Committee on Standards: Cox Report

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

This is a matter of the utmost importance for the reputation and standing of this House. We cannot afford to be inward-looking tonight; we have to be outward-looking. The Cox report was an absolute wake-up call to this Parliament to act. I very much welcome the steps that the Leader of the House took leading up to the introduction of the independent complaints and grievance process this summer, but Cox requires us to go further and to have a system that not only is independent, fair and transparent, but that is seen to be so. The proposals in the Committee on Standards report that we are debating are a step on that journey. The Committee and I do not pretend that they are a full response to Cox, but they are a first step, and they are an indication of earnest intent that this House understands that we can no longer allow the public to believe and perceive that we are marking our own homework and that our decisions and adjudications on our colleagues cannot be trusted.

[Mrs Miller]

Does the hon. Lady agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) that the role of lay members has become inherent in so many different professional organisations? Are we saying that we are not a professional organisation that would welcome such input?

[Kate Green]

I very much agree, and I also very much endorse the comments of my friend the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who rightly pointed to the standing of the lay members who currently belong to the Committee and, indeed, to the full Nolan process we put people through to recruit them to membership of the Committee. I remind the House that the Committee reports to this House. Ultimately, decisions will be taken by this House. We may vote in the Committee on a matter that comes before us—although it is very rare for us to do so—but ultimately the output of our deliberations will be a report to this House, so the elected membership of this House will have a final say.

It is important that the Committee take action now to ensure that the public see we are serious about independence and fairness in the system. That is particularly imperative because under the independent complaints and grievance system that now pertains, the Committee may very well find itself dealing with appeals very shortly. We need to be able to show the public that those appeals will be dealt with appropriately and in a way in which they can have confidence.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do hope that the House will support the report tonight and give the motion of the Leader of the House the support that it deserves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right that making superfast broadband a priority infrastructure project for this country was the right decision for the Government. The plans we inherited from Labour were lamentable. He will know that we have already allocated £250 million and will be announcing shortly how that will be used. He will also have noted in the autumn statement an additional £10 million for the hardest-to-reach areas where we need innovative solutions.

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

T9. According to the charity Scope, disabled people are warning that the positive effect of the Paralympics on public attitudes is being undermined by widespread “scrounger” rhetoric. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with media organisations to challenge that pervasive and unpleasant narrative?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will know that we are working hard on the legacy for disabled people of London 2012. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who is the Minister for disabled people, is at the heart of our legacy programme. We are ensuring that the media have the opportunity to showcase, particularly through sports, the incredible contribution of disabled people to our society. Through that positive imagery, we can challenge the rhetoric that the hon. Lady is talking about.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I make no great claims for my understanding of Scots law, despite having a rather elderly and unused degree in it, but—

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I really cannot take an intervention before I have dealt with the preceding one. I will give way to the Minister in just a moment.

Although I understand the premise of the Attorney-General’s concern, I think that there are arguments to be advanced on the other side. The Equality Act 2010 provides for the recognition of “religion or belief”, and we strongly contend that our approach falls within the same legal territory. We are also mindful of the fact that in Scotland, where such challenges have also been possible—I recognise that Scotland has a different legal system, but in this context I do not think that that is an issue—registrars have been able to prevent organisations with no apparent legitimacy or justification from being registered to undertake weddings. I should be grateful if it could be explained to me why, given the tight drafting of the new clause, that could not be the case here.

[Maria Miller]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I should love to hear from the Secretary of State.

[Maria Miller]

I would not normally intervene on the hon. Lady, but she said that Government officials had advised her in a certain way, and I wanted to make clear that they did not advise the narrowing of the new clause. They drew attention to the problems with the earlier amendment, which—I say this for the benefit of Members who may not have had an opportunity to read the report of the Committee’s proceedings—covered both religious and non-religious organisations, and created real and unnecessary uncertainty about who would actually be covered. I think that the hon. Lady is aware of the genuine problems raised by amendments tabled in Committee. They confused the distinction in marriage law between religious and civil ceremonies, and it was therefore unclear how the religious protections in the Bill would work within such a system.

[Kate Green]

I do not accept that. I do not wish for one second to impugn the messages received from officials. It is quite possible that there was some gulf in understanding between those who delivered the message and those who heard it. I was not present at the conversations myself, and the Secretary of State is, of course, right to put forward her description of what took place, but my understanding is that the way that they concluded led the British Humanist Association, which is advising me, to understand that a more tightly worded proposal, such as the one that I have put before the House this afternoon, would meet the concerns. Although that may not have been the intention intended to be conveyed, it was certainly the intention that it came away with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

May I make a tiny bit of progress before taking my hon. Friend’s intervention?

Furthermore, it is not legally possible to restrict the approved organisations approach only to humanism. There can be no basis to justify a difference of treatment between one belief organisation and another, and if we did so we would be vulnerable to legal challenge—the very point that the Attorney-General made. If the amendment were accepted, I would have to consider whether I could sign a section 19(1)(a) statement, indicating that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights, on the introduction of the Bill in another place. I would probably have to sign a section 19(1)(b) statement that I cannot state that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention, because of the different treatment of humanists and other belief organisations. That is clear, it is a statement of fact and it is entirely consistent with the situation outlined by the Attorney-General.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, the amendment would clearly make the Bill incompatible with the European convention on human rights. This is a complicated issue that could be looked at further in the other place, but I want to make it clear to the House today that if the issue is discussed in the Lords, further information can be provided if that is requested and required. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, and to place a copy of my letter in the Library, setting out the legal objections offered to the House today. I hope that would help to inform proceedings in the other place. I would be happy to copy the letter to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

[Kate Green]

May we ask that that letter sets out in detail the Government’s objections in the context of the convention on human rights, and that there will be no gaps? It seems to us that new objections have emerged even in the course of the debate this afternoon, so I would be grateful for the right hon. Lady’s assurance that that will be a comprehensive statement of the Government’s concerns in relation to the European convention on human rights.

[Maria Miller]

I am happy to say that the letter would be a comprehensive statement of the concerns that I have. I have covered many of those today, but I will consider whether there are any that I have not included for reasons of time. I am happy to be as helpful as I can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend says and think that is what the Bill delivers. It delivers the ability of civil marriage to accommodate same-sex couples and enables religious organisations that wish to opt into that to do so, but allows others not to if that is what they choose. That is an important and fundamental principle of the Bill that I think reflects what he has just said.

I believe that the changes proposed in the amendments are an unnecessary and potentially unhelpful diversion from the important objective we are trying to achieve: removing the unfairness that excludes same-sex couples from being able to marry. We must remain focused on that objective and not be sidelined into discussions on other issues at this point. I ask hon. Members not to press these amendments, so that we can proceed to discuss the next group.

[Kate Green]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this interesting and, at times, passionate debate. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who tabled the amendment that led us to new clause 15, and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who first tabled it in Committee, for the work we have been able to do across parties to bring the proposal to the Floor of the House this afternoon.

Despite the fact that the proposal has been before the House in some form or other since 5 February, as the hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out, it seems that the legal doubts expressed this afternoon by the Attorney-General have come to us rather late in the day. That does not mean that we do not take them extremely seriously; of course we do, but it would have been helpful to know that discussions were taking place with officials, whether or not they were proactively suggesting that such changes to the original proposal would help to strengthen it. The fact that discussions took place some weeks ago means that it is a matter of particular regret that the legal difficulties with the proposal were not highlighted earlier.

The Secretary of State said that my amendment and, I think, others in the group were unnecessary. For humanists, it is not unnecessary at all. Yes, they can choose to have a civil marriage and a humanist ceremony, but they do not have available to them a ceremony that they feel would properly recognise them as marrying one another and making that public commitment in front of family and friends. That is the discrimination that we seek to address. However, I take very seriously her wish, which she knows we share very strongly, to see this Bill proceed. We do not want it to be delayed or have its development and progress inhibited by arguments about these proposals.

I want to pick up on one or two of the objections that were raised not only by Ministers but by other hon. Members around the Chamber, suggesting that there are still genuine uncertainties about what is and is not provided for in current law and what we now seek to achieve. If the Secretary of State is willing to come forward with a statement of the Government’s legal concerns, that would be extremely helpful in properly facing off all the objections that have been raised in time for them to be understood and considered before the Bill is debated in the House of Lords. We do not want a re-run of objections arriving late or being raised without justification. It is clear from what has been said today that many hon. Members would like the Government’s position to be fully argued in good time for a fully informed debate in the House of Lords.

Some Members, particularly the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the Secretary of State, have said repeatedly that these proposals in some way undermine the quadruple lock that has been put in place. The Secretary of State suggested that that is because it is not clear whether the protections that it affords would apply to humanists, and if so, that might undermine the protections for religious organisations. If so, it would be extremely helpful to understand exactly how that is. We would be grateful if the Secretary of State fully clarified that in the letter that she says she will make available to the House.

A misunderstanding has come up repeatedly this afternoon. We recognise that the system in England is different from the system in Scotland, which registers celebrants. The system in England is not based only on the registration of premises for Jews and Quakers, for example. There is no requirement for them to hold their ceremonies in certain premises, but they are required to hold ceremonies in accordance with their usages. What is more, the amendment would not attach registration to celebrants. It is about registering organisations, and one form of organisation in particular—that which is a belief organisation, a charitable organisation or a humanist organisation that secures the approval and authorisation of the Registrar General. It is very clear which kind of institution we are trying to cover.

The most serious objection is the human rights objection, which, sadly, only emerged at the beginning of this afternoon. I would be grateful if any hon. Member who participated during the earlier stages of the Bill and who remembers differently could correct me, but I do not recall the human rights objection being raised at any point before this afternoon. Of course it is vital that we take account of the Attorney-General’s concerns and advice on this matter; it would be utterly irresponsible of us not to do so. However, even the Attorney-General’s advice changed over the course of this afternoon. At the beginning of the afternoon, he said that there was a problem with the proposal because it could apply so widely that any organisation, including a society for the promotion of tiddlywinks, might potentially be discriminated against if it were not authorised to carry out marriages as well. I think that he rowed back from that later on and acknowledged that only belief organisations would be authorised. He was right to say that the possibility of discrimination between different belief organisations is the central human rights issue that must be addressed.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

Only because I want other Members to have an opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker.

I think that using the Bill as a vehicle for the extension of civil partnerships risks its progress, and that supporting the review proposed in new clause 16 will give us an opportunity to find an informed way forward—something that those on all sides of the argument can support.

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

We were grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for accepting our manuscript amendment (a) to new clause 16 this morning.

Let me start by repeating what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made very clear in Committee: the Labour equalities team supports the principle of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. We recognise that it would provide equality before the law. It would also recognise the choice some opposite-sex couples want to make not to marry but none the less to formalise their relationship. As civil partnerships will rightly continue for gay and lesbian people under this legislation, it would ensure, too, that they are not perceived simply as some sort of residual arrangement pending everyone moving to same-sex marriage. We can expect that many existing civil partners will want their civil partnerships to continue; they will not want to regard the history of the past nine years as a history of second best.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

Absolutely not. Our work under universal credit to increase access to child care for women working fewer than 16 hours represents the first time that such support will be in place. We should be championing universal credit as a way of making sure that more women can stay connected to the labour market at a time when they also have caring responsibilities.

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

Many working women lose out when they have a baby. Last month, a survey by the lawyers Slater & Gordon showed that more than one in seven women returning from maternity leave do not have a job to go back to, yet the Government are not even bothering to collect proper data on pregnancy-related redundancy. The Slater & Gordon research showed that two in five new mums were refused flexible hours and nearly half said that the job they had gone back to was less good than the one they had left. What are the Government doing to get a grip on pregnancy discrimination?

[Maria Miller]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I recently met many of those who are looking at the issue, which, like her, I take seriously. I want women not to have a false choice between having a family and staying in employment; they need to be able to do both. That is why by changing the culture in our workplaces so that businesses look at how they can accommodate women—not just in respect of their statutory duties, but more fully than that—we can make sure that women can not only have their family responsibilities, but continue in their jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend makes the important point that, as working parents, we rely on certainty in regard to child care and to schools. The decision on whether a school is open is one for head teachers—they can assess things better on the ground—but his point is well made and I will certainly ensure that it is brought to the attention of my hon. Friends in the Department for Education.

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

Yesterday, six mothers wrote to The Guardian to object to the Government’s real-terms cuts to maternity pay and other pregnancy and child-related benefits. Having babies costs money, and low-paid mums are set to lose £1,300 during pregnancy and their baby’s first year as a result of the real-terms cut to statutory maternity pay, cuts to other pregnancy support and cuts to tax credits. The real-terms cut to SMP alone equates to the price of 24 nappies a week to a low-paid mum. The Prime Minister said that his Government would be the family-friendliest ever, but does not that promise sound hollow now that they are helping millionaires more than mums?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady has to realise that, in a time of difficult economic circumstances, which is certainly what the coalition Government inherited, we have had to make some tough decisions. The tough decisions that we have made are about helping women into work, and helping them to get the skills they need to ensure that their families are financially independent. She will of course be aware that, in April 2011, the child element of the working tax credit was uprated by £180 above inflation, and that the reforms to the tax system have already set us on the path to taking 1 million women out of tax. Surely she should be supporting those changes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that many churches already offer the opportunity for couples who are in same-sex relationships to have their marriages blessed in church. These are matters for the Church to deal with, whether they relate to the performance of marriages in church or to blessings. The Church must deal with these issues itself.

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

Is it not unfortunate that the Minister has said that same-sex marriage will be “illegal” in the Church of England and the Church in Wales, when the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury has said that he will carefully consider his stance on the issue and the archbishop of the Church in Wales has said that there is no single Christian opinion on the matter? Will she ensure that, should those Churches wish to marry same-sex couples at some time in the future, she will have legislation prepared to enable them to do so without the need for further primary legislation?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of the role of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. Our stance throughout has been to protect those organisations to enable them to make their own decisions. We are talking to them on an ongoing basis about the best way to do that. As to her question about whether they would be able to undertake these duties in the future if they decide to do so, the answer is absolutely yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to want to drive through more good decision making in that process, and we are doing so across the board by working with Atos to make sure that it adheres to the contracts we have with it, and through the changes that we are making as a result of the Harrington reports, but importantly mandatory reconsideration, which begins in April 2013 for all decisions on benefits, will ensure that more decisions are right first time.

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

The Government say that their welfare reforms are intended to enable more disabled people to get into work, but a case has been raised with us about a young man who is a wheelchair user, had been desperate to work, found a job but had to turn it down because he would have needed to move and could not find affordable adapted housing. Why are the Government delaying the reasonable adjustment provisions that would help such people to work?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will know that we have a broad range of support available for people such as the gentleman she refers to through the access to work scheme, for which we are increasing funding by about £15 million over the spending review period, and through local housing payments, such as the one I referred to in a previous answer, in order to ensure that local authorities have the flexibility to support such individuals, so that they can get into work and stay in work.

Disability Benefits and Social Care

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

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

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

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

rose—

[Maria Miller]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

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

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

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

[Kate Green]

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

[Maria Miller]

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

Women’s Aid

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green]

I appreciate the exemptions that have been made. However, housing organisations such as Crisis and Shelter have pointed out that if an exemption for people leaving homeless hostels is enshrined in legislation, there seems to be no objection to having the same exemption for women leaving refuges.

[Maria Miller]

Our approach is to empower local authorities to have the sort of discretion that can make all the difference in such cases. Each individual case is different, which is why the discretionary housing payments are important and why we are putting so much more taxpayers’ money into that—to give local authorities the flexibility that can make all the difference.

The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill said that he felt that there may have been some indication of a reduction in the amount available to pay for refuges. I make this clear to reassure him: the consultation on refuges that we have been through is not intended to be a cost-cutting exercise. We want to make the rules fairer and ensure that help is better targeted on those who need it. It is about ensuring that the money that we have reaches those who need it most. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman about housing benefit. His debate is timely because we are moving forward at the moment to talk to stakeholders on that issue before we formulate regulations and before they are looked at through the positive procedures of the House.

Hon. Members also talked about universal credit and how that will affect people who are at risk of or have experienced domestic violence. I believe that the system will hold a great deal of good for individuals who find themselves in such a situation. One of the important contributions—as a constituency MP, I can empathise with this—stressed that sometimes the issue is about the timeliness, or the lack of it, of support in place for women who find themselves in a refuge. A delay in receiving financial support at that point can be extremely distressing. The current complexities of the benefits system can do little to help speed that process up. That is why I feel strongly that universal credit will greatly benefit some of the most vulnerable groups in our communities.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend speaks with great passion on the subject, and I thank her for her intervention. She is pushing me a little further than I am able to go at the moment, but I hear loud and clear what she is saying about the importance of ensuring that there is some certainty there. I would like to make it clear to her and other hon. Members that the work that we are doing is not intended to unsettle or jeopardise the financial futures of the refuges. That is not something we intend to do. We do not want to do anything to damage the sector.

Universal credit will be a simpler way of people applying for benefits, and will significantly benefit this group of women particularly. We will introduce a system of payments on account, so that some individuals can get payments made, even if not all the details of their claim can be sorted out straight away. Again, simplification and a fleetness of foot will assist people in these very difficult situations.

Throughout the development of the reform—universal credit—we have worked very hard to ensure that safeguards are put in place to protect vulnerable people, including victims of domestic abuse. That includes those still residing within the household and those who have been forced into a refuge. The right hon. Member for Stirling, who speaks for the Opposition, highlighted the single monthly payment made to households. We have put that in place because we feel that it is important and integral that it is the family’s responsibility to decide how a payment is made and to manage their own finances.

However, as the right hon. Lady said, of course, there will be exceptional cases. It is important that any system can deal with and support those exceptional cases, where a single payment into one account may compromise the safety of household members. We have therefore ensured in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 that there is a power to split payments between members of a couple in the case of a joint claim. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston also raised that.

[Kate Green]

The Minister is right that there is the option for universal credit to be split between members of the household. However, does she not agree that it will be difficult for a woman to seek that in a situation where there is financial abuse, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod)? I realise that it is well beyond the opportunity to get the legislation changed, but will the Minister at least assure me that the Government will keep a careful eye on the impact on those women of a single payment to one member of the household in relation to the financial abuse that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth rightly raised?

[Maria Miller]

I absolutely assure the hon. Lady that, in all aspects of the reform that we are undertaking—whether it is this or another aspect of the Welfare Reform Act—we will keep a very close eye on how things are working in practice. She is absolutely right: we have to do that to ensure that those who are particularly vulnerable and in difficult situations are getting the support that they need.

Under universal credit, there will continue to be a 13-week exemption to conditionality where there is evidence of threatened or actual domestic violence. In addition, the application of conditionality overall will be more responsive to the needs and circumstances of individuals. Importantly, advisers will be able to have crucial discretion to vary or temporarily lift requirements where a claimant is subject to a change in circumstances such that they cannot reasonably be expected to take even limited steps into work. That discretion can help individualise the support that we give people in those difficult circumstances.

The situations faced by victims of domestic violence are very varied and therefore, beyond a three-month exemption, we believe that it is right to take a case-by-case approach and give advisers such discretion. As part of the move towards self-sufficiency, in the cases we have talked about, universal credit will be paid directly to tenants rather than to landlords. There are elements around direct payments that are still being considered, and the role of hostels and refuges are part of that. However, let me assure hon. Members that we will do that in a way that protects the income of social landlords. The Government have absolutely no intention of doing anything that will damage the sector. I hope that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill will find that commitment a reassurance at this time.

The debate is extremely timely. My colleagues in the Department and I will consider very carefully all the comments made by hon. Members from both sides of the House. We need to examine carefully the circumstances in which alternative arrangements for payment of universal credit will need to be made. We will start a process of working with key stakeholders over the next few months on what should be included in regulations, with a view to publishing a draft set of regulations in due course. I assure hon. Members that I am committed to ensuring that the right safeguards are in place, particularly in the case of victims of domestic violence. Again, I underline my thanks to hon. Members for sharing their thoughts on this matter. I assure them that they will help inform our discussions as we move forward.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

Hon. Members will forgive me if I make some progress, as I may answer some of their questions before they ask them.

On the cost of the up-front payment, it is important that we recognise that the system costs the taxpayer almost half a billion pounds a year. We want to ensure that we are using the system to support families properly to take responsibility, but we also need to ensure that we make the prudent savings that taxpayers would expect us to make in these difficult economic times. The cost of charging up front will not disproportionately add cost to the whole system—far from it. We are incentivising people to come to their own arrangements. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), more than half the people currently inside the system would like to make their own arrangements. I know that by putting in place an up-front charge we will get some of those people to consider the actions they take.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will forgive me if I try to make some progress. I know that many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate and we have another significant issue to discuss after this one.

We want to support parents in taking responsibility for their child’s financial support post-separation, so that they do not see the costly and heavy-handed CSA as their only option. As I have said, half the parents using the Child Support Agency tell us they would like to make their own arrangements, with the right support, which clearly demonstrates that the CSA has come to be seen as the default option.

We have already announced that we are putting in place the support that parents need to be able to come to their own agreements, with the collaborative arrangements that are best for children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

How does the hon. Lady suggest that the agency should decide which parent stood in the way of an agreement? Would she take the same view as was taken in the debate in the other place, which is that it would always be the non-resident parent’s fault that an agreement was not in place?

[Kate Green]

The point is that a system is being established whereby the parent with care must access the system. There will be a discussion at that point about the process by which that approach to the agency is made. There is no difficulty at all at that point in taking a decision about the responsibility and behaviour of the parent making that application. I cannot understand why the Government think that it is perfectly okay for other officials in the DWP to make decisions on whether people are making appropriate efforts to make themselves available for employment, but not for a decision to be taken on whether a parent has properly engaged in a process of seeking to reach agreement with a non-resident parent.

I also want to speak briefly about the Government’s proposal to amend the obligation on the child poverty target under the Child Poverty Act. The current obligation is for the Government to report on the progress that must be made to achieve child poverty targets—targets to which every party in this House has signed up. There will now be a far weaker requirement simply to report on proposed measures. In other words, there will be an obligation on the Government to report on what they might or might not do, but absolutely no obligation to report on whether it works or on what difference it makes. That undermines what lies at the heart of the Act, which was a genuine wish across the House in the previous Parliament to see real progress in bringing down child poverty and for every politician in this House to be accountable for that outcome.

I very much regret such a weakening of the Child Poverty Act. In future, the Government could legally produce a child poverty strategy that makes no reference to the number of children in poverty—an extremely important measure in driving progress—and has no clear goals for how the proposed actions will reduce that number. When the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that the cumulative impact of the Government’s welfare reforms on other measures will be to drive up child poverty between now and 2015 and onwards to 2020, one has to wonder whether the proposal is not a rather cynical and calculating step on the part of the Government to wriggle out of an obligation that they know they are not on track to meet.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

We have accepted all of Professor Harrington’s proposals. Let me draw to my hon. Friend’s attention the fact that the number of successful appeals against the work capability assessment are substantially lower than for its predecessor, the personal capability assessment.

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

What work have the Minister and her Department undertaken with employers to make them more aware of hidden disabilities and the adaptations that they may need to make in the workplace to enable disabled people to keep or obtain a job?

[Maria Miller]

As the hon. Lady knows, we work on an ongoing basis with employers through a number of forums. In particular, I am aware of the work that an organisation such as BT does to support its employees in such matters. It is by showcasing that sort of good practice that we will get a better understanding more broadly among employers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Block contracts with care homes often leave individual care plans unclear on what mobility costs are to be met by the home. What guarantees can Ministers give that no disabled person in residential accommodation will find their ability to leave their own home reduced as a result of the removal of the mobility component of disability living allowance?

[Maria Miller]

Again, I reiterate that we are looking to remove overlaps, not mobility. The local authority contracts contain clearly articulated requirements for care homes to cover activities involved in daily living, which include providing access to doctors, dentists and local services, such as libraries and banks. In addition, in order to become registered, a care home provider has to undertake to promote the independence of the disabled people living in the homes that it is providing. We know, as do care home providers, that mobility is an important part of that independence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I absolutely endorse his wish to have more local organisations involved in helping to get disabled people back into work. I know that through the Work Choice programme that we launched last year we already have Scope and the Shaw Trust actively working in his constituency in providing support for disabled people. I encourage him to ask more of his local organisations to get involved in that and other schemes.

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

The Minister will be aware that anyone who has come off incapacity benefit to move into work in the past two years was promised a two-year linking period, during which they could return to the benefit at the original rate. The new employment and support allowance conversion regulations, which are due to take effect next month, remove that protection, and those returning to work will be required to return to the ESA at the assessment rate for the first 13 weeks. Will the Minister urgently reconsider those new regulations, and their impact on a small number of benefit claimants who appear to have been affected by the backtracking on a commitment on which many of them had relied?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady brings up a very detailed point, and I should be very pleased to look at it with her separately, but I should underline the fact that in all the changes we are making, we want to make sure that we are judging disabled people on what they can do, not what they cannot, and we want to make sure that more disabled people are able to get back into work. At the moment, 50% of disabled people work, and many more want to, with the right support.

Work and Pensions (CSR)

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Thursday 4th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green]

That is the kind of point that it is important we recognise in debate. I recognise that the increase in child tax credit is one of a tiny number of measures, if not the only one, that we have seen so far from the Government that try to redress some of the reduction in or withdrawal of financial support elsewhere. Ministers have highlighted the fact that the increase is significant in ensuring that there is no rise in child poverty as a result of the measures that have been proposed overall. I regret such paucity of ambition, as the intention is simply not to see child poverty increase. Previous Labour Governments were criticised—rightly, I guess—for not achieving as much as they had set out to do. The proposed increase seems a poor and rather limited attempt to move forward, which I very much regret. I would welcome hearing from the Minister how the Government expect to catch up on the target to eradicate child poverty by 2020 when they expect to make no progress at all between now and 2012-13.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I want to build on the hon. Lady’s point that the issues of child poverty that the Government are addressing go well beyond DWP and remind her of the £7 billion investment we have made in the fairness premium, which is being delivered through measures introduced by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Education. At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr Turner, I remind the hon. Lady that when the Government came into office the figures on child poverty were deteriorating. What we have done in the emergency Budget and the initial spending review measures is to stop that deterioration and stabilise the situation. In March, we will be setting out a strategy to show how we will take things forward.

[Kate Green]

First, let us be absolutely clear about the alleged deterioration in child poverty performance. It deteriorated in two years, 2005-06 and 2006-07, and the measures that were introduced in the 2008 and 2009 Budgets were already turning that position around. It is welcome that the Government have not decided to reverse those measures. I am pleased that they have retained the progressive announcements made by the previous Chancellor, but it is a pity that the new measures that they have announced will tend to work against that progressiveness.

Secondly, I absolutely take the Minister’s point about the importance of the spending measures being rolled out by the Department for Education. I regret that some of that is moving money around, rather than bringing additional money into educational institutions and settings. None the less, there is considerable evidence, as she is well aware because we have discussed it on many occasions, that any spending on education, health or a range of other outcomes for children is hampered if they grow up in households with inadequate income. Income is a prerequisite of the success of other social programmes. That is why I am concerned about the long-term implications of some of the Government’s measures in relation to household income.

Let me list some of the Government measures that will reduce incomes across the piece. We have the freeze on child benefit, and its removal in cases where an individual in the household is in the higher tax band. We have the freezing of working tax credit. We have an increase in the number of hours that a couple are required to work in order to claim working tax credit. We have a reduction in the child care element of the tax credit. We have the linking of benefits to the consumer prices index. We have the time-limiting of contributory employment and support allowance to a period of 12 months.

We have the removal of the mobility element of disability living allowance for those in residential care. We have the promise of more testing before disability living allowance can be accessed.

We have many changes to rules for eligibility for housing benefit, including the room cap, the reduction to the 30th percentile, the removal of the £15 excess, the cut in housing benefit for those on jobseeker’s allowance for more than 12 months, changes to non-dependent deductions, which are now to be uprated in line with the CPI, and there will be an increase in the age at which people are able to come off the single room rent rate. We have changes to council tax benefit. We have the removal of the health and pregnancy grant, child trust funds and the saving gateway. We have the reduction in funds available for social housing and an overall cap on benefits.

I hope that I have not forgotten anything, because that sounds bad enough. Not all of those policies will have an impact on every household, but none the less together they will put many low-income households under great financial pressure, and I am very concerned about that.

[Maria Miller]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

No, I will not. I also want to highlight the fact that when we look at which households will particularly feel the brunt of those changes, we see that women will bear much of the pain. Women are hit twice as hard as men as a result of the reduction in income that will result from those changes.

Women receive 70% of tax credits, 60% of housing benefit and 94% of child benefit—perhaps unsurprisingly, because that payment is particularly well targeted at mothers—and 65% will be affected by the changes in the rules for savings credit as part of pension credit.

The disabled are suffering several reductions to their benefits: the removal of higher rate disability living allowance for those in residential care; the changes to eligibility for employment and support allowance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) highlighted earlier; the impact of the work capability assessment, which seems to be proving harsher than was acknowledged earlier and harsher than the previous or present Governments might have expected; and the loss of contributory ESA after a year.

Families with children in every income decile are being hit hard by the changes—harder than households without kids. I am concerned about the differential impact of the changes on different kinds of household structures, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

Another area that I would like to open up for debate and would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on is how the measures will work against the Government’s absolutely correct wish to incentivise people to move into increased hours of paid work. The first prerequisite of being able to look for work is a stable income. It is hard for people to motivate themselves to go out and look for a job if they are struggling to hold things together day to day, and worrying about creditors banging on the door, or whether they can afford to pay the bills, keep healthy food in the fridge, keep the house in a decent state of repair and keep their clothes clean and laundered. With all those basic needs proving a barrier, it is difficult to think about going out to look for work.

The second thing that is crucial for people looking for paid employment—we hear this again and again from homeless charities—is a stable address. Many of us are concerned that the impact of the housing benefit changes will be to force people to move, perhaps more than once or twice, as the changes are introduced in waves. In some cases, lack of a stable address is likely to prove a barrier to moving into paid work. Clearly, a third important prerequisite for parents being able to move into paid work is having child care in place.

Changes to housing benefit will not only disrupt the stability of a family’s accommodation but may move them further from areas where jobs can actually be found, and from the support networks on which they rely. I am concerned that reducing the element of working tax credit support that is available to help meet child care costs will make it more difficult for parents to afford those costs.

A number of the measures that the Government have already announced will actually worsen marginal deduction rates. The cuts to working tax credit will worsen the return that people get from paid employment, and the loss of free school meals for some families who were expecting to receive them from this September, and the increases in VAT and travel costs, will make the decision to return to work much more economically unattractive than the Government might wish. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

Another thing I would like to consider is the support the Government will put in place to enable people to move into paid work. We look forward to receiving details about the single Work programme, which I believe Members across the House are keen to welcome. Labour Members in particular see many elements of the single Work programme, in so far as we know about it, drawing on the new deal and the recent flexible new deal. In fact, I have been struggling to identify the philosophical differences between the single Work programme and the flexible new deal. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

There is potential for more risk being put on providers, who will be required to perform over the longer term. That may make it more difficult for some smaller providers and, in particular, voluntary sector providers to join in with provision of the single Work programme. I know that Ministers are concerned about that, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on it.

There is perhaps even more alliance than we saw with the flexible new deal on the so-called black box approach. My worry about such an approach is whether the most vulnerable will transparently receive appropriate support and be properly advocated for in a system where there are conditions, requirements and obligations on them. Who will negotiate for them if the requirements that are imposed are unreasonably onerous? The black box approach has some merits, obviously, in that it offers flexibility to good providers, but how we will ensure that the actions of providers who may put inappropriate pressure on clients to take up unsuitable employment, or to take up unsuitable programmes to prepare them for employment, will be transparent and exposed in the single Work programme that Ministers intend to introduce?

My final point is about the universal credit, which I think many Members on the Government Benches have suggested will provide a solution to concerns about the measures that are being introduced more immediately. First, even if the universal credit proves to be the panacea that we are assured it will be, I am concerned about the hardship that will be experienced by households now, before it is actually in place. I am not setting out today to oppose the universal credit by any means, but it might be helpful, as we are clearly at an early stage in the Government’s thinking on what it might look like, if I highlight some concerns about where care will need to be taken in its design.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner; it is the first time that I have done so, and you helped to ensure a most productive debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who is absent, and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for enabling the debate to take place.

The quality of debate showed how important these matters are, and how important it is for them to be discussed. To a certain extent, it has allowed us to put some facts on the table. With the exception of the most economically illiterate, or a few ostriches that might still exist, few serious commentators doubt the urgent need to tackle the financial mess left by the previous Administration.

I have a slight divergence of opinion with the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), who spoke for the Opposition. She cannot ignore the fact that we are dealing with a major structural deficit, and unless we get that under control, we will continue to have to pay the most astronomical levels of interest and run the risk of seeing rates rise and the consequent economic chaos that we have seen in some European countries.

We should not forget that we are paying £43 billion in interest payments; that is £120 million a day. To put it another way, it is the equivalent of the annual budget for the Department for Education. These are not small amounts of money. It is a structural problem. We have to deal with the fiscal mess that we inherited from the previous Government. After years of throwing public money at a bloated welfare system, the previous Administration also left us with a legacy of dependency, which was mentioned in many contributions to the debate.

The facts tell their own story. Nearly 5 million people live in households in which someone is on an out-of-work benefit, despite record levels of spending; it was £35 billion in 2008-09. We still have 2.8 million children living in poverty.

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Miller]

I cannot accept interventions, Mr Turner, as we are short of time and I know that you want a short wind-up at the end of the debate. I want as much time as possible to answer the points raised during the debate, including by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston.

We still have 1.9 million children living in workless households. Instead of burying our heads in the sand, which has been the approach of too many Opposition Members, and potentially leaving our children to pick up the bill—that is the legacy of this huge debt—the Government are taking action now, and making tough choices. We are tackling the root causes of poverty, not just treating the symptoms.

The failure of the last Government is the reason why we need the toughest round of spending since 1976. Inevitably, the Department for Work and Pensions will have to shoulder its share of the burden, along with other Departments. I believe that we successfully secured the third best settlement in Whitehall. As a result the Department will see a modest rise in spending in real terms, although we do not underestimate the challenge that lies ahead.

The Government will not cheese-pare or salami-slice the budgets that we have in place; we are taking the opportunity to rethink not only what we do but how we do it. That is why we are introducing universal credit. It will beat the benefit trap, and it will make work pay for the poorest. We are launching the new Work programme to help those who can to escape a life on long-term benefit. That is why we are working hard to support families, especially children, with an above-indexation increase for the child element of tax credits; launching the £7 billion fairness premium, which will give some of the poorest children a better start at school; and giving most disadvantaged two-year-olds access to 15 hours a week of pre-school education. Those and many other support measures will make a real difference to families and to poverty levels.

In my role as Minister for disabled people, I shall ensure that we have in place more support than ever for disabled people to help them get back into employment, and continuing, unconditional support for those who are unable to work.

Many important points were made this afternoon, and I shall try to answer them all. Those that I am unable to answer today I shall answer in writing; I shall write to hon. Members individually.

I welcome the tone of the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow East; it was important, and I welcome her emphasis on working together and her understanding of our desire to put in place real and genuine reforms. I reassure her that we are working closely with disabled people and disabled people’s charities in reforming those programmes. The hon. Lady mentioned equality impact assessments. I assure her that all the measures in the Budget and the spending review will have equality impact assessments in place; they will be published at the same time as the welfare reform Bill, and will accompany any uprating order.

Thoughtful contributions were made by my hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). They included comments about housing. I might roll together my responses, given the time constraint. Changes to do with people’s homes will obviously cause a great deal of concern.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark rightly said that it is about ensuring that we have secure and stable communities. We believe that the local housing rates in place at the moment are simply too high, and not sustainable. We have seen them outstrip earnings since local housing measures were put in place in 2008, and we want to phase in the overall package of measures to give people the time to adjust to a different regime and a different way of dealing with matters. However, we still need to legislate for the changes through secondary legislation, so there will be an opportunity to debate the measures further. Indeed, I am sure that we shall do so.

What is important is that the Government have an important role in the private rental sector. Some 40% of people in that sector are in receipt of housing benefits, so we are part of the market-making, and we must recognise that. We cannot stand back and let the market control the sector, as the Opposition did when they were in government. We must take action and, at the same time, protect the sort of people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) who he mentioned. That is why we have put in place £140 million transitional relief to ensure that the support is there if it is needed. That problem was anticipated by the previous Government and it was in Labour’s manifesto. I find it astonishing that Labour—at least some Members of its Back Bench—now seem to be trying to row back from that. I sense that the hon. Member for Glasgow East has a deeper understanding of the need for reform in this area, and I hope that we can work together on this matter.

My other hon. Friends made some stirring contributions, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), and I welcome his support for the Government’s policy. He is right to say that this is a radical and ambitious new approach. We cannot simply stand back and let the welfare system continue to fail so many thousands of people, as it has done for the past 10 years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) talked eloquently about the work that is going on in her constituency. Helping people fulfil their potential is exactly what we want to do with the Work programme. People are not statistics; they are individuals and need individual programmes of support. Her idea of encouraging local organisations to be involved in such work is absolutely right.

All hon. Members will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) made an extremely important contribution. As for the timing of universal credit, we will have a White Paper coming out shortly, and the transition to universal credit will start in 18 months’ time. Such a move will happen soon and not way into the future. Some 50% of people will be transferred on to universal credit by the end of the spending review period. We will give priority to the people who need the help the most and ensure that there will be no losers when the transfer takes place, which reflects the importance of making this change.

My hon. Friend is right to say that in the past, employment programmes have been fragmented. We will use Jobcentre Plus as a lynchpin to ensure that we smooth out the transition process between old programmes and the new Work programme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) provided us with a great insight into the matter today, particularly by raising the issue of the Harrington report. He made it clear that there will be annual reviews of the work capability assessment for the next five years.

Let me clear up the point about the appeals processes. The ESA has a 5% appeal rate, so 5% of the total number of applications have had their decision overturned on appeal. That is not a massive problem and it does not indicate that there is an unacceptable level of inaccuracy, so we must keep such things in proportion. Of course all of us want to see a 0% appeal rate, but that would be difficult to achieve.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton was very much the voice of reason in this debate. I cannot agree with him more that it did feel like we were inheriting an economic car crash when we came into Government in May. He talked about those who spend prolonged periods on benefits, the negative effect that that can have and inter-generational worklessness.

Picking up on the point about variable conditions, let me say that that is exactly the sort of thing that Professor Harrington will be considering, and concern over the matter has been voiced to us.

The Chairman of the Select Committee raised a number of points today. I am sure that I will not do justice to the questions that she asked, but I will have a quick go in the two minutes that I have left. We have made the changes to the council tax because the present system is complex, and it has rigid rules in place. The changes that we have proposed are in line with the overall theme of this Government, which is of localism and of giving local people more flexibility to react to the circumstances in their community. It is that local flexibility that will help us to deliver more value for the amount of money that we are investing in measures such as the council tax and council tax relief.

The hon. Lady asked why we are raising housing benefits by the consumer prices index. Let me remind her that housing awards have grown faster than earnings since 2008 when the new measures were introduced to support those on private rentals. We want to take control of the amount of money that is going into housing benefits, which is in line with out strategy to integrate housing support with the rest of the benefit system that will also be uprated by CPI.

The hon. Lady raised some issues about care homes. In particular, she mentioned the measure that we are taking with regards to mobility. Just to be clear, local authority contracts with care homes mean that care homes are providing services to meet all the needs of their residents, and that includes those with mobility needs. Our commitment to increase the uptake of personal benefits through personalisation will give people more choice and more control over the money that is available to them. The local authority duty exists to meet the needs of people who are living in residential homes and to provide the services. We have removed an overlapping benefit and tried to ensure that the money can be used effectively elsewhere.

The hon. Lady also raised another matter with regard to lone parents, but time will escape me, so I will have to write to her on that. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) asked about the success of the future jobs fund. I want to make it clear that that fund is one of the most expensive employment programmes in place at the moment. We have honoured the offers of places on the future jobs fund that were made before we came into Government, but it is not good value for money and it does not provide the long-term employment that we know that people need. That is why we are not rolling that forward, and it is a really good and valid reason for not doing so.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston raised a number of issues, but I will pick up on just one of them—the benefit cap. I do not accept that such a measure will increase child poverty. Putting in place a cap will effectively stop anybody receiving benefits that would translate into a salary of £35,000 a year. That will not increase child poverty. What it will do is ensure that work will pay for more families. We know that enabling families to get into work by, for example, not creating a disincentive is one of the most important things that we can do to alleviate poverty in the long term.

I draw to a close now, and apologise if I have not addressed all the points that hon. Members have raised. I will try to do so later.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Debate between Kate Green and Maria Miller

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The shadow Secretary of State fails to point out that the previous Government completely failed to tackle the level of poverty in this country in the way that they set out that they would, and they did not hit their child poverty targets. They have left us to put in place a firm strategy to address that issue. The right hon. Lady should not be too selective with her facts.

It could not be clearer that we need fresh ideas if we are to reverse the dreadful situation that we face; and it could not be clearer that, if new approaches to tackling poverty are to have any effect, they require new, clear thinking. That is exactly what our coalition Government are able to offer: a new vision and a new strategy to tackle the root causes of poverty. Family breakdown, educational failure, addiction, debt, worklessness and economic dependency are the pathways to poverty and the underlying problems that can lead to a lifetime—even generations—of worklessness and welfare dependency.

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Miller]

I am sorry, but I cannot. I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I need to comment on a number of maiden speeches.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, such a multi-faceted problem demands an holistic solution, and many contributors echoed that point. The problem requires supporting families in order to give children the right start at home and in education; it requires the reform of our welfare system, by simplifying it and removing disincentives to work; it requires supporting disabled people effectively to give those who need it the specialist support that will help to prepare them for work; it requires supporting a savings culture, helping those who try to get back on their feet and encouraging families to take responsibility for their debt; and it requires all of us throughout all Departments, the Government and the House to work together.

Before I pick up on today’s maiden speeches, I shall draw the House’s attention to a couple of other contributions. I am sure that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland did not mean to sound complacent about Labour’s record on poverty, but she did, and she needs to think about that if she is to rebuild Labour’s credibility in the eyes of the country. She picked up on several issues, including the future jobs fund and free school meals, on which I should like to give her some clarity.

All pupils who currently qualify for free school meals will continue to be eligible, and we will continue with pilots in Newham, Durham and Wolverhampton to see whether there is a robust case for extending free school meals. Taxpayers would expect us to do that. On the future jobs fund, recent statistics show that only 9,000 out of the 25,000 jobs that were promised are being delivered. The Government want long-term job opportunities and sustained employment, and that is why we are putting our faith in 50,000 new apprenticeships and the Work programme that will help to fill that gap.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) made an important contribution to the debate, and I congratulate her on her new role as Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee. I look forward—at least I think I do—to having detailed conversations with her, including in the Committee’s sittings, I am sure. I would have liked to pick up on some of the issues that she raised, and particularly on Sure Start and its effectiveness, but I fear that time does not allow me. Suffice to say, I hope that she will look at the Office for National Statistics data on Sure Start and, in particular, at how we can make that programme much more effective at tackling poverty.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who is not in his place because of a prior engagement, spoke with great authority about the importance of the non-financial support that we give children and families who live in the most difficult circumstances, and I look forward to his independent report and the contribution that he will undoubtedly make to this debate in the coming months.

The maiden speeches were, in the great tradition of this House, independent and spirited. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) spoke powerfully about the importance of supporting excluded children. He also stressed the fact that he will be an independent-minded Member, and I am sure that the Whips will have taken special note of that.

The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) spoke about her co-operative roots and the pride that she has in her community and, particularly, its multicultural heritage. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) paid tribute to Sir Michael Spicer, and I echo the tribute that she paid to a man who made a great contribution to the House. She also noted the damage that has been done to the pensions industry over the past decade, and I am sure that, with her considerable financial expertise, she will contribute to the coalition Government’s work on that.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) has the prize for the constituency name that is most likely to stump Ministers, and he will forgive me if I did not pronounce it very well. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) made a very humorous contribution to the debate and drew on the colourful characters who have previously represented his part of the country, as well as discussing its brewing heritage; I think that perhaps the two things are not unconnected.

I know how highly regarded my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) already is in her constituency, because I have been there and visited her local Sure Start centres. Its residents have a great Member of Parliament in her. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) spoke of famous past residents, including Lewis Carroll. He referred to Alice in his quote from Lewis Carroll’s work. I would perhaps have referred to the Mad Hatter’s tea party, because it can often feel like that in this place; he will know what I mean shortly, I am sure.

The contribution by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) challenged the House’s tradition of listening in silence to maiden speeches. I apologise if I joined some other Members in exclaiming at some of the things that he said. I will not pick up on those points in detail now, but perhaps we can talk in the Tea Room.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) made a fluid and assured speech in which she drew the House’s attention to the excellent support that forces families receive in the United States through the Veterans Administration. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends who deal with defence issues will study her comments closely. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) spoke of the grit and determination of her constituents. I am sure that the House will benefit from her 23 years’ experience of working in a citizens advice bureau.

Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), I clearly remember his moment of victory on general election night—it was something that stood out. In his maiden speech, the House caught a glimpse of the intellectual, analytical and, above all, compassionate approach that he will have to his job. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) reminded us that her constituency is the birthplace of the Arsenal football team. I will remind my sons of that, as they are great fans.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) gave us a thoughtful account of his feelings about poverty and the fact that it affects all parts of the country in many different ways. The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) spoke movingly about the working poor and the role of Sure Start. She also mentioned the future jobs fund. I would merely say to her that under that programme 100,000 jobs have been granted to the successful bidders.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) drew our attention to the fact that hers is a new constituency, and I know that it will benefit from her extensive experience. She spoke movingly about opening the eyes of the next generation in her constituency to poverty in Africa; that is something that will have helped them.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) talked about his bit of Swindon being the new Disneyland. He also said that Swindon is famous for roundabouts. Speaking as the Member of Parliament for Basingstoke, I think that we are more famous for roundabouts—I will challenge him on that one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) spoke with pride and passion about the part of the country that he represents, and reminded the House that we all have to improve the life chances of looked-after children. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) reminded us that her part of the world is the new silicon valley of west London. Importantly, she pointed out that she will put country before party, in the best spirit of this coalition Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) was getting us all booking our holidays to Bury this summer when he talked about the wonderful part of the country that he represents. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) reminded us that he represents the home town of the late Larry Grayson. He also spoke movingly about the role that inter-generational poverty can have in the context of this debate.

I very much welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) to the House. I know that she will contribute greatly to the work of this place. She will be a dedicated and effective voice for us, drawing on her extensive experience before coming here.

My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), reminded us where his constituency is and also of the importance of the entrepreneurial spirit in Hampshire, which is alive and well among the backyard brewers of his constituency. We were all pleased to hear that.

Last but absolutely by no means least, I think the House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) spoke eloquently about the history and heritage of her constituency. I reassure her that football shorts would not really be in the dress code of this place—well, not at the moment. Maybe we are far too conservative in such things and should change that.

This has been an important debate. It was important that we put the issue of poverty before the House early on in this Parliament to explain how we as a Government will tackle it. Members have heard in the comments of the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, and myself about this Government’s commitment to tackling poverty throughout the country. Poverty comes with a host of other problems that have a visible and measurable effect on families across the country. If we fail to address those challenges, we will fail many of those families and their children.

Opposition Members who contributed to the debate of course tried to explain what they feel the previous Government achieved, but they also have to listen carefully to what is said about the areas in which they did not make progress. If we are trying to draw together a more consensual Government who build together for a future of success, we need to ensure that we work together on matters such as this. Through the newly established Cabinet Committee that will consider these issues, we will draw up a child poverty strategy in line with the Child Poverty Act 2010. I hope that Opposition Members will be able to contribute to that strategy so that it enjoys the support of all Members.

We must take steps to deal with the underlying problems that have made poverty such a corrosive issue in this country for too many years. Through radical welfare reform, we will reinforce fairness and encourage responsibility, and I believe that we will start to build a stronger community for a better Britain. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House can come together to deliver that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling poverty in the UK.