Universal Credit Roll-out

Debate between Kate Green and Hannah Bardell

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

rose—

[Kate Green]

rose—

Business of the House

Debate between Kate Green and Hannah Bardell

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell]

Once again, I find myself agreeing with one of my hon. Friends. The bottom line is that people will be watching this process. I do not think that people had faith in the run-up to the EU referendum. They now are looking on—the whole world is looking on, and our international reputation is at stake. It is so important that our process is seen to be fair.

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. Lady agree that something of such momentous significance as this type of change to our constitution deserves scrupulous and regularised parliamentary process, and that chopping and changing and playing games with our usual processes on a Bill of this significance will undermine public confidence in this House and its processes?

[Hannah Bardell]

I could not agree more. Many things have brought down public confidence in politics, and we have an opportunity to change that, but I fear that we are going in the wrong direction.

I finish by quoting Adlai Stevenson, who said:

“Public confidence in the integrity of the Government is indispensable to faith in democracy; and when we lose faith in the system, we have lost faith in everything we fight and spend for.”

I hope this Government think very carefully about that, and about the process that they are embarking on, and do a decent job.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Kate Green and Hannah Bardell

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is right, and I shall come to that point, because it leads into something that I shall say about the measures and targets that we use.

The summer Budget and the measures in the Bill will push more families and more children into poverty. We have not yet got an analysis of the impact of the Bill or the Budget on child poverty and on the numbers of children growing up poor. It is disappointing that the Government have not laid that impact assessment before the House. We cannot know for sure what assessment, if any, the Government have made of the impact. We do not know whether they bothered to make such an assessment. From our knowledge, expertise and understanding of what drives poverty, we can expect that the impact will be pretty adverse. We can also look to the very helpful Joseph Rowntree Foundation minimum income standards research, to which I referred earlier. It points to a particularly harsh effect on the family incomes of some particularly vulnerable groups, including single-parent families, couples with several children and families who face high housing costs.

[Hannah Bardell]

I am listening intently to the hon. Lady and I agree with much of what she is saying. Does she agree that the alternative targets proposed are not necessarily related to poverty? Family break-up and drug and alcohol dependency affect families from all income deciles, and problem debt is generally a consequence rather than a cause of poverty.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point about the complexity of disentangling causes from consequences and about the fact that Ministers are giving the public distorting messages about what poverty actually is. Let me make this clear: only 4% of parents experience alcohol or drug addiction, and far from all those parents are parents of poor children. Of course, it is devastating for children who grow up in households where parents are addicted, but it is not the same as poverty and it certainly does not explain the 3.7 million children growing up in poverty in the UK today. As she rightly noted, family break-up affects families across the income spectrum. There will be hon. Members in this room who have experienced it in their own families. We should not conflate the two. While it is true that single parents and their children face a higher risk of poverty, there are measures that could be taken to ameliorate and address that consequence, instead of which the Government will make the position of those families worse.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend absolutely makes the case.

As we have heard this morning, it is also ridiculous to think that measuring worklessness alone could be a substitute for measuring poverty, when two thirds of poor children are in households where somebody works. We have repeatedly heard from the Conservative party that the measures are somehow flawed or insufficient, so let us go through carefully what the Child Poverty Act actually requires in relation to measurement and targets.

We know that the Institute for Fiscal Studies expects a rise in relative poverty in this Parliament, but it also expects that it is entirely possible that absolute poverty could fall. So there is a two-way street, if you like, built into the cocktail of measures that we have. We have four measures of poverty in the Child Poverty Act: relative income poverty; absolute poverty; material deprivation; and persistent poverty. That addresses some of the concerns that Government Members might rightly have about tracking only one measure. It is right that when median income is falling, relative income poverty alone is not sufficient to give a good picture of what is happening to our poorest families, although it remains important in tracking the gap that exists.

However, it is also right to recognise that we do not look only at relative income poverty in the Child Poverty Act. We look at absolute poverty, persistent poverty and, crucially, material deprivation. Material deprivation gives a real-life test of poverty and the public can engage with it, get their heads round it and understand it. Also, as I said earlier today, it is a particularly good predictor of health outcomes for children.

[Hannah Bardell]

Again, what the hon. Lady says chimes strongly with me. Is she aware that, as indicated by the House of Commons Library, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission warned in 2014 that although levels of child poverty are low by historic standards,

“there is no realistic hope of the child poverty targets being met in 2020, given the likely tax and benefit system in place”?

That was in 2014, before any of these changes were made. Is this not a thinly veiled way of covering up the fact that those targets were never going to be reached?

[Kate Green]

We are certainly not going to reach them under the Government’s current policies; indeed, we will move further away from them. I share the hon. Lady’s scepticism about the Government’s motives, to put it gently. It is really regrettable that, rather than seeking to tackle the problem of poverty, they simply seek to remove it altogether from any understanding of the public policy world.

I hope that the Committee understands that the critique of the Child Poverty Act and its measures and targets as being somehow deficient is completely false. It is also important to understand that the measures the Government proclaim will address poverty are also false, or at least incomplete. As I said earlier this morning, the so-called national living wage will not fully compensate for cuts to benefits and tax credits. What is more, it is highly regrettable that the Government, who are fond of the argument that tax credits are simply a substitute for lower wages, fail to recognise the different functions of pay and tax credits. It is why we have a complex cocktail of policy responses to a set of different drivers of poverty.

Working tax credits compensate for low pay. That means that in households where a family member is low paid, they may derive some benefit from tax credits. Some low-paid people will not do so because they are not in low-paid households; they are the low-paid earner in a household with a high overall household income. So tax credits are a response to low pay, and they help households that suffer low income as a result of low pay to avoid the adverse effects of that low pay.

We should also recognise that the purpose of tax credits for children is not to compensate for low pay or to subsidise employers. It is about sharing among society as a whole the investment that we all have a duty, and indeed an interest, in making in the next generation, who will deliver the future productivity in our economy that will sustain us as we grow old.

We should also remember that while rising pay and an increase in the so-called national living wage are welcome, the national living wage would have to rise very substantially for parents who have no access to any other sources of income—to more than £13 an hour—before their children were lifted out of poverty. Tax credits meet that gap. If it is to be filled entirely by rising wages, that is likely to lead to substantial numbers of job losses, which Ministers would be rightly concerned about.

It is also said that the Child Poverty Act and the measures therein are deficient, because they only look at money. While I strongly contend that money is important, that is also an incorrect analysis of the provisions of the Child Poverty Act. On Second Reading, I particularly sought to draw the House’s attention to that point when I highlighted the fact that written into the Child Poverty Act is a requirement for strategies in relation to child health, children’s education, parental employment, debt—a subject of interest to Government Members—and parenting. Those are all associated with child poverty and provided for in the Child Poverty Act, but they sit alongside the provisions of the Act in relation to measuring relative income poverty and targets for it. They are not the same thing or a substitute.

I am concerned and disappointed by the provisions of clause 6. The clause is cynical and distressing and cheapens the United Kingdom in the eyes of the international community. Most importantly, it means that many of our poor children are at risk of becoming poorer, unobserved. I am frankly shocked at the brazenness of the clause.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar is unable to do so today, with the permission of the Committee I will speak briefly to amendment 97, which was tabled in her name. It addresses the concern that the hon. Member for Livingston pointed out a few moments ago relating to the Government not being on track to meet the 2020 target to eradicate child poverty. That is right, but as Alison Garnham pointed out to us in her oral evidence earlier this week, the Government would not have been completely unable to reach the target in due course. Let us remember that the target, as Ms Garnham pointed out to us, is not to reach zero poverty. A frictional level of poverty will always exist. Families move in and out of poverty, but it might not be sustained if, for example, they quickly return to work. We accept that a reasonable definition of the eradication of child poverty was to reach the best level in Europe—around 10%—which is a realistic target.

The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar suggests that the target could be reasonably met by 2030, based on the trajectory that we were on before the measures in the summer Budget and the Bill. The argument for keeping the target but extending it over a realistic period is interesting. We are naturally disappointed that, for another 10 years, too many children will grow up poor, but we would rather that we retained the measure and the target in the statute book at least to ensure that there was a mechanism to drive progress forward.

My hon. Friend’s amendment is good, and seeks to give the Government leeway to deal with the difficult challenges that have existed since the 2008 financial crash and with the fact that pay either fell or was frozen in order to sustain people in employment. We recognise that time must be bought to cope with the consequences of the world financial collapse, but it is not right to give up the ambition for this generation or for future generations of children. We want the target to remain on the statute book, and amendment 97 seeks a realistic end date for that target.

Amendment 10 is similar to amendment 9 and merely addresses the same point elsewhere in the Bill.

As many hon. Members will know, I worked for the Child Poverty Action Group before I was elected to the House in 2010, and of all the measures in the Bill this is probably the one that I feel most pained, outraged and angered by. It is a disgrace. It is a disgrace and a shame that will affect our children, and I hope the Government will think again before it is too late.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Kate Green and Hannah Bardell

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.

--- 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 ---

[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.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Kate Green and Hannah Bardell

Thursday 10th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Kate Green and Hannah Bardell

Thursday 10th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Hannah Bardell]

Or, indeed, not cutting them at all.

Sophie Corlett: Yes, definitely. The Work programme is not successful for people with mental health problems: 8% of people with mental health problems are helped back into work through the Work programme; that is not a great result. Other methods that people use include IPS—individual placement and support—which is a voluntary scheme. It works with people on their aspirations. In a very key way, it looks at what the other barriers are that stop them getting to work, and it works with employers to help them to overcome the stigma of employing people with mental health problems, because employers are not keen to take people on. It looks at all these things. It works with people in a voluntary way, without all the threat of sanctions, which can be very worrying for people.

If you have really good systems, people who want to get back into work can get back into work, but to have a system that is both punitive on people as if it is their fault and then does not actually help them is grossly unfair.

Gareth Parry: The Department did lead a pretty comprehensive review in 2013, when it produced the disability and health employment strategy. There is quite a lot of good content in that strategy, but it does seem to have lost the focus a little bit over the last 18 months. Our organisation would recommend going back to that strategy and seeing what was in there that could still be progressed, because that was sort of the review you are talking about.

Matt Oakley: I was there for a speech the Secretary of State made a couple of weeks back, and it seemed very much to be the start of a new discussion about how we can help disabled people and people with illnesses first of all to stay in work where that is appropriate, and secondly, when they leave work, to get back in more quickly—when they are out of work, to get back to work. I would be a huge advocate of significant changes to the Work programme to make sure it is putting more money into those people who need the greatest help. At the moment, it is not targeted enough; it is not personalised enough. We need to make sure we are targeting as much money as possible at those people furthest away from the labour market, of which this is one of those groups.

[Kate Green]

Q 66 The Government had hoped that the number of people on long-term incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance would be reducing. In fact, it has been increasing, and particularly the numbers in the support group have been increasing. What is your analysis of the impact of a very sharp distinction between the level of benefit that you will receive in the support group and the level of benefit that you will receive if you are not in the support group? Is there any incentive, perhaps, to present yourself as more severely unwell or disabled, and therefore having to go into the support group?

Elliot Dunster: We have to look at the confidence in the WCA as well. The speech that the Secretary of State made a few weeks ago, which has been mentioned already, talked a little bit about that. Disabled people are concerned about the WCA and how accurate it is. In Scope’s view, this will mean that people will continue to appeal those decisions because of this slightly more binary distinction.

We agree with the Secretary of State’s assessment that it is not very helpful to think about people being fit for work or not fit for work. That is not a particularly helpful way of looking at things, but of course we have an assessment in which we have to try to draw lines, effectively, about what support people receive. We would like to see the WCA reformed along a number of principles that we have submitted to the Committee, which would make it much more about back-to-work support. However, we think that making a slightly binary distinction between jobseeker’s allowance and ESA will make people more likely to appeal decisions if they think they should have been awarded the support group rather than the work-related activity group, because there is a financial incentive for them to appeal.

Jobcentre Plus

Debate between Kate Green and Hannah Bardell

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[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.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Hannah Bardell

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.