Oral Answers to Questions

Margot James Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

When the hon. Lady’s party was in government, the number of people in long-term unemployment doubled, but this month we have seen a reduction in the numbers of people unemployed for more than one year and for more than two years. I would have thought she would be welcome that. It demonstrates that ours are the right actions to tackle the problems of long-term unemployment.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Employment in the west midlands has increased by 4.3% in the past 12 months and the average time spent on jobseeker’s allowance is just three months. What can my hon. Friend do to bring all Work programme providers up to the standard of the best providers, such as EOS in the black country?

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Margot James Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

We will announce uprating policy in the normal way on the normal timetable, not on a date chosen by the Chancellor for his own partisan purposes.

I think the Minister knows that I have been looking back at his speech in the Child Poverty Bill Second Reading debate in July 2009—fewer than four years ago. It was an autobiographical speech, as he said at the time. He explained that his first job was with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, where he had the task in the 1980s of compiling its poverty statistics. He said that

“year after year the level of child poverty would remorselessly grow. A majority of people would do relatively well, enjoying tax cuts, and the people at the top would do exceptionally well, but year after year more and more children would find themselves in poverty.”

He said that he decided to become a politician because he

“was appalled at what was happening in our country to the most vulnerable people”—[Official Report, 20 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 625.]

Now here he is, three and a half years later, arguing in this Committee for exactly the same combination of policies he condemned at the time: tax cuts for the highest paid and benefit cuts for the most vulnerable. Exactly as in the 1980s, as he knows better than anybody, the result is certain: child poverty rocketing. With the extra rise as a result of the Bill, if current policies are maintained it will go up by 1 million by 2020—right back up to the level he was logging at the IFS in the 1980s.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the most recent data demonstrate a reduction in child poverty last year of 300,000? If he disputes that, does he have any comment on the way the previous Government measured child poverty, and whether that measure should be changed?

[Stephen Timms]

Absolutely right—the policies of the previous Government have continued to have beneficial impacts, but as soon as this Government change the policy the numbers will rocket back up again. According to the IFS, child poverty will rise by 400,000 by 2015 and by 800,000 by 2020. On top of that, there will be an additional rise of 200,000 as a result of the Bill. That is what the Government’s policies are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

What I will do is listen to the debate and see whether I can be convinced one way or the other.

Given that the majority of the people impacted by the Bill are in work, the Minister should perhaps have listened to my suggestion on Second Reading: why not legislate for a living wage so that low-paid workers are not reliant on the Government to top up their income but are paid an adequate wage?

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman talks about low-paid people and what they are suffering, but will he acknowledge that many people have been taken out of tax altogether, including 3,000 in his own constituency, and that 30,000 people in his constituency have at least benefited from the increased personal allowances?

Atos Work Capability Assessments

Margot James Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Annette Brooke]

I think we are here today to point out that there certainly are problems, and I await to hear the Minister’s response to them. We need to remember that a great deal of improvements to the system have been made since the Labour Government set it up in the first place. That does not mean, however, that the situation cannot be improved. I think it is right and proper for us to point out where we feel improvements should be made.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I have visited my local Atos and have sat in on an appeal at the local tribunal, but I do not share the universal condemnation of Atos that I have heard in this House. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that Professor Harrington reviewed the system three times with particular reference to mental health and that he concluded that the improvements were starting to have an impact so that, in his view, no fundamental reforms were needed to the current work capability assessment?

[Annette Brooke]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and reiterate that it was a positive move by the coalition to ask Professor Harrington to do this work.

I would like to refer briefly to the issue of ME—myalgic encephalomyelitis. I understand that although the discussions on ME were very productive, the changes that we all want are not coming through individually. What we are looking for today is a means of unlocking some of the frictions that are causing the individual problems.

I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ME, so I have obviously received many representations on this matter. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a survey on the work capability assessment carried out by the charity, Action for ME. It had 203 responses. I commend the report to the Minister and hope he will read all the conclusions. I shall refer only to several of them as I do not want to take up too much time.

The conclusions included one to the effect that

“all face-to-face interviewees should be automatically given a copy of the Atos medical report”,

which I understand is not always happening. That is an area where the Minister could intervene to make sure that it does happen. Another conclusion was that

“more efficient communication is needed between the DWP and Atos”—

and that is almost certainly true. I believe we can have a positive and constructive debate when we look at those sorts of points. One further conclusion was:

“Atos healthcare professionals who carry out the face-to-face assessment should receive specialist training about fluctuating conditions, developed in consultation with organisations that support people with M.E. Training needs to be as frequent as the staff turnover at Atos requires”.

Those are really important points to which I would like the Minister to pay some attention.

We had a meeting in the House this week, but it was not possible to get a Minister to attend it. I would like to request that the offices of the all-party group be used for a meeting to talk about ME, the work capability assessment and fears about the personal independence payment in the future.

State Pension Reform

Margot James Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I greatly welcome the simplification of the existing scheme, the introduction of a flat-rate state pension, and the credits for people who have undertaken caring responsibilities and women who have taken career breaks. My hon. Friend has corresponded with me about current pensioners and people who will retire before 2017. What more can he say to reassure my constituents who fall into those categories that they will not lose out terrifically to people on the new system?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend has raised a crucial question. There is some anger and some suspicion that somehow we are throwing money at future pensioners and ignoring today’s, but I can give a categorical assurance that that is not what we are doing. The budget for the new system is the same as the current budget. It is important to note that we are not simply taking the basic pension of £107, sticking 30-odd quid on it, and ignoring all today’s pensioners. We are combining the basic pension, the state second pension and the savings credit into a single flat payment. It is not comparing like with like just to compare the current basic pension with the £144 pension; it is a much more complex process.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Margot James Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

rose—

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

I shall give way to people who were here at the start of the debate, rather than to those who have wandered in late. This is an important debate. The point that I want to make, before I give way to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), is that we are learning today who is being asked to pick up the bill for this catastrophic economic failure. It is not Britain’s richest citizens, who are now so hard pressed and under the cosh that they are being given a tax cut. From next year, millionaires will have £107,000 more to help them to heat their swimming pools. It is not Britain’s millionaires who are picking up the tab; it is Britain’s working families. The measures in the Bill are a strivers’ tax, pure and simple.

[Margot James]

Is the right hon. Gentleman going to acknowledge the 1 million extra jobs that have been created since 2010? Will he also acknowledge that the number of people claiming tax credits escalated to an unsustainable level under his Government? The country cannot afford to have 50% of the population either claiming tax credits or in receipt of benefits. That is unsustainable.

[Mr Byrne]

I look forward to coming to Stourbridge and helping to explain to the 6,500 people there who are on tax credits that their Member of Parliament thinks that the money they are getting is unsustainable. I happen to think that those 6,500 people, whom the hon. Lady has just dismissed, need every pound of the tax credits that Labour delivered when we were in office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman is living in cloud cuckoo land. He will not answer the question that I asked. How many more families are there in which no one has ever worked? In fact, the number increased from 184,000 to 352,000 under the last Labour Government. Is that a legacy to be proud of? I think that Members on this side of the House would say that it is not.

[Margot James]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the legacy of the last Government. Perhaps he agrees with the economics editor of The Sunday Times, who wrote last week:

“It is hard to think of a period more conducive to control of welfare spending than the Blair years, 1997-2007.”

[Gavin Williamson]

That too was an excellent point. What we have seen is total fiscal irresponsibility. The whole idea of the Labour party’s proposals is to trap more people in welfare, not to take them out of welfare.

Jobs and Social Security

Margot James Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is simply not true. I do not want to spend any longer on this, but the point that I made earlier about the right hon. Gentleman’s figures was that, when he concocted the figure of 200,000, he stripped out of his achievement figures the numbers for those who had been on employment and support allowance and so on and divided the total that was left, but those figures were in the other total. The Opposition have made a mistake and need to reckon that their adding up is wrong. The truth is that we have a programme that is helping people who are long-term unemployed.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I visited EOS, our local provider in the black country, which gave me data to show far in excess of 5% getting back into work. Those data were more recent than the statistics that are being publicised, and I am very encouraged by what the Work programme is doing for people in the black country. Before 2009, the number of people on JSA in my constituency rose by 205%, which was a scandal. That figure is much reduced now.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The truth is that the previous Government did next to nothing for the seriously long-term unemployed, and as I have said, we saw the figure rise by nearly 400,000. I want to come to that point in a second, but let me first deal with another comment made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill during his speech. He said that Labour’s unemployment scheme was a roaring success. I noticed that in Prime Minister’s questions today—I do not know whether I have got this wrong—the Opposition quoted a report that they said had been done by the DWP.

Let us deal with that point now: both the future jobs fund and the flexible new deal were rushed through just before the election. After all the years for which Labour had been in government, it suddenly discovered an urgent need to start to spend money on some programmes. Let us deal with them one at a time, and with the future jobs fund first. The Leader of the Opposition quoted a DWP report earlier and said that that scheme had a net benefit to society of £7,750. What he did not say—I suspect that he needs to speak to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill next time he gives him something to say at Prime Minister’s questions—was that the report goes on to state that

“these estimates exclude the cost of administering the programme and the cost of hiring and training participants.”

I wonder why he did not quote that.

Using any one of the more conservative estimates, as used in the report in table 5.3 on page 62, puts the benefits at £4,650, less than the £6,500 that it cost to place people in those jobs. So the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and the Leader of the Opposition unwittingly misled the House and the future jobs fund lost money, rather than rescuing the situation. The report goes on to state that

“it is notable that under all of the scenarios considered in this analysis, the programme is estimated to result in a net cost to the Exchequer”

and

“depending on the rate of decay there might never be an estimated net benefit to the Exchequer.”

What the Opposition are saying is fundamentally wrong: their scheme cost money and did not as a net benefit get anything back to constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Sheerman]

No, I am sorry.

Intergenerational worklessness is a dreadful scourge. We all see it on some of the estates that we represent, and we hate it, so what are we going to do about it?

We have to say, on an all-party basis, that nobody under the age of 25 should be unemployed. We should not let them down in that way. Every young person under the age of 25 should be in work, in training, or participating in a programme; I do not care if we call it the new deal, the new new deal or the Work programme. They should be in a routine of getting up in the morning, going to work and doing something creative, whether it is in the community or helping in hospitals. We have got to the stage where we are moving very quickly towards the participation age rising to 17 or 18. Neither the former Government nor this Government have seriously tackled what young people with a lower level of skills are going to do in the extra year. That is a challenge for those on both sides of the House. I once said that to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), but he got very cross with me for pointing it out, and asked what I wanted for these young people. I said that I wanted for them what rich people have—a personal trainer and a life coach—and he thought I was mad, but never mind.

I want to abolish unemployment for those under 25 and to get people out of that routine. I want to get rid of intergenerational worklessness, with a fundamental change in how we allow people to live that half life. My plea is that across the parties we should agree on a programme that gives all our young people the opportunity to live a full, democratic life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

One problem of the Work programme is that the year we are looking at contained the second part of the double-dip recession. We all accept that it is hard for anyone to find work in a recession, let alone those who have been out of work for a long time and have the most barriers to overcome. We hope that as the economy gathers strength in the coming year, that will give the Work programme even more chance of success in meeting its second-year targets.

[Margot James]

My hon. Friend draws attention to some of the similarities between the Work programme and what went before. Does he agree that one key difference is the remuneration paid to Work programme providers? They get a £300 attachment fee when someone is referred to them, but do not receive further remuneration until a candidate has been in work for six months. That provides a huge incentive—along with the fact that some applicants will have their benefits docked if they do not co-operate—and makes the Work programme a greater success than what preceded it.

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The motion suggests that people would have been better off without the Work programme and with no extra support, but the support it provides is valuable and not entirely different from that provided in previous programmes. Payment by results, which I will come to, provides a far greater incentive to providers to get people back into work and, most importantly, not just to start a job but to find a sustainable position where they can remain for a long time. That is a key part of the programme.

The Work programme also fixed the problem of providers going for low-hanging fruit and getting back into work those who could do so most easily, while not placing quite the right focus on those who were more challenging. Remuneration for the Work programme means there are far more incentives to focus on the harder parts of the cohort.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), I have visited providers in my constituency—A4e and Ingeus—and I have seen their work and how they go about it. Importantly, somebody does not come through the door on the first day and start applying for jobs on the second; there is a long period of working out a person’s needs, what support they have, the training they need, and building their confidence, before they start applying for jobs. One does not expect providers to get people into work in the early months of their referral, which is why there is a problem with the statistics. We are looking at numbers of people who have been in work for six months of a programme that has existed for 13 months during a double-dip recession. The providers might not have even tried to get some of those people into work at the start of the programme—it is not a fair measure. Providers in my constituency are doing great work and the support they provide is valuable. I commend them on that, rather than saying that their work is worthless or worse than nothing.

No one would pretend that yesterday’s results were anything other than disappointing and concerning. We all wish that progress was quicker, and the whole House wants to get people back into work to improve the quality of their lives and for the sake of the taxpayer. However, the Work programme is a seven-year programme that gives individuals a two-year programme, and it is unfair to judge it on the basis of its first-year performance. We should look in a year’s time when the first cohort has spent two years in the programme. Let us look at the outcomes after the full two years, and see how many people are in work at that point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margot James Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

As the hon. Lady will know, in contrast to schemes produced by the previous Government, Work programme providers are incentivised to perform well to get people into work. They are paid by results, so they need to be as effective as possible in working with local partners to get the right outcomes. For example, I know that the contract that covers her constituency includes close work with further education colleges to improve outcomes for participants in the scheme.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

May I welcome my hon. Friend to his post and congratulate the Government on the progress made under the Work programme? In my area, significant numbers of participants have now been in work for more than six months. Does he agree that one of the best ways of reducing unemployment further is to improve labour mobility at the lower end of the income scale?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a range of interventions that we can make to help people get back into work, and mobility is one. Welfare reform and universal credit are another, because they will ensure that people are better off working than not working. We want to see which levers and which policies work, to get as many people as possible into employment.

Minister for Older People

Margot James Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) on leading the charge to secure this debate and all the other work she does on behalf of older people. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), whose mother I have had the privilege of meeting—she is indeed very fortunate to have such a daughter.

Before entering Parliament I was a local councillor in Kensington and Chelsea and served as older people’s champion for the borough. What I learned in that role has reinforced my support for the campaign, led by Anchor housing and supported by so many charities and housing organisations, for a clear voice at ministerial level for older people.

We already have Ministers with specific responsibility for women, children and people with disabilities. The Minister for Women is also the Minister for Equalities but, although that includes older people with regard to discrimination in the workplace, the Equalities brief is focused primarily on ethnic minorities and gay and transgendered people. If those five demographic groups are represented at ministerial level, why are older people not? Surely such different treatment implies some discrimination.

The arguments for having a Minister for older people go further than the fact that other demographic groups are represented at ministerial level. There are a specific set of interests and challenges associated with our ageing population that require the voice and insights of older people to be heard and taken into account across Government.

What would the role of an older people’s Minister involve? I have learned, from my own experience of a similar role locally, that older people’s interests are commonly perceived to lie in health, benefits and pensions, but that is a misperception, because older people have interests across a far wider spectrum of policy, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North said, in areas such as transport their experiences are totally different, on account of their age, from those of younger people.

One policy area that is of prime importance today is the voluntary sector, and research by HSBC has found that the economic value of volunteering among people over 60 years old is £4 billion. My constituency has a remarkable voluntary and charitable sector, which relies hugely on the energy and dedication of large numbers of people who have already retired from paid employment, so an older person’s Minister should champion that aspect of their lives. They are not a cost to, and a burden on, society; they are contributors to society.

The requirements of a Minister go well beyond the role of champion, however. A Minister should do battle for the cause, and that involves questioning and challenging the effects of policy on older constituents. I have a few examples from the past and present.

The social care budget for the five years to 2010 was almost static, meaning that the same budget had to stretch to cover more and more older people, and that local authorities were no longer able to fund care for people in moderate need. They started to restrict care to people in critical need, and that is going to have implications for the future which an older people’s Minister would have been able to spot and to anticipate.

There is still plenty to challenge on behalf of older people, and, as the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) is here to answer our debate, I congratulate him on securing the best ever deal, as announced this year, for pensioners, but he will know that existing pensioners are concerned about proposals for a flat-rate individual pension for new pensioners from 2015.

If the new pension were set at £140 a week, it would provide a couple who both drew their pension with an income of more than £14,000 a year. Currently, a couple in receipt of the basic state pension and the additional state pension receive an income of more than £11,000, however, so the difference between what I understand to be the new flat rate, £140, payable to both members of the couple and the amount paid to existing pensioners in a couple will be almost £3,000 a year. I welcome the desirability of a new system in terms of simplicity and the restoration of incentives to save, but I ask the Minister to address the sense of unfairness building up among the currently retired population.

There is also a need to challenge the “never had it so good” mentality that has built up among think tanks and interest groups, one example of which the Institute for Fiscal Studies published recently. There are affluent pensioners, and some are asset-rich and income-poor, but there is also considerable pensioner poverty. The scandalous deaths of older people each winter, owing to fuel poverty and numbering more than 20,000 in the most recent year for which figures are available, shame our society.

I have covered the importance of a Minister for older people as champion, advocate and challenger of policy, but the final critical aspect of the role would be to act as a critical friend to the older population; the job could not simply be to promote older people’s economic interests in a silo, as if the wider economy were not an issue. That is why I spoke up for the measure, announced in the Budget, to reduce the special tax threshold that is allowed for pensioners.

One of the toughest jobs of the Minister for older people would be to manage the expectations of our older population now and of the general population as they approach old age. The Government have taken difficult decisions to raise the retirement age and to put public sector pensions on a more sustainable footing, but we will in time have to go further. It is a year since the Dilnot commission reported on the funding of long-term care. I understand that there is no new money to fund Dilnot’s recommendations, and a new Minister will have to level with families and older people about what is affordable and what will have to be financed by individuals, families and private insurance schemes in future. I personally subscribe to much of what is in the commission’s proposals as regards standardising eligibility criteria, making care packages more portable around the country, and setting out standards that individuals and carers can expect.

I am pleased that the Government are going to bring forth a Bill in this Parliament to address these matters, and more, but I hope that if they accept the need for an older people’s Minister, that person would start to lay out what it is reasonable to expect and not to expect from the taxpayer towards implementing Dilnot’s fundamental recommendations on the funding of long- term care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I think we made big improvements for older people, but far more needs to be done. One of the biggest challenges—transforming the care system for older people—requires action across Government. It is not something that a Minister for older people could do on their own. They would need the Treasury, No. 10, the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments to be closely involved. It is a matter of having someone who can help to co-ordinate action across Government and provide a stronger voice at Cabinet level. That is the role a Minister for older people would perform.

Let us consider some of the other areas in which we need to make sure that older people’s needs and concerns are heard. Take education policy, which some might not think would be relevant. We need to understand that as people live longer and need to work for longer, lifelong learning is essential to help them to develop new and different skills. In family-friendly working, we need to understand that a quarter of all grandparents— 3.5 million in total—are still working as well as helping to look after their grandchildren.

Several hon. Members have mentioned housing policy. We must ensure that there is a range of good-quality options for people as they get older, so that they are not given a choice between living in their own home or a care home; there should be various stages in between. Transport policy is also very important. I am sure that many hon. Members find that bus services are a big issue in their constituency. Making sure that services are linked up is a big challenge. Our energy policy must also take into account the needs of older people, many of whom have very high energy and heating bills, particularly if they have long-term health conditions.

Having a Minister for older people in Cabinet would help to ensure that all Departments were more aware of the issues and concerns I have raised, but the final and most important reason why we need the role is that, as a society and a country, we need to face up to the major economic and social challenges of demographic change. That is a key issue behind Grey Pride’s campaign and is highlighted in the motion. Many hon. Members have spoken about pensions, and I am sure the Minister will speak about them too, but I will focus on care and support.

That must be one of top priorities for the Minister for older people because it is one of the biggest challenges facing Britain today. That is why one of the options would be to have the Minister for older people in the Department of Health, because the key to transforming the care system is in transforming the NHS. Social care budgets have been under increasing pressure for many years, but the care system has now reached breaking point. Adult social care makes up around 40% of local council budgets—up to 60% in some areas—and it is their biggest discretionary spend. When the Government are cutting local council budgets by a third, it is inevitable that services for older people will suffer. Figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government show that more than £1 billion has been cut from local council budgets for older people’s social care since the coalition Government came to power. The result is that councils are raising their eligibility criteria: 80% now provide care only for those with substantial or critical needs, up from 50% only four years ago.

[Margot James]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that the phenomenon of councils changing their eligibility criteria to restrict care to critical level started way before the cuts to local government budgets?

[Liz Kendall]

I did say that social care budgets had been under increasing pressure for many years, but local councils are now facing cuts of a third in their overall budget. Adult social care is their biggest discretionary spend, so they face real challenges and are moving their criteria from modest to only substantial and critical need.

Preventive services have all but disappeared in many areas. Fewer older people get free care; more end up having to go into hospital, or are unnecessarily stuck in hospital or more expensive residential care. Charges are increasing across the country and vary hugely depending on where people live. It is not just older people who are suffering, but their families. Carers suffer ill health and some have to give up work because the right services are not available. There are costs to the taxpayer if they are not in work and contributing financially. There are also increased benefit bills.

The fundamental problem, and another reason why a Minister for older people is important, is that our welfare state was established in a very different age. In 1948, average life expectancy was 66 for men and 71 for women; now, it is more than 78 for men and 82 for women. Some health conditions that are now common amongst older people, such as dementia, were almost unknown back then, and many disabled children died at a young age. Social expectations were very different. Disabled adults had fewer rights, and people automatically assumed that women would stay at home to care for their families.

Employment Support

Margot James Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I suppose that I should remind the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) that he supported a Government who closed 28 factories. What is inexcusable is that his Government did absolutely nothing on tracking to establish how to put in place the right support for individuals affected by their decisions. The simple truth is that as a result of the Labour party’s approach, the factories have lost £225 million since 2008. That is money that we should have been using to support more disabled people into work, and that is at the heart of our proposals today.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I commend Waitrose in my constituency for its structured programme of employment opportunities for people with disabilities. I also commend my hon. Friend for taking this difficult decision to make the money go further. Will she say a little about the responses from the disability organisations about how to help more disabled people into mainstream employment?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right: we have to make the money go further and, in these difficult economic times, ensure that the money is being used most effectively. Our consultation on the future of disability employment support received widespread—indeed, almost universal—support from disability organisations. Mind told us:

“We agree that Remploy should be radically reformed, with high quality support for everyone affected”.

Disability Rights UK said:

“We appreciate that the Sayce review has caused some concern… However, we believe segregated employment for disabled people is unacceptable.”

The simple truth is that the Labour party is out of step with the majority of the disability world. I urge it to consider more closely its response to the statement.

Welfare Reform Bill

Margot James Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I was going to come on to the Opposition amendments, but I should make the point that, although this debate is not simply about money, there is no getting away from the fact that their amendments would be costly. They would cut the savings that will be generated by £120 million in 2013-14 and £130 million in subsequent years.

I have great respect for the hon. Lady, and she makes an important point, but it would be altogether more credible if it had not been made at the very last minute. I do not ascribe the blame to her personally, but what we have heard from the Labour party has been quite extraordinary. Its latest effort, in today’s amendments, is to propose a regional benefit cap set by an independent body. The Opposition have tabled that idea and want to discuss it. However, did they table it on Second Reading? No. We had an extensive debate in Committee, which included many of the right hon. and hon. Members who are currently in their places, and I have no recollection of any mention of a regional benefit cap. We then had Report, and again I have no recollection of its being mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State led on Third Reading. I have asked him, and he cannot remember mention of a regional benefit cap. There were then the debates in the House of Lords, in which there was no mention of it. I believe that the first time we heard about it was on the “Today” programme about 10 days ago. Frankly, it is a proposal designed to get the Opposition off the hook.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Can I assume that if the Government accepted the Opposition’s proposal, the £26,000 cap would apply to London and the south-east and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) might get the smaller cap that he wants in his constituency?

[Chris Grayling]

That may well be the case, but of course it is not clear. We do not quite know what is in the mind of the Labour party. Is it suggesting—this is not in its amendments—that the cap should still be set at £26,000, in which case there is no reason why Labour Members should not back our measures? Or do they plan a higher cap in some parts of the country and a lower cap in others, accepting that our benefit system should be regionally based? Frankly, I am completely confused, and the House has every reason to be the same.