Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) indicated, we will vote against this Bill. I also have to say that I cannot accept all the reasoning in the amendment, so we will not support the reasoned amendment either.

Many people in this debate have made a number of points about this Bill. It removes even the term “child poverty” from the Child Poverty Act 2010. The Government’s answer to eradicating child poverty seems to be to delete all statutory references to child poverty. That is their policy on ending child poverty. Of course, that has an impact not only on policies here—where there is accountability to this House—but on devolved policies. Did any consultation take place with the relevant devolved authorities, whose positions are changed by virtue of this Bill, if it passes into law?

More importantly, I am here because, like many Government Members, I want to see that work always pays, but unlike them I am conscious of the fact that I will have thousands of constituents for whom work will pay less as a result of this Bill. People who are on working tax credits will see their position worsen. We see that by the changes to the income threshold and to the taper, which will mean a difference of more than £100 a month to many people, straight off, just from those changes alone. Other people will be affected by the freeze on other benefits. They include people who are not in work, but it also affects people who are in work. It is as though the Government looked at all the speculation a number of weeks ago about what they would do and whether they would go for freezes, for cuts or for caps, or whether they would change the thresholds. The answer is that all of the above are in this Bill. The bottom line is billions of pounds of welfare cuts, which will affect not just the Budget in overall terms in the way the Government want, but family budgets in crucial and biting ways.

In addition, the Bill introduces the two-child policy. We know that Conservative Members will say, “Well, at least it is not quite Vulgarian and you don’t have to hide your first two children. Therefore it’s all right.” But the fact is that the Conservative party was not saying there should be a two-child limit when it came to the child tax allowances that it put through in legislation in the last Parliament. There, £2,000 of childcare payments a year can be paid for every single child; there are no limits on the number of children for that, and of course we know that 80% of the beneficiaries of those childcare payments will be in the top 40% of the income bracket. No, it is two children only here, and people have to think about their choice when they are not in that income bracket. That is why this Bill is fundamentally unjust.

Basically, this Bill proposes a poverty tax. In the previous Parliament, many Government Members valiantly rebelled when it came to Budget measures on things such as the “caravan” tax and the “pasty” tax. There is no sign of any of them rebelling on the poverty tax that will hit hard-working families in their constituencies. There is no sign of any of them rebelling over the dishonest way in which this Bill treats disabled people. Yes, disability premiums might be protected, but not the wider benefits that people are on, so disabled people will see their benefits go down as a result of these measures. They will be told, “Oh no, but we protected your disability premium.” That will be a fat lot of comfort when their overall income goes down as a result of these measures. There is no point in pretending to them at that stage that the tyre is only flat at the bottom; and that the comfort is in the fact that their disability premium is protected. There has been no follow through on the promises that were made to carers. Any of the promises that are still being made to carers are not reflected in this Bill.

Scotland Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister says that the Government do not want to place unnecessary restrictions on the Scottish Parliament. Which of the amendments that hon. Members have spoken to would do that?

[Priti Patel]

I am talking about the definition of a disability benefit, which we want to ensure provides ample flexibility for the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a range of outcomes for people who would not otherwise meet the requirements.

Amendment 48 relates to carers’ benefits. As with disability benefits, our approach has been to describe the key features of the existing carer’s allowance, but clause 19 will not restrict the Scottish Parliament to following all the detailed features of that allowance. For example, it will not be restricted to making a benefit payment to only one carer in respect of each disabled person. Taken together with existing devolved powers in areas such as social care, the clause will ensure that the Scottish Parliament has powers to set out how support for carers is provided, including the rate at which it is paid and whether it is paid as a benefit or provided in some other way.

There is also a broad definition of a disabled person in respect of whom a carer’s benefit can be paid. Amendment 48 would extend the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence still further, allowing it to provide a carer’s benefit to children under 16, people in full-time education or those who are gainfully employed. I will take each category in turn and explain why we do not consider that there is a case for that expansion of competence.

It is a long-standing principle of the social security system that those under 16 are normally supported not by the benefits system but by guardians, local authorities or parents. With regard to those not gainfully employed, carer’s allowance is designed to recognise those whose opportunities to work are limited because of the time that they dedicate to caring duties. There needs to be a threshold so that we can judge whether a claimant is in employment. The reference to gainful employment provides that threshold.

Those in full-time education are normally supported not by the benefits system but by the education maintenance system of loans and grants. Clause 19 will allow the Scottish Parliament to decide on the details of who carers’ benefits are paid to, how much is paid and what the eligibility criteria should be. The parameters of the definition of “relevant carer” are appropriate and reflect long-standing principles about the purpose of carers’ benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

That is an astute point. It shows that if we get ourselves into a muddle with the legislation and it is just a kirn, we are storing up trouble down the line. The legislation has to be future-proof as well as present-proof. We must prepare for every eventuality.

We can dance around the semantics of the current wording of the Bill all afternoon, but if Scottish Ministers have to obtain the agreement from UK Ministers on when their measures are to take effect, that is, in effect, handing the UK the ability to block or delay the implementation of policy, frustrating the legitimate democratic process and contravening both the letter and the spirit of the Smith agreement. If the Government have to go to court to enforce these measures, it should be obvious that they are less than adequate. If the Secretary of State still maintains there is no veto, I challenge him to accept amendments 118 and 119, which make that explicit and beyond all doubt.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Dr Whiteford]

I am not giving way, as I am about to wind up my remarks.

This group of amendments comes down to respect—respect for the promises made to the people of Scotland; respect for our Parliament; respect for the democratic process; and, above all, respect for our citizens and our ability to make decisions in our own interests. That is, after all, what meaningful devolution is really all about.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

I am afraid that that is a bad example, because it proves my case. Ireland broke from the pound, set up its own currency and then, unfortunately for Ireland, chose the euro, but that was Ireland’s decision and it has had a bumpy ride ever since.

The big difference we need to remind ourselves about for the purposes of this welfare debate is that there is a common currency, so there have to be some limits to the amount of freedom appropriate for welfare benefits. If the SNP wishes to be truly independent and wants an independent currency, I fully understand its position and none of these arguments makes any sense.

I think I have made my point and I hope that Ministers will bear it in mind that it is very difficult to come to a conclusion before we know what the financial settlement will be. It is also very important to remember that there is a common work, language and currency area, which means that there has to be some family resemblance in the benefits that are paid.

[Mark Durkan]

I want to follow on from some of the issues touched on by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), particularly his last point about a financial settlement. When debating the earlier group of amendments, he intervened on the Secretary of State to ask whether he would address how the Barnett formula might be adjusted.

In essence, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is corroborating some of the basic questions asked by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) about clauses 24 and 25, which presume an awful lot and raise a lot of questions about what else should be in them and what is happening outside them. The clauses presume a standard of behaviour and courses of action and events in relation to how decisions will be made. For instance, the word “concurrently” is used, but if we look at the sequence of decisions and processes involved, we will see that they do not look very concurrent. There could be distended periods and a lot of dispute and difference. The most important gap in clauses 24 and 25 —both Labour and the SNP have tabled amendments to address this—is that they do not say what will happen if Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State do not concur on some of the issues.

If we as legislators are going to pass clauses that presume certain standards, the course of events and political behaviour, the question we need to ask is, “And what if not?” The Bill does not answer that question. If there is no agreement between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of the State on the decisions, timelines, details and other implications, what will happen? We will be in difficulty and we will be told, “Well, the legislation faithfully followed Smith and we couldn’t do any more than that,” but it is clear that Smith is not of itself sufficient to address those questions, so we as legislators must address them. The Smith commission exercise was different from that for which we have responsibility as legislators. It is not good enough for us to say, “We’re not going to answer those obvious questions, because Smith didn’t address them.”

Amendment of the Law

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I rise not to make any party political points on the Budget, with regard to parties formerly or currently in government, but to respond to a Budget statement that was full of smuggery and spin. It seems to me that the Chancellor was claiming circumstantial credit for things such as low commodity prices and low inflation and using that context to set out a Budget stall that was very much about making an election statement. However, I need to look at such a Budget and ask what the implications really are for the next spending period and for my constituency.

Beyond some of the measures that the Chancellor announced, not all of which I disagree with—indeed, some of them no one would disagree with—it is quite clear that he has locked in further heavy cuts for the next spending period, not least in welfare. I represent a constituency that is consistently ranked as having the highest level of unemployment anywhere in the UK, and the problem is genuinely lack of work, not lack of work ethic. It is also a border constituency. We must therefore judge the measures in the Budget and in what is promised for the next spending review, courtesy of the previous autumn statement, in terms of the implications for our economy and our services.

It is not the case that the Budget has little to do with the circumstances in a place such as Derry because all the key service decisions are devolved. Many of those decisions are rightly devolved, and I want to see more decisions made at that level, but of course the spending power of the devolved Executive is determined here, and of course the working circumstances for many of our businesses as well as our services are still determined by the Chancellor’s Budget statement.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) pointed out that the Chancellor said nothing in his statement about the health service. I agree with her, but actually he said very little about the public services at all, and in circumstances in which he was using a degree of spin and a few wheelie turns to try to say that austerity was coming to an end earlier and that an easing was in sight. Nothing was offered to the people in key public services who have endured pay restraint after pay restraint, even as their work loads have increased. As payrolls have decreased and work loads have increased, the pressures on them have gone up and the rewards have gone down. With the exception of what they can find in the changes in the personal tax allowance, absolutely nothing—not relief or respite—was offered to them. Instead, they are being offered more of the cuts that will affect the circumstances in which they are working very hard to provide those services.

It must be remembered that the private sector in Northern Ireland, and certainly in my border constituency, is very dependent on selling across the border, and in circumstances in which our trade is affected, so our retail sector and those selling services to households are losing out because, with the current exchange rate, trade is going across the border and people are purchasing across the border, rather than locally. For those who export, much of their business is in the south, and obviously the continuing pressures in the eurozone and the high exchange rate affect those markets. The Budget therefore contains no great news for our public sector, on which Northern Ireland is very dependent, and nothing to relieve the pressures faced by our private sector.

The Chancellor referred to the Government’s moves in relation to corporation tax for Northern Ireland and the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill, which we welcome. We recognise that the Chancellor made it clear that he is committed, if he is returned to that position, to go on reducing the headline rate of corporation tax for the whole of the UK, so the differential that we will achieve for Northern Ireland will not be as marked as it was when people first sought the devolution of corporation tax. We also know that the Government are saying that the commencement of the devolution of corporation tax in 2017 will only be on the basis that the Treasury is satisfied at that point that Northern Ireland has a balanced and sustainable budget.

We see this year that the Government set out pre-conditions for the introduction of the corporation tax Bill, such as that the Assembly had to deliver welfare reform measures in terms that it might have preferred not to. The question arises whether the Executive and the Assembly will similarly be told in 2017 that what will then be the corporation tax powers Act will be activated only on the basis of decisions then made, such as the welfare cuts to be imposed at that time. We know that £12 billion of welfare cuts are foreseen in the next spending review period, so again we have to ask where that is going to leave the Executive in Northern Ireland and, more importantly, people in my constituency.

Personal Independence Payments

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend’s intervention clearly illustrates the issue for us in Northern Ireland. I have a member of staff in my constituency office who now does nothing else but deal with benefit issues and issues with the DLA; I spoke to her this morning to talk over some of the issues. We have a higher proportion of claimants in my constituency and a higher proportion of contact with them. The Government have offered Members’ staff the opportunity to have training on the new system, which my staff took up, and I hope that the information that they have gleaned from the training classes here in London will be sufficient to enable the change to be managed more easily in my constituency. That is one of the really good things that the Government have done.

PIP retains key features of DLA, which is important for a smooth transition. It is not means-tested and is non-taxable and non-contributory. It is intended to provide financial support for disabled people who face the greatest challenges in remaining independent—it is important to help those people hold on to some of their independence. It is payable to people both in and out of work and has two components—daily living and mobility—with different levels of award for each based on the assessed level of need.

The benefit has been changed and improved, however, in the sense that it encourages a move to a more transparent and objective assessment of need, with assessments by health professionals employed by contracted providers. I know that there is a lot to be learned from the past two years here on the mainland, but the PIP system itself is something that most of us can welcome, because on paper it has the potential to make lives better and be better at helping people. However, there have been recurring problems and I want to make some observations about what has happened.

The assessment places a stronger emphasis on the functional impact of claimants’ underlying disabling and medical conditions, not on the conditions themselves. That is vital, because people are affected by conditions in different ways. We see that in my office every week. What one person may need might not be needed by another person, so that is one element that I was happy to see changed; it is one of the new system’s pluses, at least on paper. A points-based system to assess eligibility for awards will also be included, with more regular reviews of eligibility for those receiving awards. Finally, there is greater focus on the needs of claimants with mental health conditions.

Over my last four and a half years as a Member of Parliament, I have become more aware of the needs of people with mental health issues. I do not know what it is about society, or whether it is a combination of things, but more people today have mental health conditions, and we need a system that understands the issue. In Northern Ireland, we had a conflict over 30 years, which may have contributed to mental health problems, and we have concerns about that.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman will probably recognise that those of us who have concerns about the implementation of welfare reform in Northern Ireland have raised the particular needs of victims of the troubles, and the issue was raised as part of the Stormont House agreement. They were given DLA awards—perhaps for life—because of their condition, and there was concern about the difficulties they would face in being subjected to reassessment and in perhaps having to retell their story, whether the trauma they carried was physical or mental. We have been assured that we can get extra consideration on that.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that valuable intervention—he is right to raise the conflict over 30 years and its repercussions. Those who have lived with trauma have filled in the forms and been given a definite award, but they have then had to go through it all again. It is important that those points are addressed, and it seems, from the Stormont House agreement and the discussions with the Secretary of State and other Ministers, that they are.

As I mentioned in last November’s debate about PIP, the delays and backlogs are worrying. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the independent review expressed the same concerns. The hon. Members for Erith and Thamesmead, for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) have mentioned the delays, and it is important that they are addressed. As PIP is rolled out, serious delays have occurred, which means that some of the most vulnerable have been left without the help they need for too long. For example, of the 220,300 disabled people who applied for PIP from 8 April 2013 to 31 December 2013, only 34,200 received news of their claim by February 2014. That delay is absolutely unacceptable.

Obviously, that was not good enough, so the review suggested having better and more concise communication. The format of decision letters was claimed to be unclear, confusing and of variable quality. It has been suggested that the letters begin with a clear statement of the decision, followed by the award, payment details, a simpler explanation for the reasons and the next steps. I would definitely support that in my constituency, as we role out PIPs in the next month or so.

A large number of claimants have difficulty understanding reply letters. On more than one occasion, my office has had to relay to them what has been written to help them. It is good that my staff have the understanding to do that, but it would be better if the letters used words that people could understand.

I mentioned in our last debate—this has also been touched on today—my concern over the reliability criteria, which measure whether activities can be undertaken safely, to an acceptable standard and repeatedly. I was pleased that the review recognised that conditions and their impact can often fluctuate over time—people can have changing conditions. Although the review saw examples of good practice, respondents expressed concern over whether the criteria were being applied appropriately. There is an issue about how people are assessed and how measures are put in place.

In the same way that a condition affects different people in different ways, people’s ability to carry out particular activities can vary. It is therefore difficult to apply the reliability criteria over a set period. However, regular reviews might allow the same tests to be carried out each time, which would help to monitor whether someone had remained the same, deteriorated or, indeed, improved. That, in turn, would mean that fairer assessments and payments could be given than under the system. Provided that the right safeguards are in place, that could be a good idea; if it is done in the right way, it could bring benefits.

The review set out short-term, medium-term and long-term solutions to make PIPs work better. Those include short-term actions to address delays and backlogs before the start of managed reassessment; medium-term actions to improve both evaluation of the accuracy and consistency of award outcomes and the collection of further evidence; and longer-term actions to redesign the PIP delivery model in terms of claimant experience and business effectiveness. In his response, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether changes to make the system better can still be implemented even at this late stage.

Ultimately, I am pleased the review has concluded and can now address some of the main issues with the new PIP model. PIP has the potential to improve on DLA, but it needs to be fairer and more objective, and it must meet the needs of people more than has been the case. I welcome the findings of the review, which will mould a new system that can work better. I hope that its suggestions will be taken on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Like other hon. Members, I commend the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this debate on the independent review of personal independence payments, which are a significant part of the concern expressed by Members across the House about how welfare reform will work in practice. They are also pertinent to the delay in legislation on welfare reform in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Devolution of social security in Northern Ireland is devolution up to a point. The parity principles and the exacting way in which the Government have enforced them mean that, essentially, the Assembly passes karaoke legislation: we can perhaps provide a bit of our own accent, but we cannot change the words and music very much. The key issue of the rules, the rates and the existence of benefits stems from legislation as framed in Westminster. There is something of a blur which, even after the Stormont House agreement, will continue in future. The issues that were brought out in the review of personal independence payments show that an awful lot rests on implementation, proper planning and preparation, as well as the capacity to deal with numbers, volumes, complexities, particular situations and, in some cases, the pattern of issues that have arisen.

Many of us are concerned, in the light of the Gray review, about the implications of further welfare reform. Significant changes can be made in the next Parliament under the Welfare Reform Act 2012 without the need for new primary legislation. Many of the assumptions or givens that need to be improved according to the review might be changed.

The welfare cap will bite into that as well, as it could mean that decision makers and those who process the applications, whether at the assessment provider stage or in the civil service—the Department for Work and Pensions on this island; whoever does it in Scotland under a future regime; and the Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland—will be working against new, fixed envelopes. They could have a fixed budget against which to assess how many people can receive benefits. That would change the nature of assessment decisions and the number of claims that can be approved. That issue was not resolved by what was agreed or understood between the parties when the Stormont House agreement was reached. It is important that we do not pretend that those possible adverse changes will not present real challenges to parties in the Assembly and the Executive in future.

Let me turn to an issue that stems from the evidence that was given to the independent review. In the context of the Stormont House agreement, the parties were concerned that the numbers might fall off in the transfer from disability living allowance to PIP in Northern Ireland, and that some of the decision-making processes might have adverse effects. They were assured that, compared with England, where there were delays in outcomes, the problems were not as grave, and that the Social Security Agency has learned from the experiences in England. Those assurances became working assumptions, but that could change.

Ministers here, probably in absolute good faith, made assumptions about how well PIP was going to work and how smooth the transfer would be. Clearly, those assumptions did not turn out to be correct, so we need to work hard in Northern Ireland. The relevant Committee in the Assembly, the Minister and the staff of the Social Security Agency must work hard to apply lessons learned in the light of the review. They must listen to the concerns that I have heard today and on other occasions, both here and in the main Chamber, from many hon. Members who have more direct and immediate experience of this issue, and whose constituents have told them about their frustrations and difficulties.

In an intervention, I spoke about the victims of the troubles, who are worried about having to repeat their stories to assessment providers, civil servants or whoever else. They are worried about making their experience the subject of a review argument. They do not want to be put through those difficulties and talk about such sensitive things. We have made many promises to victims in Northern Ireland. We have set up victims units and victims commissioners to ensure that, when public bodies and agencies deal with them, their needs are given due consideration. It would seem strange if we were to completely confound the position of victims in relation to personal independence payments and treat them in a way that differs from the particular provision that, understandably, has been made by the Government here for people who have served in the armed services and whose disability stems from their experience and the injuries that they received in that context. If consideration is rightly given to people in that situation, it is important that we have bespoke consideration in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, that is being further worked on.

Personal independence payments are not the only thing that affects the future of DLA. In the House last week, we saw the launch of “Right from the start”—essentially the manifesto pitch of the combined campaign, Every Disabled Child Matters. It expressed worry about what would happen to DLA for those under 16, given that under the Welfare Reform Act, Ministers in the next Parliament will have the capacity to “disappear” DLA for under-16s without recourse to primary legislation. That is a live concern for a number of the groups in the policy community that deals with children and families coping with disabilities.

We are glad that lessons are being learned and that they have been reflected in the independent review. However, it is not clear that all the lessons and the issues that hon. Members have raised have been fully reflected and addressed in the review, so more needs to be done by the Department and Ministers. In the specific Northern Ireland context, we can use the light of the review to guide us, but we should not pretend that the path will be straight or smooth, or that we have cracked it. Under the Stormont House agreement, the Executive have been allowed to use some of their block grant resources to provide a hard shoulder to mitigate the impact of the change and its implications. Of course, if the welfare cap and other changes materially change the numbers and the issues, the Executive are not going to be able to find more hard shoulder from the block grant. The situation that the Executive face is different from the situation outlined in the Smith commission report. That difference needs to be understood by both places, and it needs to be understood here.

I again thank the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead for giving us the opportunity to hear about the issues directly from her and others. It is a good alert for us. I hope that my colleagues and I can ensure that our colleagues in the Assembly and the Department in Belfast take note of all the issues that have been raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There are two issues: the legislative process—I take his word about the timetable for that—and the implementation and operational matters. The Department and I will provide every assistance to the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure that that goes smoothly. It is worth putting on record—

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

Let me finish my comment, which is about a point that the hon. Member for Foyle raised. The Stormont House agreement states that although the Northern Ireland Executive normally legislate on welfare on a parity basis with Great Britain, they can deviate from parity, partly to recognise the history of Northern Ireland and some of the specific issues that apply. However, the agreement also states that the cost of deviations from parity with Great Britain must be met from the existing Northern Ireland budget. The hon. Gentleman set that out, and I wanted to put that on the record to clarify the position. The Northern Ireland Executive can deviate from the normal process when they legislate to deliver the operational effect.

[Mark Durkan]

Of course, there have historically been some differences in delivery, even within the parity regime, on matters such as housing benefit. When the Minister meets Mervyn Storey, will he ensure that he, as the Whitehall Minister, says nothing to disturb our working assumption that much of the room that we thought would have to be made up from the Executive’s block grant is available to us within our spending remit under the welfare cap? That cap is not really biting at the moment, but it may do so in the future. Can he assure us that our assumptions about not having to rely so much on the block grant, and on the rest of the Executive’s budget grant, will not be disturbed by any meeting that he has with the devolved Minister?

[Mr Harper]

I will certainly make sure that the meetings I have with the Minister are helpful. The hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and for Edinburgh North and Leith mentioned the Smith commission, which is relevant to the conversations in Northern Ireland and in Scotland. It may not be far in the future, but I cannot anticipate the Government’s comprehensive response to the report published by the Smith commission, for which hon. Members will have to wait patiently a little longer. It is worth saying that we have to be careful, because Ministers have to follow current legislation. All that has been announced in the Smith commission report is what will happen in the future. The Government have made commitments, but no legislation has yet been introduced. When legislation is introduced, the Scottish Government will have to decide what they will do, and our conversation today makes it clear that we will have to think about operational delivery. Ministers have to proceed on the basis of the current law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

We will indeed speak to all the Departments to ensure that more people are recruited in different areas all the time. We speak to trade associations, national employers and other Departments. The wonderful news, which will be celebrated in all parts of the House, is that record numbers of people are in employment.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the Secretary of State update us on the work that is being done to prepare for the application of the welfare cap? Will he say whether that work has been informed by devolution considerations?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the middle of discussing devolution proposals that emanated in Scotland but that cover all other elements of the United Kingdom. The key point that I make to him again and again is that Northern Ireland has not implemented the welfare legislation. As a result of that, it is difficult for us to deal with Northern Ireland directly on these matters, but I am certainly willing to engage.

Universal Credit

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I have been absolutely clear—I do not think I could have been clearer—that the strategic business plans for this Parliament have all been approved. [Interruption.] Would the hon. Gentleman like to let me finish? What Sir Bob Kerslake was referring to was the overarching full roll-out, including the years beyond this Parliament. I have already said that I and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are about to finalise that, as approved.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State has to accept that there have been valid concerns behind all the questions that have been asked about the feasible delivery of universal credit. There is also real confusion about the differing answers that have been given. Those concerns extend to Northern Ireland, where people are concerned about the implications for hard-pressed families and for local and regional economies. Given the question mark against the overall business case, is it right for the Assembly to be brow-beaten by the Treasury, through threats of cuts to other budgets, into passing the karaoke Bill that would legislate for universal credit?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I believe that the welfare reforms that the Assembly is being asked to pass, which include universal credit, are right. They are already delivering for the rest of the UK, and I believe that there will be net value to Northern Ireland when it rolls them out. I hope that it gets on and does it, and universal credit will be part of that.

Bill Presented

Local Government (Independence) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Chris Ruane, on behalf of Mr Graham Allen, presented a Bill to define the independence of local government; to regulate the relationship between local and central government in England by means of a statutory Code; to require public authorities to act in compliance with the Code; to provide that the Code may only be amended by means of an Order under the super-affirmative procedure, approved unanimously by each House of Parliament or by a majority in each House equal to or greater than two-thirds of the number of seats in each House; to exclude any Bill to amend this Act from the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911; to make provision regarding the powers and finances of local government in England; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 September, and to be printed (Bill 72).

Independent Living Fund Recipients

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nic Dakin]

That is deeply worrying, as my hon. Friend says. That is why it is good the Minister has the opportunity today to give people those guarantees and reassurances and to address the concerns raised by the Government’s own impact assessment.

Disabled People Against Cuts points out that, for the 17,500 people in receipt of ILF,

“the closure of the Fund will have a devastating impact on the lives on these individuals and their families. It also has a much wider significance because at the heart of this is the fundamental question of disabled people’s place in society: do we want a society that keeps its disabled citizens out of sight, prisoners in their own homes or locked away in institutions, surviving not living or do we want a society that enables disabled people to participate, contribute and enjoy the opportunities, choice and control that non-disabled people”—

like us—“take for granted?”

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the ILF has proved to be a source of social and economic emancipation on an extra-statutory basis? No other scheme delivered by government—local or otherwise—could do that. The ILF has developed a specialism, an insight and a sensitivity that cannot be replaced by anything else.

[Nic Dakin]

That is an excellent point; the support provided by the specialists who understand the area of work has been transformational. The independent living fund was a visionary way forward for disabled people. It would be worse than a sadness—it would be a tragedy for us all—if the Government, in pursuit of micro-benefits, were to lose for society a macro-benefit. We cannot wash our hands of what happens, and that is why we are here today, arguing on behalf of disabled people and the recipients of the ILF. Let us consider the words of Mahatma Ghandi:

“The greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest members.”

People like Jon and Ashley are not weak but strong; but the ILF gives them independence, and liberates their strengths. Now is the Minister’s opportunity to guarantee that their future independence will not be compromised by the closure of the ILF.

Quality Workplace Pensions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. The challenge with this market is that the people buying the pensions are essentially the employers of the firm, not the staff. We need to ensure that when firms are shopping around for pensions for their workers they get clear and straightforward information about what the charges will be and that they will be capped. Scheme members clearly need to be able to access information about charges in a straightforward and transparent way. It is a slightly odd market, because people are buying on their behalf and, because of automatic enrolment, scheme members cannot negotiate a different price; they just have to take the price they are given. Our focus is therefore very much on ensuring that the people who make the choices on pensions—in this context, the employers—have clear advice and the cap to ensure that they and their members cannot be ripped off.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister has indicated that further work will be done to try to tackle the whole ecosystem of charges and combinations of charges. What does he believe will actually trigger a decision in 2017 to capture some of those charges in the cap?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Our central interest in all this is the well-being and welfare of scheme members. We would not put transaction costs, for example, into a cap if we thought that might result in certain transactions that would benefit scheme members not taking place. On the other hand, if we thought that there was overtrading or that people’s money was being invested in a way that generated income that did not benefit them, we would need to take account of those issues. One of the challenges we face in making policy in this area is that so little is known about what is going on. Step one is therefore to get transparency so that we know the scale of what is going on and what sorts of charges there are out there, and then we can make an informed decision.

Pensions Strategy

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

The interaction between these measures and the funding of long-term care is important. There are various rules. If someone takes their pension pot as income, it will be counted as income in the means testing for residential care. If they have capital assets, we assess them on a different basis. We have to make sure that these measures are joined up with our policy on long-term care so that we have the right outcome. What we hope will happen is that new financial products will allow people to use their pot to possibly get care insurance as well. The industry has asked for this; now it has to raise its game.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Beyond the guidance guarantee, will the Minister assure us that when these innovative products are offered for sale, the regulator will be able to guarantee that it will in effect have pre-assured them, not least regarding the transparency of charging schemes?

[Steve Webb]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are taking steps to make sure that charges in the pension sphere are made much more transparent. Any new products, particularly if they are sold, will be regulated by the FCA. The guidance is simply a conversation, as it were, with someone who will enable people to get basic information. People will still be able to take regulated independent financial advice, and that will be a regulated process.

Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans). This is not the first time that the House has called for an assessment of the cumulative impact of welfare reforms on disabled people, but this time it is being called for by not only disability organisations and the official Opposition, but by the more than 100,000 people who signed the War on Welfare petition. Like others in this House, I encourage and congratulate the people who signed it, and who made us bring this issue to the Floor of the House.

I recognise, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), that this is probably an historic occasion: it is the first time that disabled people have framed the agenda in this House. I hope that we can respect that, regardless of our views.

I recognise some of the good work that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), is trying to do, including with employers, to fulfil potential. His heart is probably—I was going to give a caveat, but I will not: his heart is in the right place. The difficulty that we all have is not with his heart, but with his and his Government’s proposals for welfare reform.

It is with sadness that I note that we are yet again asking for a cumulative impact assessment that the Government should have undertaken when they introduced their welfare reform package. Since then, there has been a pretty crude campaign of vilification of those in receipt of disability benefits. The Government have attempted to conflate the tiny proportion of claimants who defraud the system, with whom none of us in this House have any truck, with others. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale fell into that trap when he talked about fraud and error. Those are two completely different things. The Government have conflated those attempting to defraud the system with those legitimately in receipt of a range of benefits. As we all know in this House, that has resulted in an increase in disability hate crime.

I also feel sadness because the Prime Minister made the following commitment in 2010:

“people who are sick, who are vulnerable, the elderly—I want you to know that we will always look after you”.

He even assured us that cuts would be made in a fair way, and that we would ask

“those on higher incomes to shoulder more of the burden than those on lower incomes.”

Yet the reality is that disabled people lose nine times more than most others, according to the Centre for Welfare Reform, and those disabled people with greater needs sometimes lose up to 19 times more than other people.

Opposition Members are not against welfare reform; indeed, as many have pointed out today, we started it when in government. In opposition, we have offered on more than one occasion to work with the Government in a consensual way to try to find a way forward. I know from conversations with disabled people that they are not against welfare reform, but they are against what has happened over the past three years, because the welfare package fails on various counts.

The Prime Minister’s comments about looking after the most vulnerable run counter to the fact that the Government’s welfare package disproportionately affects disabled people, who are hit simultaneously by various changes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) pointed out. There is the employment and support allowance, universal credit, the bedroom tax, the benefit cap, the change from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, and the changes in social care provision that others have pointed out.

I want to turn briefly to PIP, because we were told that it would help the most severely disabled people. If that had been the outcome of the policy change, perhaps we could have understood it, but the Government started with a number and framed a policy around that number. The National Audit Office report published this morning is devastating; it shows that the Government went into a reform of benefits that affects the most disabled in our community without knowing where they were going, or how they would implement the reform. According to the report, on the first day of the claims process, the Government met their target, but when we get to the claims being passed to the assessment provider, that information is not recorded. The expectation is that assessments will be completed in 42 days, but 64 days is what is actually being delivered. Worst of all, the terminally ill—those who have a life expectancy of no more than six months—are having to wait 28 days. The Minister may tell me that that has changed, and I hope that it has, but it seems that a sixth of those people’s total lifespan will be used up while they are in the bureaucratic morass of the PIP assessment.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My right hon. Friend has described the effects of the Welfare Reform Act 2012; is she concerned that it was cast in a way that gives the Government scope, without the need for further primary legislation, to make serious changes to terms and interpretations relating to the benefits that we are talking about, including PIP? With the changes that the Chancellor is promising in relation to annually managed expenditure, there will in future be more times when a number is fixed on, and people are squeezed off benefit to reach it.

[Mrs McGuire]

Yes. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and I am delighted that he has made his point.

The Minister got quite agitated just now. I hope that he will give us some facts and figures about the implementation of PIP, because there has been a wall of silence. We all know what is happening in our constituencies, but we are accused of giving anecdotal evidence; he is in a position to give us the real evidence.

Since 2010, it obviously has not mattered what was said to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about his welfare reforms. He has become a victim of his rhetoric and is obsessed by the idea of his legacy. We used to have beneficiaries of the social security system; now many people feel that they are victims of that system. I ask the Secretary of State to put his cumulative impact assessment where his reforms are. I say to him, “Do the assessment, and prove me and 100,000 people out there totally wrong, if you have the courage.” I say categorically that if he will not or cannot do that, we are entitled to ask why he is still in his job.