Health and Social Care Update

Debate between Mark Harper and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I completely agree with her: it is a real problem. We have started making some changes already, but we need to do so in more detail right across the country. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for dentistry will be looking into that more intensively.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

In Gloucestershire, the inability to discharge people from hospital because of inadequate social care is the primary reason why we have ambulances queuing, so I welcome the adult social care discharge fund that the Secretary of State has announced. Can she set out how that £500 million is going to be allocated, so that Gloucestershire’s local NHS will know how much it can expect and can work with Gloucestershire County Council to improve matters for my constituents?

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is correct to raise that question. We are still working on the detail of where that funding will be allocated across the country.

Covid-19: DWP Update

Debate between Mark Harper and Thérèse Coffey

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

On the question about the self-employed, where people have assets—for example, savings set aside for paying tax—they need to check carefully and go through that as they make their claim, because it will not be considered part of savings with regard to the £16,000 threshold. On housing, we have increased the local housing allowance, and I am sure that the discretionary housing payments have gone to Ealing Council. It is open for councils to come back to central Government if they would like that to be raised substantially.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) [V]]

It is clear from the Secretary of State’s statement and her answers to questions from Members that universal credit has been much more effective at scaling up to deal with the unprecedented level of claims arising from the coronavirus pandemic. I know from my constituents’ experience that we get half the number of problems that we got with the legacy benefits. May I therefore take the opportunity to thank all the staff, including those in my constituency, who have delivered universal credit? May they continue to do so.

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is right. The old system would not have coped with what universal credit has done. It has helped more than 1.8 million people making that claim.

Immigration Rules: Sponsors

Debate between Mark Harper and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I was listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and I will reflect on it. I thank him for making that point.

Let me say a little more about the financial changes—

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is moving on to that point, because residents in my constituency are surprised that the limit of £18,000 is so low, given that we hear concerns about the benefits cap of £26,000. I am delighted that he is going to explain why the limit is £18,000—of course, it is more for people with children.

[Mr Harper]

The previous requirement, which I think has been alluded to, was that applicants had to be “adequately maintained”. The courts generally interpreted that to mean income equivalent to the level of income support for a British family of that size, which was about £5,500 a year for a couple at that time. Our view was that that level of income was not an adequate basis for sustainable family migration and did not provide adequate assurance that UK sponsors and their migrant partners could support themselves and their children over the long term.

The previous regime also required quite a complex assessment, both for applicants and caseworkers, of current and prospective employment income and other financial means. It made decision making difficult, as was highlighted by the independent chief inspector’s report of 24 January on the processing of applications under the old rules for spouses and partners. Again, that was partly why we wanted a financial requirement that was clear and transparent; applicants would know where they stood, and we could make clear and timely decisions.

The minimum income threshold is £18,600 a year, with a higher amount with those sponsoring dependent children—it is £22,400 for those sponsoring one child and an extra £2,400 for each further child. We based that on the expert advice of the independent Migration Advisory Committee. It gave us a range of figures and that was at the low end. Its figures went up to about £25,000, a level at which someone would be making a net contribution to the Exchequer. The £18,600 level we settled on is broadly the income at which a couple, once settled here, cannot access income-related benefits. It is not an exact match, but it was as close as we can get. Our approach broadly says, “If they are here earning that amount of money, they are going to be able to stand on their own two feet and not expect the taxpayer to support them.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that plenty of companies in this country regularly secure permits to bring talented people to fulfil specific roles? So, it happens now and we are proud to welcome talent into our country to fill those roles.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right. If people have married or are with a partner, they are looking at a particular route. It is worth saying, and her intervention highlights this, that there are alternative routes for people under the immigration rules for some of these difficult cases.