Disability Action Plan

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, which also applies to businesses’ recruitment: they talk about recruiting differently, and they want to do so, but then they regress. That tends to be due to a lack of understanding. The Disability Unit will work to better define what businesses need to do, building on the main issues raised in the consultation responses. That work will also look at evidence gaps; at where existing schemes are already doing things and there may be duplication; and, as the hon. Lady said and as I described earlier, at where people think they are doing the right thing but it does not match the reality of the experience for disabled people using a service or having a day out or a night away. That is part of the work covered by actions 18 and 19 in the plan, and I would be delighted to hear from the hon. Lady what that means to her constituents.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the disability action plan. The Minister mentioned the cost of living; I wondered what more could be done to speed up the transition to personal independence payments for those living on disability living allowance. One of my constituents has just waited over a year for that transition to take place.

I welcome the fact that access to playgrounds is in the action plan, but following on from the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), what more can be done to ensure that these points are delivered, both at a local government level—perhaps by making it a statutory responsibility for local councils to provide at least a minimum level of disability access for some play areas and playgrounds—and at a national level? What cross-departmental committees or working is the Minister already involved with?

[Mims Davies]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making some really pertinent points. In regard to his point about playgrounds, that is why there will be a portal and some best practice. Some local authorities are already delivering; others will be able to learn from those interventions, so that families can enjoy playing together in the way that everybody else would take for granted. That should be available in every community.

My right hon. Friend also mentioned the wider structural changes. I am happy to look at the specific case he raised. If he would kindly send me the details, I would be very grateful. This plan is part of the wider national disability strategy, including changes to the work capability assessment. The engagement I have had with disabled people and their organisations has made clear that there are some very vulnerable people who are very keen to be protected and supported, and there are other groups who are very keen to get the opportunities and chances they need. This Government are determined to get the approach right for everybody and every community.

Benefit Sanctions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Before I call Grahame Morris, I note that there are a few speakers left. I do not want to set a time limit. If we could have an informal time limit of around seven minutes, that will allow everyone to get in. We will see how we get on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this valuable and important debate.

The Government claim that evidence clearly shows that their sanctions regime is clear, fair and effective in getting people into work, so why are they hiding data from experts who want to study that effectiveness? Benefits sanctions are an utterly inhumane blunt instrument that have not been shown to be effective in their supposed aim. Instead, almost every study that has looked at the benefit sanctions regime seems to include the word “cruel”—indeed, it is “pointlessly cruel” according to a Select Committee report, and “cruel”, “inhumane” and “degrading” according to academics. That is what the experts conducting those studies have found.

The sanctions regime is enormously disproportionate and punitive: a complete withdrawal of support for missing a single jobcentre appointment. Examples of people sanctioned because of illness, a lack of wi-fi connectivity or other reasons outside their control are easy to find. That cruelty can be imposed with little effective scrutiny for up to three years. The organisation Feeding Britain reported that in Leicester, one woman with two children was sanctioned after she missed appointments as a result of going to Iraq to look after her sick father. It left her in a terrible state, with bills and rent arrears. Another referral over the summer had his appointment with his work coach rearranged because the work coach was not in. He was then sanctioned because whoever was standing in for the work coach rearranged the appointment to be earlier, and he missed it.

The UK is an international outlier in this cruelty. Indeed, the UK is unique among OECD nations in using sanctions to punish claimants. A Bristol University Press publication on the impact of sanctions shows that they are largely ineffective and often make people more likely to remain out of work. This consciously cruel regime is operating at record levels—more than double its pre-pandemic numbers—in the middle of a cost of living crisis, and a huge number of working people in my constituency of Leicester East are being sanctioned for not accepting zero-hours contracts to top up their incomes.

Of course, the more vulnerable a claimant, the greater the impact of this conscious cruelty. The Government cannot claim to be unaware of this, as they have been repeatedly warned by MPs, academics and advocate groups about the huge damage being done. Rethink Mental Illness recently called for an immediate halt to sanctions, with the group’s chief executive officer describing them as

“incredibly damaging to people’s mental health”

because of

“the massive financial and psychological impact”

of sanctions and of the fear that they might be imposed.

Speaking of the more than doubling of the number of sanctions, David Webster of the University of Glasgow said:

“A Universal Credit claimant is now more likely”—

in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis in living memory—

“to be under a sanction than to have Covid”,

which is a truly horrifying illustration. Dr Webster also accused the Government of withholding information about the scale of the crisis they have created. That is not a new phenomenon. As we have heard, in February the Government blocked access to data for academics who simply wanted simply to study whether benefit sanctions were driving up suicide rates, bringing a vital study that was already under way to an immediate halt. Even for the Conservative party, this is an astonishing level of disregard for people’s mental health and, indeed, for their lives. It is institutional cruelty.

It is time to end the culture of secrecy about the impacts and effectiveness of the Government’s benefit sanctions policy. Will the Minister commit the Government to releasing this data? It is an open secret that information already in the public domain showed that a staggering 43% of unemployed disability benefit claimants had attempted to take their own lives because of the horrors inflicted on them, and that was in 2018—long before the sanctions reached their current appalling high level.

Sanctions are indeed pointlessly cruel, inhumane and degrading. If the Government think that the facts show otherwise, why are they hiding them?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front Benchers, who have 10 minutes each. If the Minister is so minded, he might leave a minute for Chris Stephens to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Is the Minister giving way?

[Guy Opperman]

No. I have one minute left to address this debate. In November 2018 the Work and Pensions Committee specifically said that the Committee agreed with the Government that the principles of conditionality and sanctions were an important part of the welfare system.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West on securing the debate. The Government have been utterly clear that we are fully supportive of all people who are on benefits.

[John McDonnell]

Just answer the question!

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced in this place and should know better. If the Minister is not giving way, he should not be speaking.

[John McDonnell]

I can tell the Minister—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. We are running out of time. Minister, I think the hon. Member for Glasgow South West would like to hear replies to his questions at least.

[Guy Opperman]

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s debate and set out how the Government are helping to get people into work. We have intensified our support for jobseekers. We have made great efforts on in-work progression. Employment figures are up. There is more to do, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman with specifics.

Endometriosis Workplace Support

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Due to the interest in this debate, I am afraid I must impose a three-minute time limit on speeches. I call Ivan Lewis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

As the debate is due to finish at 4 pm the Minister has, helpfully, a little more time than usual. If he is so minded, he can allow Mr Shelbrooke two minutes at the end.

Social Security

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this relatively short but necessary debate. I was encouraged to see the words “social security” appear on the Order Paper for this debate today and to see them on the annunciator. Over the years, we have sadly moved away from talking about social security to talking about welfare and, latterly, to benefits. Tempting though it is, I will resist lambasting Members, particularly those on the Government Benches, for their use of words like “scroungers” or “skivers” and the divide-and-conquer mentality that we see from the Conservative party—[Interruption.] I see that I have woken them up. The title of today’s debate—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) is chuntering from a sedentary position. Does he want to intervene? No, perhaps not. The title of today’s debate is a good reminder to us—

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Linden]

I am more than happy to.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am happy to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. Will he give the precise constituency of the Member who used the words that he suggests were used?

[David Linden]

It was the former Chancellor, so I think that it is Tatton. He now edits the Evening Standard, but it was not so long ago that Conservative Members were charging away behind him and saying how wonderful he was. [Interruption.] I will make some progress with my speech while Conservative Members chunter away.

I rise to express my profound disappointment at the UK Government’s continued obsession with the punitive benefit freeze. As a constituency MP, I am acutely aware that a clear majority of the people I speak to in my surgeries on a Friday do not choose to be on benefits. Circumstances largely dictate that. Broadly speaking, people end up receiving state support because they are disabled, sick or out of work. Contrary to what some right-wing newspapers print, being on benefits does not constitute a life of luxury. If people outside this House or Conservative Members genuinely believe that, they ought to go and study the Trussell Trust’s annual statistics, which show that the top three reasons people use foodbanks are changes or delays in benefits, low income at work and insecure employment. The charge for all three falls squarely at the door of this Tory Government.

Jobcentre Plus Offices: Closure

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

What we are looking at is how best to support the vulnerable. The hon. Lady makes a really important point about those who are not able to deal with their claims online. It is crucial to continue to look at how our work coaches can work with those people to make sure that provision, whether it be in the shape of outreach or at a different location, is best tailored to their needs.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Wellington Jobcentre Plus office is due to relocate to Telford later this year, and Telford is 4 miles away. While we have record employment in Shropshire and in my constituency, which is most welcome, what can the Minister do to mitigate the increased costs for those who are long-term unemployed to get from Wellington to Telford to seek work?

[Caroline Nokes]

Many jobseekers will already travel more than 4 miles to access their nearest jobcentre, and it is important that we remember not just that, but that people in employment will also be travelling significant distances in their daily commute. We are seeking the best solutions for individuals by looking at outreach and co-location—to find ways that people can access services online so that where possible we can minimise the disruption to their looking for work.

Welfare Benefit Changes

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I am quite happy to go into the political decisions. My party is in the Stormont House agreement and, since the hon. Gentleman brought the matter up, I will reply to that. The Stormont House agreement—[Interruption.]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I gave some latitude to Mr Durkan, but I do not want to encourage discussion of that point any further. That is a Stormont issue rather than a Westminster one.

[Jim Shannon]

I am happy to reply to the IFS question. I have no difficulty with this. My politics are well known in this House. I am left of centre; I am interested in the person who needs help. That is my politics; that is where I come from and who I am. For me it is no bother whatever to ask the IFS to give those figures and I will make it my business to do so. I am as committed to opposing these austerity measures as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). However, my party has a realistic outlook and keeps that in mind.

How can I stand in this House today and not be an advocate for those in need in my own constituency? I am aware that there are those who take advantage and play the system, but I am also aware that a great number do not. It is for those people that I stand here today.

Cuts to tax credits are not the only problem that people on benefits face. There are a great many others that I have mentioned before. In my office I have a number of members of staff specifically trained to help people fill in forms for the disability living allowance, which is soon to change to the personal independence payment. I see those people every day and I am aware of their difficulties. They have benefits for a good reason. There are people who need extra financial help to pay for carers or more bedding and other resources while they cater for the day-to-day needs of their family, which they need help to do as well. It is not a matter of living it up and not working; it is a matter of just living. Sometimes it is a matter of being ill and needing help. We have a responsibility to these people and I thought that was what being part of the United Kingdom meant. That is what I thought it was to be British.

I am conscious that I need to allow time for others to speak, but in concluding I want to mention the tragic case of Michael O’Sullivan—we all know it. He killed himself after being found fit for work by the Government’s disability assessors. That case has briefly cast a welcome spotlight—if I can say that—on the utter disgrace that is the work capability assessment in relation to people with mental health problems. Despite providing reports from three doctors, including his GP, stating that he had long-term depression and agoraphobia and was unable to work, Michael O’Sullivan was taken off employment and support allowance and placed on jobseeker’s allowance. At the inquest last year, it was found that he killed himself as a direct result of that decision. According to the coroner, Mary Hassell,

“the intense anxiety which triggered his suicide was caused by his recent assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions as being fit for work and his view of the likely consequences of that”.

That cannot be allowed to happen again.

I fear that cuts that affect the people who are most in need could cause real difficulties for an even larger number of people. With that in mind, although I respect the Minister’s position, I have to put on record my honest, sincere issues and concerns with tax credits on behalf of my people in Strangford, who also share those concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Dr Eilidh Whiteford.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I thought I was to sum up, Mr Pritchard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I do apologise. I call Dr Philippa Whitford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this important debate.

We have heard a number of concerns about the impact of the Government’s reforms to the welfare system. I want to focus on one particular aspect. The Welfare Reform and Work Bill will introduce new conditionality for parents with a three or four-year-old child who are claiming jobseeker’s allowance. In the future, once a child reaches three, both their parents will be expected to look for and prepare for work. That measure should be considered in the context of the Government’s promise to increase the free childcare entitlement for working parents of three and four-year-olds to 30 hours a week in England.

As often happens, the devil of this policy is in the detail. Let us start with England. Thirty hours of free childcare will come into force in September 2016. The increased conditionality for parents will come into force under clause 15 of the Bill in April 2016. That is six months in which parents with very young children will be expected to work, but will not be entitled to the free childcare they need.

Members will know that a legal entitlement is not at all the same as full implementation on the ground. Serious doubts have been raised about whether there is capacity in the sector to provide that extra childcare and whether it would be adequately funded. A recent analysis by the Pre-school Learning Alliance showed that the current average hourly cost of childcare per child is £4.53, with the Government contributing just £3.88. When increased to 30 hours, that means that nurseries would operate at an annual loss of £661 per child. That is surely not sustainable.

It is far from clear whether parents in England after September 2016 will have the benefit of the new entitlement, and I challenge the Minister to respond to this: what consideration has been given to the impact of this policy across the UK? I am not as familiar with the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I know that the Welsh Government currently support 10 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds, and there is additional support in “flying start” areas. The Welsh Government want to expand availability once the financial consequentials of the plans for England are known, but that is against the backdrop of a significant cut—around £1.3 billion, or 10%—to the Welsh budget by the UK Tory Government.

That brings me on to the serious problem of access to childcare, especially in rural and semi-rural areas, including parts of my own constituency. It is clear that availability of appropriate, accessible childcare that meets the needs of parents and children must be in place before the increased conditionality is introduced.

Lack of childcare is not the only problem with the policy. Conditionality can be extremely difficult for vulnerable parents, as we have heard. Care leavers, young parents, those with addictions and others often lack the skills and confidence they need to fulfil work-related activity requirements. Many need support to return to work, which is not always available. We know that jobcentres often lack the capacity and expertise to provide that support and to enable vulnerable parents to transition successfully into work

Barnardo’s has raised concerns that many jobcentres lack the basic facilities needed, especially for parents with young children, including bathrooms, and that staff can sometimes be unwelcoming when claimants bring their children to appointments. That is especially challenging for single parents with young children. It goes without saying that when increased requirements come into force for parents of three and four-year-olds, it will become even more important for jobcentres to address those issues. Given those difficulties, will the Minister commit to taking action to ensure that jobcentres adapt to meet the needs of parents and their children before the conditionality extension comes into force?

Another concern I have been made aware of is about the online system, which is now being used more and more. The system apparently frequently freezes, causing horrendous frustration, and the early indications are that the helpline is struggling to cope. Will the Minister look into that?

I will end on the sanctions regime. I agree with the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, specifically about the punitive and regressive impact that the sanctions regime will have on families with three and four-year-old children. We know that sanctions can be hugely disproportionate, and we have heard some horrendous examples of how bad they can be. We also know that the loss of benefits for weeks on end can leave families struggling to feed their children and heat their homes. Members will be aware that parents are being driven to food banks and into debt. For many families in my constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, that is a reality. I urge the Government to take action.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

There are five Members still to speak. I will call Front Benchers from 3.30 pm, which allows everyone to have 10 minutes. I encourage Members to just speak for two or three minutes, to try to accommodate everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as the impact on working people on low wages and the poor, another surprising aspect of Government policy is its total disregard for those with long-term, progressive, degenerative conditions such as muscular dystrophy?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the shadow Minister answers, let me say that there is no hard and fast rule, but it is usual to allow the Minister enough time for a full response of around 10 minutes, which will be in six minutes.

amendment of the law

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reality is that the Opposition are not very good at learning lessons. Were they in power again, I suspect that they would crash the car into the buffers, just as they did the last time.

At the same time, the Opposition’s proposal for restricting pensions tax relief has been called “extraordinarily complex” by the IFS and “unworkable” by the CBI. Labour needs a little reminder that make-work schemes are enormously expensive and, worse still, a mean attack on these pension proposals. The saving they expect to make from pensions tax relief is another mean attack on people who do the right thing by saving for their future. Labour has learnt nothing. Its proposal is even possibly a rehash of its old StepUp programme, which ended up costing a massive £10,000 per place before it binned it, rather than introducing it.

There we have it: a policy—the only one I have heard from the Opposition—that is full of flaws, unfunded and simply would not work. It is small wonder that when asked they said, “Okay, this will be about the private sector.” Actually, the future jobs fund, on which this proposal is based, never got jobs in the private sector. In fact, Barnsley council reported that only 7% of those jobs were in the private sector, and Birmingham council reported only 2%. It is small wonder that when asked to confirm whether that would be for private sector jobs, the shadow Chancellor said:

“But if not, you can do it through the voluntary sector. If not… you have to have a final backstop: public work scheme.”

If not one, then the other, but if not that, then another one. It begins to sound a bit like Vicky Pollard: “Yeah but no but yeah but no.” They have no policy for employment at all. To this date the private sector’s response has been unequivocal:

“Wage subsidies for employers are not the source of sustainable jobs… Government must focus on creating the conditions for growth”.

It is the same old Labour; the same old failed policies.

A little over a year before the next general election, this Budget sets out the choice now facing the electorate. On one hand we have an Opposition who every day are mired in confusion, who have voted against every reform measure and who have learnt nothing. After making welfare spending balloon by 60% during their time in government, they now want to spend more.

I want to ask the hon. Member for Leeds West what she meant by something she said when addressing a meeting of Christian socialists—perhaps they were just socialists, but I am not sure. She said:

“It will be much better if we can say all the changes that the Government has introduced we can reverse and all benefits can be universal.”

There we have the beating heart of Labour, and the public should know this—[Interruption.] They are cheering, because that is exactly what they want. Only now will they vote for the welfare cap—although I understand that a number of them will not—but they have no intention of sticking to it. That is only because, as the hon. Lady went on to say, to do what she wants to do would at the moment appear unpopular. They do something because it appears popular, not because they believe in it.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can help me. Does he know whether it is now the policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition to have an individual welfare cap or a universal budget cap? It is not only hon. Members in this place who would like to know what their policy is; 27 bishops in the other place would, too.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

With respect, I have found in the past few weeks that I cannot really answer for bishops. They usually think they can answer for me, which is a fair response, but I am happy to avoid that challenge.

The Opposition have been quite confused about the welfare cap. They say that they are going to support it, but within the cap they have a policy they say they are going to change by ending the spare room subsidy. [Interruption.] Opposition Members call it a bedroom tax. I noticed that when they said last week that there were 24 tax rises under this Government, they did not schedule that as one of those tax rises. The truth is that they know it is not a tax, so, as ever, they are trying to fool the public. Let me point out that reversing that policy will cost them up to £500 million a year, and they have, they say, produced only one measure within the welfare cap that they will use to pay for that—means-testing winter fuel allowances for wealthier pensioners, but that will save only £100 million. Almost as soon as they vote for the cap tomorrow, they will be planning to break it. Perhaps the hon. Member for Leeds West can tell us—I will give way to her if so—what other elements she is going to change within the capped programme to reduce spending to bring it under the cap. Will she will intervene to tell me that? Of course not; she has no idea. There we have it—it is just a game for them. The only reason they might vote for the cap is that they are worried that it would be unpopular not to do so, but they do not intend at any stage to implement it.

On the other hand, this coalition Government are reforming welfare in the firm belief that it is the right thing to do, not only saving money but breaking dependency and restoring the incentive to work. We have record highs in employment and record lows for the rate of workless households. What is more, this Government are rewarding hard work and saving, in the belief that people have a right to take their own decisions on the money that they have earned, not dictating to them through high taxation or forcing them to buy poor yielding products as the previous Government did. This Budget delivers support for those who try, help for those who need it, and security for hard-working families up and down the land. I commend this Budget to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

The Government’s own figures show that the number of pensioners in poverty is set to rise, not fall, under this Government; that is the Chancellor’s legacy.

The Chancellor called this a Budget for the makers, the doers and the savers. The reality is that for the makers, over the past three years, manufacturing is down by 1.3%, infrastructure investment is down by 11%, and exports are falling, not rising. For the doers, real wages are down by 6% in this Parliament, energy prices are up by £300, and long-term youth unemployment has doubled. As for the savers, what has he done for them? According to the Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), he is allowing them to cash in their pensions and buy a Lamborghini. How incredibly out of touch is that? The average pension pot is about £30,000. I checked on the internet this morning, never having looked at this before, and found that the Lamborghini Aventador costs £263,000. The Cabinet might be lucky enough to be able to afford to buy a Lamborghini with their savings, but ordinary people would be lucky to be able to afford the door of a Lamborghini.

[Mark Pritchard]

For the record, it is inaccurate to describe everybody on the Government Benches as having a wealthy background; that is clearly not the case. On helping hard-working families, does the hon. Lady’s party support the overall DWP welfare cap, and the individual welfare cap, given the views not only of Members in this place, including the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but of 26 bishops in the other place, plus one other bishop who does not sit in the other place—Archbishop, soon to be Cardinal, Vincent Nichols?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman cannot afford a Lamborghini with his savings. I will come on to the welfare cap. We have been clear that we will be supporting the welfare cap in the vote in Parliament tomorrow.

If the Chancellor really wanted this to be a Budget for the makers, he would have cut business rates, supported a British investment bank to help small businesses, and committed to build more homes—the 200,000 extra homes a year that Labour has promised. If he really wanted it to be a Budget for doers, he would cut taxes for millions of working people with a 10p starting rate of tax, freeze energy bills and reform the broken energy market, and expand child care for parents with three and four-year-olds, as a Labour Government would.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

The family will accrue credit if they have family responsibilities. That is a very positive step that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), has taken. We can all welcome the fact that more than a million people are now in work, and more than 210,000 more women are in work this year alone.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating New College Telford, Telford college of arts and technology and Harper Adams university on providing the skills and training throughout Shropshire to ensure that unemployment continues to fall as it has done month on month for the last seven months?

[Esther McVey]

I will indeed join my hon. Friend in celebrating this positive news. What is happening in his constituency is also happening in every constituency throughout the country. This is positive news that we can all celebrate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We do not expect anybody to lose their homes as a result, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his Government sat for a large number of years without building any houses, watching housing benefit rise and people sitting on waiting lists to get houses, so crocodile tears from them now they are in opposition are a waste of time. We will sort the problem out, and I hope they will not be in government for a long time to come.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Most EU migration has been of real benefit to Britain, but may I ask the Secretary of State what plans he is putting in place to stop Bulgarian and Romanian migrants claiming welfare benefits from 1 January 2014, thus driving up the welfare bill for UK taxpayers?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We inherited a situation in which there were rules guarding against that happening to those who come in. To put the record straight, habitual residence tests and other rules require that those who come into this country are involved in some form of work. My hon. Friend also knows that European legislation is before us at the moment that tries to allow those coming in to claim benefits on day one. We are utterly opposed to that: we are fighting it, and it is not my intention to see it happen in any way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend is aware that we believe that the best chance of success will be to submit a single bid and we have reached out to Yorkshire to ask them to take part in a national bid. Anything he can do to help would be most welcome. I was grateful for his intervention, but I think it would be more appropriate for the Minister for Sport, to whom I spoke yesterday. He is keen to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Will the Minister also reach out to Shropshire? As he will know, the national cycle network goes through the county, and he has visited the Wrekin, the wonderful landmark in Shropshire. Will he continue his conversations with the Minister for Sport and ensure that the Tour de France comes through that beautiful county?

[Mr Vaizey]

I have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency and can confirm its beauty. As I am standing in as proxy for the Minister for Sport, may I also confirm his acceptance of the invitation to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency?