substance of how sanctions are operated?

[Priti Patel]

I am aware of the Select Committee’s report, and the Department will put its views on the record. I urge Members, particularly SNP Members, who have previously mentioned sanctions cases in the House, to write to me directly with specific cases and the points that they wish to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to speak in favour of amendment 118 and new clause 45, which call for the removal of the requirement for the Scottish Government to obtain consent from the UK Secretary of State in relation to universal credit and the cost of claimants who rent accommodation.

In the light of our mandate from the Scottish people, and the lack of democratic mandate that the Conservatives —indeed, any of the other parties—have in Scotland, we urge all in the Committee to support the amendment. We set it out unequivocally in our manifesto that, as part of our welfare priorities, there should be an immediate scrapping of the bedroom tax and a halt to the roll-out of universal credit and PIP payments. We said that we would support an increase in the work allowance. Those policies were supported by both the people of Scotland and civic Scotland and we have a clear democratic mandate for that demand, given the result of the general election.

We are particularly concerned about the work allowance element of universal credit—the amount of income that a household can earn before their universal credit entitlement is reduced. We demand that the work allowance be devolved to the Scottish Government as part of new clause 45, and democratic integrity requires that that demand be met. We support increases in the personal tax allowance, but we also back an increase in the work allowance. In this, we are in keeping with a Resolution Foundation policy proposal paper, which pointed out:

“if we really want to help working families on low and middle incomes, boosting the Work Allowance would be more effective and better value for money than any tax cuts”.

For a lone parent with housing costs, for example, the work allowance is currently set at just over £3,000 per year. After that point benefits start to be withdrawn. For example, those on universal credit lose £65 of benefit for every £100 of post-allowance salary. Of course we need to put in place some sort of tapering system to make work pay, but the complexity of the system allows—indeed, encourages—the Government to focus on simpler measures, even if those simpler measures are far less effective. Take the personal allowance. People begin paying tax at 20% after earning £10,000 a year, but we pay less attention to the fact that a sole working parent faces a 65% deduction rate when they earn over £3,000 a year.

For people who receive universal credit and pay income tax, the Chancellor’s £600 a year increase to their personal allowance is welcome. That would boost their income by £42, but the same increase in work allowance would increase their income by £390.

Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies has weighed into this debate, arguing:

“In-work benefits provide a more precise and cost-effective way of supporting low-earning working families than changes to direct taxes.”

The freezing of work allowance is profoundly misguided and effectively cuts the benefits of workers on low incomes. What happened to making work pay? What we need is a work allowance to help to ensure that those in work have a better chance of lifting themselves and their families out of poverty. We need the power in Scotland to change work allowances in Scotland, so that we can help families to help themselves out of poverty as they go out every day to earn a living through increasingly difficult times.

Universal credit does not help some of our poorest households, but much could be done by increasing work allowance and making work pay. This could be one—only one—of the tools that could help to combat the scandal of those in work having to rely on food banks to put food on their tables and feed themselves and their families. Scotland needs powers over the work allowance element of universal credit—no ifs, no buts.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the letter in The Herald today, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). It is a letter from the third sector in Scotland protesting against the socially divisive and damaging impact of the UK Government’s cuts of a further £12 billion in social security spending—cuts which, despite attempts to rewrite history, the Labour party signed up to prior to the general election. [Interruption.] These cuts—[Interruption.] Let me put the cuts in context. In the pre-election debate the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said that the Labour party was not the party of people on benefits. I notice that there is no retort to that. These cuts first and foremost—

[Kate Green]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

No, thank you. [Interruption.] I have already responded informally to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is on the Front Bench.

These cuts first and foremost will bear down on the most vulnerable and poorest in society. The whole of the third sector in Scotland supports the devolution of working-age benefits to Scotland because there is a recognition that the Scottish Government can and will do things better. They will set out a welfare system competently and with compassion. Make no mistake. Such devolution of welfare powers—

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

I would certainly be interested in taking a closer look at that and discussing it with my colleagues. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

To deal with youth unemployment, that approach is supported by the EU. We are keen for the powers that we were promised to be delivered to Scotland. Delivery of those powers and agreement on our proposals today would help to create a more joined-up approach to employment service provision for disabled people, as well as for the many others who have been mentioned, and more integrated support for these vulnerable groups.

Although it is demand-led, the current DWP spend on Access to Work in Scotland is disproportionately low. The Scottish Government have previously stated that the programme should be devolved to allow us to promote a more equitable share of spend in Scotland and to get more disabled people into sustained employment.

In summary, it is not just the SNP that sees significant flaws in the Bill. Citizens Advice Scotland notes:

“The Smith Commission Report…provided that the Scottish Parliament should have powers over all employment programmes currently contracted by the DWP. However, Clause 26 of the Bill restricts the powers devolved to employment support programmes that last at least a year. It is unclear why this restriction has been included; the Bill as drafted would appear to only devolve the Work Programme and Work Choice; which is inconsistent with Smith. Clause 26 as currently drafted does not clearly devolve powers over the Access to Work Scheme.”

Both the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Scottish Association for Mental Health support the amendments, which serve to devolve all employment powers and functions to Scotland covering Access to Work, devolution of services and Jobcentre Plus.

In Scotland, with the limited powers we have, we have proven that we can make a difference to people’s lives. The SNP Scottish Government have done their best to mitigate the damage done by Westminster cuts to date, but time is running out. If we do not gain the powers that were promised, we cannot continue to protect the vulnerable and grow our economy.

We have an excellent track record on apprenticeships and training for young people. In 2007, just 15,000 people started modern apprenticeships. We are now delivering more than 25,000 of them, and we will increase the number to 30,000 by 2020. To reply to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), the Scottish Government’s Opportunities for All programme has also been a significant success, with more than 90% of young people going on to positive destinations. In my own county of West Lothian, the figure stands at more than 96%. We are glad to announce today that the Scottish Government has got its 250th business, a nursery in West Lothian, to sign up to the living wage.

The opportunity to work is one that the vast majority of people in Scotland seek. The SNP wants dignity in work for all, and I commend our proposals to the Committee.

[Kate Green]

I will speak particularly to amendments 113, 9, 114 and 10, and much of what I will say will echo what the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said about the devolution of employment programmes.

It is clear that there are different labour markets not just between England, Scotland and Wales but within those nations. That is why I echo the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made about the opportunity that our amendments and the SNP amendments offer not just for devolution to Scotland but for double devolution of labour market programmes within Scotland.

[Andrew Gwynne]

As a Greater Manchester MP like myself, my hon. Friend will know that as part of the cities and devolution package, Greater Manchester will be invited to bid for the next phase of the Work programme. Does that not suggest that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said,double devolution is needed in Scotland so that communities can develop work programmes that are specific to them rather than centralised in Holyrood?

[Kate Green]

I agree. The intention stated in the Labour manifesto was to devolve labour market programmes to what we described as a combined authority footprint. That would enable recognition of the fact that local labour markets differ and recognition of the different industrial history and characteristics of people in particular parts of the country. Importantly, it would allow close alignment with the skills and industrial opportunities in particular communities. We want to see that opportunity for the devolution of labour market programmes to a sensible, localised level; I doubt whether it would be the whole of Scotland, because labour markets differ significantly within Scotland. There are considerable differences between the highlands and the central belt conurbations, for example.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying, but does she not recognise the difficulties for an area such as my own, where unemployment is low but so are wages, and in which there are fairly prosperous parts as well as parts that are not prosperous? It is difficult to say that a local authority area is suitable for devolving responsibility down to.

[Kate Green]

I readily accept that a local authority area may be too small. What is important is to get the geography right, and the whole of Scotland might not be right. We want the opportunity to explore the right geography for devolution rather than assuming that centralising responsibility in Holyrood will necessarily be the best way of meeting the needs of labour markets across Scotland.

It is also important to recognise that devolving programmes only if they will last longer than a year misses the point for a lot of people who suffer poor employment outcomes. Our amendment 113 specifically addresses that point. Contrary to popular prejudice, it is extremely rare for people never to have worked. People who experience poor labour market outcomes have mostly been in and out of poor-quality, poorly paid work for many decades. That has often been true of many generations of their family. If we devolve the opportunity to develop labour market programmes to the Scottish Parliament at an earlier stage, we can break that cycle not of worklessness but of moving in and out of poor-quality work. Interventions could be developed that would enable people to sustain work and progress in it, which the Work programme has not succeeded in doing.

[Neil Gray]

Is it not better for people to find the right job for them than to find just any job?

[Kate Green]

There is certainly good and long-standing evidence, for example from the United States, that if more time is invested in equipping people with the skills and qualifications they need to move into better jobs with better pay, they are more likely to get into sustainable employment that means they will escape poverty. A shocking characteristic of our labour economy is that people often move into work but do not escape poverty, thereby contributing to the very high levels of in-work poverty in this country today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I was a Unison activist and I found that the Access to Work programme not only helps people get into work, but helps existing employees who develop a visual impairment, for example, to continue in employment. It is a device that helps people to stay in work, not just get into work.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The Access to Work programme is a device to help people enter, stay in and progress in work, and it supports very senior people in highly qualified positions. It would be regrettable if changes to the programme were to put that at risk.

There could be real advantage to devolving Access to Work or similar programmes because the decision-making and administration processes might be swifter and more attuned to the needs of the local labour market and workforce with that level of devolution. Given the problems that we know are being experienced with the national programme—which appears quite inflexible in the way it deals with people—perhaps the measure could be devolved as part of this package.

[Ian Murray]

Perhaps I should sit down and allow my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) to guess what might be in my speech—he could also give us Saturday’s lottery numbers while he is at it.

Child Poverty

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We have got more people back into work and more people progressing through work, and more people are better off. They are better off in work than they are out of work—a fact that the hon. Lady seems to miss completely. The tax changes and the reductions in tax on take-home pay mean that people are actually better off. The answer to her question is simple: we will continue to support people who need that support through getting into work and beyond. That is the purpose of universal credit, she should stand assured.

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

Today’s households below average income survey report, on page 45, makes it quite clear that the percentage of children in relative income poverty has been flatlining since 2011-12, so it is not the policies of either this or the previous coalition Government that have reduced poverty; it is the legacy of the previous Labour Governments. Does the Secretary of State agree?