Universal Credit Project Assessment Reviews
Michael Tomlinson Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the concessions that the Government have been forced to make on universal credit, but I do not believe that they go anything like far enough to relieve the hardship and stress that this roll-out is causing, and will continue to cause unless and until the Government take on board the concerns and take further action. There are so many issues with universal credit that it is essential that the full extent of all project assessment reviews that the Government carry out are placed with the Work and Pensions Committee. The Government must come clean about their assessments so that the risks can be identified and scrutiny can be provided by the Committee.
I know that many Members across the House share my concerns about the roll-out of universal credit. It might be convenient for the Government to ignore the views of those on the Opposition Benches who have expressed legitimate concerns on behalf of their constituents and, in the case of the Secretary of State, to pass them off as scaremongering. However, the Government should not ignore the concerns shared by many outside this House, too—by organisations at the forefront of supporting people through difficult periods and supporting those who are most vulnerable. These organisations include Community Housing Cymru, which acts as an umbrella body for housing associations across Wales, and Citizens Advice, Shelter, and the Child Poverty Action Group. Does the Secretary of State consider these organisations to be scaremongering, too? These organisations know the pressures and hardship that UC is causing, as they are picking up the pieces when people’s lives are turned upside down due to the debt and anxiety caused by issues created by the roll-out, and the Government should take note.
Recent research undertaken by Cardiff Metropolitan University has highlighted the fact that one in five claimants is not receiving their full entitlement on time, with some facing a delay of four to eight weeks. The Government should address the waiting time as it is what causes most hardship. Many people do not have savings or money set aside to cover day-to-day living expenses during this period. The Government have taken away the seven-day waiting time, thus reducing the period to five weeks, but this is still too long for people to wait. We should also note that this is a minimum waiting time, and many people are waiting longer, leading to arrears and claimants needing to use food banks, increasing their debts and living in poverty.
We know that food bank use is increasing. A recent Trussell Trust report shows a 30% increase in people using food banks in areas where UC has been rolled out. Perhaps the Secretary of State thinks that report is scaremongering, too.
Michael Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman mentions the Trussell Trust. Does he acknowledge that the trust’s chief executive has welcomed the measures the Chancellor announced in the Budget, and will he also welcome them?
Gerald Jones
If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard that I welcomed those concessions earlier this afternoon, but, as I also said, they do not go far enough. I was with the Trussell Trust last weekend, collecting for the food bank in my area, because I know, as many other Members do, that that need is growing rather than reducing.
It appears that there are the same issues everywhere UC has been rolled out, and in my view it stands to reason that, with a hastened roll-out, these issues will only increase. We need a pause and fix. In Wales, as of October 2017 almost 25,000 people were in receipt of UC, meaning that the roll-out is just 6% complete; full roll-out is expected by November next year. I do not understand why the Government cannot see that hastened roll-out will lead to increased hardship, and why they will not act to pause and fix, to avoid families being subjected to undue stress and hardship.
There is not much evidence of any festive spirit coming from the Government on this issue, and talking about the Christmas period that is almost upon us, the news that thousands of low-paid people on UC will receive reduced payments or none at all over Christmas because they are paid weekly and their income
“will likely go over the universal credit limit”
is extremely worrying. A similar problem will re-occur in other months that, like this December, have five paydays, because UC is calculated on a monthly basis.
The Government must realise that Christmas puts huge pressure on family budgets and this situation will massively increase hardship. When people have five weekly earnings payments within an assessment period, their income might be too high to qualify for UC in that month, but the official advice is:
“You can re-apply the following month as you should only get four wage payments in your assessment period then.”
I am sure that will really help families through the Christmas period!
This flaw needs to be addressed and a fix found; it cannot be that difficult. Those paid weekly will find four times in a 12-monthly cycle that this “apparent” overpayment happens, and that could either reduce or cost them UC. Surely a mechanism can be found within Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. This is yet another glitch among a growing list that have beset UC.
We have heard today, and will continue to hear, the evidence that this roll-out is causing significant hardship and undue stress. The Government must listen to these very genuine concerns, and act to avoid further hardship.
I was glad to hear the Secretary of State’s comments, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on introducing this motion.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on this subject yet again. As we have heard, it is the sixth debate on universal credit in this Parliament and the fourth in the past eight weeks. This gives me another opportunity to reiterate my support for universal credit, which encourages people to get into work and supports them while they are in work, with the overriding aim of simplifying an overly bureaucratic and complicated system by rolling six benefits into one.
However, the title of this debate is slightly different from the others, referring as it does to project assessment reviews carried out between 2012 and 2015, and subsequent documents as well. I wondered what the reason was for that. I suspect that the answer lies in three points. First, Labour Members think that there is a clever parliamentary tactic in tabling motions of this sort. Secondly, no particular benefit can be gained by looking at documents dating back to 2012 to 2015. That point has been made by other hon. Members, and it must be right—we have moved on significantly since then.
Thirdly, Labour Members appear not to not believe in the advantages of the universal credit system, as we have heard again in some of the speeches this afternoon. They risk sounding as though they think that the legacy system was all perfect whereas this system is not. That is not right. The legacy system was complex and bureaucratic. It trapped people into working for a limited period of only 16 hours. I am sure that we have all had constituents, as I have, who did not take on additional work because they calculated that they were better off staying on benefits in the legacy system than getting into work. I do not criticise that, because it was a perfectly logical and reasonable decision to make—I criticise the legacy system and the position that my constituents were put in at the time.
Ruth George
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that under the tax credits system, working people could earn up to £5,000 a year more and still keep their working tax credit without losing a penny of it? I very much hope that he advised his constituents of that when they came to him for advice.
Michael Tomlinson
The “big bang” roll-out of the tax credits system was an absolute disaster that many of our constituents had to live through for a number of years.
I am disappointed that this motion fails to mention and to acknowledge the good words that we heard from the Chancellor—and not just words, but the additional £1.5 billion that was put in. Some hon. Members have mentioned it, but it could have been put into the motion. The shadow Secretary of State did say that she welcomed those measures, but what she said sounded a little bit mealy-mouthed, certainly to my ears. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) mentioned his support in principle for universal credit. I very much enjoyed listening to him speak, as I always do. He said that he was short of time, and I wish that he had had more time to develop his speech and take more interventions. It was a shame that he did not, because he was correct to say that the principle of universal credit is absolutely right. It was good to hear the SNP’s support for it.
In relation to the Budget, I have welcomed the £1.5 billion extra and the reduction in the waiting period. I want the Minister to address this specific question: can he confirm that there was a seven-day wait in the legacy system, and that we have now reduced the wait to zero days, making it shorter than it was even under the legacy system? I particularly welcome, as other Members have done, the payment of two weeks’ housing benefit element, which will not be repayable. That will help the most vulnerable to transition on to universal credit. Too often, during the debate, we heard reference to five weeks’ or six weeks’ wait, but we have not had clarity about the fact that people can a get a payment within five days of applying, or even on the day. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that when he gets to his feet.
I welcome the additional support, and it is disappointing that people have not been more vocal about it. But Citizens Advice Scotland, Citizens Advice, the chief executive of St Mungo’s and the chief executive of the Trussell Trust—my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) gave the full quote—have all voiced their support for the scheme.
I would like to mention another myth: the allegation that the universal credit hotline was a premium phone line, which of course it is not. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the hotline is now free, and that by the end of the year all phone calls to the Department will be free. I welcome the opportunity to set out the advantages of the system and the additional money that has gone in to help the most vulnerable to transition on to universal credit. We should look to transfer the most vulnerable not only on to universal credit, but into work, and I believe that that is what the system does.
Universal Credit
Michael Tomlinson Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I saw that report on “Money Box”. It was confused and misleading in its alarmist tone. It was inaccurate in the numbers it was using. The principle of UC is that if someone earns more, they get less UC, whereas if they earn less, they get more UC. That is the principle that applies and it should not be shocking to anybody.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I thank him and the Minister for Employment for their hard work and for this additional support to the most vulnerable in society. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the housing benefit payments will not be repayable and that that again will help the most vulnerable as they make the transition on to UC?
Universal Credit Roll-out
Michael Tomlinson Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I am grateful to be called so early in this debate. It is a pleasure to speak on this important matter. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) for his maiden speech. I agree with what the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) said about the speech, save in one respect: my hon. Friend gave the confident speech of a young professional. He paid generous tribute to his predecessor. I particularly appreciated his comments on broadband, and I look forward to campaigning alongside him to ensure that all of our rural areas have adequate access to broadband. I look forward to his further contributions in this place.
I am pleased that this is the third or fourth such debate that we have had in the past month, because it gives me the opportunity to reiterate my strong support for universal credit. Like most people on both sides of the House, I am firmly of the view that work should always pay. That is the principle that underlines universal credit. Government Members are passionate about ensuring that more people get into work, that they are supported into work and that, once they are there, they get on and get ever more work both in terms of hours and quality.
Peter Kyle
Does the hon. Gentleman remember the early days of when universal credit was first mooted? At that time, the Labour party was supportive of the concept, but said that universal credit needed to be rolled out over a period longer than one Parliament, and that much more detailed piloting would be needed to get the system right. Those are the things that have gone wrong, and they are inflicting misery on our constituents.
Michael Tomlinson
I will come back to the Labour party’s record on rolling out benefits in due course, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I wish that Labour Members would speak up more loudly with their support for the principle behind universal credit, because at the moment it sounds like they are calling for not a delay or a pause, but a scrap. The Labour party has opposed every single benefit change that this Government have brought into effect, and the cost of its position would have been tens of billions of pounds. However, this is not about the money. More importantly, it is about the people, and universal credit is about encouraging people into work.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I am really pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman is supporting universal credit, although he failed to vote in favour of it the other week. Would he also support a renewed project to study how universal credit supports people to get into work? The Department for Work and Pensions has delayed and denied an opportunity to review the original study to prove whether universal credit is still working, because lots of people expect that it is not.
Michael Tomlinson
Perhaps the Minister will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point in due course.
I chair the all-party group on youth employment, so I want to use any mechanism available to encourage young people—everyone, in fact—to get into work. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) could listen to my response, rather than just shaking his head and taking part in exchanges across the Chamber.
Neil Coyle
The Minister is chuntering, so I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.
Michael Tomlinson
Forgive me; I will speak up. If the hon. Gentleman stops talking, however, he might be able to hear a little more easily. He is more than welcome to come along to the meetings of the all-party group. We met yesterday, which was the date on which the latest Office for National Statistics employment figures came out. We track those figures each month. It was pleasing to see that there are still record numbers for youth employment and record lows of young people who are out of work. The youth unemployment rate of 11.9% is in touching distance of the lowest ever figure on comparable records, and it is almost half the youth unemployment rate of over 22% in 2011, which followed the disastrous Labour Government.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Recent forecasts show that universal credit will create 400 jobs in every constituency across the country. Does my hon. Friend welcome that, as I do, given the great work that he is doing?
Michael Tomlinson
I warmly welcome it. I look forward to the time when we look back and say that universal credit has been a success. Now, do not get me wrong. We are not trying to pretend that all is rosy and that there are no errors—quite the opposite. Government Members, as much as Opposition Members—well, certainly Government Members—want to ensure that universal credit works. I encourage the Minister, who will listen as I am sure he always does, to ensure that he is testing and learning, and that we are constantly improving the system.
I support any principle that encourages more people into work. In response to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), I threatened to speak about the Labour party’s record. The hon. Gentleman is just about to leave the Chamber, but it does not matter, as he can read this in Hansard tomorrow—[Interruption.] Ah, he has sat down. When the Labour party was in power, a member of my community told me that he had chosen not to take a job because it would not have been worth his while, due to the risk to his benefits and, therefore, to him. I do not blame him. He made a perfectly calculated, sensible and rational decision, but he chose not to take a job because of the Labour Government’s policy.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
If work incentives were so poor under Labour, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why lone parent employment increased from 44% in 1994 to 57% when we left office.
Michael Tomlinson
The hon. Lady intervened on me during our last debate on this subject. It is always a pleasure to lock horns with her in a constructive fashion. The last time she challenged me, she said, “How about those young people in poverty?” I did not have the figures on poverty to hand at the time but, if the hon. Lady looks at them, she will see that there are 600,000 fewer people—I will check that figure—in absolute poverty this year. Under the old system, for the constituent I mentioned, it did not pay for him to go to work. Under universal credit, the principle should be that work always pays.
Michael Tomlinson
In one moment.
We remember the fiasco of tax credits, with £7.3 billion of overpayments, and we remember the misery that was caused. The hon. Member for Hove referred to the speed with which universal credit has been rolled out. Actually, the lesson to be learned is not to roll out a scheme in a big-bang fashion, as happened with tax credits, when £2.7 billion then had to be clawed back from the poorest and most vulnerable in society. I was a new Member of Parliament in 2015, when people were still feeling the repercussions of that old system.
Michael Tomlinson
I will not. I only have a minute and a half left, and I do not get any more time.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) referred to two-weekly payments. Will the Minister tell us the number of people in employment who actually receive such payments? My suspicion is that it is a very low proportion, but I want the Minister to tackle that point directly, as he was asked the question by the right hon. Gentleman. In particular, I want the Minister to continue to listen and learn, and to ensure that it always pays to be in work rather than on benefits.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow many colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid).
Michael Tomlinson
My hon. Friend has said that it is a pleasure to follow so many speeches, but does she agree that the speech she is following got it completely wrong, in tone and manner? There are hon. Members on both sides who want to make this work.
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), and I can assure him that nobody on the Government Benches was laughing at his comment yesterday. Unfortunately, I could not take up his kind offer to go to Inverness—I am sure it is a wonderful place—because I was busy in Redditch doing exactly what he said: meeting the housing providers and agencies there to make sure that the roll-out was going well.
Universal credit is designed to be an agile system. I used to work in software development, so I understand what that means in terms of designing a very complicated system that deals with individuals and their unique and different circumstances. Opposition Members have called on the Government to pause the roll-out, but that would not fix the problems they have rightly identified. The Minister has recognised the problems in the system, and we all want to work together to fix them, but the nature of an agile system is that it changes all the time in response to people using it. That is how we learn and improve the system.
We have already seen evidence of that. The Prime Minister highlighted an example yesterday when she said that the number of people in arrears on universal credit had gone down significantly—by a third, I think—in the past four months. That is evidence that the system is improving as it is being rolled out. It is a very slow-roll-out—it is taking nine years altogether—but I think that, just as we recognise the seriousness of issues that have been rightly highlighted in the Chamber in, I hope, a serious fashion, we should also recognise the real work that the Government have already done and the real progress that they have already made in addressing some of those serious issues. I hope that that work and progress will continue.
Some Members have used an extremely critical tone, and I think that that is wrong. This is a serious debate, and we are here because we care about our constituents. I am a very privileged person, and I am the first to say so. I have never had to rely on benefits, and I am sure that some Opposition Members have not had to do so either. That, however, does not preclude any us from feeling compassion for and empathising with people who are in that position. That is why I have visited my local jobcentre and spent a long time discussing the issue with social landlords, people who work in debt counselling, and the jobcentre staff themselves.
I do not recognise the stories that I have heard about jobcentres. I heard at first hand from the jobcentre staff about how hard they were working to support the most vulnerable customers through their journeys, and they are proud to do that. Their policy is to make advance payments by default, rather than forcing people to ask for them. They are working hard on an individual basis, providing a tailored package of support for every single claimant in the constituency.
Universal Credit Roll-out
Michael Tomlinson Excerpts(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to set out my clear support for universal credit and its principal aim of ensuring that work always pays.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Tomlinson
I will give way in a few moments.
I support universal credit, which simplifies what was an over-complex and bureaucratic system. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), I am disappointed by some of the tone of the debate both today and last week. Today, we have heard accusations of knowingly pushing people into poverty; last week, we heard the comment that the Conservative party is undertaking “calculated cruelty.” When I raised that point, there were cries of “Oh, yes it is!” from the Opposition. What a ridiculous assertion. What utter nonsense.
A person does not have to be best friends with Opposition Members to know that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) said, no party has a monopoly on compassion. No party has a monopoly on care or concern for the most vulnerable. I know many Conservative Members, just as there are in each and every political party, who were driven into politics by their concern for the most vulnerable in our society. Let us not have any more nonsense about calculated cruelty.
Where there is a difference is on policy. This debate is on the Government’s response to last week’s debate. What is their response, and what should it be? Mr Speaker, you rightly said in response to a point of order that
“this motion does matter; it is important; it was passed. As a matter of fact, however, it is not binding. That is the situation.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 959.]
So what should be the Government’s response? Let us consider the substance. Conservative Members want universal credit to succeed, but heaving heard the debate both today and last week, I fear there are Opposition Members who do not want it to succeed.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman and I have previously been Committee colleagues, and I have a lot of respect for the way he approaches such matters. When the Government first proposed universal credit in 2011, they said it would lift 900,000 people out of poverty, including 350,000 children. That laudable aim should be welcomed on both sides of the House. What is the Government’s ambition today for the number of people they expect to lift out of poverty?
Michael Tomlinson
I, too, enjoyed working with the hon. Lady in a cross-party spirit on the European Scrutiny Committee in the last Parliament, and I look forward to doing so again. I have been told—I hope the Minister is able to confirm this—that 250,000 additional people will be helped into work as a result of this policy.
Michael Tomlinson
No, I will not.
The Government’s response should be to ensure that universal credit succeeds and has the transformative potential to get people into work and to ensure that they stay in work. The Government should continue to test, to learn and to rectify during the gradual roll-out.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree there are three things that the Government could recommend? First, Jobcentre Plus offices should brief all local councils on what universal credit is about and how it is being rolled out. Secondly, jobcentres should be encouraged to have credit union literature to help people avoid getting into loan sharks and debt problems. Thirdly, the Government should work closely with the largest housing associations, such as Bromford, to establish best practice between housing associations and jobcentres.
Michael Tomlinson
I would encompass those questions in one by saying that better communication is needed. Each of us, as a Member of Parliament, bears a responsibility for that communication, too. Having heard the responses, we should pass them on to our constituents in good faith and in good time.
Michael Tomlinson
No, I will not.
The Government should be listening, and they have listened on telephone numbers. It was implied last week that it was a premium-rate number and that all telephone calls cost 55p a minute, which is absolute rubbish, but I am pleased that the Government have listened and, in fact, have gone further by indicating that all telephone calls to the Department for Work and Pensions will now be free. I welcome that development.
The Government should not listen to those who want this policy to fail. The system is not perfect, and the Government are right to listen and to learn from their mistakes, but it is not cruel to encourage people into work. It is not cruel to support people while they are in work, to remove barriers to people increasing their hours or to remove disincentives for people getting into work. Arguably, the cruelty was in the old system. People were penalised if they wanted to take on more hours, which left them trapped on benefits, rather than enabled to reach their full potential.
Universal Credit Roll-out
Michael Tomlinson Excerpts(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who I thought made an excellent speech. I congratulate him on the courage and the spirit in which he produced his commentary against quite a lot of what is really scaremongering about the way in which the system has been designed.
First and foremost, the point I would make about universal credit is that it was designed to simplify the system, as well as to get more people into work. The second but very important element is that universal credit is about dealing with the very great difficulties of identifying those people—the minority, admittedly—who need universal support and then, with councils, providing them with help on debt counselling and getting them into the banking system in order, basically, to get them ready for work. Until now, those people have by and large been written off and forgotten about in a complex system—disjointed between councils and jobcentres—that did them no favours and provided them with no support. That is what we were trying to get rid of and believed we were actually getting rid of.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Duncan Smith
I recognise that time is limited, so I will limit the number of times I give way.
Universal credit is not just about getting people into work; it is actually about changing lives so that those people are ready and better able to enter work. Why are there monthly payments? The very simple answer is that over 80% and rising of all work is paid monthly, and the figure will soon be close to 90%. That means that if people are not ready, able and prepared to pay bills and deal with their money in monthly periods, they will never survive in the world of work, as has happened to many people crashing out of work.
Mr Duncan Smith
I will give way in a minute.
That is why universal support—now bringing in councils—will identify such people and help them. That is the purpose of universal credit.
Michael Tomlinson
Was my right hon. Friend as surprised and disappointed as I was, during Prime Minister’s questions, to hear this policy described and characterised as “calculated cruelty”? There is nothing cruel about getting more people into work. There is nothing cruel about encouraging more people to work more than a mere 16 hours. There is nothing cruel about simplifying an overly complex system. The cruelty is trapping people in a lifetime of benefits.
Oral Answers to Questions
Michael Tomlinson Excerpts(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
When Labour was in office, it did very well in closing the disability employment gap—by raising the unemployment level among the general population. We will take a different approach. As I have said in this place before, we will look in great detail at the local numbers—for example, the numbers of people with a learning disability coming out of education; that is what we need to get people focused on.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I warmly welcome the latest employment figures, particularly the youth employment figures. We are within touching distance of record youth unemployment. On young disabled people, will the Minister comment on Leonard Cheshire Disability and the great work it does, particularly its Can Do scheme? I think she recently met ambassadors of that scheme.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to pay tribute to Leonard Cheshire. It has launched a number of interesting and effective initiatives, which are very much part of our Work and Health programme.
Oral Answers to Questions
Michael Tomlinson Excerpts(7 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds
I hope that I can provide the hon. Gentleman with some comfort. First, let me say that saving money is not a bad thing in itself; it is a good thing, and this overall programme will save some £180 million nationwide. That means that we can reinvest in frontline staff, which will have the biggest effect on helping people to return to work. As for the specific case of Sheffield, the changes will increase the utilisation of the entire estate from 51% to 69% when some of the business moves, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, to the other two sites.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on surviving a recent grilling from young ambassadors at a meeting of the all-party group on youth employment. I welcome the news that fewer young people are unemployed to start with but, at 554,000, the figure is still too high. Will the Minister read the all-party group’s report with a view to ensuring that there are fewer young claimants in the first place?
Damian Hinds
I look forward very much to reading the report. We know that any day spent unemployed can have a lasting effect on people, especially at the start of their careers when they are young, and it is therefore particularly important for us to redouble our efforts.
Oral Answers to Questions
Michael Tomlinson Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
We are doing more for that group of people, which is why, despite the hon. Lady’s request, I will not be pulling the personalised support package that will take effect in April.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
The number of young people in work has increased by 235,000 since 2010, and is up 38,000 in the past three months. Nearly nine in 10 young people are in education or work, and youth unemployment is the lowest it has been since 2005.
Michael Tomlinson
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. I warmly welcome the fact that the youth employment jobs figures are at near record levels. Will he join me in welcoming the work of the Dorset Young Chamber, which helps to match individual businesses in and around my constituency with particular schools and to bridge the gap between education and employment?
Damian Green
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the work of the Dorset Young Chamber. I have seen the great work that my local chamber of commerce, Kent Invicta, does in schools. My hon. Friend chairs the all-party parliamentary group for youth employment, so he will be pleased to know that the youth claimant count in his constituency has gone down by 74% since 2010 and by 7% in the past year alone.
Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill
Michael Tomlinson ExcerptsFriday 2nd December 2016
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill 2016-17 View all Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Conor Burns
I am very comfortable with the figures that I have given the House, and I see the Minister nodding his affirmation that those figures are indeed correct.
Michael Tomlinson
I am happy to confirm that my hon. Friend is correct. I have the House of Commons Library briefing paper here and it confirms exactly what he has said about JSA claimants falling to around 2% in each of the first six months of 2016 and ESA claimants falling to around 1% between May 2011 and May 2016. He is absolutely right to say that Conservative Members do not lack compassion and empathy. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) was right to say that we are dealing with individual human beings, not statistics, but the statistics are nevertheless important.
Conor Burns
I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. I could not have put that more eloquently myself.
Sanctions regimes are not uncommon. In fact, most developed economies attach conditions to the receipt of benefits. Recent European studies in Switzerland in 2005, in the Netherlands in 2013, in Denmark in 2011 and in Germany in 2014 found that benefit cuts substantially increased employment take-up among sanctioned persons. In 2013, the Government commissioned an independent review into sanctions and implemented all its recommendations.
We should put aside the misconception sometimes portrayed by Members that sanctions are the automatic default that the system rushes towards. In fact, a claimant has to go through an incredibly long journey before they reach the point of sanction.
Debbie Abrahams
I am sorry, but I am going to carry on.
We must ensure that all of us, as leaders, use the appropriate language. I can point to speeches that have been made in the past in which that has not been the case.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has outlined the provisions of her Bill, which requires an assessment of social security claimants’ circumstances before a sanction is applied. Measures in the Bill include a code of conduct for those responsible for imposing sanctions and the important principle of just cause, which is applied in defined circumstances. It will be applied, for example, where undertaking a job is in clear conflict with the claimant’s caring responsibility, and where there is just cause for not undertaking particular employment or job-search activity. In such cases, it is proposed that sanctions should not be applied.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the need for assessment for hardship payments after a sanction has been applied. Again, that is absolutely right. It was in fact one recommendation from the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry on this issue last year.
I have been heartened by the slightly different tone taken by the new Secretary of State, particularly in what has been said about work capability assessment and sanctions for homeless people and other vulnerable groups. I see this Bill as an important step forward, as it builds on what we have said should be happening. It would also make the process much fairer. I support this Bill in abolishing the punitive sanctions regime that the Tories and the Liberal Democrats introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012.
Let me provide a bit of background to what has been going on over the past four years. We have heard about the exponential rise in sanctions that have been applied to people on JSA, incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance, but we did not really touch on the new application to people on universal credit who are in work. I am referring to the taxpayers whom the hon. Member for Bournemouth West was talking about—the taxpayers who are already contributing to the Exchequer and who are, through the universal credit regulations, likely to be subjected to a sanction. That would be the case if, for example, they are not working full time, or if they have not got a permanent contract and want a few days off. They can be sanctioned and that is happening now.
I have been campaigning on this issue for more than four years. A constituent came to me after he had been sanctioned. He was in the middle of a work capability assessment when he suffered a heart attack. He was told by the nurse undertaking the assessment that he needed to go to hospital. He did that, and two weeks later he had a letter in the post saying that he had been sanctioned.
I mentioned another case to the Minister when we were in an interview recently. John Ruane from my constituency has a brain tumour, which means that he has three to four epileptic fits a week. His clinical team contacted me because he was refusing to have a life-saving operation on the grounds that he feared he would be sanctioned. He had already had his ESA stopped after a work capability assessment—that is another story, which I cannot go into today, but which certainly needs to be looked at again. He was frightened of being sanctioned. Fortunately, I have been able to intervene and his ESA has been re-established, but that fear of being sanctioned is what people are experiencing.
Yet another constituent of mine, who was a Jobcentre Plus adviser for more than 25 years, came to me four years ago, saying how troubled he was about the targets that he was being set—or aspirations as a Member said earlier—to sanction claimants. Targets were being set for sanctions even when people had done nothing wrong. He explained how the system works—that appointments would be made when people were meant to come in for a work-related interview, and the people would then not be told. That was investigated by the Department for Work and Pensions and, shamefully, it did nothing.
Michael Tomlinson
The hon. Lady mentions sanctions. Does she approve of the sanctions regime overall, or would she also advocate getting rid of it in its totality?
Debbie Abrahams
I said, “On that point alone,” and the hon. Gentleman has not asked specifically about the investigation of the fraudulent activity that was going on in the DWP, so I am afraid I am not going to respond to his intervention. [Interruption.] I will come on to putting our position very clearly to the Minister.
This Jobcentre Plus adviser said people were being set up to fail to get them off flow. If claimants are off flow, they are not signing in. Not only do they not count in the JSA claimant statistics, but they are not drawing social security support. Wednesday’s National Audit Office report estimated that, last year alone, £132 million was not paid in social security support, but a significant amount—not quite as much as that—was spent on administering the sanctions process.
What many people are surprised to hear is that sanctions apply immediately and last for a minimum of a month. They are referred to a DWP decision maker, as we have heard, to decide whether they should be upheld, but that in itself can take a month. On top of that, although housing benefit payments are not meant to be stopped, they have been, and that was confirmed during the Select Committee inquiry last year. As has also been said, the ensuing debt builds up, and Sheffield Hallam University has shown the implications for sanctions-related homelessness.
Then I started to hear about the deaths of claimants following a sanction—first Mark Wood, and then David Clapson, and there have been many more. Of the 49 claimants who died between 2012 and 2014, and whose deaths were investigated by the DWP, 10 followed a sanction. By the way, I am still waiting for the Department to get back to me on the peer review details of nine subsequent claimant deaths.
It was after David’s death, and when I had met his sister, Gill Thompson, who is absolutely devastated—I pay tribute to her for the campaign she has launched to try to raise awareness of what is happening—that I managed to persuade the Select Committee to undertake an inquiry into sanctions that would explore the impacts of the Government’s 2012 sanctions regime. We found that, between 2012 and 2014, 3.2 million sanctions were applied. At a peak, in one month in 2014, 90,000 JSA claimants were sanctioned. The sanctions for sick and disabled people increased fivefold. One in five JSA claimants were sanctioned at that time; as we have heard, that has increased to one in four. Single parents and people with mental health conditions were particularly affected. Again, the variation across the country was quite staggering.
We found that 43% of claimants who are sanctioned leave JSA—they move off flow, distorting the JSA claimant count. Over 80%—this is a really important point—of those leaving JSA after a sanction do so for reasons other than work. One would think that the Government wanted to know what was happening to those people and where they were going. If they are not going into work, what exactly is happening to them? One recommendation from the all-party Select Committee inquiry was that we should follow up these cases. As the NAO has shown, that has not happened. We do not know what happens to the nearly half of the JSA claimants who leave and the 80% who do so for reasons other than going into work.
The rise in food bank usage was also linked to the increase in sanctions, and both the physical and the mental health issues of claimants were found to be exacerbated by the punitive sanctions regime. The Select Committee made more than 20 recommendations, including for the pre-sanction process that the Bill also calls for. It also said that all financial sanctions on vulnerable JSA and ESA claimants, as well as those on people who are on universal credit and in work but not full-time work, should be stopped.
Fundamentally, the Select Committee called for an independent inquiry into sanctions as a whole, and the NAO made the same recommendation in its report on Wednesday. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept the majority of the recommendations. They made some moves on hardship payments. We have heard about that already and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Wednesday’s NAO report was the third in a month reaffirming and adding to the Select Committee inquiry’s findings. There is no evidence that sanctioning someone motivates them or modifies their behaviour in such a way that they move into work. Even the Government’s own behavioural insights team found exactly that in its review. We have discussed the fact that one in four JSA claimants were sanctioned between 2010 and 2015, and I have mentioned the appalling headline that said that they were abusing the system. As I have said, the Jobcentre Plus whistleblower said that claimants are being set up to fail.
We also know that 42% of UC decisions about sanctions took longer than 28 days, and that £132 million was withheld last year. Last month, the University of Oxford and the London School of Economics quantified the association between the increase in sanctioning and food bank usage: for every 10 sanctions, five more adults were referred to food banks.
Debbie Abrahams
Absolutely. Last week, the food bank in my own area launched a fuel bank, because people are choosing between heating and eating. That is what is going to happen up and down the country this Christmas.
Where do we go from here? I hope that, given the evidence and the new tone being used by this Government—I was disappointed with the autumn statement, but I am an eternal optimist and hope that the Minister is listening—they will support the Bill and implement it at the earliest opportunity.
I turn to the question asked by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) about our position. I made it very clear in my conference speech in September.
Debbie Abrahams
I will certainly do that. The hon. Gentleman is very welcome to cross the Floor.
I said—and this was widely reported at the time—that we want to scrap the system. We must be driven by evidence, and the evidence shows that it does not work. It does not motivate people or change behaviour. All it does is have a very harmful effect on the most vulnerable in society. It also has some very difficult spin-off effects.
Debbie Abrahams
I am coming to a conclusion. As part of my party’s sanctions review, I want to explore approaches that better reflect the change that I want to see in the culture of our social security system. I want it to be based on support and positive reinforcement, not harassment and punishment. Again, if we look at the evidence from the Netherlands, we see that such an approach is much more effective at moving people into sustainable employment.
Our social security system is, like our NHS, there for all of us in our time of need. It is based on the principles of inclusion, support and security for all, and it should assure all of us of our dignity at all times. I do not think that we can say that about the present system, and we certainly cannot say that about the sanctions system. I hope that the Government are listening, because this is so important. I implore them to implement the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
I have read the report, and it states, as I have said, that the international evidence suggests that sanctions increase the number of people who go from benefits into employment. It is incredibly important that we get people into work.
Having set out the system, I would like to identify, thirdly, the things we need to ward against. We absolutely need to protect the vulnerable in our society. Those who cannot work must not be penalised, and we need to ensure that those who suffer sanctions are still able to maintain a proper standard of living.
As I said at the outset, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South rightly spoke about the importance of mental health, so the following principles are important. Sanctioning must be a last resort, and the sanctions must be monitored. It is right that there is a right of appeal, and that there is a further appeal to an independent decision maker. It is right that there is a hardship fund, and that that fund protects the most vulnerable.
Michael Tomlinson
Does my hon. and learned Friend, like me, welcome the Government’s broadening of the hardship fund to cover those points, including the homeless and those who suffer from mental ill health?
Lucy Frazer
Yes, I welcome that. I am also delighted that 90% of JSA claimants who apply to the hardship fund are successful.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I normally say that I am very pleased to take part in a debate, but, unfortunately, I am not very pleased to do so today because we are having to discuss a terrible subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) on the way she introduced this very important Bill. I cannot match her passion and, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to hear that I will not match her length, but I want to make a few points.
I listened very carefully to what the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) said. Nobody on the SNP Benches disputes the fact that working is important—we all want everybody who is able to work to be in work, and that should be fundamental for everybody in every political party—but when she was talking about decision makers, she mentioned that we have a judicial system in which the judge does not know anything about the case. The fundamental difference is that such a person can go to court and present their case to the judge, but that is not possible in relation to decision makers in this process.
I want to comment on some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). I have always found him to be a reasonable chap, but I was disappointed by what he said. He made a point—it is often made by Conservative Members—that taxpayers and benefit claimants are somehow different and neither the twain shall meet. He must realise that many benefits claimants were taxpayers and probably will be taxpayers again in the future. He quoted Beveridge, but these people have paid into the system for many years, and they often find themselves having to claim benefits because they have had an accident, they are ill or have a mental illness, or for many other reasons. It is totally wrong to look at the two as different: benefits claimants have been and will be taxpayers, and they are trying to get from the system what they are entitled to, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to accept that.
Michael Tomlinson
I, too, heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). I understood that he was making a broader point about taxpayers. Will the hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir) answer this question, please: what is his view on the principle of sanctions? Should there be sanctions at all, yes or no?
Mike Weir
We are not discussing the principle of sanctions today. We are discussing a Bill that sensibly seeks to mitigate the current system. Whether there should be sanctions at all is another debate for another day, but it is not what we are debating today. Many Government Members have spoken about mitigations in the system. It is true that people can get hardship payments, but it can take many weeks. Not only that, but the hardship payments are a percentage of what people would get from benefits. Despite what many people seem to think, benefits are hardly over-generous in the first instance. People who get by on benefits find that they cannot get by on hardship payments.
Parts of my constituency are relatively prosperous. Many people work in the North sea oil industry, for example. In the downturn in that industry, people lost well-paid jobs. Many of them came to me absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of money they got by signing on because they had believed for so many years the rubbish pushed by some of our media that all people on benefits live the life of Riley, which is absolute nonsense.
The point has been made that there is nothing new in the sanctions system, which is correct—sanctions have been part of the system since at least 1996—but what is new is the number of sanctions and how they are imposed. The system is deeply flawed, and SNP Members have long called for a full independent review of it. Even the National Audit Office found in its recent report that a shocking 24% of jobseeker’s allowance claimants received a sanction between 2010 and 2015 and that the rate of sanctions varies dramatically. That is not right and the Government must listen to the concerns about the damage that the application of benefit sanctions has on individuals and their families.
The report also states starkly:
“sanctions are not rare. A quarter of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants receive them at some point”,
which blows apart the Government’s assertion that only a small minority receive them. Worse still, there is absolutely no consistency in the figures. The report finds that some Work programme providers made more than twice as many sanctions referrals as other providers within the same geographical area, even though claimants are randomly allocated, so that case load characteristics are identical for each provider. That would not happen in a fair system.
There should be no more than a minor variation if the system is used uniformly. Clearly it is not, which the Bill would address by adding a clear code of conduct. The point is that, wherever someone is subject to the system up and down the United Kingdom, the same principles would be applied, and it would not be left to individual variance from place to place. The NAO believes that the DWP does not use sanctions consistently, noting that sanctions referral rates
“have risen and fallen over time in ways that cannot be explained by changes in claimant compliance.”
The Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has introduced would make a start on the process. Hon. Members accept that it does not do away with the sanctions regime. She is very intelligent and knows perfectly well that such a Bill would never get through the House in its current form. However, the Bill would go a long way to ensure that there is a coherent, unified process for all jobcentres and that advisers take a claimant’s personal circumstances into account before issuing sanctions. Advisers would be compelled to take into account whether a person is at risk of homelessness and whether they have caring responsibilities or a mental health condition that could be exacerbated if their benefits were sanctioned.
It is interesting to note that in March 2015 the Work and Pensions Committee published a report, “Benefit sanctions policy beyond the Oakley Review”, which recommended, among other things, that the Government take urgent steps to implement fully the outstanding recommendations of that report. To be scrupulously fair, the Government have taken some measures. They have trialled the yellow card system and we still wait to see what the outcome of that trial will be.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Today started so well. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) took us on an incredible journey through the sanctions system, explaining why we need the Bill to pass, and many of my colleagues and many Labour Members made really powerful interventions—but then things just started to go wrong. I am standing here feeling like I am banging my head on a brick wall. I feel powerless. As an MP, I feel that I can do nothing to get the message through and to make people understand. If I feel powerless, depressed and, to be honest, close to tears at times, how on earth must somebody who actually has no power and who is at the mercy of this Government when they are using the benefits system be feeling? I do not even want to make this speech, but I will anyway.
As MPs, we often have to manage the expectations of our constituents. I would say that I am pretty good at fighting for them, sometimes tooth and nail—as no doubt are many others who have talked about supporting people in difficult situations—but we have to let them know that we do not have a magic wand. If I did have a magic wand and could make it do something today, I would get rid of the pernicious sanctions in the benefit system, because they are cruel and unnecessary.
I always say that the Conservative party knows the cost of everything and the value of absolutely nothing, but the sanctions do not even tick the Conservative box of being cost-effective. The irony is that, despite all their clamouring to reposition themselves as the party of working people—that is even more laughable—the Tories are simply showing their true colours by allowing the system to persist.
My hon. Friend’s Bill is based, quite rightly, on the premise that having a decent job is in an individual’s interest, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). I agree with that, and the vast majority of people will try their level best to get one where one is available. The Government, with their usual deeply cynical view of humankind, have developed this policy based not on their view of the value of work, but entirely on their disdain for those who happen to be without it.
Anne McLaughlin
Not yet. I am going to talk about my mother, who is slightly more important to me than the hon. Gentleman. My mother regularly told me—I was a not-too-confident child—that I was as good as anyone else. She said that I was no worse and, being Scottish, no better, but as good. Let me tell those on the Government Benches today—not all of them need to hear this, but most of them do—that the same goes for us all. My constituents, whether they are in work or not, and whatever their reason for being out of work— illness, lack of jobs or a lack of self-confidence—are every bit as good as every one of them. Government Members are not better than my constituents. They may have been treated better in life and had better opportunities, but that does not mean that they deserve better, because they do not.
Michael Tomlinson
Truly, I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She and I have had many discussions and exchanges about this subject, the first almost exactly a year ago. She speaks with great passion, but Government Members have no less compassion than Opposition Members. She has mentioned her constituents, but all our constituencies have examples such as those that she has cited. She spoke a few moments ago about the principle of sanctions. Will she be crystal clear: would she get rid of the sanctions system altogether?
Anne McLaughlin
That is not what we are talking about, but as a special treat for the hon. Gentleman, I will come on to that and be very clear about what I think about the sanctions regime.
Anne McLaughlin
No. I want to talk about the people who need to be talked about.
It is a struggle. If that person’s washing machine breaks down, they cannot get it fixed on £73 a week. They have holes in the bottom of their shoes and it is raining non-stop—perhaps that is just a Glasgow thing—and cannot afford to buy new shoes. They cannot afford to be part of what their friends and family are part of. The Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said that they can apply for 60% of their benefits, which means they can get £40 a week if they know about it and if they are successful. They cannot live on £73 a week, never mind £40 a week. That is immoral. The only reason for sanctioning is to say to people, “You are too lazy and you are workshy.” It is punishment and that is all it is.
I had bad and good experiences. My good experience was that I had an adviser who had faith in me. He built my confidence. I had already been a Member of the Scottish Parliament. It was not as if I was lacking in confidence, but it goes instantly when people are treated as if they are children, or as if they are work shy and do not want to go out and earn their own living. Nobody wants not to work. There are reasons why people do not apply for work, and we need to investigate them. They might be lacking in confidence. I have met so many people who say, “Who would employ me?” So they are not applying for jobs because they think, “Who would employ me?” Nobody is helping them and people are taking their money away from them, so that they lose even more confidence. It is unacceptable and it just does not work.
I have not seen the film, “I, Daniel Blake”; I just need to go to a constituency surgery; I do not need to see the film. However, I will see it and we should all thank Ken Loach for making it—I want everyone to see it. I am not saying that members of the Conservative party do not know anything about real life—I would not say that—but for those who have not experienced anything like this situation, please go and watch it. Government Members said it was fiction but it is based on fact.
Anne McLaughlin
No, I will not, but I will respond to that point. The hon. Gentleman is saying, “She’s not seen it”—incredulously. I do not need to see it; I have lived it. I do not have to see it, but I will go and see it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South mentioned our top-notch researcher, Tanya. Tanya told me that she went to see “I, Daniel Blake”, and came away thinking, “What is the point of any of this that we’re doing?” Are Government Members proud that they have made her feel that way, that they have made her feel as if she is powerless to help anybody? She was in tears. I guess that is what the sanctions are all about. They are about grinding people down, so that they know who the bosses are, making them know exactly how powerless they are—
Anne McLaughlin
I will not give way to somebody with lots of power; I want to talk about people with no power. The reality is that the true motivation behind these sanctions is political ideology that says, “We are better than you”.
Now, if this Bill is not passed today—I am guessing that we will not get it through today—[Interruption.] There they go again, Madam Deputy Speaker, telling me that I do not have the right to speak. I am sick of hearing that in this House. It is important that what we are saying to people here is—
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for her considered intervention.
Today we have heard about a “postcode sanctions lottery”, about formalising and consistency, and about efforts to ensure that no one falls into the gap. The people who make the decisions will not always be in possession of the full facts, which is why we need a process to examine the sanctions system. The four principles of the Gregg review offer a useful set of tools for assessment of the strength of the policy, and were endorsed in the Oakley review. The additional pillar described in the Oakley review has also provided a clearer recourse in terms of appeal, and that must be welcomed.
We are talking—and have been all day—not about statistics, but about people, livelihoods, aspirations, children, families, homes and security, and that is absolutely right. I strongly believe that this is a listening Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) said what worried her about the Bill was the risk of duplication and pure bureaucracy in a system that would continue to be tweaked and would continue to evolve. That system will have to change to meet new challenges, and there are people in the middle of the process. I know that, in this area as in many others, the Government are listening and proceeding with reform based on constructive criticism and research, and that they are taking a pragmatic stance. I like to think that the Minister, who is a Hampshire neighbour, is always listening, although I see that he is talking to a colleague at the moment
A new sanctions regime was introduced in 2012 with the important aim of increasing the effectiveness of categorisation. Again, this was about people, not just statistics. The categories were higher, intermediate and lower, depending on whether a transgression had been repeated and on the nature of the fault. I think that that was a good reform. Proportional responses mean a system where one size does not fit all, and we have an opportunity to approach people and their personal circumstances differently.
Michael Tomlinson
We have heard many examples of hard cases in which things have gone wrong, but the current legislation contains a safety net—a “catch system”. It used to be called good cause, and is now called good reason. The examples that have been cited—such as people who are five minutes late because they missed the bus, or because they were having a baby—are already covered by good cause, or good reason.
Mims Davies
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The entire legal system based on common law is about applying the law in a consistent way historically and geographically, so we must make sure that the application of sanctions is consistent.
Mims Davies
I hear the hon. Gentleman, and I genuinely came into this debate with the view that the Bill has some real benefits. However, I believe that better and more up-to-date guidance, rather than legislation via the Department, is the right way to proceed. But I still do believe that through the Bill and this debate we can learn a lot about how sanctions can be operated humanely.
I realise that for those, few in number, who are given sanctions, that makes a big difference to their lives. Those people will be suffering huge hardship because of their sanctions and because certain criteria mean they do not receive safety-net payments. I recognise that 60% of a very small amount of money for those in a very difficult situation is an unpleasant place to be, but this does give us a layer of protection. I have great sympathy with the measures in the Bill limiting the use of higher level sanctions in certain circumstances.
There might be mental health issues, homelessness and caring responsibilities. Just yesterday, I heard from one of my caseworkers that we had managed to deal with a slightly different issue in terms of homelessness: someone was moving from north London, who was without family and who was in a difficult position because of disability. We have managed to get him on to the right level of support in the local area where his friends and family are located. That had been affecting his mental health, and we were all crying when we were speaking and listening to this constituent.
Every single time I meet my constituents, I am moved by the plight people find themselves in, and mental health issues and homelessness issues play a huge part in them. In fact, there were very few sanctions cases in our casework, but where we had intervened and got to the bottom of it we had made progress. I am very pleased the system is working in that way.
As co-chair of the all-party group on carers, I recently led a debate on carers in this House. I am a former carer, supporting my mum and dad, and we know the enormous sacrifice the 6.5 million carers undertake daily for their loved ones. Two million more people a year will come into caring responsibilities in some way or other. We need to be able to reflect that in the way we support our constituents.
There is a quiet carers army on which all of us depend, which is why I always speak to my constituents about making sure they are aware of the benefits system and are making sure they get all the support they need. The benefit sanctions system should consistently recognise that people have caring responsibilities, and if it does not we need to ensure that the Government pour support into this area, just as they are in the area of mental health. The pledge to provide an additional £1 billion for mental health provision by 2020-21 is welcome. Mental health issues reach every part of the way in which the state operates, including the sanctions regime. I have had a constituency case in which the parents of a young lad with mental health issues had a problem with sanctions. We managed to deal with it because the way through to him was via his parents. They were able to come to me to ask for help.
Every one of us in this House who is a former councillor will be aware of the link between mental health and homelessness, and of the urgent decisions that have to be made in order to get people into a place of safety urgently.
Michael Tomlinson
My hon. Friend has mentioned homelessness and mental health. She might have heard in a previous intervention that the Government are already moving to extend hardship payments to at-risk individuals. Does she welcome that development, given that it will help the groups she is describing in her powerful speech?
Mims Davies
That is absolutely the spirit in which I am approaching the Bill. I do not want to pick holes in it, because it has clearly been introduced with fortitude and passion based on casework. Bringing these matters to our attention today has given us an opportunity to have a really welcome debate and for all Members to consider how these things are working in their constituencies and bring any issues to the Minister. However, I am not sure that another layer of bureaucracy and legislation is the way to deal with these matters.
For me, this is an instance—[Interruption.] I shall turn my phone off. I think it was a constituent calling. This is an instance that highlights the need for a greater understanding of mental health issues. We have heard about caring responsibilities. I am here today juggling family commitments. They include the need to be here as well as in my constituency, and finding a way to look after the dog. The dog is always the hard bit. No one can ever get an appointment at a time that suits, and we need to ensure that people who work with benefit claimants understand that what might seem a small challenge to us can be a very big challenge indeed to someone who is in peril.
I have great sympathy for people whose caring responsibilities, mental health issues or homelessness create a situation that attracts a sanction. It would be uncaring of us to penalise carers through the system, because this country relies heavily on them. It would be out of sync with the rest of Government policy for us not to give due consideration to people with mental health needs, and I welcome the recent announcement that homeless claimants with mental health problems will be able to access hardship payments within 14 days.
As we can see, a new policy is being trialled without the need for a Bill, and I am sure that all Members will be keen to read the outcomes of the sanctions warning system trial. I hope that the evaluations will be available for us to study soon. Giving claimants notice and an opportunity to explain the reasons behind a breach is a fair way of approaching the sanctions system. I understand that we can expect the final report around April next year, and I look forward to seeing how the trial is going and how these measures could be taken up nationally.
We must not lose sight of the overall objectives of the programmes. They are designed to ensure that people have the stability of a job and a pay packet, and that we never again see children being brought up in homes where getting a job is discouraged. We must always remember not only the claimants but those who pay in to the system. There are 800,000 fewer workless households today than there were in 2010, and unemployment in Eastleigh has fallen by 63% in that time. I welcome the continued support and focus that the Government are providing for our society so that people can have the security of a pay packet and so that it always pays to work.
Wherever I find injustice in the benefits and sanctions system, I vow to bring it to the attention of Ministers. I have spoken for 20 minutes on this important Bill and, on balance, the most important thing is to make things fair for those who claim and those who work. We must be sure that the Bill does not add to the bureaucracy and make things more difficult for those facing challenges to go on to better things after receiving support.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South once again, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) for bringing this important Bill to Parliament. It is detailed and compelling and it is crystal clear about the need for a code of conduct and consistency of application. Let me be clear from the outset, because I have heard this questioned too often in the Chamber today: while the SNP would like a complete review of the UK Government’s sanctions system, this small Bill is about making the system fairer with cross-party support. It seeks to build on the good practice that is already happening in some jobcentres, where advisers look at the circumstances of an individual when imposing a sanction. The Bill will ensure that that happens across the board, protecting the most vulnerable in society from being pushed into absolute poverty.
Make no mistake: the UK Government’s current benefit sanctions regime is brutally draconian and undignified. An individual can be sanctioned so heavily that they have nothing left to feed themselves or their family, in effect becoming destitute through state-sponsored starvation. At a St Andrew’s Day dinner last night, I was reminded that, less than 200 years ago, Dickens was a journalist up in the Press Gallery. He got sick and fed up of debates in here about whether or not they needed to legislate for the poor, and I am shocked today to hear that we again do not need legislation for the most vulnerable in our society. Dickens quit his job and went on to write some of the most seminal works of the terrible and draconian Victorian period. For those who have not seen Ken Loach’s “I, Daniel Blake”, it is deeply compelling and reminds me of the spirit of Dickens. While some think it to be a work of fiction, it will go on to teach future students and others who look back at history about this appalling time in this country.
Chris Law
No, I will not, owing to the short amount of time left. I do apologise.
Only a couple of years ago, my constituency of Dundee was named sanctions city. Today, we might as well call it bloody marvellous sanctions city, because I have been hearing so much appeasement about sanctions and about how great they are—until someone is on the receiving end. Common outcomes include eviction threats, increased debt, anxiety and ill health, resulting in some constituents having to turn to petty theft. There is clear evidence of a link between the use of food banks and benefit sanctions, and I am saddened to say that Dundee also has Scotland’s busiest food bank. The Trussell Trust estimates that benefits issues account for 44% of all referrals—nearly half. Everyone in the House should hang their head in shame and do something about that. We should protect the Bill and ensure that it progresses.
There is a story behind every statistic. In Dundee, a woman with learning difficulties ended up with two concurrent 13-week sanctions after DWP staff declared she that she was not filling in her “work commitment booklet” properly. I recently chaired a Trussell Trust event at which I met a single mother whose benefits would be cut if she failed to send her husband’s death certificate to DWP every six weeks. Imagine the grief that that woman was feeling and how it must feel to be hounded for that kind of documentation on a regular basis.
It is no exaggeration to say that the UK Government are treating people like criminals, but if they were criminals, they would be treated more fairly. When a court imposes a fine on an individual for a driving offence, for example, their basic rights are protected by court proceedings. There is no expectation that the fine will lead to them being unable to heat their home or feed their children. We do not hear about people committing suicide as a result of a conviction for a driving offence. There is a direct correlation between driving too fast or using a mobile phone when driving and fatal road accidents, but those who commit such offences are penalised less than someone who misses an appointment at the jobcentre because their child was ill. The sanctions system is severe and cruel and so clearly needs to change, and today’s Bill represents positive steps towards that.
As I said earlier, the National Audit Office analysis showed that there was absolutely no evidence that the sanction regime imposed by the DWP has a positive effect on job outcomes, but judging by some of the information coming out today, we are experiencing post-truth politics. It is abundantly clear from the NAO evidence that vulnerable people are more likely to be sanctioned—I am talking about homeless people, those with mental health problems and immigrants with a limited understanding of English. Those are the people who need most help to find jobs, but, rather than being helped, they receive a sanction, and their already fragile living situation is sent into crisis. They need to concentrate on how to live from one day to the next; they need to go to a food bank; their confidence is eroded, and they worry. Rather than stepping up their job-search activities, the main effect of imposing sanctions is to distance such claimants from the world of work, contrary to the whole purpose of sanctions in the first place.
The Bill is made up of 11 clauses, which are small administrative changes to the current legislation, and they seek to establish a long overdue code of conduct and official procedures for the current sanctions system. The aim is to end the postcode lottery of sanction regimes operated at different centres, therefore ensuing a fairer system of sanctions for everyone who uses the social security system, no matter what area of the country they live in.
The Bill will mean that a person in receipt of benefits cannot have them reduced unless two requirements have been met. Let me make this crystal clear in plain simple English for those who have not yet read the Bill. First, the claimant’s circumstances have to be assessed. Secondly, a number of conditions set out in the Bill have to be met. These focus on the individual’s situation, in particular the claimant’s caring commitments, whether they are at risk of homelessness, and whether they suffer from a mental or physical health condition. Such difficulties can be intensified—and are intensified—by these cruel sanctions. What this means in practice is that an individual’s circumstances would be taken into account before—and I underline the word “before”—cutting off their financial support.
In essence, this Bill proposes minor administrative changes, which do no more than humanise a fundamentally unjust and inappropriate system, and formally establish adequate protections for the most vulnerable. Although my SNP colleagues and I would like to see an entire review of the system, this Bill goes some small way towards putting dignity and respect into people’s lives. It is for that reason that I wholeheartedly support every aspect of this Bill.
AEA Pension Scheme
Michael Tomlinson Excerpts(8 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Oliver Letwin
I do not know whether my hon. Friend brilliantly waited until this moment to ask that pertinent question, but he has asked exactly the right question at exactly the right moment. It was generally the case that undertakings were given—I was involved as a financial adviser in many privatisations—about the solidity of the pension scheme that was going to be available for pensioners if they transferred to the new undertaking. I strongly suspect, although I cannot prove, that many of the AEA Technology pensioners who later suffered imagined at the time, not least because the Government Actuary’s Department did not say anything about a difference of risk, that such undertakings were available.
Moreover, the pensioners were probably led to have greater faith by the accident that the provisions of the law that gave rise to the transfer of the undertaking suggested—although did not say, if we read them carefully —that it would be just as good a pension scheme as the one they were leaving. In fact, in this case there were no such undertakings, and therefore there was a difference between this and many other privatisations. That was never brought out in the documentation, and the Government Actuary’s Department did not refer to it. That further strengthens, to my mind, the point that the Government Actuary’s Department advice served to mislead the pensioners.
I apologise, Ms Dorries, for the fact that that was all just the shaggy dog story, and now I am coming to the actual point of the debate. Everything I have described is a series of allegations by a Back-Bench MP—namely me—about what I think the Government Actuary’s Department did, and who the hell cares whether a Back- Bench MP thinks the Government Actuary’s Department behaved well, badly or indifferently? There is another body that judges these things that is much more important than a Back-Bench MP for these purposes, and that is the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. That body gets to judge whether a Government agency—the Government Actuary’s Department is certainly one of those—has acted in such a way as to maladminister. That is the task of the ombudsman.
It is well established in the case law surrounding the ombudsman that if a Government Department misleads people, that is a form of maladministration, and if it causes them loss, that is a form of maladministration that the ombudsman can rule requires remedy. That is a perfectly well established chain of thought. We might think, therefore, that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman would be able to rule on whether I am right in asserting that the Government Actuary’s Department misled these pensioners and therefore engaged in an act of maladministration.
If we look at the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967—although it has often been amended since—and its original description of what the ombudsman should do, our heart lifts to begin with, because section 4 says clearly that the Act applies to
“government departments, corporations and unincorporated bodies”
listed in schedule 2. If we turn to schedule 2 of the Act, lo and behold, one of the bodies listed is none other than our friend the Government Actuary’s Department. We might therefore think that we do not need to speculate about this; we just need to write a letter—I have written letters, as a matter of fact—to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to ask it to investigate the Government Actuary’s Department action in this case.
Alas, it ain’t so, because schedule 2 is subject to the notes to schedule 2, and in those notes—I do not know how this happened—the Government Actuary’s Department is specifically included in the purview of the ombudsman only
“relating to the exercise of functions under—
(a) Part 2 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, or
(b) any other enactment relating to the regulation of insurance companies within the meaning of that Act.”
I will not trouble the Chamber with what goes on in the Insurance Companies Act 1982, but I assure hon. Members that I have been through it—it is incredibly boring—and there is absolutely nothing that would in any way enable the ombudsman to look at the Government Actuary’s Department’s action in this case.
I imagine that the underlying purpose of that massive exclusion was that someone at the time—in 1967 or later—wanted to ensure that the parliamentary ombudsman would not be able to second-guess the actuarial calculations of the Government Actuary’s Department. I thoroughly sympathise with that. As a former Minister, I would certainly not want to see the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman trying to be an amateur Government Actuary’s Department No. 2. That would be mad, and I am not asking for that.
In this case, we are not talking about an actuarial calculation. I am assuming, as I have done throughout my remarks, that Government Actuary’s Department calculations of the value of the two schemes to the pensioners, if they had been of equal risk, were perfect. My problem is what the calculation did not bring to light. It was not an actuarial calculation. It was a failure of a duty to point out the obvious in an extremely important way to people who may not have known it was obvious.
It is arguably clear that that is maladministration that the parliamentary and health service ombudsmen should be able to adjudicate on. It would require only a small amendment to section 4(1) of the 1967 Act in the forthcoming parliamentary ombudsman Bill to remedy that. We would then be able to go back to the ombudsman and say, “Now you have the power to look at what the Government Actuary’s Department did, whether it constituted maladministration and whether in your view that maladministration was material in having an effect on the pensioners, the choices they made, and hence the losses they incurred.” Then, as with Equitable Life—I threatened to go on hunger strike if the then Government did not bring in the ombudsman and agree to follow its ruling—it would be possible to introduce a scheme with compensation proportionate to the extent to which the losses to the pensioners were caused by the maladministration.
We all know that the Equitable Life scheme is not perfect and does not fully compensate the pensioners, because much of the problem was due to the directors and not the regulators. However, to the extent that it was due to the regulators, there has been a compensation scheme exactly like my proposal. We could do that in this case if we changed section 4(1) of the 1967 Act.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I, too, have constituents who are affected by this issue. My right hon. Friend set the problem out in detail and helpfully, and is now getting to the solution. Is there not a difficulty, in that it would have to be retrospective, or are there ways around that to help his constituents and mine?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am delighted that my hon. Friend raises that point. I do not think it would be retrospective in any noxious meaning of the word. The decision that the incoming coalition Administration made on Equitable Life in 2010—to implement commitments that the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats had entered into in opposition that we should follow the ombudsman’s ruling—was post facto. It was after all the damage had been done to the pensioners, and it was not regarded as retrospective. We implemented the scheme, and many Equitable Life pensioners have received compensation.
The case I am talking about is exactly the same. The ombudsman could rule ex post—not retrospectively, but simply with a ruling about what occurred. That ruling would undoubtedly be followed by the Exchequer in constructing a proportionate scheme. That is what we need to achieve.
I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) wants to take part in the debate, and I welcome that. I will sit down, because I have made the points I wanted to make.